Dick Ebersol resigns as NBC Sports head

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by Steveknj, May 19, 2011.

  1. May 20, 2011 #41 of 128
    LoadStar

    LoadStar LOAD"*",8,1

    40,564
    3,235
    Jul 24, 2001
    Milwaukee, WI

    Advertisements

    When the olympics are on the other side of the world, I don't have a big problem with tape delay. What I really have a problem with is NBC's insistence on turning everything into a human interest story, padding out the coverage with all these sappy segments on some life-affirming heroic achievement by one athlete or another. Or, worse yet, humorous segments by roving reporters around the city/region, or "Day in the life" pieces of residents in the region.

    No. It's a sporting event. Show the damned sports. :)

    (But yeah, if the events are in the same vicinity as a US time zone, show 'em live.)
     
  2. May 20, 2011 #42 of 128
    jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    115,871
    5,260
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
    For marquee events? no way do they show them live at 2am. Who is gonna watch it? They can't get big ad rates during that time.

    no network that is trying to make money will do it that way.
     
  3. May 20, 2011 #43 of 128
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,418
    5,268
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    What I would like to see is for them to show the events that don't occur during prime time live on their cable affiliates, then they can reshow them during prime time. Or, even sell a package which allows you to see everything live, a la Big Brother. For $50 you can steam anything live, something like that.
     
  4. May 20, 2011 #44 of 128
    DevdogAZ

    DevdogAZ Give 'em Hell, Devils

    59,051
    4,495
    Apr 16, 2003
    Arizona
    While I totally agree from the standpoint of a viewer (I hate all those fluff pieces), what you propose just won't work from a logistical standpoint. The various events aren't scheduled in such a way to allow seamless TV coverage. There are multiple events happening simultaneously at multiple venues, there are long breaks between rounds/heats, etc., and there likely isn't enough going on at any given time to make a compelling show without filling the gaps with those fluff pieces.

    In addition, there are LOTS of viewers who love those fluff pieces and wouldn't prefer the coverage the way you describe.

    So, given that many people like the fluff, and those that don't can skip over the stuff they don't like, and given that the fluff serves a valuable logistical purpose, I don't see it going away anytime soon.
     
  5. May 20, 2011 #45 of 128
    mrdbdigital

    mrdbdigital The TBS Archives TCF Club

    4,381
    566
    Feb 2, 2004
    Moultrie, GA

    Advertisements

    This.
     
  6. May 21, 2011 #46 of 128
    murgatroyd

    murgatroyd Don't stop believin'

    26,095
    256
    Jan 5, 2002
    Berkeley CA
    Remember the Triplecast? For Barcelona they did PPV where they had three channels going 12 hours a day (each 12-hour segment was then repeated). IIRC most of what I wanted was on the 'blue' channel; I skipped the 'red' channel because a lot of the stuff I didn't want (boxing, feh) was on that. It was expensive, but when I worked out the per-hour cost for just the segments I wanted to record and watch, it came out to less per hour than a movie ticket. But I bet the network lost its shirt because they never offered it again. :(
     
  7. May 21, 2011 #47 of 128
    murgatroyd

    murgatroyd Don't stop believin'

    26,095
    256
    Jan 5, 2002
    Berkeley CA
    Two of my best examples are from the extended daytime coverage that CBS did during the Winter Olympics in Nagano in 1998.

    High point: US pairs figure skater Peter Carruthers (an Olympic silver medalist himself, now a talking head) interviewing Russian pairs skater Artur Dmitriev backstage.

    Peter says to Artur, It's well-known that you're a strong guy. Do you think you could lift me? Whoa! A brilliant, epic moment for a pairs skating fan like me. (There were other technical demos they did for that Olympics, too, but Peter challenging Artur was the most fun.)

    Low point: Martha Stewart was sent as a roving reporter to a kimono shop, where she was supposed to demo traditional Japanese dress for the viewers. But Martha didn't like the kimono that the shop picked out for her, the one that was actually appropriate for a woman her age. It was too flashy. :rolleyes: So Martha insisted on wearing a kimono that was more somber, one that she had picked out herself. Which is something that an 80-year-old woman would wear.

    I like kimono, so if the segment had been done properly, I might have liked it. But to have a segment which is supposed to demonstrate something, and goes out of its way to demonstrate it inaccurately, is a colossal waste of bandwidth. Why bother?

    Show me the damned sports. Or if you aren't doing that, teach me something that will make me appreciate what I'm watching.

    I don't need segments about how you think ordinary things in a different country are weird. Especially these days, where I can watch The Amazing Race or No Reservations or any number of other shows which can show me Somewhere Else and be much more entertaining.

    Just show me the damned sports that I tuned in to watch in the first place.
     
  8. May 21, 2011 #48 of 128
    Roadblock

    Roadblock New Member

    502
    0
    Apr 5, 2006
    These are some of the reasons.
     
  9. Jun 6, 2011 #49 of 128
    jneugeba

    jneugeba Member

    598
    14
    Jan 20, 2004
    Denver, CO
    The bidding is happening today and tomorrow in Lausanne.

    Fox and ABC/ESPN have both stated they will air events live and not go crazy on tape-delay!!!!

    In addition Fox put in a bid to cover the next 4 games (two of which have not even been awarded yet.) Everyone had the option of doing 2 or 4 games bids.

    The results could be announced tomorrow or another round of bidding could be called.
     
  10. Jun 6, 2011 #50 of 128
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,418
    5,268
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    link? Just curious where you got your info on Fox and ABC saying they will air events live?

    BTW, NBC aired a lot of events live, just not the ones people wanted to watch. :) Believe me, if the events most people want to watch are being scheduled during the day here in the states, you can BET they will be tape delayed. Are you taking off two weeks to makes sure you watch the swimming finals live during the day? I'm not, but certainly will watch them tape delayed at night.
     
  11. Jun 6, 2011 #51 of 128
    Azlen

    Azlen Well-Known Member

    2,654
    67
    Nov 24, 2002
    Peoria, AZ
    What sucked though with the tape delay is that I knew the outcome of each of Michael Phelp's races before they aired that night. It was a news event and other news reporting agencies weren't going to delay the story because NBC was going to show it on tape delay. Before the internet it wasn't as big of deal.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/lon.../2011/jun/06/olympic-games-tv-rights-espn-nbc


    "Both rival bidders promise to ditch the tape delay approach....The tape delay approach was devised by Dick Ebersol, an American television legend and long-time NBC executive."
     
  12. Jun 6, 2011 #52 of 128
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,418
    5,268
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    It's a double edged sword.....if you don't tape delay, it means you risk losing a lot of your audience who might not watch knowing who wins, plus showing the marquee events during the day will automatically cut your audience in half. But tape delaying everything, in this day and age with instant news, also means that it's difficult to keep the winners out of the news anyway. So as a network, do you show the events live and KNOW that you will lose some of your audience at night because you've already broadcast it, or do you show on tape delay, knowing that your audience probably knows the winner, but has not seen the event, thus, might watch anyway. I think what ultimately will happen, is one of two things:

    PPV all events live (which like those fans who want to pay for Big Brother 24/7 might satisfy those who HAVE to watch live), and then rebroadcast on tape delay for free

    or

    Show all events live on cable and then rebroadcast on the networks.

    If I were doing this I'd go with option one. If you are so hard up to watch everything live, they you pay for the privilege.

    On another note. As a long time Olympic watcher (since 1968), it just seems wrong to have the Olympics on Fox. ESPN (ABC) and NBC have a long history, Fox doesn't. And I think 2 straight weeks of Joe Buck as the anchor would make me sick by the time it's over.
     
  13. Jun 6, 2011 #53 of 128
    jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    115,871
    5,260
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
    I don't believe that they will air the popular events at "weird" hours.

    Most of the swimming events from Beijing aired live live in the USA (at least I know they did on east coast and central time zone).
     
  14. Jun 6, 2011 #54 of 128
    jneugeba

    jneugeba Member

    598
    14
    Jan 20, 2004
    Denver, CO
    As I have stated, my biggest gripe with the tape delay happened in Vancouver (and Beijing for the "live" swimming) when some of the US got to see the events live and others didn't. I am in a time zone an hour away from Vancouver but didn't see prime-time events live (the same as people in the same time zone.) This is my biggest gripe.

    From the reports I'm reading they (Fox and ESPN) are indeed proposing to show everything live and then provide a more tradition prime-time recap show.
     
  15. Jun 6, 2011 #55 of 128
    Azlen

    Azlen Well-Known Member

    2,654
    67
    Nov 24, 2002
    Peoria, AZ

    That's kind of another thing that goes with it. The events don't even air at the same time across the US. The East might see something live, but we still have to wait two or three hours before it's aired in the West. It sucks.
     
  16. Jun 6, 2011 #56 of 128
    jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    115,871
    5,260
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
    That seems foolish from a ratings standpoint.


    Waste your most valuable time slots (Prime Time) to simply show highlights? Will be interesting to see what advertisers have to say about that plan.
     
  17. Jun 6, 2011 #57 of 128
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,418
    5,268
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    I would hope, by highlights, they will re-show the best events of the day again, during prime time. I still think showing events live during the day that people want to see might not be the best thing to do from a ratings standpoint. The thing is, people will complain about not seeing the events "live" but really, most of us aren't home to see those events live. So. while it sounds good in practice, most of us won't get to watch anyway. That's why I think a PPV scheme might work, even if it's some online streaming of the events live. They sell a package like mlb.tv and then stream EVERYTHING. Toward the end of the contract, streaming will be fairly seamless. Lots of TVs or other media devices will have it built in, and just about all newer PCs do a decent enough job these days.
     
  18. Jun 6, 2011 #58 of 128
    Azlen

    Azlen Well-Known Member

    2,654
    67
    Nov 24, 2002
    Peoria, AZ
    It will be. The thing is advertisers absolutely love live sports. That's why the Pac 12 got so much money out of Fox and ESPN recently. Commercials aired during live sporting events are less likely to be zapped because most people are watching it live.
    The Olympics are a different animal because live could be at 3am Eastern time. When exactly do you air that? Live or 17 hours later in prime time? Neither of those choices is going to make advertisers all that happy.
     
  19. Jun 6, 2011 #59 of 128
    jneugeba

    jneugeba Member

    598
    14
    Jan 20, 2004
    Denver, CO
    The World Cup advertisers didn't seem to have an issue with it.
     
  20. Jun 6, 2011 #60 of 128
    lew

    lew Well-Known Member

    4,267
    85
    Mar 12, 2002
    US Networks pay $$$$ rights fees for the Olympics. Advertisers won't pay $$$ for shows aired in off times.

    I so no reason why Olympic coverage will change. Popular events will be shown during prime time, tape delayed.

    People would record shows aired live on the cable channels and not wait for the prime time broadcast.

    TV might say something like 80% of the events will air live. The other 20% is the stuff we watch.






     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements