NBC showed the USA-Sweden hockey game on Sunday live, with no commericals during the periods, and with decent announcers. THAT is what NBC has to do ALL THE TIME to get me to watch the Olympics (and to be honest, I turned on NBC expecting to watch Meet the Press.) Sure, many people are at work during the day, but they could still show it live during the day (and in the middle of the night/early morning for real fanatics) and give highlights during primetime. NBC still has me pissed off with what they pulled in 1998 and they don’t seem to get the idea of live coverage even when it’s only a difference of a couple time zones.
The GB-US curling match for the bronze medal should be a corker.
NBC showed the USA-Sweden hockey game on Sunday live, with no commericals during the periods, and with decent announcers. THAT is what NBC has to do ALL THE TIME to get me to watch the Olympics (and to be honest, I turned on NBC expecting to watch Meet the Press.) Sure, many people are at work during the day, but they could still show it live during the day (and in the middle of the night/early morning for real fanatics) and give highlights during primetime. NBC still has me pissed off with what they pulled in 1998 and they don’t seem to get the idea of live coverage even when it’s only a difference of a couple time zones.
One big problem is the revenue from tv sales. The IOC makes most of its revenue from selling rights to broadcast the event. The biggest money comes from the U.S. so the games have been tailored for American tv for quite some time now. Why was Baseball an olympic sport? Because of the pressure from the U.S.
Don’t get me wrong, baseball is certainly a worthwhile sport. But it’s not a sport with a wide international following: Canada, Cuba, Japan and the U.S. With that following, cricket should be an olympic sport, but the IOC wanted to please the U.S. viewers.
I’m not a big sports fan, but then again, I’m the person the networks should be pandering to. The avid fans will watch, they need to get the casual viewer interested. And the problem is that the IOC have been pandering to patriotism. But I remember the gymnastics of '84 and how happy the Chinese athletes seemed to be. And there was that Romanian girl in the early 80’s that captivate people in many other countries. Americans (and Swedes, and Danes, and Argentinians) will root for a guy, no matter the nationality, if they find it’s good entertainment. Remember Eddie the Eagle?
The IOC needs to get back to basics: Good competition is good fun, no matter who’s competing.
And then, even curling can be exciting.
BTW, I spent the weekend on the couch recovering from surgery and awash in painkillers. I watched a lot of curling. It was mezmerizing.
Regarding ratings for the Super Bowl, the ratings for Super Bowl XL were the highest they’ve been in 10 years. This was probably due to the Steelers presence, and their large fan base.
The ratings for the Olympics may be down, I haven’t seen any numbers, but it wouldn’t surprise me. The die-hard fans are usually going to make an effort to see the sport they follow, but the time difference does have an effect. I’m a big hockey fan, but I only saw one of USA’s games. I don’t know when anything is on, or which channel to watch. Since NBC knows the die-hards will almost certainly watch, they try to turn the Olympics into a production and entertainment. That’s wonderful if they want to go with that, but they need to realize, trying to turn the Olympics into entertainment isn’t going to make it more entertaining than other shows that really are entertainment like “American Idol”. I’m not a fan of “AI” but I recognize its appeal, and that entertainment will usually beat out sports-trying-to-be-entertainment with non-sports fans.
I did see an article reporting that NBC’s Olympics website had more visitors than four years ago, and was making content available on the website. The future of the Olympics is probably headed for distribution over the net. If it can’t draw a TV audience, it will probably end up like political conventions where maybe one main event it televised each night.
Of course, if everyone had my American-centric view, the Olympics would always be held in a location without too much of a time difference from the USA.
The winter games were always kind of weak anyway. The stagger of the winter and summer schedule may have looked to the organizers as a way to spread around the workload and not compete against themselves but really it doesn’t seem to help.
Y’know, it could be that a collapse in the profitability of American TV rights for the Olympics may actually turn out to be best for everyone concerned. Maybe whole parts of it can be turned back into a sports tournament rather than an overgrown Reality-TV show. Maybe break up the “rights” and sell them piecemeal (e.g. hockey to ESPN, skiing to ABC – let them dust off the ol’ agony-of-defeat wipeout tape–, the opening ceremony to whoever promises to gag their announcer team, etc.)
Yeah, right, the IOC will think about sport and not about revenue… and maybe pigs will fly, I know…
I think NBC’s coverage is great. Of course, I’m not actually watching much on NBC itself – but I’ve seen a ton of coverage of USA and some on CNBC, which is all about the sport and very little about the dramatic stories. (MSNBC, I think, is mostly hockey, which I can’t watch on TV.)
Biathlon, BTW, is the bees knees.
–Cliffy
Why should I watch the Olympics on NBC at night when I know at 9 in the morning who won the event I’m interested in? It’d be like watching a rerun of American Idol…
And tonight’s a doozy. Survivor, Figure Skating, Dancing with the Stars, American Idol. It’s one giant reality show on four channels!
Between lousy monopolistic coverage, announcers, sports nobody cares one way or another about, the total melt-down of Team USA, NBC, and constant commercials, it’s a wonder they are getting any rating at all. Besides, the true showcase event isn’t until the second week anyway, so ratings are sure to spike during the Women’s Figure Skating broadcasts.
But I do think the OP has a point. With cable TV, satellite radio and the Net, there really isn’t anything that everybody watches or listens to anymore. There will never again be a Milton Berle Show, for example, that brings in a 75 share. IIRC, even the Superbowl has more people watching something else. We are getting to the threshold of a “society” as opposed to a society. Shared experience is a key component to any civilization.
It should be pointed out that the crowds at the events in Italy have been bad as well.
One reason for the bad ratings I think is that the results are known before the broadcasts. Everyone is on-line now and we all know if Bode Miller skied down the wrong mountain or whatever beforehand so why would anyone want to sit through hours of TV to see that?
Plus the sports that compose the Winter Olympics are a tough sell. Luge? Curling? Cross-country skiing? The NHL gets really low ratings in the U.S. Who would expect the nordic combined competition to do well?
I know in my own case, the unavoidable suspicion that everyone is doping (Austrian ski team, I’m looking at you) makes the whole thing kind of a joke.
Does anyone think it might be partly due to the way the Olympics are now every two years instead of every four? We now get Olympic-mania (ever more commercialized) every other year, and it’s kind of tiring, don’t you think? It’s overkill.
For myself, I don’t watch the Olympics because, well, I’m not that into sports anyway, it’s so hyped, and what I want to watch never seems to be on anyway. I got tired of the way it’s covered on TV years ago, and now I just can’t be bothered.
I think NBC is showing a huge improvement in coverage over their past outings of the summer games. Not so ridiculously patriotic. They seem to have learned that for some sports, the followers are interested in the competition among top athletes, no matter what flag they compete under. And even their worst moments are miles better than the piss-poor coverage dished out by CBS all those years. I would bet that hurts the ratings more than anything else. I stopped watching the Winter Olympics a number of years ago because CBS pissed me off so much. Now with NBC and TiVo, I’m right back into them and loving it.
Back in the 1970s, ABC’s coverage made people tune in even when the results had been in that days headlines. We don’t like to admit it, but quality coverage makes or breaks a sports broadcast.
This could be in play as well. In addition, I think international relations these days are strained to a point that the spirit of good-natured competition in a secure environment almost seems like a frivolous sham. Also a factor is the bad press the IOC has received in recent years.
I didn’t know the olympics had incredibly expensive, though usually funny, commericals.
MSNBC has the Canada v Norway women’s curling match on this morning - all ten ends. Scandalous!
The curling coverage has been excellent; except for commercial breaks, complete ten end games are being broadcast. If a game with one of the US teams ends early, they’ll finish up the broadcast with the final ends of another game, despite the lack of American players. The commentary isn’t “rah-rah USA” patriotic in the least. There was also minimal Bemidji/Pete Fenson’s pizzeria/cute Johnson Sisters glurge; a wee bit of course, but maybe 1% of what might be aired for figure skating.
I think it’s because the Olympics are supposed to be special, and instead it seems they’re always on tv or about to be on tv. Every two years is pretty frequent for something supposed to be awesome, rare and so special I dare not miss it. I say do them all in one year and don’t stagger them. Only have them once every ten or twenty years. Make it special, make it huge, make it the Haley’s Comet of sports, so people feel obligated to watch even if they would otherwise not care.
The way it is now I’m more interested in seeing which major metropolis gets to risk economic suicide by hosting the games, than in watching them. It feels like a crappy franchise that is getting milked way too often and far too thoroughly.
It is, isn’t it? I saw it for the first time ever this weekend, and I was hypnotized. What a bizarre sport. I had no idea what was going on but I must have stared at it for an hour.
Sure, but what other broadcasts were against the Olympics in the 1970’s? Most people probably had, what, 4-6 other channels to pick from? I thought that NBC’s coverage was designed to attract people who wouldn’t otherwise watch the Olympics. Namely women.
Is it possible that it doesn’t have much to do with the coverage but more to do with the actual Olympics itself? It isn’t just the UNited States I think since they’ve got disappointing ticket sales. I think there are other factors at work here.
Marc
Here in the Netherlands, I’ve been watching Olympics coverage about every evening on Dutch channels and BBC-2. The coverage seems very thorough irrespective of the nationality of the competitors, the commentary seems informed and interesting, and the post-event interviews tend to be brief and tasteful.
And people seem to watch quite a bit. The local train station set up an “Olympic Pavilion” with big TV monitors and a coffee bar, so commuters can see what’s happening at Torino.
I like it better than the impression I get from this recent article on US Olympics coverage:
That last assertion is an odd one, seeing as that there’s no real shared experience. Consider: the biggest movie of last year was Revenge of the Sith. It made some $370 million in the United States. Assuming an average ticket price of 8 bucks, we see that fewer than fifty million people saw that movie in theatres. This in a country of alomst three-hundred million people. And that was the most successful movie of the year; all the other supposed blockbusters earned quite a bit less.
On television, a typical week doesn’t see any show with a share over thirty, usually not even a share over twenty, and that’s been true for years. In music, few albums sell more than ten million copies. In books, the most successful novel in a given year may sell five million copies. There is no entertainment item common to the majority of Americans, much less to “all” Americans.