TFC struggles on TV

[bgnewf]

TFC struggles on TV

After a recent cable TV upgrade I got to thinking about why Toronto FC struggles so much when it comes to television ratings. Some thoughts on the symptoms and some potential cures to the poor ratings for TFC games on Canadian television.

http://viewfromthesouthstands.com/2010/08/tfc-struggles-on-tv/

Comments are always welcome!

[Trident]

Calling it TFC TV,hahaha!

Haven't got around to getting Gol TV yet this year, I wont if that ever happens.

[RS]

For once I actually agree with Trident. Calling it TFC TV would be a bad idea, especially since Gol intends to add Vancouver ad Montreal content as those teams move up to MLS.

TFC isn't a strong enough brand to have its own channel, but a channel that focuses mainly on Canadian soccer and MLS, with Euro leagues thrown in in the winter, could do really well if they stuck with it for a number of years.

[paul-collins]

On CBC the game itself looks good, but the venue and team presentation sometimes looks bush league. More visuals of around the stadium (showing the crowd, showing the benches, showing the players warming up) would be nice. We never see the benches in the way that the WC showed them - cameras on the wrong side of the pitch, I guess. (Plus, cameras on the other side would show the nicer side of the stadium...)

Does Preki imagine he's going to have to run onto the field? Does he have a uniform on under that track suit? I mean, not everyone can rock a suit like Bert Van Marwijk, but at least in hockey you still get to hear about "lucky ties".

Speaking of which, as a newcomer to the game (through my kids), why do we need to broadcast in English slang? A tie is something you wear, or more prosaically, a draw (even score). I still don't know what a tie is in soccer.

There are loads of other confusing words and I don't know how you keep the distinctiveness of soccer while speaking to the unwashed masses. Tackle (check), mark (cover), cross (centre)... And don't even get me started on the use of the word "quality." Makes me think the louts have been reading Robert Pirsig!

Anyway, it's my instinct that the language is aimed at the EPL watchers who have already written off MLS. Better to go after the recent converts by speaking a language that more closely resembles what you hear in Canada (without overdoing the theft from hockey lingo, of course).

[argh1]

On CBC the game itself looks good, but the venue and team presentation sometimes looks bush league. More visuals of around the stadium (showing the crowd, showing the benches, showing the players warming up) would be nice. We never see the benches in the way that the WC showed them - cameras on the wrong side of the pitch, I guess. (Plus, cameras on the other side would show the nicer side of the stadium...)

Does Preki imagine he's going to have to run onto the field? Does he have a uniform on under that track suit? I mean, not everyone can rock a suit like Bert Van Marwijk, but at least in hockey you still get to hear about "lucky ties".

Speaking of which, as a newcomer to the game (through my kids), why do we need to broadcast in English slang? A tie is something you wear, or more prosaically, a draw (even score). I still don't know what a tie is in soccer.

There are loads of other confusing words and I don't know how you keep the distinctiveness of soccer while speaking to the unwashed masses. Tackle (check), mark (cover), cross (centre)... And don't even get me started on the use of the word "quality." Makes me think the louts have been reading Robert Pirsig!

Anyway, it's my instinct that the language is aimed at the EPL watchers who have already written off MLS. Better to go after the recent converts by speaking a language that more closely resembles what you hear in Canada (without overdoing the theft from hockey lingo, of course).

That has always been a pet peeve of mine.

Broadcasters seem to think that a Brit accent and phrases are needed to legitimize the game. They are certainly knowledegable but the casual Canadian fan needs a Brit-Canadian dictionary to understand what's being said.

The result was a draw? Who hell in Canada says that? The game ended in a tie maybe? Who says we wanted a result? Well you got one, you lost! What the hell is showing pace? When was the last time you heard that on street? He's got speed or quickness, or even he broke hard for the ball.. maybe.

A table is something you eat your supper on and a fixture is either your sink or the old guy at the office that does nothing. Part of the furniture.

They are broadcasting a Canadian team to English speaking Canadians not trying out for the BBC.

[Keano]

I guess as a player growing up during the 80s my coaches were usually the dads of English or German kids that were on the team, so that's why those words have become the normal soccer words for a generation of fans who became fans by playing. I have no attachment to those words, just explaining why Forrest and DeVos are using them. I use them naturally about soccer too even though I also follow hockey closely and use the "other" language for that game.

[ted]

Better to go after the recent converts by speaking a language that more closely resembles what you hear in Canada (without overdoing the theft from hockey lingo, of course).

I guess we live in a different country. These are words I hear all the time in discussing soccer. It is an international language and frankly I like that it is different from hockey. Helps to keep things straight. "Fore-checking" tells me one story "pressing forward" tells me something else even if they are essentially the same.

[paul-collins]

I guess we live in a different country. These are words I hear all the time in discussing soccer. It is an international language and frankly I like that it is different from hockey. Helps to keep things straight. "Fore-checking" tells me one story "pressing forward" tells me something else even if they are essentially the same.

International? They use this slang in Holland?

If you mean it's a British Isles lingo I'd buy that. Of course you use that amongst your mates when discussing football. You're already converts. This lingo helps not at all in drawing in the newbie, and it's clear that the mothercorp needs the newbies.

I'm not advocating using hockey language, just toning down the more obvious slang to make it understandable to the recent converts and casual viewers. The hard core slang is impenetrable to the point of being exclusionary in the context of the broadcast.

[Guest Ed]

^ I'm on your side in this argument. How many times do I have to hear Nigel Reed say something about a game in a "fortnight's time". FFS, we are in NORTH AMERICA. It's two weeks man, not a Fort night???

[jonovision]

I think there's two things going on here:

1) The English language of the game: things like mark, pace, into touch, etc. I have no problem with this, but others might.

2) All these other British-isms that we have to put up with because execs think that a British voice lends some kind of authority to the broadcast. Which is garbage.

[ag futbol]

Yeah, and british-isms aside, Nigel Reed is really nothing special.

He can't even correctly identify the players on our own team half the time and he seems to know next to nothing about whoever we're playing. We can't just live in a TFC world where we play 15 some odd unknown teams with the exceptions of LA and RBNY where Nigel has done barely enough research to tell us what Henry, Donovan, and Beckham ate for breakfast yesterday.

As for the ratings, MLS is a product people bond with live but it's very hard to build an attraction to by simply watching TV. It's not exactly beautiful. Improving all the time though, as the quality of the product goes up over a number of years the ratings will come along.

[jonovision]

Yeah, and british-isms aside, Nigel Reed is really nothing special.

He can't even correctly identify the players on our own team half the time.

Good thing he's not working tonight, as Attakora, Gala, White and Ibrahim are all playing. He'd be lost.

[Trident]

I don't think calling tackles "checks" is right.

Fixtures/games=Interchangeable.

And you're acting like "draw" is some completely foreign, unused term. It's what me and all my family grew up with. And also the show, Win lose or Draw. Granted, it's a pun but still.

[argh1]

I don't think calling tackles "checks" is right.

Fixtures/games=Interchangeable.

And you're acting like "draw" is some completely foreign, unused term. It's what me and all my family grew up with. And also the show, Win lose or Draw. Granted, it's a pun but still.

I understand what you're saying, But they are not used by Joe Schmoo average Canadian in the way used in soccer.

Although not used much by TFC commentators CRACKING is used often by Brit commentators............was a sound made? Or he caught a knock...........did someone knock on his door? How do you catch one?

Many examples that leave the not so hardcore fan watching a game scratching his head. Bye line is another example.

I'm not saying that we can't figure the terms out, just sounds weird and turns a lot of potential viewers off.

But then again I grew up listening to Danny Gallivan calling the Habs who simply made up words Is candonating really a word.

Not that big a deal. But like I said a Canadian team broadcasting to a Canadian audience.

[paul-collins]

I don't think calling tackles "checks" is right.

Fixtures/games=Interchangeable.

And you're acting like "draw" is some completely foreign, unused term. It's what me and all my family grew up with. And also the show, Win lose or Draw. Granted, it's a pun but still.

Tackles have a North American meaning that is completely different from a soccer meaning, so can be very confusing to the newbie. I agree that checking is not a good substitute but given the inherent physical nature of American football tackling one could be forgiven for getting the nuances of clean versus dirty tackles mixed up.

Remember, in a North American context, you MUST filter it through an American football language POV - EVERYONE understands and watches football. Doubt me? Look at the TV ratings, the Bowl attendances, etc. (And since the OP is about TV ratings, we're not talking about the club of people who "get it" - we're talking about the potential audience, who don't - yet.)

My issue was not with the use of draw for an even-score result. My issue is with the word "tie" itself. What the hell is it - a home and home series, or a particular game, or what? And why fixtures instead of games or matches?

My feeling is, if you want to keep the club of people who "get it" small so you can feel included in your pub, fine - but understand the long term consequences of that inability to bridge the gap to a wider audience. We're a nation where everyone plays and nobody watches. Why is that? It's not like nobody likes the game itself - so it's got to be the packaging.

[Macksam]

CBC should get Bob Iarusci. He would be good for people who are not totally convinced by the sport.

[Richard]

I enjoy Nigel Reed's commentary, a refreshing and knowlegeable change from the trashy north American media approach to the game. As for the terminology he uses, it is pretty well ubiquitous in the English speaking world. Save us from an NHL hockey style lowest common denominator approach!

[paul-collins]

I enjoy Nigel Reed's commentary, a refreshing and knowlegeable change from the trashy north American media approach to the game. As for the terminology he uses, it is pretty well ubiquitous in the English speaking world. Save us from an NHL hockey style lowest common denominator approach!

Well, when this "English speaking world" begins to contribute to the CBC viewership, they can reinstitute the terminology.

[Trident]

I understand what you're saying, But they are not used by Joe Schmoo average Canadian in the way used in soccer.

Although not used much by TFC commentators CRACKING is used often by Brit commentators............was a sound made? Or he caught a knock...........did someone knock on his door? How do you catch one?

Many examples that leave the not so hardcore fan watching a game scratching his head. Bye line is another example.

I'm not saying that we can't figure the terms out, just sounds weird and turns a lot of potential viewers off.

But then again I grew up listening to Danny Gallivan calling the Habs who simply made up words Is candonating really a word.

Not that big a deal. But like I said a Canadian team broadcasting to a Canadian audience.

It doesnt really matter. Its not a necessity to pander to every person. We have a mix of half soccer terms and half north american ones, which is more than enough. We got rid of things like cracking and pace isnt used every time. But that doesnt mean we have to change everything, we've done enough to pander.

[paul-collins]

It doesnt really matter. Its not a necessity to pander to every person. We have a mix of half soccer terms and half north american ones, which is more than enough. We got rid of things like cracking and pace isnt used every time. But that doesnt mean we have to change everything, we've done enough to pander.

Here are the most-watched sports events on English-language television over the weekend, according to BBM Canada overnight ratings:

1. CFL, Blue Bombers at Tiger-Cats, Saturday, TSN: 858,000

2. CFL, Roughriders at Alouettes, Friday, TSN: 853,000

3. CFL, Stampeders at Lions, Saturday, TSN: 795,000

4. MLB, Rays at Blue Jays, Sunday, Sportsnets: 760,000

5. CFL, Argonauts at Eskimos, Friday, TSN: 649,000

6. MLB, Rays at Blue Jays, Saturday, Sportsnet: 493,000

7. Auto racing, NASCAR Sprint Cup, Sunday, TSN: 448,000

8. MLB, Rays at Blue Jays, Friday, Sportsnet: 446,000*

9. PGA, Bridgestone Invitational final round, Sunday, Global/CBS: 339,000

10. NFL, Bengals vs. Cowboys, Sunday, TSN: 305,000**

11. PGA, Bridgestone Invitational third round, Saturday, Global/CBS: 255,000

12. Auto racing, NASCAR Nationwide, Satuday, TSN: 182,000

13. MLB, Red Sox at Yankees, Sundady, TSN2: 164,000

14. MLS, Chivas at Toronto FC, Saturday, CBC: 134,000

Yes, clearly there's enough pandering going on.

I don't believe dumbing down is necessary, but I do think that being clear means being cognizant of the vernacular as spoken by your desired audience. Otherwise you're just preaching to the choir.

[Macksam]

I enjoy Nigel Reed's commentary, a refreshing and knowlegeable change from the trashy north American media approach to the game. As for the terminology he uses, it is pretty well ubiquitous in the English speaking world. Save us from an NHL hockey style lowest common denominator approach!

Bob Iarusci > Nigel Reed, and he's more knowlegeable of the sport. Also, I don't think NHL hockey uses a lowest common denominator approach so I think you're being pretentious.

[Grizzly]

I agree that it is irritating that North American broadcasters seem to feel it is necessary to have British commentary for soccer games and it perpetuates the stereotype that North Americans don't know anything about soccer. On the other hand some people in this thread are complaining about words like draw that are absolutely used in Canadian english and other words that are simply part of soccer vocabulary. Every sport has its own terms and suggesting that we come up with North American terms for things that non-soccer fans may not be familiar with is frankly ridiculous. All that being said, the accent of the commentary or the vocabulary used probably has a very minimal effect on viewership numbers.

What is effecting TFC viewership numbers negatively are a number of factors such as time of broadcast, age of the team and lack of market coverage. Most of their CBC broadcasts are on Saturday afternoons in the summer which is a pretty poor time for viewers and I think most of the games that have been listed with better viewership numbers also had a better tv time slot. Even more important, TFC is a regional team whose popularity doesn't extend much further than the greater Toronto area. TFC is neither loved nor hated by the average Canadian sports fan outside of Toronto. This has to do with both the team not existing for a long time (not marketed for decades like the Jays) and the league not having other teams in Canada. The CFL games listed for example all involve two Canadian markets thus doubling the regional interest in the game. Additionally, every CFL game effects the standings of the other teams so the game becomes interesting to fans of those teams. Fans of other teams are also just more inclined to watch games not involving their team because they are fans of the sport and the league. This will change when Vancouver and particularly Montreal (which will add a fierce rivalry that every Canadian will understand even if they are not soccer fans) enter MLS. Plus with other cities like Edmonton, Ottawa and Hamilton getting Div 2 teams, even the Voyageurs Cup rivalries should build interest in watching the Canadian MLS teams.

[MuirtonPark]

Getting back to the original theme, which was the TV viewership of TFC, one wonders if the spreading of coverage of Euro and S. American games has saturated the market. TSN2 has now joined in with EPL coverage (didn't notice any announcement or marketing of the product, it just seemed to happen), Setanta, GOL and FSC have Spain, Brazil, Germany and everything in between. All well produced shows. ESPN has MLS, which GOL carries, such as the Chivas game last night.

It takes a while for a new (to Canada) league to gain traction and keep viewers, especially with relevance only to the Toronto area, and I would not read too much into comparing numbers. Let's see how they look with Montreal and Vancouver games also being carried.

[paul-collins]

I agree that it is irritating that North American broadcasters seem to feel it is necessary to have British commentary for soccer games and it perpetuates the stereotype that North Americans don't know anything about soccer. On the other hand some people in this thread are complaining about words like draw that are absolutely used in Canadian english and other words that are simply part of soccer vocabulary. Every sport has its own terms and suggesting that we come up with North American terms for things that non-soccer fans may not be familiar with is frankly ridiculous. All that being said, the accent of the commentary or the vocabulary used probably has a very minimal effect on viewership numbers.

I don't think I was advocating creating a new vocabulary at all. What I was saying was that you have to factor in the audience you are trying to capture. Certain terms become very problematic when filtering through the existing-sport-knowledge base in North America. Some sensitivity is required about the need to do some preliminary translation or explanation. For example, "mark" is, in NA sports culture, more commonly denoted by "cover." Not nearly as elegant, but there you are.

Canadian football commentators used to call the "extra-point-after-touchdown" the "convert" but why use two syllables when you could use seven?

And, again, "draw" is not the issue. "Tie" is.

What is effecting TFC viewership numbers negatively are a number of factors such as time of broadcast, age of the team and lack of market coverage. Most of their CBC broadcasts are on Saturday afternoons in the summer which is a pretty poor time for viewers and I think most of the games that have been listed with better viewership numbers also had a better tv time slot.

Really? Is Saturday 1pm better than Saturday 4pm? Is Sunday 3pm better than Saturday 4pm?

Even more important, TFC is a regional team whose popularity doesn't extend much further than the greater Toronto area. TFC is neither loved nor hated by the average Canadian sports fan outside of Toronto. This has to do with both the team not existing for a long time (not marketed for decades like the Jays) and the league not having other teams in Canada. The CFL games listed for example all involve two Canadian markets thus doubling the regional interest in the game. Additionally, every CFL game effects the standings of the other teams so the game becomes interesting to fans of those teams. Fans of other teams are also just more inclined to watch games not involving their team because they are fans of the sport and the league. This will change when Vancouver and particularly Montreal (which will add a fierce rivalry that every Canadian will understand even if they are not soccer fans) enter MLS. Plus with other cities like Edmonton, Ottawa and Hamilton getting Div 2 teams, even the Voyageurs Cup rivalries should build interest in watching the Canadian MLS teams.

This is the most likely explanation for TFC broadcasts being poorly watched. People simply haven't even given it a thought because it's not perceived as a major league sport in NA and it's not locally available as a D2 or higher product for them to check out.

[Oldtimer]

I find this discussion a bit hard to swallow.

Everyone I know who watches soccer is familiar with most of the terms used in England, even Serie A fans. There might be the odd word here or there that feels unusual ("boots" vs. "cleats"), however, I doubt that using English vocabulary either improves or diminishes the game.

If we wanted to make it appeal to people who aren't familiar with the game, why not do things like the NASL and have the clock run down instead of up, have "penalty shootouts" instead of draws, and have a blue line for offsides? Oh wait... that didn't work.

I've watch enough bad announcing by US announcers for MLS matches who are more familiar with baseball and NFL. Nigel Reid may not sound "Canadian," but he's 1000% better than most of them.