PDA

View Full Version : Average US TV Open Viewership Down


jaap deboeck
09-14-2012, 10:49 AM
ESPN2's viewership over the two weeks averaged a mere 0.52 (.0052) U.S.A. rating with 700,000 viewers, off 10% in ratings and 12% in total viewers from last year (0.57, 800K). The competiive finals did okay (around a 4 share), but otherwise our beloved sport continues to bleed audience share revealing its irrelevance to most US sports fans that gravitate to almost everything else BUT tennis.

I find this rather SAD along with all the empty seats at many/most daytime Ashe sessions. Sam Stosur played at least 3 matches in front of an 85% empty stadium.

Let's hope many of the biggest names don't, as their wont, blow off the fall season or give an 85% effort. The big three have won a mere 3 Fall Masters Series tourneys between them intheir carreers. Will Serena even play this fall for a slim chance at #1? It is all dismaying.

Winner_DownTheLine
09-14-2012, 10:50 AM
people like to play more tennis rather than watch I think.

ruerooo
09-14-2012, 11:21 AM
Yes, but both the Womens' and Mens' Finals had the highest ratings this year.

As for the empty seats, what happens is that corporations buy them up (have you seen the prices for some of those seats? ) and then not everyone goes - because the matches are, after all, during the day. And there is no way the tournament is going to turn down all that money.

ollinger
09-14-2012, 11:35 AM
Ticket sales continue to set records, and the empty seats in Ashe represent mostly people being elsewhere in the complex, particularly at outer field courts. That being said, the TV audience continues to dwindle because tennis has become a miserable spectator sport. I love the game yet I find the back and forth baseline play difficult to watch without growing drowsy. Friends who are more causal observers of the game also tell me it's something of a bore to watch.

Winner_DownTheLine
09-14-2012, 12:03 PM
Ticket sales continue to set records, and the empty seats in Ashe represent mostly people being elsewhere in the complex, particularly at outer field courts. That being said, the TV audience continues to dwindle because tennis has become a miserable spectator sport. I love the game yet I find the back and forth baseline play difficult to watch without growing drowsy. Friends who are more causal observers of the game also tell me it's something of a bore to watch.

i agree, i'm a die hard tennis fanboi but even i couldn't watch the pusher-type play of the men's final, bring back Federer, Tsonga type players.

Devilito
09-14-2012, 12:35 PM
ouch! Here Comes Honey Boo Boo does better numbers than that

TennisLovaLova
09-14-2012, 01:26 PM
Some readons:
No nadal
Federer out in quarters
Weather conditions and matches posponed or suspended

ollinger
09-14-2012, 02:23 PM
^^ No Nadal, and Fed out in the quarters? Ummm, so why was viewership actually substantially UP for the finals, highest in the past five years per another thread, though down for the earlier rounds?

TennisLovaLova
09-15-2012, 01:43 AM
^^ No Nadal, and Fed out in the quarters? Ummm, so why was viewership actually substantially UP for the finals, highest in the past five years per another thread, though down for the earlier rounds?

I dont know

Russeljones
09-15-2012, 01:46 AM
ESPN2's viewership over the two weeks averaged a mere 0.52 (.0052) U.S.A. rating with 700,000 viewers, off 10% in ratings and 12% in total viewers from last year (0.57, 800K). The competiive finals did okay (around a 4 share), but otherwise our beloved sport continues to bleed audience share revealing its irrelevance to most US sports fans that gravitate to almost everything else BUT tennis.

I find this rather SAD along with all the empty seats at many/most daytime Ashe sessions. Sam Stosur played at least 3 matches in front of an 85% empty stadium.

Let's hope many of the biggest names don't, as their wont, blow off the fall season or give an 85% effort. The big three have won a mere 3 Fall Masters Series tourneys between them intheir carreers. Will Serena even play this fall for a slim chance at #1? It is all dismaying.

Just imagine what the ratings will be when Federer retires. Lacrosse will overtake tennis.

Paul Murphy
09-15-2012, 02:34 AM
Not surprising really.
Not too many matches that will live long in the memory.
The usual weather delays didn't help either.

TennisLovaLova
09-15-2012, 07:17 AM
Just imagine what the ratings will be when Federer retires. Lacrosse will overtake tennis.

Lfmao
Lacrosse is the worst thing ever

tennisMVP
09-15-2012, 07:27 AM
^^ No Nadal, and Fed out in the quarters? Ummm, so why was viewership actually substantially UP for the finals, highest in the past five years per another thread, though down for the earlier rounds?

Because last year Djokovic wasn't a star. Now the hype of his 2011 has arrived and he is a star. Group that with the fact that Murray is already a star, and you got big interest in the final. Last year it was the star Nadal vs the Serbian guy. This year it was star Djokovic vs star Murray.

El Diablo
09-15-2012, 07:29 AM
^^ correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't last year the one when Djokovic was on his way to what many thought might be the best single year by a player ever? He was getting a ton of publicity both for his tennis and his new diet. Certainly a star at that point.

tennisMVP
09-15-2012, 07:39 AM
^^ correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't last year the one when Djokovic was on his way to what many thought might be the best single year by a player ever? He was getting a ton of publicity both for his tennis and his new diet. Certainly a star at that point.

Nah, Djokovic wasn't a star last year at the US Open. The hype of what he achieved in 2011 was at its peak at the beginning of 2012 when he was going for his 4th slam in a row. Last year, when people were buying tickets for the US Open, Djokovic wasn't a star. He hadn't even won the US Open, don't forget. Americans mostly focus on the US Open.

I know, heading into the 2012 final, Murray hadn't won the US Open either. But Murray had just dominated the headlines at the Olympics, plus anyone who is the premier player in Great Britain gets plenty of publicity. Serbia is not "on the map" as much.

snowpuppy
09-15-2012, 07:47 AM
Sport builds fanbases on events. You don't become a fan of a baseball or football team by sitting at home watching them on TV. Mean while, USTA is not doing much to improve fan access. Aussie has great outside stadium viewings, Wimbledon has Henman hill. What do we have? Fan seats on AA are pushed to the stratosphere to make room for corporate suites which is empty anyways. USTA has done nothing to improve the sport of tennis.

MasturB
09-15-2012, 09:51 AM
Things tennis can do:

1)Require all television production teams to use the court level TV angle. I think this would help tennis tremendously. The high above the court tv angle that's currently being used, doesn't allow the average fan or outsider to see just how much spin and speed the ball is traveling at. I think this would help people grow on the modern game as you can see the spins and variety and also see the strategy in points (meaning it just doesn't look like they're slicing back and forth for no other reason, as the average tv viewers POV thinks "Why doesn't he just hit it to the open court?"). Also can get a better vantage point of how athletic and how much distance the players themselves are covering.

2) Because tennis has become a globalized sport, American TV networks need to treat it like that. For years TV networks neglected showing English Premier League, La Liga, EUFA and international soccer matches on TV. They tried to promote MLS, but they didn't realize that people in USA already had favorite clubs overseas. Now soccer in USA is garnering all-time soccer ratings and it's not MLS or showing EPL teams with American players, they're doing it by just showing the best EPL/La Liga/Serie A teams. MLS is benefitting from this and so is soccer in america altogether. This means Mid-Tier American players need not to be shown on TV in favor of top players that could produce a much more entertaining match. It's different with sports like basketball,baseball, and football where all the best competition is already here. With tennis and soccer, the best competition isn't exclusively in the USA anymore (never was in terms of soccer) and people want to pay to watch the best play. The American analysts themselves on ESPN would prefer to watch/call a top match of lets say Almagro vs. Del Potro over having to commentate/air a match of Sloane Stephens vs. Random Top 50 ranked Russian girl.

MasturB
09-15-2012, 09:54 AM
Nah, Djokovic wasn't a star last year at the US Open. The hype of what he achieved in 2011 was at its peak at the beginning of 2012 when he was going for his 4th slam in a row. Last year, when people were buying tickets for the US Open, Djokovic wasn't a star. He hadn't even won the US Open, don't forget. Americans mostly focus on the US Open.

I know, heading into the 2012 final, Murray hadn't won the US Open either. But Murray had just dominated the headlines at the Olympics, plus anyone who is the premier player in Great Britain gets plenty of publicity. Serbia is not "on the map" as much.

Highly debatable. Lots of casual fans I know would rather watch Wimbledon than USO.

Considering USO falls right in line with NFL opening weekend, College Football first two weeks, Pennant races of MLB. Wimby comes conveniently at a time when the only other major sport on in the USA at the same time is MLB in the middle of its season.

I'd say if you were to ask the average sports fan which name do they recognize more "Wimbledon" or "Flushing Meadows", Wimbledon wins 100% of the time.

cneblett
09-15-2012, 11:27 AM
Honestly I want to know where the ATP and other people in leadership of tennis get the idea people like long slow points. I have heard So many people who watch some tennis say it has just gotten boring. They will need to sapped the balls or the courts back up to get people to watch.

People ask how can you watch it the ball just goes back and forth with no one trying to win. Other old timers say this has become like Solomon dibbs matches from years ago. Need ability to end points then the great defense and speed become more interesting.

sureshs
09-15-2012, 11:51 AM
All matches should be best of 3 only.

tacou
09-15-2012, 11:57 AM
Ratings have always confused me, and these numbers are even more befuddling. So in America the finals received ~18 and ~16million respectively, but the two weeks averaged only 700,000?

That would mean on many days the US Open was pulling in less than half a million viewers per day? That is unfathomably low. As in, how much lower would viewership have to get before first week of US Open is not televised at all (other than TTC of course)?

BreakPoint
09-15-2012, 01:16 PM
Because last year Djokovic wasn't a star. Now the hype of his 2011 has arrived and he is a star. Group that with the fact that Murray is already a star, and you got big interest in the final. Last year it was the star Nadal vs the Serbian guy. This year it was star Djokovic vs star Murray.
Wait, Djokovic who had already won 3 Slams and was in the US Open finals in 2007 and just the year before in 2010 WASN'T a star in 2011, the best year ever for a pro by the time he got to the 2011 US Open, yet Murray who has won zero Slams was already a star in 2012? :confused:

More likely, viewership of the 2010 and 2011 US Open finals were really low because Nadal was in them.

Cesc Fabregas
09-15-2012, 01:17 PM
No Nadal, he's got the most star quality in tennis today.

BreakPoint
09-15-2012, 01:20 PM
Nah, Djokovic wasn't a star last year at the US Open. The hype of what he achieved in 2011 was at its peak at the beginning of 2012 when he was going for his 4th slam in a row. Last year, when people were buying tickets for the US Open, Djokovic wasn't a star. He hadn't even won the US Open, don't forget. Americans mostly focus on the US Open.

I know, heading into the 2012 final, Murray hadn't won the US Open either. But Murray had just dominated the headlines at the Olympics, plus anyone who is the premier player in Great Britain gets plenty of publicity. Serbia is not "on the map" as much.
Um...Djokovic had won Wimbledon 2 months before and all the talk in tennis was about the amazing year he was having long before the US Open started. You can buy tickets up to the day of the match. I've bought plenty of US Open tickets on the day of the match.

BreakPoint
09-15-2012, 01:23 PM
No Nadal, he's got the most star quality in tennis today.
Yet, this year's final without Nadal drew 3 times as many viewers in the U.S. as in 2010 when Nadal won the title, and 60% more viewers than last year when Nadal was in the final. :???:

No Nadal = sky high TV ratings.

Cesc Fabregas
09-15-2012, 01:28 PM
Yet, this year's final without Nadal drew 3 times as many viewers in the U.S. as in 2010 when Nadal won the title, and 60% more viewers than last year when Nadal was in the final. :???:

No Nadal = sky high TV ratings.

That's because people were interested too see if Murray could finally win a major. I thought this thread was about general US Open ratings being down, Nadal not being there could have been a contributing factor.

90's Clay
09-15-2012, 02:04 PM
A lot of people were watching to see if Murray would win his first major.

Have another Murray-Djoker final next year, I bet the ratings tank

Mainad
09-15-2012, 02:19 PM
A lot of people were watching to see if Murray would win his first major.

That's possibly true. But, to me, that means there must be still a considerable level of interest or else why would they care whether he won or not?


Have another Murray-Djoker final next year, I bet the ratings tank

Well, if they were motivated enough to see if he could win the first one, maybe they will be motivated to see if he can do it again or if Djokovic will take his revenge?

Maybe the presence of another Grand Slam finalist other than the Big 3 has sparked people's interests again. After all, it can probably get a bit stale for some people seeing the same names slug it out year in year out.

ollinger
09-15-2012, 03:37 PM
The large ratings are very simple -- it went in to prime time, on CBS. The match ended around 10 PM on the east coast, so lots of people turned on CBS Monday night hoping to see "The Good Mistress," it wasn't on, and some of them said "OK, I'll watch the tennis." A fluke of landing on weeknight prime time, when the networks have their largest audience.

BreakPoint
09-15-2012, 07:22 PM
That's because people were interested too see if Murray could finally win a major. I thought this thread was about general US Open ratings being down, Nadal not being there could have been a contributing factor.
I'd bet most non-hardcore tennis fans and casual viewers in the U.S. don't even know who Murray is.

Bartelby
09-15-2012, 07:28 PM
Lots of British expats and British heritage immigrants would care about Murray.

RF20Lennon
09-15-2012, 07:37 PM
Things tennis can do:

1)Require all television production teams to use the court level TV angle. I think this would help tennis tremendously. The high above the court tv angle that's currently being used, doesn't allow the average fan or outsider to see just how much spin and speed the ball is traveling at. I think this would help people grow on the modern game as you can see the spins and variety and also see the strategy in points (meaning it just doesn't look like they're slicing back and forth for no other reason, as the average tv viewers POV thinks "Why doesn't he just hit it to the open court?"). Also can get a better vantage point of how athletic and how much distance the players themselves are covering.

2) Because tennis has become a globalized sport, American TV networks need to treat it like that. For years TV networks neglected showing English Premier League, La Liga, EUFA and international soccer matches on TV. They tried to promote MLS, but they didn't realize that people in USA already had favorite clubs overseas. Now soccer in USA is garnering all-time soccer ratings and it's not MLS or showing EPL teams with American players, they're doing it by just showing the best EPL/La Liga/Serie A teams. MLS is benefitting from this and so is soccer in america altogether. This means Mid-Tier American players need not to be shown on TV in favor of top players that could produce a much more entertaining match. It's different with sports like basketball,baseball, and football where all the best competition is already here. With tennis and soccer, the best competition isn't exclusively in the USA anymore (never was in terms of soccer) and people want to pay to watch the best play. The American analysts themselves on ESPN would prefer to watch/call a top match of lets say Almagro vs. Del Potro over having to commentate/air a match of Sloane Stephens vs. Random Top 50 ranked Russian girl.
YES!!! PLEASE!!

vernonbc
09-15-2012, 09:09 PM
The large ratings are very simple -- it went in to prime time, on CBS. The match ended around 10 PM on the east coast, so lots of people turned on CBS Monday night hoping to see "The Good Mistress," it wasn't on, and some of them said "OK, I'll watch the tennis." A fluke of landing on weeknight prime time, when the networks have their largest audience.
Bingo. They didn't even have to stay and watch to the end to get counted as a viewer, they just had to stop in for a few minutes to be counted in that particular stat. There are a dozen different ratings criteria and the USTA is of course using the one that shows the highest number. The overnight ratings are the ones most commonly used and 2012 didn't do all that well.
http://www.10sballs.com/2012/09/13/us-open-tv-results-were-good-but-not-great/
US Open TV Ratings may not be as good as advertised While CBS celebrated its overnight ratings peaking at a 4.2 share from 9-9:15 PM ET for the US Open menís final between Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic, the entire broadcast drew a 2.3 overnight share, down 12%, Sports Media Watch reported.

In 2010, there was a rain delay and CBS dropped their coverage and went to local news and didn't bother telling people where the end of the match could be seen. ESPN2 crammed it in before they abruptly cut to football. It had nothing to do with who was playing, it was the crappy coverage. All the finals played on Monday have had much lower ratings than Sunday finals.

mistik
09-15-2012, 09:17 PM
It is fact that Nadal only loved in Spain. He has few fans outside of Spain.

MasturB
09-15-2012, 09:22 PM
Honestly I want to know where the ATP and other people in leadership of tennis get the idea people like long slow points. I have heard So many people who watch some tennis say it has just gotten boring. They will need to sapped the balls or the courts back up to get people to watch.

People ask how can you watch it the ball just goes back and forth with no one trying to win. Other old timers say this has become like Solomon dibbs matches from years ago. Need ability to end points then the great defense and speed become more interesting.

See what I posted about the TV angle.

The current tv angle that's used 95% of the time just looks like players playing a game of pong. You don't see the variety of spins, angles, and speed of the ball so it's harder for the outsider/average fan to appreciate what the pros are actually doing. Almost every ball looks flat.

You change the tv angle to court level, and suddenly you can see how high they're hitting over the net, the crazy angles that the best players produce, the reason as to why they're rallying and the chess match inside the point.

My friends were the same way. They would sometimes watch on TV but it looked boring. Once I took them to a challenger tournament here a few months ago where they could see how fast and how hard the players were moving, their appreciation and interest in hte sport grew 10x. They all mentioned afterwards how on TV the ball just looks flat and they're just hitting it back and forth, and the TV angle also makes the depth of the court look bigger than it actually is as well. So that's where the casual fan thinks "why doesn't he just hit it to the other side of hte court/open court?"

Rocky89
09-15-2012, 10:19 PM
It is fact that Nadal only loved in Spain. He has few fans outside of Spain.

That's just rubbish.

cc0509
09-15-2012, 11:37 PM
It is fact that Nadal only loved in Spain. He has few fans outside of Spain.


Stop taking those psychotropic drugs, they are influencing your ability to see the obvious. Nadal is not only loved in Spain, what a silly comment! :roll:
Except for Federer, Nadal is the most popular player currently worldwide. He is not the second highest paid tennis player in endorsements for no reason.