Jump to content

Quaker2001

Members
  • Content Count

    7049
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    159

Everything posted by Quaker2001

  1. NBC didn't have the LA Games, but they did win the rights for Seoul, so clearly they weren't so put off by what happened in 1980 that they didn't want to return. It was a large sum of money, but nothing along the lines of them going bankrupt. What's probably going to suffer the most at NBC if the Olympics are cancelled is Peacock, their new streaming service. Set to debut in full on July 15th (Comcast subscribers will start having access on April 15th), exclusive Olympics content will be a big part of their launch. Without the Olympics, that's probably a lot of potential customers they won't be able to bring in. NBC's rights fee for this summer's Olympics is $1.45 billion. Plus however much they're spending in additional production costs. But that's going to much more than just the broadcast media. Moreso than ever, their digital and cable efforts will be a major aspect of their success or failure. If the Olympics are cancelled, all of that takes a hit. Comcast's profitability comes from a lot more than just the broadcast network.
  2. Where'd you get that from? NBC took a huge loss from those Olympics, but it didn't bankrupt them. Obviously the stakes are pretty high this year and I don't know what kind of insurance or protection they have if the games get cancelled. But yes, that would be a major blow to NBC.
  3. The NHL and NBA are unaffected. MLB is underway with spring training. No reason to think the NFL would be affected.
  4. Usual over-reactions to world events. This is serious right now, but the Olympics are 5 months off. If they can't get the virus under control in that time, what does that say about the state of the planet? I doubt they could re-schedule, but it is worth noting.. normally the Summer of a Winter Olympics year is occupied by the World Cup. Not so this time around since the 2022 World Cup is in November.
  5. As much of an Olympics super-fan as I am and how upset I would be if the whole thing got cancelled.. if that happens, it means after several months, the world will not yet have figured out how to deal with this virus. Which means the entire planet may have a really big issue to deal with. And yes, shame on those who potentially caused all this in the first place because no animal is too exotic for them not to eat.
  6. There are treatments for malaria and for influenza and preventative measures for how to avoid traffic fatalities. Coronavirus isn't a big story because it's new. It's because they don't have a treatment for it yet and it's spreading quicker than the world seems to know how to handle it. It's not about the number of infections so much as an inability to treat those who are infected.
  7. 100% it will affect the Olympics. Just keeping my fingers crossed for everyone involved that this doesn't escalate to the point it causes the postponement of the Olympics. Because if that happens, the whole planet is likely in trouble.
  8. New Utah Olympic bid committee announced Here is one of the key takeaways from the story..
  9. China hasn't hosted their first Winter Olympics and you're already giving them another one? And not a single European city for nearly 2 decades?
  10. Almost happened in 1998. Salt Lake was only a few votes away from beating Nagano. That would have given us consecutive Olympics in the United States.
  11. So you think Salt Lake would lose once and then just give up? Pretty sure the IOC can assume that risk considering Salt Lake would have jumped at 2026 they had the chance. I actually think we're going to see Sapporo in 2030 and then Salt Lake in 2034. Right now, NBC already has the rights to the 2030 Olympics. The rights to 2034 have not been awarded yet. That TV deal starting in 2034 becomes a lot more valuable to the networks if it's going to be held in the United States.
  12. NBC OLYMPICS AND SNAP INC. PARTNER TO CONNECT U.S. SNAPCHATTERS WITH TOKYO OLYMPICS Similar to their partnership from the 2018 Olympics..
  13. Now it makes a little more sense. NBC had a "Gold Zone" program in 2012 and 2016 which was a live whip-around show to any and all events going on. So this is likely the new version of that, which makes sense since the timing doesn't work out as well to have that during the day. Good addition since we know NBC wouldn't preempt the Today Show for Olympics coverage (although they'll likely have their cable nets going with coverage)
  14. At the past 2 Olympics, NBC has moved towards measuring viewership in the form of TAD, Total Audience Delivery. This can better account for everyone watching the Olympics, whether it's NBC primetime or on 1 of the cable networks or live streaming. So primetime ratings are much less important than they have been in the past and likely won't be what NBC bases any ratings guarantees on. Since this new streaming service is ad-supported, people will still see the commercials, so even if people are watching early in the morning, they're still being exposed to the ads.
  15. Was literally just about to post, but you beat me to it. Still need some clarification here as to what this means for the NBC Sports/Olympics app. My guess is this is in addition to that, not in place of it. Hopefully I'm right on that one.
  16. Inasmuch as Jesse is right that this wouldn't be some big catastrophe, it does shine a light on what happens when infrastructure projects are tied to the Olympics. We can say it's not a bid of the bid - which is technically accurate - but these things still cost money that has to come from somewhere. It can't be "well, that's not LA2028's problem." It's someone's problem. If the private sector is willing to pump in additional funds, then it's all well and good. If not, then the question becomes how vital are these projects and is it worth the extra money to finish them earlier. Thus, we have the unintended consequences of hosting the Olympics in LA. And it's not like we couldn't find similar cases when we're talking about 1984.
  17. Please don't turn into a certain banned poster here because he's not around anymore and pretend like everything is going to be okay with your reasoning being "because 1984" Did you bother to read the article that stryker posted which talks about a potential funding shortage for Metro project, possibly in large part because they're being accelerated due to the Olympics? Yes, I'm aware these projects were approved before the Olympic bid. Have you considered that these projects will now be more expensive than they would have been otherwise *beacuse* of the Olympics? If the private sector kicks in the money, then it's not an issue. Otherwise, where else do you suppose they'll get the money from. Give this a read.. L.A. Officials Use Olympics as Cover to Spend $26 Billion on Transit Projects That Have Little to Do With the Games I know it's a popular talking point to talk about how these infrastructure projects are independent of the Olympic bid. That's accurate, but look at the consequences of that. And if we're talking 8 years out about things not being finished and already talking about a "Plan B," then maybe that's not a good thing and there is at least a tiny level of concern that everything won't be as perfect as it was in 1984.
  18. Not really a bid anymore considering they have officially been named as host. And don't forget Canada and Mexico.. this isn't just a USA 2026 World Cup. Only 10 cities in the United States are going to get to host. Which means there's going to be more than a few very deserving cities left out. There's no possibility for any white elephants because nothing new will have to be built.
  19. Don't forget the number of media as well. That's probably an even bigger jump from LA `84 to 2028. It's been said here many times before, but it bears repeating.. the narrative of "LA was successful in 1984, therefore they will automatically be successful in 2028" is a really dangerous approach to take. I don't doubt that they have a lot of smart people working and managing all of this, but it is far from a given that history will repeat itself when so much more is being asked of the city and the organizing committee this time around.
  20. 1984 was a massive success because they didn't have to build all that much, so they weren't spending a lot of money. This is the pitfall of tying infrastructure projects to an Olympics because now they're rushing to deliver and that rush is going to cost money. If the private sector is willing to pay for it, then they're fine. If not, that's a problem. And the response shouldn't be "well, if they don't do all these things they said they would do before 2028, it probably won't matter anyway."
  21. Looks like the IOC need not sweat it over having at least 2 viable candidates for 2030.
  22. Why? That moment is for the athlete, not the athlete's family. Show a shot or 2 of them during the anthem, but that seems like overkill to have it in a split screen.
  23. NBC says it has topped $1 billion in national ad sales for 2020 Summer Olympics Notable in this is that there are a lot of new advertisers in the mix, which hopefully means we won't see the same 3 commercials from Coca Cola over and over and over again. Also notable and I believe we saw this from the 2018 Olympics.. NBC's ratings guarantees will be based on TAD numbers (Total Audience Delivery) rather than just using the primetime TV numbers. Which is probably (hopefully) good news in terms of programming and scheduling.
  24. I doubt it makes a difference. Presumably, it will be the same formula as PyeongChang.. they'll stream the ceremony live, no live TV broadcast. And it'll be in primetime as usual on NBC. And I am perfectly fine with that
×
×
  • Create New...