9 minutes ago, 16thBBall Fan said:

Despite NBC boasting a substantial 23 million viewer count for the game, a deeper analysis suggests the NFL may have missed a significant viewership opportunity by not airing the game through traditional channels.

Sports Illustrated's Jimmy Traina highlights a potential loss of 10 to 12 million viewers, a deduction made evident when compared to other games ratings. For instance, the Green Bay Packers' victory over the Dallas Cowboys aired on FOX, attracting a remarkable 40 million viewers.

Similarly, the Detroit Lions' triumph against the Los Angeles Rams, broadcast on NBC, drew in 36 million viewers. Another game featuring the Houston Texans and the Cleveland Browns, also on NBC, garnered 29 million. Among these, the Chiefs-Dolphins game, exclusively on Peacock, trailed noticeably in viewership numbers.

I don't think that is a surprise to anyone. 

Does anyone know what Amazon's viewer numbers were for Thursday night games? How do those numbers compare to pre-Amazon?

Those numbers will help us determine if Peacock's numbers are a success or not.

For anyone following along:

 

So I've read numbers like $170 and $200 per month for cable.  What many people have been asking the cable companies for is an ala carte option.  Instead of giving me 100 channels, let me pick the 25 that I watch and only pay for those.  In a way, that is becoming an option, albeit not through the cable company.  If local channels are available to you via an antenna you have that for free.  For sports fans, you can pay ESPN, Amazon, and Peacock and get most NFL games.  Add in Bally's and Big Ten network and get baseball and more college sports.  Is it as convenient and jumping channels on cable?  No.  But my point is that for less than a $200 cable bill you can get most everything you now watch.  

1 hour ago, Voice of Reason said:

I don't think that is a surprise to anyone. 

Does anyone know what Amazon's viewer numbers were for Thursday night games? How do those numbers compare to pre-Amazon?

Those numbers will help us determine if Peacock's numbers are a success or not.

I don't know.  Not really apple to apples.  I can't think of anyone that uses Prime Video because they subscribe to Prime Video, everyone has Prime Video because they're an Amazon Prime member.  Just seems hard to compare Prime to Peacock.

6 hours ago, sportsfan41 said:

I don't know.  Not really apple to apples.  I can't think of anyone that uses Prime Video because they subscribe to Prime Video, everyone has Prime Video because they're an Amazon Prime member.  Just seems hard to compare Prime to Peacock.

Yeah.  I have Prime for the free and same/next day delivery on orders.    Prime Video is just a bonus.   I use it in stretches, but it's not a the lifeblood of my entertainment.

One good thing that came out of this. I had no idea that we had a Peacock subscription. I remember signing in way back when it was free with a bunch of commercials. I don't recall ever signing up for the pay subscription. 

Watched the game, then canceled the subscription. Saving $5.99 a month going forward.

9 hours ago, sportsfan41 said:

I don't know.  Not really apple to apples.  I can't think of anyone that uses Prime Video because they subscribe to Prime Video, everyone has Prime Video because they're an Amazon Prime member.  Just seems hard to compare Prime to Peacock.

Just looking for the number of viewers.

14 minutes ago, Voice of Reason said:

Just looking for the number of viewers.

Google has this for starters:

Viewership increased for 14 of the 15 (Amazon) TNF windows this season. 12 TNF games averaged more than ten million viewers, doubling last year's total. Five games surpassed 2022's viewership high of 13.03 million for the Los Angeles Chargers versus the Kansas City Chiefs. Jan 3, 2024.

12 hours ago, Tranquility Base said:

Yeah.  I have Prime for the free and same/next day delivery on orders.    Prime Video is just a bonus.   I use it in stretches, but it's not a the lifeblood of my entertainment.

Same here. 

22 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

I don't think that is a surprise to anyone. 

Does anyone know what Amazon's viewer numbers were for Thursday night games? How do those numbers compare to pre-Amazon?

Those numbers will help us determine if Peacock's numbers are a success or not.

The demographics within those numbers are almost as important as the total viewers.  Maybe just as important to advertisers.  Even though the Amazon & Peacock overall numbers might be smaller than traditional network or cable channels, I am guessing the coveted 18-49 demo is still pretty high.

16 hours ago, Tranquility Base said:

Yeah.  I have Prime for the free and same/next day delivery on orders.    Prime Video is just a bonus.   I use it in stretches, but it's not a the lifeblood of my entertainment.

3 hours ago, mcpapa said:

Same here. 

Me three and I always look at it as if there is something on Prime Video I want to watch it is a special treat and nothing more. 

I just saw online that Amazon Prime has announced they have secured a deal with the NFL and have been guaranteed a playoff game in next year's playoffs on their streaming service.

Thursday's Michigan at Iowa women's game is streaming on Peacock so only those paying for premium access will see Clark break the record live. (Unless NBC airs it for everyone LOL)  Can't really blame Peacock or the NCAA for this one, they just lucked into this event.    But I'm guessing they won't see anywhere near 22 million streams.    Probably not even half that.

18 minutes ago, Tranquility Base said:

Thursday's Michigan at Iowa women's game is streaming on Peacock so only those paying for premium access will see Clark break the record live. (Unless NBC airs it for everyone LOL)  Can't really blame Peacock or the NCAA for this one, they just lucked into this event.    But I'm guessing they won't see anywhere near 22 million streams.    Probably not even half that.

I’ll probably watch it but not via the Peacock app.