• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Good News And Bad News For NBC Tuesday Olympic Coverage

J

Joseph_Gallant

Guest
According to this story on Zap 2 It.com, NBC had some good news and bad news concerning it's prime-time coverage of the Winter Olympics last night (February 21st).

First the good news: NBC has the highest-rated night of the Winter Games so far; thanks in large part to the short program in women's figure-skating (and American Sasha Cohen leading after the first day of competition).

The bad news for NBC: It wasn't enough for the network to beat "American Idol" during the two hours (8-10 P.M. ET/PT) that the two went head-to-head. After "Idol" ended, NBC's Olympic coverage dominated the latter part of the evening.

With Cohen a shoo-in for a medal (unless she stumbles in tomorrow night's long program) and having a good chance to win it all (again, unless she stumbles), NBC could have a huge night tomorrow----after 9 P.M. Eastern and Pacific. The "Idol" results show (8-9 P.M. ET/PT) could again beat-out NBC's first hour of prime-time coverage from Turin/Torino.
 
> With Cohen a shoo-in for a medal (unless she stumbles in
> tomorrow night's long program) and having a good chance to
> win it all (again, unless she stumbles), NBC could have a
> huge night tomorrow----after 9 P.M. Eastern and Pacific.

Of course we'll all know the outcome a couple of hours before NBC's coverage hits the air. If Cohen wins, and Emily Hughes does well, it will help NBC. If Cohen and Hughes both flame, viewers might turn elsewhere.
 
I don't know how much of tomorrow's (February 23rd) NBC four-hour prime-time Olympic coverage will be devoted to the long program in women's figure skating, but if the network decides to devote three out of the four prime-time hours to skating (possible, given there aren't that many other events on tomorrow's schedule), would NBC hold-off on showing the skating until 9 P.M. ET/PT so that the skating doesn't go up against the "American Idol" results show (assuming Fox at the last minute doesn't decide to extend it beyond it's scheduled one-hour length)??

Personally, were I in the position of NBC Olympics head Dick Ebersol, I would have moved the broadcast of the two other events scheduled for tomorrow's prime-time show-----the men's frestyle skiing aerials and the women's parallel giant slalom snowboarding-----to the afternoon to allow the entire four-hour prime-time show to be devoted to figure-skating. Such a move would have allowed NBC to have showed the "long program" of all 24 skaters who qualified, as well as interviews, analysis, and yes, even those heart-tugging "Up Close And Personal" features. Might also mean higher ratings, too.
 
>
> Personally, were I in the position of NBC Olympics head Dick
> Ebersol, I would have moved the broadcast of the two other
> events scheduled for tomorrow's prime-time show-----the
> men's frestyle skiing aerials and the women's parallel giant
> slalom snowboarding-----to the afternoon to allow the entire
> four-hour prime-time show to be devoted to figure-skating.
> Such a move would have allowed NBC to have showed the "long
> program" of all 24 skaters who qualified, as well as
> interviews, analysis, and yes, even those heart-tugging "Up
> Close And Personal" features. Might also mean higher
> ratings, too.
>

Luckily, you'll never be in Dick Ebersonl's position...
 
A question for the regulars here

Is anyone besides me going to be glad when the Olympics are over so Joseph will stop his daily analysis of the ratings?<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: A question for the regulars here

> Is anyone besides me going to be glad when the Olympics are
> over so Joseph will stop his daily analysis of the ratings?
>
It is my understanding that I agree.;-)
 
Re: A question for the regulars here

> It is my understanding that I agree.;-)

I agree as well.

If anyone cared about the Olympics, people WOULD be watching it. That would include those that lurk and post on this site.

Every network, including NBC w/their Olympics' coverage, knows that they will not be able to beat "American Idol."
 
Re: A question for the regulars here

> > Is anyone besides me going to be glad when the Olympics
> are
> > over so Joseph will stop his daily analysis of the
> ratings?
> >
> It is my understanding that I agree.;-)
>
I wouldn't be surprised, and in fact would expect, the answer to be yes. :)

Then, finally, we can get back to the speculation about where Katie will go....
 
Idol isn't the only competitor!!!

I know more people watch American Idol but many have forgotten about ABC's Dancing with the Stars being a threat to the Olympics. Tonight is the finals with the results show being on Sunday night running up against the closing ceremonies. In my house there will be two TV's on tonight to jump from Skating to Dancing.
 
Re: A question for the regulars here

> Is anyone besides me going to be glad when the Olympics are
> over so Joseph will stop his daily analysis of the ratings?
>
<h2><font face="Arial Bold"> YES!</h2></font>
 
Re: Idol isn't the only competitor!!!

This is a night for multiple VCR's and Tivo's!!
 
Let Me Defend Myself

The reason I have been posting links to stories about Olympics TV ratings, for the most part, is this: Prior to the start of the Olympics, most people in and out of the industry expected NBC to win every half-hour of prime-time during the Games in overall viewers (and, except for when "American Idol 5" was on, in teens and adults under 35 as well). Yes, it is true that the ratings were expected to be lower this time thanks to a time difference that precludes any live coverage in prime-time, but NBC was still expected to win.

Nobody expected "American Idol" to beat the Olympics in overall viewers, never mind by such a huge margin. Most expected "Idol" to be a strong second, just falling short of the Winter Games in total viewers when going head-to-head.

Nobody thought "Desperate Housewives", "Grey's Anatomy", "Dancing With The Stars" or "Survivor" would beat the Olympics in either key demos or overall viewers.

In my opinion, this is news, and should be brought up on this board.
 
Re: Let Me Defend Myself

> The reason I have been posting links to stories about
> Olympics TV ratings, for the most part, is this: Prior to
> the start of the Olympics, most people in and out of the
> industry expected NBC to win every half-hour of prime-time
> during the Games in overall viewers (and, except for when
> "American Idol 5" was on, in teens and adults under 35 as
> well). Yes, it is true that the ratings were expected to be
> lower this time thanks to a time difference that precludes
> any live coverage in prime-time, but NBC was still expected
> to win.

Actually, several experts predicted that the Olympics would struggle with the competition they were facing for the first time.

> Nobody thought "Desperate Housewives", "Grey's Anatomy",
> "Dancing With The Stars" or "Survivor" would beat the
> Olympics in either key demos or overall viewers.

Again, not exactly a suprise, considering the audience that those shows usually draw. Dancing with the Stars and Survivor are the type of shows where you fall behind if you miss a single airing of the show.

You also have to consider that this is the first time in many years that NBC has not gone into an Olympics as the #1 network. Part of their previous ratings strength was that viewers would normally be watching their shows that were being pre-empted by Olympics coverage. Now that viewers have been conditioned to watch other shows on other networks, viewers are less likely to dump their regular shows for the Olympics.

>
> In my opinion, this is news, and should be brought up on
> this board.
>
 
Re: Let Me Defend Myself

I should have made it clearer that indeed no on expected NBC's prime-time Olympic numbers to match 2002's, but everyone thought they would be high enough to win their time periods every time out.
 
Re: Let Me Defend Myself

> The reason I have been posting links to stories about
> Olympics TV ratings, for the most part, is this: Prior to
> the start of the Olympics, most people in and out of the
> industry expected NBC to win every half-hour of prime-time
> during the Games in overall viewers (and, except for when
> "American Idol 5" was on, in teens and adults under 35 as
> well). Yes, it is true that the ratings were expected to be
> lower this time thanks to a time difference that precludes
> any live coverage in prime-time, but NBC was still expected
> to win.
>
> Nobody expected "American Idol" to beat the Olympics in
> overall viewers, never mind by such a huge margin. Most
> expected "Idol" to be a strong second, just falling short of
> the Winter Games in total viewers when going head-to-head.
>
> Nobody thought "Desperate Housewives", "Grey's Anatomy",
> "Dancing With The Stars" or "Survivor" would beat the
> Olympics in either key demos or overall viewers.

I didn't?
Who decided that the Olympics were the show to beat? Hours upon hours upon hours of wall to wall coverage of competitions for sports that I could care less about? Of course I'm going to watch GA or DH. NBC would have been better served by putting a squeeze or a scroll on the bottom of the screen instead of putting off their entire schedule. I'd say the same for ABC, CBS and Fox (if Fox ever had the O's).

I'm really tired of generalizations like "Nobody" or "We."
What do you mean by "We?" Certainly, not me!
 
Re: Let Me Defend Myself

Joseph, you wouldn't have to defend yourself (and I wouldn't have had to bring this up as a public thread) if you had been so kind as to answer the e-mail I sent you, as a moderator, asking you to lower your output.

As it turns out, I get more e-mails from people complaining about Joseph Gallant posts than anything else R-I related.

Or is that e-mail address in your profile an invalid one? Because if that is the case, you are toast.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Now rather than later

>
> Or is that e-mail address in your profile an invalid one?
> Because if that is the case, you are toast.
>

Can you "toast" him before October 15th?? That should be around the time he starts posting again about stations going all-Christmas. Thanks ever so much ;o)
 
Re: Now rather than later

> Can you "toast" him before October 15th?? That should be
> around the time he starts posting again about stations going
> all-Christmas. Thanks ever so much ;o)

Actually, I did get an e-mail from him, but we are still going to have a problem.

I'm sure he will read this, though. Everyone else, forgive that I have to use the board to communicate with him (you will see why it is necessary).

Joseph, I understand why you have your spam filter on Hotmail set to only allow e-mail from specific addresses. However, your tweak will not work because I do not send mail from my radio-info.com address (in fact, none of the moderators actually send mail from their radio-info.com addresses), and thus setting the filter to allow mail from that address isn't going to resolve the problem.

Even if what you did had worked for receiving mail from me, you have an obligation to Radio-Info to provide an address that <u>any</u> moderator or administrator can contact you at, from any of their e-mail addresses. I strongly advise you to do so, ASAP.<P ID="signature">______________


</P>
 
Re: Now rather than later

> > Can you "toast" him before October 15th?? That should be
> > around the time he starts posting again about stations
> going
> > all-Christmas. Thanks ever so much ;o)
>
> Actually, I did get an e-mail from him, but we are still
> going to have a problem.
>
> I'm sure he will read this, though. Everyone else, forgive
> that I have to use the board to communicate with him (you
> will see why it is necessary).
>
> Joseph, I understand why you have your spam filter on
> Hotmail set to only allow e-mail from specific addresses.


ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> However, your tweak will not work because I do not send mail
> from my radio-info.com address (in fact, none of the
> moderators actually send mail from their radio-info.com
> addresses), and thus setting the filter to allow mail from
> that address isn't going to resolve the problem.
>
> Even if what you did had worked for receiving mail from me,
> you have an obligation to Radio-Info to provide an address
> that any moderator or administrator can contact you at, from
> any of their e-mail addresses. I strongly advise you to do
> so, ASAP.
>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom