And you are not acknowledging that you asked Leek for a marketing authority to state that the footprint philosophy is valid. He did so, in spades. Please be so kind as to acknowledge same.
Quite the nonsequiter.
Let's see - to review:
- you asked for a marketing authority regarding the veracity and validity of the footprint theory;
- Leek noted that Paul Kelly confirmed in an interview (and I heard the same interview on PTS last evening) that he had confirmed that the networks themselves had stated to him that a significant rights deal would not be feasible without NHL presence in significant markets like PHO;
- your effective response is the above, which seems to boil down to "the networks are lying".
Here are a little couple of hints which might clear things up:
1. When hockey teams are playing on television, it is not only fans for those two teams that watch said game;
2. When hockey teams are playing on television, it is not only fans from the two markets that watch said game;
3. That being said, when hockey teams are playing on television, it would seem intuitive that it is far more likely that the people tuning into said games would be hockey fans, albeit perhaps not fans of the two teams themselves (perhaps fans of a particular player on one if said teams, for instance);
4. When television networks are selling advertising in connection with national broadcasting, it is imperative for ad revenue maximization purposes that they offer an opportunity to attract viewers from many diverse markets. If one has a purely localized attraction, one is restricted to
lower-cost ad buys from local advertising clients, like Joe's Local GM Dealer or Phil's Live Bait Shop on the Corner of Main and Elm in [fill in name of local market].
5. National advertising clients (that is, those parties who want to buy advertising for their multi-location operations in diverse areas of the nation) will pay more for a product that has fans/viewers in a number of diverse regions, as opposed to fans in fewer localized areas.
6. Accordingly, in order for a sport to attract national ad buys from national advertising clients, they need a national presence.
It baffles me why you don't get this, PARTICULARLY when the head of the NHLPA backs up the NHL's own high-level marketing executives in confirming that this is exactly how that particular industry conducts itself in its commercial valuation of the NHL's (or any sport's) television product.
You can disagree all you want, but the fact is that the NHL's broadcast partners believe that a broad footprint increases the NHL's value as a broadcast property. At the end of the day, the customer's belief drives the value. Whether you or I or the NHL beleives they act differently is of no consequence. The broadcast partner's view is the only relevant one, since they have, you know, the money.
