THe French Open men final rating very very low [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

THe French Open men final rating very very low

zadle69
06-10-2008, 04:20 AM
Nadal-Federer III draws lower rating
3 hours, 51 minutes ago

Buzz Up PrintNEW YORK (AP)—Rafael Nadal’s rout of Roger Federer in the French Open final drew the lowest TV rating of the duo’s three consecutive title matches in Paris.

NBC’s telecast of Nadal’s 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 victory Sunday drew an overnight rating of 1.8, the network said Monday.

It was the most lopsided Grand Slam men’s final in 24 years and lasted less than two hours.

That rating is down from the 2.2 rating in 2007, and the 2.1 in 2006. Each of those years, Nadal beat Federer in four sets.

This year’s rating is the lowest for the French Open men’s final since the 2003 championship also drew a 1.8 overnight.

NBC got a 1.8 rating for the women’s final Saturday, when Ana Ivanovic won her first Grand Slam title by beating Dinara Safina in straight sets. The rating was the same in 2007, when Ivanovic lost to Justine Henin.

tennizen
06-10-2008, 04:32 AM
I think US and clay don't go very well together. That's the most likely reason. Nothing to be surprised about.

Knightmace
06-10-2008, 04:48 AM
^^^Agreed, it's all about the hard courts in US.

Oj-Ala
06-10-2008, 04:55 AM
Exactly.... they simply dont like clay....
Plus, wasnt the same (or very similar) situation some years ago with Wimbledon final ??? I think it was Federer versus... Roddick for the second time I guess... and I dont know if it was the BBC or which tv company but they posted on yahoo something very similar :rolleyes: so....... for tv companies is all about money and they want spectacular ratings..... :o

tangerine_dream
06-10-2008, 04:58 AM
Of all the slams Roland Garros gets the worst coverage (and no promotion) here in the states so it's no real surprise the ratings are low.

Plus it's no good for NBC to show only one taped semifinal. That angered their only viewers, the hardcore tennis fans. Nobody else was watching, they all went to the beach.

Fedex
06-10-2008, 05:32 AM
Of all the slams Roland Garros gets the worst coverage (and no promotion) here in the states so it's no real surprise the ratings are low.

Plus it's no good for NBC to show only one taped semifinal. That angered their only viewers, the hardcore tennis fans. Nobody else was watching, they all went to the beach.

Yep.

And besides, I wouldn't expect a finals that was so one sided to generate great ratings anyway; many people probably flipped the channel after the first set.

rafa the best
06-10-2008, 08:15 AM
They get pathetic raitings even for US Open, who cares. FO final had great ratings in other countries especially Spain.

Wojtek
06-10-2008, 08:28 AM
Very big problem :yawn:

Castafiore
06-10-2008, 08:42 AM
Not really a surprising result. :shrug:

Roland Garros scored excellent ratings in other countries like in Spain and France.
In Europe, Roland Garros and Wimbledon tend to get the highest ratings if I'm not mistaken. The Australian Open is not easy to show on tv because a lot of the matches take place in the middle of the night or in the morning over here and where I live, I struggle to find tv coverage for the US Open as well (and Eurosport focussing a lot on WTA doesn't really help either) :(

sanshisan
06-10-2008, 11:44 AM
Yep.

And besides, I wouldn't expect a finals that was so one sided to generate great ratings anyway; many people probably flipped the channel after the first set.

Maybe some people are tired of the same old Federer/Nadal `rivalry' year after year. New blood is needed as this RG Final clearly showed.

zadle69
06-10-2008, 12:51 PM
snashian i agree with your point indeed. I think it is getting to that point.

michellej
06-10-2008, 12:55 PM
Maybe some people are tired of the same old Federer/Nadal `rivalry' year after year. New blood is needed as this RG Final clearly showed.


The low rating correlates with the interest in tennis in N. America, period. About 2% play or are interested in the sport. so only 2% and a few more stragglers who click on the channel by mistake will watch. The rest of the population has no clue whether Federer is playing Nadal for the first time or the 20th time in the final. In fact they likely don't even know who they are. (For fun,do a survey, ask your neighbourts if they know who they are)

The enthusiasm for tennis and tennis players is a phenomenon of messageboards &/or those who go to tournaments and watch it on TV year long. About 2 % of the population.

zadle69
06-10-2008, 12:57 PM
now compare this this sport is drawing people in and it is worldwide Will be the next big thing overtaking boxing probably. It is becoming even more popular now than tennis

Fight Biz: Live shows likely next round for NBC, Strikeforce
Steve Sievert, MMAjunkie.com
Jun 9, 2:07 pm EDT

Buzz Up PrintThe programming suits at NBC have a decision to make.

EliteXC’s Saturday Night Fights debut on CBS May 31 proved that live mixed martial arts is more than viable on network television. Despite the fact that most MMA fans jeered the show, ripping into everything from the production to the officiating, SNF was the most-watched MMA event in U.S. television history. The broadcast drew a peak audience of more than 6.5 million viewers â and 4.85 million viewers in total â to top the 5.9 million who tuned into the Quinton Jackson-Dan Henderson match at UFC 75.

Those are game-changing numbers that TV executives simply can’t ignore, especially when it comes to delivering the male, 18-to-34 audience that advertisers crave. That demographic comprised a sizeable portion of the viewers who tuned into SNF.

NBC already carries MMA, albeit in a time slot far removed from the bright lights of primetime. Strikeforce launched its weekly 30-minute taped series on the Peacock Network April 12. The promotion, which those familiar with the deal say purchased the airtime from the network, hoped the series would be the catalyst that leads to live shows on NBC.

“Periodically, we’re in talks (with NBC),” said Strikeforce’s Mike Afromowitz. “Of course, we want to be live on the network. That’s always been part of our long-term objective. People want to see live events. The show’s been a good way to introduce the brand and the product to people, but moving forward, we want to be live. That’s the next step.”

Not only do the ratings generated on CBS suggest that the next step might be imminent for NBC, programming brass at the network need to look no further than their own ratings to see that MMA draws a crowd. Viewership of “Strikeforce on NBC,” which follows “Poker After Dark” every Saturday night/early Sunday morning, has increased nearly 200 percent from its first show to one of its recent airings.

The fifth episode, during the week of May 5, drew an audience of 949,000 viewers. That topped the average ratings for other late-night fare, including “Jimmy Kimmel Live” and “The Late, Late Show with Craig Ferguson.”

“The show has exceeded our expectations,” said Afromowitz, who oversees selection of fights featured in the production. “We’re only several weeks into the series. We got the production together very quickly with minimal promotion. We didn’t have a big, big campaign to promote it, but word spread from the first week we were on.”

It seems only a matter of time before NBC makes a more significant commitment to MMA programming.

“We’re prepared for a live event,” said Afromowitz. “We’re ready to move forward. We have the venues, and we have the talent if we’re given the opportunity.”

Encore key to EliteXC success â In the wake of strong ratings for EliteXC on CBS, the question now is â can Gary Shaw and Co. do it again?

The first show was promoted exceedingly well by EliteXC. They scheduled a series of media conference calls, held open workouts to highlight fighters for media, had fighter video packages on the CBS website and drew considerable mainstream press.

While all of that drummed up interest in the show, no aspect of the broadcast promotion was more important to its success than the simple novelty of live MMA on network TV for the first time. That guaranteed that the show would get a sizeable audience, but the ratings topped even CBS’ projections.

The true test for the potential of a franchise-in-the-making in Saturday Night Fights will be measured with the second show, slated for late summer/early fall.

Tepid start to Ortiz book sales â Tito Ortiz’s autobiography, This Is Gonna Hurt: The Life of a Mixed Martial Arts Champion, hit book retailers last month, but it hasn’t been a hit so far with readers.

The 224-page read chronicles Ortiz’s challenging childhood, a trouble marriage and battles inside the Octagon. The cover of the book features Ortiz in a UFC championship belt, which, reportedly resulted in a cease-and-desist order from the UFC.

Ortiz kicked off a nine-city book tour this past Tuesday to jumpstart sales of the book, which currently falls short of making the list of the top 150 selling books in the country, according to USA Today.

Rival Chuck Liddell is currently the champion of MMA book sales. His memoir, My Fighting Life, hit The New York Times bestseller list earlier this year.

Further changing of the guard at IFL â Kurt Otto, one of the co-founders of the struggling International Fight League, has resigned from the company’s board of directors. Otto’s departure is described as a voluntary resignation. He will remain with the league in a matchmaking capacity and is still the company’s largest shareholder.

With Otto no longer on the board, the two men who conceptualized the IFL are no longer in leadership roles with the company. Co-founder Gareb Shamus resigned as CEO and board chair last November.

Steve Sievert is the Lead Staff Writer for MMAjunkie.com and the former MMA beat writer and blogger for the Houston Chronicle. He pens his “Fight Biz” column every other week.

Castafiore
06-10-2008, 01:29 PM
Maybe some people are tired of the same old Federer/Nadal `rivalry' year after year. New blood is needed as this RG Final clearly showed.
How do you explain the high tv ratings outside the USA (and not only in Spain) then?

Football (Soccer) doesn't get high tv ratings in the US. Oh noooooo....should we be getting worried about the popularity of football??? :unsure:

IAMlegend
06-10-2008, 01:34 PM
An education on the rising popularity of the MMA in the US doesn't seem incongruous at all--on this tennis blog :rolleyes:

IAMlegend
06-10-2008, 01:37 PM
How do you explain the high tv ratings outside the USA (and not only in Spain) then?

Football (Soccer) doesn't get high tv ratings in the US. Oh noooooo....should we be getting worried about the popularity of football??? :unsure:

You keep making the claims, but where are the numbers? In France, I know that the semifinal with Monfils rated higher than the final: 4.7 million vs 4.2.

Fensler
06-10-2008, 01:54 PM
I think US and clay don't go very well together. That's the most likely reason. Nothing to be surprised about.

^^^Agreed, it's all about the hard courts in US.

Exactly.... they simply dont like clay....
Plus, wasnt the same (or very similar) situation some years ago with Wimbledon final ??? I think it was Federer versus... Roddick for the second time I guess... and I dont know if it was the BBC or which tv company but they posted on yahoo something very similar :rolleyes: so....... for tv companies is all about money and they want spectacular ratings..... :o


Although there are comparatively few clay courts in North America, I do disagree with the various "they just don't like clay" explanations for the low television ratings in this case. As michellej summarized quite nicely (quoted below), the small viewing audience has more to do with North America's low interest in tennis overall than some purported dislike of a particular playing surface. Beyond that, the odd timing of the match on television - due to timezone differences - meant that it simply would not be watched as much as live USO matches...which take place in the afternoon/evening here.

And yes, Americans are probably more inclined to watch the USO than the French Open. I'm confident that the same holds true for French residents watching RG more than the USO and people in the UK watching Wimbledon more than the USO. This doesn't necessarily mean that Americans don't like clay or that the French entirely hate hardcourts.

If you were to comprehensively quiz people over here as to why they didn't watch the Fed-Nadal final, I presume very few would say anything about not liking clay. Sure, among hardcore tennis fans, there'd be some who would mention their disdain for pushing and moonballing. Regardless, in general, it's just because tennis is basically a niche sport right now in N. America. Not a lot of people follow it.

That said, I was pleasantly surprised to see how much front-page attention the RG final received on espn.com, cnnsi.com, foxsports.com, etc. The Federer-Nadal rivalry certainly gets mainstream attention here, even if the sport as a whole does not.



The low rating correlates with the interest in tennis in N. America, period. About 2% play or are interested in the sport. so only 2% and a few more stragglers who click on the channel by mistake will watch. The rest of the population has no clue whether Federer is playing Nadal for the first time or the 20th time in the final. In fact they likely don't even know who they are. (For fun,do a survey, ask your neighbourts if they know who they are)

The enthusiasm for tennis and tennis players is a phenomenon of messageboards &/or those who go to tournaments and watch it on TV year long. About 2 % of the population.

Castafiore
06-10-2008, 02:02 PM
You keep making the claims, but where are the numbers? In France, I know that the semifinal with Monfils rated higher than the final: 4.7 million vs 4.2.
Yup, the ratings for the Monfils match was higher but the final still received a high tv rating. :)

In France, the tv ratings went up compared with last year.
Dans un communiqué diffusé lundi, France Télévisions se félicite des audiences enregistrées par ses antennes lors de la retransmission de Roland Garros.

Sur France 2, le tournoi a réuni chaque après-midi une moyenne de 2 millions de téléspectateurs, soit 200 000 de plus que l'an dernier. Les parts d'audience atteignent 21% sur les quatre ans et plus, 30% des hommes de moins de cinquante ans et 24% des 15-24 ans.

Juste avant, sur France 3, Roland Garros a réuni en moyenne 1,4 million de téléspectateurs pour 13% de part d'audience.

Sur France 4, les directs ont rassemblé en moyenne 150 000 téléspectateurs (3%).

France Télévisions a logiquement enregistré ses meilleurs scores pendant la seconde semaine du tournoi alors que les phases finales du tournoi étaient retransmises. Ainsi, France 2 a réuni cette semaine-là 2,5 millions de téléspectateurs en moyenne (26,5%), contre 2 millions l'an dernier (24,5%).

Le communiqué énumère quelques bonnes performances en particulier, comme la demi-finale Monfils/Federer qui a rassemblé 4,5 millions de téléspectateurs (38,5%) avec un pic à 7,4 millions lors des derniers échanges. Ou encore la finale Nadal/Federer qui a passionné 4,2 millions de téléspectateurs (37%).

Source : chiffres Médiamat-Médiamétrie cités par France 2
http://www.ozap.com/actu/roland-garros-france-televisions-audiences/143258

Fumus
06-10-2008, 02:19 PM
Tennis ratings for the French are never high, this is due to the fact there is no American talent left standing by the time NBC start their coverage. Americans playing = ratings in America.

OnyxRose
06-10-2008, 02:25 PM
The final was shown in the morning on Sunday...a lot of people are either still asleep or getting ready for church as well.

sanshisan
06-10-2008, 02:27 PM
The low rating correlates with the interest in tennis in N. America, period. About 2% play or are interested in the sport. so only 2% and a few more stragglers who click on the channel by mistake will watch. The rest of the population has no clue whether Federer is playing Nadal for the first time or the 20th time in the final. In fact they likely don't even know who they are. (For fun,do a survey, ask your neighbourts if they know who they are)

The enthusiasm for tennis and tennis players is a phenomenon of messageboards &/or those who go to tournaments and watch it on TV year long. About 2 % of the population.

This does not explain the steadily DROPPING percentage of viewers from the FIRST Nadal-Federer Final at RG. From 2.2% down to 1.8%

Clara Bow
06-10-2008, 02:47 PM
This does not explain the steadily DROPPING percentage of viewers from the FIRST Nadal-Federer Final at RG. From 2.2% down to 1.8%

If you look back at the article- the ratings were 2.1% in 2006, 2.2% in 2007 and 1.8% in 2008. So they went up in the second year and then down in the third. In addition to the timing and tennis not being a mainstream sport here- it likely has to do with the how competetive the match was. It was over so quickly that it could have been a factor. For example, in 2004- the ratings for the final increased as it went on and went into five sets.

From the article that shows that it has not been a steady decline since their first final as you claim but rather going up one year and then down

That rating is down from the 2.2 rating in 2007, and the 2.1 in 2006.

sanshisan
06-10-2008, 03:05 PM
If you look back at the article- the ratings were 2.1% in 2006, 2.2% in 2007 and 1.8% in 2008. So they went up in the second year and then down in the third. In addition to the timing and tennis not being a mainstream sport here- it likely has to do with the how competetive the match was. It was over so quickly that it could have been a factor. For example, in 2004- the ratings for the final increased as it went on and went into five sets.

From the article that shows that it has not been a steady decline since their first final as you claim but rather going up one year and then down


Very true but sadly broadcasters look at the OVERALL picture 2.1% in 2006 to 1.8% in 2008 = steadily dropping ratings.

All the rest about Americans don't like clay courts blah blah is just exscuses. The broadcasters didn't even show Pacific Wells on the East Coast. And they BARELY covered the Sony Ericsson in Miami. A lot of people were very disappointed. If US broadcasters don't think there's enough viewership to cover MAJORS in the US then what will they cover? The USO and that's about it.

You have to ask yourself WHY? Why is a great sport like tennis dying in USUK and OZ?

Oh yes Roddick and Blake are far from done, and there will be others, the sport will sputter on in English speaking countries but we have seen the future of tennis and it is not us.

Why? Maybe because we have lost the WAY. Maybe because as a previous poster pointed out - Americans would prefer to sit back in their easy boy chairs and watch 2 men kill each other in a cage ala gladiator style. That's what it's coming down too. Pretty soon those fights are going to result in DEATHS. LIVE on TV I can hardly wait! :eek:

Clara Bow
06-10-2008, 03:21 PM
Very true but sadly broadcasters look at the OVERALL picture 2.1% in 2006 to 1.8% in 2008 = steadily dropping ratings.


I am just going to have to disagree a bit in the wording wording here. Because from 2006 to 2008 the ratings did not steadily drop- but went up one year and then went down. I guess it is a matter of semantics for me because when one says steadily drop the usual implication is that the ratings fell year after year. (ex. they were 2.1 in 2006, 1.9 in 2007, 1.8 in 2008). That was not the case here. Sorry to be picky about this. We just seem to view the wording differently.

But I do agree that tennis is not in good shape. And while some aspects of TV have gotten better (Tennis Channel, ESPN 360) other aspects are still idiotic (NBC showing the worst matches mid-weekend and taped semis) and other aspects are getting worse (impossible to find IW and Miami on the FSN).

The US sports landscape has gotten so crowded. Ironically, traditional boxing has seen its popularity decline greatly even while other fighting styles are rising.

And as tangi said- the promotion for the French Open was non-existent. If folks did not know to look for coverage, they likely may not have found it. This weekend was about the NBA playoffs and Big Brown trying to get the triple crown. But as was mentioned earlier, I do like that ESPN and CNNSI websites did give attention to the final afterwards and it was discussed on shows like PTI.

jcempire
06-10-2008, 03:30 PM
Well

I think no one look for Nadal - FED again. They looking for surprise, but they all know the result

jcempire
06-10-2008, 03:36 PM
I am just going to have to disagree a bit in the wording wording here. Because from 2006 to 2008 the ratings did not steadily drop- but went up one year and then went down. I guess it is a matter of semantics for me because when one says steadily drop the usual implication is that the ratings fell year after year. (ex. they were 2.1 in 2006, 1.9 in 2007, 1.8 in 2008). That was not the case here. Sorry to be picky about this. We just seem to view the wording differently.

But I do agree that tennis is not in good shape. And while some aspects of TV have gotten better (Tennis Channel, ESPN 360) other aspects are still idiotic (NBC showing the worst matches mid-weekend and taped semis) and other aspects are getting worse (impossible to find IW and Miami on the FSN).

The US sports landscape has gotten so crowded. Ironically, traditional boxing has seen its popularity decline greatly even while other fighting styles are rising.

And as tangi said- the promotion for the French Open was non-existent. If folks did not know to look for coverage, they likely may not have found it. This weekend was about the NBA playoffs and Big Brown trying to get the triple crown. But as was mentioned earlier, I do like that ESPN and CNNSI websites did give attention to the final afterwards and it was discussed on shows like PTI.

I agree.

I like ESPN.

NBC and ABC are two idiots

sanshisan
06-10-2008, 03:47 PM
I agree.

I like ESPN.

NBC and ABC are two idiots


I can't stand the way those IDIOT commentators GOSSIP and yak endlessly during play. They really take away from the game with their constant yammering. What do they think tennis is - a baseball game? Mary Carillo and Dick Endburg are 2 of the worst with their constant gossip about the players, their families, etc. Sometimes I want to scream STFU.

MacTheKnife
06-10-2008, 04:24 PM
The final was shown in the morning on Sunday...a lot of people are either still asleep or getting ready for church as well.

We have a winner. The time zone thing at the FO, WImb, and AO are always a problem. Unless you're a dedicated moron like me and most of us, you don't watch tennis at those weird hours. I even play with some guys that complain about it.
I'm big on the DVR deal though. During most of the FO this year I started the DVR at 5 or 6 am (EDT), then watched it at my own pace later in the day. Just have to stay off this board to pull that off and not know who won..

l_mac
06-10-2008, 04:38 PM
You have to ask yourself WHY? Why is a great sport like tennis dying in USUK and OZ?


I'm not sure I'd include the UK in that. Tennis is on TV here all the time. The BBC still clears EVERYTHING from their two main channels to show continuous coverage of Wimbledon. Sky do a fabulous job with the Masters' Series and US Open coverage. The BBC show FO and AO via their interactive service, and both are also covered by British Eurosport. Davis Cup is also well covered. The "lesser" tournaments are generally covered by Eurosport (though not to the extent of WTA)

I wouldn't say tennis is dying in the UK at all :shrug:

Richardgm
06-10-2008, 04:40 PM
NBC's coverage was awful.

~*BGT*~
06-10-2008, 06:06 PM
I'm not sure I'd include the UK in that. Tennis is on TV here all the time. The BBC still clears EVERYTHING from their two main channels to show continuous coverage of Wimbledon. Sky do a fabulous job with the Masters' Series and US Open coverage. The BBC show FO and AO via their interactive service, and both are also covered by British Eurosport. Davis Cup is also well covered. The "lesser" tournaments are generally covered by Eurosport (though not to the extent of WTA)

I wouldn't say tennis is dying in the UK at all :shrug:

So lucky. :sad: Good thing I have TTC now or I would see tennis just 4 or 5 times a year. :eek:

Deboogle!.
06-10-2008, 07:03 PM
also this year, by the time those of us on the West Coast woke up, the match was almost over. If you slept til just 8am on Sunday morning in California - a huge tennis state in this country - you missed the match completely. In years' past, there was still tennis to watch. If I'm not mistaken, the Nielsen ratings take into account anyone who watched even a part of the broadcast. Well if tens of millions of people didn't even get a chance to see it because it was over so quickly, of course the ratings will be lower

r2473
06-10-2008, 10:38 PM
Nadal-Federer III draws lower rating
3 hours, 51 minutes ago

Buzz Up PrintNEW YORK (AP)—Rafael Nadal’s rout of Roger Federer in the French Open final drew the lowest TV rating of the duo’s three consecutive title matches in Paris.

NBC’s telecast of Nadal’s 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 victory Sunday drew an overnight rating of 1.8, the network said Monday.

It was the most lopsided Grand Slam men’s final in 24 years and lasted less than two hours.

That rating is down from the 2.2 rating in 2007, and the 2.1 in 2006. Each of those years, Nadal beat Federer in four sets.

This year’s rating is the lowest for the French Open men’s final since the 2003 championship also drew a 1.8 overnight.

NBC got a 1.8 rating for the women’s final Saturday, when Ana Ivanovic won her first Grand Slam title by beating Dinara Safina in straight sets. The rating was the same in 2007, when Ivanovic lost to Justine Henin.

NBC is probably thinking:

"$hit! Why didn't we show an episode of "The Today Show" and show the finals later on tape delay".

zicofirol
06-10-2008, 11:07 PM
Of all the slams Roland Garros gets the worst coverage (and no promotion) here in the states so it's no real surprise the ratings are low.

Plus it's no good for NBC to show only one taped semifinal. That angered their only viewers, the hardcore tennis fans. Nobody else was watching, they all went to the beach.


yup, nbc gets the ratings they deserve for putting on such shitty coverage...

besides thsi rg was so horrible that the rating was expected...