While the greats of sports have always been viewed as heroes and notable people, television has taken their status to a whole other level. These days many sports stars have also taken on the role of celebrity due to the nature of broadcast television, and celebrities just happen in to pull in more ratings, making games more profitable for networks. In chapter 5, The Handbook talks about the positive and negative nature of how celebrity’s effect ratings.
While players like LeBron James increase game ratings for their team even when they were losing, other sport content is getting cut when the major players are not on the field or court. The book specifically notes that ABC ditched part of the PGA tour for America’s Funniest Home Videos because Tiger Woods was not on the green. (96). Chapter 9 of The Handbook also takes note of Tiger’s affect on ratings: “cable stations and networks have seen a dramatic drop in golf ratings…coinciding with Tiger Woods’ relative slump in 2003” (157).
Michael Phelps has brought much attention to the sport of swimming, increasing ratings and making people even more aware of the sport. I know of many people who are not fans of swimming but they will specifically watch swim meets because of Michael Phelps’s star power. Recently Phelps has gotten in trouble with the media because of the picture that was released of him taking a hit from a bong. Do you think that his actions will play a role on swim ratings in the future? Some of his sponsors seem to think so and have already dropped him from his contract, but others have not such as Hilton Hotels: "We continue to support Michael Phelps as an athlete whose numerous athletic feats outshine an act of regrettable behavior" Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/swimming/news/story?id=3878675
Is it a good or bad thing when star power is able to dictate what gets aired and what doesn’t? Are celebrity sports stars having a negative impact on network and cable scheduling? Are celebrity athletes taking the focus away from the game? Take Phelps for example, is their more focus on his personal life than his athletic abilities at this point in time? Also comment on other effects of the celebrity athlete and how they have changed the way in which sports are viewed and scheduled on broadcast television.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Athletes are definately molding a new way in which the audience looks at a game. Most recently, Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal shared the court for the Western Conference All Stars and many viewers tuned in to see how their games would merge. Sports journalists across the country look for the story of the game before it begins and it often comes down to a player or two in the contest.
ReplyDeleteLast night in the NHL, Sidney Crosby and Alexander Ovechkin squared off as the Capitals hosted the Penguins. In an ongoing storyline, the two players battled, jousted and angered each other throughout the game. Fans tune in to see epic storylines and rivalries and it really shows in the ratings. The NBA All Star Game, according to the Huffington Post, inceased ratings by 8% up to 6.8 million viewers. Many hockey fans even tuned in to watch Crosby and Ovechkin tussle on the ice.
The Handbook of Sports and Media calls this the "Star Factor." Fans love to flock towards their favorite athlete, the underdog, or the feel good story. In the book, Dan Brown and Jennings Bryant point out how Lance Armstrong was one of these influential athletes that drew fans to his sport. Armstong overcame testical cancer and won over the hearts of Americans as he raced his way to seven straight Tour de France victories. Ordinarily, Americans wouldn't even give bicycle riding a chance on their televisions but with stories on OLN (Outdoor Life Network) about his conquering of cancer and bike racing made people tune in (Brown, Bryant 96).
Another example is LeBron James who captivated major media networks to move their attention to high school basketball. Many fans follow professional sports and sometimes college, but never really give high school sports a chance. James started the media circus in high school with his amazing ability to play basketball and handle himself on and off the court. Also known as the "LeBron factor," the signing of James made waves across the sports world. Business were biting at the bit to have James on their brand or television networks. Brown and Bryant mention that UPN affiliate WUAB-TV signed a four year TV contract soon after James was signed. This increased ratings to a 7.3 and a 16 share on his first game. (96) The game was covered by ESPN as well and it drew another 12.2 rating to the total of the game.
As mentioned before, Tiger Woods is another example of this "athlete driven" era. Sure team storylines attract attention like the 5-time champion Steelers against the sorrowful Cardinals franchise, but the idea of having an idol spotlight a game helps the game and ratings.
Many sports are using these personal stories to get viewers into the games and the NHL is hoping that a Crosby-Ovechkin battle can help ratings for roughly two decades.
Chris Myers
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the star making the rating I agree 100 percent. Why would you want to watch a sporting event if there was no star involved. Without a star then the sport suffers that image/face that people can relate to and talk about. Take for example the most obvious example of all. Once Tiger Woods left golf due to his knee injury the sport pretty much fell off the planet unless you are a serious golf fan or for some reason a Phil Mickelson fan. I love watching the major golf tournaments when Tiger is playing, after his win in the US Open and his announcement that he was done for the year I couldn't tell you if they even had the other majors and this is because Tiger Woods offers the fan that star impact that we have come to love.
Each sport offers a certain star that we the fan become attached to in many different ways. When it comes to baseball A Rod is the star, however he is not well liked but we need him in the game in order to watch it. Basketball has James and Bryant who dominate the sport in a way that catches are attention and pulls us in. The Olympics had Phelps and because of this people wanted to watch, they wanted to see a star perform like no one ever has. I am from Canada which means about a half dozen medals every summer Olympics, however I still watched the past Olympics because of the hype built up around the star.
Fans today want to become more involved in their team and sport, chapter 9 writes " Some fans apparently extend active viewership to actual rituals, manifested in superstitions that they feel bring them closer to the action or more involved in the viewing experience." (Raney, Bryant, 155) This is a good example of how stars make the ratings. Sports fans want to get inside the action and a star helps do this because of the recognition he/she creates for the team and sport, whether it be good or bad.
Over the years, the thin line between celebrities and athletes has become almost nonexistent. David Beckham is featured on the cover of W magazine, as well as every tabloid, and gossip column. I know more about where Tony Romo and Tom Brady like to vacation, or what they bought for their girlfriends, then I do about how great of an athlete either one is. Sports athletes have become our modern day “triple threat.” They do it all. From advertising, to acting, these stars are making bank from every angle.
ReplyDeleteDoes this all around instant fame take away focus from the game itself? Maybe, but it certainly brings more attention to the player and their team. The Handbook talks about the importance of brand identity, and being able to receive recognition. We saw a good example of this during the NBA skills competition. Every part of the entertainment special was named after a different sponsor. The fans get to know their favorite players and the sponsors resulting in double the popularity.
No press is bad press right? The die hard fans or “appointment viewers” as our book refers to them, are going to follow their favorites whether their featured on Perez Hilton or not, but now were pulling from another, less likely viewership. A small portion of the audience is watching because they want updates on whether Jessica Simpson really is bad luck, or maybe Hilary Duff will show up at one of the Islander’s games. By maintaining these celebrity traits sports is expanding their fan base.
What about the athletes themselves, do we see Kobe Bryant differently because he cheated on his wife or Andy Roddick because he was out all night with Paris Hilton...realistically, probably. We are all going to pass judgment based on our own individual perceptions and beliefs, but don’t we do that to everyone… famous or not?
Personally, I think it's bad when stars affect what's being aired, as it can attract the fairweather fans who aren't as knowledgeable. From a business standpoint, however, it's brilliant to market these stars.
ReplyDeleteIs a famous athlete is involved in the game, the networks make it seem that the star is the only one involved in the game. Take Terrell Owens for example. Cameras are always planted on him, hoping to catch him yelling at a teammate on the sidelines or something. As a passionate football fan, I don't care about the sideshow that is propagated by the networks covering the game.
That said, when a famous athlete is involved in the game, the networks make it seem that the star is the only one involved in the game. Brown and Bryant cite a golf example on page 96 involving Tiger Woods. During the 2004 Buick Open, a three-way sudden death playoff was need to determine the winner. "A programmer's dream," they write. However, the great Tiger Woods was not involved, so Americans were forced to watch an hour and a half of "America's Funniest Home Videos" instead. If I were an avid golf fan, I'd want the President of ABC Sports' head on a platter.
The writers also mention Smarty Jones on page 96, referring to how ESPN added 5.5 more hours of programming leading up to the Belmont Stakes. ESPN tried its best to turn everyone into horse racing fans because a horse hasn't won the Triple Crown since the 1970s. 7.5 hours of horse racing coverage is a wee bit excessive if you ask me.
The last time I can remember watching a sport solely for the star is this year's Olympic Games when Michael Phelps was racing. I couldn't care less about swimming, but I was rooting my absolute hardest for Michael Phelps. To answer your questions about Phelps, there are definitely more questions about his personal life now, but that's because he's not in season. I bet if he were in the pool right now, no one would care. So he hit the bong that night. Big deal.
In this day and time, athletes is changing the way people view the games. People want to see the best player and watches the games to see the best player perform. Back in the 90's, Michael Jordan was the face of the NBA, hands down and made millions and millions of money for every station and network that viewed his games, let alone the NBA. The ratings were probably ridiculous, he wasn't just a star he was very marketable and why not take advantage of that.
ReplyDeleteIn every sport there are stars who people would just die to watch, the stars does make the ratings. Ratings are also based on the story. What is the storyline going to be for the game? Who are the best players? Like when Magic Johnson and Larry Bird went head to head every year in the NBA championship, its just a great way to boost ratings.
Personally, the sports that I really do not watch or never really heard of, I know who the best players are or the "Star" For example, I never watched anything pertaining to cycling but I know who Lance Armstrong is because of his star power. Brown and Bryant says "The network also offered companion programs to the telecast of the race, such as The Lance Sage: The Real Life Saga of Armstrong Quest for Six"(96) That is just a good idea to increase ratings because people are very curious on what's going on in the life of a star and what's a better way to see that.
The first time I watched a sport just for the stars was my first time watchin women's tennis to see the williams sisters. I heard a lot about them and they are basically the faces of womens tennis and put it on the map. Everytime they play a match I'm sure the tv ratings goes up. I'm not a tennis guy but if I was flicking through channels and one of them was playing, I'll watch a match or two and if the game is good I'll probably end up watching it all.
Sports play a role in today’s society for many reasons. A big reason is the amount of star power society gives professional athletes. To answer the question does the star make the ratings, I totally agree. In the past, star players did get a lot of attention on and off the court or field, but today the stars of teams are getting a lot more attention. Some people just watch games just to see how the star player plays.
ReplyDeleteI do not think star players are taking the focus away from the game. I think the star players are bringing more attention to the game. Star players are always going to be in the spotlight due to their abilities. For example, in the NBA players like LeBron James and Kobe Bryant are always on television due to their star power. A big amount of fans watch their games, so the ratings of that game are always high.
“Also fuelling the growth in sports viewing, “the LeBron factor” illustrated the penchant of sports programmers to use the power of stars in attracting audiences to both local and national programming.” Networks like ESPN use to star players to bring in fans. Later on in the chapter Brown and Bryant talk about how after LeBron James was drafted by the Cleveland Cavaliers local televisions stations signed deals to televise their games. The Cleveland Cavaliers and the NBA received a lot attention because everyone thought James was going to the next Michael Jordan. This shows how star players can change the way in sports are viewed and broadcasted on television.
I agree that stars make the ratings, but I also think that sometimes it has an effect on a whole team; or at least I think it happens in most cases. Mike Radomski made a good point when he said that people will tune in because they want to watch rivalries or a game or sporting event with an enticing storyline. I think that’s true because on page 153 of The Handbook, Raunsbjerg and Sand discuss Southern football rivalries and how for those teams, there’s nothing better. I feel as though even though that is a whole team instead of one player in particular, that people will be more apt to watch the game because of the intensity and the essence of a rivalry. To go along with that, it makes me think of the Olympics. Yes, a lot of people are going to watch them because those athletes are representing our country, but I also feel as though if your favorite player is competing in an event, you’re going to watch. With that said, if there are star athletes that are competing in an event more people are going to be apt to watch it just because they want to see what that athlete will accomplish or if they can win. For example, how many people do you think watched Michael Phelps get in the pool over the summer, that don’t even like swimming, just to see if he would win that eighth gold medal? I bet a whole lot did. (Ratings and statistical information about the Olympics are stated on pages 94-95 of The Handbook).
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you read any of the blurbs on pages 94-97 of The Handbook, Brown and Bryant briefly describe different ‘star factors’ about famous athletes. They range everywhere from Kobe Bryant to Tiger Woods. One small paragraph happens to be about Lance Armstrong in which it says, “Cycler Lance Armstrong carried enough star power to entice the Outdoor Life Network to carry the Tour de France bicycle race” (96). I think that’s a pretty great accomplishment and pretty self explanatory that Lance Armstrong basically carried that network because of the Tour de France and his winning streak, so his riding was very highly anticipated because he is such a great and popular athlete.
I do happen to think that sports are viewed and scheduled differently on broadcast television when it comes to star athletes. I think so because if any athlete is in a slump or just has one bad game, so many fans can change their point of view in the blink of an eye. If someone is having a bad streak, they could think that they’re washed up and need to retire, but there could be something going on with them outside of the sports world that no one knows about, but they’re being judged solely on their athletic ability which they technically should be. However, if an athlete is on a winning streak and then they have one off game or just an average game, fans may not want to watch that athlete anymore and watch the newest ‘hot shot.’ Tying those two ideas together, I think that whether a star athlete is doing well or not, they are going to attract more ratings because they want to see what they’re capable of and the athletes have such a high reputation to uphold.
The typical sports fan doesn't drown themselves in literature about the game, individuals, or the league. The star power emerges when an athlete's feats are almost larger then life. There has to a presence which allows an individual to surpass the modern boundaries that have created our hectic lifestyle’s.
ReplyDeleteIf we were to do a focus group, whose members lets say were from both genders, between the ages of 18 – 34 and are from all over the country, and we asked them if they had heard of either Ryan Howard or Alex Rodriguez. I would put my money on the fact that the majority would recognize the latter because of his exploits and national fame.
Both men are talented and gifted athletes but A-Rod has been put on another pedestal because of his agent, Scott Boras, his huge contract which drains our pockets and also the city where he plays. I’m sure that Rodriguez makes the nightly news cast on far more stations across the country than does Ryan Howard. Howard keeps a low profile and just plays the game and lives his life the only way he knows how. He is the reigning NL MVP and his Phillies just won the 2008 World Series.
This whole idea of star power is scary because it drains attention away from those athletes who perform and win, which is the goal of all athletes at the end of the day. My mom who I would consider a typical sports fan, enjoys watching games and following her teams but she does not immerse herself in the subject matter as I do. That is why I know who Ryan Howard is and she doesn’t. She knows A-Rod because he is a Yankee but also because he is on the 6, 7, 10, 11 o’clock new broadcasts night in and night out.
On page 151 of the Handbook, ESPN President George Bodenheimer reflects on where the network had been compared to where it is today. “Once upon a time, our company was our network and our network was our company, those days are gone. We are selling and creating all the time.”
I guess at the end of the day the revenue stream is what matters most, and if A-Rod doing whatever he does makes people tune in, or up to the minute updates on Tiger Woods comeback helps ESPN sell their ad-space then so be it. Television has sold out because it had no other choice. In order to keep consumers and customers happy, you have to find that medium between content and character. It is said that it has come to this point but Michael Phelps hitting a bong gets more coverage and publicity then lets say ticket prices and how the NBA is going to bailout more than half of their teams next season to make up for losses.
I absolutely think that part of the draw of watching sports is who is playing. I think the biggest example is the Olympics in general. Of course there’s Michael Phelps who probably single-handily made people pay attention to swimming, but there’s also gymnastics which received a lot of attention due to the attention that Shawn Johnson and Nastia Liukin got. There are also athletes in other sports that help their sports gain attention. “Golfer Tiger Woods is another major star whose aura is powerful enough to dictate television content decisions” (Raney and Bryant, 96). When Tiger Woods first became big he brought attention to the sport of golf that it didn’t have before. I think it’s a good thing that these sports are getting the attention that they didn’t have before, but it could also be a bad thing. Michael Phelps recent run-in with the law got a lot of attention that took away from all he achieved over the summer. I think that just because some athletes are in the spotlight more than others they shouldn’t be scrutinized more than the rest. I think that if what athletes do in their private lives doesn’t influence how they perform then it shouldn’t be a big deal.
ReplyDeleteI think star power has had a positive effect on sports. These stars may take time away from other players and aspects of the game, but they also bring in many viewers. The text states, “Old-school sports enthusiasts lament the ESPNization of highlight packages, where dunks and home runs take precedence over jump shots and moving up runners. Many blame the lack of fundamentals in young athletes to the emphasis of flash, one-on-one play over teamwork”(Bryant 157). I think that this focus on the individual is slightly necessary in sports broadcasts. I do not think it takes away much from the game itself.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I have grown up watching Baseball. I find it interesting how they move the runners up, and the thinking that goes into pitching changes. However, this doesn’t hold true for every baseball fan. Most just like to see the homeruns, or the occasional fan might just be tuning in to see Barry Bonds hit a home run. I think this is a good thing though because it gets more people to watch. Also star power doesn’t take away all fundamentals. During the past two Mets season the announcers have coined the phrase “Reyes Run.” This is where Reyes gets on first and is able to score due to fly outs, stealing, and base hits. There are many fundamentals displayed during these runs, and there is still an individual focus.
Focusing on the individual is what America is all about. However, the one negative aspect is when the personal life of a sports star gets in the way of the sport. When the blogger asks if celebrities personal lives are taking away from the game, I think this is true. Commentators will interrupt game dialogue to talk about the latest controversy; this is just not what I want to hear when I watch a game. And in the case of Michael Phelps, I think the media is focusing too much on his personal life. The ratings for this year’s Olympics were higher than ever, thanks in part to Michael Phelps. I think his celebrity did a good thing for swimming and the Olympics. Now the press should leave him alone because they are going to negatively impact the sport, and possibly its ratings by dwelling on it.