YES Nets Top-Rated April Ever For NY-Area RSN

[yaz96]

YES Nets Top-Rated April Ever For NY-Area RSN
Yankees' Games Average Just Under 500,000 Viewers

Mike Reynolds -- Multichannel News, 5/7/2010 11:32:00 AM


A hot start by the defending World Series champions resulted in YES Network recording the highest-rated and most-viewed April ever for a Major League Baseball team by a New York regional sports network.
Over the course of 18 New York Yankees games in April, YES averaged a 4.88 household rating in the New York DMA, translating into 496,000 viewers, according to Nielsen data.

Those numbers outstripped the 4.69 rating and 451,000 viewers for Yankees' games in 2008.
The RSN posted a 29% gain in viewership in 2010 over its 17 Yankees games in 2009, according to officials.






Charlie, can you hear them..........

 

[DodgerKing]

Are these numbers based in NY only? I watch YES here in LA as well.

 

[Islandguy43]

YES Nets Top-Rated April Ever For NY-Area RSN
Yankees' Games Average Just Under 500,000 Viewers

Mike Reynolds -- Multichannel News, 5/7/2010 11:32:00 AM


A hot start by the defending World Series champions resulted in YES Network recording the highest-rated and most-viewed April ever for a Major League Baseball team by a New York regional sports network.
Over the course of 18 New York Yankees games in April, YES averaged a 4.88 household rating in the New York DMA, translating into 496,000 viewers, according to Nielsen data.

Those numbers outstripped the 4.69 rating and 451,000 viewers for Yankees' games in 2008.
The RSN posted a 29% gain in viewership in 2010 over its 17 Yankees games in 2009, according to officials.






Charlie, can you hear them..........

He is deaf when it comes to New York State. No YES or MSG in HD, leaves me at TWC; but I do have a sweet deal on the bundle with my internet though.

 

[TNGTony]

It still costs too much money. The deafness comes on the part of the owner of YES network who could have had it on Dish the day it was launched if they really, really wanted to. It takes two people to make a deal.

 

[TigerpounceTN]

It still costs too much money. The deafness comes on the part of the owner of YES network who could have had it on Dish the day it was launched if they really, really wanted to. It takes two people to make a deal.

That would be more acceptable if it didn't happen so often with Dish Network, especially when it comes to baseball. The simple fact is that the Yankees are one of the most popular teams in all of professional sports and Charlie has cut himself out of the largest market in the entire nation by refusing to play ball and work out deals to better serve that area.

 

[Arse69]

Stop blaming DISH Network. DISH would have to up its price of Top 120 pk all across USA, for one RSN market. Its Yes Network who is the culprit.

 

[goaliebob99]

Stop blaming DISH Network. DISH would have to up its price of Top 120 pk all across USA, for one RSN market. Its Yes Network who is the culprit.

I don't buy that BS because Direct's prices are really comparable to Dish's when you start comparing packages.

 

[Mr Tony]

yeah people keep using a 6 year old excuse. Interesting how Dish has added some RSN's since then and did your bill go up?
probably....but that wasnt due to adding say CSN Chicago...it was due to the receiver fees

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

YES wanted to be in DISH's base package not the middle package where all the other RSN's are.

DISH even offered to carry them ala carte and give YES 100% of the profits made from subscriptions to the service.

However with that said I do believe that if DISH were based in NY and not Colorado that we would have YES by now.

Its funny when I drive home Comcast has billboards up all over the place saying "XFINITY has YES, Dish dosen't"

 

[nlk10010]

Had Dish wanted YES they could have had it from day one. By the logic expressed above, it is therefore DISH's fault that we don't have the channel.

Additionally, there is no evidence that DISH would have had to raise their rates; if they just dropped a few other channels (e.g. MTV, GAC, BET) then their costs would have remained constant. Again, following the logic expressed above, any subsequent rate increase should be blamed on GAC, MTV and BET.

 

[Scott Greczkowski]

Ahh yes, they should have dropped a bunch of channels so people in New York could watch the Yankees.

That makes sense.

 

[nlk10010]

Ahh yes, they should have dropped a bunch of channels so people in New York could watch the Yankees.

That makes sense.

As much sense as it does to drop YES for a bunch of channels that many people don't watch. How many and what kind of people have to want to watch a channel before it becomes "worthy"? Why are "geographic" channels any less worthy than political or socially oriented ones? Are you saying that you know for a fact that fewer people would watch YES than would any of the ones I mentioned?

 

[TNGTony]

YES. Localized to NYC. (Approx $3 per subscriber)
Other channels "many people" (read - "I") don't watch, National. (Approx 50 cents per subscriber each)

Get over it folks. If you want YES, get a different carrier. If YES were that important to as many people as some here claim, Dish would have zero subscribership in NYC.

Again, it takes two sides to make a deal. Dish offered a pretty lucrative deal. YES refused.

 

[nlk10010]

I'm not sure what "over it" means to you; it is possible to make a decision (like many of us have done) and discuss relevant points of view at the same time.

All I was pointing out was blaming a potential rate increase on a particular channel being launched is fallacious: all channels are equally "to blame", the order in which they were added is irrelevant. Get rid of those I mentioned and there's "plenty" of money to go around.

Oh, and if, say, VH1 or MTV or GAC or BET were dropped you can be sure DISH would still have subscribers: does that mean those channels shouldn't be carried in the first place because they're not "important"? I think you'd agree with me that this kind of test really doesn't make sense.

I do agree totally, however, that it takes two sides to make a deal. YES is no more (or less) at fault than Charlie.