joelef
Registered User
- Nov 22, 2011
- 2,108
- 888
That’s defeats the narrativeDoes Quebec even have ownership or a group trying to bring back the Nordiques? Like Alpharetta Sports & Entertainment Group is for Atlanta.
That’s defeats the narrativeDoes Quebec even have ownership or a group trying to bring back the Nordiques? Like Alpharetta Sports & Entertainment Group is for Atlanta.
Quebec/Edmonton/Calgary/Ottawa should all get a MLS team and say f*** you to NHL hockey. It won't happen but the best thing to happen to Canada is a competitor to NHL monopoly in this country and their habit to take canadians for granted.Yep. And I believe the interest in hockey and the NHL is falling fast here in Quebec city. I don't even watch the games anymore. Haven't followed much in the last 5 years. Most people I know stopped following too. TVA sports will probably close in a year or two.
The NHL has done a very poor job with our market and took us for granted. Bettman never had good words for our city. It's ok. He has probably been very successful to develop non traditional hockey market, but for the province of Quebec, he has been terrible.
I’m pretty sure all their “interested groups” are headed by people involved in Quebec sovereigntist politics lmaoDoes Quebec even have ownership or a group trying to bring back the Nordiques? Like Alpharetta Sports & Entertainment Group is for Atlanta.
Too bad MLS isn't interested in expanding in Canada for same exact reason NHL isn't.Quebec/Edmonton/Calgary/Ottawa should all get a MLS team and say f*** you to NHL hockey. It won't happen but the best thing to happen to Canada is a competitor to NHL monopoly in this country and their habit to take canadians for granted.
I've always insisted that the answer is doubling down on junior hockey. If Canadians collectively treated junior hockey the way the south treats college football, the NHL would never take it for granted again. EDIT: Or at least treated it like they do for 2-4 weeks in December-January.Too bad MLS isn't interested in expanding in Canada for same exact reason NHL isn't.
When the story broke that Quebecor was seeking investors, that pretty much summed it up.Why didn't PKP just raise the funds? I got killed for saying they didn't have the money years ago.
Hockey is Canada's sport, but on a worldwide view it is a niche sport, and an expensive one. You need to identify and target market segments with the proven interest and the disposable income to pay for tickets, parking, food and baubles. Not chase after the affections of "five freaking million resident and citizen that Canada added since 2017" which have no ties to or any kind of investment in the game.Especially considering recent Canadian demographic. You want a fresh brand new market that positioned at the right place to be your future hockey fans start marketing to the five freaking million resident and citizen that Canada added since 2017. Almost most of them in Québec and Ontario. The next census cannot come soon enough.
Have a look around any NHL arena. The dress is markedly more slovenly than the 1950s, but the "demographic" actually coming to the games and funding the league's operation IS essentially the same as it ever was.The nhl Dosent market it smart and hockey pretents that demographic of Canada are the same at the 50s
Yup they have the big markets pretty much locked down and don't need anymore as those are enough for any Canadian "Growth" in business metrics/tv rights in the future. Honestly, while I am Canadian if I was running a Promoninent league I would do the same. Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver would be the only viable cities I'd be looking to choose over an American city. Thought maybe Calgary would join that list but it really hasn't in two decades.Too bad MLS isn't interested in expanding in Canada for same exact reason NHL isn't.
That's an excellent point.
To that point, an important and underrated part of marketing is "fear of missing out." We just saw it in the U.S. with Caitlin Clark. A recent, albeit extreme example. A large chunk of the nearly 19M avg viewers weren't watching her final collegiate game because they're women's college basketball fans, or even because they're Caitilin Clark fans. They were watching because that's what people were talking about and -especially general sports fans- didn't want to be "left out." Wanted to feel part of it and be able to discuss it with everyone else that was watching.
You can do that directly to Canadians, both new and old. I have the #'s (the few I could pry out of Canada,) you can say it in October, you can say it in November, etc. & etc., "over 2 million Canadians were watching the 7pm HNIC window Saturday night!" You repeat that, week after week and the people not watching start feeling left out.
And, to my point about USA/CAN combined, 9 different months a year, plenty of opportunities for selling that, especially post-football season in the U.S.,
If I was running the NHL PR account on X (twitter) I'd be hammering (example matchups) "Leafs-Bruins was the most-viewed sporting event across the U.S. and Canada last night," and then a couple days later, "Oilers-Penguins was the most-viewed sporting event across the U.S. and Canada last night." That sticks in minds, and gets repetitive. People will ignore Canada carrying that viewership, because they already do ignore Canadian viewership, and you change the narrative from "only 400k were watching" in the U.S., to million(s) were watching hockey "across the U.S. and Canada."
But there's much, much less of them, as @joelef points out.Hockey is Canada's sport, but on a worldwide view it is a niche sport, and an expensive one. You need to identify and target market segments with the proven interest and the disposable income to pay for tickets, parking, food and baubles. Not chase after the affections of "five freaking million resident and citizen that Canada added since 2017" which have no ties to or any kind of investment in the game.
Have a look around any NHL arena. The dress is markedly more slovenly than the 1950s, but the "demographic" actually coming to the games and funding the league's operation IS essentially the same as it ever was.
That's a really good point about FOMO.
I will say that WRT Caitlin Clark, it's a combo of both Clark and the growing audience, and it's important for the stakeholders to understand and quantify the difference.
Non-Iowa games are up 74% over last year. That's growth, that's good, that's the trend.
The OTHER stats/numbers are completely Caitlin Clark and not "women's basketball."
But those Clark numbers obviously help the other numbers.
And she still more popular then Connor mcdavidYup, I believe you made a similar point about Clark's games having roughly twice the audience as the game after/before respectively in the Elite 8/Final 4 a few days after I did in another thread.
Iowa games aside, no doubt of increase, math. What is ignored in that though is that there's been women's college basketball games that have done good-to-really good-to 10M+ since 1982. Good #'s aren't new (Clark's record #'s obviously are/were new.) What's new is that there's more NCAAW games shown, shown in better time slots and more games on broadcast. Especially last few years, regular season and even the tournament. Which is what they (broadcast partners) missed on in the past.
That's why narratives get distorted, besides the primary one of conflating Clark with women's college basketball's overall popularity. People also assume like-for-like, as if in 2004 the same amount of NCAAW games were shown in the same time slots on the same networks and no one watched then but now people do, "growth." Ignoring that people watched then, too, and that the real growth isn't non-Clark avg viewership, but it's in the putting of more games on TV and showing all the games of the tournament, etc..
Big miss, for decades. ESPN sitting there not realizing: 'oh, we hype up and show a UConn-Vols regular season game and it gets good #'s, maybe if we hype up more programs/coaches/players and show those games too they'll do good #'s, plus college sports are an easy sell anyway.' ... Nope. Couldn't figure it out.
You know, I also think this Coyotes hiatus, operations to Salt Lake thing benefits Quebec a lot...
Because will the NHL really want to go to the podium and announce expansion with the return of the Arizona Coyotes and the Atlanta Thrashers, at the same time?
Announcing one is gonna get some heat/backlash. Announcing those two together? And the other market being mentioned is Houston. That's three of the hottest, southern-most cities we have... it just makes sense to me to have a northern "safety" pick like Quebec in the same announcement to split the focus away from "ATL/PHX have failed 3 times."
again, Kev.... unless an existing Eastern team has multiple issues over multiple years the way the Coyotes have Quebec simply isn't an option for expansion and if the general consensus is relocation is the utmost last option the way the NHL Has termed it.... Is there an Eastern franchise anywhere close to what Arizona is....You know, I also think this Coyotes hiatus, operations to Salt Lake thing benefits Quebec a lot...
Because will the NHL really want to go to the podium and announce expansion with the return of the Arizona Coyotes and the Atlanta Thrashers, at the same time?
Announcing one is gonna get some heat/backlash. Announcing those two together? And the other market being mentioned is Houston. That's three of the hottest, southern-most cities we have... it just makes sense to me to have a northern "safety" pick like Quebec in the same announcement to split the focus away from "ATL/PHX have failed 3 times."
Atlanta and Houston for 33 and 34 probably announced ASAP to kill the focus on the Coyotes circus. Even if technically both cities might not start until 25 and 26. After that who know, if Morelo fail to get a Arena build the league gonna want that expansion money from somewhere else, and they want a even numbers of teams. Figure that would be Québec window to get a more serious group than just Quebecor.You know, I also think this Coyotes hiatus, operations to Salt Lake thing benefits Quebec a lot...
Because will the NHL really want to go to the podium and announce expansion with the return of the Arizona Coyotes and the Atlanta Thrashers, at the same time?
Announcing one is gonna get some heat/backlash. Announcing those two together? And the other market being mentioned is Houston. That's three of the hottest, southern-most cities we have... it just makes sense to me to have a northern "safety" pick like Quebec in the same announcement to split the focus away from "ATL/PHX have failed 3 times."
I don’t think QC is the hedge they’re looking for. GTA2, sure. Super high floor there. QC has the same downside risk as everyone else.
Too bad MLS isn't interested in expanding in Canada for same exact reason NHL isn't.
I think allot of people are over thinking it. I Ithink it's simply the NHL are not fans of the current prospective ownership group in Quebec. If Thomson and True North where the ones behind the ownership in Quebec I think things would be different.
They found a Montreal guy to buy the Sens. Kinda of strange Andlauer did not raise his hand to lead a Nordiques group a couple of years ago.At this point I wouldn't be super shocked if there is pressure applied to at least the Montreal market, if not also the Vancouver market by some American owners to ask for teams. MLS seems ready to cap out at 30, 32 tops, and there are probably still more than two more interested American cities. But still highly doubtful.
Thomson is the 21st richest person in the world, easily the richest NHL team owner. If he really wanted to he could plunk a team anywhere in North America. But he already has with the Jets and I haven't read much that he's super passionate about it. Still, though for another thread, the Jets ought to be completely safe so long as he's alive, it costs him what a fancy steak dinner with drinks would cost the average Canadian to float the entire annual team salary.
But the fact remains there just aren't a lot of obscenely rich people in Canada where a billion dollars is almost entirely inconsequential like it is for Thomson, and fewer still that are tied to Quebec.
You know, I also think this Coyotes hiatus, operations to Salt Lake thing benefits Quebec a lot...
Because will the NHL really want to go to the podium and announce expansion with the return of the Arizona Coyotes and the Atlanta Thrashers, at the same time?
Announcing one is gonna get some heat/backlash. Announcing those two together? And the other market being mentioned is Houston. That's three of the hottest, southern-most cities we have... it just makes sense to me to have a northern "safety" pick like Quebec in the same announcement to split the focus away from "ATL/PHX have failed 3 times."