Jump to content

Rogge says U.S. TV talks to begin soon


OneTimeOnly

Recommended Posts

That said if the US rights holders showed Sochi 100% live, there would be no clash to worry about - just an issue over highlights that evening.

Probably not. It would be a waste of content to show it, if nobody were up and watching. And the only possible events to be shown live in the US or even on streaming, would be those involving a U.S. team or star athlete.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

NFL fans don't seem to appreciate how big and powerful the IOC is and while the NFL can crush every other sports league in this country, they're looking for an International presence, and I could absolutely seeing the IOC take steps to kill their efforts.

NFL fans have no clue....

A lot of NFL fans who weighed in on the subject have said why can't the Winter Olympics just move to get out of the way

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

But if this turns into a game of chicken and 1 organization has to swerve to avoid the other, it'll be the NFL that moves long before they get the IOC to budge

So true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not. It would be a waste of content to show it, if nobody were up and watching. And the only possible events to be shown live in the US or even on streaming, would be those involving a U.S. team or star athlete.

There are so many reasons for showing events in primetime and not quite as many reasons to show them live. There's a lot of things that NBC could improve upon from their 2010 coverage that I hope they do going forward, but there's too much money and too many viewers involved to do it any other way and as I've said more than a few times here.. if ESPN thinks they can show the bulk of the Sochi Olympics live, they have another thing coming and I think they're looking at a disaster of epic proportions. Rio I think they'd be able to handle very well. Not Sochi, ESPN should want no part of that, especially now with the wrinkle that the Super Bowl might be involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many reasons for showing events in primetime and not quite as many reasons to show them live. There's a lot of things that NBC could improve upon from their 2010 coverage that I hope they do going forward, but there's too much money and too many viewers involved to do it any other way and as I've said more than a few times here.. if ESPN thinks they can show the bulk of the Sochi Olympics live, they have another thing coming and I think they're looking at a disaster of epic proportions. Rio I think they'd be able to handle very well. Not Sochi, ESPN should want no part of that, especially now with the wrinkle that the Super Bowl might be involved.

They could show things live, and then repeat them in prime-time. For instance, the Beijing OC's could have been shown live in the morning, then repeated that evening for anyone who couldn't see it live.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could show things live, and then repeat them in prime-time. For instance, the Beijing OC's could have been shown live in the morning, then repeated that evening for anyone who couldn't see it live.

Easier said than done, and I've heard this logic before from "why can't we have it both ways." Well, the problem with that is that if you show it live in the morning and then on tape in the evening, what you're showing in the evening is essentially a re-run, and most people will probably want to watch something that hasn't been on before and/or if they weren't home and couldn't see it live, they'd just DVR it. The Olympics are still appointment viewing and showing things live for the sake of showing them live will never fly because you'd have fewer viewers in the morning and then it'll be tougher to gather the masses in the evening. And once something has aired, it's out there. When NBC delays something for primetime, it may be a tape, but at least it's a first-run. If you apply this strategy to Disney for their ESPN/ABC bid, let's say they show everything live on ESPN (like they say they will). Some have said let ABC show a primetime show to placate those viewers that are used to old line style of coverage. Well, if you're ABC, are you interested in showing highlights of events that have already aired when you could probably get the same or better ratings with fresh episodes of Dancing with the Stars or Grey's Anatomy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easier said than done, and I've heard this logic before from "why can't we have it both ways." Well, the problem with that is that if you show it live in the morning and then on tape in the evening, what you're showing in the evening is essentially a re-run, and most people will probably want to watch something that hasn't been on before and/or if they weren't home and couldn't see it live, they'd just DVR it. The Olympics are still appointment viewing and showing things live for the sake of showing them live will never fly because you'd have fewer viewers in the morning and then it'll be tougher to gather the masses in the evening. And once something has aired, it's out there. When NBC delays something for primetime, it may be a tape, but at least it's a first-run. If you apply this strategy to Disney for their ESPN/ABC bid, let's say they show everything live on ESPN (like they say they will). Some have said let ABC show a primetime show to placate those viewers that are used to old line style of coverage. Well, if you're ABC, are you interested in showing highlights of events that have already aired when you could probably get the same or better ratings with fresh episodes of Dancing with the Stars or Grey's Anatomy.

Plus, it's the loss of advertising $$. First-time only broadcasts (whether taped or live) warrant premium rates. A re-run would be at a greatly discounted rate for the advertisers PLUS the loss of $$ for something pristine that could've been aired at that time.

And a 2:00am slot in the prime-time markets is way, way less than a primetime slot, even if it is tape-delayed because the network can deliver the numbers guaranteed for that prime-time slot. If only insomniacs watch the 2:00 am, you'll only get the Lunestas and Cymbaltas as the advertisers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're both totally off the mark. People will watch the rebroadcast in the evening if they haven't seen it yet. They wont' say, "I didn't see it live this morning, but now it's a re-run so I won't watch it". Give me a break. And if live was aired at 2:00 am, they can still get their higher rates during the prime-time broadcast, live or not, and probably get higher rates during the live broadcast at 2:00 am when normally they'd be airing celebrity poker tournaments or local programming with lower rates.

Both of you have Ebersol "I'm still living 30 years ago in the past" thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're both totally off the mark. People will watch the rebroadcast in the evening if they haven't seen it yet. They wont' say, "I didn't see it live this morning, but now it's a re-run so I won't watch it". Give me a break. And if live was aired at 2:00 am, they can still get their higher rates during the prime-time broadcast, live or not, and probably get higher rates during the live broadcast at 2:00 am when normally they'd be airing celebrity poker tournaments or local programming with lower rates.

Both of you have Ebersol "I'm still living 30 years ago in the past" thinking.

It may be old school thinking, but it doesn't mean that it's wrong. OneTimeOnly, how many people do you know who own a DVR? That number is obviously going to continue to increase. So let's say a big swim final or track final happens in London at 6pm local time, that's 1pm in the US. If you're someone at work when that airs live, are you going to watch in when it re-airs in primetime or are you going to DVR it and watch it at your convenience (and likely skip through the commercials). And aside from that, once it airs, how many news outlets and Internet sites will re-air the video before it hits again in primetime. That's hardly something people are going to gather for, especially when the other networks start throwing new episodes of their shows against Olympic re-runs.

Remember also.. the affiliates contribute a lot of money towards the total cost of the rights fees for the Olympics. Those late night poker tournaments and especially local programming earn a lot more money than a national network program would air. Most affiliates make a large portion of their income from the local news, so what's going to happen with that if the primetime show that precedes it is a second airing of something rather than a first-run show, even if it's delayed events from the Olympics (which the masses will gather for if they haven't seen it yet.. Vancouver proved that's still true).

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of NFL fans who weighed in on the subject have said why can't the Winter Olympics just move to get out of the way of the Super Bowl, which I find laughable. But if this turns into a game of chicken and 1 organization has to swerve to avoid the other, it'll be the NFL that moves long before they get the IOC to budge, and I know on this forum I probably won't get any objection to that.

I love the OWG but I find it laughable to think that the NFL would move before the IOC would budge. Look at the ratings over time. The Super Bowl every year lands in the top primetime telecasts of all time in the US. The OWG haven't made it into the top primetime telecast's of all time since 1994 (in the USA). I for one would tune into the Super Bowl before I would watch the OWG coverage simply because I know that I can watch the live coverage online earlier in the day.

Here is a list of the US top 10 Primetime Telecasts of all time in the USA:

1 Super Bowl XLIV (New Orleans Saints vs. Indianapolis Colts) 106.5 million viewers 7 February 2010 CBS

2 M*A*S*H series finale: "Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen50.15 million viewers 28 February 1983 CBS

3 Dallas episode: "Who Done It?" aka "Who shot J.R.?" 47 million viewers 21 November 1980 CBS

4 O.J. Simpson murder case 39.21 million viewers 20 June 1994 CNN

5 Roots Part VIII (finale) 36.38 million viewers 30 January 1977 ABC

6 Super Bowl XVI (San Francisco 49ers vs. Cincinnati Bengals) 40.02 million viewers 24 January 1982 CBS

7 Super Bowl XVII (Washington Redskins vs. Miami Dolphins) 40.48 million viewers 30 January 1983 NBC

8 XVII Winter Olympics: Ladies' figure skating 45.69 million viewers 23 February 1994 CBS

9 Super Bowl XX (Chicago Bears vs. New England Patriots) 41.49 million viewers 26 January 1986 NBC

10 The Oprah Winfrey Show interview with Michael Jackson 36.5 million viewers 10 February 1993 NBC

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the OWG but I find it laughable to think that the NFL would move before the IOC would budge. Look at the ratings over time. The Super Bowl every year lands in the top primetime telecasts of all time in the US. The OWG haven't made it into the top primetime telecast's of all time since 1994 (in the USA). I for one would tune into the Super Bowl before I would watch the OWG coverage simply because I know that I can watch the live coverage online earlier in the day.

Here is a list of the US top 10 Primetime Telecasts of all time in the USA:

1 Super Bowl XLIV (New Orleans Saints vs. Indianapolis Colts) 106.5 million viewers 7 February 2010 CBS

2 M*A*S*H series finale: "Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen50.15 million viewers 28 February 1983 CBS

3 Dallas episode: "Who Done It?" aka "Who shot J.R.?" 47 million viewers 21 November 1980 CBS

4 O.J. Simpson murder case 39.21 million viewers 20 June 1994 CNN

5 Roots Part VIII (finale) 36.38 million viewers 30 January 1977 ABC

6 Super Bowl XVI (San Francisco 49ers vs. Cincinnati Bengals) 40.02 million viewers 24 January 1982 CBS

7 Super Bowl XVII (Washington Redskins vs. Miami Dolphins) 40.48 million viewers 30 January 1983 NBC

8 XVII Winter Olympics: Ladies' figure skating 45.69 million viewers 23 February 1994 CBS

9 Super Bowl XX (Chicago Bears vs. New England Patriots) 41.49 million viewers 26 January 1986 NBC

10 The Oprah Winfrey Show interview with Michael Jackson 36.5 million viewers 10 February 1993 NBC

The IOC WILL.NOT.BUDGE. for ANYONE.

Seriously? You think the IOC would move for the NFL? You're nuts!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha I don't think you're nuts, I think if anyone would take on IOC it would totally be the NFL.

Hehehe ran a Google Fight. NFL: 157,000,000 results, Olympic Games: 16,900,000 results

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=NFL&word2=Olympic+Games

That's nothing to go by. The NFL's only market is the USA. The Olympics are the world. Which is larger?

Also, we have this idiot in our complex who insists on hanging his Chicago Bears flag outside his condo. Unfortunately, our Association rules forbid that. So he wrote a letter to the board thinking that if he denied his appeal, he would go door to door in our complex to gather signatures and that eh was sure he could 80%-90% backing. The Board turned him down. I imagine most NFL fans are like this...their stupid teams are theonly thing in their lives. Pathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's nothing to go by. The NFL's only market is the USA. The Olympics are the world. Which is larger?

Also, we have this idiot in our complex who insists on hanging his Chicago Bears flag outside his condo. Unfortunately, our Association rules forbid that. So he wrote a letter to the board thinking that if he denied his appeal, he would go door to door in our complex to gather signatures and that eh was sure he could 80%-90% backing. The Board turned him down. I imagine most NFL fans are like this...their stupid teams are theonly thing in their lives. Pathetic.

While the NFL's market could be argued is only the USA...you could also make the argument that the Super Bowl's market is different and much more global...for example, Super Bowl XLI was broadcast to 232 countries and territories worldwide in 34 different languages. Just a fact to ponder...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, we have this idiot in our complex who insists on hanging his Chicago Bears flag outside his condo. Unfortunately, our Association rules forbid that. So he wrote a letter to the board thinking that if he denied his appeal, he would go door to door in our complex to gather signatures and that eh was sure he could 80%-90% backing. The Board turned him down.

Sorry Baron, I meant to only fly the Chicago Bears flag during football season, and thought you all wouldn't really mind...

Anyway, the IOC is not going to move their dates for a Super Bowl. Weather conditions are extremely important to the Games, and since the NFL already has a schedule that hasn't been an issue, then why change?

The IOC will just say that the NFL should start their season earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While the NFL's market could be argued is only the USA...you could also make the argument that the Super Bowl's market is different and much more global...for example, Super Bowl XLI was broadcast to 232 countries and territories worldwide in 34 different languages. Just a fact to ponder...

232 countries? The IOC only recognizes some 205; the UN about the same. :rolleyes:

Did you count Narnia, Brobdingnag, Lilliput, Brigadoon, etc., there?

34 languages? Yeah, you need that many to explain the intricacies of the darn game. But I am sure the Olympics are broadcast in at least 50 langugages.

So what if it's broadcast in the entire globe? That's only like 3 hours and it doesn't mean it attracts over two billion viewers. Even I, a resident of the US, still have to understand the game. So don't assume it reaches the viewership numbers that the Olympics do which BTW, last 17 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, the IOC is not going to move their dates for a Super Bowl. Weather conditions are extremely important to the Games,

Exactly, & that's something that can't be changed.

And while the Superbowl may attact world-wide viewers, I think it does so because the Americans make a big deal about it & also to watch those new wacky commercials. I for one, don't follow the regular NFL season, but do watch the superbowl only because of that hype.

But I'm sure if push came to shove, the international audience would much rather tune into the Winter Olympics before watching the Superbowl. Winter Sports are so, so important (like the NFL is to Americans, to put it in perspective) to countries like Germany, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, France, Russia, etc, etc, that they're NOT going to watch the superbowl over the pinnacle sporting event of their loved winter sports.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many reasons for showing events in primetime and not quite as many reasons to show them live. There's a lot of things that NBC could improve upon from their 2010 coverage that I hope they do going forward, but there's too much money and too many viewers involved to do it any other way and as I've said more than a few times here.. if ESPN thinks they can show the bulk of the Sochi Olympics live, they have another thing coming and I think they're looking at a disaster of epic proportions. Rio I think they'd be able to handle very well. Not Sochi, ESPN should want no part of that, especially now with the wrinkle that the Super Bowl might be involved.

An ESPN/ABC deal or FOX Sports/FOX deal though is the perfect platform to test the water, especially with Sochi. Airing content live on the sport channels, and sticking to more traditional scheduling on the networks. And if necessary, the networks could always reserve flagship events for the primetime broadcast.

I love the OWG but I find it laughable to think that the NFL would move before the IOC would budge. Look at the ratings over time. The Super Bowl every year lands in the top primetime telecasts of all time in the US. The OWG haven't made it into the top primetime telecast's of all time since 1994 (in the USA). I for one would tune into the Super Bowl before I would watch the OWG coverage simply because I know that I can watch the live coverage online earlier in the day.

Here is a list of the US top 10 Primetime Telecasts of all time in the USA:

1 Super Bowl XLIV (New Orleans Saints vs. Indianapolis Colts) 106.5 million viewers 7 February 2010 CBS

2 M*A*S*H series finale: "Goodbye, Farewell, and Amen50.15 million viewers 28 February 1983 CBS

3 Dallas episode: "Who Done It?" aka "Who shot J.R.?" 47 million viewers 21 November 1980 CBS

4 O.J. Simpson murder case 39.21 million viewers 20 June 1994 CNN

5 Roots Part VIII (finale) 36.38 million viewers 30 January 1977 ABC

6 Super Bowl XVI (San Francisco 49ers vs. Cincinnati Bengals) 40.02 million viewers 24 January 1982 CBS

7 Super Bowl XVII (Washington Redskins vs. Miami Dolphins) 40.48 million viewers 30 January 1983 NBC

8 XVII Winter Olympics: Ladies' figure skating 45.69 million viewers 23 February 1994 CBS

9 Super Bowl XX (Chicago Bears vs. New England Patriots) 41.49 million viewers 26 January 1986 NBC

10 The Oprah Winfrey Show interview with Michael Jackson 36.5 million viewers 10 February 1993 NBC

And people say Americans are arrogant. Remember the rest of the world!

While the NFL's market could be argued is only the USA...you could also make the argument that the Super Bowl's market is different and much more global...for example, Super Bowl XLI was broadcast to 232 countries and territories worldwide in 34 different languages. Just a fact to ponder...

The facts are though outside the US the Superbowl audience is very small - literally in the single millions. Also though the Superbowl audience may be bigger, it's a one-off. The Olympics bought in 20m a night for NBC over 15 nights - that's 300m over the fortnight. And have no doubts about it - the US networks are likely a huge reason why the Winter Olympics rarely move from a mid-February slot. It fits into the US season pretty perfectly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An ESPN/ABC deal or FOX Sports/FOX deal though is the perfect platform to test the water, especially with Sochi. Airing content live on the sport channels, and sticking to more traditional scheduling on the networks. And if necessary, the networks could always reserve flagship events for the primetime broadcast.

Here's the problem though. Let's say the NFL does in fact hold the 2014 Super Bowl during the Olympics. Fox is scheduled to broadcast that game. So if Fox really wants the Olympics, clearly they're going to have to find a way out of that (which could be hard since that's the last game of the current contract). And ESPN.. that week leading up to the Super Bowl (let alone the day of the game itself), how much time do they spend talking football? That's where the live Olympic coverage would be, so what gets priority, Super Bowl hype or live Olympics coverage? That's not a choice ESPN is used to making and if I'm the IOC, I'm not sure I trust ESPN there especially since they pay over a billion dollars each year to cover the NFL. If the IOC wants a test of a mostly live Olympics, let them do it with Rio when events will be held during the daytime and evening in the US, not the middle of the night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Baron, I meant to only fly the Chicago Bears flag during football season, and thought you all wouldn't really mind...

Anyway, the IOC is not going to move their dates for a Super Bowl. Weather conditions are extremely important to the Games, and since the NFL already has a schedule that hasn't been an issue, then why change?

The IOC will just say that the NFL should start their season earlier.

Hmm I don't think the NFL would move, they'd just be like CBS/FOX/NBC/ABC whoever, just tell the Organizing Committee to not schedule anything "important" that Sunday. Super Bowl may not be "important" to the World, but the US networks get their most premium ad rates for the Super Bowl telecast, and since the US networks pay a "premium" to the IOC, they have a little pull with scheduling. So I'm thinking it's not a real issue, but I'm going to say the NFL wouldn't back down to some European's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if any of you saw this today, but there were several sites that noted that the Oscars are moving earlier for 2012 (just Google Oscars 2012 or look at Google News). This is a quote I found on one of the sites: "The organizers of the Academy Awards are debating whether to move the ceremony up to late January or early February starting in 2012. They hope that the earlier date will boost TV ratings by being one of the first award shows of the season."

First they add a ton of movies to the Best Picture category, now the talks to move the ceremony to get more viewers. The IOC will have no problem coordinating their schedule with the Oscars. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I don't think the NFL would move, they'd just be like CBS/FOX/NBC/ABC whoever, just tell the Organizing Committee to not schedule anything "important" that Sunday. Super Bowl may not be "important" to the World, but the US networks get their most premium ad rates for the Super Bowl telecast, and since the US networks pay a "premium" to the IOC, they have a little pull with scheduling. So I'm thinking it's not a real issue, but I'm going to say the NFL wouldn't back down to some European's.

That's just it thoug, the NFL is moving into territory normally held by the Olympics, so why should the Olympics have to move from a spot on the calendar they've held for a generation now. And I think it's a bad move, because if they lose a few ratings points as a result of going up against another big event (which they never do since everything else gets the hell out of dodge to avoid the Super Bowl), all of a sudden the Super Bowl loses some of it's luster as the biggest thing out there. You're right that there's a lot of money involved and that's going to be a factor, but again, you make it seem like the Olympics, a worldwide event, should do whatever the American television networks tell them to. It's not going to happen, the IOC will NEVER allow themselves to be bullied by the NFL.

I've made this point before.. the NFL is as big as it gets in the United States, no question. But they're moving in the direction that they want to conquer the world. If they want people around the world who normally couldn't care less about American football to pay attention to their big event, wouldn't they be best served not holding it when so many people are invested in the Olympics and won't even think about paying attention to the Super Bowl? No one said the 2 events can't co-exist on the same day, but I think it's lose-lose for both sides and it would be a hell of a lot easier (and perhaps more financially prudent) to schedule around the Olympics than the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the problem though. Let's say the NFL does in fact hold the 2014 Super Bowl during the Olympics. Fox is scheduled to broadcast that game. So if Fox really wants the Olympics, clearly they're going to have to find a way out of that (which could be hard since that's the last game of the current contract). And ESPN.. that week leading up to the Super Bowl (let alone the day of the game itself), how much time do they spend talking football? That's where the live Olympic coverage would be, so what gets priority, Super Bowl hype or live Olympics coverage? That's not a choice ESPN is used to making and if I'm the IOC, I'm not sure I trust ESPN there especially since they pay over a billion dollars each year to cover the NFL. If the IOC wants a test of a mostly live Olympics, let them do it with Rio when events will be held during the daytime and evening in the US, not the middle of the night.

ESPN has extensive Super Bowl coverage in the week leading up to the Super Bowl. The NFL Network does the same, but the NFL Network doesn't have as much of a cable range as ESPN. 95% of ESPN's coverage in the week leading up to the Super Bowl is all about the Super Bowl. The other 5% would be NBA and NHL highlights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN has extensive Super Bowl coverage in the week leading up to the Super Bowl. The NFL Network does the same, but the NFL Network doesn't have as much of a cable range as ESPN. 95% of ESPN's coverage in the week leading up to the Super Bowl is all about the Super Bowl. The other 5% would be NBA and NHL highlights.

And...? What has that got to do with the IOC?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...