CBC draws record audiences for World Cup Final - Page 2 - Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums

skeena1 · 2010-07-14, 05:57 PM

One of the reasons is the new people meters. Among other things, they bring the ability to measure a good percentage of viewership in public places, unlike set top devices or (shudder) diaries.

hugh · 2010-07-14, 09:18 PM

I'm sure the meters are a factor but if that was the only factor then it means the old audience were off by 100% which may be the truth but ....

NB Josh · 2010-07-14, 09:48 PM

I'd say that PPMs resulted in a bit of an increase, as did the fact that it was on CBC instead of TSN/Sportsnet (as it was in 2006). Otherwise I'd say its mostly because the World Cup has been trending upwards, just look at these numbers from the past four finals

2010, Netherlands vs. Spain, 2:30pm ET: 5.13 million (CBC)
2006, Italy vs. France, 2:00pm ET: 2.84 million (CTV)
2002, Brazil vs. Germany, 7:00am ET: 1.08 million (CBC)
1998, Brazil vs. France, 3:00pm ET: 1.55 million (TSN)

Overall average audiences for the 2010 World Cup were also double what they were in 2006.

ralph_sinclair · 2010-07-15, 10:33 AM

The CBC was really selling the world cup hard, for months before the tournament. They were pushing it on radio and web, and in their newscasts and other programming. This may have piqued the interest of casual fans, who would not have seen promos on the sports channels. I don't think CTV and Rogers were promoting as much in 2006.

Also I know my girlfriend and parents don't have cable, and watched lots of games. Last time around, my folks were only able to watch the final on CTV.

SportsFan · 2010-07-15, 02:00 PM

I bet Canadian audiences grew even more than those numbers indicate. In 2006 the only reason to watch the final on ABC was if you didn't get CTV HD. This year ABC had first class coverage, hiring top English commentators and bringing in analysts like Steven McManaman and Roberto Martinez. I'm sure a lot of Canadians watched the game on ABC.

Andrew1 · 2010-07-15, 02:17 PM

A few reasons:

1) - better promotion with the matches not sectioned off on sports specialty channels but on the CBC main network

2) - the sterility of traditional North American sports (especially to young Canadians) with too many commercials and breaks in the action in general and too many meaningless games

3) - people fed up with the vulgarity if not the outright criminality of so many American sports stars and looking for alternatives (the crassness of European athletes isn't as well publicised in Canada!)

4) - the accumulation of a couple of generations of Canadians who played the sport growing up and immigrants who only followed soccer growing up

5) - technological change that allows us to follow virtually every league in the world live

More on that. When I first lived in Canada as a child in the 80s I had to follow baseball, hockey, and football to get my sports fix as there was little soccer coverage and no rugby or cricket. If I wanted to have friends I had to learn how to play them too. Other immigrants in my class were the same. When I moved back to Canada in the 2000s that was no longer the case. It's easy to follow sports from outside North America. TV coverage has got so much better in recent years that younger members of my extended family and immigrant friends are actually growing up following European soccer teams their parents and grandparents followed and have little interest in local sports. When the WC comes along these young people know all the players, so the tournament means something to them.

6) - the PPMs

7) - the arrival of MLS in Toronto has probably had some impact on the growth of the sport

I'd say all 7 reasons combined have had an impact.

tofinoguy · 2010-07-15, 05:03 PM

Might I also suggest that having the Olympics on home soil got more people into the mindset of following large sporting events.

Francois Caron · 2010-07-16, 02:02 PM

Availability maybe? How many nations had a free feed available either on-line or OTA?

sweettahsin · 2010-07-16, 08:04 PM

Awesome! I feel sad though no world cuop

Neild · 2010-07-23, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DT1

I watched the first 20-30 minutes on ABC but when I switched over to CBC the picture was much better (at least on Bell anyway)

Maybe you have that backwards? The picture quality on CBC was so dismal compared to ABC. I took pictures actually so if at some point I figure out how to post them here you can take a look.

Initially I was observing the poor motion compression of 2010 CBC versus the much superior 2006 TSN coverage, but I also grabbed a shot of 2010 ABC vs 2010 CBC and the difference couldn't be more obvious.

spensar · 2010-07-23, 09:19 AM

Post-Olympic benefit? Canadians liked being part of a big international event, and the World Cup lets them do it again so after? It's easy for a casual fan to drop in. For the final Holland and Spain are countries Canadians can identify with, and both had compelling story lines.

Other than that, is the huge junior level participation finally filtering through and creating more people that are at least casually interested enough to watch?

On the pessimistic side, there isn't much quality on in July, and no sports unless you are a die-hard baseball fan. Ergo, World Cup became the default show.

smootherator · 2010-07-23, 08:04 PM

Well I think its because there are so many kids playing the game. I think its way more than kids who play hockey. The game is relatively simple that even the most casual of viewers can figure things out.

I'm sure it also helps that the US had a great run this time around. Another reason could be that soccer coverage has increased with all the new soccer dedicated channels available to people who want to keep up with European Leagues.

For me personally I switched from watching the leafs lose to watching soccer. At least this way I can cheer for a team that will actually win something.

2010-07-14, 09:18 PM	#17
hugh Member #1 Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto Posts: 47,492	I'm sure the meters are a factor but if that was the only factor then it means the old audience were off by 100% which may be the truth but .... __________________ As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website.

2010-07-23, 09:19 AM	#26
spensar Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Ottawa Posts: 1,113	Post-Olympic benefit? Canadians liked being part of a big international event, and the World Cup lets them do it again so after? It's easy for a casual fan to drop in. For the final Holland and Spain are countries Canadians can identify with, and both had compelling story lines. Other than that, is the huge junior level participation finally filtering through and creating more people that are at least casually interested enough to watch? On the pessimistic side, there isn't much quality on in July, and no sports unless you are a die-hard baseball fan. Ergo, World Cup became the default show. __________________ Panasonic TH-42PX60U, Harmony 670, Rogers HD 8300, 3250HD, Denon AVR-591, Chartwell SL3-5A, Venturer SHD-7000, Samsung 1600 BR.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

2010-07-14, 05:57 PM	#16
skeena1 Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 237	One of the reasons is the new people meters. Among other things, they bring the ability to measure a good percentage of viewership in public places, unlike set top devices or (shudder) diaries.

2010-07-14, 09:48 PM	#18
NB Josh Veteran Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: New Brunswick - Shaw Direct Posts: 3,150	I'd say that PPMs resulted in a bit of an increase, as did the fact that it was on CBC instead of TSN/Sportsnet (as it was in 2006). Otherwise I'd say its mostly because the World Cup has been trending upwards, just look at these numbers from the past four finals 2010, Netherlands vs. Spain, 2:30pm ET: 5.13 million (CBC) 2006, Italy vs. France, 2:00pm ET: 2.84 million (CTV) 2002, Brazil vs. Germany, 7:00am ET: 1.08 million (CBC) 1998, Brazil vs. France, 3:00pm ET: 1.55 million (TSN) Overall average audiences for the 2010 World Cup were also double what they were in 2006.

2010-07-15, 10:33 AM	#19
ralph_sinclair Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 420	The CBC was really selling the world cup hard, for months before the tournament. They were pushing it on radio and web, and in their newscasts and other programming. This may have piqued the interest of casual fans, who would not have seen promos on the sports channels. I don't think CTV and Rogers were promoting as much in 2006. Also I know my girlfriend and parents don't have cable, and watched lots of games. Last time around, my folks were only able to watch the final on CTV.

2010-07-15, 02:00 PM	#20
SportsFan Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Nanaimo, BC Posts: 770	I bet Canadian audiences grew even more than those numbers indicate. In 2006 the only reason to watch the final on ABC was if you didn't get CTV HD. This year ABC had first class coverage, hiring top English commentators and bringing in analysts like Steven McManaman and Roberto Martinez. I'm sure a lot of Canadians watched the game on ABC.

2010-07-15, 02:17 PM	#21
Andrew1 Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Greater Toronto Posts: 677	A few reasons: 1) - better promotion with the matches not sectioned off on sports specialty channels but on the CBC main network 2) - the sterility of traditional North American sports (especially to young Canadians) with too many commercials and breaks in the action in general and too many meaningless games 3) - people fed up with the vulgarity if not the outright criminality of so many American sports stars and looking for alternatives (the crassness of European athletes isn't as well publicised in Canada!) 4) - the accumulation of a couple of generations of Canadians who played the sport growing up and immigrants who only followed soccer growing up 5) - technological change that allows us to follow virtually every league in the world live More on that. When I first lived in Canada as a child in the 80s I had to follow baseball, hockey, and football to get my sports fix as there was little soccer coverage and no rugby or cricket. If I wanted to have friends I had to learn how to play them too. Other immigrants in my class were the same. When I moved back to Canada in the 2000s that was no longer the case. It's easy to follow sports from outside North America. TV coverage has got so much better in recent years that younger members of my extended family and immigrant friends are actually growing up following European soccer teams their parents and grandparents followed and have little interest in local sports. When the WC comes along these young people know all the players, so the tournament means something to them. 6) - the PPMs 7) - the arrival of MLS in Toronto has probably had some impact on the growth of the sport I'd say all 7 reasons combined have had an impact.

2010-07-15, 05:03 PM	#22
tofinoguy Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 287	Might I also suggest that having the Olympics on home soil got more people into the mindset of following large sporting events.

2010-07-16, 02:02 PM	#23
Francois Caron Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 1,368	Availability maybe? How many nations had a free feed available either on-line or OTA?

2010-07-16, 08:04 PM	#24
sweettahsin Rookie Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 21	Awesome! I feel sad though no world cuop

2010-07-23, 08:04 PM	#27
smootherator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 699	Well I think its because there are so many kids playing the game. I think its way more than kids who play hockey. The game is relatively simple that even the most casual of viewers can figure things out. I'm sure it also helps that the US had a great run this time around. Another reason could be that soccer coverage has increased with all the new soccer dedicated channels available to people who want to keep up with European Leagues. For me personally I switched from watching the leafs lose to watching soccer. At least this way I can cheer for a team that will actually win something.