On the NBA’s lackluster schedule release: The Diff
Subscribe here to my new email newsletter called The Diff.
With relatively little pomp and circumstance, the NBA released its 2016–17 regular season schedule on Thursday night. Diehard fans immediately began pouring over every tiny little nuance in the 82-game schedule stretched out over five-and-a-half months. It begs an interesting question: Why didn’t the league *schedule* a more formal schedule release TV show?
Since at least 2010 [evidence here on NFL.com], the NFL has unveiled its regular season schedule in primetime and combines it with multiple hours of dedicated coverage on NFL Network. ESPN also often has several hours of programming specifically devoted to the NFL’s schedule release. All of this is usually announced at least a week in advance. So why doesn’t the NBA do the same?
The NBA’s gargantuan nine-year $24 billion TV deal finally kicks in with this upcoming regular season [Read this October 2014 Deadspin primer on the topic]. So you’d think one of the league’s TV partners (ABC, ESPN, TNT) would love some engaging offseason content.
The NBA is often regarded as the most innovative North American sports league when it comes to media (more on this later). And that’s why it just felt weird to witness a 5:45 p.m. online-only release with relatively little heads up or marketing or linear TV programming. Yes, consumers are going mobile and are cutting the cord. But really?
Last summer, I experienced the NBA’s schedule analytics from the inside [Read my Tumblr post on my Charlotte Hornets internship experience]. The league schedule is a massively complicated math equation that factors in: arena availability for every team; TV partner preferences; equitable road trip length, back-to-backs and three-games-in-four-nights; team preferences; and more. It’s not easy!
So, I totally understand that the schedule goes through several drafts and its creation requires several months of both automated computing and manual tinkering. That all being said, when it’s ready, why doesn’t the league put out a notice for a primetime TV show as opposed to just an online-only release? Fans surely want immediacy, but the league can still profit off live eyeballs. It seems like a no brainer to me.
FUTURE OF SPORTS TV
ESPN and live streaming have a long history on the rumor mill. Most recently, just six weeks ago, Disney was rumored to buy a $1 billion stake in the streaming-unit of MLB Advanced Media, valuing the business at $3.5 billion. That deal became official this week. But it’s often worthwhile to look back at the initial news report, so you should do that first. [Bloomberg]
In the Disney release about the ownership stake acquisition, the company mentioned its plans for a stripped-down, direct-to-consumer ESPN streaming service. This similarly had been rumored for months. It won’t include all of the best ESPN live sports content. But this formal announcement positions the behemoth media conglomerate to take some type of innovative leap into the streaming landscape. [MarketWatch]
But ultimately, it will come down to this: How much would you pay for an ESPN streaming product? Recall that it won’t include all of ESPN’s best programming. A January 2016 survey, before this most recent announcement, found that 85 percent of respondents would not pay $20 per month for a standalone ESPN streaming product. Is it worth more to you than Netflix and Spotify combined? How do the economics work out for ESPN’s future? It’s a fascinating conundrum. [Quartz]
Speaking of the NBA and media innovation, I greatly enjoyed this Q&A with commissioner Adam Silver. In particular, look at his comments on the future consumption patterns for basketball fans. I think Silver is one of the smartest executives in #sportsbiz. [Bloomberg]
One final note on TV: This was a great column diving into the lack of analysis dedicated to Olympic gymnastics. NBC has come under fire a lot this month for its soap opera-like approach to serious sports coverage and its comments on female sports fans. This gymnastics piece really brings it home. [The New Yorker]
TECH GIANTS
A personal pet peeve of mine: Any article that suddenly declares the “death” of some massive billion-dollar institution. This is a great article here on the economy of scale advantage for five tech monsters: Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon. All of them are doing just fine and dandy, thank you very much. [The New Yorker]
Diving further into Apple, this is a great feature on the company, which indeed has hit some rough patches of late. iPhone sales are decreasing. The Apple Watch was underwhelming. The company hasn’t had as many splashy sensations since Steve Jobs passed away. And yet, the company is still going to be leading the next wave of technology innovation. One big reason why? “Revenue from services now accounts for 12% of Apple’s total sales, up from 9% the year before. In fact, Apple’s services revenue exceeds Facebook’s total revenue.” [Fast Company]
On the topic of Facebook, consumer goods icon Proctor & Gamble said it’s going to be adjusting the way it advertises on the social media platform. Specifically, P&G said that specific consumer targeting just isn’t perfect for all of its company objectives. Yes, you can reach all of the 25-year-old University of Dayton alumni, Taylor Swift enthusiast sports bloggers in the world! But if that audience is so small, does it even matter? [Wall Street Journal]
One company specifically *not* in any tech giant list? Twitter, which continues to receive bad press. BuzzFeed News had a very long investigation into the company’s lack of progress in tackling abuse. This is a major, major issue and this article points out the worst of Silicon Valley’s white male bias. Another eye-popping realization to me was the constant executive turnover at Twitter. How can they make long-term strategic product decisions that combat abuse, yet alone stick with them, if people aren’t staying around for longer than a year? [BuzzFeed]
MISC. SPORTS AND MEDIA
I was very intrigued by the Federal Trade Commission’s announcement that it plans to crack down on deceiving social media sponsorships. Influencer marketing has been around for a long, long while, but how can paid advertisements be effectively disclosed without ruining the gig? [Bloomberg]
My friend Troy Kirby was quoted heavily in this article looking at SeatGeek’s entry into the primary sports ticketing market. The sports ticketing landscape seems on the precipice of revolution. SeatGeek has become one of the most beloved secondary ticketing platforms and its recent primary deal with Major League Soccer could be the start of something really, really big. [Seattle Times]
Zach Lowe, basketball writing savant, had a beautiful feature on Manu Ginobili this week. Ginobili is an undoubted Basketball Hall of Famer who has achieved the pinnacle of success at every level of competition. Ginobili is also an intensely fascinating human being who you will appreciate much more after reading this post. [ESPN]
Another super interesting high-profile athlete? Von Miller. If you didn’t read this interview from last month yet, you absolutely need to. Gosh, he’s such a weirdo and it’s fantastic and we need more people like this in the world. [The Ringer]
One last athlete interview is on Michael and Martellus Bennett, the goofy brothers who dominate the NFL. I’m very impressed by Mina Kimes, who spent three days with the two in Los Angeles. This was as intimate of an article as you’ll see on any athlete. And boy, this was fun. [ESPN]
