Read the debate intro and Loyal Homer’s argument that league affiliated television networks are finally coming into their own.
Golf Channel, Tennis Channel, NHL Network, MLB Network, NBA TV, NFL Network – when will it all stop?!
Don’t get me wrong, I have enjoyed many different programs on these various sport and league-affiliated networks. Does that mean that there is a need for 24-hour coverage of each sport individually, or that these networks should be considered viable competition for more established sports-themed networks such as ESPN or Fox Sports? Absolutely not.
Too much specialization
I give the MLB Network a great deal of credit for being able to sign Peter Gammons, a HIGHLY respected baseball reporter who will bring credibility and outstanding insight to the MLB Network. What Gammons will not bring, however, is a noteworthy increase in viewership. Sure, there are fans out there who seek out Gammons’ opinions and reports, and they will hungrily seek out his input and analysis no matter where it is housed. The ‘Gammons Army’ is not, however, so great that it will single-handedly propel a niche network into legitimate competition against major networks.
The problem that the MLB Network faces (as well as other league-specific networks) is that it is a network based solely on events, and those events do not run year-round. While MLB Network may be able to provide occasional programming that is noteworthy, it will not be able to provide ENOUGH programming to sustain a full-time network that can effectively COMPETE with those major networks. There is just not enough baseball to talk about 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Eventually, the repetitive and excessive over-analysis of the same events becomes overkill. While I may want to know the details about the pending trade that would involve Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay, I don’t need to hear about what seven different people think about it over a period of four hours tonight, and then another ten opinions on it tomorrow!
Each sport separately makes for great headlines from time to time, and when a big story breaks it is nice to be able to utilize the league-specific networks as ONE of the resources at our disposal to find out more about a situation. Where ESPN or the Fox Sports Network holds an advantage, though, is in not restricting reporting only one sport. Instead, they can focus on those sports and events that are most relevant REGARDLESS of the sport the event occurs in. That flexibility allows those major networks to report any news that happens from any sport, rather than try to create news even in times when nothing truly newsworthy is happening. Honestly, do we REALLY need 24-hour a day news coverage of winter meetings?
Think about specialty-food stores. There are going to be times where you as a consumer are looking for a specific product, and you know that the best quality product you can find is at one of those specialty food stores. However, it is foolish and wasteful to go to the milk store, then the bread store, then the egg store, pasta store, etc, EVERY time you go grocery shopping. More often than not, the practical (and nonetheless effective) choice is to go to a one-stop shop where you can get everything you need in a quick and efficient manner.
The Power of the Masses
Separately, each league-affiliated network offers certain programming that is worth tuning in for. As Sports Geek pointed out, the NFL Network has exclusive rights to very important games. The problem that these specialty networks face is that there are very few fans exclusive to their sport. MOST fans of baseball are ALSO fans of football, or basketball, and vice versa. You cannot expect the average sports fan to segment out and schedule when and how they get sports news and updates from separate locations when there is a viable product already in place that provides COMPREHENSIVE coverage of the collective sporting world. It would be like opening a shoe store that sells only left shoes. Sure, there will be people out there who need a left shoe, and the quality of that left shoe may be unsurpassed, but those same people are also interested in purchasing a right shoe. If you can’t provide it, they will probably go somewhere else for their shoe needs.
There will always be aficionados (the term snob also comes to mind) who laud the merits of specialized products. Food-aficionados (snobs) swear by organic products and natural foods. For movie-aficionados (snobs), they will insist upon the merits of “indie films” and swear off the big-budget, no-story-having, mass-produced, over-commercialized, under-performed movies of the major studios. While those aficionados (snobs) may be correct when they swear that the specialized product they love is of a higher quality, it does not change the fact that their product does not appeal to the population at-large.
The target demographic for specialized products is very important, and should not be overlooked. However, they represent only a small portion of the population at-large. As much as aficionados despise major corporations for pandering to the masses – and will curse the masses for being under-informed, mindless sheep – it is the masses that hold the power of determining success or failure in the marketplace. The masses hold all the cards, and the masses like having a single resource to provide them with the information they desire.
For the same reason that a Farmer’s Market should not strive to compete with Wal-Mart, niche-based networks should not strive to compete with ESPN… they will NEVER win!
