ABC gets a game 7,how profitable has the series been for Disney?

[KNWVIKING]

I know the majority opinion here when it comes to Disney and team ownership, but just curious if this season won't take a little sting out of the bottom line ? The value of the Ducks should climb after this season because everything is in place for a pretty good run over the next few seasons-this team isn't just a lucky fluke. ABC gets a full 7 game series, couldn't ask for anything more, especially with game 7 being in Jersey where the hockey market is huge. Just wondering if maybe the planets aligned at the right moment to give ME a boost ?

 

[Another Voice]

Hmmm....

Disney sold the Angels for a loss after they won the World Series. As much as the Ducks might go for it still won't recoup the money Disney has lost on the team over the years.

As for the ratings, a quick look at the Thursday night ratings shows that Game 5 came in 13th out of the 16 major network shows that evening. It pulled in less than a third of the veiwers of a repeat for 'C.S.I.' (the evening's top rated show) and was beaten by 'Smackdown' on UPN and 'Stupid Behavior Caught on Tape' on Fox. It did, however, beat a repeat of 'Sabrina, the Teenage Witch' on the WB.

An article in 'USA Today' (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/martzke/2003-06-03-martzke_x.htm) talks about Disney's problems with both the NHL and the NBA deal:

"The Stanley Cup Finals ratings are off 55% on ESPN and down 32% on ABC from last year. The NBA's shift to largely a cable deal with ESPN/ABC replacing NBC as TNT's partner has resulted in a one-third decline in viewership to 3.5 million fans a night for the playoffs compared with 5.2 million last year."

"Disappointing ratings have required ABC and ESPN to provide compensatory ads* during the NBA and NHL playoffs, advertising and network officials said Tuesday.

ESPN's projection of a 3.7 cable rating for the NBA conference finals fell short by 32%, and ABC's projection of a 7.0 rating was off by 40%. In the Anaheim-New Jersey NHL Finals, ABC's two games have slipped 32% from last year to a 2.3, and ESPN's two games tumbled 55% to a 1.23."

Disney payed $600 million five years ago to broadcast the NHL on ABC. That was over two and half times what Fox had paid for the same rights. That's also the cost of California Adventure, two Beastly Kingdoms or six 'Expedition: Everests'. And people wonder why the hours keep getting cut...


* - that means Disney has to give free ad time to the sponsors who had purchased ads to show during the final. Not only is it lost revenue but it further depresses ad rates for next year's event. Disney also had to the do the same thing becasue of the low ratings for the Oscar broadcast. And people are still wondering where the fourth chicken finger has gone...

 

[rwodonnell]

Originally posted by Another Voice
Hmmm....

Disney sold the Angels for a loss after they won the World Series. As much as the Ducks might go for it still won't recoup the money Disney has lost on the team over the years.

I agree with your main point that Disney will probably have lost money over the course of their ownership of the Ducks. What is not really true though, is that they "sold the Angels for a loss". Disney paid $30M in 1996 for 25% of the team, then bought the rest in 1998 for another $110M. I didn't want people to get the impression that they sold the Angels for less than they paid for them.

Disney did lose money over the course of their ownership of the Angels, apparently, having spent $100M on stadium renovations, and they even reported a loss last year of $10M, in which the team won the World Series. That last fact (if indeed it is true - there are many who are very skeptical of MLB teams and their claims of lost money) is astounding. They had 2.3M in attendance and under $60M in player payroll. Clearly there are other expenses, but one would think that tickets alone could almost cover player salaries.

There are some decent factoids in this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A34817-2003Apr15&notFound=true and there is also this very interesting quote:

Analysts have called this the worst time in recent history to try to sell sports teams, which are saddled with high player salaries, and, in some leagues, dropping attendance and television ratings.

So it appears that the timing of this experiment couldn't have been much worse.

 

[EUROPA]

I didn't want people to get the impression that they sold the Angels for less than they paid for them.

That figure becomes much closer when you figure in inflation.

 

[OnWithTheShow]

It seems as if all major media or other large corporations who own sports teams are having a great deal of trouble financially. Its not just mismanagement by Disney. I still believe that the concept of Disney owning sports teams fits with the mission of the company, it just didnt work out.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by OnWithTheShow
It seems as if all major media or other large corporations who own sports teams are having a great deal of trouble financially. Its not just mismanagement by Disney. I still believe that the concept of Disney owning sports teams fits with the mission of the company, it just didnt work out.

Wonder why Eisner hasn't used that excuse yet? Last quote I saw from him said that he thought that it was a bad idea to have large corportaions running sports teams.

 

[jlambrig]

Revenue for the Ducks for this year will definitely be up. Since no salaries are paid to players in the post season, every home playoff game is a financial boost. But as stated earlier, over the course of ownership, the Ducks have been a drag.

ABC did get a nice viewership boost for game 7, a record share, but too little too late.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Too bad there weren't any good teams in the Stanley Cup finals. <<cough Red Wings cough>>

I guess Detroit really is Hockeytown - ABC got it's best ratings for game 7 in the Detroit market. A Detroit-New Jersey final would have been a MUCH better scenario for ABC. The fact is, all the "name" teams were bounced out early by nobodys... Detroit, Colorado, Toronto, Dallas....

 

[larworth]

I thought the real reason they bought both these properties was to be able to coerce, I mean persuade, the city of Anaheim to spend many millions of tax dollars on area upgrades? Now that this has run its course, they are dumping them.

If so, than maybe breaking even (or even a small loss) is more than acceptable.

On the business side it is good they are getting rid of these distractions. Oh, and not having the camera pan over to the luxury box to see a certain someone's mug is a nice byproduct.