

NBC's broken Olympic coverage - aarghh
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2010/02/nbcs_olympic_coverage_manages.html?sc=fb&cc=fp

======
mbreese
One of the comments at the NPR site suggested the IOC not have an exclusive
broadcast partner and just open it up for everyone to cover it as they'd like.
I think that this is interesting, but hardly a way to fund an event as massive
as the Olympics. In order to any changes to work, you'd have to be able to
make up the $800+ million NBC ponied up for the games.

So, here's an idea: why not let others (even competitors) bid on individual
events. This could work from either the IOC doing to brokering or even NBC
itself.

So, for example, if another network wanted to broadcast the USA/Canada hockey
game, they could have bid for the rights to show either that game, or all of
hockey. I'm sure that would be worth something. Why should a large part of the
country have to miss out on a great event, just because NBC decided to show
ice dancing?

Split the games up into smaller biddable packages, and I'm sure you'd end up
with as much, if not more, revenue for the IOC, and more people could get to
see a greater variety of events. Imagine if ABC/CBS/NBC/Fox/ESPN were all
showing a part of the Olympics? Wouldn't this be more in the spirit? You'd get
a greater variety of events and more depth in individual events.

~~~
razerbeans
To build off of your idea, what if the IOC had their own camera crews that
would cover the live events and rather than bidding out the events? They could
license access to the raw footage to buyers (i.e. NBC/ABC/ESPN) who would then
choose how to use the footage as well as applying their own commentators and
technologies (such as scores, replays, etc.).

Seems like the IOC would benefit from licensing to all the different networks,
the networks would all benefit from being able to carry the olympics, and the
people would benefit from the competition between the networks to provide
better replays/commentary/analysis.

~~~
JimmyL
This is pretty much what happens.

There's an IOC subsidiary called Olympic Broadcasting Services (OBS), which
has crews/cameras/directors at every session of every event. If you're
watching an event happen (as opposed to an interview), there's a 99% chance
it's coming from an OBS camera. If the shot is coming from a site-specific
camera - like the track-side camera at speedskating or the overhead curling
shots - it is coming from an OBS camera. OBS cameras are the only ones allowed
to go into the field of play; all other cameras have to stay on specified
media risers outside the competition area.

When you watch an event on CTV, you're actually watching the OBS feed (with
OBS graphics) overlaid with a CTV-supplied commentary track - the only sound
OBS supplies is the ambient environmental ones, and it doesn't cut to any
interviews or anything. Those of you who watched the Beijing Olympics on the
CBC website may recall that there were eight or nine feeds available, but only
one of which had CBC commentary. The commentary-free ones (which also didn't
have commercial breaks or explanations) were the raw OBS feeds, without any
additional CBC editing/directing.

When a broadcaster pays for exclusive national rights to the Olympics, one of
the main things they're paying for is exclusive access to the OBS feeds. As
for why they don't sell that feed to multiple networks? I assume they've
worked the math and determined that they'll make more money by selling it
exclusively, as opposed to cooperatively.

~~~
btilly
I assume that they haven't worked the math. I assume they are doing it that
way because they've always done things that way, and that is what everyone
expects them to do.

But if they went and looked at economic theory they would find that the
expected price of a bundle is always less than the sum of the prices of the
individual things that are part of that bundle. So theory says that selling
things piecemeal should result in more revenue.

In the case of the Olympics you would do that by selling off sports one by
one. If NBC values speed skating and skiing, let them have it. If CBS wants
hockey, let them have it. If ESPN is willing to buy biathlon, let them have
it. Any sports not purchased wholesale can be negotiated during the Olympics.
So if nobody buys bobsleigh but an interesting story there happens, they sell
the story just like any other story of interest gets sold.

A lot of paperwork, and a shift in mindset, but they should get more money
that way. And interested viewers would get better coverage of a broader range
of sports.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _the expected price of a bundle is always less than the sum of the prices of
> the individual things_

This also goes for viewers though. If in order to watch the 4 events that I
want I have to buy 2 separate bundles then the bundled price of those 4
events, for me, is greater.

~~~
btilly
Actually not. Economic theory says that most consumers will spend less for
what they get and get greater value for their money if they buy equivalent
services piecemeal. The reason is simple, when you buy a bundle you get a mix
of things you want and things you don't. You therefore are willing to pay the
sum of the values of things you want. But once you have purchased the bundle
the marginal cost of consumption goes down and you will use things out of the
bundle that would not be worth your while to buy piecemeal.

However in practice consumers do not want the hassle and prefer bundles.
Vendors like bundles as well because they provide a convenient way to get
people to try things they wouldn't otherwise try.

However in this case bundle versus piecemeal is not the appropriate
comparison. The problem now is that one vendor buys the entire feed, and then
doesn't offer all of it. If it was sold piecemeal to different vendors, then
you'd have the option of watching everything, including things like hockey
that are not currently being shown. And for avid sport watchers the extra cost
is nothing for the simple reason that you probably have already purchased a
bundle from the cable company that gives you most of the likely channels on
which things you want will be there. The result then for the end consumer is
that the Olympics are on more channels with greater variety, and therefore
people will get to watch more of what they want. The additional people in the
seats will result in more eyes for advertiser dollars, and everyone is
happier.

Incidentally there is an interesting fact about selling services piecemeal
versus bundling. If two vendors compete in the same market with those
strategies economic theory predicts a nasty price war until one is driven out.
See <http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/price.war.pdf> for the gory details.

------
hristov
I have been cursing at NBC for their screwed up coverage for a week. It is
really really bad.

Did you know for example that they have a channel called Universal sports that
is owned by NBC and that is an over the air and cable channel that broadcasts
nothing but sports. You would think that would be the perfect place to
broadcast the olympic games. You know what they broadcast? They broadcast
winter sports, but not the olympics. Instead, they have replays of winter
sports events that happened months ago. So for example, while the men's
downhill was happening and it was not being broadcast live by any NBC channel,
that universal sports channel was showing an old replay of another men's
downhill that was not an olympic event (it was part of the world cup circuit
and happened several months ago). While the US women hockey team was playing
without being broadcast anywhere, the universal sports channel was
broadcasting a fricking documentary about the US women's hockey team.

I mean it is as if they intentionally want to piss me off.

Oh and dont get me started on primetime. First of all they take up half an
hour of prime time coverage with a show that is about the olympics but does
not feature any olympic sports. Instead it is a freaking infomercial about
Vancouver and british columbia, and various random products, restaurants, that
may have a minor connection to the olympics. So NBC is broadcasting
infomercials in prime time that is how far they have fallen.

The actual sports coverage is so badly presented that you always know who is
going to win the race before hand. That is because the idiot commentators are
not commenting live, they know what happened and they just keep talking about
the people that they know are going to win. And they usually put in a human
interest story about the athlete that is about to win. So why watch the race?

Here is a piece of advice to nbc execs -- the main reason I watch sports at
all is because sports are NOT predictable.

So yes, in general it is not surprising at all that these are the same TV
execs that thought up the entire Leno Connan fiasco.

------
pkulak
I was amazed that NBC shuttled the Canada/US hockey game to their SD cable
news station. I remember watching some guys skiing with guns, and shooting at
stuff... I guess, in HD, then having to switch over to SD to watch the only
game anyone I knew actually gave a crap about. What a joke. But, I'm a
Canadian, so I guess at least I didn't have to watch them lose in more
resolution.

~~~
mbreese
That royally pissed me off. Why did I have to watch the one game that I cared
about in standard def? At least they could have moved it to CNBC, which was
broadcasting curling in HD.

~~~
bugs
Hey I very much have enjoyed the curling matches this year :)

I didn't get to see the hockey game though.

~~~
mbreese
I have too... especially streaming online. I just didn't think that it was a
good call to have curling in HD and hockey in SD.

------
KC8ZKF
The events shown on NBC are so heavily edited, overproduced and filled with
backstory glurge, it is like watching a made-for-tv movie _about_ the olympics
instead of the olympics themselves. Bah.

------
azm
This is one the primary reasons I have not watched anything sports related on
NBC for a long time. The rah-rah, the overly obsessive coverage of only US
players and related history, the focus on all the wrong parts of the games, I
can (with great effort) tolerate. But once you add the absolutely useless and
inane commentary and the tendency to shove the schedule on me, I prefer to
switch to other sources and I strongly recommend that to as many people as I
can (while trying not to be a grouch).

This was done to such a degree during the last FIFA world cup that I chose to
watch it in Univision even though the only two words I understood were pelota
and goal. And even that was oodles better than NBC. I wish I could stream CBC
from somewhere or at least pay for coverage that just keeps the damn
commentators quite unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately AFAIK the way
the whole thing is setup, there really is no choice in the matter.

~~~
blahedo
I was following the 2002 World Cup fairly closely and watched on Univision for
a different (but related) reason: they actually broadcast the games when they
happened. 4 in the morning? No problem. There was no question of knowing the
results before the broadcast, which was already eight years ago a typical
problem for those of us with decent internet connectivity.

------
xelfer
This is pretty much the exact problem we're having here in Australia. We get 3
hours of coverage a day at 9am, which is summarised further and shown at
9.30pm. They only show us events that Australians appear in and barely show
the rest. I think they showed about 5 minutes total of that USA vs CA hockey
match in our prime time.

We have a 'pay tv' network which has 4 channels dedicated to Olympic coverage,
and it costs $65 extra for the privilege.

~~~
shib71
Try <http://media.olympics.com.au/>.

------
miked
_Let us put aside for a moment the rah-rah, "Go Team USA" focus of the NBC
coverage that often bugs viewers who would like a more global view of the
Olympics._

That was the first sentence, and they lost me right there.

The first night I watched they went on and on (and on) for so long about _how
absolutely desperate Canada was to win a gold_ (and on and on) I thought I was
viewing Canadian TV. Later they showed the mogul skiing event (I believe it
was) and were so focused on the fact that a Canadian had won gold that they
never even mentioned how the US skier did. Only later did I find out he took
bronze.

~~~
AndrewO
Agreed—I've watched many events, shown in their entirety, where the US (and
often Canada) were not even factors. E.g. just recently I've seen multiple
biathlon and cross country skiing events where Europeans dominate. There's
cursory mention of an American back in 20th or so, but for the most part the
coverage is focused on leaders. And these are long races too.

It sounds like the author was just mad that the US-Canada hockey game was
pushed to MSNBC. I would have loved to have seen that game in HD on the main
NBC, but that's a long way from the coverage being "broken".

------
retro
_West-coast residents have been particularly incensed that they wait an
additional three hours after the East coast gets whatever "live" coverage
there actually is in prime time, even though they are in the time zone where
the Olympics actually are. What this means is that even if NBC is showing
"live" coverage of its big events in New York, which is across the continent
from Vancouver, it delays them three hours for Seattle, which is less than
three hours south of Vancouver._

Is there a business reason for giving the East coast preferential treatment
West coast events and vice versa?

~~~
dasil003
_Is there a business reason for giving the East coast preferential treatment
West coast events and vice versa?_

It's not preferential treatment per se (east coast is seeing taped events as
well), it's just that most people aren't home from work yet at 5pm.

------
mattm
Thank goodness I'm in Canada.

We have three channels that are broadcasting the Olympics probably 12-16 hours
a day. And it's not just because they're in Canada this year, it's pretty
standard to have great coverage.

I remember being in the US during the Atlanta Olympics and couldn't believe
that they were only shown for a few hours a day with limited events.

~~~
Mongoose
I'm glad it turned out nicely for you guys, given that the Olympics are in
your backyard. I would've liked CBC to have Olympic coverage though, as it's
the only Canadian channel broadcast in the Seattle/Puget Sound area. I
could've then watched the US vs Canada hockey game yesterday, given my lack of
MSNBC.

~~~
halostatue
We've got three channels broadcasting, but not a one of them is as good as
CBC. Hopefully this is the last Olympics CTV ever gets. :|

~~~
mattm
Yeah, I prefer CBC as well. CTV just paid more money for this package being
that it was more lucrative with them being in Canada. I think the IOC sells
the TV rights as a package for both summer and winter. So if you want the
winter, you have to buy the following summer. If that's right, CTV will
probably be broadcasting the London games.

------
banana
If you are in Europe, you can access all the OBS live feeds, highlights, as
well as all the stations broadcasting the event (bbc, ard, zdf, etc..) for
free here: <http://www.eurovisionsports.tv/olympics/>

~~~
bshep
Anyone tried setting up a VPN server ( as a sort of proxy ) in Europe to
stream the coverage to the states ( for personal use of course )?

I might try this later, if it works I'll report back.

EDIT: I got it working, the location I am right now has less than 1Mbps down
so I cant tell if the lag is due to the VPN and the distance or the BW
limitation. In a little bit I'll be home and I can test with a better
connection (8Mbps)

~~~
bshep
Just got home and I have to say that it works great if you have a decent
connection! I can even watch the 'HD' version.

~~~
banana
There was already a site for the summer games in China, so I expect there will
be a site for the summer games in London as well!

------
silverpen
I'm not quite sure I understand everyones frustration. Why don't people just
watch whatever events they want whenever they want online (it's all available
there for free and with fewer commercials).

~~~
mkinsella
Because watching it on my computer isn't nearly as easy (stuttering, finding
URLs, downloading players), convenient, relaxing, or high quality as sitting
on my couch while watching an HD broadcast on my 50" LCD.

~~~
silverpen
Easy, convenient: In the past I would have agreed with you. But by far, this
year's olympics online broadcast has been very well managed. High quality with
little to no stuttering (even for live events), content well organized and
timely (replay of complete event available only minutes after they are
complete).

As for the couch and large TV aspect, I suppose I would have to agree with
you.

------
JeffJenkins
I've only been watching the curling, and as a Canadian living in America I
_was_ annoyed by the lack of diversity in coverage, but it sounds like in some
of the other events it's much worse.

~~~
mbreese
You can watch most (all?) of the curling events live on the nbcolympics.com
website. I've usually had a curling or hockey game streaming while at work for
the past week.

One annoying thing about that though: you have to subscribe to a cable or
satellite service in order to actually view it. Why should NBC care if I have
DirecTV or not? It also requires Silverlight, which begs the question: why
aren't they using Hulu for this?

~~~
trafficlight
I have the HD only programming from Dish Network. Even though I get CNBC and
MSNBC, that doesn't count in NBC's eyes, so I can't watch live coverage.

------
walkon
Is it particularly surprising that a company broadcasting primarily to the USA
would focus more on its participants? For the average American watching sports
they know little about, with participants they've never heard of, it helps if
there is _something_ they can grab onto to maintain interest, such as rooting
for their home country.

With that said, the other complaints this article raises I agree with.

------
rmanocha
Reading through these commends, it seems like us people in Malaysia have it
better than you guys in the US. I've been a bit disappointed with all the
attention paid to Ice Skating/Dancing etc. but for the most part, they've
(ESPN) shown a good mix of the events going on in Vancouver.

------
ianbishop
If you are able to access the CTV webplayer from the US, I definitely suggest
it. It has to be the best live web player I have ever seen.

