Rogers in turmoil. YAY!

[Fatty Liver]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...+Article+Links

Top hockey producer’s firing before NHL playoffs hints at Rogers turmoil
DAVID SHOALTS
TORONTO — The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Apr. 07, 2016 5:00AM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Apr. 07, 2016 5:35PM EDT

An Angus Reid Institute poll has driven an exclamation point into what executives at beleaguered Rogers Media already know – most Canadians will not be watching the NHL playoffs this spring.

But at Rogers, the blood was already on the floor thanks to the fact that none of the seven Canadian NHL teams will be in the playoffs for the first time since 1970. On Tuesday, the man in charge of hockey production at Sportsnet and Hockey Night in Canada, senior vice-president Gord Cutler, was fired. Before that, several staffers in the hockey department were laid off.

While company insiders said Cutler’s dismissal was a financial move since he was undoubtedly hired away from rival Bell Media’s TSN two years ago with a healthy salary, the timing was extraordinary. No one could remember a network firing its head of production with the NHL playoffs days away.

The move hinted at the turmoil in Rogers Media, which has seen even more ratings trouble in the second season of its $5.2-billion, 12-year contract with the NHL for the national Canadian broadcast rights. While Cutler cannot be held responsible for a 16-per-cent decline in Hockey Night In Canada ratings through late March, which follows a 16-per-cent decline in the first year of the deal from the 2013-14 season, CBC’s last year broadcasting the show, his departure is a sign there may be unhappiness with the on-air product at the highest level of Rogers, even above Sportsnet president Scott Moore and Rogers Media president Rick Brace.

A Rogers spokeswoman said Moore would not be available for comment until later this week.

When ratings do not reach the projections given to advertisers, broadcasters have to give their clients free commercial time as compensation, known as make-goods. The problem for Rogers is that the loss of viewers is so severe that it has to give out far more make-goods than was planned.

One source in the advertising industry and one in the broadcast industry say the free spots, two of which are being given for every paid ad, have eaten up a significant portion of Rogers’s playoff hockey inventory. This means there is much less to sell to paying clients, which further hurts revenue when Rogers usually would expect to sell playoff advertising at a significant premium. The company is putting some make-goods on its Toronto Blue Jays broadcasts and entertainment shows, and that, too, cuts into the sales of advertising time.

“It is kind of grim, but unlike the fairy tales, it is reality,” said the advertising source, who requested not to be identified because of a business relationship with Rogers.

Hockey fans’ unhappiness has been building since late January, when all seven Canadian teams started wobbling. Of the 1,522 Canadian adults Angus Reid surveyed from March 28 to 31, 54 per cent said they planned to watch either less of the NHL playoffs than they did a year ago or none.

Only 30 per cent of the respondents said they plan to watch the same amount they did in 2015. Nineteen per cent said they will watch no playoff hockey, while 35 per cent said they will watch less than a year ago. All of the respondents said they usually watch the playoffs. The full results of the survey, released on Thursday, are on Angus Reid’s web site.

The trouble signs for Sportsnet began at the start of the 2015-16 NHL season thanks to the network’s unexpected success story, the Toronto Blue Jays. According to multiple sources, some major advertisers took advantage of provisions in their contracts with Rogers that allowed them to switch their commercials from the hockey broadcasts to the Blue Jays as they went on their run through the baseball playoffs in October.

According to another advertising source (who also requested anonymity because of direct dealings with Rogers), some companies could do this, but they had to pay a premium, because the Jays were getting audiences of three million or more.

Another source said the audience numbers for hockey reached only 77 per cent of the projections Rogers gave advertisers in the fall of 2015.

Rogers was also hit by a drop in ratings for its conventional shows on its City channels and specialty networks such as OLN, the source said. This makes it difficult to satisfy advertisers who demand a certain audience level for make-goods on those channels. It also eats into the advertising inventory for those shows.

Broadcasting insiders have suggested Rogers could get some revenue relief by selling games from its national package to TSN. However, a source close to senior management at TSN said the network, which remains profitable, is not interested in buying any NHL games.

This is not surprising given the ratings tumble for Rogers. By late March, the average audience for the early game on Saturday’s Hockey Night In Canada was down to 1.66 million from more than 1.9 million in 2014-15. When the biggest driver of hockey ratings, the Toronto Maple Leafs, were competitive, audiences for those games routinely exceeded two million.

However, the largest audience for a Leafs game between Jan. 3 and April 2 was the 1.8 million who watched on Saturday, Jan. 23. That may look good compared with this season’s average, but it was against the Montreal Canadiens, a matchup that used to draw more than two million viewers. By April 2, the viewers were down to 826,500 on both the CBC and City for a game between the Leafs and another strong rival, the Detroit Red Wings.

Moore acknowledged the problems of poor ratings and falling advertising revenue caused by the Canadian teams’ lacklustre play in a recent memo to Sportsnet staff. He also mentioned layoffs, part of Rogers’s announcement a few months ago of 200 job losses, that hit the hockey department for the first time. But he did not draw a direct link between the Canadian teams and the layoffs.

However, Sportsnet staffers see the connection and it has not been good for morale. This was compounded by Cutler’s firing, which came long after Moore’s memo. There is much fear at the network about more layoffs once the hockey season is over.

“There’s tons of concern about that,” one Rogers employee said. “That’s all anybody talks about.”

Editor's note: An earlier version of this story stated the last time no Canadian NHL teams made the playoffs was 1969. The last time there were no Canadian teams in the playoffs was 1970. This is a corrected version.

[Rich]

I cannot stand the Sportsnet panel. Their on air talent are just unlikeable for the most part.   Not a fan of their play by play teams either. 

It will be interesting to see what happens when this contract is up. Whether TSN gets hockey back or it stays with Sportsnet, it will be at a reduced cost. 

Big cap implications when TV money decreases. Hopefully the Canadian dollar has rebounded by then. 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

NHL, BlueJays. That's a heap of money they're spending.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

4 hours ago, Rich said:

I cannot stand the Sportsnet panel. Their on air talent are just unlikeable for the most part.   Not a fan of their play by play teams either. 

It will be interesting to see what happens when this contract is up. Whether TSN gets hockey back or it stays with Sportsnet, it will be at a reduced cost. 

Big cap implications when TV money decreases. Hopefully the Canadian dollar has rebounded by then. 

I really like Elliot Friedman.  And Ron MacLean should be used in a far better way.  He's better than George.  I dont mind George but the roles should be reversed.  George needed to build up some cred before taking the lead job. 

[Taynted_Fayth]

George appeals to the younger crowd though, I remember his days on Much Music's Loud and he was by far the best VJ they had on the network.  the guys smart, funny and current.  I never watched his talk show tho admittedly, but if I was to tune into one his would have been it despite it's political undertone and it being on CBC (both unappealing to me).  Other then taking the lead of an iconic canadiana show, I dont think it was a bad move. If you wanted a young rising canadian, he was a solid pick

Edited April 8, 2016 by Taynted_Fayth

[Goalie]

The Panel, i can't stand, even Friedman, while likable has lost some of his credibility this year with his 30 thoughts article... 

George is a joke, The announcers for the games are awful, they really are. Just terrible and i think that has more to do with people not tuning in than anything else.

I hate when the Jets play on sportsnet, it annoys me.... But i will say that i'm sure part of their problem, they spend 90 percent of the time talking about the leafs, 10 percent of the time talking about the other 6 CDN teams, That's a problem for sure. Sportsnet isn't some regional channel in Toronto, it's a country wide channel and somebody needs to tell them that people in Vancouver,Calgary,Edmonton,WPG,OTT,Montreal even don't really care to hear about the leafs 90 percent of the time. 

 

They think George might appeal to the younger crowd but their ratings tell another story. 

 

Edited April 8, 2016 by Goalie

[The Unknown Poster]

Does George appeal to the younger crowd?  Where are they?  Ratings way down.  So if the choices are maintain your audience with Ron Maclean or lose your audience with George but he'll look better doing it, the choice is obvious.  When I watch the news or sports I dont care what the announcer, host or panel looks like.  I want knowledgeable people with insight and the ability to convey the message.  Ron had that and a ton of respect and goodwill.  its not like he looks like Shrek! 

There were going to be growing pains because TSN re-upped a bunch of people when Rogers won the contract, to keep them away.  So TSN is still home to the "experts" to most Canadians.  And TSN is still the go-to place for news and views.  Sportsnet needs to increase its talent, for sure.  But short of kidnapping TSN's people, it will take time and recruiting. 

But hopefully TSN regains the coverage in 10 years.  Unless Sportsnet is awesome by then...

[bigg jay]

17 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

George appeals to the younger crowd though, I remember his days on Much Music's Loud and he was by far the best VJ they had on the network.

That younger crowd that you're talking about wouldn't remember those days though.  The young adult tv demographic (18-34) is either too young for that or about to move into the next age bracket.

[Taynted_Fayth]

maybe not, I'm only 33 tho, i was alive before the days of the internet and watched music television when it was still about music. George has however continued to be a public figure,  with his show on CBC, from what I know people roughly around my age that actually care about politics and stuff were very much into his show mroe then they were with his time on MM (gotta love metal to like Loud)

[bigg jay]

You and your peers are at the tail end of that demographic though, ask someone 15 years younger and see if they remember him as a VJ or tuned into his talk show.  His appeal is to a very small segment of that younger crowd, and the ratings would seem to support that.

The panel as a whole (not just George) is so bad, even the set annoys me! 

 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

35 minutes ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

maybe not, I'm only 33 tho, i was alive before the days of the internet and watched music television when it was still about music. George has however continued to be a public figure,  with his show on CBC, from what I know people roughly around my age that actually care about politics and stuff were very much into his show mroe then they were with his time on MM (gotta love metal to like Loud)

Do you watch Sportsnet because George was a cool VJ that talked politics to the kids?  Or for expert and insightful and well delivered hockey news, opinion, commentary etc? 

[Taynted_Fayth]

19 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Do ys tu watch Sportsnet because George was a cool VJ that talked politics to the kids?  Or for expert and insightful and well delivered hockey news, opinion, commentary etc? 

Nope I'll watch the jets on whatever channel Its on (402 with bell) but never been Interested In panels same goes for cherry and mclean on coaches corner. But stroumbo would appeal to me more If I were to watch

[bustamente]

Strombo tries to hard to be cool, he's not, really don't watch the panels on either SN or TSN any more way to much Leafs talk, i get it Southern Ontario is the only market they care about and if you don't slurp the Maple Leaf kool-aid you'll find yourself working somewhere else. They better hope the Leafs make the playoff next year, don't think they will and ratings and revenue will continue to drop. Also get ready once the season is over for Stamkos watch 2016 and free agency where every top available player will be signing with the Leafs.

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Love Strombo but he should not be doing some Sat night hockey show. Should be a talk show host on CNN or something.

[iso_55]

On 4/8/2016 at 11:09 AM, Taynted_Fayth said:

George appeals to the younger crowd though, I remember his days on Much Music's Loud and he was by far the best VJ they had on the network.  the guys smart, funny and current.  I never watched his talk show tho admittedly, but if I was to tune into one his would have been it despite it's political undertone and it being on CBC (both unappealing to me).  Other then taking the lead of an iconic canadiana show, I dont think it was a bad move. If you wanted a young rising canadian, he was a solid pick

The younger crowd isn't watching so why is Strombo still there? I just don't like the SN hockey broadcasts at all compared to TSN & CBC's a few years ago. The talent just isn't there. Ron MacLean is just being wasted..

[iso_55]

On 4/8/2016 at 1:22 PM, bustamente said:

Strombo tries to hard to be cool, he's not, really don't watch the panels on either SN or TSN any more way to much Leafs talk, i get it Southern Ontario is the only market they care about and if you don't slurp the Maple Leaf kool-aid you'll find yourself working somewhere else. They better hope the Leafs make the playoff next year, don't think they will and ratings and revenue will continue to drop. Also get ready once the season is over for Stamkos watch 2016 and free agency where every top available player will be signing with the Leafs.

He tries to be cool but just comes across as a nerd.

[iso_55]

On 4/8/2016 at 0:37 PM, Taynted_Fayth said:

Nope I'll watch the jets on whatever channel Its on (402 with bell) but never been Interested In panels same goes for cherry and mclean on coaches corner. But stroumbo would appeal to me more If I were to watch

What about Strombo appeals? His stupid haircuts?

[The Unknown Poster]

6 hours ago, iso_55 said:

What about Strombo appeals? His stupid haircuts?

He's fine in theory.  He looks presentable.  He speaks well.  He's a perfectly acceptable host.  He sort of seems cool.  So whatever.  Problem is, this isnt a public access morning show.  If there is an interesting topic in hockey, he's the last person on Sportsnet who's opinion I care about.  He has no cache with the audience, no credibility as a hockey person.

I recall Maclean, who was incredibly gracious about being replaced, saying he was once the new guy that no one liked or cared about.  But he built up the respect over years and years and years.  The difference was it was a much smaller television universe so he could be given the time.  George doesnt have the time.  They should have brought him in in the Ron role, doing throw away segments, hosting on the spot stuff whatever...and slowly built him up to transition to the host.

[Taynted_Fayth]

7 hours ago, iso_55 said:

What about Strombo appeals? His stupid haircuts?

nothing about his look, I just remember him from Much Loud having a great off coloured sense of humor thats very similar to my own. and from what I did see of his cbc show, he always asked great and hard questions to fairly prominent figure heads that appeared on his show. it wasnt as satirical as the daily show/Colbert report,  but still had plenty of humor while sticking to the hard topics. the show ran for 7 years so it's not like this new gig is his first time getting his feet wet

[iso_55]

6 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

He's fine in theory.  He looks presentable.  He speaks well.  He's a perfectly acceptable host.  He sort of seems cool.  So whatever.  Problem is, this isnt a public access morning show.  If there is an interesting topic in hockey, he's the last person on Sportsnet who's opinion I care about.  He has no cache with the audience, no credibility as a hockey person.

I recall Maclean, who was incredibly gracious about being replaced, saying he was once the new guy that no one liked or cared about.  But he built up the respect over years and years and years.  The difference was it was a much smaller television universe so he could be given the time.  George doesnt have the time.  They should have brought him in in the Ron role, doing throw away segments, hosting on the spot stuff

All the above plus MacLean knows hockey & in any conversation whether it be about the game on the ice or discussing issues off ice he could keep up in the conversation with the panelists who all played in the NHL.  As  you said, MacLean had the respect of everyone.  Strombo  is in his element interviewing celebrities one on one. He has my respect doing that but not on hockey & he never will.

[iso_55]

4 hours ago, Taynted_Fayth said:

nothing about his look, I just remember him from Much Loud having a great off coloured sense of humor thats very similar to my own. and from what I did see of his cbc show, he always asked great and hard questions to fairly prominent figure heads that appeared on his show. it wasnt as satirical as the daily show/Colbert report,  but still had plenty of humor while sticking to the hard topics. the show ran for 7 years so it's not like this new gig is his first time getting his feet wet

Agreed but that show is light years different than hosting hockey on Sportsnet.

[Taynted_Fayth]

perhaps, I'd assume being canadian he probably has some vested interest in hockey. I honestly never watch the panels,  he could very well suck ass, but I'd imagine he would be more in the host role with the actual experts making up the panel,  kind of like Dave Randorf on TSN be the host setting up the questions, and let the rest of the guys like Schultz, Climie, Stegall...ect answer.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Taynted_Fayth

[iso_55]

If you don't watch the panel then how can you make the assumptions you make about Strombo being cool, etc? He doesn't appeal to a younger audience as viewership is down. Sportsnet could have replaced MacLean with someone who knows hockey but chose to be cute with his hiring. He's one of the reasons why so many hockey fans complain about the Sportsnet product.

Edited April 13, 2016 by iso_55

[FrostyWinnipeg]

Do young people watch TV?

[iso_55]

Sportsnet better hope so.