What are the key presumptions underlying the broadcasting of tennis, indeed most sports, in the United States? Broadcasters are wedded to narratives and personalities. The ubiquity of this marriage arises from a belief that people will not watch most sports. This leads to predetermined coverage as the narrative must be prepared before live coverage begins.
What does this mean in practice? That the narrative tends to resist reality.
Generally speaking, coverage of any tournament unfolds according to expectation rather than in response to events. The costs involved in preparation may mean that live tennis is sometimes sacrificed in order to include the packages already produced. Exciting matches will not be televised if they were not part of the original narrative of the event. Important but unexpected stories are ignored or given little coverage.
A particular egregious example of this is when we are told that someone is ‘sneaking through the draw.’ This generally means that the broadcasters simply have not chosen to cover that player. Since broadcasters are wedded to a personality-driven style of coverage, many matches that could be covered are not; this is either because the requisite number of commentators are not available or the cost would simply be too expensive.
In what way do the powers-that-be not ‘get’ the changing media environment? The constant refrain that American viewers hear is that tennis must appeal to the latest fan generation and keep up with the times. Yet these same powers-that-be appear themselves to be anything but modern and open to innovative communication technologies. They continue to market to a dying mass audience rather than respond to the desires of a new, more fragmented, and technologically competent audience.
What do we know about the new, modern tennis fans? They are likely to be technologically comfortable, aware of alternatives available in other countries, and willing to share their knowledge on a real-time basis with others.
The ATP’s recent efforts to both encourage players to blog and to make these blogs easily accessible suggests that that organization knows something about the modern fan. This year, Wimbledon offered live-streaming video. They also offered the ability to download entire matches after completion and thus the option to watch them at one’s leisure. Now, not only do most of the major tournaments have web pages, they also allow visitors to keep track of what is going on with live scoreboards.
Mainstream broadcasters don’t seem to ‘get’ what would attract the ‘new’ fans. It isn’t playing music on change games. It isn’t being able to listen to coaches. It isn’t being told what players are listening to on their IPODS.
The ‘new’ fans are no longer willing to have others control what they see and hear. The ‘new’ fans challenge the job security of old-style commentators and broadcasters. The ‘new’ fans don’t want to be invited to be anonymous members of a large audience. The ‘new’ fans know they can make their own communities. What they want, ultimately, is access to tennis.
Once the fans have this availability, they can -- and will --create the narratives themselves.
--Mmy
