NFL Playoff Viewership Drives Streaming Value and Broadcast Conflicts

Key Quotes

"Well, I mean, it says a lot about where ESPN is now and in the NFL hierarchy because that used to be the ESPN game, right? I mean, you know, Panthers, that literally was the ESPN game. The only time they ever had an NFL playoff game exclusively on their cable networks, it was the Panthers against the Cardinals. It's not the sexiest matchup. It's, you know, it's certainly far from the marquee, but because Fox has two games this weekend, it made sense that in exchange for the benefit of getting two games, one of them was not going to be the most attractive ever."

John Lewis explains that the placement of the Rams-Panthers game on Fox, rather than ESPN, signifies a shift in the NFL's hierarchy and network priorities. Lewis notes that this game, while not a marquee matchup, was likely a concession by Fox to secure a second playoff game that weekend.

"I think first, it gets back to the relationship. You're talking about people need to pay more attention to that NFL-Prime Video relationship. You know about the ESPN relationship and the NFL media deal that'll go through eventually. But like you said, they want to be in business with Prime long term. Prime wants in on the NFL. They want more. Okay, they've got, they got Black Friday in a separate deal. They've got this wild card game. Now, if something more comes up, if more inventory comes up in these rights renegotiations, whether it's a holiday package or something like that, Prime Video is going to want to be on in those discussions for sure."

Austin Karp highlights the strategic importance of the NFL's relationship with Amazon Prime Video, suggesting that Prime's acquisition of playoff games is part of a larger, long-term partnership. Karp indicates that Amazon's desire for more NFL content, such as holiday packages, will likely influence future media rights negotiations.

"I think we need to reset the bar here in this whole conversation. 20 million isn't the bar for these games anymore. We've got to be talking 30 million. Like every wild card game cleared 20 million last year. And that, and that's like the start of, you know, it wasn't even big data yet fully. So everything should be clearing 20 million. Even that Panthers game should be clearing 20 million. This, this game, this window, Packers-Eagles last year, you were talking 36 million. We could be talking 40 million for this game if we get that sort of shootout. Those are the numbers we need to be thinking about now. The NFL has just taken it up a notch in what we need to be expecting. And especially around these playoff numbers, I think we're really going to be, I mean, I know, I know it's big data and this is a new era and all that, but we really need to reset expectations on what we're going to be getting here."

Austin Karp argues that viewership expectations for NFL playoff games need to be significantly raised, suggesting that 30 million viewers should be the new baseline, not 20 million. Karp points to past viewership figures, including a 36 million number for a previous Packers-Eagles game, and asserts that the NFL's overall popularity and the impact of "big data" measurement necessitate higher projections.

"Well, I mean, I don't know that the current iteration of the Patriots has proven that they draw yet. That's going to take a little while. And, you know, the reality is, I don't necessarily think the Patriots have ever been outside of Brady that big of a draw. You know, these Boston teams, because of ESPN, we just assume that Boston is like Boston and New York are just these, as soon as you're on TV, people are going to tune in. That's not necessarily true."

John Lewis expresses skepticism about the New England Patriots' current drawing power as a television entity, separate from their past success with Tom Brady. Lewis suggests that the assumption that Boston teams automatically command high viewership is not always accurate and that the franchise's appeal may have been heavily tied to Brady.

"Well, you know, I, you know, Benetti is obviously top tier. He's underutilized at Fox, right? I mean, we all know this. Look, no disrespect to Joe Davis or Adam Amin, and they deserve the jobs that they had before Fox hired Benetti. But to have Jason Benetti on your payroll and it's October and he's doing college football and the NFL and not baseball is pretty crazy. And so I think this is the right move. I think it also allows Benetti to do pretty much the exact same stuff he was doing for Fox. I'm sure NBC would find room for him on college football, obviously college hoops, and also something that he did do in Chicago occasionally on bowl games. He was pretty good on the NBA as well. So he would be a great pickup for the NBA on NBC. And NBC and Peacock have so many games. I mean, they've been using some regional sports network folks so far, like the voice of the Mavericks, whose name escapes me for some reason. I usually know his name, but they had Kate Scott doing a game the other day. Bringing in Benetti would be certainly they've got some room on the depth chart to bring in a dedicated national voice. So that would be great."

John Lewis argues that Jason Benetti is a top-tier broadcaster who is currently underutilized by Fox, particularly in not calling baseball. Lewis believes that NBC hiring Benetti would be a strong move, allowing him to continue with other sports like college football and basketball while also potentially expanding his role to NBA coverage, filling a need for a dedicated national voice on NBC's platforms.

"I think it did do well, but it is the Rose Bowl, right? I mean, a brand 38 to three and people stuck around for it. That could, that this is easily be people enjoying Alabama's decline as anything. I will say, I do think Indiana has got a very special story. I expect some strong numbers for the semifinals that did not do that well relatively speaking last year. But I'm, I'm a little bit surprised by all the surprise about the Rose Bowl number. It's the Rose Bowl with playoff implication. It absolutely should be frankly higher. Honestly, given the New Year's Day time slot and the out of home changes, the big data, which, you know, can sometimes giveth and taketh away. But, you know, I mean, I would expect for a Rose Bowl not played in Arlington, Texas, right? A regular Rose Bowl with playoff implications, yeah, 23, 24, 25 million. If it had been a good game, it probably would have gotten to that level. Maybe the earlier time slot might have hurt, frankly."

John Lewis expresses surprise at the perceived surprise regarding the Rose Bowl'