Now NBC Execs Are Just Trolling: Claim They Regret Not Tape Delaying More Of The Olympics

from the are-they-serious? dept

Wed, Aug 15th 2012 8:38am — Mike Masnick

By far, the biggest complaint heard about Olympics coverage by NBC in the US was about just how stupidly annoying the tape delay was. The excuses they gave didn't make any sense, but NBC still insists that it was the right thing to do. Hell, they're now arguing that perhaps they should have done even more tape delay, because the ratings were so good.

Though NBC drew criticism for not airing more of the games live, showcasing taped events in prime time "undeniably" helped ratings, NBC Sports Chairman Mark Lazarus said. He said he wondered if NBC should have tape-delayed more events, such as the U.S. men's gold-medal basketball game and the men's tennis finals between Andy Murray and Roger Federer, which were live.

"It's undeniable we hurt our ratings by doing that," Mr. Lazarus said in a phone interview. "We have to balance what we're trying to do for viewers across the country and our business model."

Of course, all of that assumes something that isn't necessarily true: that the high ratings were due to the tape delays. One could just as easily claim that if they hadn't tape delayed key events, that they would have received even more viewers. There's no reason that they couldn't both display stuff live and then rebroadcast the key events in prime time, and satisfy both audiences. But, that kind of thinking doesn't work inside NBC Universal, where the default mindset seems to be "gee, how can we 'exclude' people?"

Either way, the fact that they now regret not tape delaying more content shows the de facto position of NBC Universal -- and it's not about how to best serve their users.

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

Filed Under: mark lazarus, olympics, tape delay
Companies: nbc universal

61 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 8:11am

Let 'em die
I watched live from the US. The BBC did an excellent job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ltlw0lf (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 3:39pm
  
  Re: Let 'em die
  I watched live from the US. The BBC did an excellent job.
  
  If NBC did one thing right, it was to make Joe Sixpack aware of proxies. Now there are a ton more people out there that are suddenly aware that they can get around geolocking by using a proxy server. Expect the majors to try and legislate/incriminate that activity in the future as they realize that people who aren't being serviced by them can be serviced by others using a proxy.
  
  People are now using Netflix through proxies to grab material not released in their own country and proxies are also allowing folks to access ITunes and Amazon to grab stuff not being provided to them because of major stupidity. They are so willing to screw the customer and leave money sitting on the table, but then when technology or a competitor who has a better business sense then they do show up and break their monopoly, they get all bent out of shape.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 8:47am

Why are the olympic games, which are suppose to be about unity, sold to only one network and then that network is allowed to lock up the content any way it chooses? Wouldn't the original mission of the olympics be better served by livestream than television?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 8:52am
  
  Re:
  Because the Olympic games aren't about unity. They're about maximizing profit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 10:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    and they do this by playing to peoples emotions and saying the Olympics are about unity.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 8:55am
  
  Re:
  "Wouldn't the original mission of the olympics be better served by livestream than television?"
  
  The original mission? Perhaps. The current mission? That's another story...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 11:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    I often surprised at how many people don't get this point. The current Olympic Games have no connection with the original Olympic Games except that they share the name and they both involve sporting events. The purpose and even the social meaning were totally different.
    
    Even the sporting events were only one part of the original Olympics, and of no greater importance than the other parts.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:38am
  
  Re:
  It is all about money and it really is absurd. In Denmark we had 2 "companies" split the coverage rights between them and using a total of 5 different channels for the coverage. Do I have to say that they never covered the same events during the olympic period? The clever thing for the olympics would be to sell off the events in smaller packages so exclusivity can be avoided.
  
  In terms of the taping, I can see the argument for it since TV-networks are all about maximizing viewership and rating and if they can do that by tapedalaying, well, why not?
  Not everyone will rise early to watch live olympic events and anyone not being up at the time of the live-event would end up being wasted potential commercial showing.
  
  The more relevant question would be: Does it change anything if they both covered it live and tape-delayed it? It appears NBC is shouting yes, shut up, but is that point validated by data?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 8:50am

This article makes the case that the incredibly small but vocal percentage of people on Twitter complaining about NBC's tape delays made it seem like it was "the biggest complaint", when in reality, their ratings were higher than expected.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/on-twitter-nbc-failed-in-prime-time-it-won/2012/08/03/689 247c2-dd7b-11e1-af1d-753c613ff6d8_print.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:16am
  
  Re:
  Higher than expected doesn't mean it's the direct result of the delays.
  
  And that's the issue, ppl want to see the stuff and will watch them anyway despite ridiculous delays. And the NBC loons will automagically link this with their retarded business practices and unicorns.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    Also, for a great many folks who don't go further than their TVs for Olympic coverage, there were no other options in the States besides NBC and whatever they decided to show, how and when. Of course NBC's going to say they succeeded - TV viewers had no other alternative. Had there been legit alternatives I'm sure they'd be singing a different tune.
    
    It wasn't just tape delays that were complained about, though. NBC did some real hatchet jobs on coverage of the opening and closing ceremonies as well as other lapses of judgement where the best US viewer experience was concerned.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - slopoke, 15 Aug 2012 @ 10:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Agree. What bothered me most wasn't the delay itself (I can only watch during prime time anyway) but the way they covered the events. Botched opening and closing ceremonies is just the start. From my point of view they didn't actually cover the "Olympics" at all. What they covered was swimming, diving, track and little girls gymnastics. I got so tired of the Michael Phelps channel that by the middle of the first week I was no longer watching at all. every time that something newsworthy happened (fencing, shot put, Judokas etc.) it was an event that I couldn't see.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 10:05am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, but they are quite possibly correct. So long as the number of people who A) were at work during the day, B) would watch if they were home, and C) don't know how to/couldn't be arsed to/forgot to DVR anything, was larger than the number of people chased to other outlets by the time shift, they made the correct choice and did increase ratings.
    
    Were they right? Beats me. My magic 8-ball broke a while back.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 10:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Reprise?
      
      But I got your point and I actually agree. Except that they can still show it live.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Someone Special, 15 Aug 2012 @ 12:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Didn't NBC show other things during the day? Perhaps they figured those other things would get higher ratings than live broadcasts of the Olympics?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:58am
  
  Re:
  This article makes the case that the incredibly limited but inexplicably powerful neilson ratings make it seem like NBC's tape delays were a "winner," when in reality, theirs a lot more than just TV viewership to consider.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alex Hagen, 15 Aug 2012 @ 10:24am
  
  Re: NBC
  The Olympics were a rating success despite NBC, not because of it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 11:10am
  
  Re:
  The, at best, that's a dramatic oversimplification of the truth. My wife, who is an avid Olympics fan, pays no attention to online happenings in general, let alone Twitter specifically. And yet, the delay irritated her tremendously. She watched them nonetheless, but would have enjoyed them much more if they had been live.
  
  Halfway through, I told her that I could set her up to watch them in real time through the internet, and she was excited about that. For all future games, that's how she'll be following them, not through NBC.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 8:50am

I have my own tape delay. It's called a DVR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 8:51am

Something is very wrong with this kind of thinking
"We have to balance what we're trying to do for viewers across the country and our business model."

This is blatantly saying that properly serving the viewers is in opposition to their business model. That seems to indicate that there's something deeply wrong with their business model.

I would bash NBC for this attitude, but it's so prevalent in the entertainment industry that it feels wrong to single them out for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:11am
  
  Re: Something is very wrong with this kind of thinking
  The only reason they can get away with it is because the govt. wrongfully passes anti-competitive laws. This form of theft needs to end. Just because they got away with it for the last few decades is no good reason for us to allow them to get away with it for the next few decades. Abolish anti-competitive laws!!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 2:40pm
  
  Re: Something is very wrong with this kind of thinking
  Look at it this way: Their business model is geared towards serving their customers-- the group of people that directly pays them money. This group, however, are not the viewers, but the advertisers.
  
  Clearly NBC is trying to maximize their advertiser rates.
  
  One starts to wonder where are the limits to this type of behaviour. Try to imagine NBC Universal getting the rights to certain major US sports events and applying these techniques.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simon, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:03am

Thanks... I'm a cable cutter.
Sport coverage in North America was a large part of the reason I found it so easy to become a cable cutter. After living in the UK, I guess I was spoiled by the BBC service, but I just can not stand the TV presentation of sports in the US and Canada. The constant commercial breaks and inane talking heads completely take me out of the event. So often it's not even breaks for revenue generating advertisers, but just a promo for something else on the channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- LDoBe (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 11:05am
  
  Re: Thanks... I'm a cable cutter.
  My theory is that most sports broadcasters, and most advertisers in the States know that their viewership doesn't pay very much attention during any given game. Given that knowledge, the broadcasters have to push a lot more ads, in order to make up for the unfocused eyeball factor of the majority of sports viewers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:08am

""We have to balance what we're trying to do for viewers across the country and our business model." "

Their 'business model' depends entirely on government established monopoly privileges (ie: cableco and broadcasting). It's not a business model, it's a state sponsored extortion racket, and it needs to end. Abolish anti-competitive laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:11am

" that kind of thinking doesn't work inside NBC Universal, where the default mindset seems to be "gee, how can we 'exclude' people?" "

Umm no, sorry. That isn't at all what they are saying. They are looking to balance out between providing the coverage live for a small audience, and killing whatever drama may exist, or tape delaying it and letting everyone enjoy it at the same time.

They are also I suspect dealing with the issues of Tivo users who would record the live show during the day, and then watch it at night, skipping the commercials and pretty much wiping out value - PLUS lowering the potential audience for the primetime broadcast and lower those ratings (and future earnings) as well.

If you actually worked in the field, even for a day, you might understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:20am
  
  Re:
  They are looking to balance out between providing the coverage live for a small audience, and killing whatever drama may exist, or tape delaying it and letting everyone enjoy it at the same time.
  
  Surprise, surprise! The internet is there to spoil the fun. Enjoy together my ass. If they aren't playing it live I'm streaming via vpn with the money that should go into their pockets if they did a good job. Simple as that.
  
  They are also I suspect dealing with the issues of Tivo users who would record the live show during the day, and then watch it at night, skipping the commercials and pretty much wiping out value - PLUS lowering the potential audience for the primetime broadcast and lower those ratings (and future earnings) as well.
  
  And many of those users went for unlawful streams and pirate sources (or vpns to check bbc). Mission completely and utterly failed.
  
  If you actually worked in the field, even for a day, you might understand.
  
  If any of us worked in the field we'd probably need mental care like all those idiots seem to need. Oh, you do understand eh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:21am
  
  Re:
  I think we all understand what they were saying. What we are saying is that the networks are clinging to an old and outdated business model based on monopolies.
  
  What do you think would have happened if two networks were both allowed to cover the Olympics? Would tape delays and windowed releases still have been the 'best' option?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:21am
  
  Re:
  "If you actually worked in the field, even for a day, you might understand."
  
  If I wasn't the consumer, I might give one single shit. But I am the CUSTOMER here, so I don't give one rats ass about your stupid licensing, contracts or any other ridiculous stuff you have invented to give you more and give the customer less.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 3:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Wrong. You are the product they sell. Advertisers are the customers. - And unfortunately, they think they can fetch a higher price for you when they restrict the viewing time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2012 @ 8:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      viewers = advertisers
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  " and then watch it at night, skipping the commercials and pretty much wiping out value"
  
  Commercials are not valuable to me. Also, the role of government should not be to allow companies to exploit monopoly privileges at consumer expense by forcing consumers to pay high prices to watch nothing but commercials (which is all television is now) and then to grant monopoly privileges on those events for so long that future generations will effectively never get to see these past events and have a record of them. The role of government should not be to add corporate value at consumer expense. If we had competition, like we should if we had a well behaved government that doesn't pass so many oppressive laws in exchange for campaign contributions and revolving door favors, we wouldn't have this problem of paying insanely high prices to watch mostly commercials. These corporations have a responsibility not to abuse their wrongfully granted monopoly privileges and they are not doing so. Instead, their sole interest is to exploit these monopoly privileges for all they can, at public expense, with no regard for the fact that these privileges shouldn't be granted to maximize profits but to serve a public interest.
  
  The government has a responsibility to regulate these corporations in the public interest and they are not doing so. The plutocracy needs to end. Abolish anti-competitive laws. Abolish govt. established broadcasting and cableco monopolies. Abolish IP.
  
  "If you actually worked in the field"
  
  IOW, you're a shill.
  
  "you might understand."
  
  The fallacy that one needs to work in the field to understand. Oh, I understand perfectly well. You're a shill and you want to continue to benefit from monopoly privileges. Abolish anti-competitive laws. Bet you won't make it for a day because the competition will offer better services at a cheaper price. You can't compete in a free market, you need the govt. to hold your hand you poor baby. NO MORE!!!! Adapt or die.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    "The government has a responsibility to regulate these corporations in the public interest and they are not doing so."
    
    That is, in granting these monopoly privileges, the govt. has such a responsibility. Otherwise, the govt. should not grant these privileges at all.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:27am
  
  Re:
  They are looking to balance out between providing the coverage live for a small audience, and killing whatever drama may exist
  
  So covering it live kills the drama of it? Huh?
  
  They are also I suspect dealing with the issues of Tivo users who would record the live show during the day, and then watch it at night, skipping the commercials and pretty much wiping out value - PLUS lowering the potential audience for the primetime broadcast and lower those ratings (and future earnings) as well.
  
  Correct. In other words, the business model is in opposition to the needs of the viewers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    The problem is that the regulations allow them to adopt an anti-consumer business model (or it facilitates their adoption of such a business model). This needs to end. The government is an oppressive regime and something needs to be done.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 1:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So Go do it already and get back on your meds.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 4:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Go back to rehab you dumb shill, like all the rest of Hollywood and their movie stars and shills.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:44am
  
  Re:
  Only in the mind of an insane person is live coverage less dramatic than tape-delayed coverage of an event everyone already knows the outcome of.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 10:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    He's not talking about the drama of the result. He's talking about inter-personal narratives crafted almost entirely in editing that gets spliced into the coverage each night as if that's what people actually watch the Olympics to see.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - LDoBe (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 11:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The only reason why I watch the Olympics is to see if someone gets horrifically injured.
      
      What? I'm human, and everyone has a little bloodlust to satisfy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  So they're trying to balance showing the Olympics as a sports competition by showing it live for a small audience or tape delaying it to turn it into some kind of 'drama' show. And you're defending their choice to go with the latter?
  
  Tape delays don't let everyone enjoy it at the same time by the way. You're assuming it's still enjoyable for everyone after they know the results AND that prime time works better for everyone. Neither are universally true.
  
  They're dealing with lawful consumers using lawful devices to lawfully time-shift the live shows? The horror of having to deal with all that legal competition. Better to cut off access to live shows and remove the ability to time shift so you don't have to stack your preferences up against the consumers and lose. Ironically you can fix this problem easily with internet streaming since you can still force people to watch ads there even if they choose to load a recorded version of a live stream that's 12 hours old.
  
  If you actually work in the field repeat this mantra to yourself ten times at the start of each day:
  "It's 2012, I need to stop thinking like it's 1982. 30 years ago is over and it's never coming back."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- duffmeister (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 1:41pm
  
  Re:
  "If you actually worked in the field, even for a day, you might understand."
  
  This is the internet, If you actually worked in the field, even for a day, you might understand.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
kenichi tanaka, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:12am

NBC Execs are just trying to cover their literal asses. They knew exactly what they were doing and they're not sorry for what they did.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eternaleye, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:13am

No, they are DEFINITELY thinking about how best to serve viewers.

Th *problem* is that they have been reading and watching "To Serve Man."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RatMan, 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:23am

I wondered why they couldn't serve both audiences by live broadcast on alternative channels (CNBC, USA, etc.) for those with satellite or cable and then do the prime time delay on NBC. Best of both worlds: NBC gets the eyes and we get choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Mind (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:34am

how do they know what the ratings were?
Nielsen? I was a nielsen rater twice. I don't think it works that well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert P (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 9:35am

I think you used the wrong word.
When you said "gee, how can we 'exclude' people?" I think what they're actually thinking is "gee, how can we 'monetize' people?" They don't want to exclude anyone (rather the opposite) they just want to find the way to make the most money per viewer as possible. Finding better/more convenient ways for viewers to consume content is not really part of their mindset, unfortunately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew F (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 10:11am

Something rotten
If your business model depends on maximizing viewership between 7 and 9pm, you're doing it wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 10:32am

NBC live-streamed more events than ever online for free, and you're complaining about what they did on television? Don't you know television is a legacy business model for dinosaur media companies who refuse to innovate?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 11:14am
  
  Re:
  NBC's live streaming sucked so hard that they may as well not have done it at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ltlw0lf (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 3:59pm
  
  Re:
  NBC live-streamed more events than ever online for free, and you're complaining about what they did on television?
  
  Only if you had a cable TV or satellite subscription (I do not,) and the cable company was able to correctly configure the third-party authentication for you to access the streams. I used a proxy, my sister used a friend's userid and password to access the NBC site. I think I got the better deal.
  
  I had a cable internet subscription, but when I used the access credentials for that to attempt to access the stream, I was told I needed to be a cable TV subscriber in order to access the site.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 10:43am

I don't think they should be trying to see how many commercials people will watch before they just give up on the channel during the olympics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 11:05am

First USA USA USA

We won the Olympics!!!

Second, who cares if they tape delay the Olympics? If people really wanted to see it live they probably could. The tape delay would just give you a second chance to record it if you wanted to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 11:45am

I don't buy it everyone in my area has pretty much said fuck the Olympics because of NBC. I won't watch them ever again as long as they're on NBC.

Dear NBC,
Go fuck yourself.

-That Guy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Todd., 15 Aug 2012 @ 12:18pm

I recorded them all on my TiVo, so it wouldn't have mattered if they were live or not. I still would've watched them when I did even if they were live.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
calicojones (profile), 15 Aug 2012 @ 12:29pm

I may be crazy, but I don't consider the Olympics to be a simple "sporting event", and that's how it feels like NBC treated it. It's an event of world-wide importance, and it should be treated as such.

Yes, I know they paid a lot to have the "privilege" of broadcasting(which is a problem in itself). I have no issue with them trying to make a buck. Just don't package it. In this day and age, if you sign on to broadcast it, you need to broadcast it all as it happens. If you want to create a "best of" show for your primetime audience, great. Just don't withhold coverage to boost it.

I loved the online stuff, especially since a lot of them didn't have the idiotic, babbling commentators. You got to enjoy the events naturally, and I would love for coverage of other sporting events to follow suit. How great would it be to be able to turn off the audio track for the commentators on a football game and instead enjoy the game with the ambient sounds? The one thing that irritated me was that they put the results in the description of the event. Seriously not cool.

To put all of this in perspective, take any other event and put it in place of the Olympics and see if the way NBC handled it makes sense.

"Tune in tonight to watch the New York Giants beat the New England Patriots in Superbowl XLVI with a thrilling last minute touchdown!!!!!!!!!!!"

"Tune in tonight to see if the fearless US astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin succeed in being the first humans to land on the moon!!!!!!!!!!!"*

*While every newspaper in the world has the headline "Fearless US astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin succeed in being the first humans to land on the moon!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gunntherd, 15 Aug 2012 @ 2:26pm

Ha...what a joke, I didn't watch one millisecond of the Olympics because of the bullshit for ratings by tape delaying anything that was good. Just another attempt to control what people watch except I ain't buying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 2:35pm

Let me get this straight
For months before the Games began I read a lot of comments regarding those games and it seems to have been pretty much an over feel of negativity in this community.
Things such as they should eliminate the Games or boycott the games and so on.
So the distinct impression that I got out all of that was no one really cared.At all.

So now most everyone seems to be jumping all over NBC for tape delaying the coverage of the games that nobody cared about watching. That about it?

Wow...that's freakin funny!
You gotta love this place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 15 Aug 2012 @ 5:03pm
  
  Re: Let me get this straight
  Why is it wrong to be concerned about how legitimate customers are effectively not being served?
  
  Was it wrong to protest about Sony's rootkits even if you never bought a single DRM-laden CD?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
SEC, 15 Aug 2012 @ 3:16pm

NBC
Seriously. Bragging because it had "high" ratings? When compared to all the other channels showing Olympics at the same time?
NBC had high ratings because the general, TV watching, untechnical folks had NO alternative. If they wanted to see the Olympics, they were limited by NBC's censorship, control and sad presentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Declan OReilly, 15 Aug 2012 @ 3:52pm

The right way to do it
Never bothered with the olympics for all the reasons mentioned up thread. I dont expect NBC or any of the other networks to do anything beyond satisfying the investors.

The olympics from a business point of view is legalized extortion, with the only saving grace being the actual athletics, it flows from the top down and NBC is only one of the minor minions.

You turned on the TV, you rewarded that assumption of the network. Had NBC taken a bath in the ratings, changes would have been made for the next event, regardless of the network.

So big media screwed us, surprise surprise.

Declan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]