Richard Sandomir of the New York Times does a great job of putting in perspective the record-setting viewership generated by Super Bowl XLIV. And after reading his article, we’ve come to one clear conclusion.
Though the NFL is doing incredibly well, the league is still far from being the dominant American diversion.
Sandomir points out that the Super Bowl audience plateaued from 1998 through 2005, with Super Bowl XXXII between Denver and Green Bay setting a high-water mark of 90 million viewers and the next seven ranging from 83.7 million to 89.8 million.
Starting with Super Bowl XL between the Steelers and the Seahawks, a new record was achieved: 90.7 million. The number has since grown and grown, culminating in 106.5 million average viewers for Super Bowl XLIV.
The nine-figure figure knocked off the total audience for the final episode of M*A*S*H, prompting series lead actor Alan Alda to tell Sandomir, “We hit it out of the park, and so did New Orleans. Do I have the sports analogy right?”
But M*A*S*H did a far better job in relation to total households with televisions, given that the population is much larger 27 years after the term “Hawkeye” became nationally relevant only in the context of Iowa football. Indeed, the last episode of M*A*S*H generated a 60.2 rating, which means that 60.2 percent of all U.S. televisions were tuned in to CBS on that occasion.
Super Bowl XLIV generated a 45.0 rating, which means that fewer than half of all televisions were showing Super Bowl XLIV.
That’s really the more significant news. Even with 106.5 million people watching Super Bowl XLIV, millions more were actually watching (or doing) something else.
So before the NFL gets too worked up about expanding the pie beyond our borders, the bottom line is that there are still plenty of hearts and minds to be won in the U.S. of A.
And as the labor fight continues to approach a full boil, the league and the union should keep in mind that plenty of other choices remain — as evidenced by the fact that more than half of the people with televisions chose on Sunday night to do something other than watch pro football.
[Editor's note: A prior version of this article confused the concept of "rating" with "share." The rating is based on total percentage of televisions, regardless of whether they are on or off. Share refers to the total percentage of televisions that are turned on. And no matter how many times Adam Freifeld of NBC P.R. explains that to me, I keep screwing it up.]
goodell wants the players to go from 60% to 41% to help grow the game overseas…I say piss on overseas…keep the game within the border
You’re comparing two different scenarios, but you’re only comparing the portions of each scenario that allow you to come up with the pre-determined conclusion you want. If you’re going to factor in total population in order to criticize the number of viewers, than you need to factor in the number of available channels when criticizing the rating or share. How many channels were available to the average TV viewer 27 years ago and how many are available now? Taking that into account, the Super Bowl’s rating and share are very impressive.
Three issues with this:
1) There are far more options on TV today than when the MASH finale was on. That plays a big role in it.
2) The Super Bowl is aired in bars on 1 TV with a large group of people watching. These people are not being counted. And I highly doubt the MASH finale was watched in the same manner.
3) The Super Bowl is a live event with a live audience of 74,059, not including all the players, refs, coaches, and workers who were in attendance and thus not able to watch at home. The MASH finale didn’t have any of these issues.
Florio, your hair cut must be good for ratings. Especially in West Virginia, where that has to be a well-respected ‘do.
Who says men can’t wear wigs and be taken seriously??
There is a big reason why this argument doesn’t work. In 1983, the year of the final episode of M*A*S*H*, the great majority of Americans did not have cable television. It is no surprise that well over 60% of televisions that were on were tuned into M*A*S*H*.
Today, cable television is far more prevelant. The fact that 45% of televisions were tuned in to the Super Bowl is unheard of in today’s age. M*A*S*H* was likely competing with 4 or 5 other programs in most homes, where as Super Bowl XLIV was competing with hundreds.
I would bet there are more super bowl parties than there were MASH finale parties. I also would guarantee when I am not at home my satllite receiver is on, and on Disney not CBS. While there may not have been as many tv’s on the super bowl than tv’s on MASH, the super bowl needs less tv’s to get more people. How many people went to a bar to watch the super bowl bs MASH? The numbers can lie.
The rating doesn’t take into account people with their tv’s turned off. The share measures the percentage of tv’s being watched that are tuned in. This game got a 68 share. So 68 percent of people watching tv sunday night were watchung the game.
Thanks for the link.
I wonder what percentage of the “viewers” actually watched the game.
Goodell is not good for the league. I was a supporter when he first took over, and started holding players accountable for their actions, but his complete power over that process : handing out suspensions and then also being the appeals court as well seems completely insane.
His desire to expand into Europe seems like a logistical nightmare, which he will ignore to make a profit, that will ultimately fail.
People who are using the example of how great attendance has been at the few regular season games played in London should take into consideration that it was one game a year and seen more as an event than something that 70,000 fans will buy tickets to for a whole season. Football is second rate in Europe, and the rest of the world, so perhaps he should focus on the bringing the best possible value to the American fans who have made the game as popular as it is.
18 games will water down rosters for the playoff, and will lead to teams being in a position to tank the last 3-4 games of the season rather than the last 1-2, but I’m sure there is more money in 18 games and the profit and power is the only thing he cares about.
ok, so the population has increased about 30% since 1982….
but how much do you think the choices the average viewer has increased over that time? 500%? 1000%. The average cable subscriber in 1982 probably had about 20-25 channels available to choose from. Viewers today have upwards of 200 channels to choose from on mid-level packages.
When you consider all the factors, the total viewers for Super Bowl XLIV is quite impressive.
You’ve just about reached saturation point in the States – whoever wants to watch it can, overseas is the key to growth which keeps all parties happy.
People already covered it.
Since media is so spread out with so many more options today it’s Apples and Oranges to compare it to MASH.
Youre putting a negative spin on it, Florio.
Like others have stated -
There are much more options now on TV then there were in the Mash days.
The many bars, restaurants, and Super Bowl parties that had many viewers watching one screen.
Keeping those important things into consideration, Id say 45% is incredible.
Put Dallas back in the SuperBowl. Have Roger tell the refs to stop trying to hurt Dallas with the yellow hankies and be fair…and Dallas will get back.
Since everyone either loves or absolutely HATES the Cowboys, everyone should be watching the game.
My TV wasn’t on but I watched the game. I went to a party to watch it. I somehow doubt there were MASH parties to cut its rating.
Like many brilliant people have pointed out(damn Florio, what have you been smoking?), there are FAR more options available now. The average TV then had 11 channels to pick from. Now, it’s over 100.
Ridiculous assessment, Mike…
@Sean Bateman says:
“The rating doesn’t take into account people with their tv’s turned off. The share measures the percentage of tv’s being watched that are tuned in. This game got a 68 share. So 68 percent of people watching tv sunday night were watchung the game.”
—
Yeah, except the majority of people who had their TV off because they were viewing at a party, bar, etc would have likely had it on and tuned in if they were at home and not a social gathering.
Florio, how about a post on your take of Goodell’s comments Sunday about the need to reduce player %’s of the gross (however gross is calculated) and divert those funds to allow owners to make investments in overseas expansion (like NFL Europe never happened) and new infrastructure (apparently in those few communities where the NFL can’t intimidate local authorities into approving some bond issue to fund a new stadium).
Ahh, the 80s, when your only options on a Sunday night in February were M*A*S*H, reading a book or playing with your children.
How did those savage neanderthals live?
There are two points missed:
1. The difference between ratings points and share (which Sean explained above)
2. The difference between average number of viewers per TV
Between the parties and the bars, ratings are misleading for the SB.
People had many fewer options and things to do in 1983. Who cares about MASH?
It doesn’t matter how many cable channels there are now. Do you really think that the Super Bowl lost viewers to the woman who teaches you to crochet, or the PBS fundraiser doowop concert? Proportion of televisions is the correct measure – everyone in the business knows it.
The vast majority of Americans had 5 channels in 82, NBC, ABC, CBS, the local station that eventually became FOX and the local channel that eventually became the CW. Back in those days, if a TV was on it was probably tuned in to one of the big 3 of networks.
Also, many people go to Super Bowl parties, 30-50 people watching one TV, I’ve never heard of a MASH party.
Great analysis, especially the points about the 68 share for Super Bowl XLIV and the plethora of television viewing options in 2010 compared to 1983.
One other thing, you may want to look at what the definitions of rating and share actually are.
“Indeed, the last episode of M*A*S*H generated a 60.2 rating, which means that 60.2 percent of all U.S. televisions that were turned on were tuned in to CBS on that occasion.”
“You’ve just about reached saturation point in the States – whoever wants to watch it can, overseas is the key to growth which keeps all parties happy.”
————————————————–
Actually, if you have Time Warner Cable, you still cannot receive or watch any of the games on the NFL Network. You would think getting that last piece of the US puzzle might take precedence…. they took care of Comcast last year, how about us poor TWC viewers…
As everyone else before said, I will say again in a different way…Mike, your analogy blows when you consider that the only thing running against MASH was a Julia Childs cooking show and The Electric Company.
And what if the superbowl had been on NFL Network instead of broadcast? Less share, but a better revenue model for the league? I think NFL could care less about ratings numbers so long as the take improves.
But at some point, I’ve got to believe that kind of thinking (exclusive network access, blackouts, repressive SB viewing rules) is going to shrink the market enough to start causing some pain.
Good thing you don’t have to argue this in court because your logic would lead you to be laughed out of it…
“AirlineGuy says:
February 9, 2010 12:31 PM
Put Dallas back in the SuperBowl. Have Roger tell the refs to stop trying to hurt Dallas with the yellow hankies and be fair…and Dallas will get back.”
Surprisingly, I agree – that the only way Dallas won the Super Bowls in the Jerry Jones era, was because the refs were inclined to ignore Cowboy penalties
Your last sentence is patently wrong. As a former attorney, the lack of precision is distressing.
“…plenty of other choices remain — as evidenced by the fact that more than half of the people watching television on Sunday night chose to watch something other than pro football.”
Your statistics only show that more than half of the TELEVISIONS were set to something other than pro football. This does not mean that more than half of the PEOPLE watching television on Sunday night chose to watch something other than pro football.
And considering that many televisions had crowds watching the game, that makes the assertion even less defensible.
The Beatles on Ed Sullivan in 1964 had a 90 rating.
adjusted for inflation and the amount of time on the air, which brought more revenue in?
folks like to dance around the ratings issue as a bragging point, but the entire reason for ratings is to sell ad time to companies, so which one brought in more money, adjusted for inflation and the timeslot?
The last time Dallas was in the Super Bowl, the market share was 72 and I think it could go even higher the next time they make it.
I am without a doubt absolutly certain, that a significantly larger segement of the population watched the superbowl than MASH. I know of only two people that didn’t watch it in my circle of roughly 100 relatives, friends and general aquaintances.
This statistic is a bullsh*t made up number. There is no way any organization in the world has the ability to track what every Television in America is tuned into at any one time. Think about all of the different cable providers, network televisions, satelite company’s etc… It’s all focus groups, and any number can be skewed one way or another.
Even those who are not fans of football watch the superbowl, just because of the event that it is.