TENNIS CHANNEL MINUS

By Tripp Andre [@arandomgamer02 on #TennisTwitter]

What exactly is a network executive? For people not in the business, like myself, we see the network executive as persnickety, greedy, ignorant, dull, and generally mediocre, because we only look behind the camera when we are unhappy. Many network executives have overseen fabulous content and generated enormous revenues. A network executive’s job is to drive content, create numbers, and make money for the company, and the job can be done in a variety of ways ranging from hard journalism to sensationalism. Hard-nosed reporting in the Trump era is now selling subscriptions. On the flip side, Colin Cowherd wasn’t rating in Washington, D.C., so he started ragging on John Wall – problem solved. If the people are consuming your product, good or bad, the network executive has done his or her job. 

We must be respectful when singling out an individual for criticism. Network executives are in fact human, as shocking as that may be. They have feelings, goals, mandates, families, everything that we have. Everyone thinks they can be a network executive, but we’re at home sitting on the couch. Personally shaming anybody in any profession is counterproductive and mean... but feedback is still an important part of the fan-executive dialogue. 

Tennis Channel launched in 2003, and it has remained a small-time channel for the extent of its run to date. The subscription base is low. Live footage of major-tournament matches is low. The talent base is poor. The production values are mediocre. Tennis Channel is the red-headed stepchild of American sports channels. I’m not trying to vilify or criticize here – it’s just the way it is. The network doesn’t have the resources every other cable channel does. There’s no Disney or broadcast network with deep coffers. However, there is Sinclair Broadcasting, which acquired several tennis properties earlier this year, including Tennis Channel, so we can revisit this story in a few years after the company's vision has had time to develop. 

Tennis Channel’s largest accomplishment to date has been the acquisition of the Roland Garros cable rights. It’s the centerpiece of the cable channel's year, the only major tournament where it is in charge. In 2011, Tennis Channel’s streaming coverage of Roland Garros was free. In 2017, that is no longer the case. Tennis Channel Plus launched in 2014 under the supervision of Adam Ware, Tennis Channel’s digital media executive. Tennis Channel Plus’ signature property is the five-court “mosaic” from Roland Garros. The service has other properties, but honestly, this is the only one that matters. The rest of the events can be seen on TennisTV or in other places for much better value. 

Now we come to the crux of the matter. I’m not here to vilify Tennis Channel or Adam Ware. I am a customer making a decision on whether to purchase Tennis Channel Plus for Roland Garros 2017. Here was how my thinking went: 

  • The discounted price of $72 is what I make in a day of work. Would I work a whole day just for this service? 
  • About how much is each match worth? My $13 TennisTV payment for May 2017 covers two Masters events, with at least 25 matches worth watching and many more available. For the matches that I personally watch, it’s about $0.52 per match. For Tennis Channel Plus, we’re talking five courts for the first week of play, and each court has four matches, for a max total of about 160 matches. I’d realistically watch, again, about 25 matches. That’s about $3.60 per match, or 6.9 times the cost of TennisTV. 
  • Sometimes a consumer pays extra for a quality product, but based on my prior experience in the days when Plus was cheaper, the streams are buggy. I also experienced situations when the streams would cut off at 3:00 p.m. Eastern time, when matches were still being played. So, it’s a very expensive price for a product that is (A) not at all a good product on its own, and (B) is a far inferior product to TennisTV or WatchESPN. 
  • Is this something I feel comfortable supporting? I love tennis. I love it enough that I’m willing to pay for it – I have patronized tournaments and streaming services many times. My desire to watch Roland Garros is higher than any disdain I had or have for Tennis Channel and what it represents. 

Payment for a product, is what a network executive cares about. Plenty of terrible products have made millions, thus generating more terrible products. If you buy Tennis Channel Plus, it will likely stick around in its current form for years to come. Fans will continue to be underserviced and the product will not improve. If the subscription base shrivels up, there is a good chance the situation will change. 

I will not be buying Tennis Channel Plus this year. Send Adam Ware and his bosses a message and do the same.  

Mr. Ware: this product is not good enough.  

Tennis deserves better.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Mark Of Complexity: On the Nadal-Goffin Call in Monte Carlo

The devil is in the details, mon ami. Hercule Poirot, being a good Belgian, certainly appreciated that pearl of wisdom in his detective work. One can only wonder how he would litigate the call which sabotaged fellow Belgian David Goffin's attempt to make his first Masters 1000 final on Saturday in Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, France. Let's cut right to the chase: Up 3-2 and serving at game point in the first set, Goffin won the point on a ball from Nadal that was multiple inches behind the baseline. The crowd applauded Goffin winning the point and the game. Then, several seconds later, umpire Cedric Mourier checked a mark and said the shot was good. Replay showed the ball was well beyond the baseline, removed from any "margin of error" discussion which sometimes clouds the issue of correct calls on clay. (More on that shortly.) Nevertheless, the point was replayed, Goffin lost it. The aftermath: Following a prolonged battle in that sixth game, Nadal broke Goffin for 3
Read more

Crowd Behavior: Worth Policing, Worth Doing The Right Way

People pay good money to attend tennis tournaments and every other kind of sporting event. Yet, tennis has a well-established culture of manners and etiquette. There are unwritten expectations for the ways in which tennis fans can and should behave at an event. The problem: Unwritten rules aren't written. American readers of this piece who have a basic working knowledge of other sports are probably aware that baseball owns a lot of unwritten rules. When these "unwritten rules" are violated, two baseball teams often engage in a brawl (or at least an angry argument), usually because a pitcher attempted to throw the ball at the head of a hitter. As is the case in tennis, these "unwritten rules" have a long history in the culture of the sport. A plot complication: What happens when modern versions of a sport, wrapped inside new cultural pressures and tensions and points of awareness, clash with the unwritten rules of the past? New generations of players
Read more

Wimbledon Needs A Liturgical Update

In a piece on Marin Cilic -- written after his loss to Roger Federer in the Wimbledon men's final -- I compared sports fans who watch tennis only at Wimbledon or the U.S. Open (specifically the semifinals and finals) to Catholics who attend worship only at Christmas or Easter each year. I reference that comparison because Wimbledon -- in many ways the Vatican of tennis, with Centre Court being its great cathedral -- has a liturgy which has lost its relevance in modern times. This puts the tournament in the same basic position as the Catholic Church, which is shrinking in most of the world, growing only in the less developed global South, particularly Africa. To put a finer point on this comparison, the liturgy -- a public expression of communal faith -- is not the same thing as the faith itself. Yes, people who attend a liturgy will get the impression that Mass reflects something about the faith of the community, but it is only a surface-level product. Layers below that one pa
Read more