Super Bowl ratings drop 39% nearly equal TSN numbers for GC

Hilarious. All I can say. Hilarious :rockin: where's all the trolls now?

In Canada...sure...but it was still a record setter.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/02/06/super-bowl-ratings-4/
Super Bowl LI was seen by 113.7 million viewers, according to Nielsen ratings provided by Fox Sports. That includes the Fox telecast and 1.7 million streaming viewers plus an additional 650,000 from a Spanish-language simulcast on Fox Deportes.

The tally is up slightly from last year, marking a turnaround after 2016’s dip in the ratings. If you only count Fox linear viewership, the ratings just about tie last year.

Super Bowl ratings climbed every year from 2005’s game (86 million viewers) to 2012 (111.3 million viewers) before dipping in 2013 (108.7 million). Then 2014 (112.2 million) and 2015 (114.4 million) continued the upward march. Last year, ratings fell back to 111.9 million.


Statement is that is the 2nd highest domestic viewership ever, and highest international. [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_TV_ratings]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_S ... TV_ratings[/url]

yes, they dropped in 39 points Canada, but considering it was the 2nd highest domestic ever and highest international ever, I am sure they are fine with it. Piles of ammo here to combat the commercial controversy. record numbers, yet Canada drops....seems the NFL has some serious artillery in regards to this matter now.

Hmm - does posting that 1,010,000 average viewers (a record) watched the game on RDS - some 756,000 more than watched the Grey Cup on RDS make me a troll? :stuck_out_tongue:

[url=http://www.bellmedia.ca/fr/sp/presse/un-record-de-1-010-000-telespectateurs-pour-le-super-bowl-li-sur-rds/]http://www.bellmedia.ca/fr/sp/presse/un ... i-sur-rds/[/url]

Such a great RDS number does have me wondering just how high the total viewership in Canada would be if we included the millions who watched on Fox. Over 5.57 million even without them.

And it has me wondering Pat what the G.C numbers would be if the game was on CTV , TSN and RDS , and on CBC ( like the old days )guess we will never know.

I’ve been saying for years the Grey Cup is losing viewers - potentially a significant number - by not being on CTV.

Could you imagine how much it would have dropped without the $300,000 giveaway!!! :rockin:

That’s a fallacy with your unsupported Fox suggestions.
I do agree and have been saying for years how it makes no sense to have the CFL on TSN only or at least not on CTV for the playoffs and GC.
Could it be a conspiracy by the ad agencies to purposely keep the value of the CFL property well below the No Funners?

Hmm - thrilling overtime game, ratings up slightly in the USA, ratings up on RDS. Even if you wanted to argue flat ratings (no increase) in viewership in English Canada - that would still mean about 2.8 million Canadians watching on Fox.

I don't like the NFL's overtime format. They might as well just give the win to the team that wins the coin toss.
The CFL has a better overtime format. You can't deny the 104th Grey Cup was a thriller. :rockin:
Cheers

or...taking off the tinfoil hat...understanding that TSN has the TV deal...subsidiary or not. That maybe just maybe they recognize that keeping it all on TSN helps sell TSN as opposed to the Super Bowl that they have too much competition to so keep it on the main network. Bell wants to see CFL do well...but selling subscriptions to TSN is more important to them. If the CFL wants ratings then that is on them to negotiate something next go around.

The RDS numbers are huge again this year - 1.2 MILLION viewers on a sports channel that you have to subscribe to -
6 million people in French Canada and 1.2 million watched the Super Bowl? RDS had 180k watchedd the GC - that's probably a record for RDS. Kind of proves that you don't have to broadcast the GC on the main non-sports network to get great ratings.

According to Numeris we will never know the actual Super Bowl ratings in Canada because they did not track the Fox viewers in Canada, if you assume that many Canadians wanted to watch the US ads there could have been another 10 million watching on Fox.

TSN didn't have a deal to show the Superbowl, but hey, there it was! Funny how that works when you're all owned by the same corporation.

That maybe just maybe they recognize that keeping it all on TSN helps sell TSN
Why would CFL fans care about selling TSN? CFL fans care about selling the CFL, and banishing it to a declining subscription only cable network is not helping to do that. There's a reason why the numbers were better years ago than they are today.
as opposed to the Super Bowl that they have too much competition to so keep it on the main network.
The Superbowl is on the main network so they can simsub it, as simsubs are not allowed on specialty sports channels. Of course, they couldn't simsub it this year thanks to the CRTC, and their ratings tanked as a result.
Bell wants to see CFL do well...but selling subscriptions to TSN is more important to them. If the CFL wants ratings then that is on them to negotiate something next go around.
Yep. CFL is getting a raw deal from Bell's treatment and should shop around next time.

Of course simsubs are allowed on specialty sports channels. All of the NFL games shown on Sundays on TSN/TSN2 & RDS were US broadcasts with Canadian TSN ads!! The Sportsnet Thursday night football was a simsub with Cdn ads.
Also the Jays wild card and all of the playoffs on Sportsnet were simsub.

Should the CFL get a better deal from Bell? probably - look at the NHL contract that TSN has, they broadcast Senators hockey and the Senators get more money than all of the CFL teams combined and TSN broadcasts less games.
Is it based on TV ratings? not sure anymore. Is it because more millenials that drive advertisers are watching other sports?
I don't know where the CFL could shop around next time. The specialty sports channels have to fill up air tie and the main networks are moving away from sports, that's one reason why CTV set up TSN.
The only other option is one of the Sportsnet channels. The main network would be showing 180 Jays games but it could go on Sportsnet 360. But TSN would likely try to hang on to the CFL, they have limited non-Blue Jays baseball, and the Sunday afternoon NFL games.

That's not a simsub. If you're watching TSN, it's not a simsub by definition. A simsub (aka: Simultaneous Substitution) is when you watch an American channel and get the Canadian channel instead. Last year, people going to Fox got the CTV Superbowl broadcast(which is really the Fox broadcast with Canadian ads). THAT is a simsub. This year they got the Fox broadcast (with American ads), because a simsub wasn't allowed. In order to get the CTV version, you had to watch CTV/CTV2/TSN.

As of CRTC decision 2015-25, paragraph 18, simsubs are only allowed for content carried on local OTA stations (aka: not TSN):

In light of the above and despite certain reservations, the Commission will continue to allow the practice of simultaneous substitution for local over-the-air stations for the time being as an exception to the general requirement that distributors shall not alter the content or format of a programming service or delete a programming service. As noted in Broadcasting Regulatory Policy 2015-24, the Commission will also continue to require conventional television licensees to maintain an over-the-air presence in order to retain the right to request simultaneous substitution. [b][i]However, the Commission is of the view that BDUs should no longer be allowed to provide simultaneous substitution for specialty services and will amend the Regulations accordingly. This will contain simultaneous substitution to a narrow area of application, namely over-the-air signals.[/i][/b]
Also the Jays wild card and all of the playoffs on Sportsnet were simsub.
No they weren't. They're a rebroadcast.
Should the CFL get a better deal from Bell? probably - look at the NHL contract that TSN has, they broadcast Senators hockey and the Senators get more money than all of the CFL teams combined and TSN broadcasts less games. Is it based on TV ratings? not sure anymore. Is it because more millenials that drive advertisers are watching other sports?
If that's the case, the CFL should do fine. Millenial numbers are on the rise.
I don't know where the CFL could shop around next time. The specialty sports channels have to fill up air tie and the main networks are moving away from sports, that's one reason why CTV set up TSN.
... what? TSN was founded by Labatt in 1984. CTV didn't enter the picture until 2000, and even then it was only after ESPN blocked an attempt to sell to Canwest. Bell then bought both of them.

There are a limited number of options, but they should insist some games be on a wider network than the shrinking TSN. You can't grow the audience if you can't reach it, and TSN's reach has been shrinking for several years (a trend which will not change this year). They don't even offer an online subscription to make an attempt to reach cord cutters.

The plan is to try and get CFL fans to not cut the cord in order to keep TSN, which is good for TSN. It's not good for the CFL, and the league needs to demand better next time.

Great points Tridus you are very well informed now if people would actually read your clear and precise post backed up with actual facts it would be great for the those who preach what your posting . CFL needs a bigger platform than just TSN purchased on cable or sat . It's the CFL I am a fan of not TSN .

It is the [b]greater platform that CTV provides [/b]which the CFL[u] needs [/u]especially for the biggest ad for it's season the Grey CUP and the Division Finals which is placed in the inferior scope of TSN that regulates OUR league as a secondary tenant in our own country .

Yeesh, It wasn’t until TSN got the CFL TV rights, that every game was televised.
Now people complain when a pre season game isn’t televised! :roll:
TSN has been fantastic for our League!

I think your missing the point of the Grey Cup being played on a specialty channel when CTV the mother ship is quite capable of making a 6:30 pm start on a Sunday in November to expand the base .

Also time changes everything which was once state of the art is now irrelevant . CFL is always a step behind and having every game on now is much easier today than yesterday . Those who don't adapt get left behind . CFL whether it's licensing it's product , providing a video game , expansion within Canada or taking advantage of their greatest ADVERTISEMENT for the entire season the Grey Cup is always behind the times . TSN has been a good partner but are fading and failing in bringing in new viewers .

No matter how the NFL apologists try to sugar-coat it, 39% fewer English Canadians watched CTV's Super Bowl broadcast, despite the game be carried on multiple networks (CTV1, CTV2 and TSN) this year.

I'm sure if Bell "pulled out all the stops" and televised the Grey Cup on CTV1, CTV2, TSN and gave away $300,000 and lavish trips, the Grey Cup ratings would easily top 5 million, plus another 1 million francophone viewers if the Alouette's were playing.

It's time for Canadian mega-corporations to step up and support/promote Canada's No. 1 football league and leave all the over-the-top NFL trumping to the Americans. :expressionless:

Until someone points me to numbers showing how many Canadians watched the Super Bowl on Fox channels as well as on CTV, I won't believe viewership dropped by anything close to 39%. There is no question that many Canadians were eager to watch the U.S. broadcast and see (for the first time) the expensive commercials produced just for Super Bowl. No wonder CTV was offering big cash prizes as inducements to have viewers stay tuned to CTV during the game.

Bell got royally screwed by the CRTC allowing the end of simultaneous substitution just for this one event. If CTV's viewership was really down 39%, that loss can be attributed solely to the CRTC ruling. I expect Bell will win a court battle over this at some point and will be given some type of reparation to make up for the lost ad revenue.

Would agree with the first part of this comment…SB viewers simply watched the game from different suppliers than they had in past years. The actual number of viewers of the SB in Canada was likely in line with previous years. And while the CRTC simsub decision was the motivator, I’m not seeing how, in the bigger picture, Bell got “screwed” by the CRTC. The issue of the US commercials during the SB has been a very public topic for quite a number of years now and with the changing landscape of TV delivery, the number of public complaints has risen along with it. The CRTC had to do something to respond to complaints and threw the public a small bone (in game only spots, pre and post were the usual simsub pattern as the A&W/C. Tire et al spots that we’ve seen a thousand times started again the second the final gun went) in the big scheme of things.

Did Bell lose revs due to this ruling? Yes, of course. But they’ve known it was coming for what, two years? And the four hours of game time is a tiny fraction of their yearly inventory, which is still protected by simsub so the real affect to Bell’s P&L is minimal…and certainly not a factor in their staff layoffs last week as they tried to justify.

Bell should stop whining and be thankful the simsub policy will protect their revs on the other 99.9999% of their inventory for years to come…even in the face of a changing media landscape.