The Royals’ 7-2 win over the Giants in Game 2 of the Fall Classic on Wednesday gave Fox its second primetime win in as many nights. The game, which was tied until the sixth inning, drew a 7.9 fast-national rating and 12.9 million viewers, up 8% and 6%, respectively, from Tuesday’s Game 1. Game 2 also ranks as Fox’ highest-rated and most-watched primetime telecast of the season. Through two games, Fox is averaging a 7.6 fast-national rating and 12.5 million viewers (Josh Carpenter, Staff Writer).
LOOKING AT THE TREND: In N.Y., Mahler & Carter in a front-page piece write low ratings for the World Series thus far "highlight a number of trends in the sports and media industries," and, above all, are indicative of "the rise of the NFL in the era of 24-hour sports television." On a "more basic level, potential World Series viewers simply have more options than ever before, both in their ever-expanding cable packages and via online streaming services like Netflix." The ratings also "reflect the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly local sport." The "modest viewership thus far is partly a function" of the Giants-Royals matchup. The Royals "have one of the smallest TV markets" in MLB and are also "pretty much devoid of boldface names." MLB VP/Business PR Matt Bourne said that another factor in the ratings thus far "has been the run differential," as this year marks the "first time since 1937 that the first two games of the World Series were won by five runs or more." But Mahler & Carter write, "There’s no avoiding the reality that the World Series is not what it used to be" (N.Y. TIMES, 10/24). YAHOO FINANCE's Michael Santoli wrote the matchup of "two smaller-market teams without many nationally recognized stars is likely ... sapping viewer interest." As "enjoyable as the Royals’ unlikely sprint into the Series has been," K.C. is "the 31st-largest TV market in the country and the team lacks either a national following or brand name superstars" (FINANCE.YAHOO.com, 10/23). WFAN-AM's Joe Benigno said, "For the most part, nobody really cares about this World Series. Baseball is a regional game; if your team isn't in it, do you really care? I think it really comes down to that more than anything else." But the N.Y. Daily News' Pat Leonard said, "What really brings the casual fan to it is you get deeper into a series, every pitch, every hit, every swing matters more, so that's when I start watching more" ("Daily News Live," SNY, 10/23).
THE 1 TO TURN TO? In N.Y., Bob Raissman writes Fox in its TV contract with MLB "isn’t overpaying for the right to air baseball games in anticipation of guaranteed mega World Series ratings," but rather "to bring awareness and distribution" to FS1. The idea is to "give potential viewers interested in baseball a reason to go to FS1 and drive them there -- to familiarize them with the network." Fox "is using baseball to help build its all-sports brand and eventually compete with ESPN," and the World Series "is part of that plan." However, that strategy could be "one reason the Series has gotten off to a slow ratings start" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 10/24). In Rochester, Jim Mandelaro writes, "When you can't find the previous two rounds on your TV remote -- Is the game on Channel 49? Channel 400? Channel 306? -- it's hard to suddenly become attached to the two finalists." MLB Commissioner Bud Selig "sold the rights to the postseason to cable channels many people don't even get," which "makes financial sense, but does it make common sense?" (ROCHESTER DEMOCRAT & CHRONICLE, 10/24).
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING? NBCSPORTS.com's Craig Calcaterra wrote with the exception of football, all TV programming "gets much lower ratings than it used to because of fragmentation of entertainment in general." That, combined with MLB's "increasing emphasis on local ratings, local deals and its increasing efforts to push the product to cable and the Internet, exacerbate the effect with the National Pastime." However, Calcaterra writes, "As long as these low ratings aren't hurting baseball ability to continue as a going concern (they decidedly are not) and as long as the networks which pay baseball to air the games are pleased (they clearly remain so) why should anyone give a crap?" (NBCSPORTS.com, 10/23).
THE ROYAL TREATMENT: YAHOO SPORTS' David Brown noted the Royals on Wednesday night "not only evened up the World Series," but also "scored an impressive victory of sorts" against the Chiefs in the local TV ratings. Game 2 earned a 48.2 rating in the K.C. market, and while the Royals "have gained ground on the Chiefs this season, it's not often they're measurably more popular than the local football team." Chiefs games during last season "pulled a 42.9 overall rating and reached 48.0" for the Chiefs' AFC Wild Card playoff loss to the Colts. Regardless, the Royals' "strong local TV numbers show how much interest there is in a team playing in the World Series" for the first time since '85. Brown: "If they get into a position to clinch a championship in Games 5, 6 or 7, it will be noteworthy to see how far beyond 50 percent the ratings can go in K.C." (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 10/23).
SOMETHING MISSING? In Boston, Chad Finn writes former Fox broadcaster Tim McCarver "is missed" on the net's World Series broadcasts this year. While McCarver "had lost something off his fastball in recent years," it should "never have been forgotten how sharp and even prophetic he was in his heyday." Finn: "Having recently watched all of Fox’s broadcasts from the 2004 American League Championship Series, it was striking how on point McCarver was in explaining what had happened and what might happen." Current Fox analyst Harold Reynolds' "greatest attribute ... is his bland affability," which "works for him on the MLB Network’s enjoyable, mellow offseason morning show, 'Hot Stove.'" But that affability "becomes irritating over the course of a ballgame ... when it becomes apparent he has little insight to offer" (BOSTON GLOBE, 10/24). In N.Y., Phil Mushnick writes Reynolds "after every pitch and play leans in toward our ears to deliver a lengthy, often needless and occasionally silly speech about the last pitch or play." Then analyst Tom Verducci "leans into our ears to agree or disagree, or offer different thoughts about two-strike change-ups, and other matters of 'maybe.'" Play-by-play announcer Joe Buck then "leans into our ears, his voice often pulsing with dramatic anticipation, to prep us for the next pitch." Mushnick: "And then it all starts over, our central nervous systems taking an early, then steady, beating" (N.Y. POST, 10/24).
