Jump to content

Sportsnet WWC coverage


Massive Attack

Recommended Posts

Women's World Cup Team

Saturday, September 13, 2003

Sportsnet To Cover Canadian Games

http://www.canadasoccer.com/eng/media/viewArtical.asp?Press_ID=1467

Ottawa, Ontario – The Canadian Soccer Association and Rogers Sportsnet announced today the network will broadcast Canada’s upcoming games at the 2003 Women’s World Cup in the United States beginning on September 20, 2003.

Sportsnet will broadcast on tape delay Canada’s opening game in group C against Germany on September 20th with a 5:45 p.m. (ET) kick-off at 10:00 p.m. (ET). Canada next game against Argentina on September 24th at 8:30 p.m. will be broadcast live on all Sportsnet networks at 8:30 p.m. (ET). The final game of the first round against Japan on September 27th with a 3:30 p.m. (ET) kick-off will be broadcast on tape delay at 7:00 p.m. (ET).

Digital subscribers will have access to all games live.

Sportsnet will continue the 2003 World Cup coverage throughout the tournament.

Please consult the Sportsnet web site for more information: www.sportsnet.ca

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reasons for tape-delayed broadcasts: the first game overlaps with NASCAR and Blue Jays baseball, while the third game overlaps with Blue Jays baseball.

Not a big deal to me as I've got the digital feeds, but how many others do?

But I'm still very disappointed that we won't get the games not involving Canada (except the few on ABC). :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reasons for tape-delayed broadcasts: the first game overlaps with NASCAR and Blue Jays baseball, while the third game overlaps with Blue Jays baseball.

Not a big deal to me as I've got the digital feeds, but how many others do?

But I'm still very disappointed that we won't get the games not involving Canada (except the few on ABC). :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear that Sportsnet's commitment to baseball and other sports was inked far before the WWC schedule was announced. Stop complaining about Sportsnet and be happy you'll at least get to see all of our games--not always a sure thing.

Besides, women's sports are still a gamble in Canadian TV. I'm glad that Sportsnet keeps stepping up and taking that gamble. The coverage that women's soccer gets shows that the audience is a surer bet, too, than that for the men's national team...

Believe me, I'd be watching all the other games if they were broadcast too, but we're in a miniscule minority--not exactly the demographic that Rogers can sell to its advertisers. Want to see all the WWC games? Start your own TV station and buy the coverage yourself.

Allez les Rouges,

M@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but it says sportsnet digital subscribers will get the games live. I think a lot of people on this board will be congregating in bars or other places to watch the games, so it won't really affect their ability to catch the games live.

Toronto people, where is the meeting place this time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Canadian women's soccer is that much of a gamble anymore, especially for the women's World Cup.

We might not have to put up with this kind of stuff for much longer. It was reported in the Toronto Star the other day that Rogers wants to reduce the number of Jays games they show per year, due to crappy ratings. That might open up their schedule a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised about the ratings issue. Given the fact that soccer (nats or EPL) is outranking soccer and hockey on Sportsnet, the network should be doing more to promote the game. Instead their alinating it.

Guess they didn't learn from the Canada/Brazil U-19 game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by mattbin

Want to see all the WWC games? Start your own TV station and buy the coverage yourself.

Nah, no need to do that, all you need is a grey-market satellite dish and you can get them all (plus tons more soccer that is available legally in the US but is not offered to us). I am becoming more and more tempted to get one of those dishes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Gian-Luca

I don't think Canadian women's soccer is that much of a gamble anymore, especially for the women's World Cup.

Yeah. With all the (over-) hype surrounding women's soccer over the last year, I expected to get a better deal than we did, both in terms of Canada's games and the games not involving Canada. I mean, in 1999 we got everything, mostly live, when women's soccer was nothing, yet now that the sport has made big strides forward, coverage has taken a huge step backwards. I doubt it will get any better in 2007 considering the time-difference problem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by DJT

Yeah. With all the (over-) hype surrounding women's soccer over the last year, I expected to get a better deal than we did, both in terms of Canada's games and the games not involving Canada. I mean, in 1999 we got everything, mostly live, when women's soccer was nothing, yet now that the sport has made big strides forward, coverage has taken a huge step backwards. I doubt it will get any better in 2007 considering the time-difference problem.

It reminds me too much of that U19 semi. Sportsnet line was that the later start time (8pm in Edmonton) would allow for more viewership. The problem with that is that the game would then be out of main "Prime Time" viewing for those in the east. No doubt viewership would be larger if it had stayed at the time it was supposed to begin.

The Blue Jays game thus became an easier target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by DJT

With all the (over-) hype surrounding women's soccer over the last year, I expected to get a better deal than we did, both in terms of Canada's games and the games not involving Canada. I mean, in 1999 we got everything, mostly live, when women's soccer was nothing, yet now that the sport has made big strides forward, coverage has taken a huge step backwards. I doubt it will get any better in 2007 considering the time-difference problem.

Apparently the U.S. still has more lesbians than Canada because all the WWC games are shown in the U.S. yet none of the Euro2004 games will be! :D ... But aren't the Univision (Galavision, Telemundo, etc.) networks available on Satellite in Canada? They used to be. It's in spanish, but oh well ... better than listening to crappy, demoted hockey announcers ...

In response to complaints that Sportsnet aren't showing the games live, remember the starting times of the WWC games were changed at the last second (due to the venue change). So there's nothing Sportsnet could do about it! Besides live or tape-delay - what's the diff?? All you have to do is avoid hearing the final score for a couple hours. Unless your apartment is underneath an elementary school, this shouldn't be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They COULD have the games live outside of Toronto (reverse blackout), but since it's Rogers Sportsnet and Rogers Blue Jays, they are going to push their property over anything (including a World Cup or a friendly against the men's World Cup finalists).

THIS is why media ownership is an important issue. Are the Blue Jays on TV because people care or do people care because they're on TV?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women's games are not a gamble. The ratings outdo national men's games (including EPL games). Over 100000 watched Canada/Brazil in July.

Yes, this was last minute scheduling but to show only Canada'a games is a major disappointment. Consider the fact that Sportsnet is showing nearly all of October's World Cup Rugby matches in the middle of the night.

The marquee match ups of the other groups should be at least shown on tape delay.

As they did with the u19 (where almost 1 million watched the final game) Sportsnet is underestimating the audience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder whether the people stumping up the cash would be as confident in the "sure thing" that women's soccer appears to be in many eyes.

Are advertisers used to paying out for this? If I were an advertiser, I would be asking for examples of a consistent draw--the U-19 could have been a fluke. What if I pay to have commercials running throughout the tournament and then get an audience of 30k for some Canadian games? What if I get an audience of 5000 for China-Australia? I'd be pretty pissed at the channel, that's what.

And Sportsnet has a different problem. They have to look at the cost of the content, and gauge whether they can collect that much in ad revenue for the cost of the tournament. Canada's six games could cost only 20% of the full slate of 32 games, and that's a lot easier to sell. As the Rogers sales guy, would you rather sell all the Canadian games to a propective advertiser, or try to get the advertiser to commit to advertising in all 32?

Now compare it to baseball. Not only is there a long tradition of baseball in Canada (dating from before I was born), but there are big sponsors--car and beer companies, for example--who are willing to put the cash down, year in and year out. If I was, I don't know, let's say McCain's or a company of that size (maybe there's a better example), with a marketing budget that is spread among literally thousands of media buys per year, and I was trying to choose between baseball with its big sponsors and soccer which has Sunlight and JVC (not exactly powerhouse brands outside their own market segments), I know where I'd put my cash.

Now, if Canada's success repeats this year, and we are, say, finalists in the WWC or we beat China or Norway or the USA, and ratings spike, then we can say that women's soccer is not such a huge gamble.

But follow the money when you're looking for an explanation for this kind of situation. And think about how willing you are to gamble your own personal money--invested in many high-tech stocks lately?--when you want to figure out what constitutes a gamble.

Btw, I would love for the networks to look on soccer with the same affection we do here. I wonder whether anyone here has done anything to help the situation. Ever written to a sponsor to say how happy you were to see a soccer game they sponsored? I wrote to Sunlight once, and that's it. Maybe we should start acting on this a bit more--can't hurt, that's for sure. Think about writing to one of Rogers' WWC sponsors to tell them how glad you are that they covered women's soccer. Can't hurt.

Allez les Rouges,

M@

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by amacpher

But aren't the Univision (Galavision, Telemundo, etc.) networks available on Satellite in Canada?

Yes, that's what I was referring to when I mentioned grey-market dishes. A grey-market dish is the only way to get these channels because they are not offered to us legally (I mean, even if we wanted to pay for them we couldn't).

quote:In response to complaints that Sportsnet aren't showing the games live, remember the starting times of the WWC games were changed at the last second (due to the venue change). So there's nothing Sportsnet could do about it!
I honestly don't think this made a difference because...

quote:Originally posted by Daniel

it's Rogers Sportsnet and Rogers Blue Jays, they are going to push their property over anything (including a World Cup or a friendly against the men's World Cup finalists).

THIS is why media ownership is an important issue. Are the Blue Jays on TV because people care or do people care because they're on TV?...

Oh yeah, I'm saying this all the time. I believe the vast majority of people are interested in any given thing because it is thrown in their face, not because they actually wanted it in the first place. Because most people are sheep, plain and simple. (This pisses me off, so I've always been the opposite, actively searching out alternatives just to go against the grain --- this is exactly how I started to become a soccer fan, I was tired of American sports and hockey being thrown in my face).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mattbin...

You've just hit the nail square on the head.

Soccer, especially women's soccer, is not yet a "safe bet" for advertisers (Who are conservative by their nature).

A lot of WNT supporters are young girls, who aren't traditional TV sports watchers and who aren't likely to tune in to that 3 a.m. China/Ghana tape delay match-up.

They likely will watch Canada's games and probably the final, but not much more.

I would have liked to see all the games, but I'm not typical. No one on here is typical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

Mattbin...

You've just hit the nail square on the head.

Soccer, especially women's soccer, is not yet a "safe bet" for advertisers (Who are conservative by their nature).

A lot of WNT supporters are young girls, who aren't traditional TV sports watchers and who aren't likely to tune in to that 3 a.m. China/Ghana tape delay match-up.

They likely will watch Canada's games and probably the final, but not much more.

I would have liked to see all the games, but I'm not typical. No one on here is typical.

I don't disagree with what you and Matt are saying, but what I don't understand is why this wasn't a problem in 1999, when there was far less hype about women's soccer and the Canadian team than there is today. Is it that the broadcast rights cost more this time? But even in England they will get 70% of the matches (granted, not on a standard channel, but at least the option is there for those who want it --- we need greater access to those American stations that show all kinds of soccer), and I think women's soccer is bigger in Canada than it is in England.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...