RealGM

TORONTO (August 5, 2015) Can we get a Price-check on Sportsnet audiences?
Monday’s Blue Jays game against the Minnesota Twins on Sportsnet – David Price’s debut – was the highest (non-home opener/non-season opener) Blue Jays audience in network history, as well as the highest Blue Jays audience of the season, attracting an average audience of 1.39 million viewers (2+). This ranks second overall for a Blue Jays audience in network history, behind the 2013 Home Opener (1.4 million).
David Price’s next start is scheduled for this Saturday, Aug. 8 vs. the division-leading New York Yankees, and can be seen on Sportsnet beginning at 12:30 p.m. ET/9:30 a.m. PT. Sportsnet is the exclusive broadcaster of all 162 Toronto Blue Jays games.
More Recording-Breaking Numbers
Last night’s Blue Jays win over the Twins delivered an average audience of 1.29 million on Sportsnet, making it back-to-back broadcasts of a million+ viewers. This also marks the fifth time this season Sportsnet has delivered a Blue Jays audience of a million+ – both a first in the network’s history.
Sportsnet is now averaging 649,000 viewers for its Blue Jays broadcasts in 2015, making it the highest average audience for Blue Jays broadcasts in network history, season-to-date.
Sportsnet’s top Blue Jays audiences this season
o #1 – August 3: Minnesota @ Toronto (1.39 million)
o #2 – August 4: Minnesota @ Toronto (1.29 million)
o #3 – April 13: Tampa Bay @ Toronto (1.2 million) – Home Opener
o #4 – July 31: Kansas City @ Toronto (1.08 million)
o #5 – June 19: Baltimore @ Toronto (1.01 million)

The Mets/Nationals MLB Sunday Night Baseball game drew 2.0 million viewers on ESPN, down 15% from Dodgers/Giants last year (2.3M) and down 16% from Cardinals/Braves in 2013 (2.4M). Excluding rainouts, six of the past seven Sunday night games have had declines in viewership. In other weekend action, Yankees/White Sox drew 484,000 on TBS earlier Sunday, and Saturday’s Angels/Dodgers game had 562,000 on Fox Sports 1.

whysoserious wrote:This is what happens when you actually invest in the team. The hype and boost came from those trades just as hype was at a fever pitch in the off-season they got Dickey, Reyes, Buehrle and the other guys. It takes winning to back it up but this city is dying for one of it's major teams to step up.

The Leafs have proven they have no issue spending. The Raptors have to take a different approach in the NBA and build and spend wisely and haven't figured out the right formula but they are having a moderate amount of success now and the Jays have been stuck in this middle ground of not developing their own all the way but not spending like the big boys to be competitive. They still may not spend but clearly if they do they can get this city back on their side.

I don't know if they'll ever get to 45k nightly, but getting to 30-35k on weeknights and sold out weekends is definitely possible with a huge addition to ratings.

Dennis 37 wrote:

whysoserious wrote:This is what happens when you actually invest in the team. The hype and boost came from those trades just as hype was at a fever pitch in the off-season they got Dickey, Reyes, Buehrle and the other guys. It takes winning to back it up but this city is dying for one of it's major teams to step up.

The Leafs have proven they have no issue spending. The Raptors have to take a different approach in the NBA and build and spend wisely and haven't figured out the right formula but they are having a moderate amount of success now and the Jays have been stuck in this middle ground of not developing their own all the way but not spending like the big boys to be competitive. They still may not spend but clearly if they do they can get this city back on their side.

I don't know if they'll ever get to 45k nightly, but getting to 30-35k on weeknights and sold out weekends is definitely possible with a huge addition to ratings.

What got them to full houses every night in 92 / 93 was free TV. Today no one can stumble onto the Blue
Jays on TV. It has to be a conscious decision to get Sportsnet. The fact that 100% of those who owned TV's had access to at least one Blue Jays broadcast a week drove ticket sales. My small rural community, 2 1/2 hours away, sent a busload of fans to 12 Jays games a year, not to mention those who drove on their own. Attendance was as much driven by out of towners as it was city residents.

Being available on TV to the masses builds a following but people don't shell out money for a team that isn't competitive. That's just the way it works unless it's the Leafs. 20 years of mediocrity is not going to be erased with a few trades but being on Sportsnet now with a competitive team shouldn't hold them back from 30-35k and sellouts for big games and weekends.

Dennis 37 wrote:

whysoserious wrote:This is what happens when you actually invest in the team. The hype and boost came from those trades just as hype was at a fever pitch in the off-season they got Dickey, Reyes, Buehrle and the other guys. It takes winning to back it up but this city is dying for one of it's major teams to step up.

The Leafs have proven they have no issue spending. The Raptors have to take a different approach in the NBA and build and spend wisely and haven't figured out the right formula but they are having a moderate amount of success now and the Jays have been stuck in this middle ground of not developing their own all the way but not spending like the big boys to be competitive. They still may not spend but clearly if they do they can get this city back on their side.

I don't know if they'll ever get to 45k nightly, but getting to 30-35k on weeknights and sold out weekends is definitely possible with a huge addition to ratings.

What got them to full houses every night in 92 / 93 was free TV. Today no one can stumble onto the Blue
Jays on TV. It has to be a conscious decision to get Sportsnet. The fact that 100% of those who owned TV's had access to at least one Blue Jays broadcast a week drove ticket sales. My small rural community, 2 1/2 hours away, sent a busload of fans to 12 Jays games a year, not to mention those who drove on their own. Attendance was as much driven by out of towners as it was city residents.

Schad wrote:we drew less Mon-Tues against a playoff rival than in our previous three mid-week home stands (Phillies, Red Sox and Mets)

Mad Prophet wrote:Having some games on free TV has the added benefit of building a fanbase south of the border. Makes a lot sense with Buffalo being our AAA affiliate. CTV and CBC are on basic cable in Buffalo, and available on antenna. You'll never see Sportsnet down there. About 22-23 Yankee games are broadcast on Buffalo OTA channel WNYO 49, yet no games from a city 90 minutes away.

Let's get some games back on CTV (no Fergie Olver please). I loved watching games at the cottage back in the day.

Skin Blues wrote:

Schad wrote:we drew less Mon-Tues against a playoff rival than in our previous three mid-week home stands (Phillies, Red Sox and Mets)

First of all: attendance spikes usually occur the season after a playoff run, not a week after the trade deadline. The TV ratings are much more representative of current fan interest.

Second of all:

Mon-Tues vs Twins: 36,135 avg
vs Phillies: 28,788 avg
Red Sox: 32,800 avg
Mets: 28,247 avg

Maybe you mean Tues-Wed instead of Mon-Tues. But then you're conveniently excluding the civic holiday sellout and comparing against a) the first two games after the Tulo trade (if we believe the hype train is quickly responsive, why wouldn't it have started after acquiring the best SS in baseball??), the Red Sox on Canada Day (I don't think I need to explain why this was a better draw than Tuesday against the Twins), both games of an interleague series against the Mets which is a 90 minute drive from upstate New York.

There is a lot of fan interest. TV ratings (which are much more responsive than ballpark attendance) are through the roof, and they will sell a lot more season tickets for 2016 if they can make a playoff run. I don't see the point in twisting attendance data here, other than to simply be negative and complain.

Schad wrote:

Being available on TV to the masses builds a following but people don't shell out money for a team that isn't competitive. That's just the way it works unless it's the Leafs. 20 years of mediocrity is not going to be erased with a few trades but being on Sportsnet now with a competitive team shouldn't hold them back from 30-35k and sellouts for big games and weekends.

It's early, but the mid-week attendance figures are flat right now; we drew less Mon-Tues against a playoff rival than in our previous three mid-week home stands (Phillies, Red Sox and Mets). Similarly, our Fri - Sun attendance against the Royals was actually lower than the Fri - Sun series against the Rays two weeks previous.

We'll pack them in against the Yankees next weekend, but the telltale sign will be the mid-weeks against the A's, and the late-August weekend series against the Tigers. If we're drawing 35k a night against the A's and selling out (or close to it) for Detroit, games for which there's enough lead-in for the buzz to equal ticket sales, there's money being made.

Schad wrote:

Skin Blues wrote:

Schad wrote:we drew less Mon-Tues against a playoff rival than in our previous three mid-week home stands (Phillies, Red Sox and Mets)

First of all: attendance spikes usually occur the season after a playoff run, not a week after the trade deadline. The TV ratings are much more representative of current fan interest.

Second of all:

Mon-Tues vs Twins: 36,135 avg
vs Phillies: 28,788 avg
Red Sox: 32,800 avg
Mets: 28,247 avg

Maybe you mean Tues-Wed instead of Mon-Tues. But then you're conveniently excluding the civic holiday sellout and comparing against a) the first two games after the Tulo trade (if we believe the hype train is quickly responsive, why wouldn't it have started after acquiring the best SS in baseball??), the Red Sox on Canada Day (I don't think I need to explain why this was a better draw than Tuesday against the Twins), both games of an interleague series against the Mets which is a 90 minute drive from upstate New York.

There is a lot of fan interest. TV ratings (which are much more responsive than ballpark attendance) are through the roof, and they will sell a lot more season tickets for 2016 if they can make a playoff run. I don't see the point in twisting attendance data here, other than to simply be negative and complain.

I did mean Tues-Wed. And yes, I was excluding the holiday sellout, because I was attempting to compare like to like, as best possible, with the midweeks. The Red Sox one is entirely my error, however; forgot that happened on Canada Day. In conclusion, don't post in a hurry while trying to do a couple other things simultaneously, heh.

And yeah, there's fan interest, and yes, attendance spikes do tend to bear more fruit the season thereafter. But if we're looking for signs that might lead Rogers to really spend the big bucks that'd be necessary to make this grouping work for an extended period, I'd argue that the stretch-run attendance does matter quite a bit. If the dollar keeps falling, they're going to need all the reassurance they can get that pumping up payroll will be a net positive financially.

Santoki wrote:If Rogers sold the team today, what would they be worth?

Santoki wrote:

Schad wrote:

Skin Blues wrote:First of all: attendance spikes usually occur the season after a playoff run, not a week after the trade deadline. The TV ratings are much more representative of current fan interest.

Second of all:

Mon-Tues vs Twins: 36,135 avg
vs Phillies: 28,788 avg
Red Sox: 32,800 avg
Mets: 28,247 avg

Maybe you mean Tues-Wed instead of Mon-Tues. But then you're conveniently excluding the civic holiday sellout and comparing against a) the first two games after the Tulo trade (if we believe the hype train is quickly responsive, why wouldn't it have started after acquiring the best SS in baseball??), the Red Sox on Canada Day (I don't think I need to explain why this was a better draw than Tuesday against the Twins), both games of an interleague series against the Mets which is a 90 minute drive from upstate New York.

There is a lot of fan interest. TV ratings (which are much more responsive than ballpark attendance) are through the roof, and they will sell a lot more season tickets for 2016 if they can make a playoff run. I don't see the point in twisting attendance data here, other than to simply be negative and complain.

I did mean Tues-Wed. And yes, I was excluding the holiday sellout, because I was attempting to compare like to like, as best possible, with the midweeks. The Red Sox one is entirely my error, however; forgot that happened on Canada Day. In conclusion, don't post in a hurry while trying to do a couple other things simultaneously, heh.

And yeah, there's fan interest, and yes, attendance spikes do tend to bear more fruit the season thereafter. But if we're looking for signs that might lead Rogers to really spend the big bucks that'd be necessary to make this grouping work for an extended period, I'd argue that the stretch-run attendance does matter quite a bit. If the dollar keeps falling, they're going to need all the reassurance they can get that pumping up payroll will be a net positive financially.

The problem with trying to run a sports organization as a profitable business is that they're generally not. In fact, most of the time they're horrible investments. The money for sports teams all comes in their valuation. If Rogers wants to continue to look at the team like they do their own business model, then you'll never be able to justify the P & L statements. There's a cap on how valuable the franchise can possibly be and it's not like there are tons of other owners ready to line up to purchase the Jays if Rogers ever wanted to sell. I'm a bit out of my element here in terms of knowledge but I get the sense that baseball isn't on the same trajectory as basketball in terms of valuations.

If Rogers sold the team today, what would they be worth?