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

DirecTV 2012 Olympics coverage

Discussion in 'DIRECTV Programming' started by cjrleimer, Jun 16, 2012.

  1. maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    I noticed the movement too. ALL of the NBC networks used for the Olympics seem to have moved. Maybe they are prepping something special, but I would imagine that for just simple channel-duplication of all the NBC Networks in the 75x's, they really don't have to move stuff around.

    Perhaps it was part of a planned move regardless, and they wanted to get the NBC stuff moved BEFORE the Olympics, since so much stuff will be live in the very early mornings and they really wouldn't want to mess up a bunch of people's DVR recordings.

    I noticed CIHD was in there as well, which isn't used for Olympics as far as I know.

    Re: the east coast feed.... I wish NBC would duplicate their east coast coverage for prime time (just the prime time coverage) on same-time station like Universal HD or something like that, so we can choose to pick up coverage at the same time everyone on the east coast starts tweeting and facebooking about the gold we just won.

    West coast is ALWAYS screwed. :(
     
  2. Beerstalker

    Beerstalker Hall Of Fame

    3,556
    70
    Feb 9, 2009
    Peoria, IL
    Don't they use the NBC East DNS feed for the mix channel, maybe that's why it moved around?
     
  3. Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    What is enough then? Everything (yes, except for the ceremonies) is live online? The majority of the television coverage is live (less you forget there's 7 hours of afternoon coverage on NBC plus all of the cable coverage and the 2 specialty channels for soccer and basketball.. I don't see the almighty Canadian coverage offering that). It's not like NBC is showing nothing in the mornings and afternoon when they could instead be showing live coverage. The gap between NBC and everyone else has shrunk way down. NBC has improved by leaps and bounds since Beijing and Vancouver. Yes, the argument is that they should have been there already, but if you don't think 5,500 hours of coverage is enough, I don't think NBC is going to be able to satisfy you.
     
  4. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,207
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    They show it live on the East Coast and primetime maybe but they delay everything for the West Coast primetime and they're delaying a lot of the final events until the evenings and primetime that's what I'm talking about. There is no reason they can't show those live during the day and then repeat all the highlights during prime time in the evening, there isn't anything really going on in the evenings and primetime anyway because of the time difference.
     
  5. dvdmth

    dvdmth Icon

    1,071
    5
    Jul 24, 2008
    Denver, CO
    There is a reason - ratings. They want maximum ratings in prime time. If they show something live (even on a cable channel) and then repeat the event in prime time, that will mean lower ratings in prime time.

    Even making the events available live online will affect their ratings, but not to the same extent that putting the events on a linear TV channel would. I actually wonder if NBC may have been forced to live-stream the events as part of their new TV deal (I know Disney/ESPN was going to make everything live if they won the rights).

    Speaking of live streaming, does anyone know if the live stream will offer 5.1 surround sound?
     
  6. Araxen

    Araxen Icon

    792
    6
    Dec 18, 2005
    Looking at ESPN.com(or your favorite sports website of choice) and seeing the results hurts their ratings more than showing it live. There's no excuse for not showing it live. The majority of people work and have no choice but to watch the tape delayed version. Showing it live isn't going to hurt the ratings that bad. I was so glad when NBC lost the rights to Wimbledon. They lost those rights because they showed the matches on tape delay. ESPN showed everything live and it's how it should in the Information Age and the world of smartphones.
     
  7. mrlqban

    mrlqban AllStar

    56
    0
    Jul 14, 2012
    good topics here!

    Question: anybody knows a way to live stream the opening ceremony from the USA?

    I'm pissed about this, What sense does it make for NBC not to stream it??
    The parade of nations is my least favorite part, but the shows are incredible and I would hate Bob Costas ruin the show with his dumbest commentary during the lighting of the cauldron like he does every &$@&ing Olympics.
     
  8. Davenlr

    Davenlr Geek til I die

    9,139
    28
    Sep 16, 2006
    I wont even watch anything with Bob Costa's doing commentary. He makes me want to scream.
     
  9. Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    So if they showed those live during the day, what wouldn't they show? There's too much going on at a Summer Olympics to repeat showing stuff in primetime. That's the point I was making.. there's live coverage every afternoon, so yea some events are saved until primetime, but they can't show everything live on TV. For example, take August 2nd.. that afternoon, NBC has live coverage of 5 different sports. NBC Sports Network has 4 sports live. MSNBC is showing 5 games live. Bravo is live all morning/afternoon with tennis. So for NBC to show swimming and gymnastics (which is what I'm sure you're referring to) in the afternoon, what gets killed from that schedule? Again, don't make it seem like NBC is showing taped coverage of events all afternoon when they could be live because that couldn't be further from the truth. And oh yea, less we forget about the online coverage where EVERYTHING (except for the ceremonies) is live.

    Disagree. When CBS had the Olympics, they used to give you the results of events hours before they'd air. I remember in 1994 when an American won the downhill (which was very unexpected), literally the first thing they told you on their morning show was that he had won even though they didn't show the video for about 12 hours. Knowing results doesn't scare viewers away as much as some people seem to think. If the events are exciting and especially if Americans do well, it can almost attract viewers. That's the difference between a 2-minute swim race and a 3 hour football game where people always like to say they'd never be delayed.

    There are 28 sports going on at the Olympics, not 1. You can't cover everything live. If NBC chooses to show a live volleyball match during the afternoon and save the swimming for primetime, to me that's better (and smarter) than showing the swimming in the afternoon and showing the same swimming again in primetime. That would be stupid. And yes, showing the big events live on TV in the afternoon when people are at work would hurt ratings.
     
  10. Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    NBC paid well over a billion dollars for London. No one is forcing them to do anything. Remember, Comcast is now in charge. Dick Ebersol is gone. So this will be a different Olympics than we've seen in the past, so I think that's why we're seeing the change in philosophy with the live online coverage.
     
  11. mrlqban

    mrlqban AllStar

    56
    0
    Jul 14, 2012
    You are correct, I verified the listings. No live TV coverage for swimming, not one event. Now, there are plenty of other crap all day long, live and prime time. In the age of the Internet, no one will watch Michael Phelps or Hussain Bolt 6-12 hours later.
     
  12. cjrleimer

    cjrleimer Godfather

    481
    1
    Nov 16, 2004
    Except to watch Rowdy Gaines voice go up 12 octaves.
     
  13. mrlqban

    mrlqban AllStar

    56
    0
    Jul 14, 2012
    lol I always confused him with the gymnastics announcer, really live online streaming is the best thing they've done since they got the rights.
     
  14. Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    Yea right.. you watch how many people watch Phelps 7 hours later full well knowing if he won or not (which is exactly what they did with Bolt in Beijing.. those races weren't live). Yea, this won't be Beijing when his races were live, but I'm sure NBC will have no trouble pulling in pretty decent ratings, at least by the standards of this age where ratings for almost everything that's not football have gone down.
     
  15. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,207
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    To me that's an excuse, not a reason, that the networks use based on poor research and facts. I actually believe that ratings overall would be higher if they did it live and recapped with highlights in prime time. Possibly significantly higher in some cases.
     
  16. inkahauts

    inkahauts Well-Known Member

    23,207
    1,173
    Nov 13, 2006
    Actually' I wasn't referring to any sport specifically, I was referring to all sports in total.

    And NBC owns enough stations to show close to everything live, if not everything live. They aren't using them all but they own enough. They have around 17channels that they control, and could always add a sub channel feed during the day if need be, most their stations have sub feeds on all the time anyway, so why not use it wisely? they could make everything live, and I am sure they could get an agreement to have all their stations opened up to everyone in all packages for the two weeks. They'd be fine with getting the same revenue with more viewers because it would be such a huge launching pad for their channels and the shows on them when the Olympics weren't on.

    And while I see your point about knowing results and still watching, sure that may not scare away a lot of people, but sometimes that depends on the results. And I think more importantly, I think seeing it live earlier will have an even better effect though, because if anything you might get some people watching it twice now, instead of just once. Can't see a single downside to showing everything live. And showing a big event live during the day won't hurt the ratings. Not if they repeat that in prime time.
     
  17. Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    So you're saying you think NBC just doesn't know any better? I don't buy that. The folks at the networks and the advertisers spending the big bucks probably have a pretty good baseline on these things, key among them is the fact that there are more people in front of their television sets in the evening than there are in the afternoon. So even if you have something compelling being shown during the afternoon, there are going to be fewer people around to watch it. And remember.. this is the Olympics. You're trying to get people to tune in for 17 straight days and nights, so it's 1 thing to get a big audience once, but you're not going to be able to repeat that every day for 2 1/2 weeks. That's why the best stuff needs to be shown only in primetime, because if you waste it during the day, people are going to DVR it and watch when they get home. They're not spending that much time in front of their TVs to watch it in the afternoon (when they're not home in the first place) and then watch the same stuff in primetime.

    And they need to show EVERYTHING on TV? No one does that. It's too much. You can't split your audience up into 17 little pieces and expects advertisers to get on board with that. I mean, is NBComcast really going to do better showing live table tennis on SyFy than giving that audience their usual programming? That's the downsize. Once you get past the 5 english language networks all covering the Olympics, there's not exactly much left. The sum of those pieces isn't necessarily as good and a single large audience in primetime. And no, there's no way you're getting that if everything is on TV and primetime is merely a highlights show of video that everyone has already seen. But that's what the online coverage is for. NBC's theory (which I agree with and I think you'll agree with) is that you'll watch something live and then you might watch it again on TV because the online product is a lot different from the TV product. I know that's what I plan on doing.. watch a swim race or something like that live online and then see it on TV with commentary and interview and analysis and the medal ceremonies, all the stuff you're not getting online. I think you're over-estimating how willing people will be to watch things twice, especially for a Summer Olympics where there are so many events. Which is to say.. if you watch something twice, that means there's something else you're not watching once.

    I know you think NBC is dead wrong on this one and has been for a long time now. Until the economy collapsed in 2008, the Olympics were very profitable for them. So clearly they were doing something right in spite of all of the criticisms. And while they're a little late adapting to the digital age, this is a big step in the right direction that, for me, definitely makes up for the lack of certain events not being shown live when they happen. Bottom line.. NBC is offering 5,500 hours of coverage from the London Olympics. If you don't think that's enough coverage for you where every event is available at least online, I don't think you're ever going to be satisfied.
     
  18. maartena

    maartena Hall Of Fame

    2,828
    9
    Nov 1, 2010
    I don't like NBC's coverage because after the debacle of the 2010 Olympics, where the East Coast could see stuff live, and the West Coast who was in the *same time zone* as the Olympics had to wait three hours..... they still haven't learned a thing.

    The West coast gets shafted again, with the popularity of social media, you HAVE to provide sports coverage *at the same time* for all Americans, not start at 5PM PST on the east coast because it is 8 PM there, and wait till 8 PM on the west coast..... if there is a football game on it is shown at the same time, even if it is delayed for whatever reason.

    NBC should have simulcasted their NBC prime time feed to a cable station so everyone that WANTS to watch it at the same time the rest of America does, actually CAN watch it at the same time.

    The fact that they chose not to air some stuff live on TV and wait till prime time.... Okay, I can live with that. But that there is a 3 hour difference between when Americans can watch it..... apparently NBC has not learned ONE THING from 2010.
     
  19. Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    Obviously they did or else they wouldn't have put every event live online, something that was almost unthinkable during Vancouver. A lot has changed in the past 2 years even though, yes, the primetime model is still pretty similar to what it has been.

    As for the West coast.. remember that everything in primetime is taped anyway, so waiting an extra 3 hours isn't as egregious as it was from Vancouver or even Beijing. Even still, it's the affiliates that are to blame for that. I read that Ebersol wanted the Olympics in 2002 from Salt Lake live to all time zones but the majority of the affiliates on the West coast said no, that they'd rather start at 8pm on delay so they could keep their lead-in to the local news. So direct your ire at them if you're still angry over that one, again as if it makes that much of a difference if a taped broadcast is a little more taped.

    And for crying out loud, can people PLEASE stop making the ridiculous comparison to football. A football game is 3 hours long and is all about the results, not the stories. Let alone that football games are all at convenient times (on Sunday afternoons or in primetime). That's a lot different than a 2 minute swim race taking place at 2:30 on a Wednesday afternoon in the middle of a 17 day sports marathon featuring more than 5,000 hours of coverage! Seriously, if you think nothing has changed since the last Olympics, take a closer look and I think you'll find the differences.
     
  20. Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    I am annoyed that the opening ceremonies will not be live and will be edited for time. Beyond that, I think they are doing a fairly good job.
     

Share This Page