On audiences, McKenzie and Zed

For years, the sports television industry complained that the system of measuring audiences was unfairly depressing the viewership level of its product.

  It turns out the industry was right.

  In an important  TV development, the new measurement devise called the Portable People Meter (PPM) has increased sports viewership as much as 100 per cent in some cases.

  After PPMs were introduced by BBM-Nielsen in September, TSN’s CFL audiences almost doubled from July and August. This jump was attributable in part to the increased interest in football in the fall and the fact the two holiday doubleheaders on Labour Day and Thanksgiving pushed up the average.

   Still, taking into account those factors, TSN estimates its CFL viewership is up at least 40 per cent. Audiences for NHL hockey have risen 60 per cent.

   At the CBC, Hockey Night In Canada’s 7 p.m. ET game has been pulling in huge audiences. Last weekend, it drew a whopping 2.3 million viewers for the Toronto Maple Leafs-Vancouver Canucks national telecast which was packaged with the regional telecasts, New York Rangers-Montreal Canadiens and Boston Bruins-Ottawa Senators.

    These were three attractive match-ups, with the Toronto-Vancouver game, in particular, drawing from Canada’s two largest English language markets. Still, last year at this time, with similar games, Hockey Night was producing audiences of only 1.3 million.

  A few days ago, Rogers Sportsnet sent out a release stating that its audiences for baseball’s divisional playoffs were up 71 per cent. For the two League Championship Series, the numbers increased 31 per cent.

   Why is the PPM system measuring audiences so much larger?

   For starters, it’s gleaning information from a larger sample group of households, 10,000 compared to the previous 5,000.

   But, most important, the new procedure is more accurate.

  Each members of the sample household wears a portable devise, like a pager, that records what they are watching and where.

    It’s a passive method. They don’t need to do anything. In the old system, meters were attached to the television and members of the household were required to input into the meter who and how many were watching a show. Often, they didn’t bother.

 For example, dad is viewing a football game. His 10-year-old son finishes his homework and watches the fourth quarter. Mom comes in later to wait for the news.

   By the old meter system, mom and the son would have needed to punch in their names when they started watching, but probably wouldn’t have. Since the audience is measured on a minute by minute basis, that was a big loss.

   In the new system, which is triggered by the TV’s audio on the pager devise, their involvement is automatically recorded.

     Now, none of this would matter if audience figures for all TV programs and genres — dramas, reality shows, etc. — were increasing at the same rate as sports.

   But they’re not. The programs showing the biggest increases are live sports and children’s shows. And that’s because these shows are often watched in groups.

   Said one sports marketing executive, “People get together to watch sports, but they don’t get together to watch 24.”

   Kids will gather after school to sit in front of the TV.  A guy will take a case of beer over to a friend’s place to watch a hockey game with a group.

  In the past, this group viewing would not have been measured. Now it is because the guy with the beer or one of the kids may be wearing a portable PPM devise.

  Group viewing will increase even more for major sporting events and that’s when the registered audiences should get even larger, TSN’s president Phil King said.

  “You’re going to see some unbelievable numbers coming out of the Grey Cup, the Super Bowl, the juniors (world junior championship) and the Olympics,” he said. “You’ll be seeing press releases coming out about all-time highs.”

   It’s important to know, however, that the new system does not measure out-of-home watching in sports bars and restaurants. That’s because the PPM devise is triggered by the TV’s audio, and, in most bars and restaurants, the audio is turned down.

   The exception will be the World Cup next summer when the fanatics are in the bars screaming for their favourite team. You can be sure the TV audio will be turned up full blast for those games.

  “I think you will see World Cup figures go through the roof, just because of the way it’s being monitored,” said a sports executive.

   Will all this translate into more advertising revenue for sports programming? In the long run, yes, but as one sports executive said, the well is pretty much dry at this point, given the tough economic times.

  “You can’t charge more when no one has more,” he said.

 Voice in the wilderness

 TSN’s Bob McMcKenzie is truly unique among hockey commentators. That’s because he is pretty much alone in believing the NHL should crack down on predatory head shots.

   In the world of NHL commentary, this represents radical, even revolutionary thinking. We know this, because when an incident occurs, such as the Mike Richards hit on David Booth last weekend, the knuckleheads and Neanderthals come out of the woodwork to remind us that hockey TV commentary is over-populated by a fringe group of loons, most of them ex-jocks who have taken too many hits to the head themselves, and seem to believe that anything that doesn’t kill you is “a good hockey hit.”

  But let’s not place all the blame on the TV guys. The NHL, which is so out of touch with reality as to be laughable (except this isn’t a laughing matter), judged the  Richards hit to be within the rules, despite the fact Richards was assessed a five minute major and game misconduct.

   Never mind that the Philadelphia Flyers captain blind-sided Booth from the side and behind, and that the  Florida Panthers forward didn’t have the puck. As far as the league was concerned, a suspension wasn’t warranted. Booth suffered a concussion, was carried off the ice on a stretcher and spent the night in hospital.

  As the New York Times noted, many of the crackpots  like to blame the victim in these cases.   Blogger Barry Petchesky at Deadspin.com wrote, “None of this would have happened if Booth hadn’t had his head down — that’s a youth hockey mistake.”

     TSN’s Craig MacTavish, if you can believe it, called it  “a very innocent play.”   Watters invoked the slippery slope theory by warning that a crackdown on head shots would “ruin our game.”  In other words, if you outlaw head shots, aggressive play will disappear.

    McKenzie alluded to this theory on Team990 radio in Montreal this week.

  “If you dare question this hit in the NHL, then I guess you’re in favour of no hitting in the game,” he said sarcastically.

    The NFL has tough rules against fouling the quarterback, but is doing fine at the gate and on TV, although the effect of concussions on NFL players is under scrutiny. McKenzie made note of that on Wednesday night during TSN’s hockey telecast.

  “I know that U.S. Congress is giving the NFL a hard time about its dealing with head shots,” he said. “The NHL should be thankful Congress doesn’t know they exist.”

   That’s an important point.  Hockey is a fringe sport in the United States and is rejected by a growing number of Canadian sports fans partly because of the weirdness of a game that allows predatory attacks to the head. Would you want your son playing a game in which head shots are deemed at the highest level to be just fine? And if he does get clobbered from behind, he’s to blame? 

Scooper’s at it again

  Nice to see that Zed over at the competition is keeping up with the news. He finally got around to reporting Al Strachan’s departure from Hockey Night In Canada. It’s been – what? — more than a week? But, hey, better late than never. Now, he’s reporting that the proposed Olympic channel is having difficulty. Another hot-off-presses report, aside from the fact the story appeared in Truth and Rumours two weeks go.

Globe revving up for Olympic relay

 The Globe and Mail will jump feet first into the Olympic promotional parade tomorrow when columnist Gary Mason becomes the first journalist at the newspaper to participate in the torch carrying ceremony across Canada.

   Mason, who’s based in Vancouver, will write a first person story about the torch relay experience, as will several other journalists at the paper when they serve as torchbearers over the next several weeks.

   Producing a compelling account of a 300 meter jog could be a challenge for the writers. Another issue for the Globe will be the repetitive element of assigning a group of journalists to report on the same subject. Will anybody care about the experience of carrying the flame after Mason’s story is published?

  Of more immediate concern for the national newspaper and CTV, however, should be the criticism they have received for choosing to participate in the torch relay by giving spots to writers, broadcasters and management people.

     By doing so, the Globe and CTV, both Olympic rights holders, are involving themselves in the marketing of the Games, even though they will be expected to give their readers and viewers coverage that is objective and independent.  At the very least, there is the perception of a conflict of interest. 

   Still, the Globe has covered itself ethically, to some degree, by turning its involvement into a first-person reporting assignment for its writers, although some management people at the paper also will run in the relay, apparently.

  Others carrying the torch include Keith Pelley, the head of the CTV-Rogers Olympic broadcast consortium, and Nelson Millman, the general manager of Rogers’ Fan590 radio station in Toronto and head of Olympic radio coverage.

   In addition to Mason, the torchbearers at the Globe will include Stephen Brunt, a sports columnist who, like Mason, will write about it, and columnist Roy MacGregor, who will also produce a first-person account.

   The media figure with the highest profile scheduled for the relay is Brian Williams, CTV’s prime time Olympic host.

  I talked to Williams briefly about this issue a few days ago. He says he plans to do the run, despite the criticism. His position on the conflict of interest is we agree to disagree.

   In other words, he doesn’t get it. Or I don’t.

Will CTV bail on London?

 This rumour has been circulating for months and, with the Vancouver Olympics getting closer, it’s picking up steam.

  First, it is fair to say that CTV, Canada’s TV rights holder for the 2010 and 2012 Games, is thrilled to be broadcasting the Vancouver Olympics, despite the small problem of Canada’s economy going south and companies cutting back on TV advertising generally.

   It’s also fair to suggest that, as far as the 2012 London Olympics are concerned, the thrill may be gone for CTV.

   The network is cash strapped. Over the past year, CTV Inc. has sold off its 15.2 per cent stake in Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment for an amount believed to be about $180-million. It also divested itself of two cable channels. They went to Corus Entertainment for $40-million.

   Keep it mind, also, that for CTV, Vancouver was the prize and London a throw-in when it outbid the CBC for domestic Olympic TV rights to 2010 and 2012, paying the International Olympic Committee a record $90-million (U.S.) for Vancouver and $63-million (U.S.) for London.

   In addition to the steep rights fee – the previous high paid by a Canadian network for a Summer Games was the CBC’s $45-million for Beijing – London presents a problem for a Canadian broadcaster. There will be no live content in prime time.

   Therefore, the rumour has it that CTV wants out and will sell off the London TV rights to the CBC, which is keen to return as Canada’s Olympic network.

   There’s even talk that people working for the CTV-Rogers Olympic consortium are sending out resumes for work post-Vancouver.

   But here’s the real story: It’s not true.

   Keith Pelley, the head of the CTV-Rogers Olympic consortium, says there is “zero” chance of CTV dumping the London Games. In an email message, he said, “We are already selling and planning production (for London).”

   What’s more, a source close to the IOC says the Committee has heard nothing about CTV seeking to divest London. And the IOC would have heard by now because of the significant timeline involved in a network planning production and selling advertising for an Olympic Games. CTV could not unilaterally sell off London. Any deal would need to go through the IOC.

  However,  here’s what is worth watching. Three months after the conclusion of the Vancouver Olympics, the IOC will hold an auction for the TV rights to the 20014 Sochi Winter Games (Russia) and the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro.

  Sochi is in a bad time zone for North American TV, but it is a Winter Games, and Canadian viewers will tune in. Rio has value because it’s an exotic location and  only two hours ahead of the Eastern Time zone. That means the big events will be aired live in prime time.

   The CBC is expected to bid aggressively for Sochi and Rio. CTV’s interest remains to be seen.

 What the Globe should do

  Rumours, unconfirmed, say The Globe and Mail was planning to run an Olympic torch relay insert this weekend, one that would list the employees taking part in the torch carrying procession across Canada. But, the insert has been cancelled because of the negative press.

  I couldn’t confirm this, and one source said the insert will run as planned,  but the torch carrying issue has become an embarrassment and public relations nightmare for the Globe and also CTV, which will have 26 of its broadcasters participating in the carrying of the Olympic flame.

   In addition to the issue of journalistic ethics – promoting an event while also covering it –  the notion of  journalists and broadcasters qualifying to carry the Olympic torch solely because they are employed by a company that happens to be a rights holder smacks of media elitism and jumping the queue, not to mention cozying up to persons and organizations of power.

   This is typical of the sort of email I’ve received on the subject: “I applied to run in my hometown of Georgetown [Ontario]. Thought it would be a great experience to have my kids at my side as I carried the torch. Too bad I didn’t have enough money to buy a spot. I thought the Olympics were not about money. That’s why they have amateur athletes competing. CTV should have either auctioned off the spots with money going to charities, or given the spots to kids who in the eyes of coaches or teachers have excelled, whether in sport or studies! The Olympic ideal I had now feels dirty.”

  Journalism as it pertains to  TV is tenuous and sometimes difficult to define. It’s worth noting the CBC and Global Television, non-rights holders, also were given torch carrying spots by VANOC, albeit a small number.

   But, the Globe and Mail is something different. It’s a serious and respected newspaper, and as such it should do a mea culpa immediately by finding a fair way of distributing the relay assignments to perhaps more deserving people. The public likes admissions of mistakes. It shows that you’re humble and honest as opposed to arrogant and stubborn (see Globe columnist Stephen Brunt’s defense of his carrying the torch, in my column yesterday.)

Brunt, on his conflict of interest

What a privilege it was to listen to Prime Time Sports last night and hear Stephen Brunt, that giant of sports journalism – no, check that, that giant of Olympic boosterism — explain to us why it is entirely appropriate for him to participate in the promotion of the Vancouver Games, despite the small fact, he is, ahem, a journalist working for The Globe and Mail.

   Brunt, in case you missed it, was selected, and agreed, to carry the Olympic torch during its promotional relay parade across the country. CTV announced last week that 26 of its broadcasters, many of whom will cover the Games for the network, and also Brunt, will be torchbearers.

   This, of course, represents an outrageous conflict of interest. These people are now part of the Olympic marketing machine, but also will be expected to report and comment independently and objectively on the Vancouver Games.

  But Brunt doesn’t see a problem with this.

 Never mind that  The Toronto Star and Toronto Sun published editorials denouncing the decision by CTV. Never mind that several sports writers including an Edmonton Journal columnist, the Toronto Star’s Olympic reporter and the newspaper’s media columnist wrote pieces critical of CTV and Brunt.   Never mind that Alison Korn, an Olympic rower, wrote an opinion piece for Sun Media raising the issue of journalistic ethics; never mind any of it — Brunt knows better.

  “Look, I hate to break people’s hearts and tell them there’s no Santa Clause,” he told Prime Time host Bob McCown.  “But this is a commercial endeavor. The torch relay, God love it, which is going to make people tear up and is a lovely thing, and a way of including people in the Olympic process, is sponsored. And it is corporate and underwritten. And spots were sold as part of the sponsorship package. . . . This is all part of the machinery of the Olympic Games.”

  And the machinery, of course, includes Brunt.  If you have a problem with this, he says, blame VANOC CEO John Furlong, who made the relay spots available to the media rights holders.

  “If people don’t like it, phone John Furlong,” Brunt said. “But you should probably tell him how to pay for his Games otherwise.”

   Obviously the notion of politely declining Furlong’s invitation didn’t occur to Brunt.

    “You don’t see an ethics problem?” asked McCown.

  “No,” Brunt said, “because nobody is telling me what to say or what to do.”

 In other words: Ignore my conflict of interest and trust me. I’m above all that.

  Brunt’s leg of the relay will take place in Newfoundland where he owns a summer home. He says his participation in the 300-metre jog clears the ethics bar because he will be on assignment for the Globe, reporting on the experience of carrying the torch.

   McCown raised an obvious question.

 “What do you think the experience will be?” he asked. “I ran, I got tired, I handed the torch to somebody else and went out and had a beer? How much of an experience do you think it will be? Do you think you will find Jesus on the way?”

  “I don’t know,” Brunt said. “Maybe I’ll hate it. Maybe I’ll come back just as cynical as I am now.”

  Oh, yes, the cynical guy, who just finished explaining why he needed to help VANOC promote the Games and described the torch relay as a “lovely thing” that “makes people tear up.”

  One bit of news did come out. Brunt says other Globe journalists also will carry the torch and presumably to write about it.  He seemed miffed that he was the only Globe writer included in last week’s CTV release.

  “I’d like to thank my friends at CTV for putting my name on the press release as though I’m the only newspaper guy doing this . . . ,” he complained. “There’s quite a number.”

  Don’t be upset, Steve. Be proud. You’re doing your bit for the Globe, CTV, VANOC and IOC.

 Mike Toth dropped by Sportsnet

Sources says Rogers Sportsnet has decided not to renew the contract of Mike Toth, who works for Rogers’ Toronto radio station, Fan590, and filled in as a Sportsnet Connected anchor.

   Toth, a Sportsnet veteran, was suspended by the network  a few years ago after a run-in with a producer and was then re-assigned to the radio station.

 A brainless decision

 A large segment of the sports media in the United States views pro hockey as a backward, fringe operation worthy, perhaps, of an anthropological study, but hardly something to be taken seriously as an important sport.

  If you wonder why that is, consider how the NHL handled the Mike Richards hit on David Booth last weekend.

  The league did nothing – no suspension — despite the fact the Florida Panther forward was blindsided with a shot to the head, carried off the ice with a concussion and taken to hospital.

  Richards, the Philadelphia Flyers captain, said he was merely trying to separate Booth from the puck.

  The problem with that ridiculous excuse is, Booth didn’t have the puck. He’d passed it off. And then he was hit, full force, from the side and behind by Richards, with a shoulder to the head.

  If you’re a hockey traditionalist, you hate what Richards did to Booth, because there is no tradition associated with it.

  It’s not part of the game. You didn’t see these attacks in the 1970s or 1980s. Sure, there were fisticuffs, stick fights and big body checks, but this sort of predatory head hunting started in the 1990s.

   I suspect the Scott Stevens hits in the 1990s, particularly on Eric Lindros, most of which were clean, inspired the lowlife element coming into the league. Colby Armstrong of the Atlanta Thrashers comes to mind immediately.

   If these attacks continue, the NHL will end up with a bunch of retired players walking around with permanent headaches. Or they’ll be scratching their heads and wondering what day of the week it is.

  The long-term effects of the trauma are devastating.

  In the short term, somebody could get killed.

 Audience figures

   The new system of measuring audiences – the personal people meters — continues to produce big sports numbers for the TV networks.

  The CBC drew 2.306 million for the Leafs-Vancouver Canucks game, a split telecast that included regional games New York Rangers-Montreal Canadiens and Boston Bruins-Ottawa Senators.

  A year ago, with the old system of measurement, that lineup would have produced an audience of about 1.4 million, maybe 1.5 million. That’s a jump of about 800,000 viewers. More on this later.

   — Consider the difference the A-Rod and the New York Yankees have made for Fox’s league championship series audiences. The network’s ratings (percentage of the potential viewing audience tuned in) for the American League Championship Series Yankees-Los Angels Angels  were up 35.4 per cent from last year when Fox carried the NLCS (Phillies-Dodgers). Fox averaged 6.5 for the six-game Yankees-Angels series. The average was 4.8 for Phillies-Dodgers (five games) a year ago. Sunday’s Game 6, by the way, had 9.3 overnight rating.

The grim truth about the Leafs

  For Brian Burke, the result of Saturday’s game should trouble him more than anything else that’s happened to the winless Toronto Maple Leafs this season.

  In fact, the Leaf general manager should be completely spooked by what he saw against the Vancouver Canucks.

  Yes, the Leafs played well. They hustled and outplayed the Canucks.

  Hockey Night in Canada’s Don Cherry said they put together “a great game.”

  According to Steve Simmons of the Toronto Sun, it was the best effort of the season.

  But that, of course, is the problem: The Leafs played well and still couldn’t win.

  Cherry and also Simmons, on TSN’s The Reporters, talked about Canucks goalie Roberto Luongo stealing the game.

  Mike Farber of Sports Illustrated, responding to Simmons, grumbled about the “the hot goalie theory.”

   It was a valid point.

  When you’re evaluating a bad, no-talent team, which is what the Leafs are, you can always come up with a theory or an explanation.

  In addition to the hot goalie theory, they include:

 The players took some bad penalties. There might have been a bad call. They couldn’t get the power play going. No luck. Just couldn’t buy a goal.

   But the flip side of the argument is:

 The goalie looked great because the shooters weren’t very good.

   Penalties were taken because the players couldn’t compete without fouling.

  And the power play was hopeless because the team doesn’t have any offensive talent.

  Most of the talk in Toronto over the past three weeks has been about the Leafs’ weak goaltending and porous defense.

  But, the forward position is just as big a problem. They’re a hopeless group and that was mediocre last season even with Jason Blake and Matt Stajan over-achieving, and Dominic Moore playing pretty well.

   Consider what Burke did with the forwards. He refused to re-sign Moore or Nik Andropov, who has some offensive skills. And he brought in Wayne Primeau and Rickard Wallin, both of whom are basically useless.

   The Leafs will get an occasional victory this season. They’ll put together a good effort, and the opposing team will mail it in.

   When the rookie Jonas Gustavsson gets healthy — he’s expected to start tonight against Anaheim Ducks — he could make a bit of a difference.

  Phil Kessel will score some goals when gets into the lineup, but don’t count on a lot of production from him given the caliber of forwards he will be working with.

  The guess here is Toronto will win between 25 and 30 games. That will give them a lottery pick, perhaps No.1, which will go to the Boston Bruins as part of the Kessel trade.

   And Burke will continue scramble to sign free agents.

   That’s no way to build a championship team.

CTV getting torched

  The media continues to roast Vancouver Olympic TV rights holder CTV over its decision to have 27 of its broadcasters and journalists carry the Olympic torch during the relay across Canada.

  It’s a marketing move than has gone badly wrong for CTV. In addition to bad publicity, the network has placed its journalists in a conflict of interest, particularly those who will be reporting and commentating for CTV at the Games.

   This morning, Q107 Toronto morning host John Derringer hammered CTV and its “gang of 27.” He said Ben Mulroney and Tanya Kim carrying the torch instead of a former athlete ran counter to the Olympic spirit.
    He made jokes about Ken Shaw and Christine Bentley, two middle-aged news anchors at CFTO in Toronto, carrying the torch.

  He also mentioned The Globe and Mail’s Stephen Brunt, another carrier of the flame. Derringer said he respected Brunt, but felt he needed to ask himself what he was thinking when he agreed to carry the torch.

   The Toronto Sun and Toronto Star have published editorials criticizing the CTV decision.

   Randy Starkman, the Star’s amateur sports writer, wrote a good column about it, but we would quibble with one point. He stated that it was appropriate for CTV’s prime time Olympic anchor Brian Williams to be a torchbearer, because “[t]he guy’s been the face of Olympic TV coverage forever.”

  A few lines later, he stated, “No journalist should carry the torch.”

  But,  Williams is a journalist, one of the best broadcast journalists to work in Canadian sport. That’s why he, above all, should not have been placed in a position in which his credibility is compromised.