Comments on: NBC sells out Super Bowl for record advertising revenue

By: Holly

Holly — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:55:29 +0000

^Isn’t that usually the case for sporting events? Part of the reason the nets are willing to pay so much for the rights to air them is because they can use them promote their regular shows. Did NBC air significantly more network promos than FOX or CBS in the years before?

By: Will

Will — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:40:15 +0000

The real question to ask is how many of the ads NBC ran they actually got paid for. There were A LOT of NBC ads which amounts to paper profits (one NBC business unit paying the other). You can include the hulu ad as it’s a NBC joint venture with News Corp.

By: Nielsen’s Very Curious ‘Revision’ That Claims NBC’s Super Bowl Was Actually The Most-Watched Ever — Actress Actor Celebrity Blog

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:06:25 +0000

[...] advertisers upwards of $3 million for each of the sixty-nine 30-second spots, a new high, to bring in $206 million in ad revenue, also a new high. How disappointing for the peacock network then, when Nielsen said that while [...]

By: Justin Howard

Justin Howard — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:52:49 +0000

I am semi pro football player. I love a little bit of attention don’t get me misquoted. I play for fun though and I do not get paid.
Before I made this team I was a student and still am a student.

Listen to this:
There is a 21 year old young man who REALLY is serious about is education, however. He can not even get a work study job. The baseball team is getting funding here at the school I attend. Everyone loves the sorority girls ,but is “upgrading” the campus worth having kids walk around here and not able to find a work place that can work around their schedule so that they may feed themselves etc. That yound man is me

Now I play football for fun. I do. I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO DO where I live.
Nothing. No where to go. No places new to see. I could drink and get addicted to drugs to and have 3 and 4 kids but I’m choosing to do right.Why should I have to suffer the ardous discomfort of: NOT HAVING ACTIVITIES DESIGNED THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR ME, NOT ABLE TO FIND A WORK STUDY JOB, NOT ABLE TO GO TO PLACES IN WHICH I WONT BE JUST ANOTHER STEREOTYPE, OR EVEN HAVE INTERN OPPURTUNITIES.

I see that the Super Bowl had a 209 million dollar revenue and an advertising mark of 261? Ad the money that went into the BCS National Championship, The New Orleans Bowl, The Bayou Classic, all NFL, MLB, NBA, NCAA football games, the NFL Playoffs, and then the Super Bowl and tell me how much money that is.
Now…….
10% of that can actually go to the bailout and to schools.
America is not focused. Literally. The NFL is always going to be here.
“Get involved” as I’m told. Sure. With what? I’m in school. I’m TRYING to keep myself on the team. I’m TRYING. I have news for you….the streets are going to be here to. Where am I going to go? I care whether I live but does anyone else?

By: Jeff G

Jeff G — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:16:06 +0000

Does this total include the internal sales to other the NBCU entities?

By: cool

cool — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 04:12:36 +0000

I prefer baseball too.

By: Holly

Holly — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 03:57:29 +0000

Actually, I lived outside of Pittsburgh for quite a while. I just didn’t watch the local news except for the weather.

By: clutz

clutz — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 03:19:46 +0000

Oops, hit Enter by accident. Can’t watch football and type at the same time, apparently? Anyway, I understand where you are, Holly, as I was there myself most of my life. No interest in football. However, Pittsburgh is so engrained, if you watch the morning news for weather and traffic, you’re bound to learn one or two Steelers’ names by osmosis . Any town whose schools call a 2-hour delay due to sports evens it a bit obsessed, I guess .

By: clutz

clutz — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 03:15:19 +0000

Woohoo! GO STILLERS!

By: Holly

Holly — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 01:58:08 +0000

Nick, Probably, but if you told me he was a baseball player, I wouldn’t argue.

By: cool

cool — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 23:46:30 +0000

Nick C, I was not born in this country so I’m not interesed at all.

By: Nick C

Nick C — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 23:08:13 +0000

Holly, if I say Peyton Manning, would you know I was talking about a football player?

By: Holly

Holly — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 23:04:53 +0000

Does knowing Joe Montana’s name count?

Seriously, I might recognize a couple names, but if you asked me to name a current football player, I’d draw a blank. I don’t like football so I don’t pay attention to any of the people involved in the game.

By: Nick C

Nick C — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:57:33 +0000

I think cool is full of it. Not knowing one name of one football player in the nation? Really? I find that impossible to believe. Someone that sheltered can’t be taken seriously.

By: clutz

clutz — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:42:35 +0000

Bill – Maybe a few Jessica Simpson fans could name Tony Romo too then?

In all honestly, it’s the “ooh, he’s cute!” factor that got me watching Steeler football on a regular basis. Now I’m absolutely hooked on the game.

By: clutz

clutz — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:39:11 +0000

Cool and David neither one know Polamalu? So maybe it’s only us Burgh folk who know that name so well. I can tell ya most Pittsburgh females can’t say that name without a smile and a sigh He’s all over You Tube though, so the world can see him!!!

We have several sports names in the Pittsburgh metro area that, over the years, have evolved beyond celebrity to near-royalty connotation. In football, there’s Rooney, Bradshaw, Harris, Bettis, Cowher, Noll, Roethlisberger, Polamalu, just off the top of my head. Everyone in Pittsburgh knows hockey names Lemieux, Jagr, now Crosby, and Malkin too. As for baseball…well, I can’t think of the last time we bothered to know all those names. 1979, maybe?

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:37:31 +0000

clutz, to my knowledge, my lovely wife hasn’t watched more than 5 minutes of an NFL game in 7+ years, but she knows who Tom Brady is. Of course, she’d likely identify him as Gisele Bundchen’s BF.

By: clutz

clutz — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:29:49 +0000

Bill, you were even more generous than I would be. I would guess somewhere around 15-20% of the population, based rougly on the Nielsen ratings of Sunday and Monday Night Football. Plus, add a few for the sports bar dwellers .

By: cool

cool — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:29:44 +0000

I dont know any football player name. That’s why I’m gonna watch Wipeout Bowl tonight.

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:59:04 +0000

Any football player at all? At least 75% of functioning US adults.

By: David

David — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 21:39:49 +0000

Never heard of Troy Polamalu. I couldn’t name a current football player if my life depended on it. Only football player I ever heard of is Walter Payton and he is dead. I wonder what percent of people in the united states could name a current football player?

By: clutz

clutz — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:07:27 +0000

@Julia, I’m hoping – and almost ready to put pretend money – on 90-91 million total viewers. We might barely crack that 90 million mark. Lots of history in the making might boost viewer interest of these two small-market teams.

Plus, how can any human being on Earth pass on a chance to see Troy Polamalu?

By: clutz

clutz — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:00:46 +0000

Julia, with my (pretend) money, I think we may barely crack 90 million. Right around the 90-91 million total viewers is my guess. These are small-market teams but there’s plenty of historical significance this year. Plus, a touch of “celebrity” status in Kurt Warner on the AZ side, and Pittsburgh has Polamalu

By: johnthemon

johnthemon — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:49:27 +0000

wow

By: Julia

Julia — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:20:57 +0000

Sam, there’s no way to know until tomorrow. I’m putting my (pretend) money on 88 mil. I don’t see it breaking 90.

By: Sam

Sam — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:15:53 +0000

Anyone have an idea of what the ratings are expected to be for the game this year?

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:43:29 +0000

Thanks Julia, i wondered how there can be a consistent ad rate when ratings fluctuate all the time, for both normal programming and sports.

By: Julia

Julia — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:31:39 +0000

Ben, if it gets more they would not have to pay more. If it gets less, it depends how much less, but if the advertisers are mad enough, NBC will have to make it up to them, which means giving them free spots or very reduced rates in other programs. But no money is actually exchanged.

That’s how it works normally, but the Super Bowl may be a different story. I don’t think it’s ever been a problem, though.

By: Ben

Ben — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:18:22 +0000

Strictly speaking in hypothetical terms, what if the superbowl only attracted 50m viewers – would the advertisers get some money back from their paid ad rates. Similarly, what if it attracted like 125m viewers – would they have to pay even more?

By: Bill Gorman

Bill Gorman — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:08:58 +0000

Unlike the upfronts in the spring in which all networks get to boast about their results in an unaudited fashion, only one network gets to make claims about its Super Bowl advertising, but again, no one gets to audit them.