NBC Tells Concerned Senator That Its Olympics Coverage Was Great... According To Itself
from the well,-that's-convincing dept
As you may recall, NBC was widely slammed for its ridiculous Olympics coverage, which included time delayed programming for no reason at all, extremely limited online programming, and -- in some cases -- requirements to prove you were a particular cable company subscriber to get access to the internet streams. This upset Senator Herb Kohl, who questioned NBC, and wondered if it would further restrict access to its programming should the merger with Comcast go through.NBC has now replied, but has done so in a misleading manner -- claiming that "viewers had access to more coverage than in any prior Winter Olympics." Now, this is misleading by omission on two separate accounts. First, note the use of "Winter Olympics." Two years ago, NBC actually did provide greater access to its Summer Olympics coverage online. Four years ago, at the last Winter Olympics, broadband was more limited and you can't really compare the two. So that point is somewhat meaningless. Second, since there was no direct competition in the US, it's also a meaningless statement. However, if you look at how online coverage of the Olympics was handled in other countries, you quickly realize that NBC did a terrible job and greatly limited viewers. For example, we regularly heard from folks in Canada, who noted they could access almost everything via online streams.
NBC further makes this questionable claim:
"Without this hybrid approach to ad-supported broadcast households and (pay-TV) households, NBCU would simply not be able to bring our complete Olympics coverage to the American public."Let's see... you took an amazingly popular sporting event, pissed off a ton of people who wanted to watch it by making it harder to watch and apparently lost hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. And now you're suggesting this was a successful strategy? Wow. Perhaps if you had provided more of what consumers actually wanted, you would have found a better business model.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
3rd "viewers had..."
ya i saw that i bet others will too.
THE senator in this case is talking about somehting altogether different about the ability of people to see not those that COULD see.
I can have the greatest web online game , BUT only for people i let play does that mean its the greatest on earth for those that can't play too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3rd "viewers had..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 3rd "viewers had..."
Senator: Your coverage was a failure because it lacked decent coverage.
NBC: All the people who saw it were able to see it.
So N.O's point is that, as the article states, it's a complete cop-out to reply to that critism the way they did. It completely ignores the issue being addressed and paints it over with PR spin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 3rd "viewers had..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 3rd "viewers had..."
Back on topic, why did they make it harder to watch when they could have made it easier and sold more ads?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and don't worry CTV botched stuff too ( Canada )
go ask and fnd out it wasn't much differant then nbc
after all you have hollywood north aka ctv running it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Olympics ruined for me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pats on the back all around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then I also remember a year when NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC were devoted to Olympics all day - I don't know if any was delayed or all live.
I'd say either of these were better than this year's Olympics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So much for new technology
Infact, I did see some Olympics coverage on the local affiliate's subchannels before, during and after the games.
With all of this magical digital TV goodness, fixating on the internet might not even be necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
even allowed subscribers had a hard time
Why? I don't have a TV and have no use for a cable TV service. Plus, if I had cable TV, i'd be watching the Olympics on my TV rather than my computer screen.
Good game, NBC. You really got me. Unfortunately I didn't have the opportunity to watch all of your ads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did any other American see it all?
Wow! He has the gall to call their coverage complete.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NBC - No Body Cares
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Did any other American see it all?
Notice that he says "our complete Olympics coverage" not simply "complete Olympics coverage".
Oh and, yes, CTV weren't perfect but they had all sorts of coverage with different events on different tv channels (all owned by CTV of course) at the same time plus several other events streaming live. So at most times during the day you had the choice of maybe 6 or so live events, some in languages other than English. We are multicultural after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like surveys indicate they did okay...
http:// www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/keller-fay-study-finds-vancouver-olympics-coverage-is-stimulating-m illions-of-conversations-about-advertisers-brands-85036252.html
In addition, the ratings were phenomenally good, reversing a trend of declining ratings.
I did see an article that contrasted people who frequented the internet versus those who do not. The former seemed to be very dissatisfied. The latter seemed generally quite happy, going to their day jobs and then coming home to watch the Olympics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]