1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NBC 2012 Olympics Coverage

Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by gusmahler, Jul 27, 2012.

  1. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,224
    180
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    Exactly. With todays technology the viewer should have a choice, even if they have to pay for it, to watch it live if they want to. Why should the rest of the world be able to watch it live but us here in the U.S. can't?
     
  2. maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    Yes.

    We know.

    Ratings and Money: More important then a tribute to the victims of the 7-7 terrorist attacks in London in 2005, which NBC blatantly cut out of the opening ceremony.
     
  3. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    More important than good television as well apparently. They have a popular enough product (Olympics) to get away with tape delaying the most important parts.
     
  4. Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    Wow. I mean.. you typed that from a computer, right? You know, the technology that, if you ask it to, will stream every and any Olympic event to you LIVE (yes, I know, assuming you have cable TV subscription). That sounds like a choice to me. Maybe not the choice you want, but it's a choice.

    And I seem to recall the men's cycling road race yesterday. That was pretty dramatic. I saw that one on live television. I'm sure they'll be at least a couple more.

    Again, I'm not trying to defend NBC. I'm merely pointing at the ratings and refuting what folks are saying here that their strategy won't (and can't) work anymore. You are being proven wrong. The scoreboard currently reads NBC 2, complainers 0.

    Can I prove that.. no. Can I prove a mountain of evidence to suggest that another network doing it right wouldn't bring in bigger ratings? Absolutely I can. So many people out there seem to want NBC to change because they're asking so nicely. When what NBC is doing is working (right or wrong is subjective, that this is working is almost impossible to refute right now), why should they take a risk by doing it differently? NBC has been doing the Olympics for 2 decades now, most of which were very profitable. Is it possible, maybe just possible that they know what they're doing despite everyone screaming from their rooftops and their Twitter feeds?
     
  5. Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    And yet American viewers continue to eat it all up while they're saying "this is terrible, please give me more of it!"
     
  6. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    So, no...you can't. That's all you had to say. Once again NBC brought in good ratings despite their many mistakes due to what the event is. The Olympics brought in good ratings despite NBC.
     
  7. TheRatPatrol

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    7,224
    180
    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
    I was talking about the opening ceremony.
     
  8. Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    Well, one could argue that NBC's presentation of the Olympics brought in good ratings and not just that everyone loves the Olympics so much that it would have happened anyway. That's like saying a good television show does well simply because it's a good show. Doesn't work that way. You think an event like this would draw in a big audience if the networks and the Twitterverse didn't hype it up? Good or bad, people are taking note of NBC's coverage, and yes, that's helping to drive a ratings surge that even NBC execs said they weren't expecting.

    You believe whatever you want to believe. You (and others) view NBC's coverage and their mistakes as evidence that if they did it another way, they'd draw higher ratings. If you can prove that one to me (which I'm pretty sure you can't.. and no, what happens in every other country is not precedent for it), then I'd be floored. I'll continue to view it as what NBC is doing, in spite of everyone pointing out the negative, is helping the cause more than it's hurting it. Again, that's not defending what NBC is doing is right.. but it's working.
     
  9. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    You've done doing but defend NBC while claiming to not be defending NBC.
     
  10. Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    Fine, I'm defending NBC. They're a business. The purpose of a business is generally to make money. They're doing that by doing exactly what everyone is telling them they shouldn't be doing.
     
  11. Chris Blount

    Chris Blount Creator of DBSTalk Staff Member Administrator DBSTalk Gold Club

    17,308
    28
    Jun 22, 2001
    One more thing about this. If you are posting results that you think has not aired on NBC, try and remember to place a spoiler warning or tag on your post.

    Thanks.
     
  12. trh

    trh This Space for Sale

    5,454
    242
    Nov 2, 2007
    NE FL
    Nothing new with the tape delays. Even the 1980 "Miracle on Ice" game between the US and USSR was delayed by ABC to prime time. And that game was played in Lake Placid, NY.
     
  13. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    Yes...more than 30 years ago. NBC's evolution was stunted apparently.
     
  14. Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    People knowing the results of events is not something new either. During the 80s (not just the Miracle on Ice game), there were plenty of people who knew results before the network went to air. ABC got ripped for showing events "plausibly live" long before NBC coined the phrase and all of a sudden everyone was angry. This is the way it's been for decades. Are we going to argue it was wrong then too only there wasn't Twitter for everyone to voice their complaints?

    It worked then, it's working now. Everyone who's saying it doesn't work and then watching anyway is proving why it's working.

    Some food for thought here, this is an article posted after the 1988 Summer Olympics, which NBC largely covered live and in more of a sports-oriented fashion. You want to trace the genesis of where NBC got the idea to show the Olympics the way they do, this is it..

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067893/index.htm
     
  15. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    So...you're suggesting that coverage shouldn't have improved over the last 20-30 years? It was good enough then, so it should be good enough now?
     
  16. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,306
    913
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    179.5 hours of coverage in 1988, 1210 hours in 2004, 3600 hours in 2008 and 5535 hours this year.

    Coverage has improved. But it has done so without discarding the largest audience for the games ... the prime time audience.
     
  17. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 New Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    That may be your opinion.
     
  18. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,306
    913
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    What are you disputing? The number of hours of coverage or what I believe? As if that may not be my opinion? Are are the statements you're making your opinion or they just argument for the sake of making noise?

    The amount of coverage is factual. The ratings increase (even as competition has increased in the form of other alternatives and pre-aired results) is factual. More people are watching more coverage than ever before.

    If one does not see that as improvement, I can't help.
     
  19. Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    So you don't see a difference between 5,500 hours of coverage (most of which is shown live) and 180 or so hours?

    What NBC does with their primetime coverage (since that's what's at issue here.. it's not like you had a specialty basketball or specialty soccer channel back in 1984) hasn't changed, but why should it? Twitter has ruined the Olympics? Please.. all this hype on chatter on Twitter is probably driving up the ratings rather than drive it down. Good or bad, right or wrong with the coverage is subjective. The ratings are pretty black-and-white and they are good. So why do you assume that when NBC is doing the same thing they've always done and they're getting monster ratings for it that doing it another way would be more beneficial? Because that's what you and others seem to be arguing without any sort of evidence that you're right other than saying "I don't like it, they should try doing what I want them to"
     
  20. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    21,947
    1,012
    Nov 13, 2006
    Actually, I'm not at all surprised by those numbers. Still doesn't mean they are doing it right and that they are maximizing their profits. They are not doing either of those things.

    We can decry the coverage and watch it at the same time.
     

Share This Page