# NBC 2012 Olympics Coverage



## gusmahler

So what does everything think of the Opening Ceremonies so far? 

Nothing? Oh, silly me. What was I thinking? Americans can't view the opening ceremonies for hours, even though they are happening right now!


----------



## anleva

gusmahler said:


> So what does everything think of the Opening Ceremonies so far?
> 
> Nothing. Oh, silly me. What was I thinking? Americans can't view the opening ceremonies for hours, even though they are happening right now!


The changeover from rural Britain to the Industrial Revolution was pretty cool


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> Well... there is another way of looking at that. Chances are high that some people can't see it at night because they work in a restaurant or store or some other evening job, and they watch it in the afternoon. Similarly plenty of people work in the day time and can't see it in the afternoon.
> 
> If you have ONE showing, you can get say.... 10 million viewers. If you have TWO showings, maybe you will get 7 Million viewers in the afternoon, and 5 million viewers at night, effectively having 12 Million viewers watch your commercials.


A lot more people work during the daytime than at night. You can't really play to all of them for an event like the Olympics. Again, it's not about AN event. It's easy to think that way once, but you have to think about 16 days of competition. You're already splitting your audience into lots of lots across multiple networks, so to split it up further is not going to help, in primetime which is your 1 main gathering point where the sponsors are paying for their biggest audience. And you're not getting that on a weekday afternoon. I know those are completely theoretical numbers but there is ZERO chance you're drawing more people in the afternoon than you would in the evening. Even in Canada that's not the case.



> Also, LIVE viewing promotes commercial viewing. So the 7 million watching it in the afternoon will see the commercials for sure, or at least the majority.
> 
> See, if the event is going to be tape-delayed anyways, and another 3 hours on top of that, I might as well make that 4 hours, watch some other DVR'd Olympics, and not watch ANY commercials on NBC whatsoever. I think with the live showing, they would actually get more commercial viewers. Delay is delay, for those with a DVR it then doesn't matter anymore your build in your own delay to prevent commercial watching.


Here's the thing though.. people are stupid. I forget what the numbers are, but there are a lot of folks out there who had HD equipment but don't realize they're not actually watching in HD. Just like folks with DVRs don't always skip through the commercials. Primetime may be taped, but NBC has long treated it (and many viewers view it) as if it's live, even though we all know it's not. And where you make the delay argument.. I have a few friends who will tune into a football game half an hour after the start and skip through the commercials, so by the end they're caught up.



> And that might also be a very compelling reason - especially in weekends - to show important stuff live.
> 
> For myself, in 2010/2008, I watched stuff live IF it was live (and thus saw commercials). If it was delayed in any way, I just added my own DVR delay and watched NO commercials whatsoever.


That's probably because you're not an idiot. You know how to seek these things out discern what's live and what isn't. But you still need an audience in front of their televisions in the first place. Americans aren't familiar enough with most of the sports and athletes they see in the Olympics that they're going to be naturally drawn to it. So if people only have 3 or 4 hours to devote to the Olympics, your best bet to get them is in primetime and they may still tune in at 8 and be there for the commercials. And if not, you always have online coverage as an alternate which wasn't there in 2008/2010.


----------



## maartena

Not that any of you can actually read this.... but an article in DUTCH on how remarkable it is that the U.S. will be one of the FEW that is not allowed to watch the Opening Ceremony live.

http://www.rtl.nl/components/actuee...onie_Spelen_niet_live_op_Amerikaanse_buis.xml

Here is one in English on the Huff Post.

Our neighbors to the North.... are watching it live.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...ng-video_n_1710606.html?utm_hp_ref=technology


----------



## Quaker2001

gusmahler said:


> I disagree. Speaking as someone who watched all of his gold medals wins in 2008, I didn't see a single qualifying heat. What's the point? Everyone knows he's going to make the final. The top competitors don't even try that hard in qualifying heats (e.g., you'll see Usain Bolt pull up 20 m from the finish because he already knows he's going to finish high enough to get to the finals.) (Here's a Usain Bolt qualifying heat from the 2011 World Championships. Not exactly exciting.
> 
> 
> 
> )


There are still plenty of people out there who can't get enough of Phelps, even if it's in a prelim where he's going to give less than 100% effort and still win fairly handily anyway. But again, if you give viewers reason and opportunity to skip qualifying rounds, then that extra bump of viewers you might get from having live coverage is going to get wasted away from those who won't be there for the heats.


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> Even in Canada that's not the case.


Canada, however, is broadcasting both the swimming events and the Opening Ceremony live across the entire nation.

The United States is the only Western country (that I can find) that refuses to show the Opening Ceremony live.

Also.... reports are that NBC already sold well over a billion dollars in advertising, and they are still selling more.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...g-Sales-Reach-Record-1-Billion-163805016.html

It also cost them a billion dollars to show it of course. Did they just overpay, and are they trying to make up for it by not showing events live? I know it is important to come out ahead, but.... not showing even the Opening Ceremony live is actually quite insulting, and makes the U.S. the laughing stock among Western nations right about now.



> And if not, you always have online coverage as an alternate which wasn't there in 2008/2010.


Oh, please enlighten me WHERE NBC is streaming the Opening Ceremony right now.


----------



## Hoosier205

Looks great so far. I loved the Daniel Craig bit!


----------



## maartena

And so.... my social media ban has begun. Getting tweets from my family and friends in Holland and Canada about the Opening Ceremony.

I would tune in, but.....well.... I live in this country that doesn't allow it.


----------



## John Strk

It's pretty sad. Why can't NBC provide a live stream to a live event they are covering? Then viewers would have to sit through the online commercials. Well I'm recording it tonight and will watch it an hour or two later so I can SKIP through all their stupid commercials!! Another fail for NBC


----------



## Hoosier205

British children's literature segment looks wonderful.


----------



## maartena

Hoosier205 said:


> British children's literature segment looks wonderful.


I guess you want us to ignore this topic too for the time being hmm? Well so be it. See ya all later tonight when I watched the full 1080p BBC version.


----------



## sigma1914

It's like an Olympic competition in here... a Nerd-off! Who can find the geekiest way to watch the Opening Ceremonies.


----------



## anleva

Rowan Atkinson was pretty funny


----------



## mrlqban

anleva said:


> The changeover from rural Britain to the Industrial Revolution was pretty cool


Yes agree, but that's about it. Everything else after that have been pretty boring and subpar so far, in my opinion.


----------



## Maruuk

I thought the part where the Queen wrapped her legs around McCartney was in poor taste. But I was always more of a Lennon fan.


----------



## anleva

Tim Berners-Lee? I thought Al Gore invented the WWW?


----------



## mrlqban

anleva said:


> Tim Berners-Lee? I thought Al Gore invented the WWW?


lol, I guess you need to stop watching MSNBC. Al Gore invented Global Warming too right?


----------



## gusmahler

From reading about the Opening Ceremonies from people in civilized countries, looks like I'm not missing much. Maybe NBC is actually trying to save Americans . . . Nah, they hate us.


----------



## gusmahler

anleva said:


> Tim Berners-Lee? I thought Al Gore invented the WWW?


Berners-Lee invented the WWW. Gore invented the Internet. You need to get your facts straight.


----------



## tonyd79

Maruuk said:


> I thought the part where the Queen wrapped her legs around McCartney was in poor taste. But I was always more of a Lennon fan.


Wrapping her legs around Lennon would be even more bad taste.


----------



## hockey_puck

My sympathy to all those who are not close enough to the border to get the CTV live broadcast with next to no commercials from Canada.


----------



## mrlqban

gusmahler said:


> From reading about the Opening Ceremonies from people in civilized countries, looks like I'm not missing much. Maybe NBC is actually trying to save Americans . . . Nah, they hate us.


Everyone will have their own opinion but I cant tell you this. Only the first 15min of the ceremony was spectacular. Everything after that have been boring for me. Unless they pull something spectacular for the lighting of the couldron, this ceremony will be critized bad, really bad.


----------



## Maruuk

Frankly, from the rehearsal clips us Yanks (is that like "wanks"?) got to see with tykes bouncing on beds and dancing milkmaids, I'm getting nostalgic for...









...Wenlock and Mandeville!


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> It also cost them a billion dollars to show it of course. Did they just overpay, and are they trying to make up for it by not showing events live? I know it is important to come out ahead, but.... not showing even the Opening Ceremony live is actually quite insulting, and makes the U.S. the laughing stock among Western nations right about now.


It's extremely insulting and trust me, I'm with you that NBC got this one wrong (as I watch a stream from BBC). They're doing what generates the most revenue from the advertisers paying to air their spots during coverage. If NBC paid nothing, would they be trying any less hard to maximize their revenue? Has nothing to do with what they paid. Ask the folks north of the border who lost money on Vancouver about over-paying.

And again.. see what I'm saying about the ad money? Beijing had a decent amount of live coverage in primetime where London has absolutely none. And yet these Olympics are generating MORE in ad sales than Beijing did. So tell us why NBC's business strategy is failing? The amount in rights fees for London was locked in 9 years ago. An over-bid for sure, but very little of what has happened since would be different otherwise.


----------



## gusmahler

I don't think anyone here is saying that NBC's refusal to air the Opening Ceremonies live is a negative to them *financially*. We're just saying that it's stupid from a technological point of view and ignores the realities of today. 

E.g., the most hyped rivalry of the Olympics is Lochte/Phelps. They're first competition against each happens to be tomorrow, the first full day of competition. 

In fact, the finals of the 400 IM is around 11:30 am PDT. Guess what NBC will be showing at 12:30 pm PDT? Swimming. But not the 400 IM finals. The qualifying races for them. They won't be showing the finals until prime time. Over on the west coast, that means we won't see until 8+ hours after it already happened. After Twitter and Facebook and ESPN and all the non-NBC news program will have already told us who won. It's absurd.

Yes, I can watch the race live online. But I can't watch it on my rock solid, satellite HD connection. I have to watch it on my computer via an intermittent, crappy cable modem that dies all the time.


----------



## gusmahler

Quaker2001 said:


> There are still plenty of people out there who can't get enough of Phelps, even if it's in a prelim where he's going to give less than 100% effort and still win fairly handily anyway. But again, if you give viewers reason and opportunity to skip qualifying rounds, then that extra bump of viewers you might get from having live coverage is going to get wasted away from those who won't be there for the heats.


IIRC, the prime time shows never show the qualifying, only the finals. I know that on Saturday, they will be showing the qualifying for the 400IM in a separate show at 12:30 pm PDT, while the finals will be shown on Prime Time (8+ hours after the race)


----------



## fluffybear

gusmahler said:


> So what does everything think of the Opening Ceremonies so far?
> 
> Nothing? Oh, silly me. What was I thinking? Americans can't view the opening ceremonies for hours, even though they are happening right now!


Like a number of Americans, I work during the time when the opening ceremony would have been carried live so I'm not sure how many people are going to care and that is the only thing NBC cares about - Number of eyes in front of the TV.

If you are/were able to enjoy them live, enjoy!!


----------



## DoyleS

I guess I better keep the battery on my iPad fully charged as it looks like it will be doing a lot of mirroring to the Apple TV and Big Screen.


----------



## maartena

fluffybear said:


> Like a number of Americans, I work during the time when the opening ceremony would have been carried live so I'm not sure how many people are going to care and that is the only thing NBC cares about - Number of eyes in front of the TV.
> 
> If you are/were able to enjoy them live, enjoy!!


People in Canada work as well. They just offer the OPTION of live coverage, and repeat it at night for those who work.

NBC doesn't even offer an online stream.


----------



## gusmahler

Yep, was going to say the same thing. On their website, they brag that they stream *every* event live. But they don't mention that they aren't streaming the Opening Ceremonies.


----------



## Quaker2001

gusmahler said:


> Yep, was going to say the same thing. On their website, they brag that they stream *every* event live. But they don't mention that they aren't streaming the Opening Ceremonies.


That's why I was upset at this. Their advertising was something like "if cameras are on it, we'll stream it." Pretty sure there are cameras here and it's a lame excuse for them to say it won't translate well online.

I understand them not showing it on TV live, I have no problem with that whatsoever. But if they're showing everything else live online, why not the ceremonies. And apparently some have already taken note..
NBC ripped for not livestreaming opening ceremony of Olympics


----------



## fluffybear

maartena said:


> People in Canada work as well. They just offer the OPTION of live coverage, and repeat it at night for those who work.
> 
> NBC doesn't even offer an online stream.


CBC is a government owned network (we won't even get in to that Canada is considered to be an independent commonwealth where Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state) so profits really don't matter.

NBC & their affiliates are not government owned and must make a profit to survive. As an affiliate, do I want to give up 4 hours of my programming day & ad spots for a small group of people to watch the opening ceremonies live?


----------



## mrlqban

Quaker2001 said:


> That's why I was upset at this. Their advertising was something like "if cameras are on it, we'll stream it." Pretty sure there are cameras here and it's a lame excuse for them to say it won't translate well online.
> 
> I understand them not showing it on TV live, I have no problem with that whatsoever. But if they're showing everything else live online, why not the ceremonies. And apparently some have already taken note..
> NBC ripped for not livestreaming opening ceremony of Olympics


There is no excuse for not showing it live online when they are showing everything else online. This has to be the stupidest thing any producer has ever done in the history of mankind.


----------



## Laxguy

mrlqban said:


> There is no excuse for not showing it live online when they are showing everything else online. This has to be the stupidest thing any producer has ever done in the history of mankind.


Not even close. I won't even mention _*Heidi*_!:sure: Or dozens of other boneheaded moves over the decades.

You don't like it, but you're in no position to look at real numbers, with real analysts to make the call as to what's smart or not from the producer's viewpoint.


----------



## mrlqban

Laxguy said:


> Not even close. I won't even mention _*Heidi*_!:sure: Or dozens of other boneheaded moves over the decades.
> 
> You don't like it, but you're in no position to look at real numbers, with real analysts to make the call as to what's smart or not from the producer's viewpoint.


just tell us one reason this makes sense...


----------



## yosoyellobo

mrlqban said:


> just tell us one reason this makes sense...


The Golden Rule. He who owned the gold make the rule.


----------



## Hoosier205

Matt Lauer needs a muzzle.


----------



## Getteau

All I could think of in the beginning was that Middle Earth sprung up in the middle of the stadium and Frodo, Gandolf and Bilbo were going to pop out of a hole somewhere.


----------



## tonyd79

"Getteau" said:


> All I could think of in the beginning was that Middle Earth sprung up in the middle of the stadium and Frodo, Gandolf and Bilbo were going to pop out of a hole somewhere.


Game of Thrones.


----------



## facerw

What gets me is every internet feed which either carried or had the opening ceremonies have been blocked. Why? I don't want to wait to see the ceremonies in a tape delay.


----------



## gusmahler

fluffybear said:


> CBC is a government owned network (we won't even get in to that Canada is considered to be an independent commonwealth where Queen Elizabeth II is the head of state) so profits really don't matter.
> 
> NBC & their affiliates are not government owned and must make a profit to survive. As an affiliate, do I want to give up 4 hours of my programming day & ad spots for a small group of people to watch the opening ceremonies live?


What, they don't air commercials during the Olympics? What even makes you think that Judge Judy or whatever the NBC affiliates air on random Fridays in summer would get higher ratings than the Olympic opening ceremony? Plus, they'll be showing Olympics for the next two weeks anyway. What's one more day?


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Every sport in the world is live except for the Olympics. Ridiculous.


----------



## noahproblem

TheRatPatrol said:


> Every sport in the world is live except for the Olympics. Ridiculous.


Not necessarily - the most recent 3 Formula One races were shown on FOX on a 4 hour tape delay.

As to the Olympics coverage, I noticed on NBC Sports Network (603) the score guide has been replaced by an Olympics interactive feature. It doesn't seem to be active yet, as when I pushed the red button a screen pops up that say "Loading" but nothing else happens.


----------



## tonyd79

Irony. Matt Lauer says "images that will be all over the web in a matter of seconds" but delayed by hours by NBC in the USA.


----------



## tonyd79

"noahproblem" said:


> Not necessarily - the most recent 3 Formula One races were shown on FOX on a 4 hour tape delay.
> 
> As to the Olympics coverage, I noticed on NBC Sports Network (603) the score guide has been replaced by an Olympics interactive feature. It doesn't seem to be active yet, as when I pushed the red button a screen pops up that say "Loading" but nothing else happens.


Been working for me.


----------



## Quaker2001

gusmahler said:


> What, they don't air commercials during the Olympics? What even makes you think that Judge Judy or whatever the NBC affiliates air on random Fridays in summer would get higher ratings than the Olympic opening ceremony? Plus, they'll be showing Olympics for the next two weeks anyway. What's one more day?


Someone explained this to me elsewhere and I wasn't entirely aware of this..

The United States is the only country in the world where over-the-air transmitters (i.e. the affiliates) are not one in the same from the networks that own and run them. It's not so simple as to say which of the 2 would get better ratings. A syndicated show like Judge Judy, just like the local news, generate more revenue for an affiliate than a national broadcast with only a few local breaks does. So for an affiliate, their best bet is to keep their blocks of local programming intact and get a nice healthy lead-in to local news from a big draw national telecast like the Opening Ceremony. That's why you can't ask these affiliates (who chip in some of the cash to pay for the rights fees) to offer up more and more hours of programming during the late afternoon to the network. Especially when they've already handed over their entire afternoons for the next 2 1/2 weeks.


----------



## noahproblem

tonyd79 said:


> Been working for me.


Well I did an RBR and still nothing but the "Loading" screen for me. Maybe I'll check back in the morning to see if something comes up (it will hardly be the end of the world if it doesn't).


----------



## inkahauts

"Quaker2001" said:


> Someone explained this to me elsewhere and I wasn't entirely aware of this..
> 
> The United States is the only country in the world where over-the-air transmitters (i.e. the affiliates) are not one in the same from the networks that own and run them. It's not so simple as to say which of the 2 would get better ratings. A syndicated show like Judge Judy, just like the local news, generate more revenue for an affiliate than a national broadcast with only a few local breaks does. So for an affiliate, their best bet is to keep their blocks of local programming intact and get a nice healthy lead-in to local news from a big draw national telecast like the Opening Ceremony. That's why you can't ask these affiliates (who chip in some of the cash to pay for the rights fees) to offer up more and more hours of programming during the late afternoon to the network. Especially when they've already handed over their entire afternoons for the next 2 1/2 weeks.


Whoever explained that as being why they where delaying final races and such till night is full of it. They still have the Olympics on most the day. The only difference is they aren't going to show any final events till late at night. Check the schedule for next week. NBC is solid Olympics from after the national broadcast of the today show till the afternoon local news at 4 or so depending on your area. They will have no syndicated shows on during the Olympics on NBC, so that concept is incorrect.


----------



## Araxen

The coverage was so terrible tonight I switched over to the White Sox game instead. Sooo many commercials...ugh.


----------



## boukengreen

would love to be watching shooting right now guess they don't want everything to be shown live


----------



## Quaker2001

boukengreen said:


> would love to be watching shooting right now guess they don't want everything to be shown live


"They" in this case is the shooting federation (or whoever runs the competition). It's a non-televised session, not even BBC has it. So if you're looking for fodder with which to rip NBC, this isn't it.


----------



## Quaker2001

inkahauts said:


> Whoever explained that as being why they where delaying final races and such till night is full of it. They still have the Olympics on most the day. The only difference is they aren't going to show any final events till late at night. Check the schedule for next week. NBC is solid Olympics from after the national broadcast of the today show till the afternoon local news at 4 or so depending on your area. They will have no syndicated shows on during the Olympics on NBC, so that concept is incorrect.


I work in sports television. I used to work for a broadcast network (not NBC), so I like to think I'm getting good information. I'm well aware of the schedules. I know most of the affiliates are losing their syndication hours and I'm betting they're not all that happy about it. I also know that back in 1984, the affiliates were largely responsible from preventing ABC from taking over all of the afternoon programming because they wanted to keep a couple of soap operas on the air for those 2 weeks.

I don't know why you assume NBC has no idea what they're doing and that they're basing their decisions on bad information. Affiliates most their money from local programming, especially local news. So NBC has left that intact for them. And they want a strong primetime show to lead into late local news. That's why there was that whole flap over Jay Leno a couple of years ago.. the affiliates were pissed that the network gave them a terrible lead-in for their 11pm news.

That's why the Olympics are scheduled for NBC the way they are. There's a strategy for NBC as well as the affiliates to maximize their revenues. They operate differently from a CTV or BBC. So it's not a case of "well they do it, why can't NBC." Just doesn't work that way.


----------



## Quaker2001

gusmahler said:


> I disagree. Speaking as someone who watched all of his gold medals wins in 2008, I didn't see a single qualifying heat. What's the point? Everyone knows he's going to make the final. The top competitors don't even try that hard in qualifying heats (e.g., you'll see Usain Bolt pull up 20 m from the finish because he already knows he's going to finish high enough to get to the finals.) (Here's a Usain Bolt qualifying heat from the 2011 World Championships. Not exactly exciting.
> 
> 
> 
> )


Just to note as I'm watching the heats of the men's 400 IM (which NBC is showing live, thank you for that).. Phelps just qualified 8th and barely made it to the final because he shut it down so early. So I think after that, a few more people will be paying attention to these qualifying heats. Of course, that including Phelps.


----------



## wilbur_the_goose

Boy - the video on nbcolympics.com is horrible. I have 20/20 FIOS service and it looks like I'm on dial-up. Anybody else seeing the same?


----------



## fluffybear

Araxen said:


> The coverage was so terrible tonight I switched over to the White Sox game instead. Sooo many commercials...ugh.


are you sure it wasn't the opening ceremonies themselves?

IMHO, other then a few up points, that had to be one of the worst opening ceremonies I have ever watched.

I will agree though that NBC took quite a few commercial breaks but that seems to come with the territory now a days.


----------



## dpeters11

"fluffybear" said:


> are you sure it wasn't the opening ceremonies themselves?
> 
> IMHO, other then a few up points, that had to be one of the worst opening ceremonies I have ever watched.
> 
> I will agree though that NBC took quite a few commercial breaks but that seems to come with the territory now a days.


But at least in the parade of nations they showed and named the countries that went through during commercial.

My favorite moment, Rowan Atkinson.


----------



## fluffybear

dpeters11 said:


> But at least in the parade of nations they showed and named the countries that went through during commercial.
> 
> My favorite moment, Rowan Atkinson.


That was an improvement over previous years. There was a time there I thought NBC was going to do a bone head move and let the USA enter during a commercial break (had it been live, it probably would have happened as who calls for a commercial break between Ukraine and UAE?).

I'll agree Rowan Atkinson was also our favorite..

Least favorite was Paul McCartney. I won't even get discuss the horrific plastic surgery but he just plain sounded awful..


----------



## Davenlr

fluffybear said:


> IMHO, other then a few up points, that had to be one of the worst opening ceremonies I have ever watched.
> 
> I will agree though that NBC took quite a few commercial breaks but that seems to come with the territory now a days.


I totally agree. Since it was delayed anyway, there really was no excuse for them to cut out several segments of the ceremonies to run commercial breaks. They could just as easily gone to break and resumed where they cut.

As for the whole evening, the only memorable part for me was the Queen and James Bond segment. The Brits tearing Romney a new one the day before was much more entertaining.

And what was the deal with Costas making rude and off color jokes about North Korea? Isnt the coverage supposed to be somewhat unbiased, or at least neutral? Costas should be fired.


----------



## Hoosier205

fluffybear said:


> That was an improvement over previous years. There was a time there I thought NBC was going to do a bone head move and let the USA enter during a commercial break (had it been live, it probably would have happened as who calls for a commercial break between Ukraine and UAE?).
> 
> I'll agree Rowan Atkinson was also our favorite..
> 
> Least favorite was Paul McCartney. I won't even get discuss the horrific plastic surgery but he just plain sounded awful..


Paul was getting chocked up...I think we can forgive him for that.


----------



## fluffybear

Hoosier205 said:


> Paul was getting chocked up...I think we can forgive him for that.


:sure:


----------



## tonyd79

So. NBC is doing such a great job that in the three hours I have watched the main channel today, I have seen Michael Phelps squeeze into the final round of the 400 IM twice and watched the end of the road race at least three times. 

Meanwhile, not televised are many events. 

Yup. That is good for ratings. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. 

Anyone ever think that the ratings are high because it is the damned Olympics and they will be high period. Practically nothing else is going on. First run shows are even going on hiatus for the duration. 

NBC makes this whole thing a mess. Harder to follow than it should be because all the dumb delays and time warping.


----------



## sdk009

Why is NBC (main network channel) on three-hour tape delay in the Pacific Time Zone while ALL the other channels are showing events live? Nothing like killing the spontaneity of showing an event and already knowing the result. 
It's bad enough the Prime time broadcast is delayed for all but then add another three hour delay to that for us here in the WEST.
This is ridiculous.


----------



## Quaker2001

Let me stress again that I do not work for NBC and have no stake either way whether they succeed or fail, but the ratings are in from last night..

Opening ceremony overnight rating best of non-U.S. Games

That's right, sports fans.. that tape-delayed broadcast filled with way too many commercials, with everyone following on Twitter, a little too much commentary, and didn't receive nearly as much hype as the Beijing opening which is probably forever the gold standard for a ceremony, drew HIGHER ratings than 4 years ago. I'm moderately surprised at that myself, I didn't think they could top it. Yet here we are. NBC execs have to be laughing their asses off right now. Who knows if the momentum will hold, but that's pretty darn impressive right there.


----------



## mrlqban

1. NBC opening ceremony coverage improvements over previous years noticeable; too bad the opening ceremony that London put together was for the most part boring and lame
But finally the Organizers of the opening ceremony got this right. They decided the parade of nations should be much faster. So fast that Costas was upset that he could not keep up with his dumb comments for each country.

2. DirecTV Olympic mix channel is a total disaster. Half of those channels are not Olympic related. They blatantly lied to customers false advertising in their website their olympic variety in the mix channels.

3. NBC coverage during day one looks better. Commercials are out of control, but the Live actions in the different channels (8 total, even Telemundo) makes up for it.


----------



## mrlqban

Quaker2001 said:


> Let me stress again that I do not work for NBC and have no stake either way whether they succeed or fail, but the ratings are in from last night..
> 
> Opening ceremony overnight rating best of non-U.S. Games
> 
> That's right, sports fans.. that tape-delayed broadcast filled with way too many commercials, with everyone following on Twitter, a little too much commentary, and didn't receive nearly as much hype as the Beijing opening which is probably forever the gold standard for a ceremony, drew HIGHER ratings than 4 years ago. I'm moderately surprised at that myself, I didn't think they could top it. Yet here we are. NBC execs have to be laughing their asses off right now. Who knows if the momentum will hold, but that's pretty darn impressive right there.


If there are no other options in the US, people are going to watch. This doesn't reflect whether people are happy about it and it doesn't take the way the fact how many viewers are pissed about NBC blacking out live coverage of the opening ceremony. This proves what to sports fans? That NBC is successful? So what, my electric company is successful because they monopolise the entire state and people don't have a choice but to use their services.

And, let me tell you something about Beijing ceremony. We all know that the Chineese put out a spectacular show and the London show did not live up to it. But you know, one thing that people don't understand is that London had volunteers do their show while the chineese had "volunteers".


----------



## Renard

I am so happy, and delighted, CNBC is showing infomercials at this time instead of the Olympics. Who in their right mind want to watch some stupid Olympics coverage instead of some really interesting infomercials. :nono:
Way to go NBC :nono:


----------



## Quaker2001

mrlqban said:


> If there are no other options in the US, people are going to watch. This doesn't reflect whether people are happy about it and it doesn't take the way the fact how many viewers are pissed about NBC blacking out live coverage of the opening ceremony. This proves what to sports fans? That NBC is successful? So what, my electric company is successful because they monopolise the entire state and people don't have a choice but to use their services.
> 
> And, let me tell you something about Beijing ceremony. We all know that the Chineese put out a spectacular show and the London show did not live up to it. But you know, one thing that people don't understand is that London had volunteers do their show while the chineese had "volunteers".


Pardon my french, but that's pure and utter bulls***. First off, it took me about 10 seconds to find a stream from BBC plus how many people followed online and then said they would skip the NBC telecast and just download a torrent as soon as it came online? And that's a pretty bad comparison to your electric company. If there's only 1 of those, then yes, you don't have a choice. You NEED electricity. No one needs to watch the Opening Ceremony. There's about 500 other channels out there and I'm going to take a wild guess all of them were on last night at 7:30pm. So I guess the Super Bowl only draws 100 million people because people have no other option than to watch it on the network broadcasting it? Yea, that must be it.

We know folks are unhappy with NBC's coverage. Yet they're consuming it anyway. Is a pissed off viewer worth less to NBC or their sponsors than a non-pissed off viewer? What this proves is that large numbers of people WILL gather for a taped Opening Ceremony even if they're pissed off. No one is forcing them. NBC execs are not coming into their homes, putting on NBC and throwing away the remote. They CHOOSE to watch NBC when there are other options out there (1 of them being not to watch as so many people are saying they'd do). So yes, it does prove that NBC is successful and they're going to be laughing all the way to the bank on this one.


----------



## mrlqban

Renard said:


> I am so happy, and delighted, CNBC is showing infomercials at this time instead of the Olympics. Who in their right mind want to watch some stupid Olympics coverage instead of some really interesting infomercials. :nono:
> Way to go NBC :nono:


lol boxing is on break. I guess is better to have an infomercial while on break than any action of the other events.


----------



## Quaker2001

Renard said:


> I am so happy, and delighted, CNBC is showing infomercials at this time instead of the Olympics. Who in their right mind want to watch some stupid Olympics coverage instead of some really interesting infomercials. :nono:
> Way to go NBC :nono:


CNBC had boxing all morning. By my count, there are 7 networks showing the Olympics right now plus all the live streaming. Will folks here not be happy until every network in the NBCUniversal family is showing the Olympics 24 hours a day? sheesh!



mrlqban said:


> lol boxing is on break. I guess is better to have an infomercial while on break than any action of the other events.


Yea, if only there were 8 networks showing the Olympics instead of 7, then it would be perfect!

Seriously folks.. not everyone out there wants to watch the Olympics, especially in this country. Is 5,500 hours of coverage not enough for some of you that you're still on the 1 channel of the 8 that doesn't have Olympics on right now?


----------



## sigma1914

Phelps is set to swim the 400m IM at 2:30 p.m. ET...but we can't see it live, correct?


----------



## RA in CA

Probably only online at the nbcolympics.com website.


----------



## Quaker2001

sigma1914 said:


> Phelps is set to swim the 400m IM at 2:30 p.m. ET...but we can't see it live, correct?


It'll be online (everything is online.. make that all of the COMPETITION is online). Sadly, the streaming quality is a little underwhelming. I've had a few people tell me they've yet to get a solid, consistent connection working


----------



## mws192

"sigma1914" said:


> Phelps is set to swim the 400m IM at 2:30 p.m. ET...but we can't see it live, correct?


I'm trying to watch online and it says "this stream is temporarily embargoed"


----------



## TheRatPatrol

Olympics 2012: NBC defends blackout of opening ceremony

What a crock.

With the way NBC is running things, I'm losing interest in the Olympics.


----------



## fliptheflop

I watched the first few seconds and then it stopped working. What a joke. Just show everything live on TV.


----------



## zeus

fliptheflop said:


> I watched the first few seconds and then it stopped working. What a joke. Just show everything live on TV.


I got dropped and it won't let me log back in. Keeps cycling to the provider selection page.

What a disaster...


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"fliptheflop" said:


> I watched the first few seconds and then it stopped working. What a joke. Just show everything live on TV.


Agreed. What they should have done is taken all of their NBC channels and assigned each one a different sport, then remap them to a group of channels.

They couldn't have shown Phelps swimming on the main NBC channel? I guess its over right?


----------



## Davenlr

TheRatPatrol said:


> Olympics 2012: NBC defends blackout of opening ceremony
> 
> What a crock.
> 
> With the way NBC is running things, I'm losing interest in the Olympics.


I got you beat. Im not watching it anymore. Just cannot handle NBC. When NBC cut out the tribute to the slain Israelis, Costas made fun of the deceased president of North Korea (inappropriate regardless of your opinion of the man), and eliminating actual programming to cram in commercial after commercial.... Forget it. I lost interest. Ill catch the replays on SportsCenter.


----------



## tonyd79

"TheRatPatrol" said:


> Olympics 2012: NBC defends blackout of opening ceremony
> 
> What a crock.
> 
> With the way NBC is running things, I'm losing interest in the Olympics.


Wow. Just wow.

I guess NBC would tape delay hurricane coverage because it is complex and requires context. Idiots. Just say sorry, we blew it and move on.


----------



## dpeters11

Not sure I'd require context. Would I have not known that the drummer was deaf, or that the bell was from the foundry that made the Liberty Bell? Definitely, but it wouldn't have made me enjoy it less.

The fact of the matter is though, for the sports competitions, I'm not sure how much better it can be. I don't see how NBC could possibly show all sports live on TV. There is too much going on.

We certainly can't compare it to BBC. If PBS had it, there would also be complaints.


----------



## James Long

Davenlr said:


> When NBC cut out the tribute to the slain Israelis,


There was no tribute to the slain Israelis in the opening ceremonies to cut out. The IOC decided against it and the controversy and alternative tribute was noted by the announcers.



> Costas made fun of the deceased president of North Korea (inappropriate regardless of your opinion of the man),


There were a lot of inappropriate commentary ... much of it could have been fixed by saying nothing at all - especially before the parade of nations.

I didn't know we were getting the inane drivel commentary. Perhaps on the DVD of the event it can be commentary free? Some of the commentary was needed (as American's don't know the people involved). But some was offensive and the rest was "ehh".


----------



## crabtrp

One day the US networks will understand that people want to see events live. One day.

Package stuff up in highlights for primetime for people who want to consume it that way, but show everything live.


----------



## inkahauts

"Quaker2001" said:


> Let me stress again that I do not work for NBC and have no stake either way whether they succeed or fail, but the ratings are in from last night..
> 
> Opening ceremony overnight rating best of non-U.S. Games
> 
> That's right, sports fans.. that tape-delayed broadcast filled with way too many commercials, with everyone following on Twitter, a little too much commentary, and didn't receive nearly as much hype as the Beijing opening which is probably forever the gold standard for a ceremony, drew HIGHER ratings than 4 years ago. I'm moderately surprised at that myself, I didn't think they could top it. Yet here we are. NBC execs have to be laughing their asses off right now. Who knows if the momentum will hold, but that's pretty darn impressive right there.


You don't get it.the opening ceremonies has no real time importance for being shown. So even though it's dumb they didn't just show it live and then repeat it (and anyone saying going to midnight with the olympics is smart in general as well even if it's delayed is missing the idea that not all parents are foolish and let their little kids stay up that late) it makes sense, people simply want to see it, it doesn't much matter when. But the actual sports, that's a whole other ball game, but as someone else said, we are at their mercy, so they will have high ratings anyway. They just don't get they could push them even higher if they used a different approach with a lot more live events and if they made it easier to forge out what was going tone on when, which frankly is terribly communicated.

And the ad revenue will be there no matter what. Saying it won't be is just not being realistic.


----------



## Maruuk

How will NBC explain intentionally blacking out the moving 7/7 tribute during the Opening Ceremony with a canned Michael Phelps puff piece? Corporate censorship at its worst.


----------



## inkahauts

"Quaker2001" said:


> Pardon my french, but that's pure and utter bulls***. First off, it took me about 10 seconds to find a stream from BBC plus how many people followed online and then said they would skip the NBC telecast and just download a torrent as soon as it came online? And that's a pretty bad comparison to your electric company. If there's only 1 of those, then yes, you don't have a choice. You NEED electricity. No one needs to watch the Opening Ceremony. There's about 500 other channels out there and I'm going to take a wild guess all of them were on last night at 7:30pm. So I guess the Super Bowl only draws 100 million people because people have no other option than to watch it on the network broadcasting it? Yea, that must be it.
> 
> We know folks are unhappy with NBC's coverage. Yet they're consuming it anyway. Is a pissed off viewer worth less to NBC or their sponsors than a non-pissed off viewer? What this proves is that large numbers of people WILL gather for a taped Opening Ceremony even if they're pissed off. No one is forcing them. NBC execs are not coming into their homes, putting on NBC and throwing away the remote. They CHOOSE to watch NBC when there are other options out there (1 of them being not to watch as so many people are saying they'd do). So yes, it does prove that NBC is successful and they're going to be laughing all the way to the bank on this one.


Of the people in this nation that watch the Olympics, how,any do you think actually want to watch on their computers? Heck, how many do you think would even bother to try? Very very few in comparison to those that want to watch on their big tvs. The streaming is awesome,but it's not he answer.


----------



## inkahauts

"dpeters11" said:


> Not sure I'd require context. Would I have not known that the drummer was deaf, or that the bell was from the foundry that made the Liberty Bell? Definitely, but it wouldn't have made me enjoy it less.
> 
> The fact of the matter is though, for the sports competitions, I'm not sure how much better it can be. I don't see how NBC could possibly show all sports live on TV. There is too much going on.
> 
> We certainly can't compare it to BBC. If PBS had it, there would also be complaints.


Nbc should make every channel they have except two show just one or two sports, and then use one for all their extra athlete profiles, and one for a red zone style showing of the Olympics, constantly jumping to something that is going on that is exciting, and over all the different sports. Just a. General idea of how they could really up the coverage and make it all exciting.


----------



## inkahauts

"crabtrp" said:


> One day the US networks will understand that people want to see events live. One day.
> 
> Package stuff up in highlights for primetime for people who want to consume it that way, but show everything live.


That didn't even show Atlanta live on the west coast.


----------



## tonyd79

"Maruuk" said:


> How will NBC explain intentionally blacking out the moving 7/7 tribute during the Opening Ceremony with a canned Michael Phelps puff piece? Corporate censorship at its worst.


I just keeping thinking "wow" as I contemplate nbc's horrible, horrible decision making.


----------



## tonyd79

"inkahauts" said:


> That didn't even show Atlanta live on the west coast.


They wouldnt show live stuff if it were live in prime time. They want to package everything for maximum ratings, which, of course, proves they know what they are doing.


----------



## Hoosier205

Can't wait to watch that 400 IM final tonight rolleyes now that we ALREADY KNOW THE RESULT! Idiots...


----------



## Quaker2001

crabtrp said:


> One day the US networks will understand that people want to see events live. One day.
> 
> Package stuff up in highlights for primetime for people who want to consume it that way, but show everything live.


You know when that day will be?.. when fewer than 40 million people watched the packaged primetime show of the Opening Ceremony and actually make a statement that they refuse to watch it on tape and instead demand it live. Until then, it's not changing



inkahauts said:


> You don't get it.the opening ceremonies has no real time importance for being shown. So even though it's dumb they didn't just show it live and then repeat it (and anyone saying going to midnight with the olympics is smart in general as well even if it's delayed is missing the idea that not all parents are foolish and let their little kids stay up that late) it makes sense, people simply want to see it, it doesn't much matter when. But the actual sports, that's a whole other ball game, but as someone else said, we are at their mercy, so they will have high ratings anyway. They just don't get they could push them even higher if they used a different approach with a lot more live events and if they made it easier to forge out what was going tone on when, which frankly is terribly communicated.
> 
> And the ad revenue will be there no matter what. Saying it won't be is just not being realistic.


So the legions of people on Twitter, all the media outlets vetting complaints and all the negative criticism out there just doesn't matter? It can't go both ways. If it didn't matter when it was shown, why are there supposedly so many people out there asking why it wasn't live and decrying NBC for not offering it live? I know it's towing the line of what's sports and what's not, but you can't tell me that just because this wasn't sports that people didn't want to see it live. They did, NBC didn't show it, and they were pissed. And yet they all watched anyway to tell us how bad it was.

I can count on 1 hand the number of NFL games that drew bigger audiences than the Opening Ceremony last night. Don't give me this "we're at their mercy" argument because we do this every Olympics. People always say they're fed up with NBC and will never watch again. Yet, here we are. Higher numbers than Beijing and that ceremony was hyped up way more than this one. And as for the ad revenue, why is it going to be there anyway? You think companies would pay the same big bucks they do if the ratings weren't this high? I sincerely doubt it.


----------



## Quaker2001

tonyd79 said:


> They wouldnt show live stuff if it were live in prime time. They want to package everything for maximum ratings, which, of course, proves they know what they are doing.


It doesn't prove they know what they're doing.. it proves they know how to exploit their customers in order to make money. And they're going to continue doing that until it stops working. Judging by last night.. it's still working.


----------



## tonyd79

"Quaker2001" said:


> It doesn't prove they know what they're doing.. it proves they know how to exploit their customers in order to make money. And they're going to continue doing that until it stops working. Judging by last night.. it's still working.


No. It doesn't really. They dont know if another approach would work or not.

They remind me of Panera Bread who regularly run out of some breads Sunday morning and have none to sell to customers who continue to ask for them as late as 2 pm. Panera's response? We are making the right amount because we sell out.

Times are changing. People know what happens now. We all know Michael Phelps finished


Spoiler



4th


 today. NBC is acting like it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## Baldmaga

NBC would win gold for Worst Broadcaster so far...


----------



## mrlqban

tonyd79 said:


> Wow. Just wow.
> 
> I guess NBC would tape delay hurricane coverage because it is complex and requires context. Idiots. Just say sorry, we blew it and move on.


Agree, what a lame excuse lol, what's the difference between a live competition vs an opening ceremony? context? LMAO, epic fail excuse


----------



## mrlqban

tonyd79 said:


> No. It doesn't really. They dont know if another approach would work or not.
> 
> They remind me of Panera Bread who regularly run out of some breads Sunday morning and have none to sell to customers who continue to ask for them as late as 2 pm. Panera's response? We are making the right amount because we sell out.
> 
> Times are changing. People know what happens now. We all know Michael Phelps finished 4th today. NBC is acting like it hasn't happened yet.


What's worst is that NBC is not even hiding the fact that Phelps already lost today. I saw the headline on NBColympics online and Telemundo mentioned it. Is this what their plan is for this year? Hell, at least 4 years ago they tried to keep those events a secret until primetime.


----------



## RA in CA

__________________


Was anyone able to see the swimming 400 IM live online? It never showed up for me, just a message that is was upcoming.... so I'm guessing NBC is claiming all events are available online - except those we'll force you to wait 12 hours?


----------



## Laxguy

tonyd79 said:


> Times are changing. People know what happens now. We all know Michael Phelps.... .


Damn. I didn't know till reading this thread. I've blacked out on all other media, but I thought DBSTalk would be safe from spoilers.


----------



## Laxguy

mrlqban said:


> Agree, what a lame excuse lol, what's the difference between a live competition vs an opening ceremony? context? LMAO, epic fail excuse


I see a huge difference between the two. Monster.


----------



## Hoosier205

I thought I would just have my normal issues with NBC. I never expected them to perform this poorly.


----------



## Laxguy

Please don't mention results if you can possibly help it.


----------



## inkahauts

"Quaker2001" said:


> You know when that day will be?.. when fewer than 40 million people watched the packaged primetime show of the Opening Ceremony and actually make a statement that they refuse to watch it on tape and instead demand it live. Until then, it's not changing
> 
> So the legions of people on Twitter, all the media outlets vetting complaints and all the negative criticism out there just doesn't matter? It can't go both ways. If it didn't matter when it was shown, why are there supposedly so many people out there asking why it wasn't live and decrying NBC for not offering it live? I know it's towing the line of what's sports and what's not, but you can't tell me that just because this wasn't sports that people didn't want to see it live. They did, NBC didn't show it, and they were pissed. And yet they all watched anyway to tell us how bad it was.
> 
> I can count on 1 hand the number of NFL games that drew bigger audiences than the Opening Ceremony last night. Don't give me this "we're at their mercy" argument because we do this every Olympics. People always say they're fed up with NBC and will never watch again. Yet, here we are. Higher numbers than Beijing and that ceremony was hyped up way more than this one. And as for the ad revenue, why is it going to be there anyway? You think companies would pay the same big bucks they do if the ratings weren't this high? I sincerely doubt 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...


----------



## mrlqban

Hoosier205 said:


> Can't wait to watch that 400 IM final tonight rolleyes now that we ALREADY KNOW THE RESULT! Idiots...


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.


----------



## Hoosier205

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.


----------



## inkahauts

"mrlqban" said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## mrlqban

Laxguy said:


> Please don't mention results if you can possibly help it.


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.


----------



## James Long

Laxguy said:


> Please don't mention results if you can possibly help it.


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.


----------



## mrlqban

inkahauts said:


> 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.


They should ask the brits, they havnt tried it at this scale either, and I see no issues there.


----------



## mrlqban

Laxguy said:


> I see a huge difference between the two. Monster.


Which are???


----------



## txtommy

Baldmaga said:


> NBC would win gold for Worst Broadcaster so far...


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.


----------



## Hoosier205

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....


----------



## mrlqban

I agree with the spoilers, no spoilers please. Let NBC networks do that themselves, not us.


----------



## zeus

tonyd79 said:


> NBC is acting like it hasn't happened yet.


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.


----------



## mrlqban

txtommy said:


> 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.


They were a bit better with the yappin this year, my opinion...


----------



## Quaker2001

tonyd79 said:


> No. It doesn't really. They dont know if another approach would work or not.


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.



inkahauts said:


> 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.


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.



> *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.


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.



> 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


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.


----------



## mrlqban

zeus said:


> 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.


Exactly...


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> 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'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.


----------



## mrlqban

Quaker2001 said:


> 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.


----------



## tonyd79

"Laxguy" said:


> Damn. I didn't know till reading this thread. I've blacked out on all other media, but I thought DBSTalk would be safe from spoilers.


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?


----------



## dvdmth

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.


----------



## tonyd79

"Laxguy" said:


> Please don't mention results if you can possibly help it.


I think it is fair to say that a thread on the Olympics coverage during the Olympics is going to contain spoilers.


----------



## tonyd79

"Hoosier205" said:


> 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.


The latter. In fact, they will cite their ratings as proof they are doing it right. And probably fall flat on their faces next time because they don't sense the shift.


----------



## James Long

tonyd79 said:


> 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?


Whatever it takes to respect your fellow posters.

I would not want to see DBSTalk become a place people have to avoid for the next few weeks because others could not show a little respect.

We do have a TV Talk forum and a Sports forum if you want to talk about the events.
This thread should be related to the coverage.


----------



## tonyd79

"James Long" said:


> Whatever it takes to respect your fellow posters.
> 
> I would not want to see DBSTalk become a place people have to avoid for the next few weeks because others could not show a little respect.


Again. Create a rule. I still hangout on TiVo community for tv talk and there is a very specific spoiler rule. I don't think the race results would violate that rule even there as the event is in the past. Do we have one? If so, fine.

No idea why someone would have to avoid dbstalk for one topic letting history (all that has happened in the past is history) slip.

I don't mean to be flip but this is just so gray. When can we talk about results? Especially when it is pertinent to the topic itself?


----------



## James Long

tonyd79 said:


> I don't mean to be flip but this is just so gray. When can we talk about results? Especially when it is pertinent to the topic itself?


I don't see why the actual results are pertinent. The fact that one can easily find the results _elsewhere_ on the internet is pertinent but revealing those results is unnecessary and rude.

I don't see how the actual results of any event need to be known to complain about that event not being shown live.

If you need a black and white rule then don't post results. This is not a results thread.
(And most of it will probably end up in the TV Talk forum and fall under that forum's rules since it is not a DirecTV specific discussion.)


----------



## tonyd79

"James Long" said:


> I don't see why the actual results are pertinent. The fact that one can easily find the results elsewhere on the internet is pertinent but revealing those results is unnecessary and rude.
> 
> I don't see how the actual results of any event need to be known to complain about that event not being shown live.
> 
> If you need a black and white rule then don't post results. This is not a results thread.
> (And most of it will probably end up in the TV Talk forum and fall under that forum's rules since it is not a DirecTV specific discussion.)


Okay. You don't see how the result of the biggest event of the day pertains to a discussion about NBC faking time and delaying results. The result itself can have an impact on the method NBC is using. This is not an upset in a fencing match. This is a big result and is directly tied to the discussion of how NBC is handling live sporting events.

I will not post results. But that stifles the conversation. As for me, I'm done with this thread since we are now following NBC's rules. Things don't happen until they say they do.


----------



## Laxguy

I don't mean to create dissension nor do I want rules. But I believe it's possible to talk about coverage, or lack thereof by referencing the event, avoiding stating the outcome thereof. 

It's a matter of courtesy, perhaps, and there'll be those who'll argue it, the other thing, and yet that third, fourth and fifth thing.


----------



## trh

James Long said:


> This is not a results thread.


Do does that mean someone can start a "Olympic Results ***Spoiler Alert***" thread in the sports forum?


----------



## James Long

tonyd79 said:


> I will not post results. But that stifles the conversation. As for me, I'm done with this thread since we are now following NBC's rules. Things don't happen until they say they do.


They still happen ... and you are free to complain about NBC's coverage approach. As are those who don't know the results and want to complain about the delay in coverage without waiting until have seen it on TV.


----------



## James Long

trh said:


> Do does that mean someone can start a "Olympic Results ***Spoiler Alert***" thread in the sports forum?


Why not? The title will warn people.


----------



## zeus

trh said:


> Do does that mean someone can start a "Olympic Results ***Spoiler Alert***" thread in the sports forum?


Anything to protect people from what is actually happening live. That way they can view the NBC package of an event that happened 4 hours ago which every media organization in the world has already reported (including NBC) and is practically considered old news at this point.


----------



## tonyd79

"zeus" said:


> Anything to protect people from what is actually happening live. That way they can view the NBC package of an event that happened 4 hours ago which every media organization in the world has already reported (including NBC) and is practically considered old news at this point.


My point. A live event available to the entire world is not a spoiler. A spoiler is something not yet known. But even then there are limits. Like posting the startling revelation in Star Wars V twenty years after.


----------



## Hoosier205

tonyd79 said:


> My point. A live event available to the entire world is not a spoiler. A spoiler is something not yet known. But even then there are limits. Like posting the startling revelation in Star Wars V twenty years after.


Exactly. The point of just what a spoiler is has been missed. A spoiler historically pertains to works of fiction only.


----------



## trh

But it is a spoiler if you're only watching the network broadcasts. And since this is a coverage thread, a couple people asked that results not be posted here. Doesn't seem like a major issue - start a results thread and post away.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

For the purposes of this thread a spoiler is any results that others may not have seen yet because they've recorded the event.

Now that we've explained the obvious lets stay on topic and not discuss the semantics.

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## tonyd79

"Mike Bertelson" said:


> For the purposes of this thread a spoiler is any results that others may not have seen yet because they've recorded the event.
> 
> Now that we've explained the obvious lets stay on topic and not discuss the semantics.
> 
> :backtotop
> 
> Mike


I'm sorry. May not have seen yet because they've recorded? That could be weeks. You didn't clear up anything at all. You made it more muddy.


----------



## spartanstew

Hundreds of events today that they don't show live OR tape delayed, but they spend 15 minutes recapping the Opening Ceremonies another 15 minutes of every hour on some "feel good" interview or story.


----------



## mrlqban

No results talk in here...It's sad that the most "important" coverage of the games, e.g. Phelps vs Lochte FINALS, the FINALS of the swimming competition, Gymnastics, and starting next week Track n Field, are reduced from a supposedly 4 hour primetime coverage to actually one hour of true action, if that, after you substract the time dedicated for side stories and commercials. This SUCKS for sports fan now and will continue to suck even more for years to come.


----------



## RAD

We just finished watching the 3D feed from 4AM of the opening. All I can say is whomever at NBC was deciding when to do commercial inserts and that GD Lorax ad ought to be shot. Running an crawl for a DVD over the queens segment or commercials that cut off Sir Paul are inexcusable.


----------



## inkahauts

"tonyd79" said:


> I'm sorry. May not have seen yet because they've recorded? That could be weeks. You didn't clear up anything at all. You made it more muddy.


How is saying don't discuss results in this thread muddying it up. Don't discuss results in this thread and everyone will be happy. No want to discuss results, crate a new thread to discuss results. This thread is for ripping NBC and their mistakes in how they are covering the games!


----------



## Hoosier205

"inkahauts" said:


> Don't discuss results in this thread and everyone will be happy.


 No they won't.


----------



## yosoyellobo

I was doing OK until I started watching the Chelsea vs AC Milan game on Espn2. Now I know not to watch Espn and I be OK.


----------



## Davenlr

yosoyellobo said:


> I was doing OK until I started watching the Chelsea vs AC Milan game on Espn2. Now I know not to watch Espn and I be OK.


Use the Zoom button to get the scroll off the screen


----------



## yosoyellobo

Davenlr said:


> Use the Zoom button to get the scroll off the screen


What exactly is that?


----------



## maartena

tonyd79 said:


> I'm sorry. May not have seen yet because they've recorded? That could be weeks. You didn't clear up anything at all. You made it more muddy.


Just don't post scores, results, medal counts, etc, etc.

Now what is on-topic are things like:

- Did they REALLY had to buy Ryan Seacrest from FOX for the Olympics?
- Did you know that NBC cut things out of the Opening Ceremony, such as the tribute to the terrorist victims of the 7-7 attacks?
- What happened to Mary Carillo
- Why is NBC News spoiling all the results in the news show RIGHT BEFORE the Olympics start?
- There should be a page where you can go to to browse athletes profiles and background information WITHOUT seeing the results!
- Still complaining about the 3 hour delay and social media score spoils. 

Etc.


----------



## maartena

Hoosier205 said:


> No they won't.


Create a results thread in The OT.

Problem Solved.


----------



## Getteau

mrlqban said:


> No results talk in here...It's sad that the most "important" coverage of the games, e.g. Phelps vs Lochte FINALS, the FINALS of the swimming competition, Gymnastics, and starting next week Track n Field, are reduced from a supposedly 4 hour primetime coverage to actually one hour of true action, if that, after you substract the time dedicated for side stories and commercials. This SUCKS for sports fan now and will continue to suck even more for years to come.


I agree. Because of the time difference, the prime time show has the opportunity to be a 4 to 5 hour recap of all the events of the day. Instead, last night they showed maybe 15 events and 3 hours of junk. I finally just hit record on my DVR and watched something else for an hour. Even then, I still didn't have enough padding to skip all the commercials/fluff and had to switch out to something else 2 more times.


----------



## Chris Blount

Jumping in here guys to let everyone know is that THIS IS NOW A SPOILER THREAD!!!

You may post results of events. Basically, this thread is self policing so if you don't want to know the results of events before they air, DON'T READ THIS THREAD!

Thanks.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Chris Blount" said:


> Jumping in here guys to let everyone know is that THIS IS NOW A SPOILER THREAD!!!
> 
> You may post results of events. Basically, this thread is self policing so if you don't want to know the results of events before they air, DON'T READ THIS THREAD!
> 
> Thanks.


Thanks


----------



## tonyd79

Chris Blount said:


> Jumping in here guys to let everyone know is that THIS IS NOW A SPOILER THREAD!!!
> 
> You may post results of events. Basically, this thread is self policing so if you don't want to know the results of events before they air, DON'T READ THIS THREAD!
> 
> Thanks.


Thank you. Sanity is returned. How do you discuss how badly NBC is covering the Olympics without mentioning specifics. Even the FACT that they skipped parts of the opening ceremonies as in the example in an earlier post is a spoiler.

That is what I was having problems with. It was not just the results of a race or competition. Everything that happens on the broadcast is a spoiler. And making it a forever ban because of DVRs made it impossible to have a discussion at all.


----------



## Quaker2001

Ratings are in from the first night of competition from the London and I think most of you will be surprised by this (I'm sure NBC execs are)..

NBC Sets New Standard for Olympic Overnight Rating From Non-US Site

That's right sports fans, ratings are UP from Beijing. More people last night's tape-delayed final of Lochte vs. Phelps than watch the first night of Phelps LIVE from Beijing. Again, I have no stake in NBC and whether or not they succeed or fail. And I'm sure some will say here that the ratings don't mean anything because NBC went into the homes of all those people and broke their TV remotes so they couldn't change the channel off NBC. The numbers are what they are. Further proof that people ARE watching the Olympics, even with all the social media and the live streaming and the results that are known to most. So either there's fewer people out there complaining than it would seem, or all those folks decrying NBC's coverage are tuning in. And once again, NBC execs are laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## Hoosier205

The 3D broadcast this morning showed a ton of swimming and gymnastics. Absolutely no commentary for swimming. You had to rely on the graphics for all information. Full commentary for gymnastics. I've never minded the event commentary...just the ceremony commentary.


----------



## dvdmth

Hoosier205 said:


> The 3D broadcast this morning showed a ton of swimming and gymnastics. Absolutely no commentary for swimming. You had to rely on the graphics for all information. Full commentary for gymnastics. I've never minded the event commentary...just the ceremony commentary.


Sounds like the online feed. No commentary at all for the swimming heats. There was commentary for the finals, but it was really dull (as if I were listening to NPR), nowhere near as good as NBC's coverage of the same events last night. I am extremely disappointed with the online coverage. It's as if NBC just slopped something together halfheartedly.


----------



## tonyd79

"Quaker2001" said:


> Ratings are in from the first night of competition from the London and I think most of you will be surprised by this (I'm sure NBC execs are)..
> 
> NBC Sets New Standard for Olympic Overnight Rating From Non-US Site
> 
> That's right sports fans, ratings are UP from Beijing. More people last night's tape-delayed final of Lochte vs. Phelps than watch the first night of Phelps LIVE from Beijing. Again, I have no stake in NBC and whether or not they succeed or fail. And I'm sure some will say here that the ratings don't mean anything because NBC went into the homes of all those people and broke their TV remotes so they couldn't change the channel off NBC. The numbers are what they are. Further proof that people ARE watching the Olympics, even with all the social media and the live streaming and the results that are known to most. So either there's fewer people out there complaining than it would seem, or all those folks decrying NBC's coverage are tuning in. And once again, NBC execs are laughing all the way to the bank.


So you've provided proof that NBC holding back information and not showing events live is incorrect. Thanks. Show everything live then make the prime time a highlights show. Works for me and for those criticizing NBC. Opposite of what you have been defending, actually.


----------



## James Long

tonyd79 said:


> So you've provided proof that NBC holding back information and not showing events live is incorrect. Thanks. Show everything live then make the prime time a highlights show. Works for me and for those criticizing NBC. Opposite of what you have been defending, actually.


On what planet? People tuned in to see the replay. More people tuned in to see this year's replay than watched four years ago. NBC's gamble paid off.

Had they aired the race live at 2:30pm would they have pulled that large of an audience? You can post your opinion but you cannot guarantee that turning primetime into a highlights of things already aired in the US show with no "first run" content would have kept the audience.

That first airing is important. People want to see the race ... they want to see how it went down (not just the score). Once NBC airs that race everyone else can air the highlights ... aired live that would have put it out to other US media seven hours in advance of NBC's prime time airing. Embargoing the video until NBC aired it gives them the chance to show it first (and recoup some of the $1.18 billion spent for the right to do so).

First run is important ... it is what the broadcasters pay for, it is what the affiliates pay for and it is what the audience watches - even if they might know the result via other media. Airing it during prime time first was the right decision for NBC.


----------



## Quaker2001

tonyd79 said:


> So you've provided proof that NBC holding back information and not showing events live is incorrect. Thanks. Show everything live then make the prime time a highlights show. Works for me and for those criticizing NBC. Opposite of what you have been defending, actually.


I never said what NBC is doing is right (well, it's right for NBC apparently). But this is fairly conclusive proof that it's working. How many people have been saying here that this strategy won't work, that it's going to ruin the events for people and no one will watch if it's on tape and NBC has to show everything live because of social media and blah blah blah.

Not to repeat all of James' post here, but everyone seems so convinced that NBC would be better off showing key events live. Based on these ratings, why does everyone continue to assume that's true? What NBC is doing is working. It may not be right, but it's working. So why should they change course when the programming strategy that so many folks out there say needs to be dead and buried is producing audiences as big as they got last night.



James Long said:


> First run is important ... it is what the broadcasters pay for, it is what the affiliates pay for and it is what the audience watches - even if they might know the result via other media. *Airing it during prime time first was the right decision for NBC.*


Key part of that is "for NBC," but based on that I agree about 75000%


----------



## Hoosier205

What I see are some folks going well out of their way to defend NBC, rather than the bests interests of the viewers. Good ratings for NBC simply means that they will screw American viewers during the next Olympics as well.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> What I see are some folks going well out of their way to defend NBC, rather than the bests interests of the viewers. Good ratings for NBC simply means that they will screw American viewers during the next Olympics as well.


Good ratings for NBC means American viewers will apparently welcome them continuing to screw them over at the next Olympics. I've made this argument before.. let's say another network had the Olympics and they did it "right" but fewer people were watching. Who are they really serving then? If more people are going to consume a supposedly lousy product than they would a better product, why should the company producing the product want to change how they're making it? NBC isn't the first company to make a profit at their consumers' expense, but folks need to stop expecting NBC to pander to their whims if it's going to cost them money. If best interests of the viewers meant more money and higher ratings, I have no doubt they'd go in that direction. What these numbers prove is that what NBC is doing is drawing in viewers, no matter what they think of the coverage. And if I'm NBC, that's all that should matter.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Good ratings for NBC means American viewers will apparently welcome them continuing to screw them over at the next Olympics. I've made this argument before.. let's say another network had the Olympics and they did it "right" but fewer people were watching. Who are they really serving then? If more people are going to consume a supposedly lousy product than they would a better product, why should the company producing the product want to change how they're making it? NBC isn't the first company to make a profit at their consumers' expense, but folks need to stop expecting NBC to pander to their whims if it's going to cost them money. If best interests of the viewers meant more money and higher ratings, I have no doubt they'd go in that direction. What these numbers prove is that what NBC is doing is drawing in viewers, no matter what they think of the coverage. And if I'm NBC, that's all that should matter.


Prove to us that another network doing it right wouldn't bring in bigger ratings. Your claim is that NBC should be credited with the ratings, rather than the product.


----------



## Hoosier205

The fact is that there will not be a single dramatic medal moment for US television viewers in this Olympics. NBC is to blame for that. Others can defend that all they want.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"Hoosier205" said:


> What I see are some folks going well out of their way to defend NBC, rather than the bests interests of the viewers. Good ratings for NBC simply means that they will screw American viewers during the next Olympics as well.


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?


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> Good ratings for NBC means American viewers will apparently welcome them continuing to screw them over at the next Olympics. I've made this argument before.. let's say another network had the Olympics and they did it "right" but fewer people were watching. Who are they really serving then? If more people are going to consume a supposedly lousy product than they would a better product, why should the company producing the product want to change how they're making it? NBC isn't the first company to make a profit at their consumers' expense, but folks need to stop expecting NBC to pander to their whims if it's going to cost them money. If best interests of the viewers meant more money and higher ratings, I have no doubt they'd go in that direction. What these numbers prove is that what NBC is doing is drawing in viewers, no matter what they think of the coverage. And if I'm NBC, that's all that should matter.


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.


----------



## Hoosier205

"maartena" said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> The fact is that there will not be a single dramatic medal moment for US television viewers in this Olympics. NBC is to blame for that. Others can defend that all they want.





TheRatPatrol said:


> 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?


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.



Hoosier205 said:


> Prove to us that another network doing it right wouldn't bring in bigger ratings. Your claim is that NBC should be credited with the ratings, rather than the product.


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?


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> 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.


And yet American viewers continue to eat it all up while they're saying "this is terrible, please give me more of it!"


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

"Quaker2001" said:


> 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.


I was talking about the opening ceremony.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Hoosier205

You've done doing but defend NBC while claiming to not be defending NBC.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> You've done doing but defend NBC while claiming to not be defending NBC.


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.


----------



## Chris Blount

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.


----------



## trh

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.


----------



## Hoosier205

"trh" said:


> 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.


Yes...more than 30 years ago. NBC's evolution was stunted apparently.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Yes...more than 30 years ago. NBC's evolution was stunted apparently.


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


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> 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


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?


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> 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.


That may be your opinion.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> That may be your opinion.


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.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> 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?


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"


----------



## inkahauts

"Quaker2001" said:


> Ratings are in from the first night of competition from the London and I think most of you will be surprised by this (I'm sure NBC execs are)..
> 
> NBC Sets New Standard for Olympic Overnight Rating From Non-US Site
> 
> That's right sports fans, ratings are UP from Beijing. More people last night's tape-delayed final of Lochte vs. Phelps than watch the first night of Phelps LIVE from Beijing. Again, I have no stake in NBC and whether or not they succeed or fail. And I'm sure some will say here that the ratings don't mean anything because NBC went into the homes of all those people and broke their TV remotes so they couldn't change the channel off NBC. The numbers are what they are. Further proof that people ARE watching the Olympics, even with all the social media and the live streaming and the results that are known to most. So either there's fewer people out there complaining than it would seem, or all those folks decrying NBC's coverage are tuning in. And once again, NBC execs are laughing all the way to the bank.


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.


----------



## inkahauts

"James Long" said:


> On what planet? People tuned in to see the replay. More people tuned in to see this year's replay than watched four years ago. NBC's gamble paid off.
> 
> Had they aired the race live at 2:30pm would they have pulled that large of an audience? You can post your opinion but you cannot guarantee that turning primetime into a highlights of things already aired in the US show with no "first run" content would have kept the audience.
> 
> That first airing is important. People want to see the race ... they want to see how it went down (not just the score). Once NBC airs that race everyone else can air the highlights ... aired live that would have put it out to other US media seven hours in advance of NBC's prime time airing. Embargoing the video until NBC aired it gives them the chance to show it first (and recoup some of the $1.18 billion spent for the right to do so).
> 
> First run is important ... it is what the broadcasters pay for, it is what the affiliates pay for and it is what the audience watches - even if they might know the result via other media. Airing it during prime time first was the right decision for NBC.


They'd have more total viewers if they aided it both live and replayed it latter. And more importantly, they'd me able to make more money.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> 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.


Population had increased. TV penetration has increased. So on and so forth. Ratings and hours of coverage are not the only gauges of improvement. Showing us more on tape delay after telling us the results beforehand? What low standards...


----------



## Quaker2001

inkahauts said:


> 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.


Please enlighten us then. How do they maximize their profits? What should NBC be doing that they haven't figured out from 2 decades of experience? "In the right" and "maximizing their profits" are 2 completely separate concepts. Do you really think the viewers and the sponsor dollars would be there for primetime if most of what's in primetime was shown earlier?


----------



## James Long

inkahauts said:


> They'd have more total viewers if they aided it both live and replayed it latter. And more importantly, they'd me able to make more money.


The thought that the viewers siphoned off of the late night viewing would view live during the day and somehow have additional viewers doesn't work. The network would also lose primetime viewers who could see the footage on their local non-NBC affiliate. That "first run" viewing is important. Plus whatever they bumped to show prime time events live would not get seen - losing those viewers.

There is a method to NBC's madness ... perhaps those complaining are seeing the madness and don't understand the method. The ratings numbers support the method. At the end of the Olympics, NBC Universal will look back on the games and gauge the success of their broadcast not on what Twitter had to say but on what Nielson has to say. That is the reality.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Population had increased. TV penetration has increased. So on and so forth. Ratings and hours of coverage are not the only gauges of improvement. Showing us more on tape delay after telling us the results beforehand? What low standards...


Ratings are a percentage of potential viewers. Population and TV penetration is automatically taken into account. 
A high rating in 1988 would have been with less competition than we have today.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> The thought that the viewers siphoned off of the late night viewing would view live during the day and somehow have additional viewers doesn't work. The network would also lose primetime viewers who could see the footage on their local non-NBC affiliate. That "first run" viewing is important. Plus whatever they bumped to show prime time events live would not get seen - losing those viewers.
> 
> There is a method to NBC's madness ... perhaps those complaining are seeing the madness and don't understand the method. The ratings numbers support the method. At the end of the Olympics, NBC Universal will look back on the games and gauge the success of their broadcast not on what Twitter had to say but on what Nielson has to say. That is the reality.


 ...and the NBC apologists will perpetuate that and bring us another unnecessarily tape delayed Olympics next time.


----------



## Quaker2001

James Long said:


> There is a method to NBC's madness ... perhaps those complaining are seeing the madness and don't understand the method. The ratings numbers support the method. *At the end of the Olympics, NBC Universal will look back on the games and gauge the success of their broadcast not on what Twitter had to say but on what Nielson has to say.* That is the reality.


Bingo. If the sponsors open up the checkbook, then NBC can claim victory. And since the sponsors will only open the checkbook based on how many people are watching the ads, the ratings will tell most of the story.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> ...and the NBC apologists will perpetuate that and bring us another unnecessarily tape delayed Olympics next time.


No.. the sponsors will perpetuate that because they'll continue to pay for what NBC is doing. They're the enablers here. If they were convince NBC wasn't getting the job done, they could drive the boat in a different direction.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> No.. the sponsors will perpetuate that because they'll continue to pay for what NBC is doing. They're the enablers here. If they were convince NBC wasn't getting the job done, they could drive the boat in a different direction.


False. It's viewers will low standards who will perpetuate it.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> ...and the NBC apologists will perpetuate that and bring us another unnecessarily tape delayed Olympics next time.


So hit NBC where it hurts ... don't watch. Make their ratings go down and they might just listen.

As long as the ratings back up what they are doing they will keep doing it ... every two years through at least 2020.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> False. It's viewers will low standards who will perpetuate it.


Ahh, so now it's the viewers' fault, not NBC. You should have made that clearer earlier. :lol:

Take a look at my signature, it's a line from the movie The Running Man (with Arnold Schwarzengger back in the 1980s). There's so much truth in that now, it's almost prophetic. I don't care what everyone and their mother says on Twitter about what they want from NBC. Because I'm not convinced they'll be watching in the same numbers otherwise if NBC didn't do it this way. So yea, if all the viewers have such low standards that NBC can feed them crap because it's more profitable than the alternative, get used to it.


----------



## Karen

I didn't watch last night and I don't intend to watch any prime time coverage of the olympics. I might make an exception of the closing ceremonies, but will hate myself the entire time. <g>

I've enjoyed watching during the day, but will read at night.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Ahh, so now it's the viewers' fault, not NBC. You should have made that clearer earlier. :lol:
> 
> Take a look at my signature, it's a line from the movie The Running Man (with Arnold Schwarzengger back in the 1980s). There's so much truth in that now, it's almost prophetic. I don't care what everyone and their mother says on Twitter about what they want from NBC. Because I'm not convinced they'll be watching in the same numbers otherwise if NBC didn't do it this way. So yea, if all the viewers have such low standards that NBC can feed them crap because it's more profitable than the alternative, get used to it.


I didn't say it is the viewers fault. I said it was NBC's and viewers, such as you and James, will perpetuate it.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> I didn't say it is the viewers fault. I said it was NBC's and viewers, such as you and James, will perpetuate it.


Quaker, myself and about 20.55 to 30.95 million other Americans (depending on the half hour) who watched Phelps primetime coverage (although I'm not sure if Quaker saw it, and I watched it this afternoon on my DVR ... skimming past the other sports and most commercials).



Time|Rating/Share|Millions of Viewers
8:00|5.9/23|20.55
8:30|6.9/25|23.36
9:00|8.1/28|27.67
9:30|9.5/31|31.84
10:00|9.3/30|30.95
10:30|9.5/30|30.08http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...isive-victory-for-nbc-and-ryan-lochte/143162/

Sometimes one has to accept what one cannot change and adapt.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> Sometimes one has to accept what one cannot change and adapt.


Haha...right. Never expect better. Great motto to live by.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Haha...right. Never expect better. Great motto to live by.


See, you're still under the impression that all 20 million of those viewers don't like what they're getting (probably based on what you see on Twitter). Maybe those folks actually enjoy what they're getting. Maybe they don't mind how NBC is presenting the Olympics. Not everyone seems to share the opinion here that NBC is ruining the Olympics. I know I don't think that way for the most part, in spite of more than a few improvements I'd like to see NBC make.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> James and myself and about 30-40 million other people there. You want something different? Find 30-40 million people of your own and maybe you'll have something


Of my own? Nice that you have taken it upon yourself to speak on behalf of 30-40 million others. Funny how you took ownership of them. I'm happy that NBC has been good enough for you. Some of us have a higher standard however.


----------



## Hoosier205

Pretty bad when US residents have to pick up a foreign feed to get a decent broadcast of the Olympics. The BBC has done an incredible job thus far.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Pretty bad when US residents have to pick up a foreign feed to get a decent broadcast of the Olympics. The BBC has done an incredible job thus far.


I know, right? Amazing that so many people want to watch the Olympics that they're turning to international feeds AND still setting record ratings in the United States.

I've heard before how these types of illegal streams would be what finally forced NBC to change things up. How's that working out for them.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> I know, right? Amazing that so many people want to watch the Olympics that they're turning to international feeds AND still setting record ratings in the United States.
> 
> I've heard before how these types of illegal streams would be what finally forced NBC to change things up. How's that working out for them.


Illegal feeds? Haha...no. Straight from the BBC. NBC could stifle the need for outside streaming options if they put a muzzle on Costas and crew and bothered to show major events live.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Illegal feeds? Haha...no. Straight from the BBC. NBC could stifle the need for outside streaming options if they put a muzzle on Costas and crew and bothered to show major events live.


Which would be more profitable to them.. how?


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Illegal feeds? Haha...no. Straight from the BBC.


BBC's feeds are NOT available outside of the UK. If you are outside of the UK and viewing BBC feeds you are viewing an illegal bootleg feed.

(The BBC offers highlights and select programming outside of the UK but not their live feeds.)


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Which would be more profitable to them.. how?


Could be more popular then their flawed tape delay nonsense. You've yet to prove otherwise.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> BBC's feeds are NOT available outside of the UK. If you are outside of the UK and viewing BBC feeds you are viewing an illegal bootleg feed.
> 
> (The BBC offers highlights and select programming outside of the UK but not their live feeds.)


False. Not bootlegged. Not illegal.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> False. Not bootlegged. Not illegal.


Per the BBC's website, their live feeds are NOT available outside of the UK.
I understand there are services that bootleg the content, but that does not make it legal.

Now, can we get back to hating on NBC's Olympic coverage?


----------



## sigma1914

James Long said:


> 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.


Damn, that's A LOT of hours. I had to record hundreds of hours in 2004 during grad school for my lead professor, who's had an ongoing study of gender descriptors during Olympic coverage. Each of us (her advised students) were responsible for a specific channel and I was stuck with NBC. Ugh bad memories of doing "b*tch work" of a lowly graduate student. I'm glad to not be doing it anymore.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> Per the BBC's website, their live feeds are NOT available outside of the UK.
> I understand there are services that bootleg the content, but that does not make it legal.
> 
> Now, can we get back to hating on NBC's Olympic coverage?


Please don't play Internet lawyer. Not illegal. Not bootlegged.


----------



## mrlqban

yosoyellobo said:


> I was doing OK until I started watching the Chelsea vs AC Milan game on Espn2. Now I know not to watch Espn and I be OK.


LOL!! specially ESPN, they are the ones who lost the bid against NBC and they will spoil the hell out of these games as retaliation.


----------



## Art7220

Ha, Internet Lawyer.

I'd also like to get back to Torrent Links and stream links.

And Since USA Net is also an NBC channel, is Monday Night RAW off for 2 weeks also? We'll have to go to the SKY Sports downloads.


----------



## sigma1914

Art7220 said:


> ...
> And Since USA Net is also an NBC channel, is Monday Night RAW off for 2 weeks also? We'll have to go to the SKY Sports downloads.


Raw is still on. I haven't seen any Olympics on USA, and don't believe they have any.


----------



## Art7220

Thanks Sigma.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Hoosier205 said:


> Please don't play Internet lawyer. Not illegal. Not bootlegged.


The following is from BBC's website (Link).

*3.2 How you may NOT use BBC Online Services

3.2.1*_ If you are outside the UK
You may not access, view and/or listen to certain parts of BBC Content (such as video or live television services) using BBC Online Services if you are outside the UK, although you may, in accordance with the Terms, access and view bbc.co.uk or other websites and listen to some (but not all) BBC radio content. The types of BBC Content that may be available outside the UK will usually depend on the BBC's agreements with the persons who own rights in such content._​As you can clearly see viewing BBC video or live TV is a violation of their Terms of Service. DBSTalk doesn't now allow discussion involving violating any TOS so this part of the discussion is over. Nor will there be any discussion off torrenting.

To everyone, please get back to the topic.

:backtotop

Mike


----------



## mrlqban

Quaker2001 said:


> And yet American viewers continue to eat it all up while they're saying "this is terrible, please give me more of it!"


Primetime ratings are off to a good start,wow, NBC must be doing something great in their primetime coverage.

This actually reminds me of Part 8 of a summer blockbuster PG-13 movie that kicks off to the most profitable movie ever, but really, the movie is worth a crap. But people cant wait for the next part because it's a gonna be wow! and will blow you away! 
I can't wait for NBC primetime tonight, the magnificent 5 will blow me away!


----------



## Hoosier205

"Mike Bertelson" said:



> The following is from BBC's website (Link).
> 
> 3.2 How you may NOT use BBC Online Services
> 
> 3.2.1	If you are outside the UK
> You may not access, view and/or listen to certain parts of BBC Content (such as video or live television services) using BBC Online Services if you are outside the UK, although you may, in accordance with the Terms, access and view bbc.co.uk or other websites and listen to some (but not all) BBC radio content. The types of BBC Content that may be available outside the UK will usually depend on the BBC's agreements with the persons who own rights in such content.
> As you can clearly see viewing BBC video or live TV is a violation of their Terms of Service. DBSTalk doesn't now allow discussion involving violating any TOS so this part of the discussion is over. Nor will there be any discussion off torrenting.
> 
> To everyone, please get back to the topic.
> 
> :backtotop
> 
> Mike


You have no idea how I am accessing it or from where. I have no problem of you don't want something (even something perfectly on the level) being discussed, but don't accuse me of doing something illegal. Please and thank you.


----------



## Mike Bertelson

Hoosier205 said:


> You have no idea how I am accessing it or from where. I have no problem of you don't want something (even something perfectly on the level) being discussed, but don't accuse me of doing something illegal. Please and thank you.


I don't care how you are accessing it. Discussion of violating BBC's TOS, i.e. viewing their video outside of the UK, stops now. Please do not bring it up again.

Mike


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Could be more popular then their flawed tape delay nonsense. You've yet to prove otherwise.


What's your evidence that it could be more popular.. Twitter? Hey NBC, why don't you give this a try, you only have a billion dollars invested! How would you like me to prove it, anyway? Should I find some stats that irrefutably prove that more people are in front of their televisions in the evening than during the afternoon? Or that if you took the same event (such as NFL football) and moved it from broadcast to cable that the ratings are going to drop considerably, and not just because not everyone has cable/satellite?

You continue to believe that network research is wrong and that these folks are all idiots for buying into it. And your support of that ideal is flimsy at best. Do you really think they haven't learned anything in 30 years when every network before them in this country has done the same thing? Do you really expect a company investing a billion dollars in something to take a chance on "could be" when the numbers are indicating otherwise?


----------



## Quaker2001

mrlqban said:


> Primetime ratings are off to a good start,wow, NBC must be doing something great in their primetime coverage.
> 
> This actually reminds me of Part 8 of a summer blockbuster PG-13 movie that kicks off to the most profitable movie ever, but really, the movie is worth a crap. But people cant wait for the next part because it's a gonna be wow! and will blow you away!
> I can't wait for NBC primetime tonight, the magnificent 5 will blow me away!


Yes, the sarcasm detector is working, I get it.

Ratings are going to drop off over the course of the next 2 weeks. They always do. But that's more owing to the fact that most of the gymnastics and swimming is in the first week while track & field and diving lack name brand starts. Besides, how many other events out there hold people's attention for 2 1/2 straight weeks. You think the NFL would be as popular as it is if they played every day/night? For NBC to draw the audiences they get in the middle of the summer when most people aren't watching TV is impressive, and it'll still be impressive next week.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> What's your evidence that it could be more popular


What is your evidence that it couldn't be? I believe I asked you first, if you review the thread.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> What is your evidence that it couldn't be? I believe I asked you first, if you review the thread.


Well, I'm sure you're going to dispute it all like you seem to do with everyone else's knowledge of the business of television (and what do I know, I only work in sports television), but here goes...

More people are watching television in the evening than in the afternoon. This isn't a factor of what's on, it's about availability. No event is going to drive people to their TV sets in the afternoon enough over the course of 2 weeks that you could even try to get more viewers in the afternoon than in primetime. If you take a show like, say, American Idol and put it during the daytime, it's as much of a guarantee as you could get that ratings would drop. The share might improve, but the ratings would go down.

How about the NCAA Tournament? That has coverage daytime and at night. The new format is only 2 years old, but the evening slots have always drawn better than the afternoon. I think that's enough of a sampling to make a point there.

How about the West coast? Most of those markets did as good, if not better than their East coast counterparts in 2008 and 2010 when coverage was live on the East coast, but not out West. Tells you something about how many folks will watch live vs. delayed.

And then of course, the most obvious night 1 of Beijing vs. night 1 of London. Almost the exact same lineup of people and events.. Phelps, May-Treanor and Walsh in beach volleyball, qualifying in gymnastics. Yet the taped show this time around drew more viewers than the live version from 4 years ago?

So yea, I can already sense you typing "none of this proves anything." NBC has invested billions of dollars in the Olympics over the years. Until the economy crashed, it was a moneymaker, so don't point to Vancouver and this as proof it's not working anymore.

Your turn now. Play NBC executive, not disgruntled fan, and explain to all of us how they could make the Olympics more popular (and by that, I mean get more people to watch, not fewer people to complain on Twitter).


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Well, I'm sure you're going to dispute it all like you seem to do with everyone else's knowledge of the business of television (and what do I know, I only work in sports television), but here goes...
> 
> More people are watching television in the evening than in the afternoon. This isn't a factor of what's on, it's about availability. No event is going to drive people to their TV sets in the afternoon enough over the course of 2 weeks that you could even try to get more viewers in the afternoon than in primetime. If you take a show like, say, American Idol and put it during the daytime, it's as much of a guarantee as you could get that ratings would drop. The share might improve, but the ratings would go down.
> 
> How about the NCAA Tournament? That has coverage daytime and at night. The new format is only 2 years old, but the evening slots have always drawn better than the afternoon. I think that's enough of a sampling to make a point there.
> 
> How about the West coast? Most of those markets did as good, if not better than their East coast counterparts in 2008 and 2010 when coverage was live on the East coast, but not out West. Tells you something about how many folks will watch live vs. delayed.
> 
> And then of course, the most obvious night 1 of Beijing vs. night 1 of London. Almost the exact same lineup of people and events.. Phelps, May-Treanor and Walsh in beach volleyball, qualifying in gymnastics. Yet the taped show this time around drew more viewers than the live version from 4 years ago?
> 
> So yea, I can already sense you typing "none of this proves anything." NBC has invested billions of dollars in the Olympics over the years. Until the economy crashed, it was a moneymaker, so don't point to Vancouver and this as proof it's not working anymore.
> 
> Your turn now. Play NBC executive, not disgruntled fan, and explain to all of us how they could make the Olympics more popular (and by that, I mean get more people to watch, not fewer people to complain on Twitter).


Again, what is your evidence that it couldn't be? (I don't expect you or anyone else to be able to provide any. Just like you cannot prove anything to the contrary.) Your supposed credentials behind an anonymous Internet forum screen name don't amount to much.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Again, what is your evidence that it couldn't be? (I don't expect you or anyone else to be able to provide any. Just like you cannot prove anything to the contrary.) Your supposed credentials behind an anonymous Internet forum screen name don't amount to much.


Alright fine, I can't prove my case. Guilty as charged.

Regardless.. if all you have is "could be" and that's your argument for NBC to change, they've got a bridge in Brooklyn they'd like to see you. If you want irrefutable proof that the NBC way is the most profitable there is, you're right, you're not going to get that. Even still, the evidence and the reasoning that says it does work far out-weighs whatever argument you seem to have that they're better off doing it another way (again, other than Twitter). If the burden of proof is on me and you think anyone at NBC can or should buy into "could be" because you say they should with barely a shred of reasoning why it actually could be, then which of the 2 of us is the one hiding behind an Internet forum screen name.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Regardless.. if all you have is "could be" and that's your argument for NBC to change.


All you have is "couldn't be" and that's your argument for NBC not to change.


----------



## Hoosier205

Nearly 1:20 am in London and NBC is showing us what the rest of the world has already seen.


----------



## mrlqban

Hoosier205 said:


> Nearly 1:20 am in London and NBC is showing us what the rest of the world has already seen.


NBC's daytime coverage is good, except we have to watch the most important events online. However, their primetime coverage really sucks, besides the ratings, can anyone tell me one positive aspect of their 8pm-12am show?


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> All you have is "couldn't be" and that's your argument for NBC not to change.


I have a lot more than couldn't be. Unlike you, I actually have evidence to support that NBC knowns what they're doing. You just refuse to acknowledge any of it unless there's conclusive proof and all you have is "could be" as an argument which you're not even trying to support anymore. It's like a political candidate whose platform is "my opponent might be wrong, so you should vote for me in case he's not right!"

This started as "NBC has a smart programming strategy" versus "there's a better way it could be done" I've offered plenty to support my end of the debate. What have you offered? Please tell me this argument is not about semantics and that my lack of proof ignores all the supporting evidence of why NBC is making smart decisions.


----------



## Hoosier205

"mrlqban" said:


> NBC's daytime coverage is good, except we have to watch the most important events online. However, their primetime coverage really sucks, besides the ratings, can anyone tell me one positive aspect of their 8pm-12am show?


I can! Bob Costas and Meredith Viera aren't doing event commentary!


----------



## Quaker2001

mrlqban said:


> NBC's daytime coverage is good, except we have to watch the most important events online. However, their primetime coverage really sucks, besides the ratings, can anyone tell me one positive aspect of their 8pm-12am show?


No.. we don't "have to." There are millions of people watching this broadcast now who didn't "have to" and/or watched them online and are watching again.

What would make primetime better? You were never going to get live coverage in primetime. Should they have shown all these events already? To you, that would make primetime better, to be seeing everything for a 2nd time?


----------



## boukengreen

Hoosier205 said:


> Nearly 1:20 am in London and NBC is showing us what the rest of the world has already seen.


and the ones who watched it online have seen it whats the big deal


----------



## sigma1914

Nothing but complaining from a few of you. Don't watch if you're that mad...jeez.


----------



## Hoosier205

NBC's Olympic coverage has become a national joke. Join in the laughter.


----------



## anleva

I guess Canada didn't get the NBC memo that record ratings are only achieved by tape delaying to prime time.

*Record ratings for Opening Ceremony*



> Canada just set a new record.
> 
> One in two Canadians watched the dazzling launch of the London 2012 Olympic Games Friday, making it the most watched Summer Olympic Games Opening Ceremony broadcast on record in Canada, the Olympic Broadcast Media Consortium said in a statment Saturday.
> 
> The consortium comprises CTV and Rogers Media and boasts that it's "providing unprecedented English, French, and multilingual coverage and consumer choice on multiple platforms" during the Games.
> 
> "Airing live across Consortium networks in six languages (English, French, Mandarin, Cantonese, Tamil, Punjabi), an astonishing 16.6 million viewers, or nearly one in every two Canadians, tuned in to some part of the ceremony. Overall, 64% of Canadians watched some Olympic Games coverage on the Consortium's channels yesterday. The television coverage peaked at 8.1 million viewers at 7:36 p.m. (EDT) when the Olympic Cauldron was lit," the statement from Bell Media says.
> 
> According to the release, the audience eclipsed the previous Summer Olympic record holder, the Atlanta 1996 Opening Ceremony (4.3 million), by 49%, and delivered nearly four times the audience of the Beijing Opening Ceremony (1.6 million) and more than four times the audience of the Opening Ceremony in Athens in 2004 (1.4 million).
> 
> Interestingly, more than half the traffic (54%) to CTVOlympics.ca and RDSolympiques.ca yesterday was from a mobile device.


http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/29/record-ratings-for-opening-ceremony


----------



## yosoyellobo

Could someone point me to a real time schedule of of all the Olympic events.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Again, what is your evidence that it couldn't be? (I don't expect you or anyone else to be able to provide any. Just like you cannot prove anything to the contrary.) Your supposed credentials behind an anonymous Internet forum screen name don't amount to much.


And your credentials? What do you claim to be?

It seems strange that you offer a claim that NBC would do better if they showed events live but everyone else has to prove you wrong. Perhaps you're in politics?


----------



## James Long

yosoyellobo said:


> Could someone point me to a real time schedule of of all the Olympic events.


http://www.nbcolympics.com/tv-listings/index.html for the NBC Broadcast.
http://www.london2012.com/ for the London 2012 site (WARNING: with live results)


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> And your credentials? What do you claim to be?
> 
> It seems strange that you offer a claim that NBC would do better if they showed events live but everyone else has to prove you wrong. Perhaps you're in politics?


I claim to be retired.


----------



## Hoosier205

"anleva" said:


> I guess Canada didn't get the NBC memo that record ratings are only achieved by tape delaying to prime time.
> 
> Record ratings for Opening Ceremony
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/29/record-ratings-for-opening-ceremony


Well, look at that...


----------



## James Long

anleva said:


> I guess Canada didn't get the NBC memo that record ratings are only achieved by tape delaying to prime time.


Compared to what airings in previous years?

The numbers look a little puffed totaling people who tuned in "at some point" during the program and a peak viewership at a specific time.


----------



## anleva

James Long said:


> Compared to what airings in previous years?
> 
> The numbers look a little puffed totaling people who tuned in "at some point" during the program and a peak viewership at a specific time.


Well someone in this thread was using NBC's record ratings for this years Olympic opening ceremonies compared to previous years to justify that tape delaying coverage to prime time was an act of genius. This is certainly a counter point to that conclusion.

So you were fine with that comparison earlier yet take offense to that same logic here?


----------



## James Long

anleva said:


> Well someone in this thread was using NBC's record ratings for this years Olympic opening ceremonies compared to previous years to justify that tape delaying coverage to prime time was an act of genius. This is certainly a counter point to that conclusion.


The use of tape delay has been consistent ... Americans have been trained that the opening ceremonies will be aired in prime time regardless of where in the world they take place. That consistency is working ... and people are watching.



> So you were fine with that comparison earlier yet take offense to that same logic here?


It is easy to set a record when the last Olympics opening were aired live at an awful time. Look at the low scores for Beijing and Athens ... that practically screams "we aired them live" compared to a prime time audience. Atlanta was good but that would have been at a more reasonable time of day.

Without providing the basis for the record that was broken it is hard to respect the record that was set.

16.6 million tuned in to one of the channels at some point in the day and only 8.1 million watched the caldron lighting. Puffy numbers.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> NBC's Olympic coverage has become a national joke. Join in the laughter.


Yup, about 20 million people have joined in. I guess they must get the humor.


----------



## Quaker2001

James Long said:


> It is easy to set a record when the last Olympics opening were aired live at an awful time. Look at the low scores for Beijing and Athens ... that practically screams "we aired them live" compared to a prime time audience. Atlanta was good but that would have been at a more reasonable time of day.
> 
> Without providing the basis for the record that was broken it is hard to respect the record that was set.


I'm very impressed with the numbers here. The other thing to note.. how much of this number is a spillover effect from Vancouver and a renewed interest in the Olympics.

James, you might want to take a look at this since you're a lot more skeptical than I am, specifically look at the second to last line.. http://voces.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=1714712

Not trying to diminish what we're seeing here, but what works in Canada doesn't speak to the differences in Canadian broadcast television and American (already can feel Hoosier rolling his eyes). Which is to say.. this isn't necessarily evidence the NBC should have covered the Opening Ceremony live.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Yup, about 20 million people have joined in. I guess they must get the humor.


Pretty easy when NBC holds the Olympics television broadcast hostage in tape delay purgatory.


----------



## anleva

James Long said:


> Without providing the basis for the record that was broken it is hard to respect the record that was set.
> 
> 16.6 million tuned in to one of the channels at some point in the day and only 8.1 million watched the caldron lighting. Puffy numbers.


And how were the NBC ratings numbers calculated? Were they calculated differently? Was it also someone tuned in at one point to NBC?

So you want us to respect the NBC ratings record as proof that tape delay is the solution, but want us to question the CTV ratings record as tomfoolery? Gotcha.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Pretty easy when NBC holds the Olympics television broadcast hostage in tape delay purgatory.


Yes, that explains why the first 2 nights of London both had more viewers than Beijing. Especially in the age of Twitter and known results and Internet streaming and everyone else that should make the numbers lower.

And I forgot.. tape delay is a new thing. I mean it hasn't been around at virtually every Olympics ever broadcast in this country. Oh wait... it has. Didn't make a difference then. Doesn't seem to be making a difference now. But of course, I can't prove that, right? So I must be wrong?


----------



## James Long

anleva said:


> And how were the NBC ratings numbers calculated? Were they calculated differently? Was it also someone tuned in at one point to NBC?


The ratings I posted for Saturday were divided by the half hour ... the least watched half hour was over 20 million, the most watched was over 30 million. They did not provide a "cume" figure (as people in the ratings business call it) of everyone who tuned in to any channel at any part of the day.



> So you want us to respect the NBC ratings record as proof that tape delay is the solution, but want us to question the CTV ratings record as tomfoolery? Gotcha.


You do realize that the ratings system in Canada changed in 2009? That is one influence. But using cume and peaks is tomfoolery, and every Dick and Harry knows it. Especially a cume over a long period of time and multiple channels.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Yes, that explains why the first 2 nights of London both had more viewers than Beijing. Especially in the age of Twitter and known results and Internet streaming and everyone else that should make the numbers lower.
> 
> And I forgot.. tape delay is a new thing. I mean it hasn't been around at virtually every Olympics ever broadcast in this country. Oh wait... it has. Didn't make a difference then. Doesn't seem to be making a difference now. But of course, I can't prove that, right? So I must be wrong?


You've got it. We should get an expert opinion on this. Someone with a background in it.


----------



## anleva

James Long said:


> The ratings I posted for Saturday were divided by the half hour ... the least watched half hour was over 20 million, the most watched was over 30 million. They did not provide a "cume" figure (as people in the ratings business call it) of everyone who tuned in to any channel at any part of the day.
> 
> You do realize that the ratings system in Canada changed in 2009? That is one influence. But using cume and peaks is tomfoolery, and every Dick and Harry knows it. Especially a cume over a long period of time and multiple channels.


Sorry, no idea what you just said there. Probably only makes sense to a person in the ratings business.

NBC did well with their tape delay strategy and CTV (and the rest of the world) did well with their show it live strategy. So to this layman that is more proof of the popularity and interest in the event.

NBC believes their strategy maximizes ad revenue. I'm sure it does. But I doubt it maximizes customer satisfaction. But that appears to be a secondary consideration for them at this point.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> You've got it. We should get an expert opinion on this. Someone with a background in it.


Yea, if only we had someone here who works in sports television and has worked for a broadcast network. Oh wait.. we do.

Tell ya what.. when you win a sports emmy like the one I have, you can lecture me on expert opinion. Until then, we're both a couple of schmucks in an Internet forum. There's my credential right there. Where's yours?


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Yea, if only we had someone here who works in sports television and has worked for a broadcast network. Oh wait.. we do.
> 
> Tell ya what.. when you win a sports emmy like the one I have, you can lecture me on expert opinion. Until then, we're both a couple of schmucks in an Internet forum. There's my credential right there. Where's yours?...


Looks a little fake.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Looks a little fake.


Right, that must be it. I have a fake sports Emmy on-hand just in case I need to impress some strangers on an Internet forum. Trust me, I'm not trying to impress you, but when I said I work in sports television, that wasn't a lie. I mean, that trophy could be real, right? You can't prove it's not!

And in case you're still wondering.. the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences engraved that one for me.


----------



## Hoosier205

Now NBC is going to show us the men's 4x100 freestyle they've told us the result of and the rest of the world has already seen. Great job guys...really...live sports are boring.


----------



## yosoyellobo

James Long said:


> http://www.nbcolympics.com/tv-listings/index.html for the NBC Broadcast.
> http://www.london2012.com/ for the London 2012 site (WARNING: with live results)


thanks.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Now NBC is going to show us the men's 4x100 freestyle they've told us the result of and the rest of the world has already seen. Great job guys...really...live sports are boring.


And you are watching ...

Their programming must be working.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> And you are watching ...
> 
> Their programming must be working.


Nope. Flipped to it and then back to something else. I've already seen it.


----------



## anleva

Hoosier205 said:


> Now NBC is going to show us the men's 4x100 freestyle they've told us the result of and the rest of the world has already seen. Great job guys...really...live sports are boring.


Twitter from 6 hours ago:

NBCOlympicsVerified
‏@NBCOlympics

RESULTS:


Spoiler



Men's 4x100m free relay: French win gold, USA silver, Russia bronze:



Twitter from 6 minutes ago:

NBCOlympicsVerified
‏@NBCOlympics

COMING UP: Men's 4x100m Relay

I'm so confused!


----------



## Hoosier205

"anleva" said:


> Twitter from 6 hours ago:
> 
> NBCOlympicsVerified
> [email protected]
> 
> RESULTS:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> Men's 4x100m free relay: French win gold, USA silver, Russia bronze:
> 
> 
> 
> Twitter from 6 minutes ago:
> 
> NBCOlympicsVerified
> [email protected]
> 
> COMING UP: Men's 4x100m Relay
> 
> I'm so confused!


Haha NBC didn't get the spoiler memo.


----------



## James Long

Please remember this from our site administrator:


Chris Blount said:


> 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.


To place a spoiler tag type spoiler with the [ before and ] after the word.
Close the tag by typing /spoiler between the brackets.

Thank you for your consideration of fellow members!


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> Please remember this from our site administrator:
> 
> To place a spoiler tag type spoiler with the [ before and ] after the word.
> Close the tag by typing /spoiler between the brackets.
> 
> Thank you for your consideration of fellow members!


You've got it. Maybe you can pass that along to someone at NBC as well.


----------



## anleva

James Long said:


> Please remember this from our site administrator:
> 
> To place a spoiler tag type spoiler with the [ before and ] after the word.
> Close the tag by typing /spoiler between the brackets.
> 
> Thank you for your consideration of fellow members!


If people are dumb enough to enter a ***spoiler alert*** thread and not expect to be spoiled, well they just may be NBC sports executive material.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> You've got it. Maybe you can pass that along to someone at NBC as well.


Yea, because knowing the results is scaring so many people away that no one is watching. Who would want to watch the men's 4x100 free relay if they know the result!

Answer.. 20 million people


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Yea, because knowing the results is scaring so many people away that no one is watching. Who would want to watch the men's 4x100 free relay if they know the result!
> 
> Answer.. 20 million people


What choice do they have when NBC holds the Olympics television broadcast hostage in tape delay purgatory?


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> What choice do they have when NBC holds the Olympics television broadcast hostage in tape delay purgatory?


43% of US households could DVR it and watch it tomorrow. That is what I did with last night's programming.


----------



## Renard

Hoosier205 said:


> What choice do they have when NBC holds the Olympics television broadcast hostage in tape delay purgatory?


The only choice they have is to watch the 2012 USA Commercials Olympics Games, ooops sorry I meant the 2012 London Olympics Games. I can't think anymore with all these dumb commercials.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> What choice do they have when NBC holds the Olympics television broadcast hostage in tape delay purgatory?


Watch it online? Watch something else? Not watch TV? Stop saying there's no choice. No one ever shriveled up and died from not watching the Olympics. Not the first Olympics shown on tape delay, either. Or where the Internet has had the results.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> 43% of US households could DVR it and watch it tomorrow. That is what I did with last night's programming.


Which is no different than tonight's tape delay. The point being that there is no other choice to watch it live via television broadcast....thanks to NBC.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Which is no different than tonight's tape delay. The point being that there is no other choice to watch it live via television broadcast....thanks to NBC.


And NBC says "you're welcome" ... and now a message from our sponsor.


----------



## Renard

Quaker2001 said:


> *Watch it online?* Watch something else? Not watch TV? Stop saying there's no choice. No one ever shriveled up and died from not watching the Olympics. Not the first Olympics shown on tape delay, either. Or where the Internet has had the results.


Yeah a good solution, oh I forgot my ISP put a bandwidth cap on my account, so I have to be careful when I watch the online program, otherwise I'll go over.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Watch it online? Watch something else? Not watch TV? Stop saying there's no choice. No one ever shriveled up and died from not watching the Olympics. Not the first Olympics shown on tape delay, either. Or where the Internet has had the results.


There is no other choice for those who wish to watch on television. You cannot watch it live on television. It easily could have been done. NBC made sure to deny us that. They have done a good job screwing a captive audience.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> There is no other choice for those who wish to watch on television. You cannot watch it live on television. It easily could have been done. NBC made sure to deny us that. They have done a good job screwing a *captive audience*.


So when I want to watch the Super Bowl and I don't like the coverage on the network broadcasting it, where's my choice. It's the Super Bowl! 100 million people are watching, so let's put it on 12 different networks like they do in Canada!! That would make everyone happy.

Again.. you keep assuming that all these folks watching in primetime are practically doing it against their will. But they're still watching. Begrudgingly doing something is still doing something. And this happens EVERY Olympics, but people still keep coming back. So maybe they're not all as turned off as you seem to be convinced that they are.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> So when I want to watch the Super Bowl and I don't like the coverage on the network broadcasting it, where's my choice. It's the Super Bowl! 100 million people are watching, so let's put it on 12 different networks like they do in Canada!! That would make everyone happy.
> 
> Again.. you keep assuming that all these folks watching in primetime are practically doing it against their will. But they're still watching. Begrudgingly doing something is still doing something. And this happens EVERY Olympics, but people still keep coming back. So maybe they're not all as turned off as you seem to be convinced that they are.


At least it is live.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> At least it is live.


Yes, because people wouldn't watch a tape-delayed football game. They will watch a tape-delayed Olympics as has been proven time and time again. NBC knows this and they exploit it. Yes, that's not a viewer-friendly thing to do. But if it generates revenue and draws rating (and it always has.. apparently moreso this time than in the past, even), they're not going to change. And I can't really fault them for thinking that way, even though you seem to want them to gamble their billions of dollars otherwise because it's the right thing to do.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> So when I want to watch the Super Bowl and I don't like the coverage on the network broadcasting it, where's my choice. It's the Super Bowl! 100 million people are watching, so let's put it on 12 different networks like they do in Canada!! That would make everyone happy.
> 
> Again.. you keep assuming that all these folks watching in primetime are practically doing it against their will. But they're still watching. Begrudgingly doing something is still doing something. And this happens EVERY Olympics, but people still keep coming back. So maybe they're not all as turned off as you seem to be convinced that they are.


All this is proving is the power of monopolistic control over a high demand product. In the absence of alternative providers many people will settle for a lower quality product or service and the provider will do all they can to maximize their profits.

The only way consumers will get closer to what they want is either through increasing competition and providing alternative providers (open it up globally) or cover it via public broadcasting like the BBC is doing.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Yes, because people wouldn't watch a tape-delayed football game. They will watch a tape-delayed Olympics as has been proven time and time again. NBC knows this and they exploit it. Yes, that's not a viewer-friendly thing to do. But if it generates revenue and draws rating (and it always has.. apparently moreso this time than in the past, even), they're not going to change. And I can't really fault them for thinking that way, even though you seem to want them to gamble their billions of dollars otherwise because it's the right thing to do.


Great...now you're advocating for a tape delayed Super Bowl.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Great...now you're advocating for a tape delayed Super Bowl.


People always say "how can NBC tape delay the Olympics.. would they tape delay the Super Bowl?" Of course they wouldn't, because it wouldn't increase their viewership. It does with the Olympics. You know what.. if the networks, NBC or otherwise, thought they could get higher ad rates and bigger ratings for the Super Bowl, would they do it? IN A HEARTBEAT they would! But that wouldn't happen with a football game. So it won't happen, don't worry.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> People always say "how can NBC tape delay the Olympics.. would they tape delay the Super Bowl?" Of course they wouldn't, because it wouldn't increase their viewership. It does with the Olympics. You know what.. if the networks, NBC or otherwise, thought they could get higher ad rates and bigger ratings for the Super Bowl, would they do it? IN A HEARTBEAT they would! But that wouldn't happen with a football game. So it won't happen, don't worry.


I'm pretty sure everyone gets that NBC is acting in its own self interest. Not sure what point you are trying to convince us of.

And the NFL does the same thing, only they change the game times and continue to add more prime time time slots to maximize overall revenue. No need to tape delay, they set the schedule.


----------



## inkahauts

"Quaker2001" said:


> People always say "how can NBC tape delay the Olympics.. would they tape delay the Super Bowl?" Of course they wouldn't, because it wouldn't increase their viewership. It does with the Olympics. You know what.. if the networks, NBC or otherwise, thought they could get higher ad rates and bigger ratings for the Super Bowl, would they do it? IN A HEARTBEAT they would! But that wouldn't happen with a football game. So it won't happen, don't worry.


And there is the key part some of us disagree on. I firmly believe if they did live and recap both their overall viewership would absolutely rise.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> I'm pretty sure everyone gets that NBC is acting in its own self interest. Not sure what point you are trying to convince us of.


Because the argument before the Olympics started (and most of the way through the Opening Ceremony) was that the NBC's tape delay policy ruined the Olympics and if the results were known, there would be no reason to watch. So when the ratings come out and people are watching, I'm trying to convince you that was a load of crap.

Let me make this clear again.. what NBC is doing is not right. They should be criticized to hell for it, even with the online streaming (which isn't working all that well to begin with). But the argument that they should be doing this all another way doesn't hold much water when their way seems to be doing just fine. They are a business and it's their goal to make money. Making their viewers happy is not their top priority and if it gets in the way of their making money, then yea, we have to suck it up and deal with it until we give them a reason not to.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Because the argument before the Olympics started (and most of the way through the Opening Ceremony) was that the NBC's tape delay policy ruined the Olympics and if the results were known, there would be no reason to watch. So when the ratings come out and people are watching, I'm trying to convince you that was a load of crap.
> 
> Let me make this clear again.. what NBC is doing is not right. They should be criticized to hell for it, even with the online streaming (which isn't working all that well to begin with). But the argument that they should be doing this all another way doesn't hold much water when their way seems to be doing just fine. They are a business and it's their goal to make money. Making their viewers happy is not their top priority and if it gets in the way of their making money, then yea, we have to suck it up and deal with it until we give them a reason not to.


You've made your opinion known. You support NBC and their policies. The rest if us believe there is a better way for NBC and their viewers. Don't start bashing us for a lack of supporting evidence when you have none to say otherwise.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> You've made your opinion known. You support NBC and their policies. The rest if us believe there is a better way for NBC and their viewers. Don't start bashing us for a lack of supporting evidence when you have none to say otherwise.


But you can bash me for a lack of irrefutable proof that there is no such way? Because I don't recall offering that I had it

I don't support NBC's policies. I just understand them from the standpoint of how NBC makes them. Many of the rest of you look at the situation and think NBC has it wrong and that the people who make decisions for them are basing it either on bad information or that if they took a leap of faith, that it would pay off for them. I don't see it that way. I've read articles from people more in the know than all of us helping to make the case against NBC (see below for 1 of them). We've been hearing for a long time that the traditional model of broadcast television is about to become a dinosaur and that Olympic coverage would have to change as a result. That day is probably coming, but we're not there yet IMO

http://buzzmachine.com/2012/07/29/nbcfail/


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> But you can bash me for a lack of irrefutable proof that there is no such way? Because I don't recall offering that I had it
> 
> I don't support NBC's policies. I just understand them from the standpoint of how NBC makes them. Many of the rest of you look at the situation and think NBC has it wrong and that the people who make decisions for them are basing it either on bad information or that if they took a leap of faith, that it would pay off for them. I don't see it that way. I've read articles from people more in the know than all of us helping to make the case against NBC (see below for 1 of them). We've been hearing for a long time that the traditional model of broadcast television is about to become a dinosaur and that Olympic coverage would have to change as a result. That day is probably coming, but we're not there yet IMO
> 
> http://buzzmachine.com/2012/07/29/nbcfail/


I'm not bashing you for that. I said earlier that I didn't expect you or anyone else to be able to point to evidence like that. I can claim that airing more major events live would increase ratings because it is the product driving ratings despite the errors of the network. You can say just the opposite. You claim that NBC is doing it right and that the ratings support that. I say it's the Olympics doing well despite NBC. You say it's the Olympics doing well due to NBC. Neither of us can claim that they can prove it. That's why I've been laughing for the last however many hours as you've attempted to do so without anything to back it up.

NBC screwed the viewers to serve their own interests and protect their bottom line from an insane amount of money they laid out. Some of us are more interested in how they can deliver a better broadcast, while still protecting their investment. You seem more focused on defending them...the viewer be darned.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

My 2 cents worth...

Here in the US... the Super Bowl is scheduled at a time when the most viewers are expected to be available. Same thing happens for our other major sporting events.

The rest of the world? They have to watch it on tape delay or a weird time of night relative to them.

So... Olympics... When they are in the US, then the events are happening on US time... and the Olympics are broadcast live in our time zone... but when they are elsewhere in the world... NBC has studied and found that people are more apt to watch tape delayed than get up at weird hours of the morning to watch.

I wonder how many complaining about the tape delay and knowing results are happy DVR owners who brag (usually) about DVRing TV and sporting events (NBA, NHL, NFL, etc.) so they can skip commercials.

So, to them, I ask... what's the difference?


----------



## Hoosier205

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> My 2 cents worth...
> 
> Here in the US... the Super Bowl is scheduled at a time when the most viewers are expected to be available. Same thing happens for our other major sporting events.
> 
> The rest of the world? They have to watch it on tape delay or a weird time of night relative to them.
> 
> So... Olympics... When they are in the US, then the events are happening on US time... and the Olympics are broadcast live in our time zone... but when they are elsewhere in the world... NBC has studied and found that people are more apt to watch tape delayed than get up at weird hours of the morning to watch.
> 
> I wonder how many complaining about the tape delay and knowing results are happy DVR owners who brag (usually) about DVRing TV and sporting events (NBA, NHL, NFL, etc.) so they can skip commercials.
> 
> So, to them, I ask... what's the difference?


A national sporting event versus the largest international sporting event in the world. The Super Bowl isn't even scheduled by the network carrying it. Apples to corn on the cob.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> The Super Bowl isn't even scheduled by the network carrying it.


The Olympics are scheduled by NBC? Wow. There is a lot you can learn on the Internets at 1:30am ET. 

The Super Bowl is scheduled at a time that is appropriate for the live audience as well as a television audience. If the NFL scheduled it earlier ... perhaps at noon ... the NFL and the network would lose viewers. So the NFL does the right thing and schedules the event at a better time.


----------



## Hoosier205

"James Long" said:


> The Olympics are scheduled by NBC? Wow. There is a lot you can learn on the Internets at 1:30am ET.


The events are not, but the broadcast schedule is. Broadcast the Super Bowl live on the east coast and tape delay it by three hours on the west coast. Let me know how that one works out.

The major Olympic events could have been aired live and NBC could have achieved higher ratings and ad revenue. Prove me wrong. I can wait.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> A national sporting event versus the largest international sporting event in the world. The Super Bowl isn't even scheduled by the network carrying it. Apples to corn on the cob.


See, that's the other difference between the United States and virtually every other country in the world. We have football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, auto racing, soccer (in the summer), college sports.. no other nation has that type of sports calendar. The Olympics may be the largest sporting event in the world (and it's not may be, it is), but no one in their right mind would think it's bigger than the Super Bowl here. And the thing about the Super Bowl and the World Series and the BCS and the Final Four.. they're all scheduled at times convenient for viewing. The Olympics generally are not and unlike other countries where they're used to that and accept, we don't as much.



Hoosier205 said:


> I'm not bashing you for that. I said earlier that I didn't expect you or anyone else to be able to point to evidence like that. I can claim that airing more major events live would increase ratings because it is the product driving ratings despite the errors of the network. You can say just the opposite. You claim that NBC is doing it right and that the ratings support that. I say it's the Olympics doing well despite NBC. You say it's the Olympics doing well due to NBC. Neither of us can claim that they can prove it. That's why I've been laughing for the last however many hours as you've attempted to do so without anything to back it up.
> 
> NBC screwed the viewers to serve their own interests and protect their bottom line from an insane amount of money they laid out. Some of us are more interested in how they can deliver a better broadcast, while still protecting their investment. You seem more focused on defending them...the viewer be darned.


I never said NBC is doing the right thing. I've been saying NBC is doing the smart thing.. for NBC. And yea, I have provided at least a little evidence to back that up moreso than you've come up with evidence that there's a better way to do it. I'm not trying to stop your attempts to figure that one out, but so far, you haven't offered anything to suggest there is a better way other than to say you don't like the current way. And when I say 'better', I mean for both NBC and the viewer. Because if you don't have both, it's not going to matter.

I'm not disagreeing with you that NBC is only out to serve their own interests; I agree with you 100% on that one. But this is still a business and I'm defending NBC making business-oriented decisions that are in their company's best interests. I'm not defending their treatment of their viewers. You can't just say the Olympics are that great and that's why people are watching. We've seen ratings go down in too many places on television for me to believe that's true. So when it comes out that NBC is getting the ratings they are, yes it's further justification for them to stay the course with their coverage. If that means we're stuck with a lousy product, that's a shame, but you still haven't offered an alternative that works for all involved. You don't even have to go so far as to prove why it would work, but you can't just say "show everything live" and think that's it.


----------



## Hoosier205

Quaker2001 said:


> See, that's the other difference between the United States and virtually every other country in the world. We have football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf, auto racing, soccer (in the summer), college sports.. no other nation has that type of sports calendar.


Now you're just being silly. :lol:



Quaker2001 said:


> And yea, I have provided at least a little evidence to back that up


No...actually you haven't. You've offered an opinion and have basically suggested that we just trust you.



Quaker2001 said:


> I'm not defending their treatment of their viewers.


You have been consistently doing just that.



Quaker2001 said:


> You can't just say the Olympics are that great and that's why people are watching.


I can say that just as easily as you can state your own claim.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> The major Olympic events could have been aired live and NBC could have achieved higher ratings and ad revenue. Prove me wrong. I can wait.


I'm done with this prove me wrong nonsense because you now you sound like you're thumbing your nose at the rest of us because our arguments somehow aren't good enough for you.

I'm going to sleep now, but here's a question for you since you brought it up.. if NBC could get higher ratings and ad revenue by showing the Olympics live, then why aren't they doing it? Why is it that NBC and Comcast and the ad companies and whoever else is involved in the decision making not seen that one and have left money and ratings points on the table? Are they just that stupid? Or do they know this big secret and are choosing not to use it because.. no really, why wouldn't they want to make more money. If you can make an argument for that one, I would be shocked. Willing to bet you can't do that. Prove ME wrong there.


----------



## Quaker2001

Alright, maybe not going to sleep just yet..



Hoosier205 said:


> No...actually you haven't. You've offered an opinion and have basically suggested that we just trust you.


Sorry I don't have hard figures in front of me but when I tell you there are more people in front of their televisions at night than there are during the day, that's a pretty solid fact. That's why its primetime television and networks don't offer their best stuff during the daytime.



> You have been consistently doing just that.


No, you just think I have because you can't fathom the idea that someone could see it from NBC's perspective and might actually believe they do know how to maximize ratings and revenues. You don't offer evidence that doing it another way is better.. you ask that as a question and if I can't prove you wrong, you think that makes you right. In this silly little argument of ours, me not making my case does not make your case for you.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> The events are not, but the broadcast schedule is. Broadcast the Super Bowl live on the east coast and tape delay it by three hours on the west coast. Let me know how that one works out.


The NFL has been smart enough to schedule the game where the time works on both coasts.

Throughout the season there are local football games scheduled to be played in the afternoon. For west coast viewers this fits the standard afternoon football schedule. For east coast viewers it fits into the "Sunday Night Football" schedule (or close enough).

They might pick up a few more viewers with a west coast tape delay, but on a Sunday there are not the same issues with people not being home. With the Olympics most of the games happen on weekdays where most working Americans are not around to watch TV during the day.



> The major Olympic events could have been aired live and NBC could have achieved higher ratings and ad revenue. Prove me wrong. I can wait.


It is your claim ... you prove it.

The people actually responsible to make the decision have chosen to tape delay, including and additional three hour tape delay for the west coast.


----------



## Hoosier205

Quaker2001 said:


> I'm done with this prove me wrong nonsense because you now you sound like you're thumbing your nose at the rest of us because our arguments somehow aren't good enough for you.


One hasn't even been made. You're simply claiming that it works based upon the ratings and ignoring any possibilities for improvement.



Quaker2001 said:


> I'm going to sleep now, but here's a question for you since you brought it up.. if NBC could get higher ratings and ad revenue by showing the Olympics live, then why aren't they doing it? Why is it that NBC and Comcast and the ad companies and whoever else is involved in the decision making not seen that one and have left money and ratings points on the table? Are they just that stupid? Or do they know this big secret and are choosing not to use it because.. no really, why wouldn't they want to make more money. If you can make an argument for that one, I would be shocked. Willing to bet you can't do that. Prove ME wrong there.



This is NBC/Comcast we are talking about and neither have been known to make wise decisions. Thanks to their merger, they've brought us a monopoly in stupidity.
You're the one who claims to be in the industry. Ask them. Turn that Emmy over...isn't their a hotline or something on the bottom?
You've been claiming that a tape delay is the way to go. You haven't been able to prove that there isn't a better way. So, don't try to push the burden of proof off on me. You've been running around in circles for a long time now.

I'll tell you what....let's do this: You come to a decision, relay that to NBC, and then six hours later they can let the rest of us know. Make sure they tweet the result first, have their hosts mention it first, and have their lead-in programs tell us about the result as well. I think that should cover it.



Spoiler



You're still defending a business decision without knowing if a better option may have existed based upon no evidence at all.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> It is your claim ... you prove it.


Just as soon as you, or anyone else, prove that the tape delayed format for London 2012 is superior...as has been claimed.


----------



## Hoosier205

Quaker2001 said:


> Alright, maybe not going to sleep just yet..


Now this is funny! Since you have been a member here (Feb 15, 2010) you have ONLY posted in Olympic related threads. That's it. You have discussed nothing else at all. You were defending NBC and tape delayed broadcasts two years ago, with nearly identical language to these games. You've provided a photo of a sports-related Emmy.

Me thinks you might be a plant...

!rolling!rolling!rolling

What did you win the Emmy for exactly?

After a little research...did you win an Emmy for the Vancouver Olympics in 2010?


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Just as soon as you, or anyone else, prove that the tape delayed format for London 2012 is superior...as has been claimed.


Asked and answered ... the ratings are still high.
Until that changes why take the risk to mess with success? The 'save the best until prime time' format works.

If one wants to change the mind of a big business one must PROVE that another way is better.


----------



## maartena

"Quaker2001" said:


> And yet American viewers continue to eat it all up while they're saying "this is terrible, please give me more of it!"


Since most Americans cannot receive the Canadian networks, Americans really don't have a choice. I would like to place a wager that if DirecTV was allowed to carry some of the British and Canadian networks.... That NBC would do its coverage differently as well.

NBC has the Olympics monopoly. It's very easy to say "see it works", and if you are a Wall Street hedge fund manager with NBC stock in its portfolio, you are right: it works.

That does not mean however it can be different and/or better. There is more in life than money and ratings. I believe that NBC could still be profitable if they show everything live with a prime time repeat. But NBC is only interested maximum ROI, not in enough ROI to make a profit and still deliver a live show. It CAN be done. The rest of the world is capable, why wouldn't Americans be able?


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Unless I'm reading something wrong... it looks like the daily schedule runs from about 9am to midnight London-time... not all events go all day of course so you'd have to check the schedule and cross-reference your event interests.

Anyway...

That translates to 4am to 7pm EDT... So... IF NBC broadcast the events live, they would start pre-dawn every day and end before prime-time.

During the week, this would mean pretty much most of their viewers would be at work and not able to watch these events at all or barely catch a little while getting ready for work + some more when they get home.

That doesn't make it attractive when none of the events fall into primetime naturally...

Now, the notion of showing some live while delaying others... that becomes a mess... because whatever you show live, you have to tape-delay the other... so you haven't fixed a problem you've just made it unfair to some fans while pleasing others.

Though probably no one in this thread cares... people/fans in South America have the same issues as we do... in terms of the viewing and scheduling decision... and I don't know if South America is getting live feeds or not.

Since it is a world event... surely the biggest world sporting event (though probably FIFA World Cup fans would argue with that)... most of the world is getting this year's Olympics at not too much of a delay... whenever it is in the US, then most of the world has the problem that we are "suffering" with now.

Non-cable/satellite customers are going to need delayed feeds, so that means NBC has to do that or they will lose all of those viewers.

With cable/satellite NBC does have the option of providing other live feeds... but consider... IF they do this for all the sports, the advertisers probably will balk at the delayed feed on NBC... so NBC decides they better not splinter the audience.

The only compromise here is having soccer and basketball live feeds... those do begin at 4am and show the games live... so I'm up watching basketball now and it's cool to be able to... but I can kind of see how they can't do this for all of the events.

All the people used to recording a baseball game or football game and watching after work should be used to that...

The only legitimate gripe I can see... It is weird for NBC to during the delayed broadcast mention event results from earlier in the day... but then again, people would be saying Costas was stupid for pretending he doesn't know what is about to be shown. The only way around that would be for Costas to also pre-record his segments during the day so he doesn't know the results.

Maybe that would be a better way to go? Pre-tape those intermissions too... so he doesn't know the results... then you just have to avoid the Web and Twitter and results won't be spoiled.

Otherwise, I'm not really sure what else they can do. It's part of living in a larger global world and realizing you aren't any more important than anyone else, and when most of the world's population is on the other side of the world from us... sometimes you don't get to make the schedule you'd like.


----------



## makaiguy

I have only one thing to say regarding all this ..

You can't argue with an idiot.

Both factions may take complete satisfaction in believing I'm talking about the other guy.


----------



## trh

makaiguy said:


> Both factions may take complete satisfaction in believing I'm talking about the other guy.


!rolling


----------



## Chris Blount

Without naming names, there are few of you that have repeated yourself several times. Let's try to add some fresh perspective to this thread. Also don't forget our forums rules regarding repeated rants:



> (p) The posting of duplicate messages in the same forum or in multiple forums is not allowed, and the duplicates are subject to deletion. This not only includes posts that are identical to other posts from the same user or from different users, but also includes posts that are similar in message to other posts left by the same user. Repeated rants against anyone or anything will be considered spam and subject to removal.


I don't want to start handing out thread bans.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Just as soon as you, or anyone else, prove that the tape delayed format for London 2012 is superior...as has been claimed.


What makes you think showing everything live is better? You've barely given a hint of why you think that is? NBC is doing better than expected with what they're doing.. What leads you to believe (this doesn't have to be about my proof versus yours) that there's a better way to do it, and if there is, then why is it that NBC isn't doing that?



maartena said:


> Since most Americans cannot receive the Canadian networks, Americans really don't have a choice. I would like to place a wager that if DirecTV was allowed to carry some of the British and Canadian networks.... That NBC would do its coverage differently as well.
> 
> NBC has the Olympics monopoly. It's very easy to say "see it works", and if you are a Wall Street hedge fund manager with NBC stock in its portfolio, you are right: it works.


But that's how the system works. NBC pays to broadcast the Olympics in the United States and only in the United States (and be the only broadcaster there). Ditto in Canada. There are some places where multiple rights holders exist, especially in Europe where you have a company like Eurosport providing coverage to the continent. But in general, it's 1 rights holder per country and that network generally buys up all the rights for a given country. So it's not that different in a many other countries that 1 company has a monopoly over the rights.



> That does not mean however it can be different and/or better. There is more in life than money and ratings. I believe that NBC could still be profitable if they show everything live with a prime time repeat. But NBC is only interested maximum ROI, not in enough ROI to make a profit and still deliver a live show. It CAN be done. The rest of the world is capable, why wouldn't Americans be able?


For better or worse, NBC is not a public broadcaster. If they can make a little money with a live Olympics or a lot of money by withholding events until primetime, they're going to do the latter. If you're a broadcast network like NBC, there really isn't more to life than money and ratings, especially when you've been in last place for a while and need the boost. They're doing what they think will drive the biggest audiences to their network. They believe they get that they way they're doing it rather than putting the key events live during the daytime. It's not worth the risk for them (at least for now, that could change for future Olympics) to change up what for them is a good thing now and risk it being less of a good thing simply because of some negative PR, especially since that comes up every Olympics.


----------



## sigma1914

All the arguing about live vs delayed... Have you been to a major swim meet, track competition, or gymnastics competition? Good God, they're loooooong and boring with tons of down time. It's a good idea to do tape delay for this alone.


----------



## Hoosier205

sigma1914 said:


> All the arguing about live vs delayed... Have you been to a major swim meet, track competition, or gymnastics competition? Good God, they're loooooong and boring with tons of down time. It's a good idea to do tape delay for this alone.


Some folks say the same about football, baseball, soccer, hockey, auto racing, etc. Perhaps we should put all sporting events on tape delay. NBC can trademark the process and apply the NBC title to it!

"What are you watching?"

_"Game 7 of the World Series." _

"Is it live?"

_"No, it's NBC'd. They played about six hours ago, but announced the final score before the game."_

"Awesome!"


----------



## Quaker2001

sigma1914 said:


> All the arguing about live vs delayed... Have you been to a major swim meet, track competition, or gymnastics competition? Good God, they're loooooong and boring with tons of down time. It's a good idea to do tape delay for this alone.


I've heard that brought up before and there's a lot of truth to it. I remember watching the infamous Triplecast in 1992 (both the worse and the best thing NBC ever did with the Olympics).. the coverage was very raw, but it was complete and commercial-free for certain events, so if you were a hard-core track & field fan, you thought it was the greatest coverage of an event you ever saw. But it didn't have the mass appeal you need for a broadcast network like NBC. And yes, to stick with an event like swimming for a long block is not always the most compelling television.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Some folks say the same about football, baseball, soccer, hockey, auto racing, etc. Perhaps we should put all sporting events on tape delay. NBC can trademark the process and apply the NBC title to it!


Tape delaying of a football or baseball game wouldn't work, that's why it's not done (are you going to ask me to provide proof of that one, too?). It seems to be working just fine with the Olympics which is why it still is being done. Yea, maybe NBC is just being stubborn in that regard, but why change what's working for you. And clearly it is working for them.

And just a side note.. NBC has done this with Wimbledon for years and gotten reamed for it. So if you were going to use an example, that would be the one to go with.


----------



## sigma1914

Hoosier205 said:


> Some folks say the same about football, baseball, soccer, hockey, auto racing, etc. Perhaps we should put all sporting events on tape delay. NBC can trademark the process and apply the NBC title to it!
> 
> "What are you watching?"
> 
> _"Game 7 of the World Series." _
> 
> "Is it live?"
> 
> _"No, it's NBC'd. They played about six hours ago, but announced the final score before the game."_
> 
> "Awesome!"


Another horrible comparison by you. Track, swimming, gymnastics are all day events over multiple days...not 3-4 hours like the popular sports you mentioned.

Also, with all your complaining on here, I hope you're not missing the tons of live coverage all day long.


----------



## mrlqban

Quaker2001 said:


> No.. we don't "have to." There are millions of people watching this broadcast now who didn't "have to" and/or watched them online and are watching again.
> 
> What would make primetime better? You were never going to get live coverage in primetime. Should they have shown all these events already? To you, that would make primetime better, to be seeing everything for a 2nd time?


If they would actually show most of the competitions then yes it would be a second time. But they ARE NOT doing that and you know it.

They should have shown the important events already on live TV. Arent they doing that online already? Take a look at the "Gold Zone" channel. That's exactly the model that I proposed a few posts back. Have a dedicated channel just like the Gold Zone stream that's available today to show important events. Perhaps they do NOT need to show all of it, leaving out a portion for primetime coverage. But instead of showing Team USA gymnastics only, actually show a variety of teams during primetime. It's ridiculuous when people have to watch Team USA tape delayed warmups, who the hell needs to watch anyone warmup during the olympics, that's how messed up their primetime coverage is.


----------



## Hoosier205

sigma1914 said:


> Also, with all your complaining on here, I hope you're not missing the tons of live coverage all day long.


Watching it in glorious HD on my 65" Panasonic plasma.


----------



## anleva

Hoosier205 said:


> Some folks say the same about football, baseball, soccer, hockey, auto racing, etc. Perhaps we should put all sporting events on tape delay. NBC can trademark the process and apply the NBC title to it!
> 
> "What are you watching?"
> 
> _"Game 7 of the World Series." _
> 
> "Is it live?"
> 
> _"No, it's NBC'd. They played about six hours ago, but announced the final score before the game."_
> 
> "Awesome!"


:rolling: Now that's funny! I love it. "It's NBC'd"! :lol:


----------



## Quaker2001

mrlqban said:


> If they would actually show most of the competitions then yes it would be a second time. But they ARE NOT doing that and you know it.
> 
> They should have shown the important events already on live TV. Arent they doing that online already? Take a look at the "Gold Zone" channel. That's exactly the model that I proposed a few posts back. Have a dedicated channel just like the Gold Zone stream that's available today to show important events. Perhaps they do NOT need to show all of it, leaving out a portion for primetime coverage. But instead of showing Team USA gymnastics only, actually show a variety of teams during primetime. It's ridiculuous when people have to watch Team USA tape delayed warmups, who the hell needs to watch anyone warmup during the olympics, that's how messed up their primetime coverage is.


Do you know how many people watching the Olympics want to watch the warmups and actually like all the fluff and perhaps can even stand their daily dose of Ryan Seacrest? That's the audience that NBC is dealing with and has been for years now. It's not your tradition weekend afternoon sports fans. If they did have that, they'd be doing the Olympics a lot differently. The problem is that the weekend afternoon sports crowd is still watching baseball and probably couldn't care less about the Olympics.

NBC has been in the business a long time. Every Olympics since 2000, every Summer Olympics since 1988. They have a pretty good wealth of Olympic research that probably tells them show it live and then show it again is a risky proposition and given what they've invested, probably not worth changing for the sake of change (and a handful of Twitter complaining). Plus, it's Noon in the East on a Monday afternoon. If they had shown the big events already, who would be watching? It's easier to make that claim on a weekend when more people are watching TV, less so now when a lot more people are away from their TVs. That's why the logic has long been not to show big events at odd hours. As opposed to say, in Australia, where a lot of people will be happy to be up at 3 in the morning or whatever to watch swim finals. That's not likely to happen here.


----------



## Quaker2001

sigma1914 said:


> Also, with all your complaining on here, I hope you're not missing the tons of live coverage all day long.


That's the other thing. I know the call is for the big events to be live during the day. But right now, I have NBC Sports Network live on equestrian. Bravo is live on Tennis. MSNBC I believe is live on basketball. There's a lot of live coverage out there, just maybe not the specific event(s) you might be looking for, and for that you have online as a backup (which seems to be working a little better today than it did over the weekend when it was crashing left and right)


----------



## anleva

sigma1914 said:


> Another horrible comparison by you. Track, swimming, gymnastics are all day events over multiple days...not 3-4 hours like the popular sports you mentioned.
> 
> Also, with all your complaining on here, I hope you're not missing the tons of live coverage all day long.


I watched some swimming live on the BBC. It wasn't a day long event. They had an hour and a half in the morning with some preliminary heats and then the afternoon session had medal events and semis, maybe another hour and a half. The afternoon was all I was interested in anyway. Time between races was short, all events were not in a single session (carried over multiple days) and it moved quickly. It was actually really interesting to watch it end-to-end with the introductions, race, quick interview, setting up the next race....Really well done.


----------



## sigma1914

anleva said:


> I watched some swimming live on the BBC. It wasn't a day long event. They had an hour and a half in the morning with some preliminary heats and then the afternoon session had medal events and semis, maybe another hour and a half.
> ...


So, it's not a day long, but there's morning and afternoon sets? :lol:


----------



## Hoosier205

sigma1914 said:


> So, it's not a day long, but there's morning and afternoon sets? :lol:


Two sets of actions at 1.5 hours each is not a day long event.


----------



## pablo

Well, at least with the next Summer Olympics in Rio, time shouldn't be a problem. Now, the next Winter Olympics in Sochi, that's another nightmare.


----------



## anleva

sigma1914 said:


> So, it's not a day long, but there's morning and afternoon sets? :lol:


No it wasn't all day. It was 1 1/2 hours for the semis and medal events. The 1 1/2 hour afternoon sessions are for the semis and medal events for the events of that day. 

If you were a die hard you could tune into the additional 1 1/2 hour session in the morning for the heats. But if you just caught the afternoon session you would see all the significant races for that day. Not that big of a time commitment. If you want to see a single race (mens 4x100) you know the time, just watch that.


----------



## sigma1914

anleva said:


> No it wasn't all day. It was 1 1/2 hours for the semis and medal events. The 1 1/2 hour afternoon sessions are for the semis and medal events for the events of that day.


You're not including prelims.


----------



## Hoosier205

pablo said:


> Well, at least with the next Summer Olympics in Rio, time shouldn't be a problem. Now, the next Winter Olympics in Sochi, that's another nightmare.


I think we can all be pretty confident in knowing that even in Rio, NBC will embargo the best events until a time that best suits them rather than the viewers.


----------



## anleva

sigma1914 said:


> You're not including prelims.


I said it was an 1 1/2 hour session in the morning. So if you want to watch the full day of swimming, prelims, semis and medal events, 3 hours approximately.


----------



## Laxguy

Hoosier205 said:


> I think we can all be pretty confident in knowing that even in Rio, NBC will embargo the best events until a time that best suits them rather than the viewers.


"The viewers"!? You seem to speak for all viewers when it's your druthers, not everyone else's. There's a wide spectrum of desires here.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> I think we can all be pretty confident in knowing that even in Rio, NBC will embargo the best events until a time that best suits them rather than the viewers.


If Beijing is any indication, NBC will fight tooth and nail to get the best events played at a time that is most convenient for them even if that pisses off the rest of the world. Which is to say.. they're going probably going to make sports federations go out of their way to accommodate them for the benefit of their viewers. Rio is only 1 hour ahead of the East coast during the northern summer. Perfectly reasonable to expect at least some big events to be contested live during primetime here.


----------



## sigma1914

anleva said:


> I said it was an 1 1/2 hour session in the morning. So if you want to watch the full day of swimming, prelims, semis and medal events, 3 hours approximately.


Right...and over a period of how many days? Like I said, they're days long with lots of down time. Or they're packed into a weekend of all day stuff.


----------



## anleva

sigma1914 said:


> Right...and over a period of how many days? Like I said, they're days long with lots of down time. Or they're packed into a weekend of all day stuff.


Wasn't much down time in what I was watching. No more than watching gymnasts march from apparatus to apparatus.


----------



## fluffybear

sigma1914 said:


> Right...and over a period of how many days? Like I said, they're days long with lots of down time. Or they're packed into a weekend of all day stuff.


In 1984, my family and I attended a number of track and field events at the LA Olympics and from what I remember, most of the day was spent waiting & waiting and waiting for events.


----------



## Quaker2001

Another take on the NBC tape delays from awfulannouncing.com which I think sums things up pretty well.. NBC's Olympic Tape Delay strategy ruffling feathers&#8230; again


----------



## maartena

pablo said:


> Well, at least with the next Summer Olympics in Rio, time shouldn't be a problem. Now, the next Winter Olympics in Sochi, that's another nightmare.


Well.... Some of the events in the winter Olympics start as early as 7:00 AM, in particular the cross-country ski and biathlon, that take the better part of the day. (Compare to the cycling events in the summer Olympics, and the marathon, they start them as early in the day as possible).

If indeed so, that would mean it is LIVE on the West Coast at 8PM, East Coast 11PM. Yet I have the feeling that _"due to 11 o'clock news obligations with local affiliates"_ even such an eventuality will not lead to live coverage by NBC.

There is an 8/11 hour difference between Sochi and EDT/PDT. They will probably pull the same stunt: Save the best events for prime time, and delay them another 3 hours for the west.

"Prime time" in Sochi, say 8PM, would be 7AM EDT 4AM PDT. The speed skating events will probably be held in LOCAL prime time, more or less the same as the swimming events. Same with the hockey games, they probably play at the same time too.


----------



## maartena

sigma1914 said:


> Another horrible comparison by you. Track, swimming, gymnastics are all day events over multiple days...not 3-4 hours like the popular sports you mentioned.


So is the world series. It is played in a minimum of 4, and a maximum of 7 games, each lasting 3 to 4 hours.

I think what it comes down to is that the Olympics, as sports, is simply not considered important enough. NBC buys the rights as a money maker, and adds entertainment value with interviews and stories. This is great for the average Joe, but not so great for the individuals who are truly interested in the competing side of the games.

I have been able to manage until now, my social media ban has been paying off, over the weekend I caught 1 spoiler and it was a minor one. (Gold on shooting for the USA).

For what it is worth, I understand the tape delay from London and bringing some events to prime time. I do. At least to a certain point, because I would rather have the OPTION to watch it live with a repeat at night in prime time. What I really do NOT understand is the additional 3 hours of delay because NBC didn't bother to make deals with the local affiliates on the west coast.

NBC messed us up completely in both 2002 and 2010 with the winter Olympics, and pushed everything west coast off by 3 hours. 2006 was, just as London is now, in a completely different time zone. 2014/Sochi will be even worse. But Rio.... 2016.... is only 1 hour off from EDT and 4 hours off from PDT so we'll see a LOT of stuff live.

If, of course, NBC will let us.


----------



## maartena

sigma1914 said:


> All the arguing about live vs delayed... Have you been to a major swim meet, track competition, or gymnastics competition? Good God, they're loooooong and boring with tons of down time. It's a good idea to do tape delay for this alone.


You do have a point. However, there are so many events going on at the same time, they can do semi-live.

What I mean by that is: Broadcast 200m breaststroke LIVE. Then when the break is on, broadcast the Beach volleyball 1st set. When they break, the 400m relay just ended, and you can broadcast that segment. When it is done, the 200m butterfly is just starting so you can immediately go live to that event. When that is over, you can go back to the 2nd set of Beach volleyball which was already under way. With all the pauses, in ALL sports, (we have half time shows for a reason), you can easily "fill in the blanks" with the Olympics, and create a semi-live broadcast that is hours long, but has almost no gaps in sports. And I believe this is actually HOW they produce the afternoon swimming qualifiers.

Personally.... I HATE the way NBC is delaying the west coast again (should be the same for the entire U.S. no matter what), but I LOVE the online coverage.

Field Hockey isn't on TV, so I have been watching a few games using their stream service. Works well.


----------



## anleva

Editorial: NBC's Olympics and the steely grip of old media

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/30/nbcs-olympics-and-the-steely-grip-of-old-media/


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> Editorial: NBC's Olympics and the steely grip of old media
> 
> http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/30/nbcs-olympics-and-the-steely-grip-of-old-media/


Would you look at that.. another writer who is decrying NBC and at the same time claiming that their strategy "works."


----------



## anleva

> NBC fail shows network's commitment to 'the last great buggy-whip Olympics'
> This is not the 1940s, when families gathered by the radio to hear to news. NBC is failing to recognise the world we live in


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/30/nbc-fail-buggy-whip-olympics?CMP=twt_gu

#nbcfail


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> Would you look at that.. another writer who is decrying NBC and at the same time claiming that their strategy "works."


Works for them and their advertisers yes. Nobody denies they are maximizing their profits.#nbcfail


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> Works for them and their advertisers yes. *Nobody *denies they are maximizing their profits.#nbcfail


I'd say there's at least a couple of people here who are doing exactly that.

In any event, Twitter folks can post the #nbcfail hashtag all they want. I'm fairly confident NBC is aware of it, but then they look at record ratings and have all the reason they need to keep doing what they're doing for the next 2 weeks. There has long been an outcry over NBC's coverage of the Olympics. Twitter merely makes it more public and on the record than it was 4 years ago.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> I'd say there's at least a couple of people here who are doing exactly that.
> 
> In any event, Twitter folks can post the #nbcfail hashtag all they want. I'm fairly confident NBC is aware of it, but then they look at record ratings and have all the reason they need to keep doing what they're doing for the next 2 weeks. There has long been an outcry over NBC's coverage of the Olympics. Twitter merely makes it more public and on the record than it was 4 years ago.


Save your best for prime time eh Roone? #nbcfail


----------



## Chris Blount

As was mentioned earlier, for the average Joe, the coverage is fine and NBC is making a boat load of money. I do think, however, this might be the last time NBC does it this way. Someone in upper management is going to have to start thinking outside the box. The backlash this time around is going to be hard for NBC to ignore.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> Save your best for prime time eh Roone? #nbcfail


Pretty much. From the standpoint of NBC, they seem to be doing pretty well with what they're doing. Record ratings for the first weekend. Not just good, but record ratings. So yes, clearly NBC has us by the collective balls.



Chris Blount said:


> As was mentioned earlier, for the average Joe, the coverage is fine and NBC is making a boat load of money. I do think, however, this might be the last time NBC does it this way. Someone in upper management is going to have to start thinking outside the box. The backlash this time around is going to be hard for NBC to ignore.


Again, isn't that what's said every Olympics? Especially after Beijing, that NBC simply couldn't keep doing the same thing and make money off of it in the age of digital media. Obviously that's being proven otherwise. The backlash is clearly louder, but that's because the same folks who were shouting about it last time didn't have a vehicle to voice their complaints. This time they do.

The other thing to remember about these Olympics.. they still somewhat pre-date the Comcast merger. The winning bid (more like the over-bid) was made back in 2003 and a lot of the planning was done with Dick Ebersol at the helm, before Comcast came in and took over. Starting in 2014, the onus is on Comcast. They were the ones who decided to pledge $4.38 billion (after the popular thinking was that Comcast/NBC may lose to either ESPN or Fox because Comcast might not want to spend the money). And I think they see more potential in new media rights than NBC does. If Comcast can ever figure out how to turn online coverage into a moneymaker, even if not on the level of what they can do on TV, that's when you'll see change. NBC is not ignoring the backlash, but they're also not going to react to it. But I agree.. at some point they're going to have to start thinking outside the box. However, this Olympics is not it yet like many seemed to think it would be.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> Pretty much. From the standpoint of NBC, they seem to be doing pretty well with what they're doing. Record ratings for the first weekend. Not just good, but record ratings. So yes, clearly NBC has us by the collective balls.


James Poniewozik's (Time Magazine critic) tweet seems apropos here. "NBC tape delay coverage is like the airlines: its interest is in giving you the least satisfactory service you will still come back for."

Keep that bar low NBC #nbcfail


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> Would you look at that.. another writer who is decrying NBC and at the same time claiming that their strategy "works."


Slave labor is also much more cost effective and profitable than actually paying employees. Obviously that is not a great comparison, but if ALL you are interested in is the bottom line.... yes, it works. The current laws and rights favor NBC in such a way that they can do whatever they want, and it would still work.

But would they REALLY lose that much money if they keep the current prime time broadcasts, AND also show it live during the day when people work?

I know that NBC is a corporation, and corporation's first primary objective is to make as much money possible. I had just hoped that for something as respected as the Olympic Games the flame of corporate greed could be turned down a little lower, and the flame of the Olympic Spirit could be turned up a little higher.

NBC is going to profit from these games, that much is already clear. I don't believe however they would lose sooo much money if they showed the major events live as well with repeats in prime time. This would to a large extend also solve the 3 hour delay, as those wanting to watch it live can see it. You would probably get more viewers in TOTAL and more income from commercials that way. As with any live sports, there are breaks, so commercials can be inserted in live swimming coverage etc.

There is also absolutely NO excuse for cutting out the 7/7 memorial piece from the Olympics, and replacing it with a Michael Phelps interview that could have been broadcasted the next evening.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

There would be no point in repeat broadcasts in prime time of something they aired live earlier in the day. First off, people would complain about that. "Why are they showing this again? I already watched this earlier!"

Next... the advertisers wouldn't pay as much for a spot during a re-airing of something already aired earlier... and if the earlier airing isn't at a time when a lot of people are expected to be home, they won't pay much for those spots either.

If NBC can't sell ads and make money... they won't pay to air the Olympics. Then where will we be?

Maybe NBC is paying too much... maybe if they paid less they wouldn't need as much money... but NBC has lost money in years past on the Olympics and still come back for more.

I don't think there is a perfect solution when the Olympics are in a part of the world that is several hours off from us... but you know... not too many years ago, you only had one channel NBC OTA to watch and they couldn't show you everything even if they wanted to... because they only had one channel!

With cable/satellite, we now have multiple channels and more coverage than ever before... also more live coverage than ever before... seems like progress to me.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> James Poniewozik's (Time Magazine critic) tweet seems apropos here. "NBC tape delay coverage is like the airlines: its interest is in giving you the least satisfactory service you will still come back for."
> 
> Keep that bar low NBC #nbcfail


I saw that one, and yes, there's some truth to it. But.. (you know what's coming), the difference is that if I want to go from New York to Los Angeles, I don't have too many options there. And many times, that's more NEED than WANT to have to travel. No one needs to watch the Olympics. Yes, that's a poor excuse for NBC to do things in their best interests rather than their viewers, but I wouldn't say it's all 1 in the same.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Stewart Vernon" said:


> If NBC can't sell ads and make money... they won't pay to air the Olympics. Then where will we be?


We'd be with a different network that might not show as much contempt for their viewers.


----------



## cmasia

Quaker2001 said:


> I'd say there's at least a couple of people here who are doing exactly that.
> 
> In any event, Twitter folks can post the #nbcfail hashtag all they want. I'm fairly confident NBC is aware of it, but then they look at record ratings and have all the reason they need to keep doing what they're doing for the next 2 weeks. There has long been an outcry over NBC's coverage of the Olympics. Twitter merely makes it more public and on the record than it was 4 years ago.


Apparently, not everyone can post on Twitter all they want.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...coverage-of-london-2012-olympics-7987906.html

Just when you thought NBC couldn't look worse...


----------



## anleva

Disagree with that Stewart. 

Even after watching events live there is still so much I've missed I would check in to the evening program to catch me up with all that happened that day. If I see some of the things I have seen I may watch it again in some cases. Worst case I tune out and do something else for a short bit until their next event/segment. 

I'd also love to see an evening Olympics show similar to Sports Center where they quickly go through all that happened that day. 

There is also the opportunity in the evening to do more interviews with athletes post event, to do human interest type stories or to cover an event more in depth. Similar to how a weekly magazine might cover the same story vs. a daily newspaper. 

I think it can be done. I'd still tune in.


----------



## maartena

Stewart Vernon said:


> If NBC can't sell ads and make money... they won't pay to air the Olympics. Then where will we be?


Well that is one of the problems.

CTV paid a total of 63 MILLION dollars for the Summer Games, so in turn, they don't have to run that many commercials to make a profit.

If you would translate this directly to inhabitants and potential viewers, Canada with about 35 Million people, the U.S. with about 305 Million, they paid about 580 MILLION dollars if they were to buy the rights for 305 Million people.

In short: NBC, with its 1.18 BILLION dollars paid pretty much TWICE as much per head. And as such, yes.... they have to turn to the tricks they are turning to to make a profit, while CTV has more liberty to show things live across Canada from east to west.

Of course NBC faced stiff competition from the ABC/ESPN group that wanted the rights.... but I think NBC overpaid and overbid way too much. And like it always is.... we, the people, will pay the price, either through carrier fees through DirecTV, Dish, etc.... or through tape delays that might make it more likely that you watch commercials.

You say where will be then? Well, if NBC decides not to bid on the Olympics of 2022 (till 2020 the rights are secured), it might open up the way for a lower bid from ABC/ESPN.

What happened here is what happened in an old fashioned country house auction. Two people keep bidding for an item that they both really want, and they end up paying way more then the item will ever be worth.


----------



## James Long

Chris Blount said:


> As was mentioned earlier, for the average Joe, the coverage is fine and NBC is making a boat load of money. I do think, however, this might be the last time NBC does it this way. Someone in upper management is going to have to start thinking outside the box. The backlash this time around is going to be hard for NBC to ignore.


I see a lot that NBC has done wrong over the years ... from failed programs that pushed the envelope so far that affiliates dropped shows to cancelling so many shows that some people don't watch out of fear of getting interested in a program just to see it cancelled. They seem to have a reputation.

The backlash to change the Olympic coverage would need to come from their advertisers ... or perhaps their affiliates. Whomever is paying NBC for the programs. If advertisers see no value in the way NBC is presenting the games then adjustments will be made.

It will be done this way next time ... save the best until prime time. The time where the potential audience is the greatest and people continue to watch. If the viewing of Sochi 2014 is down it might get blamed (by the network) on the difference between how much more people care about the games if they are closer to home. Not the tape delay. And with an 8-10 hour difference there is nothing to show live during prime time.

It will be done for 2016 Rio ... Unless major events are live in prime time they will be held until the audience is available to watch - together - in prime time.

The biggest influence on this is not the angry people on blogs and twitter ... it is the people who comes home from work and wants something good on TV. Perhaps increased DVR penetration will change this by 2016 ... but airing programs when people are available to watch them is a key to having an audience.

The major networks don't air their prime time from 3am to 6am where the (current) 42% of Americans with a DVR can record the programs and watch them when they get home. They create event television focused on the 8-11pm timeslot (7-10pm Central). A prime time focus works for all the major networks plus the cable networks.

Television is event based programming. Creating a broadcast event at the time when the most people are available to watch ... and the owners of that content (and the channels that carry it) are most likely to make money.

If there is any change, it will have to be financed so the network carrying the games will still make money --- or at least break even (as NBC might this year). Want to see Michael Phelps swim live at 2:30pm? Pay $100 for the "NBC Live" sports channel.

For those who want NBC to air the content saved for prime time live instead of in prime time - are you willing to pay NBC for the privilege?


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> Disagree with that Stewart.
> 
> Even after watching events live there is still so much I've missed I would check in to the evening program to catch me up with all that happened that day. If I see some of the things I have seen I may watch it again in some cases. Worst case I tune out and do something else for a short bit until their next event/segment.
> 
> I'd also love to see an evening Olympics show similar to Sports Center where they quickly go through all that happened that day.
> 
> There is also the opportunity in the evening to do more interviews with athletes post event, to do human interest type stories or to cover an event more in depth. Similar to how a weekly magazine might cover the same story vs. a daily newspaper.
> 
> I think it can be done. I'd still tune in.


Do you really want to see more of Ryan Seacrest in primetime? NBC already provides more than enough fluff that they don't need to add more.

Primetime can't become a glorified highlights show. There's only so many interviews and features you can show without the actual competition. And besides, after watching all the events live, how much more time do you want to spend in front of your TV watching a recap of everything you've just seen? That's doesn't strike me as appointment television that's going to draw people in.

And in case anyone hasn't seen the latest ratings..
Olympics pull more huge numbers Sunday
NBC'S THREE-DAY AVERAGE VIEWERSHIP OF 35.8 MILLION IS BEST THROUGH THE FIRST WEEKEND OF ANY SUMMER OLYMPICS IN HISTORY

So NBC continues to get validated that they know what they're doing. Angry fans sure, but what they're doing is working and it's getting harder and harder to dispute that.


----------



## ChipperJones

Trying to watch the olympics other than directly on nbc is a pain in the ass, but i love the fact they tried....If the super bowl was any insight, we should have all expected this


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> Of course NBC faced stiff competition from the ABC/ESPN group that wanted the rights.... but I think NBC overpaid and overbid way too much. And like it always is.... we, the people, will pay the price, either through carrier fees through DirecTV, Dish, etc.... or through tape delays that might make it more likely that you watch commercials.


The Disney bid was 3rd in the running. NBC won it with $4.38 billion. I believe Fox was next with around $3.5 billion for 4 Olympics. ESPN/ABC was around $1.4 billion for just the 2 Olympics. Just like with the 2010/2012 bid, NBC overshot and are paying around $800 million more than they need do. You certainly can't blame the IOC for accepting that check, but it also says what Disney thinks of the Olympics. You're 100% right that the viewers get a raw deal, but if NBC thinks they can profit on that number whereas ESPN was only willing to offer 1/3 of what NBC had, did the IOC really have an alternative?


----------



## Quaker2001

ChipperJones said:


> Trying to watch the olympics other than directly on nbc is a pain in the ass, but i love the fact they tried....If the super bowl was any insight, we should have all expected this


Okay, I'll bite.. what about the Super Bowl gave you any indication of what to expect here?


----------



## mrlqban

Quaker2001 said:


> Do you really want to see more of Ryan Seacrest in primetime? NBC already provides more than enough fluff that they don't need to add more.
> 
> Primetime can't become a glorified highlights show. There's only so many interviews and features you can show without the actual competition. And besides, after watching all the events live, how much more time do you want to spend in front of your TV watching a recap of everything you've just seen? That's doesn't strike me as appointment television that's going to draw people in.
> 
> And in case anyone hasn't seen the latest ratings..
> Olympics pull more huge numbers Sunday
> NBC'S THREE-DAY AVERAGE VIEWERSHIP OF 35.8 MILLION IS BEST THROUGH THE FIRST WEEKEND OF ANY SUMMER OLYMPICS IN HISTORY
> 
> So NBC continues to get validated that they know what they're doing. Angry fans sure, but what they're doing is working and it's getting harder and harder to dispute that.


Ok...So 16 million watched day time afternoon show vs 36 mil in primetime?? I wonder how many more would have watched the events in day time afternoon if they would have shown gymnastics, swimming live?? Boring sports 16 mil vs tape delayed/partial events fun sports 36, hmmmm.


----------



## phrelin

Quaker2001 said:


> And in case anyone hasn't seen the latest ratings..
> Olympics pull more huge numbers Sunday
> NBC'S THREE-DAY AVERAGE VIEWERSHIP OF 35.8 MILLION IS BEST THROUGH THE FIRST WEEKEND OF ANY SUMMER OLYMPICS IN HISTORY
> 
> So NBC continues to get validated that they know what they're doing. Angry fans sure, but what they're doing is working and it's getting harder and harder to dispute that.


Yes and no. I'm a GE shareholder and GE owns 49% of NBCU (Comcast owns 51%). So from the perspective of a shareholder, indeed NBCU is doing swell. Except....

I don't think the Olympics coverage should be about maximizing corporate profits to the extreme. Sure, NBCU is in the business of making money. But...

The Opening Ceremonies belongs to the host nation - it's "owned" by the people of that country. It should be treated as one might treat the flag of that nation - carefully, with thoughtful consideration of the meaning of the symbols. Such a ceremony does not need "color commentary" though it might need well-researched information. You don't cut a couple of corners off the flag to make it fit.

NBC's choice to cut the Opening Ceremonies was a bad choice. Choosing what to do with NBC's primetime while the competition is going on is another matter. Of course, we all understand that time does not permit full broadcast network coverage of every competitor in every event. What NBCU has attempted to do with its multi-platform effort deserves some appreciation.

Hopefully they'll make things even better next time.

But I'm still embarrassed as an American about the Opening Ceremonies coverage. It's even more embarrassing because I own a miniscule interest in a company that owns 49% of NBCU.


----------



## Quaker2001

mrlqban said:


> Ok...So 16 million watched day time afternoon show vs 36 mil in primetime?? I wonder how many more would have watched the events in day time afternoon if they would have shown gymnastics, swimming live?? Boring sports 16 mil vs tape delayed/partial events fun sports 36, hmmmm.


Can't answer that one, and I think the competitors in the men's cycling road race and the USA women's basketball team would object to you calling it boring. Why is it boring.. because it's not swimming and gymnastics?

Yea, there probably would have been more than 16 million during the day if marquee events were there. Pretty sure there also would have been less than 36 in primetime if that were the case. And this was a weekend afternoon. It's easier to make that case then (which I wouldn't entirely disagree with) than it is today, a weekday. That's the problem with a 17-day long event that doesn't generally appeal to the weekend afternoon sports fan but does appeal to exactly the type of folks that do most of their TV watching in primetime.



phrelin said:


> Yes and no. I'm a GE shareholder and GE owns 49% of NBCU (Comcast owns 51%). So from the perspective of a shareholder, indeed NBCU is doing swell. Except....
> 
> I don't think the Olympics coverage should be about maximizing corporate profits to the extreme. Sure, NBCU is in the business of making money. But...
> 
> The Opening Ceremonies belongs to the host nation - it's "owned" by the people of that country. It should be treated as one might treat the flag of that nation - carefully, with thoughtful consideration of the meaning of the symbols. Such a ceremony does not need "color commentary" though it might need well-researched information. You don't cut a couple of corners off the flag to make it fit.


Their presentation of the Opening Ceremony was not good, especially with the lack of live coverage. Yes, that should have been better and hopefully they show more respect next time (not counting on it though).

That said, as a shareholder, shouldn't you be rooting for the company to maximize their profits in a case like that? Even if they're pissing people off, all they're doing is depriving people of entertainment. It's not like they're taking money out of everyone's pocket or anything. There's always that small sect of people that claim they'll boycott NBC or not buy the products they're advertising. But my guess is that for all the complaining, once the Olympics are over, everyone will just move on and it will be forgotten about pretty quickly. It's difficult to ask NBC or GE or Comcast or whoever else to take less than they can get when the only benefit they might get is less complaining. There's no dollar value associated with that. If there was, I'm sure NBC would take note.


----------



## Hoosier205

Are NBC talent aware of the existence of any other humans besides those on the NBC payroll?

NBC Interviewed A Random Tourist About The Queen, And Didn't Realize He Was Evander Holyfield


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> Do you really want to see more of Ryan Seacrest in primetime? NBC already provides more than enough fluff that they don't need to add more.
> 
> Primetime can't become a glorified highlights show. There's only so many interviews and features you can show without the actual competition. And besides, after watching all the events live, how much more time do you want to spend in front of your TV watching a recap of everything you've just seen? That's doesn't strike me as appointment television that's going to draw people in.
> 
> And in case anyone hasn't seen the latest ratings..
> Olympics pull more huge numbers Sunday
> NBC'S THREE-DAY AVERAGE VIEWERSHIP OF 35.8 MILLION IS BEST THROUGH THE FIRST WEEKEND OF ANY SUMMER OLYMPICS IN HISTORY
> 
> So NBC continues to get validated that they know what they're doing. Angry fans sure, but what they're doing is working and it's getting harder and harder to dispute that.


Think out of the box Quaker. The 60's are long gone. Happy advertisers, frustrated viewers. #nbcfail


----------



## dpeters11

"cmasia" said:


> Apparently, not everyone can post on Twitter all they want.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nbcfail-journalist-at-the-independent-has-twitter-account-suspended-after-complaining-about-nbcs-coverage-of-london-2012-olympics-7987906.html
> 
> Just when you thought NBC couldn't look worse...


It was a violation of Twitter rules. It wasn't removed because it was critical of NBCs coverage.


----------



## anleva

NBC spoils event for its evening audience



Spoiler



promotes gold medal winning missy franklin on today show just prior to showing the event



nice job NBC! #nbcfail


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> Think out of the box Quaker. The 60's are long gone. Happy advertisers, frustrated viewers. #nbcfail


As opposed to happy viewers and frustrated advertisers? And we've seen frustrated advertisers at an Olympics before, especially in the days of ratings guarantees. Hate to remind you of this again, but NBC cares more about their advertisers than they do their viewers' wants. The status quo is doing NBC just fine, so if you really think they are going to have a sudden change of heart because #nbcfail is now trending, you and everyone else is in for disappointment.


----------



## trh

cmasia said:


> Apparently, not everyone can post on Twitter all they want.





dpeters11 said:


> It was a violation of Twitter rules. It wasn't removed because it was critical of NBCs coverage.


The writer said he found the NBC email on the NBC page. *If true*, it is public information and doesn't violate Twitter's policy of posting private information.

But what I don't like about this is Twitter has double standards. During the Trayvon Martin aftermath, Spike Lee tweeted the home address of George Zimmerman. But he actually posted the address of an elderly couple whose son is named William George Zimmerman; but not the George Zimmerman who shot Trayvon Martin. Roseanne Barr, not to be outdone, posted the correct home address of George Zimmerman's parents.

Both Mr. Lee and Ms. Barr still have active Twitter accounts.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> As opposed to happy viewers and frustrated advertisers? And we've seen frustrated advertisers at an Olympics before, especially in the days of ratings guarantees. Hate to remind you of this again, but NBC cares more about their advertisers than they do their viewers' wants. The status quo is doing NBC just fine, so if you really think they are going to have a sudden change of heart because #nbcfail is now trending, you and everyone else is in for disappointment.


You don't have to remind me of anything Quaker. That point has been obvious to me throughout this thread. NBC is all about its advertisers. And no I don't think they will change. That's why I am watching it live via alternative sources. #nbcfail


----------



## dpeters11

Following Samuel L. Jackson's twitter feed during the Primetime coverage actually helps make up for some deficiencies. He does use adult language however.


----------



## anleva




----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> You don't have to remind me of anything Quaker. That point has been obvious to me throughout this thread. NBC is all about its advertisers. *And no I don't think they will change*. That's why I am watching it live via alternative sources. #nbcfail


And the numbers say they don't need to. A lot of people said in 2008 that was the breaking point and NBC would have to change before 2012. They didn't and even more people are watching than ever before. So that point where the market dictates that they change (and it could come at some point.. just not yet) hasn't arrived yet. Twitter hasn't changed that.. yet.

This is all like in the Simpsons where Lisa says "they can't seriously expect us to swallow that tripe" and then Skinner comes in, "courtesy of our friends at the meat council, please help yourself to this tripe!" And after 2008, Americans are still eating it up. So says the professor from Bovine University.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> And the numbers say they don't need to. A lot of people said in 2008 that was the breaking point and NBC would have to change before 2012. They didn't and even more people are watching than ever before. So that point where the market dictates that they change (and it could come at some point.. just not yet) hasn't arrived yet. Twitter hasn't changed that.. yet.
> 
> This is all like in the Simpsons where Lisa says "they can't seriously expect us to swallow that tripe" and then Skinner comes in, "courtesy of our friends at the meat council, please help yourself to this tripe!" And after 2008, Americans are still eating it up. So says the professor from Bovine University.


*psst don't look at customer satisfaction numbers, those might get ugly*


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> *psst don't look at customer satisfaction numbers, those might get ugly*


*pssst.. don't look at the ratings or else you might find outthat about 30 million people aren't avoiding primetime and maybe aren't as offended by NBC's coverage as social media wants us to believe.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> *pssst.. don't look at the ratings or else you might find outthat about 30 million people aren't avoiding primetime and maybe aren't as offended by NBC's coverage as social media wants us to believe.


And maybe they are as offended as social media is showing us


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> And maybe they are as offended as social media is showing us


And yet they're watching anyway. 40 million people CHOSE to watch the Opening Ceremony, full well knowing it was on delay. I'm not dismissing the Twitter comments, but you also can't dismiss the ratings and say those numbers don't tell a story. And no, I don't believe that story is that Americans are so into the Olympics that they all, on the whole, can't stand the coverage and are dealing with it night after night for hours at a time because there's no better use of their time


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> ratings


The only word you find important in regards to NBC's coverage. Doesn't matter how bad the coverage actually is... the ratings are OK, therefore it is automatically good.

You'd make a good hedge fund manager I would imagine.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> And yet they're watching anyway. 40 million people CHOSE to watch the Opening Ceremony, full well knowing it was on delay. I'm not dismissing the Twitter comments, but you also can't dismiss the ratings and say those numbers don't tell a story. And no, I don't believe that story is that Americans are so into the Olympics that they all, on the whole, can't stand the coverage and are dealing with it night after night for hours at a time because there's no better use of their time


No reason for NBC to worry about Twitter. It's just viewers, not advertisers. Advertisers are very pleased.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> No reason for NBC to worry about Twitter. It's just viewers, not advertisers. Advertisers are very pleased.





maartena said:


> The only word you find important in regards to NBC's coverage. Doesn't matter how bad the coverage actually is... the ratings are OK, therefore it is automatically good.
> 
> You'd make a good hedge fund manager I would imagine.


What do ratings measure.. the number of people watching a television show. In other words, the number of viewers. I don't know enough about the advertising industry to know whether or not happy viewers buy advertised products in greater numbers than unhappy viewers. I don't have the answer to that one. What I do know is that NBC's Olympics coverage, which apparently got a lot more objectionable since 4 years ago, has more people watching (all on tape, no less) than last time out.

I am not making the argument that NBC's coverage is good (which is very subjective to begin with). I'm making the argument that NBC's coverage is serving their means and drawing people to watch. And what I do know about television ratings is that the placement of a program (when it's on, where it's on, and what else is on around it) often has as big an effect on the ratings as the quality of the program itself.


----------



## makaiguy

yawn ...


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> What do ratings measure.. the number of people watching a television show. In other words, the number of viewers. I don't know enough about the advertising industry to know whether or not happy viewers buy advertised products in greater numbers than unhappy viewers. I don't have the answer to that one. What I do know is that NBC's Olympics coverage, which apparently got a lot more objectionable since 4 years ago, has more people watching (all on tape, no less) than last time out.
> 
> I am not making the argument that NBC's coverage is good (which is very subjective to begin with). I'm making the argument that NBC's coverage is serving their means and drawing people to watch. And what I do know about television ratings is that the placement of a program (when it's on, where it's on, and what else is on around it) often has as big an effect on the ratings as the quality of the program itself.


Since NBC isn't doing anything different than they have always done seems to me any number increases are due to increased overall interest in the event itself and not due to anything specific that NBC is doing. People want to watch the Olympics and watching on NBC is the only game in town for the mainstream. Some of the numbers coming out of Canada seem to bear that out.


----------



## mrlqban

Quaker2001 said:


> I am not making the argument that NBC's coverage is good (which is very subjective to begin with). I'm making the argument that NBC's coverage is serving their means and drawing people to watch....


...to watch...[a highlights show] :uglyhamme


----------



## Quaker2001

mrlqban said:


> ...to watch...[a highlights show] :uglyhamme


Yup, a lot of people out there watch tape-delayed Olympics. Who knew! Wait, that's right.. NBC did.



anleva said:


> Since NBC isn't doing anything different than they have always done seems to me any number increases are due to increased overall interest in the event itself and not due to anything specific that NBC is doing. People want to watch the Olympics and watching on NBC is the only game in town for the mainstream. Some of the numbers coming out of Canada seem to bear that out.


That's a valid argument. But what you do think drives interest in an event? What is it about these Olympics that are more appealing than the live one? And there was a TON of hype attached to Beijing, moreso it seems than what they had for London. I remember the tagline for the Opening Ceremony called it "the event of the decade" in the lead-up.

You assume none of that increase has anything to do with NBC and that the event just got better since 2008. They were expecting lower ratings this time around, in large part because there's no live coverage in primetime this year, you don't have Phelps going for gold, and it seems like there's a lack of fresh storylines this time around. But here's some food for thought, because NBC absolutely is doing something they didn't do last time.. they're streaming all the events online. NBC said part of the strategy was hoping that you'd see an event live online and then the buzz would fuel viewership for the primetime show. Well.. is it inconceivable to say that's what's happening? Social media is a powerful thing and maybe it's a similar effect up in Canada. Something has to be fueling the surge in viewership and I don't think it's so plain as to simply say there's more interest in the Olympics, especially that NBC has gotten so much criticism in the past. That's certainly nothing new.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The Olympics really aren't made for television, if you stop to think about it.

Consider a Carnival, only much bigger. You can't show all the stuff happening simultaneously at a carnival.. and even if you could, something would be lost. I have to think the thing about the Olympics would be actually being there in person for the events and the experiences. Everything else will pale in comparison.

So we get what we get... which is far more than we got say 20 years ago.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> Yup, a lot of people out there watch tape-delayed Olympics. Who knew! Wait, that's right.. NBC did.
> 
> That's a valid argument. But what you do think drives interest in an event? What is it about these Olympics that are more appealing than the live one? And there was a TON of hype attached to Beijing, moreso it seems than what they had for London. I remember the tagline for the Opening Ceremony called it "the event of the decade" in the lead-up.
> 
> You assume none of that increase has anything to do with NBC and that the event just got better since 2008. They were expecting lower ratings this time around, in large part because there's no live coverage in primetime this year, you don't have Phelps going for gold, and it seems like there's a lack of fresh storylines this time around. But here's some food for thought, because NBC absolutely is doing something they didn't do last time.. they're streaming all the events online. NBC said part of the strategy was hoping that you'd see an event live online and then the buzz would fuel viewership for the primetime show. Well.. is it inconceivable to say that's what's happening? Social media is a powerful thing and maybe it's a similar effect up in Canada. Something has to be fueling the surge in viewership and I don't think it's so plain as to simply say there's more interest in the Olympics, especially that NBC has gotten so much criticism in the past. That's certainly nothing new.


NBC's online coverage has gotten panned. It's been pretty bad. Stuttering, pixelating, freezing. Not sure if it is all events but the few events I've checked out there are no announcers either. And an ugly black bar around three borders so you can't get true full screen. No repeats and ability to re watch until after it is shown on TV. I quickly went back to the BBC after I saw how bad it was.

I suppose if you believe that all publicity is good publicity the incredible amount of negative publicity NBC is getting now via social media may be driving people to watch. So maybe #nbcfail is helping NBC?

So no, I don't think NBC is doing anything special. Success seems to be happening in spite of them.

Again, Canada is also have a surge in ratings. Is NBC causing that too? What about other countries, also having a surge?

#nbcfail


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> NBC's online coverage has gotten panned. It's been pretty bad. Stuttering, pixelating, freezing. Not sure if it is all events but the few events I've checked out there are no announcers either. And an ugly black bar around three borders so you can't get true full screen. No repeats and ability to re watch until after it is shown on TV. I quickly went back to the BBC after I saw how bad it was.


Couple of things there.. they said there wouldn't be announcers on some events. That was the plan (similar to Beijing) where they're just giving you the pure world feed. And the archiving only applies to certain events, not all of them. Of course, you'll probably tell me that it applies to the ones that matter, so everything else that is available on demand doesn't count.



anleva said:


> I suppose if you believe that all publicity is good publicity the incredible amount of negative publicity NBC is getting now via social media may be driving people to watch. So maybe #nbcfail is helping NBC?
> 
> So no, I don't think NBC is doing anything special. Success seems to be happening in spite of them.
> 
> Again, Canada is also have a surge in ratings. Is NBC causing that too? What about other countries, also having a surge?
> 
> #nbcfail


Not necessarily #nbcfail, but social media in general. It's a way of generating buzz. Someone can be watching Missy Franklin online and tell all his/her friends 'you should check this out later.' That's what NBC is trying to do with the streaming. And that the ratings are up when it wasn't expected they would be, it's certainly a possibility. Again, you're looking at all the negative backlash against NBC and everyone's best explanation for the ratings is that the Olympics have gotten that much better since last time and that's the real reason for the uptick in ratings. I don't know about other countries, nor can I explain Canada (although Vancouver 2010 may have a spillover effect to this).

Either way, there has to be some explanation for this renewed interest in the Olympics. I'd like to think it's more than "it's happening just because it's happening" and that little to nothing NBC has done or is doing is causing their success.


----------



## inkahauts

"Quaker2001" said:


> Couple of things there.. they said there wouldn't be announcers on some events. That was the plan (similar to Beijing) where they're just giving you the pure world feed. And the archiving only applies to certain events, not all of them. Of course, you'll probably tell me that it applies to the ones that matter, so everything else that is available on demand doesn't count.
> 
> Not necessarily #nbcfail, but social media in general. It's a way of generating buzz. Someone can be watching Missy Franklin online and tell all his/her friends 'you should check this out later.' That's what NBC is trying to do with the streaming. And that the ratings are up when it wasn't expected they would be, it's certainly a possibility. Again, you're looking at all the negative backlash against NBC and everyone's best explanation for the ratings is that the Olympics have gotten that much better since last time and that's the real reason for the uptick in ratings. I don't know about other countries, nor can I explain Canada (although Vancouver 2010 may have a spillover effect to this).
> 
> Either way, there has to be some explanation for this renewed interest in the Olympics. I'd like to think it's more than "it's happening just because it's happening" and that little to nothing NBC has done or is doing is causing their success.


I think it's likely more social and economically driven looking for something good to get behind than to do with anything NBC has done.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> Couple of things there.. they said there wouldn't be announcers on some events. That was the plan (similar to Beijing) where they're just giving you the pure world feed. And the archiving only applies to certain events, not all of them. Of course, you'll probably tell me that it applies to the ones that matter, so everything else that is available on demand doesn't count.


No I told you the issues I had with the NBC's online strategy and why it is not working for me and many others. NBC can choose to ignore customer feedback. Could have been so much better.



Quaker2001 said:


> Not necessarily #nbcfail, but social media in general. It's a way of generating buzz. Someone can be watching Missy Franklin online and tell all his/her friends 'you should check this out later.' That's what NBC is trying to do with the streaming. And that the ratings are up when it wasn't expected they would be, it's certainly a possibility. Again, you're looking at all the negative backlash against NBC and everyone's best explanation for the ratings is that the Olympics have gotten that much better since last time and that's the real reason for the uptick in ratings. I don't know about other countries, nor can I explain Canada (although Vancouver 2010 may have a spillover effect to this).
> 
> Either way, there has to be some explanation for this renewed interest in the Olympics. I'd like to think it's more than "it's happening just because it's happening" and that little to nothing NBC has done or is doing is causing their success.


Yes it does create buzz, unfortunately mostly negative buzz for the NBC brand at the moment. It's a shame as this could have been the Olympics where NBC really took advantage of social media. The scenario you describe is not working as well as it could have under a tape delay scenario. If everyone was seeing the event live people everywhere could be using twitter to react to what they watched and create that buzz you described. Unfortunately with it being shown on tape delay at different times in the US many people actually are now avoiding twitter so they don't get the event spoiled. Actually NBC is doing a great job it appears spoiling events before they happen even on air.

So how are the ratings in other countries? If they are up as well (they are in Canada) that may help answer your question on whether it is NBC's doing or broader trends.


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> Either way, there has to be some explanation for this renewed interest in the Olympics. I'd like to think it's more than "it's happening just because it's happening" and that little to nothing NBC has done or is doing is causing their success.


Part of it was that it was hyped up. Phelps winning 8 gold in 2008, which four years later turned in to "can he do it again, and can he become the most decorated Olympian in history"? Over the last few months I have seen WAY more ads for the Olympics then I remember seeing in 2008.

Another thing is.... people have a lot closer connections to Great Britain than to China. I can't tell you how many people say that right after they want the U.S. to win medals, the U.K. is their second choice as the host nation. The U.K. is more accessible, it is an ally, and many more people have been there than people have been to China. Location, location, location. Among Americans, there was not the same sentiment towards China. They didn't want China to win medals like they want the U.K. to succeed with these games.

NBC has also given us much more access to Olympic Trials. In 2008 they broadcasted much less trials, and this year they put many of the trials on prime time, live, on NBC main network. (Or, of course.... with a 3 hour time delay for the west who are not worthy.) In 2008 you mostly had to go find them on Universal Sports, which COULD be gotten OTA at the time, but not on Dish/DirecTV. During the trials this year, there has been so many Universal Sports free trials, you could have probably seen most of it without needing sports pack.

I already knew who Missy Franklin was.... because I saw her on NBC before the Olympics even started.

In any case, there are many factors in play. Can't be put on a single thing. But I do believe London vs Beijing (and in many older minds: Democratic, free, ally vs: Communist, rival, job thieves.) has played big a factor in these Olympics being more popular.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> So how are the ratings in other countries? If they are up as well (they are in Canada) that may help answer your question on whether it is NBC's doing or broader trends.


The only other country I've seen any hint of ratings for is from BBC and obviously you can't really compare them to anything since they're the host country. I think we can both agree that Twitter has had some negative effects on NBC's coverage but also some positive effects as well. You say "if everyone was seeing the event live".. well, the people most likely to be using Twitter and creating that buzz and the ones more likely to be watching on their computer and not just on TV. Yes, the streaming quality has been bad, but again, most people in the United States CAN watch any live and don't have to avoid Twitter or any other social media outlets. Whereas much of the audience watching on TV maybe isn't as big on Twitter and/or isn't as turned off by knowing the results as it seems.

I've made this argument at past Olympics and it still applies here.. how many people found out Missy Franklin had won the gold (and not just from the Today Show promo, which was a pretty stupid gaffe) and tuned in BECAUSE of it to see video of the race instead of not wanting to tune in. You and others seem to be looking for any reason other than give the slightest amount of credit to NBC to explain it. NBC was banking on social media driving interest in the Olympics. So far it seems that's what's happening, so I think it's unfair to say this is all happening in spite of them when part of their strategy was for social media to help them. And it seems like it has.


----------



## maartena

anleva said:


> So how are the ratings in other countries? If they are up as well (they are in Canada) that may help answer your question on whether it is NBC's doing or broader trends.


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/london-2012-olympics-watch-tv-canada-355625

The opening ceremony, which was LIVE, I repeat, LIVE in Canada, was seen by 6.4 million Canadians in its entirety, (or 20% of the population) and 16.6 million Canadians saw at least PART of it live (or 50% of the population).

Granted, the U.K. has a special bond with Canada, the queen being on their money to this day, and they just came off of organizing an Olympics in 2010. Nevertheless, those are some impressive numbers.

So in essence, while NBC paid, calculated per head of the population, about twice as much for the broadcasting of the Olympics, CTV is getting a lot better ratings, at least for the opening ceremony.

Who woulda thunk this "LIVE" thing with the ceremonies actually worked.


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> The only other country I've seen any hint of ratings for is from BBC and obviously you can't really compare them to anything since they're the host country. .


You didn't actually put "CTV Olympics Ratings" in Google, or you would have seen this:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/29/record-ratings-for-opening-ceremony


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> In any case, there are many factors in play. Can't be put on a single thing. But I do believe London vs Beijing (and in many older minds: Democratic, free, ally vs: Communist, rival, job thieves.) has played big a factor in these Olympics being more popular.


My cousin, who happens to be in London right now, said that a lot of Americans would be intrigued by the London because of our ties to the U.K. I certainly buy that, but China was supposed to be this big mysterious nation no one was familiar with. That's why their Opening Ceremony was hyped as such a mega-event whereas London's was more just an Olympics Opening Ceremony. Let alone that you had something of a rivalry going on last time, the U.S. versus China. A lot of people have said the Olympics lost their punch a little after the cold war because the United States no longer had a heated rival in the Soviets.

Yes, the trials coverage in the lead-up was a big help. They have a cable sports network they didn't have 4 years ago that they've been building up for months now. Probably didn't hurt matters they had this year's Super Bowl.

That all said though, you're talking about live from Beijing versus taped for London. Phelps going for 8 medals versus Phelps having scaled back his program. Usain Bolt a 2nd time after a 1st performance that he literally can't top. It goes both ways. You're absolutely right there's a lot of factors. But the predictions were all that a taped London Olympics couldn't top a live Beijing Olympics, because that should have been the biggest factor of all. Yet here we are. And for people to say that NBC hasn't had anything to do with the increase in viewers I think is an unfair assessment.


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> You didn't actually put "CTV Olympics Ratings" in Google, or you would have seen this:
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2012/07/29/record-ratings-for-opening-ceremony


Already saw it, we started talking about it in post 231. This is what we've been discussing with regard to the uptick in Canadian ratings. Unfortunately, we haven't seen anything regarding ratings for them since then or anything from other countries as another basis of comparison. Yes, those numbers are extremely impressive. But that's not an indictment against NBC to not show them live when they got the viewership they did.


----------



## maartena

anleva said:


> It's a shame as this could have been the Olympics where NBC really took advantage of social media.


You really only can take advantage if social media if you broadcast, - tape delayed or not - at the same time to the ENTIRE United States. It really doesn't help if you use social media during the evening broadcast to communicate with 220 million potential viewers, while leaving 80 million viewers with spoilers because they didn't get to see it yet. Social media is instant. People will be able to hide their news popups and tweets from the live events, but expecting it to work when 75% of the U.S sees it at one time, while the other 25% sees it 3 hours later, is just impossible.

And it's a shame. A whopping 76 athletes out of the 530 that the U.S. has sent are from right here in Orange County. Yes, I am talking a county that represents 1% of the population, sending 15% of the athletes.... Again, a county, not a state. Although the state of California probably send about a third in total anyways.

Misty & Kerri train right here in Huntington Beach, and are hugely popular here.

If you really want to incorporate social media into your broadcasts, the FIRST thing you need to do is make sure that ALL Americans can see it at the SAME TIME.

Olympic broadcasts go from 20:00 to 0:00, so that would be 17:00 till 21:00 on the west coast. You can't tell me they can't work out a schedule where locals get access to the 16:00-17:00 time slot, the 21:00 to 21:35 time slot, after which the west coast can just pick up the "late night" coverage with Mary.

That whole situation with the 3 hours delay.... pisses me off WAY WAY WAY more than the initial tape delay to move some events to prime time. It needs to air to the United States if America as a whole.


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> Already saw it, we started talking about it in post 231. This is what we've been discussing with regard to the uptick in Canadian ratings. Unfortunately, we haven't seen anything regarding ratings for them since then or anything from other countries as another basis of comparison. Yes, those numbers are extremely impressive. But that's not an indictment against NBC to not show them live when they got the viewership they did.


I'd say it is.

They got 20% of the country to watch them LIVE, with 50% of the country to turn in PART of the time.

The U.S. got about 12% of the country to watch them DELAYED. That is quite a difference.

We'll probably see some more CTV ratings come down the pipe line.

Here's some from Australia:

http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2012/07/51-7-olympics-share-lights-up-nines-numbers.html

They too, broadcasted the ceremony live.... at 6:00AM in the morning, and drew impressive ratings, especially for the time it aired. Funny fact is that a rerun of Fresh Prince of Bel Air which was scheduled to air right after the opening as part of their regular day time programming at 9:30 AM drew IMPRESSIVE ratings all over sudden.


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> You really only can take advantage if social media if you broadcast, - tape delayed or not - at the same time to the ENTIRE United States. It really doesn't help if you use social media during the evening broadcast to communicate with 220 million potential viewers, while leaving 80 million viewers with spoilers because they didn't get to see it yet. Social media is instant. People will be able to hide their news popups and tweets from the live events, but expecting it to work when 75% of the U.S sees it at one time, while the other 25% sees it 3 hours later, is just impossible.


Social media is about the individual, not the group. All these people are tweeting what they're following when they're following it, not at 8pm when NBC is showing it on TV. It's about what's happening when these events are live. Everyone was joking how NBC was live tweeting the Opening Ceremony that they were saving for primetime. They weren't tweeting the TV broadcast as it was going on and that had nothing to do with the West coast.

Yes, West coasters get the shaft, but that's on your affiliate, not the network. They wanted to the delays so they can keep their afternoon news/local programming block intact, then have late local news when it would normally air. Sure they could do what you're suggesting, but that's not going to work for the affiliates. Even still, I understand the West coast concerns from Beijing when stuff was live (and much later in the evening). Here it doesn't seem as big of a deal to me, although yes that's coming from someone who's not on the West coast. Primetime is a taped show anyway, so is it that big a deal when it's later in the evening? Especially when the live streaming is available to both coasts at the same time and that's what's driving social media in the first place, not the taped broadcasts.


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> They got 20% of the country to watch them LIVE, with 50% of the country to turn in PART of the time.
> 
> The U.S. got about 12% of the country to watch them DELAYED. That is quite a difference.


Much easier to draw bigger shares of an audience in a smaller country than it is in a larger one. Especially for all these countries (most notably Australia) for whom the Olympics is the biggest and most important sporting event out there. That's never been true here so it doesn't necessarily follow to say what works there would work here. Everyone can point to numbers from other countries and say "see, see NBC, that's what you should do and we'd be watching." I remain skeptical because the Olympics will NEVER be as big here as they are in Australia.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> The only other country I've seen any hint of ratings for is from BBC and obviously you can't really compare them to anything since they're the host country. I think we can both agree that Twitter has had some negative effects on NBC's coverage but also some positive effects as well. You say "if everyone was seeing the event live".. well, the people most likely to be using Twitter and creating that buzz and the ones more likely to be watching on their computer and not just on TV. Yes, the streaming quality has been bad, but again, most people in the United States CAN watch any live and don't have to avoid Twitter or any other social media outlets. Whereas much of the audience watching on TV maybe isn't as big on Twitter and/or isn't as turned off by knowing the results as it seems.
> 
> I've made this argument at past Olympics and it still applies here.. how many people found out Missy Franklin had won the gold (and not just from the Today Show promo, which was a pretty stupid gaffe) and tuned in BECAUSE of it to see video of the race instead of not wanting to tune in. You and others seem to be looking for any reason other than give the slightest amount of credit to NBC to explain it. NBC was banking on social media driving interest in the Olympics. So far it seems that's what's happening, so I think it's unfair to say this is all happening in spite of them when part of their strategy was for social media to help them. And it seems like it has.


NBC's social media strategy and event promotion is a mess with tape delay. They blew the opportunity to truly converge social media and TV and maximize its impact. They live tweet all the results and then follow it up later by pretending it never happened to promote an event they already spoiled. They air a Today show promotion that spoils the event they are just about to show. Even NBC is getting confused in this space-time continuum.

I still can't believe there isn't a business model to just show live events both online and on television with a show in the evening. To provide a better online experience that has both the feed and the announcers as well as connection quality. You can't possibly view all the events live, especially during the week. I'd still tune in to an evening show.

NBC put advertisers and its financials ahead of viewers. I get the decision they made, it makes sense from a financial perspective and what we are seeing in coverage is a result of those priorities. But they did it at the expense of many of their viewers. They can't have it both ways and now come out and still pretend that viewer wants and needs are a priority and are being fully satisfied. They aren't.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> I still can't believe there isn't a business model to just show live events both online and on television with a show in the evening. To provide a better online experience that has both the feed and the announcers as well as connection quality. You can't possibly view all the events live, especially during the week. I'd still tune in to an evening show.


The whole idea of showing all the competition online is that it's a different product than you'd get on television. That's the idea that maybe you'd consume the same event twice. But when you show something on TV, how do you make the 2nd showing on TV different that people would consume it again, let alone in the numbers they're currently getting. Again, it's not like NBC isn't showing anything in the daytime. Like you said.. you can't possibly view everything live, so they choose some events to show and others they save for the evening. Yes, it's a little disingenuous to still present those events as they're happening, but a lot of folks out there either don't know (yes, viewers can be that stupid sometimes, mostly the ones NOT on Twitter) or don't care.



> NBC put advertisers and its financials ahead of viewers. I get the decision they made, it makes sense from a financial perspective and what we are seeing in coverage is a result of those priorities. But they did it at the expense of many of their viewers. They can't have it both ways and now come out and still pretend that viewer wants and needs are a priority and are being fully satisfied. They aren't.


They offered streaming of every event (yea yea, except the ceremonies, and believe me I'm as pissed as the rest of you over that one) where they didn't from Beijing. Maybe it's not enough, but that's progress. The problem remains how to satisfy viewers and how to satisfy advertisers. It's tough to tow that line and make both happy. And if you can't do both, you know which one gets priority. Talking about ratings makes this all seem very business-like and less personable, but the fact remains that ratings measure the number of people watching. It doesn't make a distinction between who is unhappy with coverage and who isn't because it doesn't have to. Until a value can get placed on the satisfaction of a viewer when watching a program in monetary terms, it's not going to make a difference. If it did, you could bet the farm that NBC would take notice. For all their bad decisions, they're not that stupid to ignore it if their advertisers (who have their own research and information as well) were driving the boat in another direction. And that hasn't happened yet. When it does (and I say 'when' because at some point it will) is when we'll see more meaningful change.


----------



## anleva

Honestly I just hope that inside the ranks of NBC they will become more willing to listen to and address the concerns of their viewers on this rather than get defensive and brush this off as just being fringe element twitter people and believing that since our ratings are increasing everyone must be happy and we must be doing everything right. However the comments I've read thus far on this and the history of NBC's coverage don't give me much confidence. Those are the talking points. And as you said don't expect a change.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> Honestly I just hope that inside the ranks of NBC they will become more willing to listen to and address the concerns of their viewers on this rather than get defensive and brush this off as just being fringe element twitter people and believing that since our ratings are increasing everyone must be happy and we must be doing everything right. However the comments I've read thus far on this and the history of NBC's coverage don't give me much confidence. Those are the talking points. And as you said don't expect a change.


The thing to keep in mind, and I brought this up earlier.. NBC bid for these Olympics in 2003. It pre-dates the Comcast merger and still has Dick Ebersol's fingerprints all over it even though he's no longer running the same. But when Comcast came in, then we hear live streaming of all events and increased coverage on the cable networks. And starting in 2014, they're the ones who offered the IOC that big check, so it's on them as much as the folks at GE who used to have complete control of NBC Olympics to make it work. Not that Comcast has a stellar reputation for customer service, but I think with them making the decisions, they'll be more adaptable than the folks at NBCU have been because they're the ones I feel who are more unwilling to mess with what they believe is a winning formula because they're resistant to change.

So I don't know if things will be different come 2014. I've been saying for years that if the ratings ever dropped off, NBC would absolutely have to take notice. That hasn't happened yet. I don't know if they're going to wait for that to happen before they do anything about it, but we're getting closer and closer to the point where things have to change. Either way, Comcast (as 51% owner of NBCU) has invested their money in making this work. Going forward, it's on them as well.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> The thing to keep in mind, and I brought this up earlier.. NBC bid for these Olympics in 2003. It pre-dates the Comcast merger and still has Dick Ebersol's fingerprints all over it even though he's no longer running the same. But when Comcast came in, then we hear live streaming of all events and increased coverage on the cable networks. And starting in 2014, they're the ones who offered the IOC that big check, so it's on them as much as the folks at GE who used to have complete control of NBC Olympics to make it work. Not that Comcast has a stellar reputation for customer service, but I think with them making the decisions, they'll be more adaptable than the folks at NBCU have been because they're the ones I feel who are more unwilling to mess with what they believe is a winning formula because they're resistant to change.
> 
> So I don't know if things will be different come 2014. I've been saying for years that if the ratings ever dropped off, NBC would absolutely have to take notice. That hasn't happened yet. I don't know if they're going to wait for that to happen before they do anything about it, but we're getting closer and closer to the point where things have to change. Either way, Comcast (as 51% owner of NBCU) has invested their money in making this work. Going forward, it's on them as well.


If NBCU and Comcast are waiting for the ratings to drop off, god help us. Change will not happen or we will be waiting for a very long while until a more innovative organization wins the bid. If they view ratings in a monopolistic vacuum and as a validation that change is unnecessary we will be stuck with this coverage for a long while. Meanwhile 64 territories in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa get better coverage than we do.


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> Yes, West coasters get the shaft, but that's on your affiliate, not the network. They wanted to the delays so they can keep their afternoon news/local programming block intact, then have late local news when it would normally air.


That is a BS argument.

For other sports events (e.g. the NHL Stanley Cup finals, which drew LESS viewers than the Olympics) the local affiliates will gladly move aside. For events on other networks, even non-sport related ones like Emmy's, Oscar's, etc, local affiliates will gladly move aside. (Those are usually covered on ABC, but maybe ABC is just a little more thorough in making sure they get live coverage nationwide.)

Monday Night Football aired for more than THIRTY YEARS on ABC, and for the west coast.... Monday night news was just done a little early so they could fit in the games.

NBC had YEARS, *YEARS* to come to an agreement with the local affiliates to do their Olympics coverage, and they could have come up with a perfect schedule that would give the affiliates a good block of time - more or less like I posted somewhere above.

When ABC did the Olympics in 1984? EVERYTHING was aired at the same time to both the west coast and the east coast. A LOT was live, some of it was still tape delayed at the time because of technological challenges, but America got to see the games at the SAME time.

The 1980 Winter Olympics? The "Miracle on Ice" game between the Soviets and the U.S. was not broadcasted live... (it was in Canada), but it WAS broadcasted at the SAME time for everyone in the United States.

There really is no excuse for that. They just thought they would probably get even more profits that way, and hide behind a pathetic excuse: "Boohoo, the affiliates won't let us!".

As for the closing ceremony.... I have NO CONFIDENCE WHATSOEVER that NBC will allow us to see the WHOLE THING. They will probably just cut things out again so they can fit in more commercials or worthless interviews.


----------



## zeus

I am not sure if it is a Directv authentication issue or an NBC issue, but I can only stay logged into the the NBC extra feeds for about 5 seconds and then I am round housed right back to the select your TV provider page. I was able to get in on Saturday, but got kicked out during the medal race and have not been able to get past this point since.

/frustrating


----------



## inkahauts

"Quaker2001" said:


> My cousin, who happens to be in London right now, said that a lot of Americans would be intrigued by the London because of our ties to the U.K. I certainly buy that, but China was supposed to be this big mysterious nation no one was familiar with. That's why their Opening Ceremony was hyped as such a mega-event whereas London's was more just an Olympics Opening Ceremony. Let alone that you had something of a rivalry going on last time, the U.S. versus China. A lot of people have said the Olympics lost their punch a little after the cold war because the United States no longer had a heated rival in the Soviets.
> 
> Yes, the trials coverage in the lead-up was a big help. They have a cable sports network they didn't have 4 years ago that they've been building up for months now. Probably didn't hurt matters they had this year's Super Bowl.
> 
> That all said though, you're talking about live from Beijing versus taped for London. Phelps going for 8 medals versus Phelps having scaled back his program. Usain Bolt a 2nd time after a 1st performance that he literally can't top. It goes both ways. You're absolutely right there's a lot of factors. But the predictions were all that a taped London Olympics couldn't top a live Beijing Olympics, because that should have been the biggest factor of all. Yet here we are. And for people to say that NBC hasn't had anything to do with the increase in viewers I think is an unfair assessment.


If anything, people like seeing if phelps and usain can add to their legacies, and if they can repeat incredible performances after aging four years, then in essence they are literally topping their performances from before. People watch tiger today because they want to see if he can get another, not because they want to see if he's really good.... We already know the answer to that.

You give NBC to much credit. Everyone bids like crazy on the Olympics because everyone knows they will always be very very big. The small increases are because people want to see what the is and other can build n from the last ones, not because NBC is doing a good job.


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> That is a BS argument.
> 
> For other sports events (e.g. the NHL Stanley Cup finals, which drew LESS viewers than the Olympics) the local affiliates will gladly move aside. For events on other networks, even non-sport related ones like Emmy's, Oscar's, etc, local affiliates will gladly move aside. (Those are usually covered on ABC, but maybe ABC is just a little more thorough in making sure they get live coverage nationwide.)
> 
> Monday Night Football aired for more than THIRTY YEARS on ABC, and for the west coast.... Monday night news was just done a little early so they could fit in the games.


Oy.. do I need to get into the difference between a tape-delayed football game and a tape-delayed Olympics? There is a difference, believe it or not. And there's nothing "gladly" about a West coast affiliate blowing out afternoon programming, especially for 17 straight days. Some West coast affiliates did tape delay football back in the day so it's not like there isn't a precedent, either.

Regardless, you seem to want to blame NBC and not even consider that not everything is directly their fault. That the affiliates asked for a delayed primetime show, is not an argument, it's a FACT. Don't believe me? Check out these articles..

NBC Goes to Tape for Winter Games
NBC Reluctantly Oks Olympics Tape-Delay
NBC to show Salt Lake Games on tape delay on West Coast

Now unless you think there's some sort of media propaganda here, Dick Ebersol wanted to show the primetime coverage the 2002 Winter Olympics (held in this country, of course) live to both coasts. The affiliates told them no because their research (and yes, their financial interests) told them it would be smarter to delay the show and preserve their local newscasts. Don't assume this decision came from the top and filtered down. Apparently it went the other way around and apparently a lot of affiliates thought this was the smart decision. Again, this isn't an opinion or mine or an argument I'm trying to make. This is how it happened, and I imagine has continued to happen since then, especially for Beijing and Vancouver where coverage was available live to the East coast. And again, remember that affiliates in most cities are NOT owned by NBC. That's what makes television in this country different than elsewhere. It's why NBC can't impose a decision on all of their affiliates and ask them to accept it. Maybe ABC is different (or was in 1984) than NBC. But this is the reality of the situation in a country where we're spread across 4 time zones (really 6 if you include Alaska and Hawaii) and the television business is set up the way it is.


----------



## Quaker2001

inkahauts said:


> If anything, people like seeing if phelps and usain can add to their legacies, and if they can repeat incredible performances after aging four years, then in essence they are literally topping their performances from before. People watch tiger today because they want to see if he can get another, not because they want to see if he's really good.... We already know the answer to that.
> 
> You give NBC to much credit. Everyone bids like crazy on the Olympics because everyone knows they will always be very very big. The small increases are because people want to see what the is and other can build n from the last ones, not because NBC is doing a good job.


That's just it though.. the Olympics have gone through varying levels of viewership, largely based on where they're held. And there have been years where NBC has made ratings guarantees to their sponsors and fallen short. Either way, NBC execs and industry experts all predicted ratings would be down this time around for varying reasons, most notably the lack of live coverage.

Maybe I am giving NBC too much credit, but there are too many people out there not giving them any credit. They have made some improvements since 2008, but everyone is so blinded by rage about the primetime coverage that they haven't noticed. Every event is being streamed online (albeit with some technical difficulties that have at least gotten better since the start). NBC's afternoon coverage has gone from 3 hours to 7 and much of it is live (yes, I Know, only to the East coast). There's an all sports network in NBC's coffers providing nearly 300 hours of coverage, more than any single network has had in this country before. Basketball, soccer, tennis, boxing.. all with huge amounts of coverage (mostly live) that fans of those sports are probably loving. Yet all people want to talk about is NBC's primetime show as if nothing else is out there. And it's not like the complaints haven't been there before. The only difference is that now everyone and their mother has a social media outlet with which to share their thoughts with the world.

Clearly something is driving these increases in viewership. Some of it is the event, I think a lot of it has to do with social media, but I think far too many people are overstating how much of a negative NBC is. When you think about it, maybe it's not the Olympics that have changed, it's everyone else and their media habits that have. Like I keep saying.. NBC is not unaware of these things, but the fact remains that the numbers are telling them that what they've been doing in terms of coverage is still serving its means and all the Twitter complaining does not indicate that NBC is losing out by doing what they're doing. Of course that's more a financial argument than anything which sucks if you're a viewer with a brain rather than most of the lemmings out there watching all the coverage.

Things will change when NBC and Comcast think they NEED to change. We're not at 'need' yet, we're still at 'want.' Doesn't necessarily mean they'll wait for the ratings drop before they do anything about it (although Sochi 2014 could get ugly), but all the backlash in the world from Twitter means nothing to them unless it hurts their bank account.


----------



## thelucky1

Most of the announcers are boring and very annoying!


----------



## James Long

maartena said:


> The opening ceremony, which was LIVE, I repeat, LIVE in Canada, was seen by 6.4 million Canadians in its entirety, (or 20% of the population) and 16.6 million Canadians saw at least PART of it live (or 50% of the population).


The 6.4 million figure was not in the earliest mention of the Canadian ratings. It helps put the entire number in perspective.

A constant 6.4 million with a peak of 8.1 million when the caldron was lit. A grand total of 16.6 million viewers.

One thing to note from the article: "The Olympic Broadcast Broadcast Media Consortium grabbed an average audience of 6.4 million Canadian TV viewers for the live broadcast of the opening ceremony from London, *ahead of the delayed coverage on NBC stateside.*"

Canadian satellite carriers carry NBC ... and most Canadians live along the border with the US where many could receive an NBC signal. Had Canada delayed their coverage (or NBC gone "live") CTV would have been going up head to head with NBC - and probably would have lost viewers to NBC.

It would be interesting to see more on who those 20% who watched the whole thing live were. Did people take the afternoon off to get home early and watch the program? Canada's ties to England are fairly strong (being a Canadian citizen once automatically made you a British citizen. In a way, these are Canadian Olympics as much as they are British Olympics ... which makes them more of a national holiday than they are for people in the US.


----------



## Quaker2001

James Long said:


> Canadian satellite carriers carry NBC ... and most Canadians live along the border with the US where many could receive an NBC signal. Had Canada delayed their coverage (or NBC gone "live") CTV would have been going up head to head with NBC - and probably would have lost viewers to NBC.
> 
> It would be interesting to see more on who those 20% who watched the whole thing live were. Did people take the afternoon off to get home early and watch the program? Canada's ties to England are fairly strong (being a Canadian citizen once automatically made you a British citizen. In a way, these are Canadian Olympics as much as they are British Olympics ... which makes them more of a national holiday than they are for people in the US.


James, I know you and I are mostly on the same side of things here, but really? You're asking if Canadians would choose NBC over CTV if both were up against each other? These are Canadian Olympics as much as British Olympics? Not making a lot of sense there. Certainly I think there's a spillover effect from Vancouver that Canadians are re-energized about the Olympics like they've never been before, but even I won't dismiss the record numbers coming out of Canada for the Opening Ceremony. Which is why I want to see a comparison of competition nights for Beijing north of the border, even though it's 2 different networks involved.


----------



## Davenlr

anleva said:


> If NBCU and Comcast are waiting for the ratings to drop off, god help us. .


Fox News (for what its worth) is reporting Monday nights Olympic ratings were 5% lower than the China games for Monday night, but still above the ratings for Athens.


----------



## James Long

Quaker2001 said:


> You're asking if Canadians would choose NBC over CTV if both were up against each other?


It is a fair question ... people in Canada pay to watch NBC (and the other American networks). They must be drawing some regular viewership.

Then again, the commentary on the NBC coverage was not good - so CTV would have won a heads up battle.



> These are Canadian Olympics as much as British Olympics? Not making a lot of sense there.


I'll blame my Canadian and British ties for that.  I don't mean to take away from it being British ... but Canadians see it as theirs.



> Which is why I want to see a comparison of competition nights for Beijing north of the border, even though it's 2 different networks involved.


As you pointed out, the Canadian ratings have changed since then. And if you're comparing US vs Canada there are cultural differences to take into account. A bit complicated.


----------



## mrlqban

Quaker2001 said:


> The whole idea of showing all the competition online is that it's a different product than you'd get on television. That's the idea that maybe you'd consume the same event twice. But when you show something on TV, how do you make the 2nd showing on TV different that people would consume it again, let alone in the numbers they're currently getting.


Again, the answer may be a full HD TV channel just like the "gold zone" channel online would still be a different product.
The methodology that they currently run in this channel is much different than the programming we get in primetime. This has all the ingredients to be a huge success. You're just carbon copying content shown online to a TV. I do not see why you would be against this if it's already being done online??


----------



## Hoosier205

Another work of fiction by NBC last night:

http://deadspin.com/5930817/the-us-...as-world-champion-so-nbc-didnt-show-it-to-you


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Another work of fiction by NBC last night:
> 
> http://deadspin.com/5930817/the-us-...as-world-champion-so-nbc-didnt-show-it-to-you


Apparently American viewers love their works of fiction..



> John Ourand ‏@Ourand_SBJ
> 
> Overnights: NBC pulled a 24 overnight rating, the best overnight rating for the London Olympics, topping the Opening Ceremony by 4% (23).
> 
> Last night's overnight rating is up +4% on Beijing (23) and up +12% on Athens (21.5).


Hate to have to tell you this, but there may come a point over the next week and a half where maybe you should entertain the idea that NBC, for all this negative press, isn't as stupid as everyone in the media and on Twitter seems to think they are. This happens EVERY Olympics. All that's changed is the number of people out there reminding the rest of us about it.


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Apparently American viewers love their works of fiction..
> 
> Hate to have to tell you this, but there may come a point over the next week and a half where maybe you should entertain the idea that NBC, for all this negative press, isn't as stupid as everyone in the media and on Twitter seems to think they are. This happens EVERY Olympics. All that's changed is the number of people out there reminding the rest of us about it.


So, in your opinion: It is okay if NBC misleads and takes advantage of their viewers while misrepresenting how the events occurred, so long as they can get away with it. Great.


----------



## Laxguy

Made for better television.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> Apparently American viewers love their works of fiction..
> 
> Hate to have to tell you this, but there may come a point over the next week and a half where maybe you should entertain the idea that NBC, for all this negative press, isn't as stupid as everyone in the media and on Twitter seems to think they are. This happens EVERY Olympics. All that's changed is the number of people out there reminding the rest of us about it.


Americans have no choice if they want to watch the Olympics on their tele (which many do). We just have to grin and bear it.


----------



## Hoosier205

anleva said:


> Americans have no choice if they want to watch the Olympics on their tele (which many do). We just have to grin and bear it.


A good point. Quaker clings to the ratings, but ignores that Americans have no other choice if they want to watch events on television. The online streaming has issues, never mind that there are portions of the public who cannot use it.


----------



## anleva

*NBC turns the Games into a red, white and blue spectacle that feels like a Fox News parody. The BBC covers sports*

_(yeah, but look at those ratings! american's need a curator to provide 'context' and drama and help them interpret, that's what people want)_

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/01/ryan_seacrest_youve_been_replaced//



> Every four years for as long as I can remember, I have turned on NBC's Olympic coverage knowing exactly what to expect: Patriotic graphics to make Stephen Colbert proud, Super Bowl-level commercials, inane banter, and introductory montages that explain which American, on a moral basis, deserves to win this backstroke final. The characters change but the narrative never does: This is the Olympics, a quadrennial contest between the heroes of Team USA and the vaguely sinister confederation of foreigners trying to steal their gold medals.
> 
> Now I live in London, where the BBC's restrained, impartial and comprehensive coverage of the Games in its backyard is nothing short of a revelation to a fan grown used to commentators who treat Chinese athletes like the Russian from "Rocky IV." The difference is no less than that between Fox News and C-SPAN. One tells its audience exactly who to root for; the other serves up raw judo and lets viewers decide how to feel about that.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> So, in your opinion: It is okay if NBC misleads and takes advantage of their viewers while misrepresenting how the events occurred, so long as they can get away with it. Great.


Sounds an awful lot like politics, doesn't it.

This is nothing new, they've been doing that for years now. Yet now everyone has a computer to call them out on it. The Kerri Strug vault in the `96 Olympics.. everyone thinks that won the gold but the truth is that if she hadn't come out for the 2nd vault, the Americans still would have won.



anleva said:


> Americans have no choice if they want to watch the Olympics on their tele (which many do). We just have to grin and bear it.





Hoosier205 said:


> A good point. Quaker clings to the ratings, but ignores that Americans have no other choice if they want to watch events on television. The online streaming has issues, never mind that there are portions of the public who cannot use it.


It's not really a good point. You do not know what 40 million Americans are thinking. You say I'm clinging to the ratings.. you both (and others) are clinging to the rantings of Twitter followers and assume they speak for everyone. Not everyone out there views it as doing something so objectionable because they are forcing themselves to watch the Olympics. Especially when you have 40 million viewers for something. If everyone was as pissed off as you seemed to think they are, there's no way they would have gotten that number. A lot of people were eating that coverage up last night thinking it was great television. This forum and even mighty Twitter do NOT speak for their preferences.


----------



## Hoosier205

Quaker2001 said:


> Sounds an awful lot like politics, doesn't it.
> 
> This is nothing new, they've been doing that for years now. Yet now everyone has a computer to call them out on it. The Kerri Strug vault in the `96 Olympics.. everyone thinks that won the gold but the truth is that if she hadn't come out for the 2nd vault, the Americans still would have won.
> 
> It's not really a good point. You do not know what 40 million Americans are thinking. You say I'm clinging to the ratings.. you both (and others) are clinging to the rantings of Twitter followers and assume they speak for everyone. Not everyone out there views it as doing something so objectionable because they are forcing themselves to watch the Olympics. Especially when you have 40 million viewers for something. If everyone was as pissed off as you seemed to think they are, there's no way they would have gotten that number. A lot of people were eating that coverage up last night thinking it was great television. This forum and even mighty Twitter do NOT speak for their preferences.


While you rantings are built upon baseless assumptions. Those in glass houses...


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> It's not really a good point. You do not know what 40 million Americans are thinking. You say I'm clinging to the ratings.. you both (and others) are clinging to the rantings of Twitter followers and assume they speak for everyone. Not everyone out there views it as doing something so objectionable because they are forcing themselves to watch the Olympics. Especially when you have 40 million viewers for something. If everyone was as pissed off as you seemed to think they are, there's no way they would have gotten that number. A lot of people were eating that coverage up last night thinking it was great television. This forum and even mighty Twitter do NOT speak for their preferences.


None of us know what 40 million Americans are thinking. That would be impossible.

However, in customer research and polling you don't need to talk to everyone to be able to start to be able to form conclusions. Since twitter is so prevalent as a communications vehicle it does have value in spotting trends and prevailing opinions. The sheer number and volume of negative opinions on NBC's coverage versus positive ones should tell you something, though you can continue to dismiss it as the lunatic fringe.

Again in the absence of competitive alternatives for a high demand product you can't just say since they tune in they are happy. I probably can't say the opposite either, but there are those silly lunatic twitter people, social media, blogs, articles and living room conversation that unfortunately is getting in the way of the high number of viewers = happy, satisfied people narrative.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> While you rantings are built upon baseless assumptions. Those in glass houses...


Like you should talk. For the past week, you've been going on how we can't "prove" that NBC's coverage is working. Yet, amongst all the articles ripping NBC, pretty sure I've come across at least 2 or 3 from some fairly reputable writers that say it is working. Those monster TV ratings are what they are. You can read all the subtext you want into them and look at Canada and say the same thing is happening up there. But where a month ago, NBC was expecting lower ratings and to lose money on these Olympics, all of a sudden now they're a lot closer to breaking even. So again, maybe you should consider the possibility that, while there are probably certain things NBC could do better from a financial standpoint, that most of what they're doing IS accomplishing its means (which is to say making NBC money) and the suits at 30 Rock maybe aren't as ignorant as you seem to think they are.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> None of us know what 40 million Americans are thinking. That would be impossible.
> 
> However, in customer research and polling you don't need to talk to everyone to be able to start to be able to form conclusions. Since twitter is so prevalent as a communications vehicle it does have value in spotting trends and prevailing opinions. The sheer number and volume of negative opinions on NBC's coverage versus positive ones should tell you something, though you can continue to dismiss it as the lunatic fringe.
> 
> Again in the absence of competitive alternatives for a high demand product you can't just say since they tune in they are happy. I probably can't say the opposite either, but there are those silly lunatic twitter people, social media, blogs, articles and living room conversation that unfortunately is getting in the way of the high number of viewers = happy, satisfied people narrative.


That's the thing though. You assume NBC is ignoring all the Twitter chatter and brushing it aside. Jim Bell, producer of the primetime show, has been on Twitter responding to people. So it's not like he and others at NBC are completely numb to the situation.

Remember.. NBC paid money to become the exclusive rights holder for the Olympics. Yes, that does give them license to control the quality of their coverage in the absence of an alternative, but that's not something unique here. It's just coming to light because so many people have Twitter and post on these discussion forums. If you don't like a product, you're probably going to complain about it. Whereas if you like a product, you're not going to go online and tell everyone about it. That's why I question Twitter representing the whole. Again, there are people out there who like NBC's style of coverage and that's what they're playing to. If they leave others out in the cold, that's unfortunate, but that's their strategy. Either way, advertisers pay for people to watch their ads on NBC's coverage. They aren't paying NBC to deliver them happy customers. Now if they got the impression that unhappy customers don't buy their products, then yes, it would be different.

NBC is not unaware of what's going on out there. But they're also not seeing compelling enough reasons to think this style of coverage is no longer generating enough money for them.


----------



## maartena

The only reason NBC's coverage is working and is drawing viewers is because Americans have no other choice. 

If laws and regulations would allow carriers like DirecTV, Dish and cable companies to carry e.g. live feeds of Canada's CTV and directly from the BBC, I am willing to bet the ratings would not be HALF as good.

That is also the fun thing about living in Europe by the way.... granted, you may have to know a few languages, but living in The Netherlands, I was able to see the Olympic Coverage of not only the Dutch NOS, I could tune in the Belgian television (Dutch speaking), I could turn in to the BBC (English of course) but I could also watch the German coverage (I can at least understand a fair bit of German), and depending on who covered what and who had the rights, I could see stuff on French, Italian, and other networks as well.

On Dutch cable, you can't get *every* station from surrounding countries of course.... but you can get the "main broadcast" networks, and those happen to be often the ones that have the Olympic coverage.

So in essence: There is competition.

Canadian coverage is available to those close enough to Canada to pick it up OTA, but it can't be distributed, with exception of a few bordering cable companies. So NBC holds a monopoly, and as long as that remains (which I expect it to be for MANY logical and financial reasons), whatever they put on the screen would be "working".

That does not mean however, that the coverage is therefore.... good.


----------



## mrlqban

Hoosier205 said:


> Another work of fiction by NBC last night:
> 
> http://deadspin.com/5930817/the-us-...as-world-champion-so-nbc-didnt-show-it-to-you


Censorship at its best. NBC taped delayed drama reminds me of the cheesiest fictional stories. 30 million primetime viewers, you've been duped, again.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> That's the thing though. You assume NBC is ignoring all the Twitter chatter and brushing it aside. Jim Bell, producer of the primetime show, has been on Twitter responding to people. So it's not like he and others at NBC are completely numb to the situation.
> 
> Remember.. NBC paid money to become the exclusive rights holder for the Olympics. Yes, that does give them license to control the quality of their coverage in the absence of an alternative, but that's not something unique here. It's just coming to light because so many people have Twitter and post on these discussion forums. If you don't like a product, you're probably going to complain about it. Whereas if you like a product, you're not going to go online and tell everyone about it. That's why I question Twitter representing the whole. Again, there are people out there who like NBC's style of coverage and that's what they're playing to. If they leave others out in the cold, that's unfortunate, but that's their strategy. Either way, advertisers pay for people to watch their ads on NBC's coverage. They aren't paying NBC to deliver them happy customers. Now if they got the impression that unhappy customers don't buy their products, then yes, it would be different.
> 
> NBC is not unaware of what's going on out there. But they're also not seeing compelling enough reasons to think this style of coverage is no longer generating enough money for them.


NBC's has been dismissing twitter as noise. You've been dismissing twitter as fringe. In this post you dismiss the negative opinions expressed on twitter as just louder than the positive opinions and that people who have a positive opinion would not dare express it on twitter. I disagree, people on twitter communicate where they had lunch and express their love for people and products all the time. There just isn't that much love for NBC.

Yes, we all get understand, and have understood from the beginning, the financial motivations and that they serve the advertiser. That does explain their behavior but doesn't excuse it either.


----------



## Laxguy

anleva said:


> None of us know what 40 million Americans are thinking. That would be impossible.
> 
> However, in customer research and polling you don't need to talk to everyone to be able to start to be able to form conclusions. Since twitter is so prevalent as a communications vehicle it does have value in spotting trends and prevailing opinions.


Prevalent? At less than 10%? (*Pew report, end of May)*

And people who tweet are self-selected. They tend to be folks who think their opinions are very important. Now, that doesn't apply to everyone who tweets. But it has more than its share of twits.

And I am also not saying that a mass of similar tweets don't have value in pointing out possible trends, feelings, complaints. Just that it's not necessarily representative of all interested in the Olympics, or of freedom, or memorial services, or.....


----------



## DoyleS

There will always be complaints. I am really enjoying having the dedicated soccer and basketball channels. I can record them on the DVR and then speed through to watch the matches I want. With two 722s, I can record up to 5 channels simultaneously so each night, I speed through the parts I am not interested in and watch the events I want. I pretty much stopped using Social and News media to avoid spoilers so the tape delay is not that big of a problem for me. The DVR really helps level the playing field and eliminate the talking heads and non competition items.


----------



## fluffybear

Mrs. Fluffybear indicated she would like to have seen a dedicated Gymnastic channel as NBC shows so little of it (compared to some other sports like cycling, basketball & soccer)


----------



## Quaker2001

fluffybear said:


> Mrs. Fluffybear indicated she would like to have seen a dedicated Gymnastic channel as NBC shows so little of it (compared to some other sports like cycling, basketball & soccer)


Does Mr.s Fluffybear know there's online streaming of gymnastics going on right now including dedicated feeds of every apparatus?


----------



## Quaker2001

Laxguy said:


> Prevalent? At less than 10%? (*Pew report, end of May)*
> 
> And people who tweet are self-selected. They tend to be folks who think their opinions are very important. Now, that doesn't apply to everyone who tweets. But it has more than its share of twits.
> 
> And I am also not saying that a mass of similar tweets don't have value in pointing out possible trends, feelings, complaints. Just that it's not necessarily representative of all interested in the Olympics, or of freedom, or memorial services, or.....


Well said. Very well said.


----------



## anleva

Laxguy said:


> Prevalent? At less than 10%? (*Pew report, end of May)*
> 
> And people who tweet are self-selected. They tend to be folks who think their opinions are very important. Now, that doesn't apply to everyone who tweets. But it has more than its share of twits.
> 
> And I am also not saying that a mass of similar tweets don't have value in pointing out possible trends, feelings, complaints. Just that it's not necessarily representative of all interested in the Olympics, or of freedom, or memorial services, or.....


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.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> Well said. Very well said.


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.


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> The only reason NBC's coverage is working and is drawing viewers is because Americans have no other choice.
> 
> If laws and regulations would allow carriers like DirecTV, Dish and cable companies to carry e.g. live feeds of Canada's CTV and directly from the BBC, I am willing to bet the ratings would not be HALF as good.


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.



> Canadian coverage is available to those close enough to Canada to pick it up OTA, but it can't be distributed, with exception of a few bordering cable companies. So NBC holds a monopoly, and as long as that remains (which I expect it to be for MANY logical and financial reasons), whatever they put on the screen would be "working".
> 
> That does not mean however, that the coverage is therefore.... good.


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.


----------



## Hoosier205

Quaker2001 said:


> Like you should talk. For the past week, you've been going on how we can't "prove" that NBC's coverage is working. Yet, amongst all the articles ripping NBC, pretty sure I've come across at least 2 or 3 from some fairly reputable writers that say it is working. Those monster TV ratings are what they are. You can read all the subtext you want into them and look at Canada and say the same thing is happening up there. But where a month ago, NBC was expecting lower ratings and to lose money on these Olympics, all of a sudden now they're a lot closer to breaking even. So again, maybe you should consider the possibility that, while there are probably certain things NBC could do better from a financial standpoint, that most of what they're doing IS accomplishing its means (which is to say making NBC money) and the suits at 30 Rock maybe aren't as ignorant as you seem to think they are.


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.


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


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


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.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## anleva

Quaker2001 said:


> 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.


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?


----------



## Hoosier205

Quaker2001 said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> 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.


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


----------



## Quaker2001

anleva said:


> 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?


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.


----------



## tonyd79

Quaker2001 said:


> 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.


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 ***** 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.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

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.


----------



## tonyd79

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.


----------



## tonyd79

Stewart Vernon said:


> 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.


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.


----------



## mrlqban

DoyleS said:


> There will always be complaints. I am really enjoying having the dedicated soccer and basketball channels. I can record them on the DVR and then speed through to watch the matches I want. With two 722s, I can record up to 5 channels simultaneously so each night, I speed through the parts I am not interested in and watch the events I want. I pretty much stopped using Social and News media to avoid spoilers so the tape delay is not that big of a problem for me. The DVR really helps level the playing field and eliminate the talking heads and non competition items.


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.


----------



## Quaker2001

tonyd79 said:


> 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 ***** 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.


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.



> 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.


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 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.


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.



> 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.


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.



> 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."


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.



> 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.


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.


----------



## dpeters11

"Quaker2001" said:


> 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.
> .


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.


----------



## Laxguy

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.


----------



## anleva

Laxguy said:


> 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.


Once you accept that NBC is not targeting the male sports fan with their evening Olympic coverage their seemingly bizarre decisions make a bit more sense.

All hail our Olympic overlord and content curator!


----------



## tonyd79

"Quaker2001" said:


> 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.


You are such an NBC apologist...

NBC themselves say it is forced. They call it funneling viewers to the network. It is staged and planned and forced. Yeah. Record. Try to find out what the hell is on when or record huge blocks of time every day. Then try to find full coverage on replay on line of network event. Good luck.

If they aren't forcing anything, why not have in depth on the family of channels at night. Oh, that's right. They want you to watch only the main net and force it by shutting down everything else during prime time.

And real fans are interested in the Olympics. What the nets decided was to go after the casual fan figuring the normal fan would come along for the ride. Not unusual in sports marketing. It is what drives minor league baseball marketing and the Super Bowl. But what they remembered but NBC forgets....you don't drive the sports fan away.

As for choices, they SUCK. I have tried using streaming every damned day. It is erratic and it is impossible to figure out what you want to watch. Descriptions are lacking and every time you change a channel or drag the timer, you have to watch 1 to 3 commercials often to find out their is no feed. and the mobile apps are horribly designed.

And wow. They are so wonderful. They didn't hold the Streams back. Yay. They are catching up to the rest of he world. They are so wonderful. Sorry. I forgot I'm supposed to kiss the pea****s ass and be grateful.


----------



## tonyd79

"anleva" said:


> Once you accept that NBC is not targeting the male sports fan with their evening Olympic coverage their seemingly bizarre decisions make a bit more sense.
> 
> All hail our Olympic overlord and content curator!


And editor of art. Don't forget that they decided what was art in the opening ceremony. So glad they decide everything for us.


----------



## Quaker2001

tonyd79 said:


> You are such an NBC apologist...
> 
> NBC themselves say it is forced. They call it funneling viewers to the network. It is staged and planned and forced. Yeah. Record. Try to find out what the hell is on when or record huge blocks of time every day. Then try to find full coverage on replay on line of network event. Good luck.
> 
> If they aren't forcing anything, why not have in depth on the family of channels at night. Oh, that's right. They want you to watch only the main net and force it by shutting down everything else during prime time.


A difference of opinion does not make me an NBC apologist, just because you think they're a horrible exploitative company (which they somewhat are, but not exactly a first in sports television). I just understand their strategy and don't scream from the rafters that they're doing the wrong thing. I know their coverage is extremely staged and edited, I know that. So does the faction out there that actually enjoys it. There's a term for folks like that.. women. And I'll tell ya (and I'm sure you'll accuse me of NBC brainwashing here, especially since I'm a guy and a big sports fan).. yesterday and today, I watched Olympics all afternoon, either on TV and/or online. Managed not to see the results of most of the swim races. Last night with Phelps in the 200 fly and today with Adrian in the 100 free, I had no idea of the results. That was great television I witnessed full well knowing it happened hours earlier. I'm sorry but I have to give NBC a little credit, because especially on the Phelps race, that was a great sequence they edited with all the reaction shots. You're not getting that live. And don't even try to tell me I was forced. VERY easily I could have watched these races online, but I chose to wait and I'm extremely happy with that decision.



> And real fans are interested in the Olympics. What the nets decided was to go after the casual fan figuring the normal fan would come along for the ride. Not unusual in sports marketing. It is what drives minor league baseball marketing and the Super Bowl. But what they remembered but NBC forgets....you don't drive the sports fan away.


Sports fans don't follow the Olympics. To them it's likely unimportant, especially to, say, a baseball fan in the middle of baseball season. It's not just about going after the causal fan (and you're ready, it's absolutely the norm in sports television) but about designing the telecast around the viewers they know will consume it. Yes, that means if you have a penis you're probably not going to like it, but the strategy in that regard is still working.



> As for choices, they SUCK. I have tried using streaming every damned day. It is erratic and it is impossible to figure out what you want to watch. Descriptions are lacking and every time you change a channel or drag the timer, you have to watch 1 to 3 commercials often to find out their is no feed. and the mobile apps are horribly designed.


I'm not going to defend NBC on this one, especially from the technological standpoint, although it's gotten a little better. And impossible to figure out what you want to watch? I don't think you can entire blame NBC for that one. Not exactly that difficult to figure out what's on.



> And wow. They are so wonderful. They didn't hold the Streams back. Yay. They are catching up to the rest of he world. They are so wonderful. Sorry. I forgot I'm supposed to kiss the pea****s ass and be grateful.


You and everyone else seem to only want to focus on the negative. They should have done all the streaming for 4 years ago, but at least it's an improvement for 4 years ago when everyone's making it seem like they regressed from last time around.


----------



## Quaker2001

Why NBC Doesn't Care That You Want to Watch the Olympics Live on TV

Not exactly new information here, but again, a pretty good explanation of what's going on. And once again, I'm not sharing this because your complaints are unfounded, it's because far too many people still seem to think that NBC is missing out on an even bigger pot of gold by doing the Olympics the way they do. That may be the case, but you've got all these sportswriters who are panning NBC and at the same time praising them for a business strategy that is, contrary to popular belief, working.


----------



## James Long

Folks, remember to discuss the issue not each other --- try not to get personal.

Thanks!


----------



## Hoosier205

"Quaker2001" said:


> Sports fans don't follow the Olympics.


What? David, that's like saying that the MLB Network doesn't show baseball.


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> What? David, that's like saying that the MLB Network doesn't show baseball.


Niche television networks play to their audience. Broadcast networks like NBC have to play to everyone, but the fact is more females are watching the Olympics than you'd ever get from traditional sports programming. That's who NBC is playing to, not that we didn't know that already. But it would be really hard for them to achieve a balance, and whether it's the right decision or not, NBC gave that a shot one time and it failed, that's what they've never gone back to it (and yes, I'm aware this is from 24 years ago)..

NBC's low Olympic ratings may drive down the fees for the 1992 Barcelona Games

We all know why NBC plays to the female audience. This is what happened when they tried to play to a male audience. Yes, I know this is a long time ago, but there WAS an Olympics when NBC tried to do things similar to what folks want now. Completely different times of course without cable and the Internet, but a lot of the points still stand.


----------



## dpeters11

Taping olympics on VHS in 1988 was more complex than recording events on a DVR for those that can't watch it live.


----------



## Quaker2001

dpeters11 said:


> Taping olympics on VHS in 1988 was more complex than recording events on a DVR for those that can't watch it live.


Even in 2012, not everyone out there has a DVR. But still, there are plenty of people out there who treat the primetime show as appointment viewing, full well knowing it's all events contested hours earlier. That's the audience that consumes primetime television. The younger more tech-saavy crowd is going to be more driven towards online, less towards the primetime show. Probably not the best way for NBC to satisfy everyone, but NBC feels they're serving the greater good this way. And yes, in the process, make the advertisers happy because (as if we need to keep saying it), NBC cares more about what they want than what the viewers say they want.


----------



## James Long

Quaker2001 said:


> Even in 2012, not everyone out there has a DVR.


From what I could find (and posted earlier this week) only 42% of US households have a DVR.

Sometimes on this generally tech savvy site people forget that everyone does not have the same toys they have.


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> From what I could find (and posted earlier this week) only 42% of US households have a DVR.
> 
> Sometimes on this generally tech savvy site people forget that everyone does not have the same toys they have.


Any idea how they get that number? How does that compare to HDTV adoption? I can't remember where that number stands now...


----------



## Quaker2001

Hoosier205 said:


> Any idea how they get that number? How does that compare to HDTV adoption? I can't remember where that number stands now...


Don't know how reputable this site is, but a quick Google search..
http://www.degonline.org/pressreleases/2012/DEG_2Q12%20cover%20note_7.29.12_FINAL.pdf

They have the number around 80 million households


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Any idea how they get that number? How does that compare to HDTV adoption? I can't remember where that number stands now...


The figures are sourced as being from Nielson ...
http://www.thecab.tv/main/bm~doc/time-shifting-2012_public.pdf

I misremembered the number ... it is 43.3% of households (February 2012). There are other interesting figures in the report, including "_Among P18-49, 76% Of All Viewing Still Occurs "Live" During Primetime_". 71% of homes with a DVR only have one DVR, 23.3% of homes with a DVR have two (the rest have more).

As for HD Penetration ... (January 2012)"According to new consumer research from Leichtman Research Group, 69% of households in the United States have at least one high definition television set, up from 17% in 2006. Over the past five years, 52% of US households adopted HDTV. In addition, 48% of HDTV households have more than one HD set."
source​


----------



## Hoosier205

James Long said:


> The figures are sources as being from Nielson ...
> http://www.thecab.tv/main/bm~doc/time-shifting-2012_public.pdf
> 
> I misremembered the number ... it is 43.3% of households (February 2012). There are other interesting figures in the report, including "_Among P18-49, 76% Of All Viewing Still Occurs "Live" During Primetime_". 71% of homes with a DVR only have one DVR, 23.3% of homes with a DVR have two (the rest have more).
> 
> As for HD Penetration ... (January 2012)"According to new consumer research from Leichtman Research Group, 69% of households in the United States have at least one high definition television set, up from 17% in 2006. Over the past five years, 52% of US households adopted HDTV. In addition, 48% of HDTV households have more than one HD set."
> source​


Wow...69%. That's great.


----------



## James Long

Hoosier205 said:


> Wow...69%. That's great.


69% in January ... Quaker's numbers are more current and higher. People are still buying their first sets.

It doesn't hurt that SD TVs are harder to come by and HD TVs can be purchased for $100 or less for small screens.


----------



## Laxguy

James Long said:


> 69% in January ... Quaker's numbers are more current and higher. People are still buying their first sets.
> 
> It doesn't hurt that SD TVs are harder to come by and HD TVs can be purchased for $100 or less for small screens.


It also doesn't mean that 69% of households watch HD or can watch HD, though I bet the percentage dropouts is small.


----------



## djlong

I'll make my comments quick...

When I had the choice, I *always* watched the Canadian feeds of the Olympics. They were *always* better. What's worse is when I saw a CBC reporter interviewing a Canadian gold medal winner right after the race and an NBC reporter literally hip-checked the CBC reporter out of the way to get the interview - IN MID INTERVIEW!

NBC has done a few things right and a few wrong. I can sum it up this way...

- My DVR is constantly recording thanks to all the additional channels.
- I have watched *NONE* of the prime-time coverage

Given the chance, I would GLADLY pay the UK's BBC TV tax to be allowed to record and watch the Olympics from them as opposed to NBC.

Let me re-state this - I would GLADLY pay the over $200 (145.50 pounds) that UK citizens pay in order to be able to see the BBC the way it's broadcast.


----------



## fluffybear

James Long said:


> 69% in January ... Quaker's numbers are more current and higher. People are still buying their first sets.
> 
> It doesn't hurt that SD TVs are harder to come by and HD TVs can be purchased for $100 or less for small screens.


what amazes me is the number of people who still think they can get top dollar for their out-dated SD sets on garage sales. Mrs. Fluffybear and I were at one last weekend where they were selling an 50" Mitsubishi (manufactured in 2003) for $1200.


----------



## boukengreen

I know that I have defiantly enjoyed hearing the British annoucers while streaming for swimming over the ones that NBC uses for the prime time coverage


----------



## anleva




----------



## maartena

Here's another take on things.... only it is in Dutch, talking about the live coverage of national broadcaster NOS.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/vk/nl/2694...jk-voor-NOS-door-wirwar-aan-wedstrijden.dhtml

NOS uses 1 channel dedicated to the Olympics, (unlike the U.S. who use like 8). Yet, they try to show as much as possible live.... this article shows that due to the complexity of the games, the schedules, it went wrong on 2 occasions.

The 1st: 8-men rowing had already started live, and the production team in London had not noticed the race had started and was half way over that they had no choice than to air it tape-delayed right after the race was over, where it was the intention to air it live.

The 2nd: Judo finals happened at the same time as the cycling time trials, and since the Dutch have a good chance on a Judo medal, they decided to cut in to Judo for 15 minutes showing a match with a Dutch athlete, followed by picking up where they left off in cycling, resulting in a 15 minute tape delay.

And yes, people complained about it..... 

Why? Well, in a European country like The Netherlands, you can also tune in to Olympic coverage from Belgium, the BBC, the German WDR, Eurosport, and several other countries because the main networks from many EU countries are carried on cable. So they noticed that other countries were still live, where the Dutch were 15 minutes behind showing Bradley Wiggins wining the Gold.

I posted the link anyways in case you guys want to try and decipher the Dutch, but the above is the just of it pretty much.

In essence, NOS is apologizing somewhat for not being able to push everything live into the 1 TV station out of 3 they could use, as the planning for the other 2 remained for non-olympic use. (The dutch public broadcasting is quite complicated, NOS doesn't own any television stations, they just lease "time" so to speak, and for the Olympics they leased the use of "Nederland 1" full-time).

Granted, NOS is partly funded by government, partly by income from advertising, so it is not in any way comparable to NBC who are fully relying on advertising income. But it does show that people WANT to see it live. Also, they are obviously only 1 hour away from London, timezone wise.

But hey..... so are we in 2016. Or at least, the east coast will be.


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> Sports fans don't follow the Olympics.


You might be from an area where Football and NASCAR rule the day, and people don't care about anything else..... but here in Orange County, California, where 67 of the 530 athletes the U.S. sent to the Games came from, and with the training facilities for, among others, beach volleyball, regular volleyball, water polo, and others.... the Games are a pretty big deal. (And in addition, the field hockey team trains in San Diego).

Two of the golden "fab five" are from right here in Orange County. People talk about it. There is a buzz. I have seen several big banner signs hanging in front of businesses wishing a certain person on team USA success.

This country might be ruled by football, NASCAR, and baseball as a whole, but there are plenty of areas where the Olympics are considered important.

This county held a parade in Disneyland Anaheim, to send off our athletes to the games. And you can bet that when they come back with their medals of any color, they will again get their parade, probably in Huntington Beach.

Many of us here in OC have "links" to the Games.... the daughter of one of my wife's friends is on the U.S. Volleyball team. Another person knows Sam Mikulak, he is also born right here in OC.

While you may have the view that Americans as a whole don't care about much else outside the big sports..... that is not true for the entire country.

Also, I would then assume that you think those 40 million viewers that turned in to the Olympics competition in the first weekend..... are NOT "Sports fans", while the 3 million "average viewers" that NBC drew for the NHL Stanley Cup, ARE actually "Sports fans"? Something is fatally wrong with that logic.


----------



## Quaker2001

Should have made that clearer.. I meant traditional sports fans (by that I mean football and baseball, those followed on a more regular basis) as opposed to Olympic sports fans. I'm not saying the Olympics aren't a big deal to a lot of people. Clearly that are. Again.. 40 million viewers speaks for itself. What I'm saying is that traditional sports fans of sports like football (which rules the day in virtually area of this country) and baseball are less likely to be interested in the Olympics. That doesn't mean there aren't tons of people out there following the Olympics. I live in New York, probably the biggest baseball city in the country, and here in the middle of the season there have been more than a couple of headlines on the Olympics in the papers. The media rightfully knows how important an event it is to many.

Sports television is big business these days because it's often seen as what's saving traditional television from migrating entirely to the Internet. It's becaue those viewers, since sports aren't DVR material like most video content these days, are so valuable to advertisers. But those types aren't necessarily the majority of the viewing audience for the Olympics. ESPN charges the highest subscriber fees in the business because of their main viewer base. It's also the reason their bid for the next set of Olympics was so low, because their customer base and their business strategy and demographics don't mesh well with the Olympics.

That's why NBC crafts their primetime show the way they do (not that we didn't know it already). Because they know their audience has a different makeup than what you'd have for a football game or a baseball game. Again, that's not a knock in any way on followers of the Olympics, but when everyone asks why NBC doesn't cover it more like a sports event (which sounds like a rhetorical question that's why), that's why. The Olympics are the type of event where it's nearly impossible to satisfy everyone, so NBC plays to whom they believe is the most likely audience.

As for the social media buzz.. I think it's unquestionably driving the interest in the Olympics. Olympic events play perfectly into that, moreso than a baseball game or a football game. It's the old "share a moment with the world" that NBC used to push. Now I know many will say we're not sharing this with the world, although it seems like there were an awful lot of tweets relating to athletes as NBC broadcast it, not just as they all happened. So there is an element of people sharing the TV broadcast together. Either way, all that buzz apparently has been great for the Olympics and hopefully it helps keep up interest through the 2nd week of the Olympics when normally interest starts to lag.


----------



## anleva

Traditional, die hard, sports fans are interested in Olympic sports. Die hard sports fans will watch most any sport, as long as they are watching the actual competition and preferably live. What they don't like is the NBC packaging that is more fiction, short on the competition and long on drama. 

Looks like sports producers in this country should be employed by WE tv instead. Let's get rid of the lot of them and import the BBC producers, they seem to have a clue.


----------



## Laxguy

OK, I used a big word to get attention; meaning what do you dislike? 

I'll start with the team bicycle sprint. Only plus is it's over in ten seconds. 

Next is synchronized diving. Who the hell has twin high dives at home??

Let's make this diversion on the light side. I am sorry if I offended bike racers or divers.


----------



## Laxguy

anleva said:


> Traditional, die hard, sports fans are interested in Olympic sports. Die hard sports fans will watch most any sport, as long as they are watching the actual competition and preferably live. What they don't like is the NBC packaging that is more fiction, short on the competition and long on drama.
> 
> Looks like sports producers in this country should be employed by WE tv instead. Let's get rid of the lot of them and import the BBC producers, they seem to have a clue.


What!??! Are you saying Ryan Seacrest isn't a knowledgeable sportscaster???


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'm inclined to believe that the die-hard sports fan is also at work during the day... and his (or her) only option is to watch the events streamed live on the internet anyway... in which case, it seems to me that NBC is giving most of the Olympic fans what it wants.


----------



## trh

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm inclined to believe that the die-hard sports fan is also at work during the day... and his (or her) only option is to watch the events streamed live on the internet anyway...


Except where your company blocks all media streaming.


----------



## anleva

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm inclined to believe that the die-hard sports fan is also at work during the day... and his (or her) only option is to watch the events streamed live on the internet anyway... in which case, it seems to me that NBC is giving most of the Olympic fans what it wants.


And if internet streaming is their only option, and they can't internet stream at work, than the sports fan is SOL.


----------



## trh

Or they watch at night time and give the "evil" network huge ratings.


----------



## anleva

Yeah. Actually I just end up DVRing the daytime coverage, fast forward through the filler and commercials and only watch the events I'm interested in and while I'm doing that DVR the evening and skip all the garbage in that as well. So I can somewhat create a competition oriented viewing in spite of NBC's estrogen oriented Today Show format.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

trh said:


> Except where your company blocks all media streaming.





anleva said:


> And if internet streaming is their only option, and they can't internet stream at work, than the sports fan is SOL.


True... but then they wouldn't be able to watch all the events anyway while at work because without internet streaming they'd have to have a cable/satellite connection at their desk!


----------



## TheRatPatrol

trh said:


> Except where your company blocks all media streaming.





anleva said:


> And if internet streaming is their only option, and they can't internet stream at work, than the sports fan is SOL.





Stewart Vernon said:


> True... but then they wouldn't be able to watch all the events anyway while at work because without internet streaming they'd have to have a cable/satellite connection at their desk!


Unless they have a smart phone with internet connection. And with HDMI out they could hook it up to their monitor.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm inclined to believe that the die-hard sports fan is also at work during the day... and his (or her) *only option is to watch the events streamed live on the internet anyway*... in which case, it seems to me that NBC is giving most of the Olympic fans what it wants.





anleva said:


> Yeah. Actually *I just end up DVRing the daytime coverage, fast forward through the filler and commercials and only watch the events I'm interested in and while I'm doing that DVR the evening and skip all the garbage in that as well*. So I can somewhat create a competition oriented viewing in spite of NBC's estrogen oriented Today Show format.


This is precisely one of the key reasons to have a DVR. To watch lengthy events by either cruising past all the methodical commercials and/or fluff, and get to the substance.


----------



## maartena

Stewart Vernon said:


> I'm inclined to believe that the die-hard sports fan is also at work during the day... and his (or her) only option is to watch the events streamed live on the internet anyway... in which case, it seems to me that NBC is giving most of the Olympic fans what it wants.


Yep. But not everyone works in the weekend. I sure don't..... and live coverage in the weekend would be perfect. Actually it would be preferred, because I am going out this Saturday night, and that is the same time NBC will cover their prime time.

Sure, I can start the stream with a connected laptop to my TV, but I really shouldn't have to. It's the weekend, put it on LIVE! You'll probably get more viewers on Saturday around lunch time than you would on Saturday night.


----------



## Quaker2001

NBCSportsPR ‏@NBCSportsPR

***SPECIAL OLYMPIC PROGRAMMING NOTE: NBC's Daytime weekend coverage LIVE to all time zones. Sat: 9a-6p ET, 8a-5p CT, 7a-4p MT, 6a-3p PT 

Sunday's Olympic coverage live to all time zones: 6a-6p ET, 5a-5p CT, 4a-4p MT, 3a-6p PT. Sat features Serena-Sharapova gold medal match 


Certainly should please some folks on the West coast, I'd imagine. Not sure why they only came to this decision now, but it's the right one.


----------



## dvdmth

Quaker2001 said:


> NBCSportsPR ‏@NBCSportsPR
> 
> ***SPECIAL OLYMPIC PROGRAMMING NOTE: NBC's Daytime weekend coverage LIVE to all time zones. Sat: 9a-6p ET, 8a-5p CT, 7a-4p MT, 6a-3p PT
> 
> Sunday's Olympic coverage live to all time zones: 6a-6p ET, 5a-5p CT, 4a-4p MT, 3a-6p PT. Sat features Serena-Sharapova gold medal match
> 
> Certainly should please some folks on the West coast, I'd imagine. Not sure why they only came to this decision now, but it's the right one.


Thank goodness I saw your post. I've adjusted my DVR recordings to compensate for the change.

Personally, I would rather have NBC stick with their original schedule as much as possible. Every time they make a change to their schedule, I have to adjust my DVR scheduling to compensate. It's really annoying when they change their schedule without any warning (they've done that a few times already). I've missed one event entirely and nearly missed a couple of over events because of unannounced changes.

I'm watching the Olympics using my DVR's. I have enough tuners, but not enough storage space available. Therefore, I have to be careful what I record and how much. So, I use manual recordings with the daytime coverage in order to fine-tune what gets recorded. This also lets me break up the daytime block into segments which I can delete as I watch them, rather than having to keep the whole block until I'm finished with the whole block.

This system works out well for me as long as the coverage actually follows the advertised schedule. When NBC makes a change like the above (moving something from delayed to live), it messes me up if I don't learn about it in time to adjust my recordings. I don't care if something actually airs live or not - I'm not watching most of the events live anyway - but I do care if an event airs at a different time or on a different channel than advertised.


----------



## mrlqban

Quaker2001 said:


> NBCSportsPR ‏@NBCSportsPR
> 
> ***SPECIAL OLYMPIC PROGRAMMING NOTE: NBC's Daytime weekend coverage LIVE to all time zones. Sat: 9a-6p ET, 8a-5p CT, 7a-4p MT, 6a-3p PT
> 
> Sunday's Olympic coverage live to all time zones: 6a-6p ET, 5a-5p CT, 4a-4p MT, 3a-6p PT. Sat features Serena-Sharapova gold medal match
> 
> Certainly should please some folks on the West coast, I'd imagine. Not sure why they only came to this decision now, but it's the right one.


Not sure why they came to the decision now? Two words...Hussain Bolt?...that was NBC's biggest fail in 2008. It seems they want to keep those twitter folks happy, just saying.
But anyway, werent you saying that it was up to the affiliates to cover the Olympics live on the west coast? What happened?


----------



## Quaker2001

mrlqban said:


> Not sure why they came to the decision now? Two words...Hussain Bolt?...that was NBC's biggest fail in 2008. It seems they want to keep those twitter folks happy, just saying.
> But anyway, werent you saying that it was up to the affiliates to cover the Olympics live on the west coast? What happened?


Neither am I. I doubt it's *Usain* Bolt. The men's 100 is only in prelims tomorrow, so he wouldn't be a big part of afternoon coverage. No, I think it's 5 words.. Sharapova, Serena, Federer, and Murray. That's my only guess, that they saw the matchups for the tennis finals and decided they wanted to show them live. I sincerely doubt anything that's happened on Twitter has affected this. If the tennis matches featured less prominent players, we might not see this happening.

Weekend afternoons work differently than primetime because sports coverage and other national programming is going to time out differently than primetime (which is always at the same time each week). I believe they probably did have to get the sign-off from the affiliates on this one. I don't want to speak too knowledgably about how this all went down because I have no idea. The big issue with affiliates is evening local news and late local news, so those are largely unaffected by this that it doesn't touch primetime.


----------



## James Long

How many people does this affect? What is the television population of the mountain and pacific time zones? (If I read correctly, Eastern and Central are getting no change.)

NBC will still be holding back selected events to be aired in prime time. While the additional delay for mountain and pacific time zones is part of the complaint, the embargo of selected events to create a prime time programming block seemed to be the prime complaint - and the west coast will still be waiting until their prime time to see events that ended much earlier in the day.

It is a step ... but NBC is still protecting their bread and butter prime time.


----------



## mrlqban

Quaker2001 said:


> I sincerely doubt anything that's happened on Twitter has affected this. If the tennis matches featured less prominent players, we might not see this happening.


Prominent players? Yea right. Not even Phelps west coast fans had such a luck.
And if you say that twitter had little to do with it how would you know? You dont. Yet you want us to believe social media had no impact.

The point is that NBC can definitely accommodate live coverage on the west coast during the games, at least on their weekend and morning coverage. There is no excuse not to do it, and don't give me the Tenis finals bullcrap because its so far from being the highlight of the games.


----------



## Quaker2001

James Long said:


> How many people does this affect? What is the television population of the mountain and pacific time zones? (If I read correctly, Eastern and Central are getting no change.)
> 
> NBC will still be holding back selected events to be aired in prime time. While the additional delay for mountain and pacific time zones is part of the complaint, the embargo of selected events to create a prime time programming block seemed to be the prime complaint - and the west coast will still be waiting until their prime time to see events that ended much earlier in the day.
> 
> It is a step ... but NBC is still protecting their bread and butter prime time.


I believe it's just under 20% of the country that lives in either the Mountain or Pacific time zone, so I'm guessing the television population is pretty similar.



mrlqban said:


> Prominent players? Yea right. Not even Phelps west coast fans had such a luck.
> And if you say that twitter had little to do with it how would you know? You dont. Yet you want us to believe social media had no impact.
> 
> The point is that NBC can definitely accommodate live coverage on the west coast during the games, at least on their weekend and morning coverage. There is no excuse not to do it, and don't give me the Tenis finals bullcrap because its so far from being the highlight of the games.


There's 2 different sets of complaints coming from Twitter. 1 is the one from everyone complaining about events being held for primetime. The other is only coming from the west coast about the 3 hour delays. What changed for this weekend has nothing to do with primetime. The big names like Bolt and Phelps and others that folks are upset are being held for primetime were never going to be a part of this weekend's afternoon shows. What got shown was a lot of tennis, some live diving (not the finals), some track & field events (live, but I don't believe it included the women's 100 meter final), beach volleyball is on live now, and not sure what else there was. That's what got shifted to live on the West coast. And if you think it's bullcrap about tennis, here's another Tweet from NBC Sports PR sent last night..


> NBCSportsPR ‏@NBCSportsPR
> 
> just to clarify, NBC's weekend daytime coverage live to all time zones on Sat and Sun with tennis gold medals both days


NBC is not deaf to what's being said on Twitter. They're just not being reactionary to it (why should they be when viewership is as high as it is). Besides, if this was really about all the howling from the West coast, then why did they only change this weekend's times and not next Saturday (next Sunday I believe is already live to all time zones because of basketball)?

Again, I don't live on the west coast so I can't speak to what that's like, but during the week is tough because of the Today Show. That I can understand. But the weekend (the afternoon coverage, primetime is a different story) probably should have been like this the whole way, especially with so many events covered live to the East coast on the weekends. Just seems weird they didn't decide on this until literally the night before. And yes, I still very much believe the change is more about the participants in the tennis than what's being said on Twitter.


----------



## Quaker2001

It's still a very hypothetical question, but if you're wondering how another network in the United States would cover the Olympics...

At Least Les Moonves Likes NBC's London Olympics Coverage


----------



## Laxguy

Quaker2001 said:


> It's still a very hypothetical question, but if you're wondering how another network in the United States would cover the Olympics...


Very interesting tidbit. Does that mean CBS is not going to bid much in the next round?  And that next round, though, is very far away, isn't it?


----------



## scottp461

Quaker2001 said:


> Certainly should please some folks on the West coast, I'd imagine. Not sure why they only came to this decision now, but it's the right one.


Well, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't, actually!

I'm recording everything and watching on my DVR's ONLY. I check my scheduled recordings for the next day before I go to bed each night. I schedule pad for the end of each block, but nothing before. I just started watching the first Sunday's coverage yesterday.

Well, I was unaware of the changes for the West Coast until about 12:45 pm yesterday. I lost the first 3 hours of coverage Saturday, but didn't know how much or why until after that time on Sunday. Saturday was nothing compared to Sunday; LITERALLY NOTHING recorded during the day on Sunday!!! Sunday's first recording was at 7 pm!

Now, this was for NBC proper ONLY! All the other channels recorded fine. A TiVo Premiere XL is handling the OTA NBC coverage and the other channels are being recorded by 2 DirecTV DVR's. The TiVo's guide data simply didn't update soon enough! Would The DirecTV DVR's have handled it better; I don't know. I was able to recover from 11:17 am on, plus the 3 pm women's marathon (on a DirecTV DVR that was tuned to ch.4 (NBC) prior to this and scheduled at 12:47 pm Sunday).

So, all you West Coast haters, some of us still got screwed. Damned if you do, damned if you don't!


----------



## fluffybear

Laxguy said:


> Very interesting tidbit. Does that mean CBS is not going to bid much in the next round?  And that next round, though, is very far away, isn't it?


If I am not mistaken, the IOC will not be discussing TV rights again for the US until after South Korea hosts the winter games in 2018. Does sound like a long time off until you start to think about it..


----------



## Quaker2001

fluffybear said:


> If I am not mistaken, the IOC will not be discussing TV rights again for the US until after South Korea hosts the winter games in 2018. Does sound like a long time off until you start to think about it..


Might be a little sooner than that. The reason they waited so long to have the bidding for the 2014-2016 Olympics (which occurred in 2011) was because the IOC was waiting for more favorable economic conditions in hopes of helping the bidding. I don't think they'll wait so late next time, so it's probably only about 5-6 years off before the next set of negotiations begins. Since Olympic hosts are awarded approximately 7 years in advance, they'll probably wait until after the 2024 host is decided (in 2017) and go from there.


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> Again, I don't live on the west coast so I can't speak to what that's like, but during the week is tough because of the Today Show. That I can understand. But the weekend (the afternoon coverage, primetime is a different story) probably should have been like this the whole way, especially with so many events covered live to the East coast on the weekends.


I don't buy the "Today Show" thing for one bit. It's 2 weeks out of every 2 years, and I am sure the Today Show hosts would love the 2 weeks off so they can watch some of the Olympics themselves, or NBC could have incorporated them in the broadcasts. Every other show on NBC (including e.g. Ellen which is rather popular) had to move, why couldn't they?

That said, I am really happy about this weekend's coverage. I got up at 8, caught up the first 3 hours by zapping through things, and pretty much by 11 or so I was completely on "LIVE" and enjoyed it. Plus I could log on to facebook/twitter again without getting spoilers.

Now, if only they would transmit the closing ceremony live.... but I am willing to bet they won't.


----------



## Nick

Wiring The Olympics:

Video: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/wiring-the-olympics_b140201


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> I don't buy the "Today Show" thing for one bit. It's 2 weeks out of every 2 years, and I am sure the Today Show hosts would love the 2 weeks off so they can watch some of the Olympics themselves, or NBC could have incorporated them in the broadcasts. Every other show on NBC (including e.g. Ellen which is rather popular) had to move, why couldn't they?


London Olympics huge boost to NBC's 'Today' show

Read the first few paragraphs of that and tell me you still don't buy it. The Today Show is one of the signature programs on NBC and is constantly battling with the other morning shows. The last thing Today needs is to go on hiatus and get wiped off the schedule for 2 weeks. Instead, they send the show to London and capitalize on the popularity of the Olympics and it looks like they're now blowing the competition out of the water. Looks like a pretty smart decision to me.

And from what I know of Ellen, they don't have new episodes during the summer months to begin with. Even still, Ellen is not produced and distributed by NBC. It is a syndicated program, so it doesn't air across all of NBC like, say, The View does on ABC.

I know you're upset (as are a lot of people) that NBC makes these business decisions as excuses to not deliver for their viewers. But they're not all based in stupidity without rhyme or reason. You may think it's ridiculous that NBC insists on having the Today Show during the Olympics, but from a business standpoint, they're trying to capitalize on the viewer surge they have during these 2 weeks so the show and the network can benefit from it. That's why it's a world of difference between that and Ellen.


----------



## Laxguy

Good points!

And some of us just can't get enough of Al Roker.....

:nono2:


----------



## Laxguy

Nick said:


> Wiring The Olympics:
> 
> Video: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/wiring-the-olympics_b140201


Nice info; thanks, Nick.

Wow. 92 HD feeds! The one wall in the b/g showed over 50 monitors.


----------



## mrlqban

Nick said:


> Wiring The Olympics:
> 
> Video: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/wiring-the-olympics_b140201


Good Lord, 92 HD feeds all Live, look at the olympic matrix on that wall. Too bad this is overkill for most channels and we can't enjoy it like that. By the way, during the first week, extra live had an Olympic matrix channel showing like 16 feeds at once. I loved it but they shut it down after day 2! What happened?

Let me tell you, I've enjoyed NBCSN coverage which is the best of all their networks for this suff, it has the best variety with full live events and even breaking between track n field and other events constantly during their morning schedule. This is much better than the previous Olympics. But again, too bad this is delayed for the west coast.


----------



## Quaker2001

mrlqban said:


> Let me tell you, I've enjoyed NBCSN coverage which is the best of all their networks for this suff, it has the best variety with full live events and even breaking between track n field and other events constantly during their morning schedule. This is much better than the previous Olympics. *But again, too bad this is delayed for the west coast.*


No it's not. NBC Sports Network (and all the NBC cable networks I believe) are live to both coasts. NBCSN doesn't have a separate West coast feed, especially during the Olympics. I don't live on the West coast, but I have a couple of friends who do that have been watching the NBCSN coverage at the same time I have. Please don't tell me you've become so jaded with NBC's coverage that you're assuming NBCSN is delayed out west. I think you should check that one again.


----------



## Holydoc

My biggest complaint with NBC is the fact that they constantly skip showing us the final scores on events. For instance, they will show us the scores of the gymnastics all the way up to the last performance. When the last performance is over with, NBC will state something like "So-and-So needs an 18.1 to win the gold. All eyes are on the scoreboard." Then NBC will only show everyone looking at the scoreboard, but not the scoreboard. When the final score comes up, NBC will say something like "So-and-So wins silver." but does not show you what score caused this decision. So you do not know if the person got 18.0 or 14.0. This is such a let down.

Personally I would love it, if NBC would split the screen and show the scoreboard and the athletes faces. This would let us at home know the results at the same time and feel the same emotions. 

Don't just show the emotions of the atheletes. Let me experience it!


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> London Olympics huge boost to NBC's 'Today' show
> 
> Read the first few paragraphs of that and tell me you still don't buy it. The Today Show is one of the signature programs on NBC and is constantly battling with the other morning shows. The last thing Today needs is to go on hiatus and get wiped off the schedule for 2 weeks. Instead, they send the show to London and capitalize on the popularity of the Olympics and it looks like they're now blowing the competition out of the water. Looks like a pretty smart decision to me.
> 
> And from what I know of Ellen, they don't have new episodes during the summer months to begin with. Even still, Ellen is not produced and distributed by NBC. It is a syndicated program, so it doesn't air across all of NBC like, say, The View does on ABC.
> 
> I know you're upset (as are a lot of people) that NBC makes these business decisions as excuses to not deliver for their viewers. But they're not all based in stupidity without rhyme or reason. You may think it's ridiculous that NBC insists on having the Today Show during the Olympics, but from a business standpoint, they're trying to capitalize on the viewer surge they have during these 2 weeks so the show and the network can benefit from it. That's why it's a world of difference between that and Ellen.


Again.... ratings and money overtake decency. I know NBC needs to grab as much money from this as they possibly can.... but again, having been born and raised in another country, and having seen the Olympics broadcast on other countries channels..... ALL other programming MOVED ASIDE for the Olympics.

There was no "we need the ratings", there was no "we need more money", there was no television greed grab because that was the most important thing.... NO, there was just the fact that these were THE Olympics, and they needed to be brought to the people without as much interruption as possible.

NBC's motivating factor is primarily greed. (And perhaps compounded by the fact they overpaid). Many other countries are more concerned about the Olympic Spirit. (But then, they probably also did not pay such extreme amounts of money.)

NBC Apologists are always looking at merely one thing: Look at the ratings, thus money. They aren't concerned with the fact, not properly understand what the spirit of the Olympic games mean, and that, from a broadcast point of view, it is quite alright to have other programming move aside so you can bring the games to the people. LIVE.

I'm glad they did so during the weekend, but they should do so every day. Not tape-delay it for three hours to the west coast.


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> Again.... ratings and money overtake decency. I know NBC needs to grab as much money from this as they possibly can.... but again, having been born and raised in another country, and having seen the Olympics broadcast on other countries channels..... ALL other programming MOVED ASIDE for the Olympics.
> 
> There was no "we need the ratings", there was no "we need more money", there was no television greed grab because that was the most important thing.... NO, there was just the fact that these were THE Olympics, and they needed to be brought to the people without as much interruption as possible.
> 
> NBC's motivating factor is primarily greed. (And perhaps compounded by the fact they overpaid). Many other countries are more concerned about the Olympic Spirit. (But then, they probably also did not pay such extreme amounts of money.)
> 
> NBC Apologists are always looking at merely one thing: Look at the ratings, thus money. They aren't concerned with the fact, not properly understand what the spirit of the Olympic games mean, and that, from a broadcast point of view, it is quite alright to have other programming move aside so you can bring the games to the people. LIVE.
> 
> I'm glad they did so during the weekend, but they should do so every day. Not tape-delay it for three hours to the west coast.


I'm not trying to make excuses or apologies for NBC, but the fact is that they are a business and their primary concern is to their shareholders, not their viewers. That's what makes it different from other countries who, by and large, can more easily make decisions like the ones you'd like to see without hurting their financial interest. Don't tell me that NBC is obligated for the Olympic spirit to override smart financial decisions. Hate to tell you this, but it doesn't work that way.

And if you think this is just an NBC thing, look back through history. In 1984, ABC famously couldn't get afternoon soaps moved to make way for all day coverage of the Olympics (that would be the Games of Los Angeles, so if there was ever a time for a network to have "Olympic spirit," that was it). CBS, when they had the Olympics, refused to go past 11pm on primetime because they didn't want to push back Letterman. And I don't even want to think what ESPN would do to an Olympics if it came during the middle of basketball season. This is EVERY network in the United States that operates like this. Way too many people are losing sight of the fact that NBC Sports Network and MSNBC and CNBC and Bravo and Telemundo and the specialty soccer/basketball channels, and of course all the streaming is shown to the entire country at the same time. Yet you're fixated on the 1 network that delays to the west coast and refuse to try and understand why these decisions are made and why NBC, as a business entity, needs to make them.


----------



## majikmarker

Apparently, USA Women's Volleyball is/has reached a premier status level as there is currently no live broadcast on any of the NBC TV outlets.

Thank goodness NBC is holding this for primetime as I am sure I will need their expert commentary to put everything in "context" for me, and understand what is going on.

Thanks NBC...


----------



## inkahauts

"majikmarker" said:


> Apparently, USA Women's Volleyball is/has reached a premier status level as there is currently no live broadcast on any of the NBC TV outlets.
> 
> Thank goodness NBC is holding this for primetime as I am sure I will need their expert commentary to put everything in "context" for me, and understand what is going on.
> 
> Thanks NBC...


I watching the women's volleyball right now on NBC.


----------



## majikmarker

inkahauts said:


> I watching the women's volleyball right now on NBC.


Yep...an hour or so after the match ended.

Guess they weren't saving it for primetime, but they did not show it live on any of their tv outlets.

Why would they feature live handball, synchro swimming, etc and tape delay for an hour or so Team USA Volleyball.

I just do not understand what NBC is thinking most of the time.


----------



## Laxguy

majikmarker said:


> Yep...an hour or so after the match ended.
> 
> Guess they weren't saving it for primetime, but they did not show it live on any of their tv outlets.
> 
> Why would they feature live handball, synchro swimming, etc and tape delay for an hour or so Team USA Volleyball.
> 
> I just do not understand what NBC is thinking most of the time.


Few do, me included.

However, griping about it here doesn't help anyone.


----------



## sigma1914

majikmarker said:


> Yep...an hour or so after the match ended.
> 
> Guess they weren't saving it for primetime, but they did not show it live on any of their tv outlets.
> 
> Why would they feature live handball, synchro swimming, etc and tape delay for an hour or so Team USA Volleyball.
> 
> I just do not understand what NBC is thinking most of the time.


It was live on MSNBC (I think).


----------



## majikmarker

sigma1914 said:


> It was live on MSNBC (I think).


If it was, they cut to it late.

I work from home and was looking forward to having the game on in the background so I was trying to find it. I never found it live on any of the NBC networks.

As a last resort, I streamed it on my computer and by some minor miracle, the quality was mostly watchable.


----------



## majikmarker

Laxguy said:


> Few do, me included.
> 
> However, griping about it here doesn't help anyone.


Trust me, I have "griped" to NBC directly about what I think of their coverage, and how they take one of the great sporting events and cut and edit and force feed a narrative to the US viewers each night during primetime.
I think they view it as a reality show instead of letting it play out as it happens.

Unfortunatly, they take in these record rating and claim everything is just great. Everytime the IOC puts the Olympics up for bidding, I pray that anyone but NBC will win and each time I am disappointed.

I am still relatively young but have just about given up hope on seeing a competently produced Olympics in my lifetime.


----------



## Quaker2001

Eight-in-Ten Following Olympics on TV or Digitally

Here's an article from the Pew research center (I don't know much about them, but from what I understand, they have a pretty good reputation for unbiased reporting). Granted, 1000 people is a relatively small sample size out of 30 million, but I still think it paints a picture. Just like..

Good Business, Bad Quality: How NBC Is Both Right And Wrong On The Olympics

Let me state again.. I have no stake in NBC (full disclosure, I did intern for them once when I was in college). Doesn't matter to me if they succeed or fail, but as much as I come off as an apologist for them, all I'm trying to do is give what I perceive as their side of it and try and give some insight into their mindset. You don't have to like it. You have every reason and right to take to the Internet to voice your displeasure. I'm not trying to be a contrarian, and I'm certainly not trying to get you to come over to my line of reasoning. But I think that a lot of people aren't seeing the whole the situation because they're so blinded with anger that they don't even try and understand what NBC is doing and why they don't do it differently. And also how NBC, for all their faults and poor decision making, does know a little bit about what they're doing, because for every "NBC is an abomination" article I've read, I've found another one that says "it sucks, but it works." That's the reality of it all and if you're only looking at it from 1 side (don't think I haven't seen all the negative press as well), you're missing the full picture.


----------



## Laxguy

There are some gems, too. A few of the b/g stories have been well done, and to my liking. Especially the one on the Grenadan sprinter, Kirani James, and the one on the 1500 metres gold and silver guys. 

I simply record a whole bunch, watch in order of oldest first, with copious use of the FF button.


----------



## TomK

ABC was no better when they had the Olympics. Crappy coverage is the standard when it comes to Olympics and the American networks.


----------



## fluffybear

TomK said:


> ABC was no better when they had the Olympics. Crappy coverage is the standard when it comes to Olympics and the American networks.


Hard to compare the two since ABC has not televised a summer game in 28 years (1984).


----------



## djlong

ABC invented the athlete profile when they introduced their "Up Close and Personal" segments in the Olympics. These were BRIEF stories about some of the athletes. I want to say the first time I saw this was in 1976 since there was more coverage due to the proximity of the Olympic sites (Montreal and Lake Placid made it easy for ABC to have lots of equipment and people in place).

It turned out to be very popular so, tv being tv, they gave us more and more of it - NBC picking up on the idea when they started broadcasting. Now we have so much shoved down our throats I feel like gagging. But I started watching CBC coverage in the 1980s and 1990s. Thankfully I have a DVR for zipping past most of this stuff now.


----------



## majikmarker

Again, the US women's Volleyball is being shut out of live coverage this morning.

Match started at 7am PDT and I currently have live Dressage on MSNBC, and taped Wrestling on NBCSC.

Seems like as the Games wind down, NBC has even cut down on some of the Live daytime coverage they had earlier.


----------



## Henry

Looking forward to the closing ceremonies on Sunday.


----------



## dpeters11

Henry said:


> Looking forward to the closing ceremonies on Sunday.


I'm with you. I like the Olympics, but I am starting to get burned out. Yet I feel like I should still watch the Primetime coverage. And Mountain biking.


----------



## tonyd79

"djlong" said:


> ABC invented the athlete profile when they introduced their "Up Close and Personal" segments in the Olympics. These were BRIEF stories about some of the athletes. I want to say the first time I saw this was in 1976 since there was more coverage due to the proximity of the Olympic sites (Montreal and Lake Placid made it easy for ABC to have lots of equipment and people in place).
> 
> It turned out to be very popular so, tv being tv, they gave us more and more of it - NBC picking up on the idea when they started broadcasting. Now we have so much shoved down our throats I feel like gagging. But I started watching CBC coverage in the 1980s and 1990s. Thankfully I have a DVR for zipping past most of this stuff now.


You got it right. Plus, a lot of the early abc pieces were on foreigners. Not 500 interviews with Michael phelps.


----------



## Henry

dpeters11 said:


> I'm with you. I like the Olympics, but I am starting to get *burned out*. Yet I feel like I should still watch the Primetime coverage. And Mountain biking.


Yeah, got my fill, too. When you get to the point when you don't know what's live and what's tape-delayed and don't care ... it's time for the closing ceremony.


----------



## mrlqban

NBC finally! NBC to stream Closing Ceremony Live. 
There was no excuse to not do the same for the Opening Ceremony.


----------



## mrlqban

One of the most successful Olympics for American women athletes. Outstanding.


----------



## Karen

I'm streaming the Closing Ceremonies from my iPad to Apple TV and it looks great. I even zoomed it to have it fill the screen and it still looks good. No ad on the bottom that way. <g> And, no NBC announcers...


----------



## Davenlr

Karen said:


> I'm streaming the Closing Ceremonies from my iPad to Apple TV and it looks great. I even zoomed it to have it fill the screen and it still looks good. No ad on the bottom that way. <g> And, no NBC announcers...


Yea, Ive been watching too. Love the coverage, and NO COSTAS. Using my laptop directly plugged into the big screen. Good 720p feed. Still seems stupid to me that we have to use bandwidth/$$$ to watch something via the internet using logon authentication to prove we are paying a video provider, who isnt providing the video. I am noticing as the athletes are still streaming in, they are replaying the audio from the previous segment, proving everyone was lip syncing


----------



## mrlqban

London got this backwards, don't know why. Amazing closing ceremony, one of the best I've seen!


----------



## Davenlr

mrlqban said:


> London got this backwards, don't know why. Amazing closing ceremony, one of the best I've seen!


Where else can you see One Direction and Pink Floyd in one show


----------



## crabtrp

I enjoyed NBC's one hour documentary on WWII yesterday during their primetime coverage. I am hoping we get coverage of the Napoleonic Wars tonight, or a piece on the Roman conquests. Idiots.

I hope before Rio I get the ability to stream the BBC in HD.


----------



## Henry

mrlqban said:


> NBC finally! NBC to stream Closing Ceremony Live.
> There was no excuse to not do the same for the Opening Ceremony.


I'll record tonite's broadcast. I'll watch it ... whenever ... not as though anything's gonna change. No Costa, no commercials, no Co$ta, either.


----------



## Davenlr

Henry said:


> I'll record tonite's broadcast. I'll watch it ... whenever ... not as though anything's gonna change. No Costa, no commercials, no Co$ta, either.


It was so exciting to actually be able to watch the whole uncut commercial free closing ceremony live. I am watching the somewhat sharper 1080i broadcast on my local affiliate now since I can record it...

They are cutting out lots of actual content for commercials...
The announcers are talking over the music and public announcer...
And we have a 1/3 screen weather bug map on the screen with a severe thunderstorm warning 140 miles away, and WELL out of the stations DMA, and even outside our local NWS offices area of responsibility....

I pray in the next 4 years, technology improves enough that we dont have to put up with this ignorant network anymore.


----------



## maartena

NBC did it again.

They thought that the traditional closing ceremony marathon medal ceremony.... wasn't quite as important as plugging their really bad and cheesy animal hospital comedy. 

Ah well, its NBC being NBC. Nothing new.


----------



## RunnerFL

Davenlr said:


> Where else can you see One Direction and Pink Floyd in one show


1 member of Pink Floyd does not Pink Floyd make...

It was nice to see Nick but David and Roger could have put their differences aside again like they did for Live 8.


----------



## fluffybear

maartena said:


> NBC did it again.
> 
> They thought that the traditional closing ceremony marathon medal ceremony.... wasn't quite as important as plugging their really bad and cheesy animal hospital comedy.
> 
> Ah well, its NBC being NBC. Nothing new.


Was thinking the same thing last night.


----------



## maartena

TomK said:


> ABC was no better when they had the Olympics. Crappy coverage is the standard when it comes to Olympics and the American networks.


Technology has VASTLY improved since then. It is no wonder that NBC, after all the #NBCFail fallout, actually CHANGED their weekend schedules on the 2nd and 3d weekend of the games to be LIVE across all time zones, and they actually started bragging about that to show how good they were.....

Ugh.

NBC has provided PLENTY of good coverage, for sure. But the difference between east and west really has to stop, as well as cutting out things so it is "tailored to an American audience". I understand you may not want to show all matches all the time, as people would mostly care about the matches Americans participate in..... fully, FULLY understand that. But all the cuts in the opening and closing ceremony, and the delays to the west.... is pure BS of the thickest kind.

With Rio being 1 hour beyond EDT, will the west once again have to deal with 3 hours delay while EDT gets it live? Now they have FOUR years to figure it out, with the 11 hour difference in Sochi they probably won't.


----------



## Henry

What I watched of it on NBC's broadcast was good. I enjoyed it. I skipped all of the commercials and most of the commentary ... but I didn't count on _Dick Cl_ ... I mean _Ryan Seacrest_ interjecting at every turn ... oh well.

We (wife and I) loved every Beatles tune they played but we were a bit taken aback at how _George Michael_ has aged. Goes to show you - and as most of the closing ceremony seemed bent on doing - how in our minds we worship the youthful snapshots of aged Pop Gods ... oh well, again.

We stopped watching when they started the wonderful rendition of _The_ _Beatles_' "I Am The Walrus". I love that song ... made me want to go listen to the _Styx_ version, which I prefer. But we'll pay due homage and sometime today watch the ceremony's version instead.

Oh, well ... on with the frivolity.


----------



## DoyleS

For me, the highlights of the NBC coverage were.
1. Live streaming of individual events. completely eliminated having to worry about spoilers on the events important to me. 
2. Dedicated Soccer and Basketball channels that repeat all day. Easy to set the recorder and watch an entire match and they even shortened the half times. 

The Lowlights were.
1. Only showing a portion of an event if the USA was losing. Case in point, US womens Volleyball team won the first set then all of a sudden after the commercial it is 18-11 and US loses. 
2. Al Michaels and Bob Costas with their PermaDye hair. At least Seacrests hair looked natural. Too much mindless chatter and fluff from all three. 
3. Lastly, starting evening coverage at 8 and running it until midnight. They could at least have started at 7 so my DVR would have a bigger head start. We found ourselves watching other recorded shows and then switching to Olympic coverage at 9:30 and skipping through all of the interviews and commercials and calling it quits at 11- 11:15 when we caught up to Live.


----------



## mreposter

Henry said:


> We stopped watching when they started the wonderful rendition of _The_ _Beatles_' "I Am The Walrus". I love that song ... made me want to go listen to the _Styx_ version, which I prefer. But we'll pay due homage and sometime today watch the ceremony's version instead.


Cheap Trick did a Sgt. Pepper tribute concert a couple years ago that's pretty good. It's available on DVD and I think they released a CD as well. It was a charity thing.


----------



## RunnerFL

mreposter said:


> Cheap Trick did a Sgt. Pepper tribute concert a couple years ago that's pretty good. It's available on DVD and I think they released a CD as well. It was a charity thing.


They did it as a full show in Las Vegas. I'm not sure how long it ran for.

EDIT: Actually after looking it up they've done it several times. Two weeks in Sept 2009 at the Las Vegas Hilton, In Sept 2010 at Paris Las Vegas, etc.


----------



## James Long

maartena said:


> With Rio being 1 hour beyond EDT, will the west once again have to deal with 3 hours delay while EDT gets it live? Now they have FOUR years to figure it out, with the 11 hour difference in Sochi they probably won't.


NBC mentioned the Rio time difference during the closing ceremonies and said "that will help" with their broadcast.

Sochi will be near impossible to do live on TV.


----------



## maartena

James Long said:


> NBC mentioned the Rio time difference during the closing ceremonies and said "that will help" with their broadcast.
> 
> Sochi will be near impossible to do live on TV.


I totally understand about Sochi with the 11 hour difference.

But I am still pissed off about the east-west difference, and I really have no faith in if Rio "prime time" at say 8 PM.... which would be 7PM EDT, that we on the West coast will actually get to see it live at 4PM PDT.

They didn't do it in 2008. (With live swimming to EDT)
They didn't do it in 2010. (With the whole darn games in PDT, we still get it 3 hours later).
They didn't do it in 2012. (With the exception of some of the weekend coverage.)

Three Olympics in a row, (and actually no different in 2006, 2004..... but social media was so less prevalent then, you just needed to stay away from a site or three) the west coast gets SCREWED.

I have no reason to believe that the next 2 Olympics we won't get screwed again. In 2014 because of the time difference.... in 2016 because well.... oh my, those pesky local affiliates and contracts and blah blah we can make more money by delaying it.

NBC hasn't done much to improve. And I lost hope that it will be any better next time around. West coast will get screwed as usual, and the 220 million people not living where the other 80 million live..... well, why should they care, right?

The only thing I have to give NBC props for is their excellent online coverage. Everything was available online, which made it real easy to pick games and watch stuff. That, they did 95% right. (Not streaming the opening ceremony was still a big miss).

But they really need to get rid of the east/west delay. If you can't get the affiliates on board, at least simul-cast the east coast timeslot to either a special temporary Olympics channel (like the Soccer/Basketball channels) or to an existing cable tier network. They could even use Universal HD or something for that.

Also disappointed that there will be no Paralympics coverage at all. Sure, this is something they can probably make no profit on at all, but they could have at least tucked it away in a lesser watched channels for a few hours a day. I think that can be watched online though.


----------



## James Long

maartena said:


> But they really need to get rid of the east/west delay. If you can't get the affiliates on board, at least simul-cast the east coast timeslot to either a special temporary Olympics channel (like the Soccer/Basketball channels) or to an existing cable tier network. They could even use Universal HD or something for that.


There is no way that the west coast affiliates would accept their coverage ... and local advertising ... be undercut by cable channel carriage. Local affiliates pay for first run programming.

PrimeTime at 4pm would be a mess. Is everyone on the west coast going to get off work three hours early so they can make it home for the live coverage? No.

The PrimeTime coverage is designed for those who come home from work in the afternoon and spend their evening watching TV. Live weekend coverage where people are not so tied to that schedule might work ... but most people simply are not available before PrimeTime.


----------



## maartena

James Long said:


> There is no way that the west coast affiliates would accept their coverage ... and local advertising ... be undercut by cable channel carriage. Local affiliates pay for first run programming.


And so, the United States remains the only nation that cannot broadcast the Olympics at the same time to all the people in their nation. Reason: Money, greed, and corporate power.



> PrimeTime at 4pm would be a mess. Is everyone on the west coast going to get off work three hours early so they can make it home for the live coverage? No.
> 
> The PrimeTime coverage is designed for those who come home from work in the afternoon and spend their evening watching TV. Live weekend coverage where people are not so tied to that schedule might work ... but most people simply are not available before PrimeTime.


There are plenty of people that take off work early because the NBA finals start at 5:00 PM when they are on the east coast. That is every YEAR. Same with MLB, NHL, and other sports. Every YEAR. You don't see those "tape delayed because the west coast fans are probably not going to want to watch it live, lets design coverage in such a way they see it when we are SURE they are home".

We're talking about the biggest sport event in the world. There are plenty of people who would take off work a little earlier to see it. At the very least, they can record it and start watching with little delay beyond the east coast.

I get home from work at 4:30, as I start early. And I also wouldn't mind going to bed early because of it, I try to be in bed by 11. If a channel would simulcast the east coast coverage, I would be able to start watching the coverage at 4:30-ish and see it ALMOST live. A few commercials in, and it will be live.

And what do you think, that Canadians are really so different from us? Why can the games be broadcasted at the same time there from the east to the west coast?

Personally, I believe they get plenty, if not more advertising income by simulcasting the games at the same time for those who want to see it that way, even if it is on a tucked-away channel like Universal HD, and the locals plus the main network would still get ALL the ratings and income earnings they want. Some people might actually watch some of the stuff again at night.

I know this is nation is primarily driven by corporate capitalism, but I had just hoped that in the spirit of the Olympics, the wall-street type greed could be set aside for a moment, and bring the Olympics to us at the same time. I still believe this can be profitable for NBC.

But, as usual, a corporation is not interested in "adequate" profit, but in MOAR profit.


----------



## Henry

mreposter said:


> Cheap Trick did a Sgt. Pepper tribute concert a couple years ago that's pretty good. It's available on DVD and I think they released a CD as well. It was a charity thing.


Rats! Amazon doesn't have it in their MP3 Library. Any idea were I can get it short of Itunes?


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> There are plenty of people that take off work early because the NBA finals start at 5:00 PM when they are on the east coast. That is every YEAR. Same with MLB, NHL, and other sports. Every YEAR. You don't see those "tape delayed because the west coast fans are probably not going to want to watch it live, lets design coverage in such a way they see it when we are SURE they are home".


I know you don't want to hear me say it again, but I'm going to say it again.. they don't delay MLB and NHL and NBA games (which, for what it's worth, start at 6pm PT during the finals) because it wouldn't work. They delay the Olympics because it doesn't hurt the ratings and allows those West coast affiliates to keep their local programming intact. You want it to change for Rio? Convince your affiliate that you're more likely to watch at 5pm than you are starting at 8pm. If the majority of viewers aren't going to do that, then it's going to stay the same.



> I know this is nation is primarily driven by corporate capitalism, but I had just hoped that in the spirit of the Olympics, the wall-street type greed could be set aside for a moment, and bring the Olympics to us at the same time. I still believe this can be profitable for NBC.
> 
> But, as usual, a corporation is not interested in "adequate" profit, but in MOAR profit.


For better or worse, you have that right. NBC is a business. Their goal is to make money, not to make business decisions based on "Olympic spirit." Call it greed if you want, but they don't owe it to the IOC (speaking of companies that are about maximizing ratings and profits) to do it differently if they don't think it will generate higher ratings and/or bigger profits. And speaking of ratings..

London Olympics on NBC is Most-Watched Television Event in U.S. History

So for all the criticisms and complaints about the coverage, that's what we're left with. NBC is going to be claiming victory on this one and judging by those numbers, they rightfully should. We can all argue about whether or not what they did was the most profitable and most watched Olympics they could have produced, but clearly they did something right more than just to sink their money into an event that somehow on it's own got even more popular than last time around. I'm still going to think that NBC must have had something to do with that.


----------



## James Long

maartena said:


> And so, the United States remains the only nation that cannot broadcast the Olympics at the same time to all the people in their nation. Reason: Money, greed, and corporate power.


Capitalism suxs?



> There are plenty of people that take off work early because the NBA finals start at 5:00 PM when they are on the east coast.


I was unaware that the NBA finals ran every day for over two full weeks, providing thousands of hours of sports.

The Olympics were expected to cause a $1.38 billion loss in productivity for U.S. companies. And that was with the streaming and TV schedule that NBC chose to use.



> We're talking about the biggest sport event in the world. There are plenty of people who would take off work a little earlier to see it. At the very least, they can record it and start watching with little delay beyond the east coast.


This year only 42% of TV homes have the ability to watch with their own delay.



> I know this is nation is primarily driven by corporate capitalism, but I had just hoped that in the spirit of the Olympics, the wall-street type greed could be set aside for a moment, and bring the Olympics to us at the same time. I still believe this can be profitable for NBC.


If the NBC network is lucky they will break even on the games. NBC Universal will do better as the use of the cable channels brings awareness to their other channels. How many of those viewers stick around after the games is yet to be proven.

If I asked you for a ten and three fives as change for a twenty would you give it to me? If so, please do. But if you recognize that it would be fiscally irresponsible of you to make that deal please recognize that making money is the purpose of business.

It is also the purpose of most individuals. They make money so they can afford to pay for the things they want ... such as DVRs, HDTVs and solid internet connections for IPTV.

NBC is not a charity ... it is a business.


----------



## RunnerFL

Henry said:


> Rats! Amazon doesn't have it in their MP3 Library. Any idea were I can get it short of Itunes?


Amazon does have it:

http://www.amazon.com/Sgt-Pepper-Li...1344902009&sr=8-3&keywords=cheap+trick+pepper


----------



## Quaker2001

James Long said:


> Capitalism suxs?


It's not even just that.. television distribution works differently in the United States than in any other country, including Canada. That's why decisions are made the way they are. Yes, that sucks if you're on the West coast and you get screwed out of live coverage. But the affiliates are the ones who asked for it based on their research (call it faulty if you want, and yes there's also the element of local programming). If they could improve viewership and their profit margins by simulcasting the East coast feed on another station, I'm sure they'd do it. But there's a bigger picture involved with how Olympic programming affects what else is on the network.

Bottom line.. NBC and their affiliates are doing what they believe is generating the highest viewership. If they did it another way and fewer people were watching (and again, there's all the other programming the Olympics affect to keep in mind), then who are they really serving by making that change.


----------



## maartena

#NBCFail gets worse.... I downloaded the BBC version of the closing ceremonies, and it is absolutely disgusting what NBC cut out.... whole artists performing, the traditional marathon medal ceremony, the Kate Bush piece, George Michael really did sing more than just the one song... over 50% of the nations walking in when everyone came out together, and lots of small details....

"Tailored to the American audience" my arse. This is an absolute disgrace..... and all this to get their Animal Hospital plug in, and the "London Gold" piece that really could have been about an hour or so.

I stopped watching after 5 minutes of that awful cheesy Animal Hospital show, and I already lost 25 minutes in HD (had to switch to SD) because NBC Los Angeles feed failed. So I decided to give the ceremonies a second chance.

My god, the BBC commentary (which is mostly ABSENT and only when really needed something was said) is HEAVEN compared to Bob Costas.

NBC is barely breaking even you say Quake? Well, they just lost another 2 pairs of eyes, because with Sochi 2014 I will go BBC for the opening/closing ceremonies from the get-go. NBC can suck it, it was SO bad.


----------



## Davenlr

James Long said:


> NBC is not a charity ... it is a business.


Well, for someone who has watched almost all of the previous Olympics, this year, with social media, and other sources telling me the winners 5 hours before the TV airings, I actually watched NONE of the Olympics other than the delayed opening ceremony, and streamed/torrent closing ceremonies...so if they are trying to make money, they are losing a lot of viewers doing it the way they are doing it.


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> NBC is barely breaking even you say Quake? Well, they just lost another 2 pairs of eyes, because with Sochi 2014 I will go BBC for the opening/closing ceremonies from the get-go. NBC can suck it, it was SO bad.


That's what they're saying. And remember.. that break even number is based largely on what they bid for these Olympics 9 years ago (which was a pretty big over-bid). Had NBC bid less (which they still could have won with) and the economy didn't crash, we'd probably be talking about them making profits in the hundreds of millions. As it is, considering the effect the Olympics will have on the rest of their programming, breaking even is a pretty big win. And back in Beijing, when not every event was streamed online, the theory was that a lot of people would be pushed towards online streaming from other countries. Clearly that's not a big issue for NBC as viewership went up from Beijing and I think the online streaming was a big reason for that.



Davenlr said:


> Well, for someone who has watched almost all of the previous Olympics, this year, with social media, and other sources telling me the winners 5 hours before the TV airings, I actually watched NONE of the Olympics other than the delayed opening ceremony, and streamed/torrent closing ceremonies...*so if they are trying to make money, they are losing a lot of viewers doing it the way they are doing it.*


Did you see the numbers for London? Viewership is UP in virtually every measurement from Beijing. So if they lost a lot of viewers, I guess they must have gained a lot of new ones.

I know the theory here is that the Olympics are just so popular and that all this viewership comes in spite of NBC. I'm still going with the theory that NBC must have done something right or else the numbers wouldn't be what they are.


----------



## mreposter

Henry said:


> Rats! Amazon doesn't have it in their MP3 Library. Any idea were I can get it short of Itunes?


If you go to FROOGLE.com, google's price searching site you can look it up. Ironically, the music company wants more for the audio CD than the video distributor wants for the DVD. And they wonder why people don't buy CDs anymore. I bought the DVD for around $5 earlier this summer.

Back to the Olympics, I "happened across" the BBC coverage and was surprised at just how much of the show NBC edited out.


----------



## djlong

I had a chance to get the BBC version of the Closing Ceremonies.

Astounding.

It makes you think that American commentators are paid by the word. When will they ever learn that they (the commentators) are NOT the reason we tune in?


----------



## trh

Henry said:


> Rats! Amazon doesn't have it in their MP3 Library. Any idea were I can get it short of Itunes?


You can listen to it free on Spotify.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

My grade for the NBC coverage is a B-.

Having DVR'ed it daily, we found it to be the best way to enjoy watching the various events - at our own time and speeding through when we chose to do so. It reminded me of the value of having DVR's.

There were certainly some broadcast quality and continuity snafus, but then...this has happened in the past. Still - with the $$$ invested and latest technology, this should have been reduced as an issue IMHO.

Some of the background pieces were very good, while others were mind-numbing. There were clearly some pieces created to stir up interest in otherwise-boring events.

The Track & Field events seemed to have the best camera angles and overall best coverage. Swimming and diving were next.

A couple of lower "scores" came on the overkill of certain athletes or events. Women's Beach Volleyball seemed to get "rock star" coverage in comparison to some others.

Overall...NBC did a pretty good (not great) job.

As for the advance results - this is an unfortunate reality of today's instant-gratification news media over-zealous world. While some folks don't want to see results until they are viewed within broadcasts...the twitter/Facebook/news report world loves to blast the info on banners and "news breaks" as soon as they happen. 

I don't believe the world can turn back wards on that industry mantra anymore. In our case, we avoided watching TV until the late evening hours, viewing recordings from the day's events from the DVR instead. It also required a conscious effort to avoid reading the Web and related news blasts.

As for London's role in this Olympics event - they get a "B" here - not a bad job overall. The closing ceremonies, however, were among the least impressive in some time - more like a concert event than anything else. For a while, it was hard to relate this as an Olympics ceremony at all.

So it's on to the next one (Winter games)...here before ya know it.


----------



## dpeters11

But is NBC responsible for much of the camera coverage of events? I think the OBS mostly handled the cameras and NBC had access to the feeds, along with all the other carriers.

NBC cameras of course were involved in interviews and such.


----------



## fluffybear

dpeters11 said:


> But is NBC responsible for much of the camera coverage of events? I think the OBS mostly handled the cameras and NBC had access to the feeds, along with all the other carriers.
> 
> NBC cameras of course were involved in interviews and such.


Correct, The Olympics (OBS) provided broadcast partners numerous pool feeds from the venues which the broadcasters then assembled for their own broadcast.
NBC did have their own hand held cameras for on-site interviews and of course their own equipment in their studios/broadcast center.


----------



## fluffybear

hdtvfan0001 said:


> My grade for the NBC coverage is a B-.


I would have to give them a C- and not because of their decision not to carry a number of events live (I understand why and can accept it) but because I felt their commentators made huge asses of themselves most of the times. I can not count the number of times in which they looked foolish after building up (or putting down) an athlete or their routine only to have try and take it back.


----------



## maartena

dpeters11 said:


> But is NBC responsible for much of the camera coverage of events? I think the OBS mostly handled the cameras and NBC had access to the feeds, along with all the other carriers.
> 
> NBC cameras of course were involved in interviews and such.


95% of all camera action was purely OBS, if not more. NBC has some of their own camera's here and there, mostly for the interviews after the race and such, and those cameras of course could also be used during the race. But pretty much all sports action was done by OBS.


----------



## maartena

djlong said:


> I had a chance to get the BBC version of the Closing Ceremonies.
> 
> Astounding.
> 
> It makes you think that American commentators are paid by the word. When will they ever learn that they (the commentators) are NOT the reason we tune in?


It was just SO much better done, so much more class, so much more coverage..... and they didn't cut anything.


----------



## majikmarker

Quaker2001 said:


> That's what they're saying. And remember.. that break even number is based largely on what they bid for these Olympics 9 years ago (which was a pretty big over-bid). Had NBC bid less (which they still could have won with) and the economy didn't crash, we'd probably be talking about them making profits in the hundreds of millions. As it is, considering the effect the Olympics will have on the rest of their programming, breaking even is a pretty big win. And back in Beijing, when not every event was streamed online, the theory was that a lot of people would be pushed towards online streaming from other countries. Clearly that's not a big issue for NBC as viewership went up from Beijing and I think the online streaming was a big reason for that.
> 
> Did you see the numbers for London? Viewership is UP in virtually every measurement from Beijing. So if they lost a lot of viewers, I guess they must have gained a lot of new ones.
> 
> I know the theory here is that the Olympics are just so popular and that all this viewership comes in spite of NBC. I'm still going with the theory that NBC must have done something right or else the numbers wouldn't be what they are.


I still contend that when you have a monopoly on a broadcast TV event, ratings do not tell the entire story. Where else can I go to watch this on my TV? I cannot vote by changing the channel and watch the Olympics somewhere else (I can guarantee if Directv offered the same Canadian channels that local cable offers here, I would have been on CTV almost exclusively).

There are other factors to consider as well. In our current economy, "free" primetime TV may be the only entertainment option for millions of Amercans who may otherwise be going to dinner, work, a movie, etc. Also, I believe there is a correlation to a country being in a general malaise and citizens looking for a sense a patriotism, something to take pride in, something to help them "escape" their troubles for a few hours (like Lake Placid in 1980).

Yes their rating are through the roof. Sit back NBC, pat yourselves on the back and convince yourselves that everything is fine (as you get back to the reality that your network is a distant last place when it comes to primetime entertainment). Personally, I watched the least primetime Olympic coverage ever as an adult and if I didn't have a DVR, I would have turned them off after the first night. For me, the commercial breaks were that intrusive.


----------



## maartena

James Long said:


> I was unaware that the NBA finals ran every day for over two full weeks, providing thousands of hours of sports.


They don't. But for any of the major sports in the U.S., finals of every type, local affiliates will happily move aside. If a baseball game runs past 11PM, the local news will simply have to wait. A game starts at 5? No problem, the news will be postponed till after.

The Olympics could have easily adopted this schedule:

East Coast:

5:00 Local News.
6:00 National News.
7:00 Olympic Zone
7:30 Olympics Coverage.
12:00 Local News.
12:35 Late Night Olympics.
02:00 Repeat Olympic Coverage until LIVE action begins.

West Coast:
3:00 National News. (match EDT)
4:00 Olympic Zone.
4:30 Olympic Coverage (match EDT)
9:00 Local News. (to make up for 5:00 miss)
9:35 Olympic Late Night
11:00 Repeat Olympics Coverage, 4:30-5:30 hour.
12:00 Local News. 
12:35 Repeat rest of Olympics Coverage.

My point is.... if they PLANNED it well they could have given local news in the west a PRIME TIME spot in exchange for NATIONWIDE coverage, and I believe they would still be able to make a profit.

And for those working? If the Lakers reach the finals and they play in the east.... traffic starts at 2:00 PM for the 4 away games. If people want to see sports, they will go home.

This is an event that happens every 2 years, for 2 weeks. 3 weekends included, so you will have to make arrangements with the affiliates for 10 business days.



> The Olympics were expected to cause a $1.38 billion loss in productivity for U.S. companies. And that was with the streaming and TV schedule that NBC chose to use.


In other words, because NBC grossly overpaid for the Olympics (I think I calculated before that per individual, they paid about twice as much as the Canadians did for their right.) they have to resort to tricks, delays, cuts, and plugs for their cheesy new shows in order to recoup that.

And thus, We The People get shafted.



> This year only 42% of TV homes have the ability to watch with their own delay.


You do have a point. But you know what? I would have gladly paid $10 to get the coverage same time as east coast. I know they miserably failed a PPV approach in 1996, but times have changed, and technology/delivery has become so much easier to manage.

With the ease carriers can add the Soccer/Basketball channels, they could also have added a "Olympics Plus" channel you will get if you pay $10 or so, on which everything is live and/or at the same time as EDT.



> If the NBC network is lucky they will break even on the games. NBC Universal will do better as the use of the cable channels brings awareness to their other channels. How many of those viewers stick around after the games is yet to be proven.
> 
> If I asked you for a ten and three fives as change for a twenty would you give it to me? If so, please do. But if you recognize that it would be fiscally irresponsible of you to make that deal please recognize that making money is the purpose of business.
> 
> It is also the purpose of most individuals. They make money so they can afford to pay for the things they want ... such as DVRs, HDTVs and solid internet connections for IPTV.
> 
> NBC is not a charity ... it is a business.


I understand this. And although you say they are lucky to break even, I also believe more and more people went to alternative routes to watch their coverage. You can already buy a ROKU and configure it for permanent VPN use, allowing it to be your viewing device for anything .UK, including BBC streams and whatnot, and I expect that technology will continue to evolve in such a way that by 2014 it will be easier, and in 2016 it will be easier still to utilize IPTV type connections.

I personally believe that if NBC keeps up the current model with delays + added west coast delays, they will find in 2016.... (2014 delays are unavoidable) that customers will walk away from them altogether and find their live coverage elsewhere.

In 2016, people will still have traditional TV services en-masse. But they will also have access to so much more, and more importantly it will have become easier and easier to circumvent the rules a little and access Canadian and/or British streams. (And/or other countries if you speak another language)

NBC's model is behind the times, and they paid for that kind of model. They will need to get creative, and they will need to get the affiliates on board.


----------



## Laxguy

I just realized that I didn't see any sailing events! I didn't look for them, either. Were they broadcast? (I taped a large amount, viewed pretty much as the 'fan did). 

Thought the equestrian events were the best filmed, due to the complexity of the course and angles dealing with lots of trees. 

Best interview: Mo Farrah.


----------



## maartena

Laxguy said:


> I just realized that I didn't see any sailing events! I didn't look for them, either. Were they broadcast? (I taped a large amount, viewed pretty much as the 'fan did).


Sailing was not broadcast in the U.S.


----------



## Laxguy

maartena said:


> Sailing was not broadcast in the U.S.


Thanks!

I feel better having missed it as it wasn't shown than through my own lack of diligence!


----------



## James Long

maartena said:


> I was unaware that the NBA finals ran every day for over two full weeks, providing thousands of hours of sports.
> 
> 
> 
> They don't. But for any of the major sports in the U.S., finals of every type, local affiliates will happily move aside. If a baseball game runs past 11PM, the local news will simply have to wait. A game starts at 5? No problem, the news will be postponed till after.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between the Olympics and a US final of a major sport. There are far too many finals involved in the Olympics. And most of them are not worth changing the broadcast schedule to carry live.

On the schedule you suggest there wouldn't have been anything live available to air from London from 7:30pm-Midnight. Do you really expect the west coast viewers to treat that programming with the importance of the NBA finals or other sporting event? Cutting out of work early so they can see taped highlights at the same time as the east coast?



> The Olympics were expected to cause a $1.38 billion loss in productivity for U.S. companies. And that was with the streaming and TV schedule that NBC chose to use.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, because NBC grossly overpaid for the Olympics (I think I calculated before that per individual, they paid about twice as much as the Canadians did for their right.) they have to resort to tricks, delays, cuts, and plugs for their cheesy new shows in order to recoup that.
Click to expand...

Nope ... you misread the statistic.

The country was predicted to lose $1.38 billion because people cutting out of work or working less efficiently due to the Olympics. Your plan encourages more people to cut out of work early to watch the evening Olympic coverage at 4:30pm PT instead of 7:30pm PT. If people followed your plan the west coast work day would end three hours earlier than it should for two weeks ... 30 hours of lost time? (OK, theoretically they could start three hours earlier to compensate - but will they?)

Delaying the west coast replay until normal prime time is good for America.


----------



## Quaker2001

majikmarker said:


> I still contend that when you have a monopoly on a broadcast TV event, ratings do not tell the entire story. Where else can I go to watch this on my TV? I cannot vote by changing the channel and watch the Olympics somewhere else (I can guarantee if Directv offered the same Canadian channels that local cable offers here, I would have been on CTV almost exclusively).


I understand the monopoly argument but A) how is that different from every other Olympics ever broadcast in the United States, let alone in other countries. And B) how is that different from the network that has the Super Bowl or, perhaps more applicable to an event like the Olympics, the network that has the NCAA Tournament. Olympic TV rights have always been that, for the most part, each country gets 1 broadcaster. 1 of the fears in the early 2000s when the Internet starting becoming big would be how would each country be able to protect their own video streams. I know it's possible, especially in Europe to get coverage from other countries over the air, but that's not the norm. So to make it seem like what NBC is doing with these Olympics is anything different than most other countries and most other Olympics, that's simply not the case.



> Yes their rating are through the roof. Sit back NBC, pat yourselves on the back and convince yourselves that everything is fine (as you get back to the reality that your network is a distant last place when it comes to primetime entertainment). Personally, I watched the least primetime Olympic coverage ever as an adult and if I didn't have a DVR, I would have turned them off after the first night. For me, the commercial breaks were that intrusive.


NBC invested a lot of money (too much money, but that goes back to 9 years ago) in the Olympics. They're more than getting their money's worth because if they break even, the halo effect of what the Olympics will do for the rest of the network can only help a network that is desperate for viewers. So yea, NBC execs are 100% patting themselves on the back right now because even though it's back to being in 4th place, the last 3 weeks have been a huge success for them. The ratings and the profits may not tell THE story, but they certainly tell A story. Either way, I still believe that NBC deserves more credit for their success with these Olympics than most are willing to give them credit for. And that a lot of their actions did contribute to the ratings success, not that it just happened in spite of them. Keep in mind.. the Olympics are full of athletes and sports that most Americans otherwise wouldn't care about. That so many people were interested in watching them, in spite of what so many people say is awful coverage and events ruined by tape delay and all that.. I can't believe that largely happened on it's own. I believe that NBC and their desire and ability to promote the Olympics played a big part in driving viewership up to the levels that they hit.


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> They don't. But for any of the major sports in the U.S., finals of every type, local affiliates will happily move aside. If a baseball game runs past 11PM, the local news will simply have to wait. A game starts at 5? No problem, the news will be postponed till after.


Happily? There's nothing happy about an affiliate moving programming aside like that. And the East coast affiliates generally don't like going late either. Did you see the clip of a news anchor, I think it was in Jacksonville, going off on NBC and Costas for running a few minutes long on primetime? The worst is baseball because the end time of those games is so volatile and that's bad for local news. Again, that local programming is extremely important to affiliates and the biggest benefit they get from airing these events is the lead-in they get to their local programming, not always how many people are watching the national event itself.



> The Olympics could have easily adopted this schedule:
> 
> West Coast:
> 3:00 National News. (match EDT)
> 4:00 Olympic Zone.
> 4:30 Olympic Coverage (match EDT)
> 9:00 Local News. (to make up for 5:00 miss)
> 9:35 Olympic Late Night
> 11:00 Repeat Olympics Coverage, 4:30-5:30 hour.
> 12:00 Local News.
> 12:35 Repeat rest of Olympics Coverage.
> 
> My point is.... if they PLANNED it well they could have given local news in the west a PRIME TIME spot in exchange for NATIONWIDE coverage, and I believe they would still be able to make a profit.


There's nothing easy about that for an affiliate. News at 3pm? That's not going to be as profitable as news at 5pm in the usual slot. And if Olympic ratings aren't going to be hurt by the delay (which it seems like they're not), then affiliates have little incentive to want to do that.



> I understand this. And although you say they are lucky to break even, I also believe more and more people went to alternative routes to watch their coverage. You can already buy a ROKU and configure it for permanent VPN use, allowing it to be your viewing device for anything .UK, including BBC streams and whatnot, and I expect that technology will continue to evolve in such a way that by 2014 it will be easier, and in 2016 it will be easier still to utilize IPTV type connections.
> 
> I personally believe that if NBC keeps up the current model with delays + added west coast delays, they will find in 2016.... (2014 delays are unavoidable) that customers will walk away from them altogether and find their live coverage elsewhere.
> 
> In 2016, people will still have traditional TV services en-masse. But they will also have access to so much more, and more importantly it will have become easier and easier to circumvent the rules a little and access Canadian and/or British streams. (And/or other countries if you speak another language)
> 
> NBC's model is behind the times, and they paid for that kind of model. They will need to get creative, and they will need to get the affiliates on board.


There's definitely an element that people are going to start moving away from traditional television. Comcast is not unaware of this. It's part of the reason they investing in the future of the Olympics, because they think they can profit off it. NBC is going to have to evolve with the times, but people were talking about that in 2008 that it would scare people off to non-traditional means to watch the Olympics. Clearly that wasn't the case in 2012 (people didn't exactly walk away this time).

In 2014 and 2016, NBC has to re-evaluate their coverage. I believe we'll see some changes moving forward as Comcast takes more control and Dick Ebersol is no longer in the picture. But that doesn't mean they need to kill the current model altogether and start from scratch instead of using what they're learned and improving upon it.


----------



## Holydoc

Uggh. Just finished watching the closing ceremonies. Totally awful. Though I enjoyed the games, I hated the opening, closing ceremonies, and the fact that NBC did not split the screen so that you could see athlete reactions and their scores.

*sigh* Now to catch up on my other recordings.


----------



## Henry

Holydoc said:


> Uggh. Just finished watching the closing ceremonies. Totally awful. Though I enjoyed the games, I hated the opening, closing ceremonies, and the fact that NBC did not split the screen so that you could see athlete reactions and their scores.
> 
> *sigh* Now to catch up on my other recordings.


Not all that bad. Didn't come close to Beijing, but hey. The human (synchronization) element was missing, but the music made up for it.


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> Comcast is not unaware of this. It's part of the reason they investing in the future of the Olympics, because they think they can profit off it.


At this moment.... all I think is:

Profit = Restrictions.

If they can make more profit, they are going to put as much restrictions, roadblocks, cuts and edits..... that they can get away with. Plus screw the west coast on top of it.

Comcast may not be unaware of this. But they have screwed us over with the opening ceremonies and closing ceremonies in SUCH a BAD way.... they will be losing pairs of eyes for their commercials for the next Olympics. The stuff they cut, combined with the plugs for their new cheesy comedy show was really disgustingly, badly done.


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> At this moment.... all I think is:
> 
> Profit = Restrictions.
> 
> If they can make more profit, they are going to put as much restrictions, roadblocks, cuts and edits..... that they can get away with. Plus screw the west coast on top of it.


Remember how the business model works though. NBC can only profit if advertisers are paying top dollar. Advertisers will only pay top dollar if the ratings are high. And high ratings = people watching. NBC (and by extension, their sponsors) believe that doing things the way they do is drawing MORE viewers than the alternative. Obviously that's debatable, but the point is that what NBC is doing is designed to draw in more viewers. You may disagree, but obviously there are a lot of people out there who feel differently. More viewers = more profit. Fewer viewers = less profit. And especially with the West coast, those decisions are made by the affiliates because they believe more people will be watching. Again, you may disagree and be wishing for an alternative, but based on the numbers from the last few Olympics, it seems like those affiliates may have a point.



> Comcast may not be unaware of this. But they have screwed us over with the opening ceremonies and closing ceremonies in SUCH a BAD way.... they will be losing pairs of eyes for their commercials for the next Olympics. The stuff they cut, combined with the plugs for their new cheesy comedy show was really disgustingly, badly done.


We hear this EVERY Olympics. People say they're so pissed off at NBC that they won't watch their coverage, they won't watch their shows, and they won't support their advertisers. And yet the numbers are trending upward, defying all logic. Certainly part of that owes to the popularity of the Olympics, but especially that Comcast was willing to sink $4.38 billion into the next 4 Olympics, clearly they think there's something there.

Bottom line.. Comcast and NBCU can't profit from the Olympics unless people are watching. The more people that are watching, the more they profit. So if you think NBC is interested in anything less than getting as many people to watch as much of their coverage as possible, you're still not seeing the bigger picture. All those people complaining about the coverage.. if they keep watching (and we've established there are alternatives, some better than others), then they're continuing to give NBC license to keep doing what they're doing.


----------



## maartena

Quaker2001 said:


> Bottom line.. Comcast and NBCU can't profit from the Olympics unless people are watching.


And I will actually watch NBC Networks if I know for SURE they aren't cutting anything from their broadcasts of the ceremonies. Now that I know they cut BIG pieces out of it, I won't be watching the next time around.

And sure, they'll still get a pretty large audience, but access to television from other countries is getting easier and easier.... and if Comcast/NBCU is just keeping up with the same tactics, they will lose more and more viewers.


----------



## Quaker2001

maartena said:


> And I will actually watch NBC Networks if I know for SURE they aren't cutting anything from their broadcasts of the ceremonies. Now that I know they cut BIG pieces out of it, I won't be watching the next time around.
> 
> And sure, they'll still get a pretty large audience, but access to television from other countries is getting easier and easier.... and if Comcast/NBCU is just keeping up with the same tactics, they will lose more and more viewers.


But there were some new tactics this time though. All the events (yes, save for the Opening Ceremony) were live streamed. NBC Sports Network provided more coverage than we're used to seeing from cable. NBC's afternoon coverage was expanded big time. Was primetime largely the same as it has been in the past? Yes it was. But clearly that didn't make people turn away from primetime. And we hear this after every Olympics how people will look for alternate (including about access to other countries' coverage), yet MORE people watched these Olympics than the last one. So if they lost viewers from the last Olympics (and if we believe Twitter, there were a lot), they must have gained even more for some reason. Is it because the Olympics are simply that more popular than they were in 2008? Or is it possible that the folks running the show at NBC and Comcast aren't as ignorant as everyone seems to think they are. The coverage has been evolving.. it's not like they haven't changed anything over the years.


----------



## Maruuk

I have to agree, both the opening and closing ceremonies were awful. The music was hideous: bland, repetitious, unimaginative. The bizarre themes were quite odd and irrelevant, and overall lacking in the true heart and soul of the Games.

I remember the close of the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin. Andrea Bocelli singing "Because We Believe" just before the dousing of the flame. Incredible. Lots of tears were shed. London had nothing remotely close to that.

I shudder to think of the PR fest that murdering despot Putin will make of the Sochi games. One harkens back to Hitler and the 1936 games in Berlin. Chilling. Perhaps the athletes' good vibes of internationalism and some good music will overcome the creepy political overtones. The Winter Games always seem to be much more magical and emotional than the Summer games. All that beautiful snow and ice up in the mountains. And it would be nice if they HAD some this time, right Vancouver?


----------



## Henry

I thought the music was ok, Maruuk ... mostly old-timer rock classics. It wasn't a great theme overall, but it was passable - politics and all. I didn't see much of an effort made to surpass (or even approach) the grandeur that was the Beijing opener, so in a sense there was less to be disappointed about.

Like you, I enjoy the winter games much more. They are indeed magical in sight and sound. I also enjoy the winter sporting events much more than those in the summer games - although I'm hard-pressed to choose between ladies' gymnastics and mens' speed skating.

Let's see what Russia's bringing to the table ... that is, if someone can convince NBC to broadcast it.


----------



## James Long

Henry said:


> Let's see what Russia's bring to the table ... that is, if someone can convince NBC to broadcast it.


They have the rights ... so no one else will be broadcasting it to US viewers via television/cable.


----------



## Henry

James Long said:


> They have the rights ... so no one else will be broadcasting it to US viewers via television/cable.


Yeah, I know, James ... that's what bothers me. As heavy-handed and arbitrary as they were with London, I'm half expecting to see a one hour cut-in for some new Seacrest reality series starring a turtle or something.


----------



## Quaker2001

Henry said:


> Let's see what Russia's bring to the table ... that is, if someone can convince NBC to broadcast it.


Yea, I mean because NBC 'ONLY' offered 5,500 hours of coverage from London. If only they had shown more!


----------



## Henry

Quaker2001 said:


> Yea, I mean because NBC 'ONLY' offered 5,500 hours of coverage from London. If only they had shown more!


Don't bring me in to this argument, Quaker ... you are doing just fine without me.

My comment was a means of indicating my displeasure with the break in broadcasting it. I'm sure anyone watching the broadcast would be reasonably upset by the "heavy-handed and arbitrary" way they handled it. It's like watching a 3 hour movie only to have the end cut short for a commercial or something.


----------



## James Long

They could have cut more out of the program to make it fit the time scheduled.


----------



## Maruuk

Maybe they'll have a naked Putin wrestle a Polar Bear for the opening in Sochi--hope they don't cut THAT!


----------



## Henry

Maruuk said:


> Maybe they'll have a naked Putin wrestle a Polar Bear for the opening in Sochi--hope they don't cut THAT!


 !rolling _You're slaying me, Maruuk!!!_ !rolling


----------



## Henry

James Long said:


> They could have cut more out of the program to make it fit the time scheduled.


They could have ... it was their broadcast ... but they arrogantly chose to let us watch some stupid monkey instead.

All during the games we were conditioned to see primetime coverage, followed by local news and then a one or two-hour (can't remember) recap of the day's sporting events. Nothing changed on my EPG that night, except me not reading it on the last night of the Olympics.

Needless to say, I opted not to record that block and was thusly rewarded the next day when I replayed what I thought would be the entire closing ceremony, only to discover they had not shown it that way.

I wonder how many others were equally surprised?

And with that I'll drop out of this conversation.


----------



## Nick

I think NBC did a damn fine job with the 2012 London Olympics. We Comcast subs even got some additional channels of HD coverage.


----------

