In a business sense, how did William Wirtz justify not televising Blackhawk home games?

Question

In a time when there is money to be made from TV - even in the NHL, I fail to see what was so advantageous about such a policy. The only thing I can see is the bullheaded idea that it would motivate people to come to the arena. But truthfully, the Blackhawks have had one decent shot at the Cup since they last won it in 1961, so that seems pretty thin to me. But, we ARE talking about (www.cheapskate.com - my nickname for him).

Apparently, I'm not very well versed in Blackhawks history. Let my lack of knowledge be the ignorance that it is and don't take it as an affront. I never meant to insult them or their fans.

Answer 1

As a businessman, Wirtz didn't believe in giving away a product if it could be sold. His thinking was, if people wanted to see the 'Hawks, they would pay to see it live or via PPV. To him, the good fans were the paying customers and thereby dismissed the value of giving away something others would pay for. His strategy would have been more successful if he maintained a talent level to generate enough interest to attract paying customers.

Answer 2

You don't sell the games out it doesn't go on TV. Its to get people to go to the games.

The Blackhawks make no effort to put a real team on the ice in the last 10 years. They were a good team in the 80s and early 90s. Nobody cares to watch in person and I don't think they would on TV either if given the choice. Its not that they don't like hockey its that they don't like him.

My guess is they are still making some pretty good money even losing with such pitiful attendance. They are in it for the money not to have a good team.

Answer 3

Your assumptions on the Blackhawks and their "decent shot" could not be more wrong. I can't believe one would post such a thing without doing some research. Likewise, the teams do not make out like bandits financially from being on TV. Televsion, like any for of media makes its money by selling advertising and using those proceeds to create shows or aquire programming. The networks make the money and the NHL directly. Money is filtered to the NHL franchises from NHL HQ but not in the amounts that would justify someone like Wirtz saying there is gold in them hills... and placing them on TV. The only benefit from televising as a franchise is the exposure your team gets and hoping people will want to come see a game. Wirtz did not believe in this theory. He believed why go if its free on TV. It was more than that too. He also believed franchises did not get the money they should have from the NHL for displaying their product under the NHL logo and so he said screw you I won't televise. I think much of "dollar bills" poor reputation is created from fans not knowing his true intentions. Unfortunately, it did backfire but only because of lack of talent (may be caused by Wirtz as well) and more interest in other local teams. Not saying Wirtz was great with the way he ran the team but little known fact... Peter Wirtz had much to do with some of the stuff Bill got blamed for. I think there is a guy on this board that is a top contributor and actually was involved with the Hawks organization can attest to this.

Anyway... why do you care? Those days are over and Rocky Wirtz has already got some games on TV this year. Its a start.

Ok... anyone want to discuss somethng relevant to what is going on in the NHL...especially regarding someone alive and in power...lol?

Answer 4

The Wirtz family (Arthur started the TV blackouts) operated on the mentality that if the home games (away games have been available for years) were on television, people would rather stay home than go to the arena.

In the Black Hawks case, the team sold out 93% of their games between 1958 and 1997. During the 1988 through 2000 period, they did put several home games on television available via pay per view, and this was successful enough that several teams looked at the idea in 1994. The Canadian teams at that time vetoed the idea (all 14 US teams voted yea). Bettman agreed with the Canadian teams.

Since 1997 the Black Hawks have been pretty lousy on the ice, and the fans have made them pay for it at stands. Their last home game was their first sell out since the lockout (There were three ocassions last year where they were within 100 seats of a sell-out).

As for the one decent shot since 1961
The Black Hawks were finalists in
1962
1965
1971
1973
1992
The Black Hawks were semi-finalists in
1963
1964
1966
1967
1968
1970
1972
1982
1983
1985
1989
1990
1995

Between 1958-59 and 1996-97, the Black Hawks failed to make the playoffs ONCE (the end coinciding with Peter's increased duties with the team)

Only Montreal and Boston have played more game than the Chicago Black Hawks since 1960
Only Montreal and Boston have won more regular season games than the Chicago Black Hawks since 1960 (and that includes the Red Wings)

Answer 5

The honest reason Bill Wirtz did not put home games on television was because he thought that putting home games on television was a slap in the face to his season ticket holders. He found it unfair that they paid money to see a game, while those at home did not. Twisted logic, of course, but honestly, it was a nice thing he tried to do, but looking back, the end result was messed up. That is why he tried to do pay per view back in the early 80's. He wanted no one to watch for free. Not to make money (at least not totaly), but to take care of his loyal paying customer.

Answer 6

The Hawks were perennial contenders after 1961. They won several Division Titles, and reached the Cup Finals in 1962, '65, '71, '73 and '92. This despite knowing that the Edmonton Oilers were waiting in the Conference Finals for most of the 1980s. As recently as 1995, they made the Conference Finals. Whatever's wrong with the Hawks, it doesn't go back much further than that, and I don't think you can blame it on the TV situation.

Answer 7

I dunno man, the whole sports broadcasting system is f'd to hell. Theres all this nonsense that direct tv has the Sunday NFL ticket monopoly, and that the NFL wants the NFL network to be part of basic cable, the the cable co's want it to be extra. Locally, Peter Angelos, owner of the Orioles, was threatening for a while to black out Nationals games in MD (or something to that effect).

So like I said, the whole system is f'd. If more people can watch your games, you'd think they could make more money by expanding the fan base, but apparently they just want the big fat contracts with tv stations/ networks.

Answer 8

Just leave it up to LITY to prove you wrong, eh bill? lol.