|
![]() |
#27 | |||||||
Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
Posts: 418
Likes: 1
Liked 11 Times in 2 Posts
|
![]()
More answers:
Quote:
Quote:
Most folks don't consider the NHRA's partnership with ESPN much of a "deal" but the main benefit to NHRA was the ability to gain better airtimes for their shows. In other words, NHRA's agreement is more than a straight purchase of time. They pay a fairly standard rate but get access to prime time slots when they're available. However, the NHRA shows are still secondary programming to the network's main financial concerns. If an event for which ESPN is paying runs longer than its predicted duration, everything else gets bumped. This often creates a chain reaction among the "bought" shows which can disrupt NHRA's scheduled airings even though the show which "went long" aired hours earlier. When folks complain of a cheerleading show pre-empting NHRA coverage, it's almost always because a stick/ball game "went long" and the entire evening schedule was bumped. It wasn't the cheerleading competition getting preference or special consideration. Quote:
To avoid getting long-winded in my previous response, (HA!), I did not detail production cost choices. Using Inside Drag Racing as an example, coverage can be purchased for a little as $15,000 for a one-camera "shoot" with a commentator. However, you'll only get about twelve minutes of coverage in a twenty-three minute show, too. Coverage, (and cost), can be increased with more cameras and more airtime within the show. I'll point out shows like On the Edge offer fewer production choices and, therefore, tend to hang around those $2,000-per minute figures I mentioned earlier. The NHRA's Full Throttle coverage actually costs more than $2,000 per minute to produce and air but they also get a few (small) breaks due to their partnership with ESPN. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In the early 1980s, cable networks, (including ESPN), were begging for shows simply to fill the daily schedule. The major networks had a lock on stick/ball coverage deals so the cable gang was willing to put nearly anything on the air. Through the ‘80s and most of the ‘90s, the cable networks would offer to air the show at no (cash) charge but would retain all but a few of the commercial slots for their own sale. In rare instances, (including the early IHRA shows beginning in ‘83), the network offered production support as well. In other words, they came to race and covered it with their own equipment and personnel. As cable ratings grew and access to the cable system became widespread, that business model changed drastically. When the last of the original cable executives left the industry, the “new deal” became a simple sale of airtime to all but the sports for which the networks paid broadcast rights. By the way, airtime is for sale on ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX, too…at prices you simply wouldn’t believe. When discussing NHRA races on TNN, it's important to remember we're talking about shows which aired a quarter-century ago. It's ancient history. As Travis noted, the world has changed and those who refuse to accept that fact get left behind. A100 made a huge point, by the way. Coverage by “live stream” has become huge and the ADRL, (for whom I’m a contractor), has experienced incredible success with its InterNet shows. Commercial time is sold for the feeds and, for all intents and purposes, the “stream” has become a television show which does not need to rely on a hosting television network. Unfortunately, most viewers do not yet view InterNet content on their living room television but, when they do, the entire world of televised events will change. Toby, I remember well your trip to Shreveport; we were flattered to have you in attendance that weekend and it was no surprise when you won. As for Jim Bailey…luckily, we were able to make him a global television personality while he was still good-looking. |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|