Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Show Talk' started by gusmahler, Jul 27, 2012.
Please don't mention results if you can possibly help it.
I am saying it didn't affect numbers. Not saying that people aren't unhappy, as I think it's ridiculous too.
If two companies where showing the Olympics here, the one showing everything (as much as possible anyway, especially medal events) live and repeating in primetime would have better numbers.
It's working well for NBC, but if they did it different, it'd be even better. That's the point. I never say I will stop watching, I simply say I wish they'd do it different and make it even more enjoyable. I also don't buy that doing it different could do anything to hurt revenue, in fact it'd probably increase it. I wouldn't be surprised that by tape delaying it they are going to have more people simply record it and fast forward through commercials, where as if they showed everything live many of those people would watch it live and not record it.
I also think that the Olympics is something that most people look forward to and get excited about, and that's why bad decisions aren't punished for nbc choices. Anyone can put up with anything for two weeks, especially something that is such a Special event. The point is they could do it better and make more people happy about the coverage, and not lose any money, and maybe even make more. Think about this, how much revenue do you think they are going to pull in off online streaming vs tv viewing? He many people are going to watch live streaming instead of tape delayed primetime showings. there are so many variables to consider...
But NBC will have the best ratings of olympic history tonight, you watch! It's ok to know the results.
At least they should do something with their online feeds for those fans that want to see things live, their streams have been horrible so far.
The question I have is whether those in decision making positions will acknowledge the incredible amount of complaints from every possible direction or simply isolate themselves and bask in their ratings.
I can forgive them if they are having some issues with live streaming on day one. I don't thinking anything of this scale has been tried before has it? Not like this anyway. I expect them to take a few days to get things right, and for the next Olympics to have a much better organization of it all.
Ok i will restrain from posting results, but you are asking the wrong crowd. Take a look at NBCs online page. I mean don't take a look cause you'll be very mad.
Agreed ... and "I just couldn't help myself" will not be an acceptable excuse.
Please show respect for those who are trying to watch the games on their televisions.
They should ask the brits, they havnt tried it at this scale either, and I see no issues there.
They deserve it for the opening ceremony coverage. There was some really great music playing in the background that I could hardly hear for all the chit chatting the announcers were doing. Why did they think they needed to describe everything that we could clearly see and nearly hear? It would have been a great ceremony if they could have just shut up.
Wait...every form of social media and every news agency in the country is reporting the results as they come in...but we are embargoed at a forum only related to the topic due to our service provider? Ummm...okay....
I agree with the spoilers, no spoilers please. Let NBC networks do that themselves, not us.
Actually, that is the pure hypocrisy. The cover story on NBCNEWS.COM is the results of that event!
If you use a computer and are not actively trying to shield yourself from the results, all the big tape delayed events will be spoiled over the next two weeks.
That is the reality of our relationship as a society with the internet today.
They were a bit better with the yappin this year, my opinion...
They've done 9 Olympics before, not including this one. I'd say they have a pretty good baseline of what works and what doesn't because every Olympics is a little different. A lot of people seem convinced that if they change what they're doing they'll do better than they are now. I'm still far from convince. And again, judging by the numbers they had last night, I can't entire fault them for staying the course, at least for now.
What country has more than 1 rights holder though? And would 2 networks competing against each other pay more in rights fees than 1? I wouldn't bet on it. Splitting up the Olympics into part is not always going to be greater than the sum of the whole.
What do you base that on? More important, define 'better'? NBC has no obligation for you to enjoy the product so long as you're consuming it. If you were willing to consume more of it as a result of changing, that would be a different story. Now I fully expect numbers starting tonight to be down from comparable nights in Beijing. But I don't think the solution is showing everything live for the sake of showing everything live. On the weekend, that might make sense. Not so much during the week. And again, the Olympics is 17 days. It's next to impossible to hold people's attention for that long when there's events on all throughout the day the whole way through.
That's part of the problem in the United States though. The Olympics aren't as special here as they are in other countries. That's why it's easier for a CTV or a BBC to draw in audiences at odd hours. I just don't see the alternative (live coverage of big events) is going to be the money-maker you seem to think it is. You are right about 1 thing though.. NBC needs to working on the live streaming because that could be a big moneymaker. And Comcast knows it which is why they backed a big bid for 2014-2020 despite the losses from Vancouver.
I'm not a regular here, so my opinion means little, but this is the Internet where everything happens in real time. I get that this shouldn't be the place for spoilers, but it's NBC television that isn't acknowledging it yet. News outlets and everyone the Internet certainly is.
Except that NBC television did acknowledge it in their Spanish network Telemundo.
We don't have a spoiler rule here that I am aware of. And one would have to be spelled out. When is it okay? When everyone here has seen the result? What does that mean when the video is available free on line to all. Would we have to shut up until it views on the west coast, too?
Anyone else having major problems with the online streams?
We tried using a laptop to get the streams on our living room TV. The streams play fine, but only for a few minutes. Then break-ups start to show up, first minor then progressively becoming worse. The player switches automatically to SD quality, yet the interruptions continue. Further, if we're using Firefox for our browser, the program locks up completely after about 10 minutes (have to force-quit and relaunch).
My desktop computer is performing much better. The Firefox lockup is there, but otherwise the streams are playing back flawlessly. Using Safari as my browser, I can watch the streams for an extended period of time with no significant defects. Unfortunately, my desktop is at the opposite end of the house as the TV (and on a different floor), so without a major change to our setup, it looks as though I'll have to watch the live streams on an ordinary computer monitor.
While trying out the streams in the living room, I noticed that a lot of the streams have only mono sound. On our surround system, mono sources will only play on the center speaker, while stereo sources are up-scaled to play on all seven speakers. Makes a huge difference (perhaps a bigger difference than from stereo to surround). Doesn't seem right for HD video to have only mono sound.