Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
WGN No More?
Quote: 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Coldneck" data-cid="231832" data-time="1416166541">
<div>
There's a reason why no deal has been signed this close to the new season. That reason is likely that the Cubs have not received an offer that is large enough. The reason for that is because the rating have been terrible.
[Image: h61073963.jpg]

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Kid, you do know the ratings are sighted as an issue in articles about the topic, yes?  I mean, I don't want to overstate it, and the writers could be wrong, but, it's not just some crazy message board theory:

 

Quote:While the Cubs are looking for a long-term payoff, they had hoped to bump up the TV portion of the contract during the interim as they look to make a splash with established, high-priced Major League players. But years of dismal play have produced low ratings and poor ad sales for WGN-TV, which sources say lost about $200,000 per game last season. In recent negotiations this fall, Tribune Media balked at paying its previous rate, much less an increase, according to sources.

http://www.redeyechicago.com/sports/ct-c...0682.story
Reply
I'm not getting bogged down in this again.  You want to go with "sources" saying why the Cubs did or didn't get what "sources" said the Cubs thought they were going to get a year ago, and think that's proof of something, you go nuts.

This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.  [Image: ITgoyeg.png]
Reply
Quote:I'm not getting bogged down in this again.  You want to go with "sources" saying why the Cubs did or didn't get what "sources" said the Cubs thought they were going to get a year ago, and think that's proof of something, you go nuts.
 

Haha. First time ever.
Reply
Quote: 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Kid" data-cid="231883" data-time="1416248660">
<div>
I'm not getting bogged down in this again.  You want to go with "sources" saying why the Cubs did or didn't get what "sources" said the Cubs thought they were going to get a year ago, and think that's proof of something, you go nuts.
 

Haha. First time ever.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

Wrong.  Go back to the thread where we went 20 rounds (remember the one where you pretended to know something about what goes into a TV contract?) on this.  I said the same thing in that thread.  But keep trying.
This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.  [Image: ITgoyeg.png]
Reply
Quote: 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Kid" data-cid="231833" data-time="1416171560">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Coldneck" data-cid="231832" data-time="1416166541">
<div>
There's a reason why no deal has been signed this close to the new season. That reason is likely that the Cubs have not received an offer that is large enough. The reason for that is because the rating have been terrible.
[Image: h61073963.jpg]

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Kid, you do know the ratings are sighted as an issue in articles about the topic, yes?  I mean, I don't want to overstate it, and the writers could be wrong, but, it's not just some crazy message board theory:

 

Quote:While the Cubs are looking for a long-term payoff, they had hoped to bump up the TV portion of the contract during the interim as they look to make a splash with established, high-priced Major League players. But years of dismal play have produced low ratings and poor ad sales for WGN-TV, which sources say lost about $200,000 per game last season. In recent negotiations this fall, Tribune Media balked at paying its previous rate, much less an increase, according to sources.

http://www.redeyechicago.com/sports/ct-c...0682.story
 

</div>
</blockquote>
So they were paying the Cubs $250,000 per game and were losing $200,000 of it.  That means they only got back $50k per game?  

 

All those commercials from Budweiser, Miller, etc, etc, COMBINED they only paid WGN $50,000 per game for them?  Really?

 

I might not exactly know how TV works, but my guess is that the network sells the ad spots in advance to sponsors.  So, for the 70 games they had, they were only able to sell $3.5 million worth of ads for the entire season.  AGAIN, $3.5mil divided across all of their clients is ALL THEY WERE ABLE TO SELL IN CHICAGO FOR A TEAM THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL FAN BASE?

 

Someone is lying.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
Reply
And just to keep things in perspective.  Budweiser alone paid $140mil over 10 years for that right field sign going up, but they are unwilling to spend for tv spots on WGN that they'd only pay a fraction of $50K per game for?

Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
Reply
No!  "Sources" said it in an article.  It is indisputable fact.

This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.  [Image: ITgoyeg.png]
Reply
Hmmm. I keep looking for the phrase "In the interest of full disclosure, RedEye is owned by Tribune Media" somewhere in that linked story, but I'm not finding it.

One dick can poke an eye out. A hundred dicks can move mountains.
--Veryzer

Reply
Wow, so you guys just think the article is wrong about this being the notion that's out there?  I was pointing out this is a common belief in the industry, not just here, that weak ratings have factored into their negotiations, so you show evidence of this being a belief and you're told everyone is lying and it's not true?  What about this one:

 

Quote: 

Aside from the bigger role the Cubs now will play in opening the 2015 MLB season, the team also appears close to signing a new TV broadcast deal with Tribune Media Co.'s WGN-Channel 9, which has been a Cubs broadcast partner for decades.

 

<p style="background-color:transparent;color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Though the Cubs went looking for a new deal over the past year, the team apparently couldn't find a new TV broadcast partner and a fatter contract elsewhere after many months of looking.

<p style="background-color:transparent;color:rgb(68,68,68);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Other broadcast outlets apparently were skeptical of putting too much money on the table until there is clear evidence the team has turned a corner on the field and become more competitive. TV ratings have sagged in recent seasons for Cubs games, and advertising revenue has fallen.  http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/...eague.html

 
That's chicago business journal, not owned by tribune as far as I know.  You can think the guy is wrong, but again, this is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena. 

 

And by the way, I don't doubt that Tribune is going to over-inflate their losses on the Cubs as part of negotiation strategy, but I'm still perplexed by how some can argue the ratings mean nothing. Yes, projected ratings for the future mean much more, but how do you think those predictions are made? It's not a given we're a world series team here, we have to take our fan hats off for this.  And by the way, if you're WGN and you took losses for the last several years, don't you think you want some of that back?

 

The Cubs are a super valuable commodity, they're almost certainly on upswing, and they should still see increases, even the article that re-sparked this says as much.  But when it comes to a short term deal or the prospects of triggering a long term deal early the ratings play a role.  

 

(All that said, for some reason I still think we might get that big deal now.  I don't know why, I guess I'm just an optimist, but I hope the Cubs are bluffing re: the WGN short term and a bigger partner will trigger earlier. It's looking less likely, but you never know...)    

Reply
I think the bidders will factor poor ratings into their bids because that's part of good negotiating. I think the club will point to the direction the team is headed, the traditional history of support for the team, especially when it's competitive, the uptick in season tickets, the interest advertisers have presumably shown in new in-park advertising opportunities, etc. in their expectations for what the tv rights are worth because that too is a part of good negotiating. They'll argue their case and suggest this is a train these bidders don't want to miss.

 

The real value lies between what the bidders wish they could get away with paying and what the team would like to be paid. I'd imagine that on both sides of the table what the parties think the rights are actually worth isn't that far apart.

Reply
Quote:this is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.
 

I've been needing a new signature for a long time.
This is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.  [Image: ITgoyeg.png]
Reply
Quote:And just to keep things in perspective.  Budweiser alone paid $140mil over 10 years for that right field sign going up, but they are unwilling to spend for tv spots on WGN that they'd only pay a fraction of $50K per game for?
The Cubs were averaging about a 1.5 in Chicago on CSN. That represents around 49K households.  Now I don't know the WGN America numbers, but think about that.  At 500 per for CSN or 250K per for WGN, to reach only 49 thousand households in chicago, and have only so many commercial spots to sell, so you can see the problem.  Keep in mind, one of the Cubs biggest TV issues is all the day games too, you have smaller household number there and less prime demo.

 

As for the billboard, ticket sales actually increased at Wrigley.  You have sometimes 40K staring at your sign for 3 hours, plus it'll appear quite often on TV.   
Reply
Quote:I think the bidders will factor poor ratings into their bids because that's part of good negotiating. I think the club will point to the direction the team is headed, the traditional history of support for the team, especially when it's competitive, the uptick in season tickets, the interest advertisers have presumably shown in new in-park advertising opportunities, etc. in their expectations for what the tv rights are worth because that too is a part of good negotiating. They'll argue their case and suggest this is a train these bidders don't want to miss.

 

The real value lies between what the bidders wish they could get away with paying and what the team would like to be paid. I'd imagine that on both sides of the table what the parties think the rights are actually worth isn't that far apart.
Totally agree.  But keep in mind, the direction the team is headed is not clear in the ratings.  Our ratings are decreasing, not increasing.  Add sales are decreasing, not increasing.  We finished last again.  We're in one frame of mind based on our belief in the teams' potential that may not be aligned with marketplace's belief in our potential in the immediate, that's the concern.    

 

Guys coming up that demand fan interest, new manager, stadium reno underway, likely free agent signings should all help though.  
Reply
The main problem is the short term nature of the bridge deal and the fact that the ONLY other current options to replace WGN given the existing CSN contract are other local OTA stations. I'm not worried about the long-term post-2019 contract. Attempting to link the 2 is the reason why nothing has occurred yet. Trying to infer much more than that from media accounts is dangerous.
Reply
Quote: 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="MrSheps" data-cid="231905" data-time="1416257903">
<div>
this is not some silly theory that's unsupported and deserves being mocked by photos of Xena.
 

I've been needing a new signature for a long time.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
I'd say you've needed counter arguments longer, but Xena pics and troll-like comments are good too I guess. 
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)