Sign of the times, Bulls viewership down 63%

[jc23]

good. Bulls fans have been extremely loyal; its about time ownership started to feel what its like when fans stop rewarding mediocrity.

[League Circles]

I might be wrong but I don't think signal strength or proximity of towers Will ever come particularly close to solving the problem of trying to get indoor reception. Even rooftop reception issues can never be solved by that. However, there is a reason that virtually every house in America used to have a rooftop antenna. It's vastly superior to indoor arrangement.

I don't know if it fully solves the problem, but it makes a massive difference. I get something like 100 channels OTA, and there is a very wide gap between how clear they are. All the major networks are awesome, perfectly clear. CHSN is on the likes of minor startups you never heard of. I haven't ever had a problem with CBS / NBC / ABC / FOX on my antenna, but CHSN is bad enough that I just switch to the questionably legal stream instead.

Interesting. I wonder how much of it might be things like even camera quality. Digital signals are a lot closer to all-or nothing than analog of course. Are you saying it just starts doing the pixelization thing too often? I only get that when my antenna falls off it's perch, but I happen to have a conveniently located window that probably helps a lot. I remember being intrigued to read in the instructions of my antenna urging most users to NOT choose the long range (higher amplification?) setting unless they were like 50+ miles from the source or something. I wonder if many people are trying to use full power or whatever, not having success, and not knowing that that switch is actually making things worse, not better. It was obscure enough in the notes that I think most people would have missed it, and maybe most antennas don't caution about it at all.

[League Circles]

Virtually every house in America used to have a landline for their phone. Times change.
A rooftop antenna may be superior, but if people are not willing to go through the hassle of installing such a contraption, it won't matter. Especially if a small, easy to blend-in or hide indoor antenna can pick up other OTA channels. Remember, modern smart TV's have built-in apps, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth, so TV's can be mounted anywhere in (or out of) a house or garage and you can get whatever you want via the internet. That is the technological competition for OTA (along with cable, cellular and sat service)

Right now the Bulls offer the double whammy of a really bad product and a really bad distribution channel.

But a mobile phone is superior to a landline. My point was just that rooftop antennas are superior to indoor ones. OTA is also superior technology to IP streaming, but not a huge difference.

You can use something like HDHomerun to stream OTA signal (from rooftop or indoor antenna) to any wifi device too for a pretty minor cost, so that's not much of a differentiator either IMO.

No doubt the new arrangement sucks for a lot of people, but is great for a lot of other people. I'm fortunate to be among those that it is great for. For a lot of people, yes the antenna setup is inconvenient or even ineffective. For others, the cost of the streaming app is seen as a new extra fee, cause they still want their cable packages for unrelated content reasons. For someone like myself, I haven't had a TV package in almost a decade other than YoutubeTV off and on (and a few free trials of crap lile Fubu), but I hate that and was sick of $80/month paying for it, so I was done with it whether I could watch the Bulls or not. Fortunately the antenna works for me, but if it didn't, paying $20/month to stream the games is a wildly better option than $80/month for YouTube TV or similar.

Yes, cellular IS superior to landline. That was my point. Cellular isn't tied to anything location in a house. Landline is.

I'm not buying HDHomerun to attempt to connect it to multiple antennas that I've already purchased that still don't work.

What you are missing (and I think the point of this thread) is that viewership is way down. So a lot of people are not paying fees, nor jumping through OTA hoops to watch bad teams. If people can't easily pick up a signal, they are going to say "F it" and not watch (or watch through a means that does not benefit the channel). Poor choice by this network.

I get it. I don't think you can judge it as a business decision based on how things look (and the data may be quite off for OTA viewers anyway) this early. Most likely, more and more people will continue to ditch their TV packaging, which frees up something like $80-$150/month, of which $20 can be used for a mere 7 months a year or so to watch all the games.

Also, viewership doesn't necessarily correlate precisely to revenue. OTA ads are probably worth more, apples to apples, than cable type formats because less people will fast forward through them cause DVR isn't built in.

[GoBlue72391]

The CHSN thing is so funny to me. When the Mavs went from an OTA + paid streaming version instead of an RSN, they were praised for offering it for free. When the Bulls do it, everyone whines “nobody can find/get” the channel, which is nonsense.

I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to pay for CHSN given the 3 teams available on it are terrible, but i’s a choice. And CHSN broadcasts from cities all across the Midwest for free, so for $20-40 for an antenna and 5 minutes of setup time, most (but not all) people in the Midwest can tune in for free.

I suspect viewership would be better if there were a product worth watching.

It would be better if the signal wasn't so hit or miss. I and everyone I know who installed one of the antennas has had trouble consistently getting a clear signal. For me it was perfectly fine until about a month ago, now it's 50/50 on any given night if I'll be able to watch the game.

[GoBlue72391]

Didn't know Nick Friedell is still working.

What does he mean when he says most fans can't find/watch the games?

Think about the casual fan, the type of fan that makes up the majority of any fanbase. They'll watch the game or put it on in the background if it's as easy as turning on their TV and changing to the correct channel, but only the diehards are even aware of the new need for an antenna, and much less are willing to go out of their way to buy and install one.

I went to a bar a few weeks ago and asked them if they could put the Bulls game on. They said sure and started flipping through the channels. I had to remind them that the games can only be seen over the air with an antenna now, and they all looked at me like I was crazy. None of them knew what the hell I was talking about. This is has been a very common occurrence that I've encountered.

The type of Bulls fan that is A) aware of the need to purchase and install a satellite and B) cares enough to actually go and do that is very small. Most fans will put the game on if it's convenient for them, and that's about as far as their fandom goes. We're in our little diehard bubble here, we are not the norm.

[dougthonus]

I might be wrong but I don't think signal strength or proximity of towers Will ever come particularly close to solving the problem of trying to get indoor reception. Even rooftop reception issues can never be solved by that. However, there is a reason that virtually every house in America used to have a rooftop antenna. It's vastly superior to indoor arrangement.

I don't know if it fully solves the problem, but it makes a massive difference. I get something like 100 channels OTA, and there is a very wide gap between how clear they are. All the major networks are awesome, perfectly clear. CHSN is on the likes of minor startups you never heard of. I haven't ever had a problem with CBS / NBC / ABC / FOX on my antenna, but CHSN is bad enough that I just switch to the questionably legal stream instead.

Interesting. I wonder how much of it might be things like even camera quality. Digital signals are a lot closer to all-or nothing than analog of course. Are you saying it just starts doing the pixelization thing too often? I only get that when my antenna falls off it's perch, but I happen to have a conveniently located window that probably helps a lot. I remember being intrigued to read in the instructions of my antenna urging most users to NOT choose the long range (higher amplification?) setting unless they were like 50+ miles from the source or something. I wonder if many people are trying to use full power or whatever, not having success, and not knowing that that switch is actually making things worse, not better. It was obscure enough in the notes that I think most people would have missed it, and maybe most antennas don't caution about it at all.

Think both are true:
1: I think they broadcast in lower quality
2: I pixelate drop signal more on CHSN than other channels

I agree with you it should feel all or nothing, but I do seem to get a lot of times where the picture just isn't as sharp or as colored well, and it is notably off. No way to really explain it exactly, but if you ever swing by I can show you my IPTV quality picture and antenna picture and it's night and day.

[League Circles]

I don't know if it fully solves the problem, but it makes a massive difference. I get something like 100 channels OTA, and there is a very wide gap between how clear they are. All the major networks are awesome, perfectly clear. CHSN is on the likes of minor startups you never heard of. I haven't ever had a problem with CBS / NBC / ABC / FOX on my antenna, but CHSN is bad enough that I just switch to the questionably legal stream instead.

Interesting. I wonder how much of it might be things like even camera quality. Digital signals are a lot closer to all-or nothing than analog of course. Are you saying it just starts doing the pixelization thing too often? I only get that when my antenna falls off it's perch, but I happen to have a conveniently located window that probably helps a lot. I remember being intrigued to read in the instructions of my antenna urging most users to NOT choose the long range (higher amplification?) setting unless they were like 50+ miles from the source or something. I wonder if many people are trying to use full power or whatever, not having success, and not knowing that that switch is actually making things worse, not better. It was obscure enough in the notes that I think most people would have missed it, and maybe most antennas don't caution about it at all.

Think both are true:
1: I think they broadcast in lower quality
2: I pixelate drop signal more on CHSN than other channels

I agree with you it should feel all or nothing, but I do seem to get a lot of times where the picture just isn't as sharp or as colored well, and it is notably off. No way to really explain it exactly, but if you ever swing by I can show you my IPTV quality picture and antenna picture and it's night and day.

Hopefully I'll make it to the next draft party!

Yeah if your streaming picture quality is better that would definitely eliminate camera as being a factor.

I believe you, it's just still hard to understand why. I also feel like my CHSN picture quality is not as good as some other OTA networks and maybe not as good as some streaming I've had on the same TV, despite OTA in general being a higher ceiling picture quality due to no compression. Gotta be something specific to how CHSN is operating.

[Bulliever2020]

Friedell absolutely loves trolling the Bulls

such a douche

[jnrjr79]

I bet a rooftop antenna would work well. Not ideal obviously, but you'd probably get many dozens of channels including CHSN completely for free indefinitely.

There's gonna be some clunkiness to the overall societal transition away from big TV packages to the more a la carte offerings that make more sense going forward. I get that the notion of paying $20/month during the season means more spending to people who pay for cable, satellite, or IP "cable", but those are all going away soon enough and the high costs of them will be replaced by a basket of a la carte products that the average consumer prefers for the same total dollars. I know I wildly prefer my combo of free OTA, Netflix, Prime, YouTube Premium etc over a traditional cable-like package, and for much less money.

The issue is that I'm not going to put a roof antenna on my house just to watch a lousy Bulls team.
The only thing I ever watch on network TV is football, basketball, and maybe the Olympics, so an outdoor antenna would really only be used for CHN.

Because I work from home, I'm always going to have a high-speed internet connection. Be it cable or not, everything I would watch would be available from a streaming service.

They really need to either up their OTA signal strength, or broadcast on a more available channel(s) will where EVERYONE through out all of northern Illinois can easily pick up their signal(s) with cheap antennas in any room. That means repeaters in Rockford, Dekalb and Joliet at least...maybe even at Ottawa or LaSalle.

Whoever made this decision really screwed up.

FWIW, they already have a station broadcasting from Rockford.

[jnrjr79]

The CHSN thing is so funny to me. When the Mavs went from an OTA + paid streaming version instead of an RSN, they were praised for offering it for free. When the Bulls do it, everyone whines “nobody can find/get” the channel, which is nonsense.

I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to pay for CHSN given the 3 teams available on it are terrible, but i’s a choice. And CHSN broadcasts from cities all across the Midwest for free, so for $20-40 for an antenna and 5 minutes of setup time, most (but not all) people in the Midwest can tune in for free.

I suspect viewership would be better if there were a product worth watching.

It would be better if the signal wasn't so hit or miss. I and everyone I know who installed one of the antennas has had trouble consistently getting a clear signal. For me it was perfectly fine until about a month ago, now it's 50/50 on any given night if I'll be able to watch the game.

I live in the city, so I might just be lucky, but I have a perfect signal with one of those flat panel powered antennas (powered by the USB on the back of the tv), and I just keep the antenna tucked away behind the tv itself, and it’s not even near a window or anything - the tv is in the middle of the house on the ground floor.

[jnrjr79]

Didn't know Nick Friedell is still working.

What does he mean when he says most fans can't find/watch the games?

Think about the casual fan, the type of fan that makes up the majority of any fanbase. They'll watch the game or put it on in the background if it's as easy as turning on their TV and changing to the correct channel, but only the diehards are even aware of the new need for an antenna, and much less are willing to go out of their way to buy and install one.

I went to a bar a few weeks ago and asked them if they could put the Bulls game on. They said sure and started flipping through the channels. I had to remind them that the games can only be seen over the air with an antenna now, and they all looked at me like I was crazy. None of them knew what the hell I was talking about. This is has been a very common occurrence that I've encountered.

The type of Bulls fan that is A) aware of the need to purchase and install a satellite and B) cares enough to actually go and do that is very small. Most fans will put the game on if it's convenient for them, and that's about as far as their fandom goes. We're in our little diehard bubble here, we are not the norm.

The bolded part is not true. It’s carried on DirecTV, U-Verse, and Astound/RCN.

[rocbullsfan]

Bulls ownership is one of the worst in the league. **** the Reinsdorf family. Literal pieces of **** that have squandered any capital from the Jordan era. The league and the fans deserve so much better for the Bulls legacy. He has turned this franchise into a complete clown show. Sell the team already for the love of God.

[Jello Biafra]

The CHSN thing is so funny to me. When the Mavs went from an OTA + paid streaming version instead of an RSN, they were praised for offering it for free. When the Bulls do it, everyone whines “nobody can find/get” the channel, which is nonsense.

I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to pay for CHSN given the 3 teams available on it are terrible, but i’s a choice. And CHSN broadcasts from cities all across the Midwest for free, so for $20-40 for an antenna and 5 minutes of setup time, most (but not all) people in the Midwest can tune in for free.

I suspect viewership would be better if there were a product worth watching.

They don't have OTA in the 2nd largest market in Illinois which is St. Louis Metro East or for the Springfield/Decatur/Bloomington/Champaign market which is the 3rd largest in the state. So no, when you can't get the game in 2 out of the top three markets in your state, its not available all across the Midwest for free absent illegal streams.

[panthermark]

The CHSN thing is so funny to me. When the Mavs went from an OTA + paid streaming version instead of an RSN, they were praised for offering it for free. When the Bulls do it, everyone whines “nobody can find/get” the channel, which is nonsense.

I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to pay for CHSN given the 3 teams available on it are terrible, but i’s a choice. And CHSN broadcasts from cities all across the Midwest for free, so for $20-40 for an antenna and 5 minutes of setup time, most (but not all) people in the Midwest can tune in for free.

I suspect viewership would be better if there were a product worth watching.

They don't have OTA in the 2nd largest market in Illinois which is St. Louis Metro East or for the Springfield/Decatur/Bloomington/Champaign market which is the 3rd largest in the state. So no, when you can't get the game in 2 out of the top three markets in your state, its not available all across the Midwest for free absent illegal streams.

For that matter, they don't have OTA in chunks of the largest market in the state. I'm 33 miles away from the source, and I can't pick it up with indoor an antenna that can pick up 60 other channels.

[Ice Man]

Warren Buffett famously wrote, "When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for bad economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact." The opposite also holds. In most industries, a company run as badly as the Bulls have been would go bankrupt. But in the NBA, all franchise values increase, no matter how bad the ownership. The league is quite literally foolproof.

[step]

In most industries, a company run as badly as the Bulls have been would go bankrupt.

Well generally consumers would stop going to that business and buying their product/service, yet for as much as we don't agree with many of the decisions being made... that hasn't happened. People are still flocking to the product.

The league is quite literally foolproof.

Indeed. The joys of a finite supply.

This is also why you so many investment groups are coming into the fold... no longer just a toy for billionaires.

[Michael Jackson]

For me every other channel OTA is 100%/100% signal strength/quality. It's fantastic TBH. Except CHSN.

CHSN cheaped out on their equipment, it's drastically different than every other channel. I went through 4 antennas finding one that could work, I'm less than 20 miles from downtown center. And there's only a 12" x 12" area in my house I can get a full game without stuttering. It's the only OTA channel with any of these problems.

The entire OTA thing is probably just unimportant to them, they probably wanted the deals with all the streaming services that never happened + assumed people would pay $20/month for the app.

My experience too only CHSN is an issue too the point I just gave up. I’m not paying for a product that I don’t care to see when I have other things to do.

[jnrjr79]

The CHSN thing is so funny to me. When the Mavs went from an OTA + paid streaming version instead of an RSN, they were praised for offering it for free. When the Bulls do it, everyone whines “nobody can find/get” the channel, which is nonsense.

I don’t blame anyone for not wanting to pay for CHSN given the 3 teams available on it are terrible, but i’s a choice. And CHSN broadcasts from cities all across the Midwest for free, so for $20-40 for an antenna and 5 minutes of setup time, most (but not all) people in the Midwest can tune in for free.

I suspect viewership would be better if there were a product worth watching.

They don't have OTA in the 2nd largest market in Illinois which is St. Louis Metro East or for the Springfield/Decatur/Bloomington/Champaign market which is the 3rd largest in the state. So no, when you can't get the game in 2 out of the top three markets in your state, its not available all across the Midwest for free absent illegal streams.

FWIW, they've announced they will begin broadcasting from Champaign, Springfield, Paducah, and Quincy.

I assume they weren't on in STL before, right?

[jnrjr79]

Portland's viewership is up 60% since switching from an RSN to OTA:

https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networks/trail-blazers-huge-viewership-increase-move-off-root-sports.html

[Jcool0]

Portland's viewership is up 60% since switching from an RSN to OTA:

https://awfulannouncing.com/local-networks/trail-blazers-huge-viewership-increase-move-off-root-sports.html

"Just across the border in Utah, the Jazz have seen a 44% decline in viewership this year during the team’s second season deploying its over-the-air strategy. The Jazz have also reportedly lost about 50% of its media revenue from the switch."