What Can NBC do to boost the Ratings / Viewership?

Based on all the articles I've read, this last Olympics in Italy drew a
small audience. As small as Australia and Japan's olympics. I have
two major suggestions on how to improve them:

(1) (a) Accept the fact that people view results on the internet 6-10
hours before NBC shows them. So no way will events that have already
ended be drawing as large an audience as home-court olympics like Salt
Like and Atlanta.

Charles Newman...

And also, accept the fact that PPlive is ripping
off video and showing it over the Net. I saw some
events long before NBC aired them, and they
showed more than what NBC would have shown.
Good job PPlive!!!

videonovels...

.

What's PPlive?

Matthias Kuehne...

it's a peer-to-peer tv sharing program.
so when brian in england watches the live program from the
BBC on his comp, he can put the BBC on PPlive so others around
the world can watch it too.

a broadcaster's nightmare.

bye, matt

neillmassello...

If all they care about is results, why watch at all? Those who want to
watch without having the suspense ruined will do what movie viewers do:
avoid "spoilers" like web sites that post Olympic results. Sports is
entertainment, not news.

videonovels...

You're missing the point. "Boost Ratings". You don't try to force
people to fit your ideas..... instead you bend over backwards to SELL
your product to these people. How? Start the show earlier (7 p.m. or
even 6 p.m.) so they don't have time between coming home & the NBC
Olympics, to view the internet results.

.

(1) (b) In other words, Beijing will likely be the lowest-viewed
Olympics by NBC viewers, since the events are already 12 hours old.)
(Expect Canada's Vancouver Olympics to be a blockbuster for NBC, since
the results will be near-live.)

Don Del Grande...

Beijing is far enough east that they can time some events so they air
live in eastern North America; Seoul did something like this (and yes,

videonovels...

.

Except they won't. Most of the Sydney coverage (almost the same
timezone) was tape-delayed almost 18 hours. And why the ratings were
so poor.

Don Del Grande...

That is because Australian TV, like USA TV, wanted to air the big
events in the evening local time. I don't think this is as important
a factor in China.
However, it would require adjusting some of the event schedules a bit;
for example, no "two races a day on two days" for the track 100m -
unless you want to get them up at 7 AM local time for the semi-finals.

all of that USA TV money had pretty much everything to do with it).
Assuming Beijing is 13 hours ahead of New York, an event like the 100m
final could be set to run at 11:45 AM in Beijing, which would be 10:45
PM in New York.

Also note that, even when the games were in Salt Lake City, they were
tape delayed in the Mountain and Pacific time zones - expect the same
thing for Vancouver. Okay, 80% of the people in this country live in
the eastern two time zones, but still, that's 20% of the audience
affected.

nfitz...

I agree that the lack of any live prime-time coverage (because prime
time in North America was the middle of the night in Europe) is a
major issue. However 8 to 11 pm Eastern is 9 to noon Beijing time.
Plenty of time to run some live coverage. And 8 to 11 pm Pacifc
is noon to 3 pm Pacific, so plenty of live coverage for them too! If
NBC wants.

Unlike NBC, in Canada CBC ran live coverage most of the daytime, on one
channel. (or two channels, if you can speak French!). I'm hearing
reports that on many days, their daytime ratings were better than their
evening ratings. (like who wants to watch a hockey game, when the whole
world already knows the result!).

Nick

Steven L....

But many of the "live" results in Vancouver won't be taking place in
prime time (8 - 10 PM). So NBC's ratings during the day may be high,
but their prime-time ratings may not be.

videonovels...

Did you even bother to read point #2? I suggested moving the slot to 7
p.m. eastern. I ALSO said "near-live" i.e. delayed 2-3 hours, but
still close enough that most americans won't know the results.

I think the right answer is for NBC to negotiate a better deal with the
Olympics to force the Olympics, regardless of location, to schedule
events so that they occur during U.S. prime-time. IOW, if that requires
events in Beijing to be held at 8 AM local time or if that would have
required events in Italy to be held at 4 AM local time, then so be it.
Otherwise, NBC just won't televise them anymore.

Susan Bartholomew...

After 2012, when NBC's contract runs out, I'm confident that *none* of
the 'big three' networks will be showing the games. They'll go
exclusively to cable.

videonovels...

That would be a dumb move. You'd effectively lose 25% of the potential
audience (those w/o cable).

Harold Buck...

I think that we have no idea where media will be in 8 years. We might
all pay to have the Olympics broadcast directly into our neural implants.

Susan Bartholomew...

Heh, true-but if the ratings continue to be lousy, I can't see CBS or
ABC clamoring to pay millions for the Games. Though I wish ABC would get
them again, they did the best job...

Goro...

I think FOX would be the boldest about trying new and inventive ways of
producing and showing the Olympics. Some would undoubtedly be bad, but
I'm sure there would be some good ideas too and overall it would be a
better thing that NBC's laissez-faire attitude.

patty1...

That may be a case of "be careful what you wish for," though. ;-)

BTW, I was talking with a friend last night and asked whether he had
watched any of the Olympics. He said no, because he didn't like "all
that sugary stuff." I pointed out that MSNBC and USA ran hockey,
curling, and I think some other sports live and without feature stories,
and he said if he'd known that he would have watched some. So NBC has
obviously lost some potential viewers, people who never even give the
other NBCU nets a chance because of the main network's reputation.

neillmassello...

Summer games always get a much larger TV audience than winter games.

videonovels...

FALSE. Salt Lake got ratings as good as the summer Atlanta games.
(Over 20%).

Time zone matters, but it's not nearly as important as the particular
events and whether Americans have a chance at medals.

Goro...

This is interesting. I had alwasy thought the idea of splitting the
SUmmer and Winter Olympics up into separate years was a bad idea. The
"Olympic Year" was a once in 4yr occurence and the whole year had more
of an Olympic-focus to it.

videonovels...

It's also FALSE information. The Salt Lake winter games did just as
well as the summer Atlanta games (over 20%). And Sale Lake winter
games *outperformed* the Sydney summer games (20% >>> 12%).

It's the time zone that matters. Games that take place in the American
timezone do better, because the events are mostly live. Games that
take place in Europe or Asian timezones (i.e. 6-10 hours old) do
poorly.

Natman...

I know how you feel. However if you had to organize an event as huge
as the Olympics have become, I can see how it would be almost
impossible to do two in one year.

Laddy...

They did it this way for decades without problems. They didn't change the
schedule until 1994; there were Winter Games in both 1992 and 1994. Although
I'm not sure if the broadcasting network was ever the same for both the
Summer and Winter Games in the same year. I just don't remember and am too
lazy to research it.

Natman...

It's not just the networks that have to organize for the Olympics,
it's a huge burden for the Olympic Committee. As I recall it was their
idea to go to the alternating format.

The Olympics have grown much larger now than they used to be when they
ran both events in the same year.

Lucifer...

They should stop being afraid to show it live. Let the viewers decide
to see it on the spot, or go for the instant review.

Nevertheless, as I heard last week in the field, Vancouver wil indeed
become a blockbuster for NBC.

.

(2) To help offset the time differential, NBC should follow the same
schedule they did with 1992's Barcelona:

neillmassello...

Beijing may well be the last Olympics in which such scheduling questions
have much significance, as technology is making the whole business of
"live" events on "channels" obsolete.

7-10pm = major sports coverage, including final results
10-11pm = afterthoughts / medal ceremonies / daily summary

Don Del Grande...

On the contrary - if they want more live events, they need to have the
prime-time coverage run until midnight (1 PM Beijing time).

videonovels...

Who on earth is going to stay up until midnight when they have to start
work at 6 a.m.??? The # of viewers would be even worse than what they
had in 2006.

Start the show early at 7 p.m. so we poor slobs who have to work, can
go to bed at a decent time. :-)

Lord Vader III...

Here in Chicago the Olympics did start at 7pm.

videonovels...

Yeah well, I was referring to 7 eastern/pacific. Which would be 6 pm
for you folks in the mid-west. (Same as the 92 Barcelona games.)

There's simply no good reason for NBC to wait until 8 p.m., when they
could start the broadcast an hour earlier.