Despite 20 Years Of Experience, Comcast/NBC Still Sucks At Olympics Coverage

from the fourth-circle-of-hell dept

NBC (now Comcast NBC Universal) has enjoyed the rights to broadcast the US Olympics since 1998. In 2011, the company paid $4.4 billion for exclusive US broadcast rights to air the Olympics through 2020. In 2014, Comcast NBC Universal shelled out another $7.75 billion for the rights to broadcast the summer and winter Olympics in the US... until the year 2032. Despite years of practice, we've repeatedly noted how the company has done a consistently terrible job at its core responsibility as the holder of those rights: namely, showing people things they actually want to see in a way that isn't annoying.

For years Comcast has been criticized for refusing to air events live, spoiling some events, implementing annoying cable paywall restrictions, implementing heavy handed and generally terrible advertising, often sensationalizing coverage, avoiding controversial subjects during broadcasts, and streaming efforts that have ranged from clumsy to outright incompetent.

You'd think after 20+ years of criticism Comcast NBC would be doing a better job. Then again, if you know Comcast NBC at all, the fact that they aren't (and have been historically completely oblivious to that fact) probably isn't all that surprising. And of course this year is no different.

While the internet and streaming have allowed Comcast/NBC to offer overall more content to viewers, the way it's being presented continues to be scattershot as hell. The company's coverage jumps from event to event in a head-jerking manner, failing to present much of a cohesive narrative from hour to hour:

"...instead of sticking with single events throughout primetime – introducing them, highlighting the stakes and the protagonists, getting the viewer comfortable with the quirks of competition – NBC has deployed this vast arsenal of broadcast resources to spray America’s households with a kind of inescapable Olympic televisual vomit.

A meaningful tip of the hat to the editor that let "televisual vomit" show up in the pages of The Guardian. And the chaos comes despite the fact that Olympics planners in Tokyo have increasingly tried to schedule events to make them more coherent to audiences in different time zones, especially the west:

"NBC’s programming choices have been consistently bizarre, even more so when you consider that whole chunks of the schedule in Tokyo – for swimming above all, but also in the athletics – were specifically rejigged to cater to the American TV audience, and at several points it’s been unclear to all but the most obsessive Olympics watchers whether what’s on TV at night in the US is live or a replay."

Spend a few moments over at Reddit and you can also find just a general and profound audience confusion in terms of when things will be broadcast, how and where you can watch event follow ups, and what the hell is going on. And while Comcast having its own streaming app (Peacock) should ideally make things better, that doesn't seem to be the case either. Promises of "free coverage" (with ads) via the app haven't been fulfilled because this is Comcast, and Comcast wants to use the opportunity to upsell you to either a streaming subscription or a traditional cable TV subscription if you want to see anything other than celebrity quips:

"Peacock will broadcast the team gymnastics finals for both men and women for free, but to watch any of the men’s basketball coverage you must upgrade to Peacock Premium—which costs $4.99 a month (unless, again, you already have Xfinity Internet or a cable subscription). It’s another $5 to get rid of ads."

Like most things Comcast/NBC does (see: broadband), it still expects to make a profit off of the Olympics thanks to ads, partnerships, viewer tracking data, and sponsored deals. This despite a lack of competence, Peacock itself being a money loser, sagging traditional cable subscriptions, and dipping ratings. Which is why complaints about Comcast/NBC Olympics coverage are more Sisyphean than productive, and we'll all be back here complaining again in a few years.

Filed Under: nbc, olympics, peacock, programming
Companies: comcast, nbc, olympics, universal

Comcast Lost $914 Million On Its New Streaming Service Last Year

from the new-to-this-whole-competition-thing dept

Despite bottomless pockets and all but owning state and federal regulators for the last four years, telecom continues to stumble with adaptation in the streaming video era. Verizon's attempt to pivot from curmudgeonly old phone company to sexy new media brand fell flat on its face. AT&T's plan to spend $200 billion on the Time Warner and DirecTV mergers to dominate the television space has resulted in them losing 8 million pay TV subscribers in just the last four years. In short, pampered telecom monopolies aren't finding that getting ahead in more competitive markets to be particularly easy.

Comcast too isn't having a great time of it, despite dumping the company's resources into its new Peacock streaming platform. A new filing this week indicates that Comcast lost $914 million on the venture just last year alone. Some of these losses were expected as Comcast shuffles resources around NBC Universal, pours money into new projects, and streamlines the company's overall structure, but it's worth noting that Comcast remains somewhat cagey about how many paying customers are actually signed up:

"Comcast said Peacock had 33 million signups in the U.S. at year-end but hasn’t provided metrics on how many of those are paying subscribers. The service, available in free and premium subscription tiers, launched for Comcast cable subscribers last April and went nationwide in July 2020."

Comcast, like other giants, had hoped to elbow in on streaming and advertising by locking its NBC properties (like "Friends") behind its gatekeeper paywall. Comcast also enjoys the fact that it effectively lobbied to lobotomize the FCC, leaving it free to do things like use unnecessary broadband caps as a competitive bludgeon against other streaming providers. But even that wasn't enough to seriously threaten giants like Disney, which (thanks in large part to its Pixar, Star Wars, and Marvel catalog) just crossed the 100 million paying subscriber mark.

While Comcast expects that Peacock might break even by 2025 or so, the relentless drumbeat of deep-pocketed competitors jumping into the space means that's certainly no guarantee.

Don't be too sad for Comcast, however. As always, the company's steadily growing broadband monopoly means that as it loses TV revenue (from folks cutting the cord on expensive, traditional television), it can simply jack up prices on broadband to recoup the losses. Right now, that's coming in the form of unnecessary, bullshit broadband usage caps, but when your subscribers literally can't flee because there are no other real options to flee to, the sky's the limit.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, peacock, streaming
Companies: comcast, nbc

'Subscription Fatigue' Looms As Comcast Reveals Yet Another New Streaming TV Platform

from the lousy-with-choice dept

So we've noted many times that the rise of streaming video competitors is indisputably a good thing. Numerous new streaming alternatives have driven competition to an antiquated cable TV sector that has long been plagued by apathy, high rates, and comically bad customer service. That's long overdue and a positive thing overall, as streaming customer satisfaction scores suggest. In response, traditional cable TV providers have had to up their game, exemplified by this week's launch of yet another streaming service by Comcast, dubbed "Peacock."

The company unveiled the new streaming service this week, stating it should go live next April. And while no pricing details have been announced for non-cable subscribers, Peacock will be free to users that already subscribe to a traditional cable TV bundle from Comcast. According to Comcast, the new service and naming convention reflects a "proud and bold" persona for the nation's least liked company:

"For us, it’s the perfect nod to the legacy without being too on the nose,” said Bonnie Hammer, chairwoman of the upcoming streaming service. “From my point of view, it screams that we are proud and we are bold."

Like the numerous other streaming services from AT&T, Disney, Apple, and others, Peacock is in a race to lock down as many exclusives to its platform as is humanly possible, which will include hits such as "The Office" and "Parks and Recreation," as well as development of (yet another) "Battlestar Galactica" reboot by "Mr. Robot" creator Sam Esmail. Netflix had to spend $425 million to lock down Seinfeld as part of a five-year exclusivity deal. AT&T's HBO Max has meanwhile secured all exclusive streaming rights to "Doctor Who" and "Friends." The streaming exclusivity wars have begun in earnest.

But there's one thing that remains overlooked as every company and its uncle rushes to deliver its own direct-to-consumer streaming service: subscription fatigue. Deloitte analysts have been using the term to describe the inevitable fatigue that will set in as users try to figure out which of their favorite shows are exclusive to which platform, which could come to annoy users despite the increase in new streaming options:

"But the plethora of options has a downside: Nearly half (47%) of U.S. consumers say they’re frustrated by the growing number of subscriptions and services required to watch what they want, according to the 13th edition of Deloitte’s annual Digital Media Trends survey. An even bigger pet peeve: 57% said they’re frustrated when content vanishes because rights to their favorite TV shows or movies have expired.

“Consumers want choice — but only up to a point,” said Kevin Westcott, Deloitte vice chairman and U.S. telecom and media and entertainment leader, who oversees the study. “We may be entering a time of ‘subscription fatigue.'"

Granted one plus side with streaming is users can sign up for a service for a few months, binge watch to their delight, then cancel. But managing multiple subscriptions (and logins) while tracking the home of your favorite current, ongoing shows could prove annoying, and even moreso if the industry shifts (as many expect) to a harsher crackdown on those who share streaming passwords — something Netflix and HBO used to see as little more than free advertising, but has increasingly been confused with "piracy" by grumbly legacy executives at the likes of Charter Communications.

The end result? A slow but steady shift back to piracy among users that find subscribing to a half dozen streaming services too expensive, or hunting and pecking for their favorite paywalled content annoying. It's an issue companies aren't all that worried about as they rush to the competitive trough, but it's likely to be a looming problem as the number of services and exclusivity silos grow.

Filed Under: peacock, piracy, silos, streaming, subscription fatigue, tv
Companies: comcast

DailyDirt: Really Expensive (Or Just Time-Consuming) Foods

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Maybe you've heard that the word 'salary' comes from Roman soldiers being paid in salt. That's seems like a fuzzy bit of history, and no one actually knows with certainty how early Roman soldiers were paid, but at some point, they were paid with coinage -- or perhaps with some other kind of allowance to purchase salt. Luckily, most people don't get paid in spices anymore, but there are a few food items that are expensive enough that they could be used as currency. (And if you want to really get off the grid, you might want to know about how much it'll cost to really make everything yourself from scratch.)

• Saffron, by weight, is probably the most expensive spice you'll ever consume. It takes about 85,000-150,000 flowers (just the dried stigmas) to produce 1 kilogram of the spice. About 80-90% (or more?) of the world's supply is grown in Iran, and the industry and enthusiasts may start DNA fingerprinting to crack down on fake or diluted saffron. [url]
• If you want to spend a lot of money on a sandwich, you could order one with foie gras or truffles... or you could make one from scratch yourself. It'll only take you 6 months and about $1,500 to grow all the vegetables -- including the wheat to make bread -- and to raise and slaughter your own chicken. (Or spend a lot more and order lab-grown meat if you don't like killing animals.) [url]
• So you could grow your own saffron, if you really wanted to. When you get good at it, you can probably pick about a thousand flowers an hour, but it'll still take a few more hours to separate out the stigmas and dry them. Not quite a Chia Pet hobby. [url]
• If you want to try something exotic, cook a peacock recipe from 1612. Impress your 17th century spice baron friends, and remember that people used to risk their lives for a few valuable spices. [url]

If you've been thinking about doing other things yourself, like learning how to code, take a look at our Daily Deals for a collection of online courses to help you program and/or master some professional skills.

Filed Under: diy, dna fingerprinting, foie gras, food, peacock, recipe, saffron, salt, spice baron, spices