Guess we can look forward to more of the same next year.  According to NBC the stream set a record for most-streamed live event in U.S. history with 27.6 million total viewers.  More stats and info can be found in the link below.

https://nbcsportsgrouppressbox.com/2024/01/14/peacock-exclusive-afc-wild-card-game-is-biggest-live-streamed-event-in-u-s-history-drives-internet-usage-to-single-day-u-s-record/

I'm guessing that means in another year or two if you want to watch all the playoff games you'll need to subscribe to not only your main television service but several other services as well.  I was really hoping that stream would totally flop and put an end to that kind of stuff.  This is the kind of thing that's just going to push more people back to sailing the high seas and finding "alternative" ways to stream the games.  

Also I wonder how much NBC is going to make off the people that signed up for the one game and then forget to cancel their subscription for a month or more. 

Was it? From what I was reading the league lost over 10M viewers for that game.

Apparently it was a success for NBC.  

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2024/01/16/with-the-success-of-peacock-expect-more-playoff-games-to-be-streamed/

Quote:Last year, the six games played on wild card weekend across the four television networks and their digital partners averaged 28.8 million viewers. By comparison, last season’s Saturday night wild card game (Los Angeles Chargers vs. Jacksonville Jaguars) averaged 20.6 million linear TV viewers (on NBC) and 1.2 million streaming viewers (primarily on Peacock). Hence, this year, the audience for the corresponding game on Peacock was 6% higher.

Also NBC paid the NFL 110 million just to have the rights to stream that one game. That was on top of the 2 billion they pay the NFL for their seasonal contract.

Its getting hard for an NFL fan to follow the season... They getting a little too greedy and not being consumer friendly.

I guess I'll be streaming the playoff games then.

But it sure won't be through Peacock+

Greed will do the same thing to football it did to boxing. When Ali/Frazier were on Wide World of Sports, everyone knew who the heavyweight champions of the World were. The it went to pay per view and I couldn't name 1 pro boxer these days.

(01-18-2024, 03:06 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Greed will do the same thing to football it did to boxing. When Ali/Frazier were on Wide World of Sports, everyone knew who the heavyweight champions of the World were. The it went to pay per view and I couldn't name 1 pro boxer these days.

(01-18-2024, 02:12 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Was it?  From what I was reading the league lost over 10M viewers for that game.

They did set the record but the non-steaming average wild card weekend viewership is around 35m. NBC made money on the day but the NFL lost money. 

NBC may be claiming success, but I'm guessing that after paying for the rights to show it on their exclusive streaming channel, that they were lucky to break even.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/report-nfl-lost-10-12-million-fans-saturday-night-by-broadcasting-kansas-city-chiefs-game-on-peacock/ar-AA1n9PTV?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=ff3ed491031146afa83d5bb97aab5284&ei=293

Quote:The NFL’s decision to put the Kansas City Chiefs matchup with the Miami Dolphins on Peacock Saturday hurt their ratings to the tune of millions of fans. Fans were upset the league decided to put a playoff game on an over-the-top streaming service instead of on a TV network.

Peter King, a partner of NBC, wrote this week the league purposely gave Peacock the Chiefs-Dolphins game because of the hype surrounding both teams in the playoffs. The league believes over-the-top streaming services is the future of watching football.

The data shows the league and Peacock have a lot of ground to catch up between now and that future date.

The NFL lost millions of eyeballs on Saturday
According to Jimmy Traina with Sports Illustrated, the league likely lost 10 million to 12 million fans for the Dolphins-Chiefs contest by showing the game on Peacock outside Kansas City and Miami.

The Chiefs-Dolphins game had the lowest Super Wild Card Weekend ratings. The Browns-Texans matchup received six million more viewers than the prime-time matchup in Kansas City.


The ratings were best on Sunday with broadcasts on national TV. The second-lowest ratings should make the league question its strategy of forcing fans into buying streaming services in the current market. The Buccaneers-Eagles game on ESPN, a cable network, had the second-lowest ratings of the weekend.

There’s a reason why the league keeps most of its schedule on national networks. That’s where most fans watch.

The problem with expanding to more games on over-the-top streaming services is its burden on fans. Sure, one subscription to Peacock might not hurt the average fan. But will the league allow CBS to air games on Paramount Plus? Can Fox and Disney (ABC/ESPN) get in the game as well?

The league lost millions of viewers with the Peacock broadcast on Saturday. They can absorb the cost of one game, and it knew going into Saturday night they’d miss out on viewers. But they could hurt their long-term growth potential by alienating their larger fan base. And their largest fan base watches games on national TV.

There is more to the picture than just the viewership of one game for Peacock.  They paid an additional 110 million to the NFL for what was also a giant advertisement for their streaming platform.  So NBC made an additional $6 per however many new and returning subscribers they earned.  Now they also earn that amount times how many ever people don't cancel before next month and for however long those people maintain their subscription.  

I've seen articles claiming as high as 42% of people forget about such subscriptions and continue to pay even when they no longer use them.  That seems high to me but it was according to a survey conducted last year.   So that is even more money for NBC between the initial sign up, the new customers that keep the service because they will use it and the people who are careless and let the subscription renew even though they don't use it. 

I have no doubt that a game that was predicted to be a good one had much less viewers than if it was over the air. I refused to pay and watch it myself. But I don't see how the NFL lost money as they already got paid by NBC not only for their standard 2 billion dollar season rights but an additional 110 million for that game.  Also don't forget NBC earned money from already sold advertisement space for the game.  If anything lower numbers may result in less advertisement revenue next year but the money was already generated this year.

So there are certainly various ways to look at it.  In my opinion it seems that NBC succeeded in their goal to not only gain new subscribers who may carry recurring subscriptions but also get their streaming platform talked about on a massive scale.  How much they lost or profited from it I guess we may not know until maybe a quarterly shareholder report is made.

Also we have to keep in mind that this was a first for a playoff game and it set a streaming record.  That's the kind of thing NBC and the other networks will see and say, "Okay how can we do it bigger and better next year."   So unfortunately I think we are just going to see more and more of this. Hell, I'd miss most Thursday Night Football if I wasn't a member of Prime. But I'm only a member of Prime because of how much I shop there so the quick and free shipping is worth it for me. I'd probably not sign up just to get the games. In fact if they offered a cheaper Prime plan that excluded their digital offerings, depending on how much of a discount, I'd probably take it. Even more so now that they are adding advertisements to their Prime Video unless you pay even more.

The feed for the game seemed to come with extreme glitches in the matrix with well over half the viewers unable to actually see the game. Apparently the little swirling circle in the middle of the screen didn't exactly thrill too many people.. I don't understand why..