Sign of the times, Bulls viewership down 63%

[kodo]

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

An article said the old network was only reaching 20% of the Portland market, which is terrible. Seems like a no-brainer for them.
NBC Sports / Comcast / Youtube made the Bulls easily watchable anywhere, pretty much the opposite situation.

[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

"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."

Yep. Just goes to show that OTA isn't in-and-of-itself what controls whether people watch games.

[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

An article said the old network was only reaching 20% of the Portland market, which is terrible. Seems like a no-brainer for them.
NBC Sports / Comcast / Youtube made the Bulls easily watchable anywhere, pretty much the opposite situation.

Anywhere in Northern IL (and Kenosha), anyway. And probably Central IL? I'm not sure how huge the footprint was.

It's probably inarguable that more people can watch Bulls games now than could before, looking only at OTA, just given the number of cities from which CHSN broadcasts. And obviously anyone in the country can watch on the streaming app if they are motivated to pay up. But the Bulls are such an unappealing product that obviously people aren't willing to pay and/or set up an antenna and/or switch to one of the readily-available TV provider options. I'd also guess there's just a ton of people that haven't really bothered to look into it since NBC Sports Net was shuttered. They don't care enough to investigate.

[Almost Retired]

I'm not sure how much of the viewership losses are due to access issues and how much is due to the team's irrelevance? They dumped their most prolific scorer since MJ for a bag of peanuts. Matas might be the only player worthy of watching. And the Bulls have no draft capital to speak of. So I don't see where any significant improvement is going to come from. At this point the Reinsdorfs would have to pay ME to watch their product. I've ridden the ups and downs since Norm Van Lier and Jerry Sloan were the backcourt. But this current regime and their utter incompetence has pretty much killed my desire to follow the team beyond looking at box scores and this forum.

[Bulldog23]

It really comes down to attendance in the stadium. That's where it hurts the Bulls...stop attending games or buying season tickets.

[dougthonus]

I'm not sure how much of the viewership losses are due to access issues and how much is due to the team's irrelevance? They dumped their most prolific scorer since MJ for a bag of peanuts. Matas might be the only player worthy of watching. And the Bulls have no draft capital to speak of. So I don't see where any significant improvement is going to come from. At this point the Reinsdorfs would have to pay ME to watch their product. I've ridden the ups and downs since Norm Van Lier and Jerry Sloan were the backcourt. But this current regime and their utter incompetence has pretty much killed my desire to follow the team beyond looking at box scores and this forum.

I think they have pushed it to apathy. For the casual fans, we aren't interesting enough that people will talk about the team and it becomes worth watching. For the die hard fans, the team is basically at a point where not only is their current excitement, but "the future" of the team isn't here either. Ie, you don't even care if anyone really develops, because you don't expect anyone to be here the next time we're in the playoffs.

It's a mix that I think pushes everyone to apathy.

[jnrjr79]

I'm not sure how much of the viewership losses are due to access issues and how much is due to the team's irrelevance? They dumped their most prolific scorer since MJ for a bag of peanuts. Matas might be the only player worthy of watching. And the Bulls have no draft capital to speak of. So I don't see where any significant improvement is going to come from. At this point the Reinsdorfs would have to pay ME to watch their product. I've ridden the ups and downs since Norm Van Lier and Jerry Sloan were the backcourt. But this current regime and their utter incompetence has pretty much killed my desire to follow the team beyond looking at box scores and this forum.

I think they have pushed it to apathy. For the casual fans, we aren't interesting enough that people will talk about the team and it becomes worth watching. For the die hard fans, the team is basically at a point where not only is their current excitement, but "the future" of the team isn't here either. Ie, you don't even care if anyone really develops, because you don't expect anyone to be here the next time we're in the playoffs.

It's a mix that I think pushes everyone to apathy.

I think apathy is precisely it. I mean, I'm into the Bulls enough that I've been reading/posting on this forum for 20-odd years. I'm lucky enough that, living in the city, the antenna solution works just fine for me. I maybe bother to even turn on 1/3 of the games and basically never watch a full game. I still spend plenty of time thinking about (how to fix) the team, but I don't really see why I'd care about individual games, other than to see how Matas is progressing.

[waffle]

I don't think the NBA's product right now is very compelling. Some games are intensely boring.

I think the NFL has also gotten more boring. some games I just tune out

I still love watching NHL but the product it too uneven.

Baseball isn't for everyone I get that but I find it the least frustrating to watch currently, and that's new

[ChiTownHero1992]

Didn't know Nick Friedell is still working.

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

None of the games are televised (YouTubeTV or Hulu) and they're all blacked out locally on League Pass...so I've watched a total of about 9 quarters this season on 1 nationally televised game and various other games I saw at a bar. I'm not paying for yet another app to watch a **** basketball team. Beyond that the OTA antennas don't reach Central, IL or do for maybe 2 minutes before scrambling again because of Wind, Rain, Snow, etc. And I know I'm not the only one in that boat, so yea, most fans can't/wont try to find the games to watch.

[ChiTownHero1992]

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

An article said the old network was only reaching 20% of the Portland market, which is terrible. Seems like a no-brainer for them.
NBC Sports / Comcast / Youtube made the Bulls easily watchable anywhere, pretty much the opposite situation.

Anywhere in Northern IL (and Kenosha), anyway. And probably Central IL? I'm not sure how huge the footprint was.

It's probably inarguable that more people can watch Bulls games now than could before, looking only at OTA, just given the number of cities from which CHSN broadcasts. And obviously anyone in the country can watch on the streaming app if they are motivated to pay up. But the Bulls are such an unappealing product that obviously people aren't willing to pay and/or set up an antenna and/or switch to one of the readily-available TV provider options. I'd also guess there's just a ton of people that haven't really bothered to look into it since NBC Sports Net was shuttered. They don't care enough to investigate.

We get exactly 0 opportunities to watch the Bulls in Central, IL without paying for YET ANOTHER subscription to a FUBO TV or CSN. I have Hulu, YoutubeTV, League Pass and ESPN+ and have seen a total of 9 quarters of Chicago Bulls basketball this season. The OTA antennas do absolutely nothing either, picture for maybe 2 minutes but any sort of wind, rain, snow, etc and there is no chance.

[dougthonus]

It's probably inarguable that more people can watch Bulls games now than could before, looking only at OTA, just given the number of cities from which CHSN broadcasts.

Given how lousy the OTA is and the massive amount of friction many people have to set it up, I think the opposite of this is true in practicality. In theory, more people have access with OTA, but in reality, way more people have comcast than have an OTA set up, and because they went super cheap on broadcast equipment, their OTA set up stinks and has been a huge disappointment for many people whom have made the effort.

And obviously anyone in the country can watch on the streaming app if they are motivated to pay up.

Anyone in the country outside the local market can already watch for half the price of the streaming app with NBA team pass prior to this.

But the Bulls are such an unappealing product that obviously people aren't willing to pay and/or set up an antenna and/or switch to one of the readily-available TV provider options. I'd also guess there's just a ton of people that haven't really bothered to look into it since NBC Sports Net was shuttered. They don't care enough to investigate.

I think all of this is true. Too much cost, too much friction.

I will say I bumped into using IPTV as a solution to this problem, which has been incredibly awesome, so I can thank the Bulls for that.

[League Circles]

Didn't know Nick Friedell is still working.

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

None of the games are televised (YouTubeTV or Hulu) and they're all blacked out locally on League Pass...so I've watched a total of about 9 quarters this season on 1 nationally televised game and various other games I saw at a bar. I'm not paying for yet another app to watch a **** basketball team. And I know I'm not the only one in that boat, so yea, most fans can't/wont try to find the games to watch.

The games are all televised via DirectTv, U verse, OTA, Fubu, etc. Or via the app for $20/month, which is $120 for the entire season, which is almost the exact cost of league pass. Pretty easy to find and watch. I get that many people won't want to pay for that, seeing it as an extra new cost, but frankly that's cause youtube etc decided to drop features (without dropping price I assume). I'm thrilled that I can watch OTA for free, but even if I had reception problems, I'd be thrilled to watch the entire season with the app for $120, whereas before, I had to pay roughly $480 for youtubeTV in order to watch, which I didn't want other than to watch Bulls games.

[dougthonus]

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."

This doesn't surprise me, modern home setups aren't made for OTA.

From a business perspective, I would think you can resolve this problem by creating a streaming service that allows for games on demand as well as live and just airs pre game, game, post game, and nothing else instead of making a whole station. Charge the minimum amount required to break even rather than try to make a profit.

You reduce the costs of all the broadcasting stuff you have to buy for the OTA, all the costs of production for all the other content you are now longer filming and all the costs of all the other people running spots junk shows no one watches.

You are probably now at break even at like $2-$3 a user for just the streaming platform itself (not counting the costs of production which are a wash regardless of what you do), and now a season pass for the Bulls is $12-$18 dollars and can be watched on any device like any modern person would want to do.

This feels like the way these teams should have gone to me. I think all the time / energy spent trying to create a full network and air all this other stuff, and pay for all the broadcast rights OTA is just a huge waste, and where they are losing all the money. You do the above, and you're going to get a way bigger subscribe base.

Hell, once you go this route, you can also mix down games to remove all dead time, FTAs, and other things for the on demand watch or have highlight versions, and you can do forced ad watches on all the on demand stuff too. The experience is probably much better for the typical user and much cheaper to create.

[League Circles]

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."

This doesn't surprise me, modern home setups aren't made for OTA.

From a business perspective, I would think you can resolve this problem by creating a streaming service that allows for games on demand as well as live and just airs pre game, game, post game, and nothing else instead of making a whole station. Charge the minimum amount required to break even rather than try to make a profit.

You reduce the costs of all the broadcasting stuff you have to buy for the OTA, all the costs of production for all the other content you are now longer filming and all the costs of all the other people running spots junk shows no one watches.

You are probably now at break even at like $2-$3 a user for just the streaming platform itself (not counting the costs of production which are a wash regardless of what you do), and now a season pass for the Bulls is $12-$18 dollars and can be watched on any device like any modern person would want to do.

This feels like the way these teams should have gone to me. I think all the time / energy spent trying to create a full network and air all this other stuff, and pay for all the broadcast rights OTA is just a huge waste, and where they are losing all the money. You do the above, and you're going to get a way bigger subscribe base.

Hell, once you go this route, you can also mix down games to remove all dead time, FTAs, and other things for the on demand watch or have highlight versions, and you can do forced ad watches on all the on demand stuff too. The experience is probably much better for the typical user and much cheaper to create.

I think for better or worse, part of the motivation to still have a tv channel is long term exposure to potential new casual fans. Once they go an app-only route, they miss out on that exposure. With a tv channel, casual people flipping channels either on OTA or DirectTV or uverse or fubu will see it and remember the glory of the 1990s and become Bulls fans again.

[dougthonus]

I think for better or worse, part of the motivation to still have a tv channel is long term exposure to potential new casual fans. Once they go an app-only route, they miss out on that exposure. With a tv channel, casual people flipping channels either on OTA or DirectTV or uverse or fubu will see it and remember the glory of the 1990s and become Bulls fans again.

Yeah, I think this is at odds with the reality though. I would guess they lose money on every program they have on a TV station, nor do I think they gain more exposure by having the station. It just isn't how many people consume TV anymore.

I think you'd get way more exposure the app route, and then even having a media team making awesome individual highlight reals of every player every game and doing other stuff like that. I think you'd go a long way towards expanding your audience by getting into smaller tictok sized bites, and building out the platform for the way people under 40 are more likely to consume information.

[League Circles]

I think for better or worse, part of the motivation to still have a tv channel is long term exposure to potential new casual fans. Once they go an app-only route, they miss out on that exposure. With a tv channel, casual people flipping channels either on OTA or DirectTV or uverse or fubu will see it and remember the glory of the 1990s and become Bulls fans again.

Yeah, I think this is at odds with the reality though. I would guess they lose money on every program they have on a TV station, nor do I think they gain more exposure by having the station. It just isn't how many people consume TV anymore.

I think you'd get way more exposure the app route, and then even having a media team making awesome individual highlight reals of every player every game and doing other stuff like that. I think you'd go a long way towards expanding your audience by getting into smaller tictok sized bites, and building out the platform for the way people under 40 are more likely to consume information.

I would guess plenty of people still consume TV by watching sports on it. That's why DIRECTV, Uverse, Fubu etc are paying to carry CHSN. And the people with those services are getting regular reminders that the Bulls exist. With an app-only situation that would go away.

Remember, with OTA they're also not paying a powerful middle man like YouTube TV, Xfinity, or Hulu. So even if the ad revenue is much smaller, at least they keep all of it. Hard for me to guess on the costs associated with the actual broadcast equipment though.

I personally think OTA will actually increase in usage in coming years (as it was always intended), because people are just so uninterested in packaging. I haven't paid for a full time year round tv package in like 9 years, and only paid for a package at all (YoutubeTV) for portions of some years since then for the sole reason of watching the Bulls. So for many cord cutters like me (and by cord cutter I actually mean package-cutter), OTA is the best and only way to get casual exposure to stuff I have mild interest in (occasional football, PBS, etc). So companies are realizing that it's not OTA vs an app or package for many people, it's ad-revenue via OTA vs simply nothing.

[jnrjr79]

It's probably inarguable that more people can watch Bulls games now than could before, looking only at OTA, just given the number of cities from which CHSN broadcasts.

Given how lousy the OTA is and the massive amount of friction many people have to set it up, I think the opposite of this is true in practicality. In theory, more people have access with OTA, but in reality, way more people have comcast than have an OTA set up, and because they went super cheap on broadcast equipment, their OTA set up stinks and has been a huge disappointment for many people whom have made the effort.

Yeah, I've found it curious how many people report OTA not working well for them, since it's been seamless for me, but that's probably a city vs. suburbs thing. But the confusing part is a lot of people like you have reported that they get other channels fine, but not CHSN, so I wonder to what extent it's a crappy broadcast strength. I don't know whether that's true from their other broadcast locations or not. But it sure seems like it could be, given the anecdotes we'v heard.

The point remains the same, though. Everyone has some ability to watch the games if they are willing to pay for it. Most have the ability by simply switching to a different cable or streaming provider, but in any event, anyone can pay for the streaming app. People simply don't want to, because the Bulls aren't important enough to them to do it, which I get, given the current state of the product.

The funny thing to me is that some people are so resistant to switching from Comcast, literally the worst company I have ever dealt with on any sort of consumer product. People must have Stockholm Syndrome, lol.

[jnrjr79]

Didn't know Nick Friedell is still working.

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

None of the games are televised (YouTubeTV or Hulu) and they're all blacked out locally on League Pass...so I've watched a total of about 9 quarters this season on 1 nationally televised game and various other games I saw at a bar. I'm not paying for yet another app to watch a **** basketball team. And I know I'm not the only one in that boat, so yea, most fans can't/wont try to find the games to watch.

The games are all televised via DirectTv, U verse, OTA, Fubu, etc. Or via the app for $20/month, which is $120 for the entire season, which is almost the exact cost of league pass. Pretty easy to find and watch. I get that many people won't want to pay for that, seeing it as an extra new cost, but frankly that's cause youtube etc decided to drop features (without dropping price I assume). I'm thrilled that I can watch OTA for free, but even if I had reception problems, I'd be thrilled to watch the entire season with the app for $120, whereas before, I had to pay roughly $480 for youtubeTV in order to watch, which I didn't want other than to watch Bulls games.

Yeah, what's funny is that before the channel switch, there were a lot of people complaining that they were paying $80/month for YTTV for the sole purpose of watching Bulls games. If you're that kind of person - who doesn't otherwise need a full TV package - you're much better off under the current setup.

[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

"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."

This doesn't surprise me, modern home setups aren't made for OTA.

From a business perspective, I would think you can resolve this problem by creating a streaming service that allows for games on demand as well as live and just airs pre game, game, post game, and nothing else instead of making a whole station. Charge the minimum amount required to break even rather than try to make a profit.

You reduce the costs of all the broadcasting stuff you have to buy for the OTA, all the costs of production for all the other content you are now longer filming and all the costs of all the other people running spots junk shows no one watches.

You are probably now at break even at like $2-$3 a user for just the streaming platform itself (not counting the costs of production which are a wash regardless of what you do), and now a season pass for the Bulls is $12-$18 dollars and can be watched on any device like any modern person would want to do.

This feels like the way these teams should have gone to me. I think all the time / energy spent trying to create a full network and air all this other stuff, and pay for all the broadcast rights OTA is just a huge waste, and where they are losing all the money. You do the above, and you're going to get a way bigger subscribe base.

Hell, once you go this route, you can also mix down games to remove all dead time, FTAs, and other things for the on demand watch or have highlight versions, and you can do forced ad watches on all the on demand stuff too. The experience is probably much better for the typical user and much cheaper to create.

I'm no expert, but it seems basically impossible that if they cut the stuff you suggest, but kept the games + pre & post (which requires a separate studio), that you'd somehow be able to sell the product for 10% of the current price.

[jnrjr79]

I think for better or worse, part of the motivation to still have a tv channel is long term exposure to potential new casual fans. Once they go an app-only route, they miss out on that exposure. With a tv channel, casual people flipping channels either on OTA or DirectTV or uverse or fubu will see it and remember the glory of the 1990s and become Bulls fans again.

Yeah, I think this is at odds with the reality though. I would guess they lose money on every program they have on a TV station, nor do I think they gain more exposure by having the station. It just isn't how many people consume TV anymore.

I think you'd get way more exposure the app route, and then even having a media team making awesome individual highlight reals of every player every game and doing other stuff like that. I think you'd go a long way towards expanding your audience by getting into smaller tictok sized bites, and building out the platform for the way people under 40 are more likely to consume information.

Well, this is the funny thing - most of the people upset with the current setup are upset about the lack of Comcast and YTTV support. First, that's outside of CHSN's control, but second, to your point, conventional TV itself is not how the youngs tend to watch things these days, anyway. Doing it via app is probably the most forward-thinking way to do it, but like you note, there is a broader problem of young people really not wanting to watch full live games in the first place. Heck, a lot of young people, even if they're interested in sports, no longer really just root for their home team, but root for certain star players from various markets. I don't know how the Bulls solve for that, but your ideas of "bites" of some sort is probably the only way.

TBH, I think the only thing that would make people happy is doing an app and making it available for free. I think a lot of people wouldn't pay anything whatsoever to watch the Bulls and would only do so if it were available for free or as part of a service they would already be subscribing to regardless of whether the Bulls were on it.