NBC vs. ABC And The Olympics
Tuesday morning, Aaron wrote on Twitter:
Thoughts on NBC’s Olympic coverage? Every fan of these sports and this event should cheer for ESPN/ABC to win next set of rights.
Although I agree that NBC’s coverage can often be frustrating, and it’s been well-documented in many places, I asked him why he thought ABC/ESPN could do better and he responded via e-mail. I asked if I could post his e-mail here, along with my comments, and he gave his permission.
Here the gist of it:
NBC grossly overpaid for the rights and guaranteed too many viewers to the advertisers. That means they’ve subsequently had to cram too many ads into the primetime programming and relentlessly force viewers towards the taped NBC coverage and away from live coverage of many events.
ABC/ESPN will hopefully pay a bit less for the rights, meaning that they can allow it to be a sporting event again rather than a RATINGS EVENT that must be milked for every single last Nielsen point. That means more live coverage both on TV and online. It also means that the Olympics gets the full ESPN “push” treatment like soccer did. That’s a big big thing in terms of winning back actual sports viewers rather than just women.
NBC’s contract with the IOC expires after the 2012 Summer Games. The 2014 Winter Olympics will take place in Sochi, Russia, between eight and eleven hours ahead of the United States. Regardless of who gets the rights, there will be nothing shown in prime-time that is live. Rio in 2016 might be different, but for Sochi the marquee events, which have to be shown in prime-time, will be on tape delay. That means that ABC will be able to chop it up, and there’s nothing to suggest that they won’t do it. Remember that the defining sporting event of my lifetime (you had yet to be born) was shown on tape delay, and that took place in the Eastern time zone.
The Olympics aren’t a sporting event. They are a cultural event that brings the world into our living rooms with sports as the conduit. A network can’t justify blocking off the amount of hours to coverage without treating it as such, and that means they have to maximize their audience, not scale it back to appeal exclusively to sports fans. And that means athletes’ profiles and other features that have nothing to do with the sports. We’re not complaining that NBC doesn’t devote enough hours of coverage across its properties, just the broadcasting decisions it makes.
Comparing it to the World Cup or European Championships is apples and oranges. ESPN can give the big soccer tournaments that type of treatment for a few reasons.
- It’s one sport and, apart from the final games in group play, there is never a situation where two games are played at the same time. Therefore, there are no decisions on when to cut away and cover something else.
- It’s hours of programming in the morning and afternoon in the middle of the summer when they have nothing going on. So to show every game live and have a nightly Game Of The Day and a studio show doesn’t cut into their regular programming.
- ABC/ESPN’s production costs for the soccer tournament are far lower. They don’t produce the feed for the world to use like NBC does. It’s just the broadcasting crews and a studio in Bristol.
Aaron continues:
If I were programming these Olympics for ABC/ESPN, here’s how I would do it.
ABC: Live coverage of all chick sports and bigtime live evening events like speed-skating and maybe some hockey. I’d also show highlight packages of major afternoon events BUT those highlights would be in addition, not in lieu of live coverage on cable.
ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU/ESPNclassic: They show nothing but live events AND the Olympics would be a great way to force cable companies to carry ESPNU-HD, a recent upgrade.
ESPN360 or whatever you brand the ESPN online Olympic presence: Tons of live stuff. The IOC makes the video available, the network should make it all available to us.
That’s a good start, but, again, there are a couple of problems. To suggest that ESPN give live coverage to all events is to ask it to compete against itself all day. This is why there’s little time overlap between CNBC, MSNBC, and USA’s coverage. Also, you’re asking for live coverage in primetime. I’m writing this on Wednesday night, when pro basketball is on ESPN and college hoops is on ESPN2. Do you think the NBA or NCAA is going to give away its contractually obligated slots, because you can’t put hockey on Classic or ESPNU.
I’m not very familiar with ESPN360 or what NBC is doing online for the Games, but I’m all for the idea of making everything available online and on demand.
And as for ABC, isn’t that pretty much what NBC is doing now?
The reason it isn’t already this way is that Ebersol and NBC hugely overbid on the Olympics at the expense of nearly all their other sports programming. ESPN wouldn’t need to do that. NBC is hemorrhaging money and can’t possibly bid as much as it did last time and ESPN is the singular agenda setter for American sports fans. If you want to truly exist as a sports event, it has to be on ESPN and on Sportscenter. It’s just a fact of life.
Agreed.
Also, ABC has a long history with the Olympics (Jim McKay, etc) that means it wouldn’t be that big of jump for the IOC to choose them.
The mention of McKay brings up a point about coverage. Say what you will about NBC, but even with them chopping up the events, their coverage treats the Olympics with a great deal of respect. Costas sets the tone as well as McKay did. Who does ABC/ESPN have that can do that? Bob Ley has the professionalism, but he’s got the personality of wet cement. Can you honestly see any of the alpha males that dominate ESPN’s talent pool talking about the sports that have little appeal here without smirking smugly?
Plus, elements of the IOC have been bristling at the amount of sway NBC holds with the IOC and the way it forces some strange start times (2008 swimming) in order the force stuff in to US primetime. I suspect large chunks of the IOC would take less money just to grab back on to the influence that NBC (and thus, the big bad United States) holds over the Olympic movement. The IOC would trade some cash for both it’s own power over the games and scheduling and the increased agenda-setting power that ESPN would immediately use to the games’ benefit.
Good points, but the other side of that is that the big, bad United States also has the Yankee Corporate Sponsorship Dollar that keeps the corrupt bigwigs at the IOC fed with fifteen-course meals served by naked supermodels. If the price goes down, it would likely have as much to do with the economic problems as an acknowledgment of Ebersol’s screw-up.
And anyway, the type of coverage you suggested above will require a greater investment on a network’s part. So what you’re looking for is an Olympics that costs more to produce while reducing the core audience. Even Ebersol wouldn’t intentionally do that.
I know Fox is also interested in going after the games. But, considering how they already dumb down football, baseball, and (to a lesser extent) NASCAR, I’d be terrified of what they’d do.
Joe Buck in the McKay/Costas role would force me to buy a new TV every day from throwing boots at it.
Your move, Aaron.
The one thing I will disagree with is Costas. He seems good until he gets a guest, then it’s the all inside joke, buddy buddy hour. Him and Collinsworth are sickening together.
One problem I have is that no one seems to be willing to consider that you can show stuff live at one time and then packaged at another. Try a new model and see if it works. Show the downhill start to finish in the afternoon on cable, then put together highlights and analysis in the evening on the network.
And the Miracle on Ice thing isn’t exactly the best argument since ABC wanted to move it, but the IOC wouldn’t let them. They would surely be more flexible nowadays.
Lastly, their online coverage is horrific. They show curling and hockey live, but there may be breaks that coincide with TV. Nothing else is live.
I lived in the UK during 1998 when the winter Olympics were in Japan. All I can say is BBC equaled Olympics coverage ALL day long and in the evening. Major time zone difference? Yes. Does the BBC have more Olympics coverage than NBC right now? It sure does! http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/sporteditors/2010/02/our_winter_olympics_coverage.html So, would ABC or ESPN do any better than NBC? Probably not, but it IS possible to have better Olympic coverage. Sometimes I really wish I still lived in the UK.
Brian:
Agree about Costas with a guest, but given that ESPN invented that style, again, are they going to be better?
The reason NBC doesn’t show stuff live in the afternoon and then replay it in the evening is because, once it is broadcast, it becomes available for other broadcast news outlets. They don’t want to lose exclusivity.
Leann:
The BBC can do that because they’re not a commercial entity. Now imagine if the Olympics were on Sky…
You can’t compare taped delay coverage in 1980 to tape delay coverage in 2010. We’re in a different universe in terms of broadcasting. In 1980’s Over the Air Networks ruled the world, today it’s Media Conglomerates, we have cable and internet access. That allows for A LOT more coverage.
The argument of competing against yourself shouldn’t hold, because they should sell the ads as a whole Olympic Package.
What would be interesting is if/when the Comcast/NBC merger goes through. That’ll give lots of channels and internet access to a lot of people. And maybe some fresh brains. The Aaron’s right that you can show the events live and then re-package as some sort of catchup prime-time thing.
Watching the women’s downhill last night, where the coverage consisted of Americans, a bunch of folks that fell down and like two other skiiers….watching you knew there would be a crash if they weren’t American, my wife commented that the analyst kept repeating herself. I replied that she must, because she doesn’t know what’ll make the air. The Olympics coverage is impaired due to the big fishing net used to call in announcers and analysts from all corners of the globe, but the style of broadcasting the games further waters down the experience.
But I don’t think that ESPN/ABC can do a better job. They’re already saturated with NBA and NCAA Basketball….and poker.
Kim:
Good points about the Comcast merger. Hopefully it will bring some new ideas. I’m not apologizing for NBC, by the way. I just don’t think that any other American network can automatically do a better job just because they’re not NBC. It’s like the saying about a backup goalie or quarterback being the most talented guy on a bad team.
You’re right that you can’t compare 1980 with today, which is also why Aaron’s comment about ABC’s history with the Olympics doesn’t hold.
See my response to Brian regarding the show-live-and-package-later idea.
I don’t mind that they only show the Americans, the medal winners, and a few crashes. As Brian wrote on Monday, in many of these events (particularly the high-speed ones), we can’t see the minor technical details that separate first from last. We’d feel the same way about figure skating if not for its artistic aspects. So to show an entire downhill or luge event, where it’s all individual runs that look the same, and let the natural drama of the competition flow doesn’t make for good TV.
I didn’t mean to imply that ESPN’s anchors would be better. I just think Costas has been grating in some ways. The “golly gee” factor of bringing their people in from the field has been tiresome. The only one I enjoyed was the one with Collinsworth where they broke down exactly how much distance separated the skiers in the men’s downhill. That was interesting to me because it removed a Hall of Fame football player/national media figure acting starstruck.
I see your point about the live then tape thing. There has to be a way though. I also don’t think it automatically becomes better if someone else gets it, but I think new ideas are not the enemy as NBC seems to think.
As far as showing things without commentary or without a lot of anaylsis, I’d like that option, at least online. Then again, I am one of the few who not only bought, but loved the NBC PPV Triplecast in 1992.
I think NBC is cautious to try new things because of the failures of the Triplecast. It was a great idea, but the public wasn’t ready for it. I think at some point it will all be online if the audience is there and they can properly monetize it.
I’m not sure that other outlets can show highlights at all. ESPN only shows headshots and stills.
I also don’t think you can broadcast an entire downhill live and keep an audience, but you can cover it and something else golf-style with something else. My problem is that the broadcast gives the impression that 6 people made it down the hill. Curling’s also frustrating, as they only show the final part of the ends when the scoring takes place. It’s like watching the last pitch of a 15 pitch at bat, or runners crossing the plate with no context.
The current coverage model is broken, but nobody’s really going to do it any different unless there’s a big paradigm shift at a network.
Here’s some info from 2006 on NBC’s exclusive rights. I presume it’s pretty much the same now.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/02/10/publiceye/entry1303855.shtml
# Other networks must wait until the end of NBC’s prime time broadcast in each time zone to use highlights. On most nights the broadcast runs until 11:00 or later.
# Highlights can only be used within 24 hours of when they air, and must have appeared on an NBC station. (Thus CBS couldn’t air video provided by, say, the family member of an athlete, or a foreign network.) An interesting sidenote from the document: Other networks cannot “broadcast, disseminate or otherwise exploit multiple-exposure still images with a refresh rate designed to simulate the look and feel of video.”
# There can be no use of audio or video highlights on the Internet.
# Highlights can only be shown in news programs – not “news and sports magazines, news promos and updates, entertainment programs, entertainment news programs, magazines and features, sports features and other sports programs or special programs.”
# Highlights can appear in no more than three newscasts per day, and cannot exceed two minutes. Thus a rival network cannot air more than six minutes of highlights per day.
# There must be a “Courtesy NBC Olympics” credit shown over all highlights.
They have to break away from curling coverage at some point. It might as well be at the beginning of an end (that’s a weird phrase to write), when they’re just setting guards or throwing knockouts.
[...] to see how MSNBC handled the big hockey games on Sunday), but he finally responded to the points I made last week about NBC’s coverage of the Olympics. Here’s what he has to [...]
Although I have a feeling change is on the way, personally I hope NBC is able to continue its coverage of the Olympic Games beyond London in 2012. No doubt the network can improve in many areas, as mentioned above. Its website for the Olympics and how it offers events are especially pathetic in my book. While ABC had a long history broadcasting the Games prior to NBC, the fact ABC is now in bed with ESPN ruins it for me. I am simply no fan of the ESPN way of doing things and literally can’t stand the vast majority of its announcers. NBC now has considerable experience with the Olympics, a stable of top grade announcers, and in Costas has the best possible host, period. (BTW, thank you so very much, NBC, for sparing us from Olbermann, who is still stuck on ESPN-mode and is unbearable to listen to; I can at least stomach two of the least talented NBC Olympic team members in Collingsworth and Carillo.) Yes, NBC can improve the way its doing things during the Olympics (choosing to televise Jimmy Fallon impersonating Neil Young is part of late night Olympic coverage???). I shall simply hope and pray NBC is able to extend its rights and indeed DOES improve rather than witness what ABC/ESPN would do with the Games, although I fear that is what lies ahead.