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. Aug 1, 2012 #421 of 578
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    Does Mr.s Fluffybear know there's online streaming of gymnastics going on right now including dedicated feeds of every apparatus?
     
  2. Aug 1, 2012 #422 of 578
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    Well said. Very well said.
     
  3. Aug 1, 2012 #423 of 578
    anleva

    anleva Icon

    568
    1
    Nov 14, 2007
    As a means of individual communication and social networking it and facebook are probably the most popluar communication vehicles. Prevalent as a penetration of the total population using it no. Prevalent (generally or widely accepted, practiced) in social media and communications yes.

    Yes, introverts probably wouldn't use twitter. Maybe that is NBC's Olympic Audience.

    We do seem to agree that it does have value in pointing out broader trends, feelings, complaints. I don't think having a Twitter accounts would skew to only people hating NBC. I think it is representative of what people are thinking about the Olympics, probably the best we have on that right now until more formal research is done.
     
  4. Aug 1, 2012 #424 of 578
    anleva

    anleva Icon

    568
    1
    Nov 14, 2007
    As a means of individual communication and social networking it and facebook are probably the most popluar communication vehicles. Prevalent as a penetration of the total population using it no. Prevalent (generally or widely accepted, practiced) in social media and communications yes.

    Yes, introverts probably wouldn't use twitter. Maybe that is NBC's Olympic Audience.

    We do seem to agree that it does have value in pointing out broader trends, feelings, complaints. I don't think having a Twitter accounts would skew to only people hating NBC. I think it is representative of what people are thinking about the Olympics, probably the best we have on that right now until more formal research is done.
     
  5. Aug 1, 2012 #425 of 578
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    And would CTV see a drop in their ratings if NBC's coverage was available in Canada? I think it's naive to believe otherwise. The United States isn't the only country that lacks competition even if other countries, particularly in Europe where there's a lot more of them, have it.

    Should be noted.. it was announced today CBC just secured the Canadian rights to the 2014 and 2016 Olympics, so that will change back for the next Olympics.

    In any event.. you're all saying viewers don't have a choice. There is online streaming, you know. But wait.. so now not only do Americans "have to" watch the Olympics, but they have to be able to do it on their televisions? You all keep saying the ratings don't mean anything, but they have to mean something, don't they? Once again, I'm not saying what NBC is doing is right for the viewer or that viewers have no right to complain, but NBC's philosophy is to serve the greatest good. Contrary to what you're reading on Twitter, that seems to be happening. And if those who don't like the coverage are consuming it anyway, you can only argue that maybe NBC would be better serving them by offering something different. You can't really argue they aren't serving them at all. Not with all the online streaming, cable coverage, specialty channels, and the mountains of live coverage of events that no one seems to want to acknowledge because NBC chooses to hold a couple of key events for primetime.
     
  6. Aug 1, 2012 #426 of 578
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    David, there's no reason to believe the these ratings are not the result of the Olympics rather than NBC's way of broadcasting. I stand by the idea that the Olympics are performing well here despite NBC.
     
  7. Aug 1, 2012 #427 of 578
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    That's just it.. when NBC had the Olympics in 1988, they were geared towards the sports fan. What NBC quickly realized is that that audience is not who was watching primetime. It's the females who want the type of coverage that NBC is giving them. The ones who weren't watching much Olympic coverage to begin with are the Twitter and social media types who are used to football and baseball played at convenient times that don't have the type of mass coverage that the Olympics get. That's who they're playing to and that's what makes up a big part of that large audience. They think NBC's presentation makes it compelling for them. Many would disagree, but at least there's something of a compromise there with the online streaming. I know some will say that NBC should do what the BBC does and just show everything live on dedicated TV channels. That's easier said than done and while that would quiet the crowd, if it's not going to be profitable, then unfortunately, the company that investing in the Olympics in the first place probably isn't going to provide it.
     
  8. Aug 1, 2012 #428 of 578
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    But won't you at least consider that maybe they're doing something right? You kept telling me there might be another way and yes, I was largely shooting you down because I don't see the alternative being better (from NBC's standpoint.. from a viewer standpoint, obviously it would be). Your assumption seems to remain that NBC is missing out on bigger ratings and bigger profits because they don't know any better. Isn't it just possible that there's a small element of this where NBC is actually having a positive effect on the ratings and it's not just that the Olympics have become that much better on their own since 4 years ago? Yes, I'm aware of what's going on up in Canada, but I don't think that proves that the ratings increases are totally in spite of NBC and not in any way because of them.
     
  9. Aug 1, 2012 #429 of 578
    anleva

    anleva Icon

    568
    1
    Nov 14, 2007
    I'm curious. How do you think an alternate network, say CBS Sports, would cover the Olympics? Would it be exactly the same as NBC?
     
  10. Aug 1, 2012 #430 of 578
    Hoosier205

    Hoosier205 Active Member

    6,659
    14
    Sep 3, 2007
    David, I'd like for them to maintain high ratings while also providing a better broadcast. You seem to only be focused on the high ratings.
     
  11. Aug 1, 2012 #431 of 578
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    I understand that, but I think you're over-stating how many folks are turned off by the quality of the coverage and how many of them might tune in if things were different. There are a lot more people watching in primetime because they want to and because they like what NBC is offering them than you seem to want to give them credit for. I know Twitter tells a different story, but again, 40 million viewers is not something you get just because the content of the programming is that good. Television isn't that kind.

    You're still working under the assumption that if NBC did things differently (and let's be fair, once you look past the primetime coverage, things are a lot different from 4 years ago) that NBC could do even better than they are. 40 million viewers, when you were expecting less, is pretty darn good, especially when there's so much complaining out there from people who supposedly can't stand the coverage. I think it's reasonable to consider that there are some aspects of all this where the broadcast the NBC is providing ('better broadcast' is subjective, just like with any television show) is helping that number rather than to say it's merely happening in spite of them
     
  12. Aug 1, 2012 #432 of 578
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    Well, CBS has the Olympics during the 90s. And yes, it was similar to what NBC presents now. And I remember more than a few times, they'd present the results of an event that they knew they were saving for primetime and give us the old "if you don't want to know who won, please turn away until the music stops." That's why there's always been the argument that results aren't as important as the storylines and that people aren't necessarily turned off by knowing what happened.

    I don't know how CBS would handle things on the cable side. We've seen them partner with Turner for the NCAA Tournament (after many years of handling the tournament on their own and not offering the whole thing on TV, so there's some similarities to NBC with the Olympics there), so maybe they would do an Olympics different. But I think the primetime show would still look pretty similar to what NBC has now. Whether or not they'd offer live coverage elsewhere, that I don't know. They'd still be able storytelling and features and all the other fluff in primetime though because they know that's the audience and that's where their bread is buttered, so to speak.
     
  13. Aug 1, 2012 #433 of 578
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Maybe, maybe not. It is very difficult to compare broadcasts from the 90s to what is being done today. Technology and social interactions have changed dramatically.

    I really don't have a problem with NBC's primetime coverage although I would make it more like a Red Zone channel. I don't think the fluff draws anyone to the broadcasts. When I talk to people who actually watch the primetime coverage, they bitch about how it is dragged out and how they sit and watch the wait for scores in a gymnastics setting without showing other stuff going on even within the same gym. Or editting so the scores come up right away and go to another event.

    Just because people are watching does not mean it is the best coverage or that you would not get more people watching. NBC has targetted the casual fan but has driven away a lot of real sports fans. Why not get them both? Even the casual fans I know don't talk about how great the fluff pieces were or how great Ryan Seacrest is, they talk about the EVENTS they watched.

    You see, while they are not captive audiences in the sense that they are forced to watch, they are captive audiences *if* they want to watch the Olympics. So many people work and are not going to DVR the days activities but will plop down in front of the TV during primetime to watch the Olympics. And their only real choice (except for those systems that have the soccer and basketball channels on during the rerun phase) is to watch NBC because none of the other channels are broadcasting.

    Do I think that NBC is messing up? Yes, because I know a lot of sports fans (you know, the ones they try to get the rest of the year) are not watching. And less fluff (don't get rid of it) and more action will draw them as well as keep the casual fans.

    The worst part is NBC's public attitude about all this. They act as if they created the universe. The only adjustment they have made is to enact more spoiler-type treatment during some broadcasts. Really? They only defend their actions in the face of all the criticism instead of saying "times are changing and we will continue to monitor and adjust as time goes on."

    BTW, one correction on your comment that CBS did not offer all the NCAA games before their partnership with Turner. Not true. They had Mega March Madness on DirecTV. They had MMM on line. They also provided alternate feeds to any CBS station that wanted to put them on sub-channels after they went digital. I know that a few took them up on it and WRAL had them all available. CBS was way ahead of NBC in looking at the new technology. That means they may have adjusted better for the Olympics also.

    Despite NBC's claim of how great they are for providing internet feeds, those aren't really their idea or even their intellectual property. That pretty much got foisted on them. I see little in their advancement of the sporting technology itself.
     
  14. Aug 1, 2012 #434 of 578
    Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    While not apples to apples... DirecTV paid extra for an exclusive option on the NFL Sunday Ticket. Dish can't carry those games even if it wants to and if its customers want it... DirecTV was willing to pay more to lock up an exclusive.

    This is basically what NBC did with the Olympics... they paid for exclusive US rights. As such, they do kind of get to do what they want with it... As long as they make money, they'll keep doing it. If the ratings stay high, the advertisers will pay, and NBC will make money.

    People have a hard time realizing they aren't the customers... WE are the product being sold to the advertisers. NBC says "we can get this many viewers, so pay this much for an ad and a lot of people might see your product ad"... beyond that, we have little value to NBC or any other network.

    That's why ratings are important... that's why shows that I don't like stay on TV and ones I do like are canceled... because the shows with better ratings are easier to make money off of... even if I disagree with the content.

    If there were a different way to do this that would make NBC more money, I'm sure they would do it.
     
  15. Aug 1, 2012 #435 of 578
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    An aside on the streaming. Much improved. I am at work watching the USA/China womens volleyball match on 3G and have not had any freezes. There is some blurring but I am on an iPhone and it is too small to really bother me. Still worlds better than it was a few days ago. Too bad the NBC iphone app is a mess to navigate.
     
  16. Aug 1, 2012 #436 of 578
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    204
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    Uh, no. The Olympics are always exclusive within a country. If NBC bid twice (an example) of what CBS did, they overbid. All they had to do was bid $1 more than the other guys, not millions.

    When the Texas Rangers signed ARod, they outbid everyone else by $10 million a year. They overbid. They may have had to go higher than others to attract ARod to their market but they still overbid.
     
  17. Aug 1, 2012 #437 of 578
    mrlqban

    mrlqban AllStar

    56
    0
    Jul 14, 2012
    Right, but what are you actually watching? Well, it depends, but if you DVR primetime too, you're probably watching another edition of road runner.
     
  18. Aug 1, 2012 #438 of 578
    Quaker2001

    Quaker2001 Legend

    213
    0
    Feb 15, 2010
    I disagree. A lot of people are in it for the fluff. Sure there are little elements of it that NBC could do better, and absolutely they turn it into something resembling a reality show, but that hooks a lot of people. It's certainly a little artificial sometimes, but it's playing to the audience they know is watching the coverage.

    But that's the thing.. real sports fans in this country aren't all that interested in the Olympics. NBC learned that the hard way. So if they have to pick an audience to play to (and you can't play to both in primetime), which one are they going to choose? That's the thing about the Olympics, especially in the United States. These are athletes and sports we're not used to seeing, so the audience isn't just going to show up, especially when there's other sports going on that a baseball fan (or for the Winter Olympics, a basketball fan) isn't going to get away from for the Olympics. I will certainly grant you that Ryan Seacrest is there more for the name brand than anything he actually brings to the table.

    You and others keep saying it's forced. No one is forced and there is certainly an element of the audience that is captivated. Especially for the London timezones, what else would other networks be showing anyway? If you have a DVR, watch the earlier coverage (which there is a ton of) or watch in primetime. That's why I don't get this idea that NBC is dictating what you watch. There's more choices out there than most are giving them any credit for.

    Those sports fans probably wouldn't be watching anyway. They'd rather stick with their regular routine of baseball, and you don't have that in most other countries. That's the difference. Less fluff and more action DOES scare off the casual fan. Again, NBC learned that one the hard way in 1988 and haven't gone back. I have to imagine the demographics have indicated to them over the years whether that's still smart or not.

    They've added streaming, they've added cable coverage, they've expanded afternoon coverage. It's completely false they've done nothing since Beijing, even though most will argue that should have happened 4 years ago instead of now.

    They still could have chosen to hold those streams back. They hard deserve a pat on the back for streaming everything (again, they should have done it 4 years ago and again for Vancouver) but for all the technical issues (that's where you should get on NBC), what else would you like them to do in that regard? They paid for the rights to offer those feeds. So as far as anyone in the United States with a computer is concerned, it's absolutely NBC's property.
     
  19. Aug 1, 2012 #439 of 578
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,340
    503
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    I'm not all that into multiple interviews with the same athletes, like Phelps, but I do like when they've done pieces on the host city or country's culture, and that would be considered fluff. Not so much for London, but will be interesting for Sochi Russia and Rio.
     
  20. Aug 1, 2012 #440 of 578
    Laxguy

    Laxguy Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense.

    15,365
    580
    Dec 2, 2010
    Winters,...
    How do you feel about broadcasting tweets?? I saw that on NBC Bay Area, so don't know if it went national or not. But what rubbish! If I want to see what Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga or Oprah says I'll go online or become a follower of their twitter accounts.
     

Share This Page