Worst. Timing. Ever.
In all the commentary on the NBA ref scandal, one rather important economic point seems to have been overlooked - the 2007-08 season is the final season for the NBA’s current television contracts. The current cable and broadcast contracts pay just under $800 million per year. In exchange for these sums, networks have gotten a league whose players increasingly look like extras from “Oz,” and assault fans in the stands, and the players’ criminality is now exceeded by the refs. As they prepare to negotiate new multi-year contracts, I’m guessing the networks won’t feel compelled to cough up the same kind of money, let alone the 50%-plus increases that have been the norm ever since Larry Bird and Magic Johnson came into the league. Fun fact: when Bird and Johnson came into the league, network contracts were worth just under $20 million per year.
July 29th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
I don’t think any of these things matter… directly. What matters is what the networks will be able to charge for ad time. And advertisers will pay commensurate with the anticipate return on that investment i.e. how many (and which) people are watching?
Now one can try to argue that fewer people watch the NBA cuz they have too many tatoos, and Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson are hoodlums, and one ref showed why pro leagues need to be so stern when it comes to gambling in and on the sport. But I think fans don’t care nearly as much about any of that stuff as they do about the quality of play itself. If the games are entertaining, people watch - if not, they don’t… that’s it.
Personally, I don’t watch the NBA cuz I don’t find the games to be entertaining - rather than due to any of the other reasons listed… and I sincerely doubt I’m alone. No - the NBA may indeed get a “lesser contract” in their next TV deal, and mediots will scramble to cite some of the symptoms cited above, but they’ll be wrong.
Larry and Magic and Michael (and the league during their collective reign) provided consistently good entertainment, and as a result, advertisers flocked. Perhaps one could argue that the NBA grew on the shoulders of these invididual personalities, choosing to market the individuals over the teams - and that marketing approach has left them with some terrific teams (Spurs, Suns, et al) but no marketable stars to carry the torch i.e. they’ve made their bed, now they must lay in it. Tim Duncan, for one, is a wonderful basketball player and he plays on a terrific team - but his is not the personality of a marketer’s dream.
Kobe is a marketer’s dream - but he hasn’t figured out that he can be The Man (like Larry, and Magic, and Michael) *and* have great teammates around him so he wins championships, *and* its okay to do behind-the-scenes politicking (like Michael, at least, did). But if you’re the league’s most marketable star and you also play in one of the desirable markets, you need the third part of the three-pronged approach to marketing success: You need to be a championship contender.
I wish his rape/adultery escapade affected Kobe’s popularity but if anything, I fear it only made him more popular to the NBA’s fan base. No… the NBA can’t pass the torch to Kobe cuz he screwed up and forced Jerry Buss to blow up (a) his chance at additional rings, and (b) the NBA’s chance to continue to grow the league on his shoulders.
In closing, if the NBA had a marketing focus in the 60s like they did in the 80s and 90s… they would’ve been all over Wilt, and not Russell. Duncan is Russell. They need a Wilt.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:36 am
In some ways, the NBA’s current malaise is the result of their much-praised economic model. It was serendipitous to have Magic playing in LA, and Bird in Boston, and Jordan in Chicago. All are huge markets with teams able to command loyalty beyond their immediate home base. The trouble with ensuring that teams in places like San Antonio can spend just as much as anyone else is that you can wake up one day to find your best team and best player located in… San Antonio. And there go the playoff television ratings.
But do you really think (if I am reading you correctly) that thuggish behavior, prison-chic, and crooked refereeing don’t have a significant impact on the mass-market appeal of the NBA (and thereby the value of television rights)?
July 30th, 2007 at 12:49 am
That’s my thesis, yes. But let me clarify one point: I think the crooked refereeing is limited to one guy. If it turns out to be a league-wide issue, I submit it’ll be a very large issue… but if it’s indeed confined to one guy, as I’m surmising, I really don’t think it presents a tremendous long-term issue (since they can say they… well, the FBI, rooted out the cancer before it was allowed to grow - or however Stern will spin it).
Let me add further clarification: If this was the NFL, where gambling is king, then even one referee would present a far greater issue - in my mind. Clearly there’s betting on the NBA (and every other sport), but I don’t think it’s as critical to the viewing audience as it is to the NFL.
I concede it may have some effect - but the effect is minimal. I think the singular “issue” driving the mass-market appeal of the NBA (and thereby the value of television rights) is the quality of play. And the issues related to that are coaches choosing defensive thuggery to fast-break basketball and the NBA bringing in so many young players who so clearly lack the fundamentals necessary to play the game “right”.
In other words, if thuggish behavior (like, say, the Bad Boy Pistons), and prison-chic (like, say, Chris Washburn - just for starters) and crooked refereeing (which I don’t believe we actually have evidence of 20 years ago) occur while entertaining basketball is being undertaken then ratings will not be adversely impacted, no.
The NBA is said to have suffered in the 70s due to rampant drug use - but I submit that’s a convenient excuse, and ignores the simpler issue which was: The NBA of the late 70s had become a largely unentertaining product. MLB had rampant drug use in the 90s, but that *enhanced* the entertainment value of the product, so the product flourished. And despite the Chicken Little leanings of many mediots, I fail to see The Steroid Era having an adverse effect on the health of the game - given almost annual record-breaking of attendance figures, and overall popularity.
Are people upset with Bonds and McGwire, and to a lesser extent Sosa and Palmeiro? Yeah… but only cuz some hallowed records have seemingly been impacted. They’re still watching - and going to- the games. Ultimately, that’s all that matters.
And back to the NBA… the thuggish behavior, prison-chic, and crooked refereeing is *not* the reason people have stopped watching the NBA… in my humble opinion.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:55 am
That’s a very good point about the Pistons. Rasheed Wallace is only a marginally bigger jackass than Bill Laimbeer, if at all.
July 30th, 2007 at 10:13 am
No… I’d give Laimbeer the crown. Not only did he get Bird to throw punches at him, which could be explained away by Bird’s passion - but he got The Chief to throw haymakers at him? When’s the last time you saw Robert Parish show *any* emotion on the basketball court? In his 20+ year career, I can only think of one… the time that he took out Bill Laimbeer (and Johnny Most was beside himself with glee).
Rasheed is a whiner, and perhaps is the biggest whiner in the present-day NBA… but no, no… Laimbeer was a far bigger jackass overall. And he went to Notre Dame - which spins me into some alternate dimension of unresolved conflict every time I think about it. He shoulda been a UMiami grad or something… why my beloved Notre Dame?