los angeles 2024

[Sir Rols]

26 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Not sure if that means anything but I noticed that.

Nothing but home town bias. I doubt the French commentators mentioned LA.

[FYI]

They also didn't mention Rome & Budapest, either, when Italy & Hungary entered the stadium. Half the time these "commentators" don't know their ass from a hole in the ground anyway. You're "noticing" too much of absolutely nothing. 

[Jesse Saenz]

Totally off topic here, but holy ****, NBC can go to fucking hell.

No live coverage and non stop commercials.

They blew it.

[Quaker2001]

9 hours ago, RuFF said:

NBC mentioned that Los Angeles is bidding for 2024 when Team USA entered the stadium. No mention of Paris when France entered. Not sure if that means anything but I noticed that.

I think it means that Los Angeles is bidding for the 2024 Olympics.  And not much more than that.

3 hours ago, Jesse Saenz said:

Totally off topic here, but holy ****, NBC can go to fucking hell.

No live coverage and non stop commercials.

They blew it.

How exactly did they blow it?  Did you watch the entire thing in spite of that?  You probably did.  So did tens of millions of people.  If they can continue to offer what many would consider sub-par coverage and still have viewers eat it up, that's a win for them.  

[Sir Rols]

2 minutes ago, RuFF said:

Sure, it can be reduced to hometown bias but NBC has a vested interest here, too. NBC could have said nothing at all. 

The thing is, you seem to be reading,or seeking, significance from... Nothing. The people whose votes they're after, the IOC members, were all up in the stands of the Maracana watching the OC in person, NOT watching NBC to find out what they know already, that LA is a bidder.

[Jesse Saenz]

10 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I think it means that Los Angeles is bidding for the 2024 Olympics.  And not much more than that.

How exactly did they blow it?  Did you watch the entire thing in spite of that?  You probably did.  So did tens of millions of people.  If they can continue to offer what many would consider sub-par coverage and still have viewers eat it up, that's a win for them.  

It was so frustrating to watch. 

Next time I am watching it on a Canadian or UK Channel.

This isnt the superbowl that comes by every year, this is a once every four year event. 

It was like a commercial break every 5 min.

[alphamale86]

The numbers are in... the NBC coverage had the lowest viewership since the 1992 opening ceremony. CNN had the figures if you all want to check it out. London had the highest viewership for an Opening ceremony if you wanted to know. What does that mean for LA. nothing really. It just says to me people get more excited about the Games when it's in a superpower / I think the negative publicity around Rio may have also had an impact. 

 

 

[FYI]

I don't think that it has much to do with being a "superpower" hosting (which I wouldn't necessarily classify the U.K. as such really), but moreso that a lot of Americans can identity themselves more with Britain than they can with Brazil. And therefore perhaps not as much interest was there for the Rio 2016 OC. Not to mention, but how many more live streaming options are there available now than there were four years ago. That also probably ate into NBC's ratings this time around. And that's probably gonna get worse for Tokyo 2020, especially with the HUGE time difference with the U.S. there. NBC will probably be kicking themselves then for paying so much for the broadcast rights. 

Plus, considering in the Portuguese language, the U.S. Team walked into the stadium much earlier last night than they did in London 2012. So many Americans probably tuned out soon thereafter. Still, over 30 million Americans watched last night. Not to shabby considering some of those previous factors. And also still higher numbers than Athens 2004 & even higher (ironically enough) than Sydney 2000 (nearly double).

[Sir Rols]

I probably expected the time zone would have boosted numbers. But I think the streaming options now are making a huge difference - there's just no keeping a lid on it now for NBC in the mature internet age.

We'll see how it stacks up in coming days. See how the US team does. I think Oz's performance on day one, for example, is going to be boosting viewing figs here dramatically now.

[Quaker2001]

5 hours ago, RuFF said:

Sure, it can be reduced to hometown bias but NBC has a vested interest here, too. NBC could have said nothing at all. 

I wonder if NBC brought up New York during the 2004 Parade of Nations and/or any of the other bidders.  Or Chicago during the 2008 Parade of Nations.  For the most part, the NBC commentators are reading off a script.  It was probably in their notes that LA is bidding for 2024.  Maybe it was or wasn't with the other bidders.  It means nothing.

6 minutes ago, FYI said:

I don't think that it has much to do with being a "superpower" hosting (which I wouldn't necessarily classify the U.K. as such really), but moreso that a lot of Americans can identity themselves more with Britain than they can with Brazil. And therefore perhaps not as much interest was there for the Rio 2016 OC. Not to mention, but how many more live streaming options are there available now than there were four years ago. That also probably ate into NBC's ratings this time around. And that's probably gonna get worse for Tokyo 2020, especially with the HUGE time difference with the U.S. there. NBC will probably be kicking themselves then for paying so much for the broadcast rights. 

Plus, considering in the Portuguese language, the U.S. Team walked into the stadium much earlier last night than they did in London 2012. So many Americans probably tuned out soon thereafter. Still, over 30 million Americans watched last night. Not to shabby considering some of those previous factors. And also still higher numbers than Athens 2004 & even higher (ironically enough) than Sydney 2000 (nearly double).

I doubt the alternate streaming options were responsible for that big a drop in ratings.  Most people aren't that eager to get a live broadcast of the opening ceremony (likely on their computer) as opposed to waiting an hour to get it on their TVs.  Yes, they probably lost a little steam from the early entrance of the Americans.  Which would somewhat justify NBC's decision to try and get the order changed and does speak a little bit to American arrogance moreso than NBC's desire for higher ratings.

4 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

I probably expected the time zone would have boosted numbers. But I think the streaming options now are making a huge difference - there's just no keeping a lid on it now for NBC in the mature internet age.

We'll see how it stacks up in coming days. See how the US team does. I think Oz's performance on day one, for example, is going to be boosting viewing figs here dramatically now.

This.  We'll know by tomorrow is this was an exception or the start of a trend.  NBC probably needs to feel really nervous that it's the latter.

[FYI]

7 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I doubt the alternate streaming options were responsible for that big a drop in ratings.  Most people aren't that eager to get a live broadcast of the opening ceremony (likely on their computer) as opposed to waiting an hour to get it on their TVs.  

I didn't say that the streaming options were solely responsible. I said that they "also" (since I mentioned other possible factors as well) could've been part of the problem with the lower NBC ratings. I mean, I was certainly one of those people that you described that didn't give a frick over an hour tape delay. It's not like it was a huge deal like it was with Beijing 2008 (& likely will be with Tokyo 2020, as well).

But there's many other people that gotta have instant gratification with whatever & gotta have it now, now, NOW! And yeah, NBC should start to shake in their boots if that element could pose a  problem with future Games ratings.

[FYI]

^Another factor to add to that, too, on the west coast of the U.S. (& mountain time), the tape delay was three/four hours, respectively. I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the ratings drop was from that part of the country if many there found alternate ways to watch it live. Again, in this day & age, many want instant gratification.

[mr.bernham]

I looked for live streaming options and had a hard time finding any...without using a VPN or something.

I think in general, this year, for some reason, Americans in general are not excited AT ALL for the Olympics. I honestly think it has something to do with this election and the fact that there was no mass public build up to Rio like there seemed to be for London. NBC needs to boost their online preference and needs to start streaming live on You-Tube. 

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, FYI said:

I didn't say that the streaming options were solely responsible. I said that they "also" (since I mentioned other possible factors as well) could've been part of the problem with the lower NBC ratings. I mean, I was certainly one of those people that you described that didn't give a frick over an hour tape delay. It's not like it was a huge deal like it was with Beijing 2008 (& likely will be with Tokyo 2020, as well).

But there's many other people that gotta have instant gratification with whatever & gotta have it now, now, NOW! And yeah, NBC should start to shake in their boots if that element could pose a  problem with future Games ratings.

 

1 hour ago, FYI said:

^Another factor to add to that, too, on the west coast of the U.S. (& mountain time), the tape delay was three/four hours, respectively. I wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the ratings drop was from that part of the country if many there found alternate ways to watch it live. Again, in this day & age, many want instant gratification.

I still don't buy into the "alternate means" argument to explain anything more than a tiny portion of any ratings drop.  People like that are largely technophiles.  They're less likely to be watching TV coverage in the first place, so I don't think it represents a serious danger to NBC's bottom line.  Nor do I think the whole instant gratification line means much either.  There was talk about wanting instant results decades ago.  Obviously they could only have imagined what the media landscape looked like today, but again, numbers for a live Olympics like Beijing haven't necessarily been better than a taped Olympics like London.  So no, NBC is not shaking in their boots because of that element.  People say they want instant gratification, but how many care enough to seek it out?  Not too many, IMO.  I think there's other factors at play here and that's what is hurting NBC,

[paul]

...the American athletes do not seem welcome in Rio, the Brazilian fans are booing all the time no matter what country the US is playing.

There are also many many empty seats in every venue, is this normal for day one or is this just a poorly attended games?

Edited August 7, 2016 by paul

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

I still don't buy into the "alternate means" argument to explain anything more than a tiny portion of any ratings drop.  People like that are largely technophiles.  They're less likely to be watching TV coverage in the first place, so I don't think it represents a serious danger to NBC's bottom line.  Nor do I think the whole instant gratification line means much either.  

No one is asking you to buy into it, nor am I asking you what you seem to think means much or doesn't. Nor did I say it represents a serious danger to NBC. Only stating the fact that other options do exist these days, & im not the only one that thinks that. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come up in the first place, & it wouldn't have been mentioned by even the media itself.

[FYI]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

So no, NBC is not shaking in their boots because of that element. 

You're the one that said "NBC probably needs to feel really 'nervous' that it's the latter". I was merely agreeing with you.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

 I think there's other factors at play here and that's what is hurting NBC,

Again, never said that there wasn't other factors at play. I cited possible others earlier. And as a matter of fact, I'm not the one that initiated the whole doom & gloom ratings scenario for NBC. Someone else did that.

I think that this is just one of those things where we mostly agree on it more than you think (as you like to say sometimes) but are confusing some of the aspects in between posts.

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, FYI said:

No one is asking you to buy into it, nor am I asking you what you seem to think means much or doesn't. Nor did I say it represents a serious danger to NBC. Only stating the fact that other options do exist these days, & im not the only one that thinks that. Otherwise, it wouldn't have come up in the first place, & it wouldn't have been mentioned by even the media itself.

 

1 hour ago, FYI said:

You're the one that said "NBC probably needs to feel really 'nervous' that it's the latter". I was merely agreeing with you.

Again, never said that there wasn't other factors at play. I cited possible others earlier. And as a matter of fact, I'm not the one that initiated the whole doom & gloom ratings scenario for NBC. Someone else did that.

I think that this is just one of those things where we mostly agree on it more than you think (as you like to say sometimes) but are confusing some of the aspects in between posts.

The "latter" I was referring to was a trend of low ratings from this Olympics.  I wasn't making reference to the cause of it.  I know you mentioned several possible factors, but on the list of things that might have caused a low rating for the opening ceremony, the availability of more live streaming options IMO is way down on that list to the point it's an almost insignificant threat to NBC's bottom line and their ratings.  That you even brought it up in the first place implies you think it's at least somewhat significant.  Did VPNs not exist 4 years ago or were less accessible than they are now?  I don't disagree those means are out there, but they were also there 4 years ago when more of the Olympics was not shown live and NBC's streaming coverage was not good.  So yes, we do agree on certain principles here, but I still think we're further apart than you think on how much the instant gratification/other streaming options factors in here.  You think it could pose a threat to future ratings.  I don't believe that's the case.

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, RuFF said:

Well, should Paris win 2024 NBC shall face an early Team USA entrance again. And while there is nothing to look into as the IOC has already negotiated it's broadcast rights with NBC to 2032, any continued trend of dropping or lowered viewership is likely to have negative impact on broadcasting or sponsorship deals.

Its important to note that LA knows absolutely nothing about television or sponsorship or anything having to do with NBC, among other things. 

Right, just like Paris knows absolutely nothing about connecting with youth or how to integrate technology into their bid.  And their marketing strategy has been awful.  Clearly they have no clue what they're doing and should just cede victory now to LA, whose bid is so undeniably wonderful and everything they've done has been absolutely flawless.  I mean, let's just save ourselves all the trouble of discussing this for the next year since it's probably all moot, right?

[FYI]

6 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I know you mentioned several possible factors, but on the list of things that might have caused a low rating for the opening ceremony, the availability of more live streaming options IMO is way down on that list to the point it's an almost insignificant threat to NBC's bottom line and their ratings.  That you even brought it up in the first place implies you think it's at least somewhat significant.  

I brought it up, cuz again, I'm not the only one that thinks these other outlets "could" (which is the operative word here) have made a difference, especially if it's coming from the media itself. Who to be a better gauge.

Even the post immediately after mine mentioned "but I think the streaming options now are making a 'huge' difference - there's just no keeping a lid on it now for NBC in the 'mature' Internet age". That's a more damning statement to NBC's "bottom line" than anything I've said. 

Yeah, sure, steaming was also there four years ago. But I certainly don't "buy" that those options were just as plentiful then than they are today. Technology & ways to make a buck take leaps & bounds every six months now adays, let alone in four years time.

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

So yes, we do agree on certain principles here, but I still think we're further apart than you think on how much the instant gratification/other streaming options factors in here.  You think it could pose a threat to future ratings.  I don't believe that's the case.

Well, isn't that the beauty of the Internet & a public forum like this? Where we don't have to agree on every possible aspect of things. You don't "believe" that to be case. Well, good for you. But only time will really tell whether or not that "could" be the case or not.

Just like you don't think that Paris 2024 has this more in the bag than L.A. does, where others (& myself included) "believe" otherwise. But again, that's the beauty of these boards. We all don't have to agree with one another on every element of conversation on these boards.

[FYI]

*which as you just demonstrated to you know who.

[Quaker2001]

12 minutes ago, FYI said:

I brought it up, cuz again, I'm not the only one that thinks these other outlets "could" (which is the operative word here) have made a difference, especially if it's coming from the media itself. Who to be a better gauge.

Even the post immediately after mine mentioned "but I think the streaming options now are making a 'huge' difference - there's just no keeping a lid on it now for NBC in the 'mature' Internet age". That's a more damning statement to NBC's "bottom line" than anything I've said. 

Yeah, sure, steaming was also there four years ago. But I certainly don't "buy" that those options were just as plentiful then than they are today. Technology & ways to make a buck take leaps & bounds every six months now adays, let alone in four years time.

Good for other people who agree with you and good for the media reporting that.  Where were those reports 4 years ago when ratings went UP from Beijing to London despite more on tape than the live primetime show?  Someone pointed out to me this morning that ratings for the U.S. Olympic Trials were largely down this year, so maybe this was coming and we just didn't realize.

So when you and others say "keeping a lid on it," what exactly does "it" refer to?  Are we talking about video?  Or results?  Or something else?  NBC offers streaming of every event (not the ceremonies, so yes, that's not a small deal), so the video is available without resorting to a VPN.  CBS when they had the Olympics used to tell you the results of events they know they weren't going to show you for hours.  There is a small subset of Olympic viewers out there who will resort to those means, but I don't think they're a threat to NBC's bottom line.  Nor will they be 4 years from now, because we always hear the "NBC needs to change by the next Olympics or else" and yet had no trouble selling advertising for these Olympics.

Yes, I acknowledge the "could," but I think it's an extremely small "could," to the point it's almost not worth bringing up.  That's my opinion.  I respect yours, but even with that qualifier of a word, I still think you're over-selling the point.  Technology may be making leaps and bounds on a regular basis (making a buck not so much.. TV networks when it come to sports are heavily invested in the status quo and clearly NBC and others haven't figured out how to "make a buck" on streaming versus traditional TV advertising), but I don't think that's presenting itself in a way that threatens NBC.  Again, let's agree to disagree on that one and if 4 years from now that's proven wrong, you can remind me of this discussion then

 

[FYI]

25 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Where were those reports 4 years ago when ratings went UP from Beijing to London despite more on tape than the live primetime show?  

Was streaming live really that much of an option back in 2008? But I'd say that comes more to the aspect of my intial factor that many Americans relate more to Britain than they do to China & Brazil & that's mainly why the higher NBC ratings in 2012.

31 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

So when you and others say "keeping a lid on it," what exactly does "it" refer to?  Are we talking about video?  Or results?  Or something else?  

There is a small subset of Olympic viewers out there who will resort to those means, but I don't think they're a threat to NBC's bottom line.  Nor will they be 4 years from now, because we always hear the "NBC needs to change by the next Olympics or else" and yet had no trouble selling advertising for these Olympics.

I'm NOT the one who said that. So I couldn't tell you.

And obviously NBC didn't have any trouble selling advertising for Rio when they were judging from the higher ratings from London. Let's see how well NBC does when it's time to sell advertising for Tokyo. Especially when night one of the Rio Games also had a ratings drop for NBC. So it does appear like it's becoming a trend for these Games.

39 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Again, let's agree to disagree on that one and if 4 years from now that's proven wrong, you can remind me of this discussion then

That's pretty much what I said in my last post. I'm not "overselling" anything as much as you seem to be making it an issue that I am. 

That you seem to enjoy having the last word bcuz you find that your opinion is the be-all, end-all in everything that gets talked about here & there's no room, in your mind, for anything in between is not "overselling". 

[FYI]

And you would know all about 'womanly' chatter.

[Quaker2001]

23 minutes ago, FYI said:

Was streaming live really that much of an option back in 2008? But I'd say that comes more to the aspect of my intial factor that many Americans relate more to Britain than they do to China & Brazil & that's mainly why the higher NBC ratings in 2012.

To the type of people who would consider doing it in 2016, it probably was.  And if not 2008, certainly by 2012.  But I do agree on that last point that these Olympics have lesser appeal than 2012, in part to the difference in the host country.

26 minutes ago, FYI said:

I'm NOT the one who said that. So I couldn't tell you.

And obviously NBC didn't have any trouble selling advertising for Rio when they were judging from the higher ratings from London. Let's see how well NBC does when it's time to sell advertising for Tokyo. Especially when night one of the Rio Games also had a ratings drop for NBC. So it does appear like it's becoming a trend for these Games.

You didn't say it (Sir Rols did), but you did make reference to it, so you do have an opinion.  And again, going back to the original point of this conversation, yes the ratings are down and who knows what is or isn't responsible for that.  No question it'll make for some tough sledding going forward.  But when you're saying it "could" be due to alternative streaming, you're entitled to that opinion.  I know you're not selling that as likely, but that you're selling it at all means you're putting a certain level of significance on it.  I'm all for differing opinions, but your opinion is based in "could."  Which - as you even pointed out - sounds an awful lot like how I think Paris "could" lose to LA, whereas you're more convinced they have it in the bag and don't want to listen to an argument to the contrary.