View Full Version : Williams TV ratings

Sep 9th, 2002, 03:22 PM
according to www.tennisone.com

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.

Sep 9th, 2002, 04:53 PM
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.

Brian Stewart
Sep 9th, 2002, 05:39 PM
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.

Sep 9th, 2002, 05:50 PM
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.

Sep 9th, 2002, 07:36 PM
Well, were is the rating for the finals.

Sep 9th, 2002, 10:06 PM
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.

Brian Stewart
Sep 9th, 2002, 11:42 PM
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.

Sep 10th, 2002, 02:10 AM
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. ;)

Sep 10th, 2002, 02:18 AM
Were these the ratings for the Williams final of the Sampras/Agassi final?

Sam L
Sep 10th, 2002, 02:19 AM
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? :confused: 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.

Sep 10th, 2002, 02:32 AM
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'...;) ;)

Sep 10th, 2002, 03:32 AM
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.

Sep 11th, 2002, 03:07 AM
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.

Brian Stewart
Sep 11th, 2002, 08:10 PM
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%.

Sep 12th, 2002, 12:59 AM
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

Sep 12th, 2002, 01:26 AM
In a surprise to those who believe that the Williams sisters are tennis's only hope, at least with regard to television ratings, consider this: the Sampras-Agassi match produced a 7.9 overnight Nielsen rating, up 44 percent from last year. It was the highest-rated men's final since 1990 when Sampras beat Agassi. By comparison, the women's final rated a 7.2. Each overnight rating point equals 717,310 TV households.

new york times

there is an interesting analysis over both finals made by McEnroe and carrillo posted in the ATPworld forum and released by New York Times. just take a glance ;)

Sep 12th, 2002, 04:19 AM
Great. Now if only Sampras and Agassi could enter a time machine and turn the clock back to 1990, men's tennis would beat Women's tennis every time. If those are the numbers, I'm shocked the difference in ratings was so small for such an "turn back the clock" men's final. This men's final was a special case, hence the 44% jump in ratings - and not likely to be repeated soon. The Williams sisters will likely be doing this for years to come - if they chose too.

Sep 12th, 2002, 04:55 AM
Big congrats to men tennis, but to be honest they got the dream final for US people.

To be rtuthful if none of them make the final, expect the no. to be half, and I am not biased here.

But men tennis is not dying as well, it is just being blown up by the media, so hopefully both men and women tennis will continue to prosper