Williams TV ratings - TennisForum.com
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 9th, 2002, 04:22 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tennischick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: cerca de aquí
Posts: 5,730
                     
Question Williams TV ratings

according to www.tennisone.com

Quote:
So are the Williams Sisters good for tennis?

Don't ask the American TV people. They can't figure it out.

Overnight reports on the women's semis are that the TV ratings are up slightly from last year -- but way, way down from 1999, the first year both Williams Sisters made the semifinals.

Last edited by tennischick; Sep 9th, 2002 at 04:30 PM.
tennischick is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 9th, 2002, 05:53 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 136
 
More crap. Last year everyone was falling over themselves because of the high ratings. This year according to what you wrote the ratings were EVEN HIGHER. If the ratings are down from 99, last year's ratings would have been down from 99 also. Sowhereis the news and where is the so-called American ambivalence? They watched more this year than last.

And why is everything in terms of whether the WS are good for tennis. When Steffi and Martina dominated, did people judge ever rating as whether or not they were good for tennis. They get no credit when the WTA does well but all the blame when it does poorly. Women's tennis is more popular now then it has ever been and that can be traced back to the emergence of the Sisters.
midora is offline  
post #3 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 9th, 2002, 06:39 PM
Plainclothes Division
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South Park, CO
Posts: 6,323
                     
IIRC, (and I'd have to check my notes to be sure), the 1999 semis also spilled over into prime time because of rain delays. That gives the ratings a boost. I expect yesterday's final would likewise get a similar boost over what the ratings would otherwise have been.

Keep in mind this is the same writer who suggested the success of American players was hurting the tour in Europe because the attendance average "per tournament" was down from the year before. Well, no sh*t! The tour added a handful of tournaments. They weren't Tier I or II events, but lower tier events, which tend to draw about 1/3 the fans of a primary event. Of course the overall "per tournament" average goes down. You don't need my degrees to figure that out. Gradeschool math is enough.
Brian Stewart is offline  
post #4 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 9th, 2002, 06:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,722
                     
Last year, everyone raved about the ratings for the FINALS. This year, the ratings for the semis are up. Finals will generally have higher ratings than semis. You can't compare them in a linear fashion.

Proud to be an American
Not blind. Not uninformed. We are party to atrocities. But the response of the world after 9/11 is worth noting. Even our most dire enemies offered aid. We should all be so lucky.
Volcana is offline  
post #5 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 9th, 2002, 08:36 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 238
 
Well, were is the rating for the finals.
Roseie is offline  
post #6 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 9th, 2002, 11:06 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tennischick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: cerca de aquí
Posts: 5,730
                     
Quote:
Originally posted by Volcana
Last year, everyone raved about the ratings for the FINALS. This year, the ratings for the semis are up. Finals will generally have higher ratings than semis. You can't compare them in a linear fashion.
this is interesting. were the ratings for the semis better than the finals? does anyone know? if the semis ratings improved, it suggests that viewers are seeing them as the equivalent of two finals matches. which is what Tennispower has been saying all along, interestingly.
tennischick is offline  
post #7 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 10th, 2002, 12:42 AM
Plainclothes Division
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South Park, CO
Posts: 6,323
                     
The finals drew a 7.2. Much higher than the semis. As a general rule, finals outdraw semis within the same discipline (women's singles, men's singles, women's doubles, etc.) Especially at slams, where you're looking at a weekend afternoon vs a weekday afternoon.
Brian Stewart is offline  
post #8 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 10th, 2002, 03:10 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tennischick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: cerca de aquí
Posts: 5,730
                     
thanks Brian. i know that generally finals are rated higher. i was wondering by how much the ratings had increased foe the semis (which is still significant IMO) and whether perchance they had approximated or surpassed the finals which would also have been interesting. thanks for indirectly clearing it up.

"For now, Roddick seems to play with the intelligence of a fence post."
Greg Couch, Chicago Sun Times
tennischick is offline  
post #9 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 10th, 2002, 03:18 AM
Senior Member
 
lizchris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Bergen County
Posts: 20,943
                     
Question

Were these the ratings for the Williams final of the Sampras/Agassi final?
lizchris is offline  
post #10 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 10th, 2002, 03:19 AM
Sunset, Moonrise, Winter
 
Sam L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Shangri-La
Posts: 35,387
                     
Call me crazy if you want, and this is more a question rather than a comment, but would longer matches rate higher than shorter matches? I'm just wondering cause wouldn't longer matches give the opportunity for MORE viewers to tune in?

That would explain why the semis might rate higher than the final which was only a little over an hour.

Also the 99 semis were very long matches.

Light of the Seven: Himalayas, Gobi, Baikal, Taiga, Steppe, Alps, Aurora
Sam L is offline  
post #11 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 10th, 2002, 03:32 AM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
tennischick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: cerca de aquí
Posts: 5,730
                     
longer matches might get viewers bored. as it is the ATP keeps experimenting with ways to hold viewership -- like those silly cutaways to interview some star in the crowd. all of those antics are designed to hold on to the viewing audience. longer matches would be terrific for tennis nuts like you and i, but your average Joe may not enjoy that at all. interesting idea tho'...

"For now, Roddick seems to play with the intelligence of a fence post."
Greg Couch, Chicago Sun Times
tennischick is offline  
post #12 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 10th, 2002, 04:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 238
 
OK, 7.2 for the finals. Is this higher than last year, or lower. I know they said last year over 23 million watched, but what % was that. How many millions watched this year.
Roseie is offline  
post #13 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 11th, 2002, 04:07 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Hollywood and other classified areas
Posts: 7,125
                     
Thread starter is just looking for a way to chop at the pedestal of the WILLIAMS' success by insinuating that not many people watched the final.

The proof is in the pudding, if CBS drops the prime time final back to a nooner, then we we be assured that the ratings are not at a level that the network demed to be highly profitable.

And let us see if the men's final is then moved to that prestigeous time spot next year.

Tee Rexx
Chairman, Williams Tennis Association
Tennis is a game ... Have fun with it!
TeeRexx is offline  
post #14 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 11th, 2002, 09:10 PM
Plainclothes Division
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South Park, CO
Posts: 6,323
                     
The 7.2 is for the women's final. And, yes, longer matches do draw more viewers in the sense of if they fill out the possible sets alloted, instead of adding sets. In other words, going to a 3rd set in a best of 3 will boost ratings, where it's not necessarily the case if the extra set was because you had switched to a best of 5.

Speculation: had they gone to a 3rd set, it probably would have further boosted that number by 50%.
Brian Stewart is offline  
post #15 of 18 (permalink) Old Sep 12th, 2002, 01:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In an Iglo in Canada
Posts: 4,404
                     
I believe the men's final got higher ratings then the women's because everybody turned in to watch 60 minutes, and then there was the final, so the viewers waited for tennis to be over to watch the show, therefore causing higher ratings.

It's like if u put someone before the World Cup or Super Bowl and it lasts longer then expected, u are going to get good ratings because the people will be waiting to see the World Cup , SuperBowl...whatever
CanadianBoy21 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome