SAINTS PRESERVE US
Game Over?
About 11 years ago I wandered into a pub in
Gloucester, U.K. The televised match was Chelsea playing Liverpool.
The joint was packed with smoking drinkers wearing red or blue, crawling
infants and madness. I hurried back to my hotel to rouse my brother from his
nap and join me. I said, ‘You’ve got to see this.’
I remember a mild September Sunday in Missoula, MT
in 2014. Ann and I were exploring the somewhat quaint downtown. We passed a pub
that might have been called the Black Hat, or maybe the Top Hat. The sidewalk
sandwich board outside the entrance had no specials to entice us, the chalk scrawl
simply read: ‘Bears – Packers: Nuff said.’ We went in. The jersey colours had
changed and there were neither children nor smoke but it was déjà vu all over
again.
Two different countries. Two different
decades. Two different sports pulling people into similar venues an ocean apart
because the game was on television. In its infancy television was like idly
complaining about the weather to a stranger waiting with you at your bus stop,
a great unifier because everybody watched the same show at the same time. There
was no choice until cable networks and specialty channels began to populate the
spectrum. Ted Turner’s concept of a 24-hour all news channel suddenly didn’t
seem so crazy, and his Atlanta
baseball club cultivated a national following as providers of 162 games of
content to his fledgling network. Our viewing habits were altered in one other
crucial way: an advance in home electronics enabled us to record broadcasts to
view on our own schedule and not a network’s, and glory be, we could
fast-forward through commercials.
As the medium fragmented like a jigsaw
puzzle swept off a tabletop, I came to agree with media buyers who posited that
pro sports in real time was an advertiser’s best televised bet. Even more so
with the enhanced picture of high-definition TV. True, this same digital
technology permitted a savvy fan to watch a game with a reality lag of a few
minutes allowing them to speed through commercials but most couch creatures are
as lazy as the rest of us and can’t be bothered to take the extra set-up step.
The beauty of the sports nut demographic is its wide-ranging skew, created and
nurtured in part by the calculated marketing efforts of the various leagues.
Beyond the realm of beer and trucks lay a dreamland littered with flushable
baby wipes and adult diapers.
Now it seems the lovingly arranged marriage
between television and pro sports might be headed for the rocks. Canadians are
well aware that Rogers Communications’ ownership of National Hockey League
telecasts is not paying off. Excuses are rife. Viewers didn’t warm to the
hipster host and his expert panel. Clubs north of 49 are not competitive. The
Sports Network’s Canadian Football League numbers are down but only because the
new rules result in a penalty flag on just about every play from scrimmage.
Shockingly, television ratings for the impervious monolith that is the National
Football League, the cartel that can play out its entire schedule in empty
stadiums because of network money, have dropped by double digits seven weeks
into its season. Its established stars are on the wane and its new ones take a
knee during the national anthem.
This year’s World Series is a modest
bucking of the overall and baseball’s own downward trend. Eyeball numbers have
almost, almost climbed back to the levels recorded in 2009. The boost makes a
fine argument for the merit of content. Television was not invented the last
time either championship contender won it all. Last night’s epic game seven
between Chicago and Cleveland could be a rare ratings bonanza. It requires
magic, mojo, juju and voodoo for two long suffering legacy franchises to become
good at the same time. Bloated professional sports leagues cannot engineer marquee
match-ups for their playoffs, let alone night after prime time night during
their interminable regular seasons. Yet they’ve all operated believing that we
would watch every game anyway, just in case. But something happened on the way
to the bank.
The cornerstone of any vibrant economy is
surplus. Surplus creates a supply which is then sold to meet a genuine demand
or one created by artifice, advertising, say. Either way, you never give away
your assets. There is an advertising corollary to this fundamental principle:
never, ever devalue the equity of your brand. In other words, don’t cheapen it.
The cola wars go way back. Around the time the Cleveland Indians last won the
World Series, you could buy a bottle of Coke for a nickel. You could also
instead buy a bottle of Pepsi with that same nickel and enjoy twice the amount of
cola. Coke never lowered the price of its product nor increased the volume of
its containers. The consumer could not help but conclude that Pepsi was an
inferior product even though it provided better value.
In our era, modern times, we are struggling
to make sense of the digitization of everything. Certain ramifications and
consequences are already apparent but nobody can fathom this disruption’s
ultimate angle of repose. It’s entirely possible nothing may ever settle. In my
last agency job we were proud to do work for a prestigious salty snack food
client. The company’s marketing manager was determined to get his brand into
the burgeoning social media conversation. He ignored friendly warnings that his
proposed action was something akin to solving the puzzle box in ‘Hellraiser.’ The
fellow was dismayed to discover that many of the consumers who bothered to
engage with his brand were uncomplimentary. And, gee, well, could the agency
address this negativity somehow and, rather awkwardly, gee, there was no budget
to correct a supposedly free marketing initiative gone awry that was, in
essence, an attempted end run around my employer’s services.
With these two lessons in mind, let us now
examine the television contraction of what was once the wide world of sports. Comprehensive
highlight packages began to clutter the airwaves in concert with the rise of
cable sports networks desperate to fill air time. The assumption of viewer
attraction was logical: results were newsworthy; fans would watch a compacted
version of what they’d already seen; fans would be curious about games
subjected to local blackouts or broadcast in other regions. Inadvertently we
were reprogrammed not to endure quarters, halves, periods, innings, time outs
and other delays in exchange for witnessing fleeting moments of heartbreak or
glory. Time shrunk, fans were no longer required to commit three hours of their
time to get the game story and the final score; we could catch the highlights
later. The actual games no longer mattered. Only die-hards, the core
constituency of any sport or club were motivated to watch meaningless games
play themselves out in their entirety.
The blind leagues only recognized the
exposure and the promotional potential of the highlight shows, the scene
setting for future games. Casual fans would watch the free trailer and pay to
see the film, no question. And then along came an unheralded rookie phenom called
the Internet. In their frenzy to establish a presence across all platforms the
big leagues effectively circumvented their traditional main squeeze, television,
by creating their own web sites and commissioning their own apps to show their
own highlights, craft their own narratives.
For the home viewer there used to be a cost
associated with sports fandom, whether it was a particular television package
or a few minutes’ attention for a few commercials. The diluted mini dramas are
free now and the peculiar paradox is that there are now more ways than ever to not
watch a complete game without turning on the television. And this disconnect,
this disruption, has been inadvertently perpetuated by enterprises whose sole
goal is to keep us glued to our sets on behalf of their sponsors and partners
by providing a form of unscripted entertainment.