98navigator

Sori taps back to Harang. 1 out

Let's go Cubbies my stomach is churning

Grady Sizemore hits a leadoff hoer against the Sox. :lol:

So how much are they asking for a Sox or a Cubs spot this year? As soon as I find it I'll post the info for 2007.

Crain's Chicago Business

Because the ad prices are set in advance and the advertising is sold before the season begins.

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN. It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic. Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption. OK... Are you contending that the ad rates for each team are directly tied to television and radio ratings only for the prior season and nothing else? If so, how do you know this? Go back and read what I wrote. You've said: and and and and and So, basically, you've said (1) that the 2006 ratings serve as a starting point for 2007 ad rates; but that (2) the Cubs probably negotiated for higher rates because of their long term success; and (3) you don't know whether they were successful. No. 1 would surprise me a little bit, but I certainly don't have proof otherwise. I would think that ratings over a number of years would serve as a starting point. But, more importantly, even if No. 1 is correct, and given Nos. 2 and 3, how can you say with any degree of certainty that "the net effect is that during the 2007 season, WGN can make more advertising dollars for Sox broadcasts"? You've already conceded that the Cubs probably negotiated for higher rates because of their long-term success (and, I suspect, their offseason spending spree). And, you've conceded that you don't know the results of any negotiations. In sum, you just don't know. So who is making the assumption? It's cool. I'll look it up. It's easy for you to say it isn't true...

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN. It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic. Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption. OK... Are you contending that the ad rates for each team are directly tied to television and radio ratings only for the prior season and nothing else? If so, how do you know this? Go back and read what I wrote. 98, are you seriously this dense? You made an assesrtion, and then when questioned on it said that others should find evidence to disprove your point. Seems backwards to me. Are you dense? If people are reading what I actually wrote then I don't think I am. How about attacking the post and not the poster?

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN. It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic. Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption. OK... Are you contending that the ad rates for each team are directly tied to television and radio ratings only for the prior season and nothing else? If so, how do you know this? Go back and read what I wrote.

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN. It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic. Again, no evidence there are differences in rates, just an assumption. OK...

Not taking sides, but you really haven't provided any evidence to support your claim that the slightly higher ratings will actually equal higher profits for WGN. It was a more than slightly. In advertsing, rating are key. Both Nielsen and Arbitron show the Sox won the ratings battle in the most desired age demographic. Edit; higher profits overall wasn't the point. The Cubs are/were an in house product of WGN so the net profit isn't equal. I'm talking about the price being charged for ad space during the 2007 season.

I'm not scared of him for his possibly minor attachment to the Sox, I'm scared of him because he's a heartless money-eating robot. I was replying (but not quoting, shame on me!) to another post about him being a Cubs fan. Keep in mind, he's a heartless money-eating robot who managed to bring a world series to an expansion franchise very quickly. I heard Colangelo talk about his love of the Cubs on a Score interview. This also talks about it. Link

Do you have any support for that assertion? If you're implying that Zell might look to ratings in 2006 and decide to cut back on Cubs programming, while increasing White Sox programming, don't you think a man that was able to make billions as an investor is more sophisticated than to base such a decision on ratings for only the last year? Also, doesn't it also assume that you're right about your initial point - that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be more than the cost of advertising on Cubs' games? I would be quite surprised if that's true. On your first question, it's common knowledge that the Sox beat out the Cubs in radio and TV ratings (2006) for the first time in over 20 years. It really isn't a surprise considering the Cubs won 66 games and the Sox were basking in the glow of a WS. It was published in the Tribune so you may want to search the archives. On your second point, no, my view is that Zell doesn't care about the baseball part of the Tribune (he's admitted as much). My point about the Sox was specific to the poster I was replying to---who implied that WGN must be profiting because they are running Sox games--as if to say there is minimal profit in Sox telecasts. My reply is two fold: because of the recent success of the Sox, WGN can charge more per advertiser in 2007 than they can for Cubs games... Also, the Cubs, Sox, and Bulls will always be shown locally in Chicago because it is a local station (with a national following). You missed the point. Do you have support for your assertion that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be greater in 2007 than the cost of advertising on Cubs games? I don't think that is true. You missed the point because it is right. You don't have to believe it but the White Sox had higher television and radio ratings than the Cubs in 2006. Look it up. The ad prices are based on ratings which measures the most recent consumer behavior. An argument has already been made in this thread that the Cubs would look to their longer track record of ratings success when attempting to set advertising prices. However, that isn't a guarantee that they have gotten their intial price for this seasons ads. Are you intentionally not answering the question? I DO NOT DISPUTE THAT THE SOX HAD HIGHER TELEVISION RATINGS IN 2006. You're not responding to the actual question: Upon what are you relying when you suggest that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be greater in 2007 than the cost of advertising on Cubs games? Is this reported anywhere? I don't believe this to be true and I'm not just going to take your word for it. Yes, why don't you look it up. I can't find it. The fact that you're unwilling simply to provide a link demonstrating the truth of your assertion tells me what I suspected all along - you're just making an assumption. And I suspect that your assumption is wrong. I've already given you the evidence. Since you require more, I suggest you look it up. You are going on an assumption. I am not. Again, if you are convinced that I am wrong, find the evidence. I understand how the ad prices are set. I also know the base price per ad. Use the internet to support your contention that I'm incorrect.

He's a diehard Cubs fan.

Do you have any support for that assertion? If you're implying that Zell might look to ratings in 2006 and decide to cut back on Cubs programming, while increasing White Sox programming, don't you think a man that was able to make billions as an investor is more sophisticated than to base such a decision on ratings for only the last year? Also, doesn't it also assume that you're right about your initial point - that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be more than the cost of advertising on Cubs' games? I would be quite surprised if that's true. On your first question, it's common knowledge that the Sox beat out the Cubs in radio and TV ratings (2006) for the first time in over 20 years. It really isn't a surprise considering the Cubs won 66 games and the Sox were basking in the glow of a WS. It was published in the Tribune so you may want to search the archives. On your second point, no, my view is that Zell doesn't care about the baseball part of the Tribune (he's admitted as much). My point about the Sox was specific to the poster I was replying to---who implied that WGN must be profiting because they are running Sox games--as if to say there is minimal profit in Sox telecasts. My reply is two fold: because of the recent success of the Sox, WGN can charge more per advertiser in 2007 than they can for Cubs games... Also, the Cubs, Sox, and Bulls will always be shown locally in Chicago because it is a local station (with a national following). You missed the point. Do you have support for your assertion that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be greater in 2007 than the cost of advertising on Cubs games? I don't think that is true. You missed the point because it is right. You don't have to believe it but the White Sox had higher television and radio ratings than the Cubs in 2006. Look it up. The ad prices are based on ratings which measures the most recent consumer behavior. An argument has already been made in this thread that the Cubs would look to their longer track record of ratings success when attempting to set advertising prices. However, that isn't a guarantee that they have gotten their intial price for this seasons ads. Are you intentionally not answering the question? I DO NOT DISPUTE THAT THE SOX HAD HIGHER TELEVISION RATINGS IN 2006. You're not responding to the actual question: Upon what are you relying when you suggest that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be greater in 2007 than the cost of advertising on Cubs games? Is this reported anywhere? I don't believe this to be true and I'm not just going to take your word for it. Yes, why don't you look it up.

Colangelo would have to be considered the front runner. He has the connections and has allies with current owners. Cuban would be my best choice. George Will called TLR a genius which is enough for me not to want him. Colangelo is also a big Cubs fan.

Do you have any support for that assertion? If you're implying that Zell might look to ratings in 2006 and decide to cut back on Cubs programming, while increasing White Sox programming, don't you think a man that was able to make billions as an investor is more sophisticated than to base such a decision on ratings for only the last year? Also, doesn't it also assume that you're right about your initial point - that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be more than the cost of advertising on Cubs' games? I would be quite surprised if that's true. On your first question, it's common knowledge that the Sox beat out the Cubs in radio and TV ratings (2006) for the first time in over 20 years. It really isn't a surprise considering the Cubs won 66 games and the Sox were basking in the glow of a WS. It was published in the Tribune so you may want to search the archives. On your second point, no, my view is that Zell doesn't care about the baseball part of the Tribune (he's admitted as much). My point about the Sox was specific to the poster I was replying to---who implied that WGN must be profiting because they are running Sox games--as if to say there is minimal profit in Sox telecasts. My reply is two fold: because of the recent success of the Sox, WGN can charge more per advertiser in 2007 than they can for Cubs games... Also, the Cubs, Sox, and Bulls will always be shown locally in Chicago because it is a local station (with a national following). You missed the point. Do you have support for your assertion that the cost of advertising on White Sox games will be greater in 2007 than the cost of advertising on Cubs games? I don't think that is true. You missed the point because it is right. You don't have to believe it but the White Sox had higher television and radio ratings than the Cubs in 2006. Look it up. The ad prices are based on ratings which measures the most recent consumer behavior. An argument has already been made in this thread that the Cubs would look to their longer track record of ratings success when attempting to set advertising prices. However, that isn't a guarantee that they have gotten their intial price for this seasons ads.

I don't think it makes Hendry look dumber. I think the Tribune told Hendry they were opening the purse strings because they knew if Hendry spent a bunch of money this year he would raise the value of the Cubs. I read somewhere that after this offseason the Cubs value has gone up to around $600 million. I read in Crain's Chicago Business that Zell is using $300M of his own resources in this Trib deal (the rest is heavily financed). As a result, he will be looking to get upwards of $800M for the deal... He's going to have to throw in the media arm as well for that price unless he can get a bidding war started OR if they win the WS. Hmmmm, actually, I wonder if they Cubs would be as valuable to a new owner if they had just won versus being on the cusp? No doubt, the new owner wants to take credit for turning around the franchise...

The concerning part is he doesn't plan to sell WGN TV or radio with the team!

Hopefully, the Cubs are sold to someone who really cares about baseball. I think the odds are pretty good versus the guys who were only interested in the Tribune... We'll also find out, soon enough, what happens with WGN.

The Cubs need to win tomorrow to have a chance to duplicate Lou's last wire-to-wire trick. I'd take 5 in a row. :D FYI, that team was coming off of a 75-87 finish the previous year. http://www.amquix.info/images/koolaid.jpg

Are you kidding? WTH! MLB.TV doesn't show ESPN games live. It will be available on archive (but unlike the other games, it might not be archived immediately--at least they weren't in the past). They figure you can watch them on TV (and ESPN pays big bucks to carry the game...) MLB.TV doesn't show any games that are televised on a national network so they never air the Saturday games on FOX either, which sucks for somebody like me who gets the Dodgers/A's/Giants on Saturdays instead of the Cubs. yup, no national games

I don't know but you might want to monitor the Iowa Cubs site

Are you kidding? WTH! MLB.TV doesn't show ESPN games live. It will be available on archive (but unlike the other games, it might not be archived immediately--at least they weren't in the past). They figure you can watch them on TV (and ESPN pays big bucks to carry the game...)

and it's a 5 run lead again...