Jump to content


Photo

NBC Retains Olympic rights through 2020


  • Please log in to reply
145 replies to this topic

#1 Quaker2001

Quaker2001

    Flag Bearer Level 4

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4132 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC

Posted 07 June 2011 - 12:14 PM

http://nbcsports.msn...olympic_sports/

#2 OneTimeOnly

OneTimeOnly

    Flag Bearer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1491 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York, New York, USA

Posted 07 June 2011 - 12:54 PM

http://nbcsports.msn...olympic_sports/



Hooray! :D
It's the Olympic Winter Games (OWG) NOT "Winter Olympic Games' (WOG <----- NO NO NO!)

SAN FRANCISCO 2024
Posted Image

#3 Durban Sandshark

Durban Sandshark

    Flag Bearer Level 2

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:St. Louis, Missouri

Posted 07 June 2011 - 02:08 PM

The IOC obviously knows that NBC proved itself in delivering the goods when it comes to presentation, programming, and ratings of the Olympics here in the United States and wants to stay committed to what NBC does since 1988. Too many unknowns exists for ESPN/ABC in the minds of the IOC members. I wonder do they like the idea of ESPN Sportscenter presenters getting involved and deviating the normal course made by NBC all these years.

#4 Soaring

Soaring

    Think big. Aim higher.

  • Premium Members
  • 3564 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Formerly Chicago, Currently Tulsa

Posted 07 June 2011 - 02:16 PM

Hey, if they want to spend that much, then so be it. Just happy FOX, didn't win.

Any word on what the other networks offered?

#5 tractarian

tractarian

    Silver

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas, USA

Posted 07 June 2011 - 02:27 PM

The IOC obviously knows that NBC proved itself in delivering the goods when it comes to presentation, programming, and ratings of the Olympics here in the United States and wants to stay committed to what NBC does since 1988. Too many unknowns exists for ESPN/ABC in the minds of the IOC members. I wonder do they like the idea of ESPN Sportscenter presenters getting involved and deviating the normal course made by NBC all these years.


I think this is totally wrong. The IOC had no reason to fear that ESPN or Fox would do any worse of a job than NBC. In fact, I'm sure the IOC would love it if there was a "Olympic SportsCenter" on ESPN, and I really don't think there would be any reason to doubt Fox's capability to televise the event. Fact is, the IOC doesn't really care how the Games are presented on U.S. television. Even if it was on Versus or TruTV or whatever, the Games would get big ratings.

The fact is, you don't need to look far to determine why the IOC chose the Peacock. Hint: it rhymes with "honey."

Rogge said this deal shores up the IOC's finances for the next decade. Fox and Disney didn't even come close to the dollar figures of NBC's bid. That's all you need to know if want to figure out why NBC won.

#6 Citizen-Seth

Citizen-Seth

    Silver

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia
  • Interests:I heard you were looking for me?

Posted 07 June 2011 - 02:31 PM

I think this is totally wrong. The IOC had no reason to fear that ESPN or Fox would do any worse of a job than NBC. In fact, I'm sure the IOC would love it if there was a "Olympic SportsCenter" on ESPN, and I really don't think there would be any reason to doubt Fox's capability to televise the event. Fact is, the IOC doesn't really care how the Games are presented on U.S. television. Even if it was on Versus or TruTV or whatever, the Games would get big ratings.

The fact is, you don't need to look far to determine why the IOC chose the Peacock. Hint: it rhymes with "honey."

Rogge said this deal shores up the IOC's finances for the next decade. Fox and Disney didn't even come close to the dollar figures of NBC's bid. That's all you need to know if want to figure out why NBC won.


That has to be one of the most outright false statements I've ever read on these boards, and trust me, that's really saying something.

WE LOVE BELA BARTOK

Still all about Annecy. 


#7 tractarian

tractarian

    Silver

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas, USA

Posted 07 June 2011 - 02:43 PM

That has to be one of the most outright false statements I've ever read on these boards, and trust me, that's really saying something.



Really? What makes you think the IOC cares whether or not the Games are shown live in the U.S? Or with endless commercials? Or with incessant fluff and filler?

The mere fact that NBC continues to win these auctions proves that the IOC cares not a whit about these things.

Yes, they need the Games to be on American TV, and I'm sure they'd prefer over-the-air rather than cable, but beyond that, <b>they do not care.</b> How anyone paying attention over the last 20 years can possibly come to a different conclusion is mind-boggling.

#8 Citizen-Seth

Citizen-Seth

    Silver

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia
  • Interests:I heard you were looking for me?

Posted 07 June 2011 - 03:09 PM

Really? What makes you think the IOC cares whether or not the Games are shown live in the U.S? Or with endless commercials? Or with incessant fluff and filler?

The mere fact that NBC continues to win these auctions proves that the IOC cares not a whit about these things.

Yes, they need the Games to be on American TV, and I'm sure they'd prefer over-the-air rather than cable, but beyond that, <b>they do not care.</b> How anyone paying attention over the last 20 years can possibly come to a different conclusion is mind-boggling.


The Olympic Games is the most valuable brand in the world. Period. Full stop. Bar none. 94% of people in the world know what the Olympic Rings mean. No other brand has that kind of recognition. Nor does any other brand have the unprecedented good will that people (obviously not the ones on these boards) associate with the Games.

The IOC isn't just looking for someone to show their sports competitions in the US. They're looking for a storytelling partner, that will help them sell their story to the largest captive audience in the world. Now, are they charging too much? Maybe. I don't really think so, but that isn't the point of this post.

The Olympic Games are, to an overwhelming majority of people around the world (again, people on this board don't count), a magical and wondrous global event, that fosters peace, unity, and global friendship. How do people come to believe that? Certainly they don't do it by going to the Games and seeing them for themselves. They think that because of what is shown to them on television. And what is shown to them on TV has to be just right . . . not too much sports focus or people lose interest, but not too much of a personal focus or people get drained (Albertville '92, anyone?). That mix has to be just right, and that's something that both the IOC and Dick Ebersol came to understand. The IOC knows that the coverage has to be engaging, it has to keep you interested.

The right coverage along with the right content create a positive viewer experience. That, in turn, build the Olympic brand equity. That then attracts the many sponsors that the IOC turns away every day. I don't think there is a company that would not love to able to connect themselves with the Olympic Games. It's a simple fact that anyone in the marketing industry will agree to. Look at Coke, for example. Coke is sold in more countries than there are that compete in the Games (sometimes), are they an Olympic sponsor so that you'll go out and buy more Coke? No, they're an Olympic sponsor so that when you open up that Olympic branded Coke can, you'll feel even better about Coke than you already did. The equity found in brand association with Olympic Games is worth its weight in gold, and it comes from what is produced and aired by networks all around the world.

WE LOVE BELA BARTOK

Still all about Annecy. 


#9 FiveRingFever

FiveRingFever

    Silver

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 358 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA

Posted 07 June 2011 - 03:37 PM

The Olympic Games is the most valuable brand in the world. Period. Full stop. Bar none. 94% of people in the world know what the Olympic Rings mean. No other brand has that kind of recognition. Nor does any other brand have the unprecedented good will that people (obviously not the ones on these boards) associate with the Games.

The IOC isn't just looking for someone to show their sports competitions in the US. They're looking for a storytelling partner, that will help them sell their story to the largest captive audience in the world. Now, are they charging too much? Maybe. I don't really think so, but that isn't the point of this post.

The Olympic Games are, to an overwhelming majority of people around the world (again, people on this board don't count), a magical and wondrous global event, that fosters peace, unity, and global friendship. How do people come to believe that? Certainly they don't do it by going to the Games and seeing them for themselves. They think that because of what is shown to them on television. And what is shown to them on TV has to be just right . . . not too much sports focus or people lose interest, but not too much of a personal focus or people get drained (Albertville '92, anyone?). That mix has to be just right, and that's something that both the IOC and Dick Ebersol came to understand. The IOC knows that the coverage has to be engaging, it has to keep you interested.

The right coverage along with the right content create a positive viewer experience. That, in turn, build the Olympic brand equity. That then attracts the many sponsors that the IOC turns away every day. I don't think there is a company that would not love to able to connect themselves with the Olympic Games. It's a simple fact that anyone in the marketing industry will agree to. Look at Coke, for example. Coke is sold in more countries than there are that compete in the Games (sometimes), are they an Olympic sponsor so that you'll go out and buy more Coke? No, they're an Olympic sponsor so that when you open up that Olympic branded Coke can, you'll feel even better about Coke than you already did. The equity found in brand association with Olympic Games is worth its weight in gold, and it comes from what is produced and aired by networks all around the world.



I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. I've seen coverage in other countries. They do far less storytelling, and the coverage is live. I personally believe that the Australian and Canadian coverage is superior to what NBC provides based upon what I've seen. What you're describing is an American packaging model designed to attract the widest possible viewing audience so that NBC can charge the highest possible advertising rates. From IOC's perspective, I don't think that model is more or less attractive than a more purist sports-oriented approach. I would think that as long as it's tasteful and doesn't disparage the IOC or host nation, the IOC is probably fine with it.

#10 tractarian

tractarian

    Silver

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas, USA

Posted 07 June 2011 - 03:38 PM

They think that because of what is shown to them on television. And what is shown to them on TV has to be just right . . . not too much sports focus or people lose interest, but not too much of a personal focus or people get drained (Albertville '92, anyone?). That mix has to be just right, and that's something that both the IOC and Dick Ebersol came to understand. The IOC knows that the coverage has to be engaging, it has to keep you interested.


You're missing my point. Of course NBC strives to maximize its ratings; and of course the IOC wants NBC to maximize its ratings to the extent that it means bidders at the next auction will be more willing to empty their pockets.

But it's NBC that exclusively decides how to balance "sports focus" and "personal focus." Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they get it wrong (from a ratings perspective, that is; in my view NBC just achieves varying levels of wrong).

You, on the other hand, are imagining the IOC and Ebersol working hand in hand to ensure a perfect balance of human-interest features and taped event coverage. That's ludicrous. NBC decides how to maximize its ratings, and the IOC has no say, except when it comes time to accept or reject the next bid.

Think about it: If the IOC had the role you envisage, would they have signed off on NBC's Atlanta plan? With about 45 minutes of total daily coverage, including both sports and fluff? You think that maximized the Olympic brand equity? No way.

It's precisely BECAUSE the Olympic brand has such extraordinary prestige that the IOC doesn't need to concern itself with the internal strategies of rights-holders. The Olympic brand is so powerful that it will thrive no matter what sports/fluff balance is struck.

The equity found in brand association with Olympic Games is worth its weight in gold, and it comes from what is produced and aired by networks all around the world.


Right. And yet, outside of the US, "what is aired by networks all around the world" is mostly live event coverage, and minimal fluff. Has the brand equity of the Olympic Movement suffered in these other countries? No; it's thrived. Which proves my point: the IOC doesn't care how NBC does its thing. It just wants the money. (To be clear, I'm not blaming them for this approach. I mean, someone's gotta pay for the hundreds of luxury suites and private jets, right?)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users