My latest column for the National Sports Journalism Center at Indiana University focuses on the World Series ratings. Even a compelling series featuring two of baseball’s marquee teams is far behind the ratings for their last meeting in 2004, a Boston sweep over St. Louis. And the decline isn’t just limited to that year.
Follow the trend.
From the column.
*******
Usually the way-back machine is brought out whenever there’s a discussion on World Series ratings.
Last week, Keith Olbermann turned the clock back to 1971. In a commentary, he noted 37 million households out of a possible 61 million tuned in to watch Pittsburgh beat Baltimore in Game 7 of the 1971 World Series. That translates to roughly 50 million viewers.
World Series ratings since 2004 (Baseball Almanac)
Of course, the World Series never will see those kind of ratings again. Olbermann noted that if Fox can average an estimated 25.3 million viewers per game (17 million households tuned in) like it did in 2004 for the Boston-St. Louis Series, “Rupert Murdoch will kiss me on the mouth.”
Sorry if I ruined your day with that visual.
Actually, 2004, not 1971, is the better benchmark to assess the erosion in World Series ratings. Back in the early ’70s, there only were three networks. Viewers had fewer choices. It was World Series or “Love American Style.” So naturally, baseball’s ratings would be higher.
OK, if that’s the argument, why has there been such a decline in the ratings since 2004?
Last year, San Francisco’ sweep of Detroit averaged 12.7 million viewers per game, the lowest ever for a World Series. That’s nearly half of Boston’s sweep in 2004.
Through four games this year, a World Series featuring two of baseball’s most storied and appealing franchises has averaged an 8.4 rating at 14 million viewers per game. The overall number should trend higher with a definite Game 6 and a possible Game 7 on the agenda.
However, barring a major upset, it won’t come close to 2004′s numbers.
Unlike the heyday of the 70s, MLB and Fox can’t roll out the argument that the TV landscape was different nine years ago. It wasn’t, since the cable smorgasbord had been in place for years. In other words, the 2004 World Series still registered despite healthy competition from HBO, CNN, ESPN, etc.
In fact, the World Series was considered to be such a ratings powerhouse in 2004, the NFL didn’t even schedule a Sunday night game against it back then.
OK, you say that Red Sox team captivated the country after rallying from a 3-0 deficit to beat the Yankees en route to winning its first World Series title in 86 years? Well, the following year, the White Sox, my team but hardly America’s team, pulled in an average of 17.16 million viewers per night for its sweep of Houston.
Murdoch might not kiss Olbermann if the 2013 series averaged 17.16 million viewers, but he probably would shake his hand.
Since then, only one World Series, the Yankees’ six-game victory over Philadelphia in 2009 (19.4 million viewers), has exceeded 2005. The 2011 World Series, which saw St. Louis win in seven games, averaged 16 million viewers per game. You would expect a higher number since it went the distance.
Consider this: Prior to 2004, the previous nine World Series dating back to 1995 averaged a 15.16 rating (22 million viewers per game). While the presence of the Yankees in six of those World Series definitely helped pull in viewers, it shows ratings in the 15-18 range were considered more of the standard back then in what also was a cable era.
So what caused the erosion in the ratings? There’s enough material to write a book.
In short, a couple of factors come into play. This year marks only the third time in the last 10 World Series it will reach a sixth game. There have been four sweeps and three five-game series. The lone seven-game series was in 2011.
The Series has failed to build on the drama from one year to another, and there’s been a residual effect in a decline in interest.
“We had Boston in 2007 and they won in four straight (over Colorado),” said Fox’s Joe Buck before this year’s World Series. “The ratings went down. You don’t have to be a genius to figure it out.”
There are other reasons, to be sure. However, to me, the mind-numbing pace of games continues to be a big factor in the tune-out. Viewers just don’t have the patience to stay with 5-4 games that last three hours, 54 minutes, as was the case for Game 3. There are so many long pauses and breaks it gives viewers ample reason to reach for the remotes to check out HBO, CNN, AMC, ESPN, etc. You could watch an entire episode of “Homeland” and maybe only miss two innings, if that.
There’s also the issue of the late starting times. Thanks to the endless games, they usually end around midnight on the East coast, past a lot of people’s bedtimes.
Everyone has their theories. However, one thing is clear: You don’t have to go back to the 70s to proclaim that the World Series ain’t what it used to be. It is a recent trend too.
Wonder why baseball is no longer an Olympic sport. Not that Roman Greco wrestling would pull bigger numbers, but baseball, as a whole, is declining. Baseball is my favorite sport, and I sure wish smarter minds than mine would figure out how to fix this.
Two reasons, Eric: 1) The IOC wants the big stars in the Games, and MLB won’t shut down its season like the NHL does. 2) Baseball is full of juicers and the IOC would like to see MLB’s drug-testing house in better order.
Also please note, “American football” is also not an Olympic sport …
How about that it’s Fox doing the games? Or that the same announcers making the same observations and telling the same — often decades-old — stories just bore viewers?
Ed, Does anyone think that interleague play might have an impact on viewership? Before interleague play, the AL Champs playing the the NL Champs was a big deal because it was the only time they played each other in a season. Although, Boston and St. Louis didn’t play each other this year, it seems to me that the World Series aura has diminished.
The biggest issue, to me as a viewer with no rooting interest in all but two World Series since 2004, is the pace of games and all of the added commentary that takes away from the game. Three and a half to four hours to play a nine-inning game is ridiculous.
This may go against the grain with some, but do we really need to broadcast the seemingly mandatory God Bless America every game? If you want to do that, fine, do it during the commercial break instead of stopping to show it and then have a full commercial break. I’m not watching that, and it actually bothers me when attending a game. We sang the National Anthem, we’ve already honored our country. Just play ball.
This will only cut down on a few minutes, but at least it is a start.