NBC Sucks Again... For NOT covering the Olympic Ceremonies LIVE.

[azumanga]

I disagree -- many of us would like to see all of the ceremonies, without edits, commercials or inane commentary. And the 2005 London bombings was indeed major news that made front-page headlines worldwide, which merits its inclusion.

This isn't a news show.

Right, but still there are some things that need to be remembered, and that's why they included it in the show. When Salt Lake City held its Winter Olympics in 2002, I would think they did something in remembrance of 9/11 the year before.

Keep in mind that the Opening Ceremony is not all fun and games.

 

[landtuna]

There was a time in America when the circus was the sole and important entertainment event of the year. It was supplanted long, long ago but continues in a sad, small sort of way.

The same can be said for the Olympics. It used to present an assortment of "amateur" athletes in genuine "sports" with a minimum of fanfare and glitz. Then came the bidding by cities worldwide to host the event and suddenly the "games" had to become Vegas-like to attract the fringe viewer who wasn't much interested in sports but liked to watch glitter and glitz.

Today it is much more about international politics and glitter than an honest sporting event. None of the athletes, save those in obscure events, can be called amateur as they are all virtually government or corporate sponsored and train as their first job. After reading and seeing these people in a variety of events throughout the year it is a letdown to see them, once again, in yet another "world class" event. The excitement is gone. It is even less exciting to watch the many non-sports that the IOC has included in the Games. What next? Croquet? Chess?

Much of my personal disappointment of course has to do with the American TV industry who, time after time, spends much more of its viewing hours on "up close and personal" stories of the competitors (most of whom have already received their 15 minutes of fame) and the never-ending blah, blah, blah by the hosts who, traditionally, have had very little of value to add to their broadcasts. Too much like baseball where the trivia and time-filling chatter detracts from an already slow-moving sport. With the dawn of the Internet I am finally able to watch an assortment of international broadcasts while, even in a foreign language, are much more entertaining than those from American networks.

Unfortunately, I no longer care.

 

[TheBigA]

When Salt Lake City held its Winter Olympics in 2002, I would think they did something in remembrance of 9/11 the year before.

Do you think more Americans care about 9-11 or the London bombings? Which country does NBC broadcast to? Come on.

Keep in mind that the Opening Ceremony is not all fun and games.

Huh? Where do you get that idea? So the Queen's entrance was serious? Come on. This is an entertainment show. Done for entertainment. Like all entertainment shows, it gets edited. That's what happened here. You don't like it? Don't watch.

 

[TheBigA]

Much of my personal disappointment of course has to do with the American TV industry who, time after time, spends much more of its viewing hours on "up close and personal" stories of the competitors

As someone said earlier, ABC was the company that discovered this over 25 years ago. Most of these sports aren't popular in this country. So in order to make it translate, the audience needs to be introduced to the people, and create a human drama, kind of like reality TV. Once people understand the drama of the situation, they're more willing to sit through a sport they don't care about.

It would be easier and cheaper to just air the events. They spend a lot of money producing those "up close and personal" stories. They do it because it attracts a lot of viewers.

 

[BMR]

Just a quick word on the 7/7 bombings. They are particularly significant because they occured on the day after London learned it had won the games. So city-wide joy at being chosen to host the Olympics suddenly turned to shock, anger and grief.

So I think it was important that a tribute was included, for the British audience, and in particular for Londoners, both at home and in the stadium. That said, I can't say I'm particularly outraged that a foreign broadcaster didn't show it.

 

[crainbebo]

Shame on Comcast as well for not giving us a feed of CIVT 32 in Vancouver for the Olympics, since they are the Lower Mainland's CTV affiliate. We do get CBC however via CBUT, so if they get the Olympics back soon, Comcast viewers can jump for joy...

-crainbebo

 

[landtuna]

As someone said earlier, ABC was the company that discovered this over 25 years ago.

ABC was also the company that paired figure skating with various male-centric sports on WWoS and then presented the long version taking up most of their 60 or 90 minutes with the big attraction (the male sport) at the very end of the program. It was the prime reason why I quit watching WWoS fairly early on.

Most of these sports aren't popular in this country.

I'm guessing most of these "sports" aren't popular in ANY country. Rather, the viewers are most interested in seeing how their country's athletes are doing rather than watching the competition at large. Countries lobby the IOC for inclusion of their native sport hence the push by America for baseball and the U.K. for dressage (which isn't really a sport at all).

So in order to make it translate, the audience needs to be introduced to the people, and create a human drama, kind of like reality TV. Once people understand the drama of the situation, they're more willing to sit through a sport they don't care about.

I understand what you are saying but it seems to pander to the female audience mostly. Guys won't tend to sit through an archery contest unless they are themselves participants or are waiting for the basketball game to follow. Females tend to get involved in the back stories of the athletes rather than the actual competition (with the same caveats as males). Winter Olympics tend to bring this out dramatically in figure skating where most women are drawn to the costumes and visual relationship between the skating pairs rather than the technical aspects of the sport.

It would be easier and cheaper to just air the events. They spend a lot of money producing those "up close and personal" stories. They do it because it attracts a lot of viewers.

I know as many people who are turned off by the fluff and chatter as will sit through it. I'm thinking it is WWoS event filling all over again. Some hosts are entertaining. NBC's are not.

 

[JayR]

Every two years we have an Olympics and every two years, the same complaint. ALL of the prime time stuff will be delayed.

It's every four years.

Here's a simple fact: The major events need to air at a time when most people can watch. Live TV is ancient TV. People today watch at their convenience, not in real time. So the network helps by delaying until a reasonable time, but the fact is that most people will watch what they want when they want. Most people don't care that it's not live.

That may be true for prerecorded programs but not live sporting events.

If you knew where to look you could have watched both The BBC 1 and CBC Opening Ceremonies live on several websites yesterday which started at 4 pm EDT without delay, commentary and commercials.

As azumanga posted earlier, it's CTV.

Yes, the ceremonies were available online through various websites. The events are available at those websites as well.

 

[TheBigA]

It's every four years.

Nope. Winter Olympics were in 2010, and they'll take place again in 2014.

That may be true for prerecorded programs but not live sporting events.

The Opening Ceremonies was not a live sporting event. It was the Opening Ceremonies. And the networks all run loads of pre-recorded sporting events. Like last week's British Open.

 

[TheBigA]

I understand what you are saying but it seems to pander to the female audience mostly.

Nothing wrong with females. I like them myself. They make up 50% of the population. If you can get them to watch, you'll have a winning TV show. And if the women are happy, it's my experience that the men are happy. But you'd be surprised how many men can quote the back story on some of these athletes, and they get it from those features.

Some hosts are entertaining. NBC's are not.

I think at the end of the day, NBC will win in the ratings regardless of what anyone thinks. And that's all that matters. Because truthfully, there's nothing else on right now.

 

[JayR]

It's every four years.

Nope. Winter Olympics were in 2010, and they'll take place again in 2014.

My mistake. I forgot about the Winter Olympics.

That may be true for prerecorded programs but not live sporting events.

The Opening Ceremonies was not a live sporting event. It was the Opening Ceremonies. And the networks all run loads of pre-recorded sporting events. Like last week's British Open.

How convenient of you to omit your quote when responding to my post:

Here's a simple fact: The major events need to air at a time when most people can watch. Live TV is ancient TV. People today watch at their convenience, not in real time. So the network helps by delaying until a reasonable time, but the fact is that most people will watch what they want when they want. Most people don't care that it's not live.

Live TV is not ancient TV when it comes to major events period (regardless if it's sports or not).

 

[PirateJohnny]

NBC ticked me off with their online viewing policy. I do not and will not subscribe to cable or satellite. (I don't have time to watch what is available with just an antenna) NBC will not let viewers access online streams without a cable/sat subscription. I went to the NBC website to inform them that I felt they were reducing their advertiser's audience with this policy. The Capcha image would not load, so I couldn't send a message to NBC! I did leave a message on the NBC and NBC Olympics Facebook page. I checked back later and many more messages echoed my disappointment in the peacock, over this subject and other coverage matters.

If advertisers want their message to get to the largest possible audience, why do they allow NBC (and others, like TNT) to limit access to the programs in which they advertise?

I won't be watching ANY Olympics this year, so advertisers trying to reach me will be wasting their money.

And don't I remember ABC airing Olympic coverage outside of prime time in the past?

 

[landtuna]

Because truthfully, there's nothing else on right now.

At least on broadcast TV. And that is the 'secret' of NBC's success.

However, on the Internet.........

 

[PTBoardOp94]

I don't know that you can even refer to NBC's success. They claim to lose money on the Olympics most years.

 

[landtuna]

I don't know that you can even refer to NBC's success. They claim to lose money on the Olympics most years.

So does the host city/country it seems.

But I wasn't referring to NBC's financial success because I don't know if they have any. At least they get some viewers for a short time - then back to the tank.

 

[TheBigA]

If advertisers want their message to get to the largest possible audience, why do they allow NBC (and others, like TNT) to limit access to the programs in which they advertise?

Advertisers know the package they're buying. I'm sure they all get an ample amount of placements in the broadcast coverage, and the cable placement counts for less. If you've ever dealt with an advertiser, they know exactly who's watching.

I don't know that you can even refer to NBC's success. They claim to lose money on the Olympics most years.

I'm sure they will this time too. It's a loss leader for them. They get great viewership, they can use it to promote their regular line-up, and they keep it away from the competition.

 

[OldNumber7]

Much of my personal disappointment of course has to do with the American TV industry who, time after time, spends much more of its viewing hours on "up close and personal" stories of the competitors

As someone said earlier, ABC was the company that discovered this over 25 years ago. Most of these sports aren't popular in this country. So in order to make it translate, the audience needs to be introduced to the people, and create a human drama, kind of like reality TV. Once people understand the drama of the situation, they're more willing to sit through a sport they don't care about.

It would be easier and cheaper to just air the events. They spend a lot of money producing those "up close and personal" stories. They do it because it attracts a lot of viewers.

It's EXACTLY like reality TV. That's why it works, and that's why some very successful reality TV franchises are built around competitions -- the winners and losers are almost less important in these contrived "games" (e.g. Survivor, where they producers make up the rules as they go along) to the fans than the drama. There is no doubt this works even better for female viewers, which advertisers love; but many male viewers get sucked in, too.

 

[PirateJohnny]

If advertisers want their message to get to the largest possible audience, why do they allow NBC (and others, like TNT) to limit access to the programs in which they advertise?

Advertisers know the package they're buying. I'm sure they all get an ample amount of placements in the broadcast coverage, and the cable placement counts for less. If you've ever dealt with an advertiser, they know exactly who's watching. Do they consider online viewers as bonus views?

In this Hulu/Netflix/online oriented day and age, I find it hard to believe that advertisers are happy with a not-as-large-as-possible online audience.

 

[TheBigA]

In this Hulu/Netflix/online oriented day and age, I find it hard to believe that advertisers are happy with a not-as-large-as-possible online audience.

You're trying to use advertisers to justify you getting content for free. The New York Times and lots of other papers also require subscritions to view content, and they're also advertiser supported. The advertisers know they'll reach fewer people behind the pay wall. That was already factored in to their deal.

From what I can see, most of the advertisers get a mix of free broadcast and paid cable or online impressions in the same package. So it all works out. If it doesn't the advertisers get make-goods in regular programming.

 

[azumanga]

That may be true for prerecorded programs but not live sporting events.

The Opening Ceremonies was not a live sporting event. It was the Opening Ceremonies. And the networks all run loads of pre-recorded sporting events. Like last week's British Open.

But still, many of us would like to see the opening and the closing live and unfiltered -- the way NBC has been treating it is not only in the tape delay and editing of the broadcast, but also doing it with a "we don't care" air to it, until the US team walks onto the field. Secondly, NBC has been treating the Olympics as a whole more like a "US vs. the world" reality show than an international athletic competition. And finally, NBC's games are always top-heavy with commercials, while in other countries, they're either kept to a minimum or they're seen commercial free.

This one of the reasons why I would rather have someone else do the Olympics other than NBC, which every time makes a mockery of the event. If you don't like it, it's your opinion and your right to it, but we have our own.