English Premier League On NBCSN About Content Or More?

NBC Sports Network was looking to make a splash when it launched English Premier League Football (Soccer) this past weekend and it seems like it did the trick.  While much of the build up was focused on whether the $250M per year was a sound investment, the payoff on the investment will rely on much more than the actual ratings of the televised matches. To me, the more interesting question is whether good content will draw viewers as much as engrained history does – will English Premier League draw viewers where Major League Soccer has not?

 

To get the business side of things out of the way, here’s Cynopsis’ synopsis:

NBC Sports Group’s debut of the Premier League the on Saturday paid dividends for the sport as the league drew record ratings nationally. The triple-header on NBC and NBC Sports Network averaged a 0.5 rating overall, to mark a 67% spike over the equitable three opening Saturday games saw a year ago in 2012 (a 0.3 average). NBC’s telecast of Swansea City/Manchester United delivered a 0.8, the highest overnight rating in US history for a Premier League opening day matchup. On the local front, Washington, D.C. topped all U.S. markets for the game with a 2.2, followed by Tulsa, Austin, Seattle and Buffalo. Online, fans also streamed more than four million minutes of Premier League action via NBC Sports Live Extra.

Certainly, you can get caught up on the growth year-to-year, but the general public know where to find the opening day matchups last year? It was probably the mixture of NBC’s promotion and so many EPL clubs coming to the States to play exhibition matches. But, taking that at face value and the fact that there is more coverage this year than last, is just doubling a small baseline enough to make it a success?

As with other sports like Hockey or even Major League Soccer, there’s something to be said for generating large viewership for a population who may not have grown up with a sport.  We can safely say that the American population grew up with American Football, Baseball and Basketball. But, only a limited part of the country grew up with Hockey and barely any grew up with home-grown soccer.

While transplants to the US have deep affinities for their home teams – whether it be South American, Mexican or European leagues – will those not from the UK buy in to EPL? Will it be enough to generate 1/20th of the audience for the NFL to make it worthwhile? (The 1/20th figure is based on $5B per year the networks are paying the NFL from 2014-2022.) It may very well be enough.

Usually, with sports that have not been a part of someone’s life, people need to have a personal experience with it – perhaps attending a game or knowing fanatics of teams or the sport in general. Personally, I enjoy soccer, but it wasn’t until I was able to attend an EPL match that I was able to get excited enough about it. I certainly would not have tuned in to watch the Chelsea/Hull City opening weekend match while flying from LA to New York.

So, will NBC have to do something to generate even more excitement for the game, or are they happy with the numbers they might have and the awareness it might bring for the network?  It could be argued that the coverage leading up to opening was worth far more than $250M in marketing and awareness for the network. (Though it was odd to see an ad for Fox Sports 1 through DirecTV during the match…)

Or, will it be a boisterous cheer that the EPL fans are known for singing at the top of their lungs in stadiums ringing hollow?

ESPN Can Second-Screen My Life!

As part of an article about the possibility for networks co-opting event rights – like NBC’s Olympic coverage this Summer – without paying a penny, ESPN’s EVP of multimedia sales told Adweek, “We want to see ESPN as a second screen for all sports. We know we have a lot of companion [mobile] usage even when it’s not our event. We want to take co-viewing to the next level.” ESPN may be one of the brands that are best positioned to move beyond just the games they air when it comes to second-screen apps. I would even go one step further… They should expand their definition of second-screen to include all live sporting events – whether you are watching the show on their networks, other networks and, most importantly, if you are physically at the games. This would align with my feeling that the best branded solution for second-screen apps is to focus on affinity groups rather than broad networks or shows.  By doing this, second-screen apps can best complement life and not just viewing habits.

I know this is a little “ideal” or “out there”, but imagine if ESPN was to focus on building that environment that extends the experience of “being there” to all viewers and building bonds in the real world between people who are all at the same event. What if there were special check-ins for people who are physically at the games – or if it automatically tracked whether users were at a venue or not and framed their comments in such a way that they could be found more easily. They can post bits about what they’re seeing in the venue and allow those at home to feel even more connected to the game. This can be done in association with ESPN’s already popular GameCast feature – building out a whole new feel for the game.

Courtesy of Adweek

Though the Adweek article was focused on television and rights, it did get me thinking about the possibilities for second-screen apps that deep dive into themes that matter to affinity groups. There are those brands that could work best to serve those affinity groups in all parts of life – as a second-screen. ESPN is obvious for sports, but could Bravo be the second-screen app for all things Arts – with check-ins and instant reviews from cultural facilities?  Could Food Network be the same for both restaurants and grocery stores? How about E! or Style for nightlife.  In all of these instances, there could be a great opportunity to enable connections in real-life that also feed into our digital lives.

To a certain degree, Facebook is a second-screen App to our lives.  But I think it is too broad. Narrowing down our second-screen-life Apps to the affinity groups (Sports, Culture, Food, Partying, Outdoors, Crafts, etc.) and anchoring them to the large niche cable networks could be just the ticket. If a brand is already developing a companion app, and the cost of including some location-based functionality is incremental, doesn’t it make sense to reach for greater inclusion, interaction and engagement?

Maybe I’m thinking too much in the clouds, but I really don’t think this is too far off.  Even from a sports perspective, there was a time when the new sports venues were installing systems to provide real-time stats at your seat.  Obviously, that went by the wayside when mobile Apps came on the market that could do the same thing.  There is obviously a demand for it in that engagement model.

If the right branding partners are leveraged, it could mean quicker and simpler access by people no matter where they are and what they are watching. Rather than a whole bunch of Apps that are specific to certain locations, requiring people to download a bunch of occasionally used Apps, those brands with the penetration should look to really run the gamut and make their Apps whole for the affinity groups that would most use them.

At that point, we’ll be talking about Second-Screens for our lives – whatever that life may be…