Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by cjrleimer, Jun 16, 2012.
Live online coverage is streamed in HD, so I don't know what you're talking about, sorry.
LTE should have no problem whatsover. 4G maybe.
7:30-midnight is the timeframe for the opening ceremonies (I begin my every-4-years-funky-schedule Friday night, and our late newscast starts at midnight Friday and most nights through the Games)...
(full disclosure: I'm web EP for WXIA Atlanta)
We're planning on revealing all in our newscasts and online, but we'll let folks know we've got a spoiler before showing everyone. We don't live in a vacuum. We know many folks are watching online or on mobile and are not dumbing things down for them. I'm sure many of (at least the larger ones) the stations are doing the same thing.
Sports are meant to be watched LIVE, specially, in the age of social media. Come on get real, there will be absolutely no sense to watch a recorded event, even if it's HD, if you know the results, or if there is a risk of knowing the results, this will ruin your experience. No matter how hard you try to stay away from social media and how well youve managed to become a master of your HD DVR your experience WILL BE RUINED sooner or later one way or the other.
Ok that was Sports in general. LIVE coverage makes even more sense for the OLYMPIC competition because the number of people worlwide, the number of sports that are covered would make it IMPOSIBLE to manage your DVR without knowing the results 7 hours earlier in some of these events. You have facebook, twitter, friends, google, all sorts of media.
LOOK at what happened in 2008. Everyone, absolutely everyone in the U.S. found out about the Hussain BOLT 100m final results before they saw it in primetime thanks to the NBC model. Which by the way, even though they promised more live events, they are still projecting to lose money in this Olympic Games once again, go figure.
Pretty dumb plan. You see, what if I tuned in 2 seconds after the warning of the spoiler?
I know, I'll blame NBC. Thanks!
I watch MLB and Netflix on 3G all the time with few issues and decent quality. I don't expect wifi picture but it looks like they don't adjust well for bandwidth like other streams do. Complete blurry mess.
Not everyone has the ability to watch all the sorts they are interested in live. Football is pretty easy to manage, if you follow a particular team. We are cycling fans, it's not easy to take 3 weeks off work at once to watch Tour coverage live. And I have the ability to take 4 weeks vacation a year.
I avoided any spoilers that meant anything. I did see the alert for the winner before the HD of the last stage, but of course by then it was locked up. The Olympics are similar in scale in terms of duration.
That's true, I tested with iphone fake 4G from ATT and the picture was decent for a couple of minutes and then became unwatchable. I tried it a few hours later, the same pattern occured.
It still amazes me that this misconception is out there. Let's break this down and DMKing started to hit on it.. NBC is showing 5,500 hours of coverage from London (yes, a lot of that is double-counted). All of the streaming - live. Bravo is showing the tennis - live to ALL timezones. Most of what's on NBC Sports Network and MSNBC - live. Every single game of both basketball tournaments - live. And most of NBC's daytime coverage - yes, delayed to the West coast, but live to the East. Yet all some people look at is the primetime coverage (which is what, about 2% of the total of what NBC is offering) and think that NBC is refusing to show anything.
I get so sick of reading how people think NBC hasn't changed in the past 20 years simply because swimming and track are shown in primetime and not live during the afternoon. Forget the fact that EVERYTHING is being live streamed online. You said you wanted your sports live? Look a little harder and that's exactly what you have. If you're a basketball fan or a tennis fan, you're in heaven! If you're just looking at sports like swimming and track and gymnastics, don't use those to assume there's nothing else out there. Those other 20-something sports are part of the Olympic program too.
Olympics numbers game
There, take a look at that. Ratings for every night of Beijing. That night Usain Bolt won the 100 meters drew over 30 million viewers. On a Saturday night during the summer. Now yes, you also had Phelps swimming that night and that was live. Regardless, look at the numbers for the rest of the Olympics. Does that look like no one was watching even though "absolutely everyone in the U.S." knew the results? I'll make the same argument I've been making.. how many people out there found out Bolt set a world record and tuned in BECAUSE they knew the results. Apparently a lot. That's a pretty darn big number of people in front of their televisions and we're not talking about 1 night, we're talking about 17. Sure, social media wasn't in 2008 quite what it is now, but there were plenty of DVRs out there. That's a lot of people out there watching a recorded event and will probably do it again. For the 8 billionth time.. knowing the results does NOT ruin the experience for everyone, especially the types of people tuning in for the Olympics. And I'd say these numbers are pretty solid proof of that.
Oh, and if we're talking money.. yes, NBC lost money from Vancouver and will again from London. But that's due to the economy collapsing and a pretty bad over-bid long before 2010. Probably would also interest you to know that CTV in Canada lost money on 2010, their home soil Olympics. So let's not make it seem like NBC is only losing money because of how they program the Olympics. Couldn't be further from the truth.
I general, the whole industry is so stuck in trying to hold onto the past and what worked then they are forsaking how they could be properly leveraging todays newest technologies to get even better ratings. That's what I am saying.
Simple example. Some cable stations dont have any shows available on the internet at all. Silly... Viacom, and how they give most stuff away for free... Idiotic... HBO, with their HBO go (and as of today, on demand for DIRECTV). Is brilliant. They just uped their value massively To a wider audience, while still protecting what they have always had.
NBC and the Olympics. This year much better, but that doesn't mean they got it right.
Can they truly televise everything? Summer Olympics is very difficult to do that, but they could televise a lot more than they will live. And with DVR technology coupled with Internet access and full streaming of every event live, and everyone showing results instantaneously, tape delaying something becomes less sense able and less sensible by the minute.
Oh, and the money will be there I don't care what time the broadcast the games, and they could probably get even more If they did highlights during primetime after live all day. I would love to see them approach the highlights at night similar to how the nfl approaches itself with the red zone channel. Constant action. Let them use one of the other networks for all the athlete stories and other filler.
This'll be my fourth Olympics with an NBC station... And I am a really big critic of nbc's not showing things live. I don't like the touchy-freely stories, and would prefer pure action. But looking at it from an affiliate's standpoint, this is literally the biggest game in town. More than 30 percent of the tv sets in metro Atlanta that are turned on will be watching us at some point each day. In the middle of the summer. Plus we've got a primary election in the middle of it all.
I can't argue too much. It keeps food on my table.
They're offering the entire Olympics online, LIVE. To me, that's anything but stuck in the past. Yes, there's the authentication issue, but that's at least somewhat understandable given the money involved. I'm just trying to understand what you think NBC should be doing now that they're not. What do they have to do to "get it right?" And don't say cover everything live.. because they're doing that already online and offering up more a lot more live coverage on television than you seem to be giving them credit for.
How much more live coverage do you want? On Saturday, for much of the day, there will be 8 television channels broadcasting the Olympics, all of them in live coverage. Do you really want to fire up every single network in the NBC/Comcast family, especially when hardcore fans of a particular sport are probably online anyway.
And as for tape delay.. I've read stories of Olympic coverage from back in the 1980s when results of many events were well known. Yet, people still watched anyway. Sure it's a lot easier to access results now, but look at the numbers from Beijing. They were the same complaints then and still people tuned in in record numbers. Still doesn't mean NBC needs to make a dramatic shift to their programming strategy, certainly not any more than they already have.
So in other words you think NBC is stupid and stubborn and doesn't know any better? Their first full scale Olympics back in 1988, they approached it like you're suggesting, to treat the Olympics like a sports action with constant action. And they got criticized to shreds for it because they realized their audience is not full of sport fans. It's the demographics that wants the athlete stories and other filler. And especially with the time difference from London, primetime is going to be on tape anyway, so that's the ideal place for those features as opposed to during the day when you're getting more action because things are live.
And if you really think they could generate more money showing their best stuff during the afternoon, you probably don't appreciate how television advertising works. If that was the way to go, the sponsors (the companies paying the big bucks for their ads to be shown) would be driving the change. But it hasn't happened that way. Because they know better. There's a reason NBC offered up more money for the Olympics than ESPN who would have probably shown everything live, and not just because NBC got over-aggressive. Their strategy is the way to generate the most revenue and while there's room for change, to do some of the things you're suggesting isn't going to help their bottom line and I'm pretty sure it's going to hurt it.
Full disclosure.. I worked as an intern 1 summer for NBC Olympics, so yes, there may be a little bias in there on my end. What I've learned over the years about the Olympics is that it's 1 of the most wide-reaching diverse events you're going to find. So it's next to impossible to make everyone happy. NBC and their affiliates have to play to their greatest strength which is to attract that primetime demographic that's going to draw ratings (which will of course benefit the affiliates). No one ever said it was "right." But from a business standpoint, most of what they're doing is the most sensible way of doing things. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.
They're not streaming the opening or closing ceremonies live. The USA could be the only nation on earth where those ceremonies will not be seen live.
Guess where about 80 million Americans live! Right, in Pacific or Mountain. Sure, we are probably not as important as the other 220 Million Americans in Eastern and Central, but there is NO reason whatsoever to not show America the same coverage nationwide. They could have figured out the local news affiliates a LONG LONG time ago.
They should simulcast that prime time show on another NBC owned channel They have the space to do it, they have the time to do it.... They just won't because they want people on the west to watch commercials.
Of course you can watch everything online, and I am grateful for that. Very grateful. But that doesn't take away the fact that they won't even show the opening ceremony in its entirety, but cut away bits and pieces so they can insert commercials. That's primarily what I am pissed about, and that is the prime reason I will download the BBC version after it has aired there, because at least they have the decency to show *ALL* of the opening, not just pick and choose the countries of the parade of nations that NBC thinks we want to see.
Why do I get the feeling you feel the need to prove something here? I think the Olympics are some of the best ratings for NBC. But it is not like people had a choice. It was after all a SATURDAY, and although there might have been some baseball that other people would want to watch, NBC could have shown all of it live on Saturday morning.
But yeah.... if they did that, they might not have had the viewership they had at night.
And again: Phelps swam live for the 220 Million on the East coast. And while Facebook was abuzz with Phelps' Golden runs, the 80 million on the west still had to wait 3 more hours.
The numbers are only proof that there was no other choice to watch it. And whether it ruins the experience, is a personal choice, not a fact. I personally want to be surprised.
Look, I understand the reasons for tape delay. But there is NO EXCUSE to not show everything to the United States at the same time. NO EXCUSE. Yeah "blah, blah but the local news affiliates, but, but....." - They had YEARS to figure that out and build the show around it.
Example: Start show at 5PM PST, 8PMEST, break for local news at 7PM PST, 10PM EST, continue show at 7:30PM PST, 10:30PM EST. End coverage at 9PM PST/Midnight EST, and then repeat the broadcast for late evening viewers and night hawks.
And I am grateful for all the online coverage this year, that was one of the best things NBC did.
So we don't know the results ahead of time. :lol:
Am I the only one who always snickers a little when the west coasters have to suffer?
Nah. I would imagine east-coasters could care less.
Maybe it's just us mid-westers who enjoy it then.