Sports TV
With baseball it's more than the teams
By Diego Vasquez
Oct 26, 2006, 01:10

Through three games thus far, this year’s World Series on Fox is averaging a 9.9 household rating, about a half a point behind the first three games of last year’s World Series. Since last year’s was the lowest-rated in history, it seems a good bet that this year’s matchup between the St. Louis Cardinals and Detroit Tigers will set another record low. The question now becomes, will the World Series ever inch back up? It seems doubtful. Four of the six lowest-rated World Series of all time have come in the last six years. Even the Boston Red Sox’ historic win in 2004 averaged a 15.8 rating, seventh-worst since Nielsen began keeping records in 1968. Perhaps the critical issue in future World Series will be whether there’s a captivating storyline. Despite the charm of the long-losing Tigers, the consensus seems to be that there’s no such drama this year. Media Life talks about these issues with Irving Rein, professor of communication studies at Northwestern University and co-author of “The Elusive Fan: Reinventing Sports in a Crowded Marketplace,” and Nova Lanktree, executive vice president of marketing services at CSMG International, a global sports management firm based in Skokie, Ill.

 
Four of the lowest-rated World Series matchups have come in the past six years. At this point, is it realistic to think that ratings will ever go up again without a team like the Red Sox or Cubs?
 
Rein: The ratings are dependent on more than just the teams. While there is no question that a New York or another major city will influence ratings because of the size of their market, there are other factors.

Star power is a critical element and in this year's Series, other than Albert Pujols, there is really no one who stands out as a transcendent personality. Sports are no different from any other entertainment. You need drama, a storyline and stars. If it had them, this Series would draw better.

Lanktree: There could not have been a more dramatic win than there was by Boston a couple years ago. And if you think about it, there’s almost no presence at all in the national scene in terms of advertising from anyone who played in that World Series.

I think in the last few years, baseball has done a few things to shoot itself in the foot with [the steroid questions surrounding] Barry Bonds, Mark McGuire, etc. Baseball has grassroots power, but it hasn’t ever really translated into the national marketing arena.
 

Considering the matchup for this year's Series (Tigers-Cardinals) and low ratings for the first three games, what's the best possible scenario for Fox?
 
Rein: The best situation is for a long series. While ratings are down, they still are significant compared to the competition. As the Series wears on and the viewers begin to relate to the players and their personalities, ratings could grow.

Lanktree: To focus on the heritage of both teams, because they’re both real baseball towns, to hook into the total emotionalism of that, would be best for them, to somehow translate it into a grassroots hype, not national hype. It would add to the drama.
 

Save for the Red Sox' 2004 win, ratings have been dipping steadily since the Series moved from NBC to Fox. Is that reflective of the decline in sports ratings in general, or do you think people are losing interest in baseball?
 
Rein: There is no question that sports ratings across the board, with the exception of the NFL, are declining as new competitors such as Ultimate Fighting Championships, World Wrestling Entertainment and poker are fragmenting the audience.

Baseball ratings are often local, and it's historically been difficult to create the national appeal of the NFL.

The other issue is that ratings are just one indicator of fan interest. Baseball had not only a record attendance year with 76 million fans going to the ballparks but it also generated $5.2 billion in revenue. Unfortunately, baseball ratings often suffer from a lack of scarcity of the product on television.

Lanktree: This is just a guess, not based on any research, but I think that baseball, while people love to watch it, TV probably isn’t the best place to experience it. Baseball has to find a way to capture that sense of being at the park [for the TV audience].

Also, baseball has the venue to address steroids, but it hasn’t. It hasn’t been addressed in a way that I think has been palatable, so I think there’s a reservation from marketers to get on board.
 

Fox is getting a reported $380,000 per spot for the Series. Do you think that's a fair price?
 
Rein: The price of a spot is based on supply and demand. The reason sports still receives a premium in such a fragmented media market is because of two things.

First, it's the only product that is broadcast in real-time, virtually assuring that people are actually watching it. Second, the broadcasts generate an emotional heat between the sponsor and the viewer that is not available in any other product.
 

In the Giants-Angels series in 2002, the games were exciting, as were last year's even though the White Sox swept. But those were the two lowest-rated series ever. How important is quality of play in determining ratings?
 
Rein: When it comes to baseball television ratings, the avid baseball fans are going to tune in to any World Series game because of quality of play is generally high. These are after all some of the best baseball players in the world.

However, the casual fan is often influenced by time of start, place connection, and certainly recognizable stars.

Lanktree: The quality of the play and excitement of the games is more a critical factor in other sports. Probably a lot of people watch the Super Bowl who don’t normally watch football. I think the World Series curiosity factor would make some people tune in, but if you try to make baseball the same as the NFL or NBA, [as in] easier to watch, baseball’s going to fall short.

I really believe that whole focus on the inherent grassroots beauty of the sport is what’s missing in the coverage. You really have to be willing to watch the drama unfold, and hopefully get some stimulation in between from the broadcasters.
 

Who do you think will win the Series?
 
Rein: The Tigers are going to win because it's a city that needs an emotional lift and all the karma is on their side.

Lanktree: It seems there’s a growing consensus that St. Louis will win, but Detroit’s underdog mentally is something that in the past has led teams to the top.