Comments on: Wimbledon Tennis Viewership, 1973-2008

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:46:26 +0000

Geoff, I sadly have no more information on tennis TV viewership than you see in this post, and honestly don’t know where, other than Googling, to find it.

By: Geoff Grant

Geoff Grant — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:45:22 +0000

Bill,
I know this has nothing to do with the root question so I apologize up front but I produced a documentary film about 1 year on the pro tennis tour following 2 former top 100 players as they’re about to lose their rankings and retire. it sold in 10 countreis. I’m producing another and want to study the entire tennis television market from a world perspective. I want to know ratings, where tennis is most popular, who’s airing the most content, are there any current tennis shows in production, etc. Do you or anyone else reading this entry know how best to attack such a task?

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:47:06 +0000

The numbers are the average viewership across all telecasts for that year.

I don't have any information why the average viewership would have fallen so sharply in 1983.

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:47:06 +0000

The numbers are the average viewership across all telecasts for that year.

I don't have any information why the average viewership would have fallen so sharply in 1983.

By: questioners?

questioners? — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 07:39:26 +0000

how do you account for the time slot? And what happened in 1983?

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:26:35 +0000

Jamie, you are correct on trying to make apples to apples comparisons between the various years with the numbers above, but the telecast data from 1996-2007 is equivalent in the number of rounds/telecasts so is directly comparable.

And while the 1987-1995 data above includes more telecasts of earlier rounds, that should *reduce* those averages, making the decline since then even more substantial. And I indicated above that comparisons prior to 1987 shouldn't be made.

And you are correct, the initial ratings data for this years men's and women's finals indicates it was a big ratings uptick. I am interested to see the final numbers.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:41:42 +0000

Also, it's difficult to compare the average ratings of numerous telecasts (including early rounds) in recent years with earlier years which average only the final rounds of coverage.

BTW, “NBC's coverage of the Wimbledon gentlemen's final earned it's best rating in eight years, peaking at a 6.5/15 from 4:00-4:30pm ET, and marking the best overnight for a Wimbledon gentlemen's final involving two non-U.S. players since '91 (Becker-Stich, 5.0/17).”

By: Jamie

Jamie — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:39:00 +0000

Obviously you didn't watch the Wimbledon men's final this year, which was the most exciting sporting event I've seen all year.

By: Event Horizon

Event Horizon — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 16:34:49 +0000

Watching tennis about as exciting as watching grass grow. Its boring, its dull, thats why so few people watch it. Now if they used a robotic tennis ball cannon to randomly shoot balls at the players heads, that might spice things up enough for higher ratings. It would just randomly select one of the players to shoot at. The only thing worse to watch on TV is golf. Talk about a snoozer (Watch guy stare at ball for 10 minutes, stand up, move around, stare at ball for another 5 minutes, stand there for 2 more minutes and slowly putt the ball towards the hole – and MISS ! Only Tiger Woods is remotely watchable. Playing golf is ok, but watching other people on TV? Painfull !

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 03:39:00 +0000

Unfortunately our current comments system strips all the old comments when I modify a post date to bump it up, so here’s a crude reposting of the earlier comments on this post.

Carl LaFong Demographic data was not produced in June, but Household ratings data was.?

THE_Anonymous ?1 week ago ?Take a look at the winners…from ’00 to ’07, the Williams sisters dominated (ratings declined by nearly half). From ’82 to ’86, again pretty much the same consistency in winners…and ratings fell by nearly half as well. I think tennis goes through cycles where the winners become awfully predictable — and people as a result lose interest in the sport. Just a guess.?

Rob D ?1 week ago ?I don’t think that it being predictable hurts. Look at Tiger Woods and Ken Jennings. It’s just that tennis needs an American male star to start winning. Especially one with more personality than Pete Sampras. Connors, McEnroe, and Agassi are the types of stars that tennis needs now. Nobody is really out there that fits that decription though (Roddick and Blake aren’t good enough).?John McNamara ?1 week ago ?Aging boomers prefer golf?

Bill Gorman ? 1 week ago ?John, I think aging boomers (and everybody else) likes good personalities in solo sports, in this case since it’s American TV, American personalities.?Tiger Woods = golf ratings boom?Departure of McEnroe, Connors, Agassi = tennis ratings bust??

Drew ?3 days ago ?I love watching tennis. The problem is when these european tournaments are being televised at whatever time the network decides, an accidental peek at MSN’s front page (for ex) and the winners/losers are splashed on the front of the page– so why watch??It’s hard being a fan when the occassional network coverage is shown hours after a winner has already been decided. Of course, the finals are live so the nbrs presented here are for the finals of Wimbledon only, but if you haven’t invested any time through an entire tournament, just tuning in to watch the finals is like only watching the fourth quarter of the superbowl and missing out on the playoffs all together. ?The lack of well liked US men doesn’t help either as well as the non cable networks only showing us the second week of a major and an occassional masters final. Tennis only takes about 6 weeks off the entire year, so showing us an occassional match here and there doesn’t do much to generate excitement because it’s hard to get to know the players’ personalities.?Fortunately, for the diehards, the tennis channel has coverage of most Tier 1 tournaments and some Tier 2,, but The Tennis Channel is normally not a basic channel and costs a few bucks extra a month. ?Either way, Vamos Rafa!

Megan ?1 day ago ?What’s killing TV sports, especially tennis? Tape, tape & more tape. Taped matches, endless puff stories and endless replays. I listened to BBC radio. All sports events must be live, live and live. Otherwise, set is off.