Come on you guys, NBC is covering the Olympics as hard as it can
Four
years ago, I sat in my room in Los Angeles and contemplated the
boatloads of work I had to organize before 7:30 the next morning. It was
2:00 am. Desperate for something to help me stay awake, I flicked on my
small, remote-less television and commenced watching live coverage of
the Beijing Olympics. What a joy -- the ability to watch live,
world-class athletic events at an ungodly hour of the morning, when I
was actually determined to stay conscious for at least another two
hours.
For
the next two weeks, those late-night broadcasts were a godsend. My
strange work hours allowed for considerable live viewing; I didn't have
to bother with tape delayed presentation from later in the day, when the
rest of the United States would be awake to enjoy it. I have always
enjoyed the Olympics, but now I look back fondly on Beijing as my
favorite summer games.
However,
I think I am reasonable enough to realize that for both the majority of
the American population and for NBC, this kind of viewership was not
ideal. The sheer distance and time zone differences between most of the
United States and China made it impossible for most viewers to access
live coverage -- at least, those viewers not crazy enough to adapt to
the odd hours -- so tape delays were a matter of necessity.
In
London, NBC faces a few different problems in covering this year's
Olympic games. One is the traditional concerns of broadcasting a global
event across both the Atlantic ocean and several time zones. The other
is the emergence of social media that weren't as popular four years ago.
Suddenly, the network is being barraged from all corners of the Web --
by commentators and critics complaining about the lack of live TV
coverage and by people posting results on platforms like Twitter. It
became clear that tape-delayed coverage was mere folly in an age where,
if you are interested enough to watch an event four to eight hours
after it happens, then you probably already know the result.
It
is a situation no executive would envy, but NBC is undoubtedly doing
what it feels is best in the situation. The relative proximity of
London/Great Britain to the United States (as compared to Sydney, Athens
and Beijing before it) allows viewers a greater opportunity to view
events during more reasonable hours, most notably during the workday and
early evening. To account for this, NBC Live is offering web streaming
of many events, accessible to anyone with an approved cable
subscription. But the network must also be beholden to advertisers who
pay top dollar for a promo spot during prime time. As such, the
tape-delayed coverage affords the more traditional viewer a chance to
watch edited coverage of the day's events from the comforts of their
living rooms. The drawback of this prime-time coverage, of course, is
that many viewers will already know the results, but what else is NBC to
do? Not show any coverage in prime time? That would be unreasonable,
and frankly stupid.
As
a denizen of Twitter, a forum for discussion that lends itself
terrifically to short polemics on, well ... everything, I am privy to the
deluge of complaints about coverage that might be less visible in the
world outside of our computer monitors. It seems like NBC's coverage of
the 2012 Olympics has been a resounding failure, but the numbers would
argue otherwise. According to the Los Angeles Times, ratings
are up 9% from Beijing, and NBC, which went into this summer expecting
to lose money on their coverage, is actually looking to break even
financially.
Problem solved? Not quite. But it appears that the problem is less dire than social media's citizens would have you think.