How does the experience for viewers of Rogers NHL games change now that changes have come? Rogers is betting that they can fix the broadcast and bring ratings and ad revenue back up but did they really understand what was wrong with the broadcast and was any of the talent let go yesterday the significant problem?
Take a read of Dave Shoalts article in the
Globe and Mail for the full recap.
In the spring of 2014 Rogers was aggressive when it signed it's 12 year 5.2 Billion rights agreement with the NHL and by doing so cutting out CBC and most of TSN's coverage. Instead of being a regional player it was the lone national and reduced the competition to nothing more than regional in the two smallest markets in Canada. In came a new set, combined talent from CBC and a whole new format to produce the flagship broadcast of Hockey Night In Canada.
There were going to be growing pains, there were going to be challenges, and there were certainly going to be some failures and now that the day of reckoning has come have the right people paid the price?
Let's start with the set, the huge multi-level production studio. It's dark, lacks vibrancy and it certainly does not seem welcoming with it's archway and cave-like opening into the world of hockey. It's not something that makes a viewer feel warm.
Then there is the show itself the evening long production that caters to several markets and interests. The production is awkward, the flow often skewed and forced while the on air talent struggled to adapt to the surroundings and guests. Take the desks and then the lounge with modern red chairs where main host George Stroumboulopoulus did all he could to compensate for something he didn't create.
Strombo is a hipster through and through. He's smart, he's inquisitive and he's personable but his brand is not sports and thus audiences struggled with him and as Shoalts said, took a lot of heat on social media.
The thing that was most telling within the article as it relates to the situation now is Rogers believed they could reinvent the product of HNIC to capture the next generation of fans. The obvious question is did Rogers think that HNIC or broadcasted hockey made people hockey fans?
That seems to be the strangest part of the Shoalts piece, that the braintrust who was ready to commit to 5.2 Billion dollars thought they knew the audience and the market more for hockey than what the anecdotal and statistical evidence presented.
Some one screwed up.
As with the case in all large corporation the people who make the mistakes or are part of the mistake making process rarely are the ones who pay the price. How many fans would like to take Scott Moore out to the proverbial 'woodshed' for his butchering of an institution that really needed tweaking not wholesale change?
So down goes the talent and that's how the big corp goes after the the losses when they become too much. Some were destined to be gone simply because the outcry around them was too much, see Healy and Cox. That being said did they do the right thing?
Some would subscribe to the notion that there's no such thing as bad publicity and the likes of Cox and Glen Healy added that kind of effort. Honest and arrogant to a fault if not a bit crazy they played into some fans views but angered many of the diehard fans and vocal minority. It begs the question: how Don Cherry survived?
There is the challenge- finding talent that people will tune in to watch, and now discuss, that don't offend or distract. It appears that's what Healy and Cox did most or based on their roles was all they could do and again is that their fault? Who is the producer, who controls the content and the production? They too deserve blame.
Back to the idea that Rogers was going to change the way hockey was broadcast and how they were going to attract the next generation of fans... other than the set and talent what did Rogers do?
Where was the innovation in the broadcasting of the actual product, the game of hockey? What did they improve in that area, the same one fans choose to spend money and time on? That's where Rogers let down the audience and eventually paid the price they believed they knew more about the product than the fans and that's one thing that has changed- the fans are much smarter now.
They are smart enough to know when they are being fed fluff and general BS and much of the Rogers broadcast was that. When it got to the real meat and potatoes the amount of time and effort put into something that could make the broadcast unique was inadequate. As the fans change Rogers tried to change but they went the wrong way.
As Shoalts notes before the 2014 season in a gala meeting and party Rogers celebrated what they had built before knowing if anyone would even come to see it. In the end the fans came, but they didn't want to stick around too long and when their teams, the ones they associate with and cheer for, weren't there in the playoffs there was nothing to stick around for. That's the not the talent's fault nor many others' either and if Rogers wants to change it's fortune after 2 years in a 12 year deal they would do well to look at who got them to this point. Instead they axed the messengers but that's how the corporate world works.
Winnipeg Jets Blogger •Winnipeg Jets Writer • 
Join the Discussion:
»