Dick Ebersol resigns as NBC Sports head

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

  1. Jun 6, 2011 #61 of 128
    jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    115,865
    5,255
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas

    Advertisements

    tape delayed when the reality of scheduling doesn't match when Prime Time occurs.

    in the USA, Olympics generate WAY more interest than teh World Cup soccer matches.
     
  2. Jun 6, 2011 #62 of 128
    DevdogAZ

    DevdogAZ Give 'em Hell, Devils

    59,038
    4,492
    Apr 16, 2003
    Arizona
    I think what people would like to see is both. Air it live during the day for those that want to make the time, and then air it tape delayed in prime time for those that couldn't see it during the day. With the internet, it will be virtually impossible for people to keep from being spoiled on the results anyway, so why not air them live? And for those that are so interested in the results but can't get off work and are willing to embargo themselves for the whole day to avoid spoilers, the prime time telecast will be perfect for them.
     
  3. Jun 6, 2011 #63 of 128
    jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    115,865
    5,255
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
    I'd rather they broadcast as many UNIQUE things as possible. Re-broadcasting stuff in full that already happened is a waste. Of course, they do a lot of rebroadcasting of stuff already. But I would like to see as much different stuff.

    Ideally, the Oympics would always be held in regions of the world that is freindly to USA time zones. :)
     
  4. Jun 6, 2011 #64 of 128
    DevdogAZ

    DevdogAZ Give 'em Hell, Devils

    59,038
    4,492
    Apr 16, 2003
    Arizona
    I know you're partially joking, but not even the entire US is friendly to USA timezones. Something happening at 8 pm in Atlanta (at the start of prime time) was happening at 5 pm on the west coast. Something happening at 8 pm in Salt Lake City was happening at 10 pm ET. Basically, you're never going to be able to show a sporting event both "live" and in "primetime" across the US. It can't happen. So the broadcasters have to decide what's most important and deal with the fallout.
     
  5. Jun 6, 2011 #65 of 128
    jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    115,865
    5,255
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas

    Advertisements

    Eastern and Central time zones are all that matters. That's what the networks think. :)
     
  6. Jun 7, 2011 #66 of 128
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,389
    5,259
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    That's why, and I know people will hate this, PPV of the live events works for me. If it is important enough for you to need to watch live during the day, then pay the package for $50 and you can see EVERYTHING. It will just use the same model that boxing has for years, and the professional team sports has used successfully for the last decade or so. Even fans of shows like Big Brother can watch "live" for a fee if they choose to. And what that can do is offset some of the loss of revenue that might occur if people know the results and decide not to watch.

    Imagine if they stream the stuff live...people will do it at work too :)

    Didn't NBC try something like this years ago? I just think at that time, it was ahead of it's time. I think now, the public is used to it.
     
  7. Jun 7, 2011 #67 of 128
    LoadStar

    LoadStar LOAD"*",8,1

    40,560
    3,232
    Jul 24, 2001
    Milwaukee, WI
    Yes, the Olympics triplecast package. You had the Red, White, and Blue channels. Lasted one year before moving to the various cable networks of NBC.
     
  8. Jun 7, 2011 #68 of 128
    jneugeba

    jneugeba Member

    598
    14
    Jan 20, 2004
    Denver, CO
    I'm optimistic after NBC streamed LIVE on their website the men's French Open semi between Federer and Djokovic. This is something they have NEVER done before, so hopefully it will be some of the same for London.

    From all I've read it is a done deal with Fox and ABC/ESPN - events WILL be shown live if you want to see them.
     
  9. Jun 7, 2011 #69 of 128
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,389
    5,259
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    You have to wonder if they've worked with advertisers on this before making that statement. If they see ad rates go down because of this, they may change their mind.
     
  10. Jun 7, 2011 #70 of 128
    jneugeba

    jneugeba Member

    598
    14
    Jan 20, 2004
    Denver, CO
    I can't imagine them entering into what could be around a $4 BILLION contract without first speaking with advertisers and doing market research, etc.
     
  11. Jun 7, 2011 #71 of 128
    jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    115,865
    5,255
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
    Didn't NBC stream a lot of stuff live via the web for the 2008 Summer Games? I recall having to install Silverlight on my machines to get it to work..
     
  12. Jun 7, 2011 #72 of 128
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,389
    5,259
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    Nothing surprises me. Here's the thing.....the landscape is changing and will continue to change. What's acceptable now, streaming, PPV, On Demand or whatever might not be in 12 years or so. So they can say what they want now, and it might work for the first winter games, but after that? Who knows?
     
  13. Jun 7, 2011 #73 of 128
    jsmeeker

    jsmeeker Notable Member TCF Club

    115,865
    5,255
    Apr 2, 2001
    Dallas
    yeah.. That's the thing. No one can seem to figure out how to properly monetize this so that all the interested parties are happy (broadcasters and advertisers)
     
  14. Jun 7, 2011 #74 of 128
    jneugeba

    jneugeba Member

    598
    14
    Jan 20, 2004
    Denver, CO
    Word on the street is NBC extends for 4 more games.

    BOOO
     
  15. Jun 7, 2011 #75 of 128
    HomieG

    HomieG Nowhere Man...

    4,506
    0
    Feb 17, 2003
    Somewhere...
    This.
     
  16. Jun 7, 2011 #76 of 128
    jneugeba

    jneugeba Member

    598
    14
    Jan 20, 2004
    Denver, CO
    Supposedly a $4+ billion deal. I'm shocked they went that high. I thought they would go for considerably less considering the loss on Vancouver, the predicted loss for London and the 2 unknown locations. I thought for sure that was the reason Dick left - they weren't going to put as much money in the bid as he wanted (and maybe they still didn't!)
     
  17. Jun 7, 2011 #77 of 128
    LoadStar

    LoadStar LOAD"*",8,1

    40,560
    3,232
    Jul 24, 2001
    Milwaukee, WI
    They did... for a lot of stuff, they took the host feed and just ran it as is. Which was fine, actually. The Olympic provided graphics are just fine (in fact, most people would be hard-pressed to tell which ones are provided by the host and which ones are added by NBC) and the commentary usually is extraneous.
     
  18. Jun 7, 2011 #78 of 128
    Jon J

    Jon J Curmudgeon TCF Club

    7,977
    166
    Aug 23, 2000
    Music City USA
    Reports are that NBC/Comcast locked up the next 4 olympics for $2 billion.
     
  19. Jun 7, 2011 #79 of 128
    marksman

    marksman ID-10-T

    16,781
    0
    Mar 4, 2002
    I saw something the other day that said the average olympic viewer in 1992 was 39. In 2008 was 48 and in 2010 was 52.

    At the same time the article noted that there could be a lot of jockeying for the Olympics by many companies because ABC wants it so ESPN can raise their fees for cable and satellite, NBC wants it so Comcast doesn't have to pay increased fees for ESPN, Fox wants it to potentially improve Versus to a more viable sports outlet etc etc.
     
  20. Jun 7, 2011 #80 of 128
    Steveknj

    Steveknj Lost in New Joisey TCF Club

    58,389
    5,259
    Mar 10, 2003
    New Jersey
    Versus is owned by Comcast.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements