PDA

View Full Version : Ratings?


ktwtennis
Jul 6th, 2005, 12:22 AM
Does anyone know the numbers for the finals (men and women)?

goldenlox
Jul 6th, 2005, 03:19 PM
USAtoday.com says the final got a 4.0 in the U.S., up 3%
The men's final got a 2.5, down 31 %.

tennisbum79
Jul 6th, 2005, 03:53 PM
USAtoday.com says the final got a 4.0 in the U.S., up 3%
The men's final got a 2.5, down 31 %.

That is why Lindsay, Venus and others who are calling for parity in prize money allocation have a strong point.
In the past, the Grand Slam organizers have always said men deserve more because more viewers watch men tennis than womens tennis.
These number show it is no longer the case.

Right now, the women have more a variety of personalities, generating more interest in the women matches.

Wehre else can you find intringuing matches such as these

Cream of of the cop Match Up
Serena vs Any Player
Venus vs Any Player
Maria vs Aby Player
Vera vs Any Player
Big Babes Hitting
Davenport vs Serena
Davenport Venus
Davenport Maria
Davenport Mauresmo
Davenport vs Kim
Intriguing Encounters
Mauresmo vs Serena
Mauresmo vs Venus
Mauremso vs Maria
Conchita M vs Patty S
Myskian vs Lena D
Uneven/Even Contest
JHH vs Venus
JHH vs Serena
JHH vs Maria
JHH vs Davenport
JHH vs Kim
Nerves Match UP
Kim vs Venus
Kim vs Serena
Kim vs Davenport
Kim vs Maria
Kim vs Mauresmo
Lena D vs Mauresmo
Kim vs JHH
Others Intriguing
Nadia vs Mary
Nadia vs Conhita
Nadia vs Venus
Maria vs Any top 10 Russian

Veenut
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:08 PM
USAtoday.com says the final got a 4.0 in the U.S., up 3%
The men's final got a 2.5, down 31 %.

I could have predicted that. A Williams match, even in doubles always draw better ratings. :worship:

That is why I can't understand why the tennis establishment doesn't recognize the prize players the have in the sisters. On the other hand, the golf establishment idolize Tiger. I've never heard any commentator say anything negative about him even when he was struggling. They realized his importance to their sport and they appreciate him. I'm sure women's golf would have given anything to have one star like Willliams much less two.

I guess you don't know how valuable someone is until you loose them!!!

tennisbum79
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:16 PM
I could have predicted that. A Williams match, even in doubles always draw better ratings. :worship:

That is why I can't understand why the tennis establishment doesn't recognize the prize players the have in the sisters. On the other hand, the golf establishment idolize Tiger. I've never heard any commentator say anything negative about him even when he was struggling. They realized his importance to their sport and they appreciate him. I'm sure women's golf would have given anything to have one star like Willliams much less two.

I guess you don't know how valuable someone is until you loose them!!!

You are right. Tiger is like a cash cow to golf.
Not only they do not criticize Tiger, they go back to history glory days and
show the matches where he dominated.

In addition, they have all kinds of Tiger specials.
Tiger Best Finishes, Tiger Best Come Fro Behind, Tiger At The Major,
Tiger At The US Open, and on and on

miranda_lou
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:18 PM
These numbers are for the United States, not the world.:rolleyes: Television ratings in the U.S. have nothing to do with how much prize money is paid to the women or men.

Besides, TV ratings for tennis in the U.S. are below the ratings for bowling!! or cheerleading!!:lol: Maybe those people should be paid more money than tennis players.:lol: :tape:

miranda_lou
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:23 PM
Tiger Woods gets loads of criticism . . . most of it undeserved!!!

In fact, when he wasn't winning and dropped from the #1 spot, the criticism was awful. I don't know where your information is coming from. You must not read the sport pages. Reporters were saying the same thing about him that they are saying about Serena . . . no dedication; bored with golf; out of shape; not concentrating because of his fiancee/wife. Tiger was not spared, believe me.

He never doubted himself though and that's what counts.:wavey:

ico4498
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:27 PM
Television ratings in the U.S. have nothing to do with how much prize money is paid to the women or men.

it does.

tennisbum79
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:32 PM
These numbers are for the United States, not the world.:rolleyes: Television ratings in the U.S. have nothing to do with how much prize money is paid to the women or men.

Besides, TV ratings for tennis in the U.S. are below the ratings for bowling!! or cheerleading!!:lol: Maybe those people should be paid more money than tennis players.:lol: :tape:

While you are right that the numbers are in the US, not England, it does not negate the point that women tennis has more viewership than men tennis.


Second, I have to see hard numbers supporting the fact that bowling has more viewers than tennis. Did you just make that up?
Keep in mind, this is not a contest between bowling and tennis, rather it is between men tennis and women tennis.

lizchris
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:39 PM
I am not surprised by the wome's numbers, but I am surprised by the men's numbers, since an American was the runner-up.
BTW, I doubt that bowling and cheerleading have better numbers than tennis, but who knows?

miranda_lou
Jul 6th, 2005, 04:51 PM
On ESPN, the PBA (Professional Bowling Tour) usually gets ratings in the 3 to 4 range, on average, each time it's on. It's a very popular sport. (I just threw in the cheerleading.:lol: )

Tennis only gets a 4.0 when Venus, Serena or Andre are in the finals. So, the 4 rating for the womens' final is not surprising. Also, Andy Roddick, despite the hype, is not nearly as popular as Agassi.

franny
Jul 6th, 2005, 06:22 PM
Wtf, Bowling? That is ludicrous to think that that many people are willing to watch it. But, these "numbers," don't they merely represent the percentage of all households currently watching television that is watching the program? So a 4 rating means that out of 100,000 households, 4% were watching tennis right? So then doesn't the rating vary with timeslots? For example, for a primetime program, the audience is much greater and vast. A program that drew 28% means that for every 1 million households, 28% of households may have watched the program. But a program, like bowling which usually comes on at 2 pm, getting a 4 means that 4% out of only maybe 10,000 households watched that program. So what I'm saying is if we were to compare shows in different timeslots, I think we need more hard numbers, such as exactly how many people watched in order to compare them. I doubt that there would be as much viewers at 2 p.m on a weekday when everyone is at work than at 9 am on a saturday morning where everyone is just waking up and getting ready for their day off. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. I may be, I'm just basing this on what I've heard and read about the neilson ratings.

Veenut
Jul 6th, 2005, 06:44 PM
Tiger Woods gets loads of criticism . . . most of it undeserved!!!

In fact, when he wasn't winning and dropped from the #1 spot, the criticism was awful. I don't know where your information is coming from. You must not read the sport pages. Reporters were saying the same thing about him that they are saying about Serena . . . no dedication; bored with golf; out of shape; not concentrating because of his fiancee/wife. Tiger was not spared, believe me.

He never doubted himself though and that's what counts.:wavey:

You missed my point. My contention is not with the so called "sport's writers" and talking heads, I was referring to the "golf establishment" I watch when Tiger plays and I can't recall ever hearing a commentator make any such comments. Yes I do hear them on the sport talk shows but never on commentary. They stick to his stats, playing motions and style and deservingly praise him when he makes brilliant shots. They always want him to do well every time he steps on the course. That is the difference I'm talking about.

tennisbum79
Jul 6th, 2005, 06:49 PM
You missed my point. My contention is not with the so called "sport's writers" and talking heads, I was referring to the "golf establishment" I watch when Tiger plays and I can't recall ever hearing a commentator make any such comments. Yes I do hear them on the sport talk shows but never on commentary. They stick to his stats, playing motions and style and deservingly praise him when he makes brilliant shots. They always want him to do well every time he steps on the course. That is the difference I'm talking about.

Excelent point.:bounce:

faboozadoo15
Jul 6th, 2005, 06:55 PM
the women's final being up 3% has a lot to do with how long it was compared to last year.

the men's final with andy and federer should not have gone down 31%, but it was a much shorter and easier match that took up less time on the telecast. remember last year there were rain delays that push the match into more viewer friendly times of the day.

Veenut
Jul 6th, 2005, 06:55 PM
These numbers are for the United States, not the world.:rolleyes: Television ratings in the U.S. have nothing to do with how much prize money is paid to the women or men.

Besides, TV ratings for tennis in the U.S. are below the ratings for bowling!! or cheerleading!!:lol: Maybe those people should be paid more money than tennis players.:lol: :tape:

I fail to see the relevance of your comments to what is being discussed. In case you missed it we were actually talking about the tv ratings for the women's and men's tennis matches in the US. :rolleyes:

I don't understand why people get so upset about ratings in the US as to the world. Quite frankly, for those who wish to know the world's viewership ratings let them go research it and post I don't care. Good numbers in the US is important to me because then, I'll get to see more tennis in the US. Good numbers equal more ad revenue which in turn allows you to see tennis. Therefore your comments don't make sense to me.

miranda_lou
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:02 PM
A "ratings point" (Nielsen) represents 985,000 people. So, a "4.0" is 4 X 985,000 people. So, that's how many people watched the womens' final.

Calimero377
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:07 PM
You are right. Tiger is like a cash cow to golf.
Not only they do not criticize Tiger, they go back to history glory days and
show the matches where he dominated.

In addition, they have all kinds of Tiger specials.
Tiger Best Finishes, Tiger Best Come Fro Behind, Tiger At The Major,
Tiger At The US Open, and on and on



And Apple even named their new operating system after him!
:worship:

ico4498
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:16 PM
the PBA released ratings are somewhat south of miranda_lou's figures.

average PBA viewership 741,000.
the four PBA majors averaged 832,000 or about a .98 tv rating.

http://www.pba.com/file_upload/pressroom/PBA_Facts.pdf

goldenlox
Jul 6th, 2005, 07:46 PM
"It's kind of a second-tier sport here," said Tampa's Mardy Fish, a silver medalist at the 2004 Olympics. "When we leave the country, everywhere else (tennis) is so big and popular and every match is on TV. (In the United States) they have Wimbledon right now on ESPN2 and ESPN Classic. Wimbledon can't even get on normal ESPN. To me, that's kind of a joke because I know a lot of people who don't have those stations. Or a lot of hotels.

"During the Davis Cup in March, I went to Indian Wells (Calif.) and I couldn't even watch the last match. It was on ESPN Classic and we didn't get that one."

What happened to tennis, where does it stand today and will it ever recapture the American attention? None of these questions is easily answered, though many within the sport have theories.

From this article - http://www.sptimes.com/2005/06/19/Sports/Can_tennis_get_a_seco.shtml

miranda_lou
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:04 PM
You missed my point. My contention is not with the so called "sport's writers" and talking heads, I was referring to the "golf establishment" I watch when Tiger plays and I can't recall ever hearing a commentator make any such comments. Yes I do hear them on the sport talk shows but never on commentary. They stick to his stats, playing motions and style and deservingly praise him when he makes brilliant shots. They always want him to do well every time he steps on the course. That is the difference I'm talking about.

Maybe I did miss your point. I agree that the commentators don't criticize Tiger while he's playing. BUT, some of the "in studio" talking heads do criticize him. However, not nearly as often as the tennis commentators seem criticize tennis players. So, I do agree with you.:kiss:

I fail to see the relevance of your comments to what is being discussed. In case you missed it we were actually talking about the tv ratings for the women's and men's tennis matches in the US

My point was in response to this:

That is why Lindsay, Venus and others who are calling for parity in prize money allocation have a strong point.
In the past, the Grand Slam organizers have always said men deserve more because more viewers watch men tennis than womens tennis.
These number show it is no longer the case.


This post had to have been referring to Wimbledon and the French Open (outside the U.S.) because prize money is equal at the U.S. Open. Also, outside the U.S., the men are still more popular than the women. All you have to do is look in the stands during a womens' match. The stands are only full during the semis and finals while the stands are almost always completely full for the men at every match.

So, I repeat, I don't understand what the TV ratings in the U.S. have to do with how much money the women get at GS tournaments.:angel: :kiss:

twight6
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:04 PM
according to www.wimbledon.org there were 562 million homes watching the coverage across 167 countries (during the entire tournament, men and women)

franny
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:58 PM
Maybe I did miss your point. I agree that the commentators don't criticize Tiger while he's playing. BUT, some of the "in studio" talking heads do criticize him. However, not nearly as often as the tennis commentators seem criticize tennis players. So, I do agree with you.:kiss:



My point was in response to this:



This post had to have been referring to Wimbledon and the French Open (outside the U.S.) because prize money is equal at the U.S. Open. Also, outside the U.S., the men are still more popular than the women. All you have to do is look in the stands during a womens' match. The stands are only full during the semis and finals while the stands are almost always completely full for the men at every match.

So, I repeat, I don't understand what the TV ratings in the U.S. have to do with how much money the women get at GS tournaments.:angel: :kiss:

Because one of the main justification of why Wimbledon aren't giving Women equal prize money is that men draws in better ratings. That has been used over and over again. However, this totally disproves that justification. You know how like in an argument, one side gives an argument, the other side gives a counterargument, and then the original side gives a refutation. So, let me outline the argument for you.

Argument (Wta Tour): The women deserves equal prize money because the quality of tennis is just as high as the men's.
Counterargument (Wimbledon): The women do not deserve equal prize money because they aren't as popular as the men. They don't help Wimbledon draw in the same amount of viewership and sponsorship and don't pull in the t.v ratings as well as the men's game does.
Refutation: Well, this year, the women's rating was 4.0, considerably higher than the men's rating, which was a mere 2.5%.

Hope that helps.

ico4498
Jul 6th, 2005, 08:59 PM
So, I repeat, I don't understand what the TV ratings in the U.S. have to do with how much money the women get at GS tournaments.

you're backtracking so fast you should spell your username backwards.

the broadcast rights are sold, viewership determines the price. more folks watching in the US improves profitability.

franny
Jul 6th, 2005, 09:04 PM
the PBA released ratings are somewhat south of miranda_lou's figures.

average PBA viewership 741,000.
the four PBA majors averaged 832,000 or about a .98 tv rating.

http://www.pba.com/file_upload/pressroom/PBA_Facts.pdf

Thank you for that. I had such a hard time believing that bowling had more viewers than tennis.

Veenut
Jul 6th, 2005, 10:21 PM
the broadcast rights are sold, viewership determines the price. more folks watching in the US improves profitability.

Like how you are succinct here. :D I hope people get if they are tennis fans, that the more people watch the better for the sport. This is just how corporate America works and we have to accept it.

venusfan
Jul 6th, 2005, 10:41 PM
These numbers are for the United States, not the world.:rolleyes: Television ratings in the U.S. have nothing to do with how much prize money is paid to the women or men.


It Does...