I just posted a source that proves you wrong.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Olympics ratings down, NBCU CEO predicted this and preemptively blamed millennials
- Thread starter XiaNaphryz
- Start date
- Status
I just posted a source that proves you wrong.
You are incorrect. The host countries pay for renovation and construction yes, but that is supposed to pay for itself later on.
The member countries don't pay anything to participate, the IOC is entirely privately funded with nearly half its funding coming from broadcast rights around the world. NBC by far pays the most in broadcast rights, in fact, as all the video feeds are produced by the IOC, you could argue that without NBC, these other countries countries coverage would suffer. Also the USOC doesn't rely on donations, some individual athletes might, but they are by far the best funded OC in the world. Most of their funding comes from sponsorships at like the above poster said, get a cut of the broadcast revenue. Fundraising is a minor source of funding. Now what they do with funding is something that may need to be looked at.
Also your point makes no sense as zero American tax dollars goes into the Olympics(except for local tax dollars in the event of a hosting city, but that's more of an investment than just spending tax dollars in nothing)
Stop trying to take some made up high road to justify your piracy.
HammerOfThor
Member
Its no fun watching when you know your country is going to win.
/s
The really good stuff is the emotion and drama. I don't think you can capture that in a gif.
Yeah I watched one of the women's gold medal wrestling match, didn't know whether to be happy for the winner or sad for the loser.
Cable isn't crumbling, what I expect to happen is these companies to start going the Vue/Sling/SFN route and the Internet cable subscription take off. (Comcast has actually started down that road, I expect they will announce with 2-3 years that they will offer their xfinity app(basically cable over the Internet) available as a stand alone service for a reduced cost)
So more like evolving
It won't truly evolve until they stop scheduling shows and restricting everything to bundles altogether.
When did you grow up? You know that the 2012 Olympics had better ratings than 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996 and 1992, right?
http://deadline.com/2016/08/olympic...-michael-phelps-katie-ledecky-nbc-1201800037/
What? You think content drip is ever going away? Not to mention live sports, hell Netflix has started experimenting with it even. Also bundling allows companies to experiment with different channels as without a new channel would be DoA. And the a la carte would not end up saving you money, look at Vue vs Sling for one.
The Super Bowl, the World Series, the NBA Finals, the Stanley Cup all manage to put on massive sporting events without shitting on poor people in the city they happen to be hosted in.
Why shouldn't we expect the same from the Olympics and the World Cup?
"Ease back on the hyperbole"? Nah, fuck that. Ease back on the putting sports before human fucking dignity.
You could get away with that then. You can't now.
There is no way in an Internet-saturated world that a broadcaster can get away with tape-delayed fluff packages for a major sports event like this. By the time they are broadcasting everyone knows the results and the younger audience have probably seen the highlights posted on Facebook already.
Live events could still be available on subscription streaming services. You don't need a dedicated channel for them.
To be fair, those are not massive sporting events on the scale of your example. The Olympics for example, needs to be able to hold a Super Bowl (soccer final), world series (baseball/softball final) and NBA Finals (basketball final), along with a marathon, and tons of other events. One thing it does well is celebrate female athletes (all your examples are male athletes), sports that are popular in other parts of the world (all your examples are American-based) and disabled athletes (the Paralympics). The Paralympics really are great.
The 80's; that's not how "Ratings" work though. There are 75 million more people in the US than when the 1988 Olympics aired. A much higher percentage of households with a TV tuned into the 88 Seoul Olympics than this most recent Olympics (at least double from what I've read.)
And their numbers dropped heavily from 2012; with a higher time-zone difference and very similar levels of coverage.
Yes; things are changing. However airing them "Live" at 3-5PM in the afternoon.. you think that gets higher ratings among young people, or anyone overall?
The same young people probably wouldn't sit and watch the Olypmics in the afternoon en masse' and would probably still get their fix from Facebook clips. And you'd lose the older viewers who do enjoy their later-in-the evening fluff presentation. (or have to broadcast things multiple times, raising costs.)
Amazingly, you can do all of that without destroying the lives of poor people in the host country. Yet they don't bother to even try.
The US should just pull out of the Olympics, honestly. We destroy everyone else every time, there's nothing to gain. The greatest sporting nation on Earth saying "no thank you" might actually cause the IOC to give a single fuck about human beings for once.
Actually, ratings do work that way. Read the OP, it is not about share of viewers, it is about total viewers. The advertisers care about how many total eyeballs are seeing their ads, not the share of total viewers. If you are Coca-Cola, would you rather have 24 million viewers looking at your ads, or 27 million people?
Why would the USOC pull out if they have signed a contract to pay $20 million to help run each Olympics, they get a cut of NBC Olympic broadcast revenue, and they sell sponsorships for team uniforms in each sport, and even for the opening/closing ceremony clothing? The USOC then uses that money to fund sports in the US.
That is like asking UW to withdraw from the NCAA and NCAA football due to the brain injuries they are inflicting on athletes and because the NCAA takes advantage of free labor of student athletes to make money. Nah--they wouldn't do it because they have a financial interest in keeping it going.
I never said it would make financial sense. You seem awfully eager to defend the IOC, it's frankly a bit disturbing.
How am I defending the IOC by saying it does not make financial sense for the US to drop out? Am I defending the NCAA by saying it does not make financial sense for UW to leave the NCAA?
Of course they care about total numbers; the number that has far more to do with this conversation however is the share of viewers because it actually indicates changing habits.
If you are getting a smaller share of viewers, then something is changing. Staring at the number of viewers matters bottom line wise, but not in conversations about changing viewer habits. Not sure why you are completely ignoring the context of the conversation to point some basic shit out.
It's not just that. Writing off the shit happening in Brazil as "things happen", arguing that the Olympics were too big and too varied to be pulled off without atrocities being committed.
I never said anything about the USOC or the NCAA. I said the US should pull out because it's the right thing to do, and you tried to argue that the financial opportunities were too good to do so. That's exactly what I'm saying is so awful about the whole thing.
By the way, the NCAA is on the IOC/FIFA level of corrupt trash, if they were dissolved tomorrow it wouldn't be too soon.
The context of the conversation is the declining total viewers, not viewer share. Declining viewer share is fine if there is still an audience. The NBA is a much more wealthy sport and endeavor than it was in the 80s, when it was capturing about 1/3 share of viewers, even though the viewer share is not close to what it was in the 80s.
When did I write things off as "things happen"? I did not argue that the Olympics were too big and too varied to be pulled off without atrocities being committed---I simply argued that your analogies were inapplicable.
The USOC is the national Olympic committee--they would decide if the US pulls out. Would you encourage UW to withdraw from the NCAA tomorrow, or stop watching their NCAA games, since they are on the same level as the IOC?
It's all there in your posts in this thread. I said that the Olympics as they are currently held are awful for human decency, and you immediately rushed to play devil's advocate, if not outright defend the IOC's actions.
I've been arguing that colleges should ditch the NCAA for years. Even though college football still manages to not bulldoze ghettos and throw their residents in jail to never see the light of day again to play their games. This isn't some novel concept you've thought up here. It's been argued for years, for largely the same reasons that people argue against the current practices of the IOC - the NCAA just manages to be slightly less destructive to the human race.
killer rin
Member
As a Canadian, despite having easy access to the NBC broadcast on TV (Its literally few channels down), there was absolutely zero reason for me to swap away from CBC, they just blew NBC out of the water when it came to their coverage.
Please explain how saying that you used a horrible analogy is playing devil's advocate? Do you agree or disagree that LA holding the Olympics is different than LA hosting 2-4 NBA Finals games?
It's no different. LA has more than enough facilities to hold an Olympics with zero construction necessary. Traffic is always awful no matter what. LAX is awful no matter what.
Astral Dog
Member
Fucking videogames
You should not make stuff up.
LA has said it will cost $6 billion to host the Olympics. It does not cost $6 billion to have 2-4 NBA games.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp...nderings-of-updated-1469826459-htmlstory.html
It costs $6B because the IOC asks for things like so:
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/ioc-demands-perks-from-2022-olympic-hosts-2014-10
Again, if you want to cape for the IOC, that's your prerogative. Just don't pretend to be arguing from a position of any moral ground. People do awful shit to each other for money every day, the world won't end if you admit the Olympics are exactly that.
Dude are you a fuckin robot? He doesn't give a shit about the budgetary shit. He cares about people's homes getting bulldozed over and getting replaced with a concrete canoeing thing. Like actual, tangible human misery caused by these things coming to where you live.
Money can play a part in it as well, but for the US it is not as big of a deal. It's why these things should be played in only a few permanent places and rotated. But that will never happen because of rampant bribery.
You can read the details of the bid yourself. There are costs such as a $270 million renovation of the Coliseum, a temporary pool costing $100 million, a Secret Service security budget of $300 million, etc.
I don't understand why you think I am caping for the IOC by saying that LA hosting the Olympics is on an entirely different scale than LA hosting 2-4 NBA games. I think most reasonable people would agree that hosting 2 weeks of events is different than hosting 2-4 nights of events. Or that security for 2 weeks across different venues is different than security for 1 venue over 2-4 nights.
Again, if you want to claim false facts as truth, that's your prerogative.
He says that LA hosting the Olympics will cost the same as LA hosting 2-4 NBA games. How am I a robot for disagreeing?
So these bad things that happen are okay because they cost lots of money? That's what you mean?
No, I am disagreeing about the point that it is a comparable scale.
I asked him if he agrees or disagrees whether LA hosting the Olympics is the same as LA hosting 2-4 NBA games.
He says it costs the same.
I explained, with a source, that LA expects to spend $6 billion on the Olympics.
How am I a robot for disagreeing with his claim that LA hosting the Olympics will cost the same as LA hosting 2-4 NBA games?
None of that budget is necessary, that's what I'm saying. The IOC wants the host country to dump pools of money on facilities that either will never get used again or are already perfectly capable of hosting their events, because shiny new buildings look better on TV.
A temporary pool costing $100M is absolutely fucking ridiculous, and it's hilarious that you'd even put it out there as an acceptable cost. Not to the mention the fact that spending $100M on something temporary is a gigantic fucking waste.
Security at these venues would have no need to be any different than any other public event at the venues. You think the country that has you stand in line for two hours before you get on a plane so they can X-ray your shoes would need to do anything different for a sporting event? Nah. The vast majority of the security work would be done as soon as Olympic travelers step foot on American soil.
You're vastly overestimating the Olympics. It's a bunch of tiny sports with limited draw on an in-person level and a few big events, which can easily be hosted in the numerous stadiums in LA as they exist right now.
It might require changing the face of the city in somewhere like Rio if they bow to the IOC's demands, but they could hold the Olympics in LA next month and it would probably go off without a hitch.
I remember once when LA had the kings, the clippers and one other team all in the playoffs at one time. They did it no problem. LA hosts the X-games every year no problem, it probably stays the same. I do not think he meant in monetary cost to the game. But as far as infrastructure stuff? Most of that is just to please the IOC. Like they could just run at the track at UCLA but nope they have to build a new one. They could probably swim at a pool somewhere that is already built but it's not cool enough. All waste. That is why he linked that post to you earlier.
Even if it was a low-key affair like 1984, it requires more than 2-4 NBA games. It is 4 weeks of events (2 weeks of Olympics and 2 weeks of Paralympics).
Whenever a city holds a marathon, it is already a costly event with a lot of security and shutting down streets. The Olympics requires you to hold the equivalent of 8 marathons (3 racewalking events, 2 marathons, and 5 paralympic marathons).
First off, American TSA security does not touch you if you are landing from abroad. I land into LAX all the time from countries with varying security requirements, none of which require X-rayed shoes, for instance.
With the increase in mass shootings, especially one in San Bernardino, I don't think security should be taken lightly.
You are probably talking about the Staples Center all having events in 1 venue at the same time. Even if they used all existing venues, it is not the same thing as having 2-4 NBA games. I do not understand why I am a robot for thinking that way.
1) These events have security anyway. Security isn't an Olympics-only thing. LA isn't some podunk town that would be overwhelmed by the Olympics. You also don't need to have all those events on the same day, at the same time. It's not complicated.
2) I ain't talking about the fucking TSA doing the actual work. They're incompetent trash that serve no purpose. I'm saying if you're really that dangerous that we'd need to double up security at the venue, you probably would be met at the airport by dudes wearing shades and suits.
3) San Bernadino frankly isn't that out of the ordinary here. We had a dude shoot up an entire classroom of 6-7 year olds and nothing changed. If you think that shooting meant anything other than news fodder for a few days you're sadly mistaken. You think we'd really do anything different for a bunch of sporting events if THAT didn't move the needle? Not to mention the fact that security at our sporting events is already approaching TSA-levels of ridiculousness.
Always-honest
Banned
I'm guessing people are sick and tired of american tv.
Security for the Olympics is indeed more expensive than security for 1 venue for the NBA Finals. It's not complicated. Marathon security is extremely expensive.
Please explain what you mean by saying "the vast majority of the security work would be done as soon as Olympic travelers step foot on American soil." You think that most of the security expenses would be spent on airport security at LAX for arrivals?
The Olympics has been a big target for terrorism and has attracted terrorism, including murder of Olympic athletes in the past. There is a reason why they are quoting a high security budget. You think that the San Bernardino Department of Public Health would have the same security as a bunch of sporting events? As I said, it is really expensive to provide security for 1 marathon, let alone 8 marathons.
The Super Bowl cost $4.8 million for security costs for one event: http://www.sfbos.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=54799
I don't have television but I tried streaming the events using the official service offered by my countries broadcast partner (Channel 7). I used a $20 'premium pass' I got for free from my mobile service.
Here's the thing: the fucking web player didn't work on Firefox so I had to use Edge. When I finally got the thing working I was greeted by a 30 second ad for some shit like Zumbo's Cooking every time I changed to a different sport. Peppered throughout each sport were countless ad breaks, too.
I used to love the Olympics - the unity and excitement of the world (wassup, Sydney 2000) - but it's all become a vessel to pump ads. All the excitement is manufactured and I really couldn't give a shit.
e: also, it was easier for me to read headlines and learn what happened during the games than watch hours upon hours of them.
Here's the thing: the fucking web player didn't work on Firefox so I had to use Edge. When I finally got the thing working I was greeted by a 30 second ad for some shit like Zumbo's Cooking every time I changed to a different sport. Peppered throughout each sport were countless ad breaks, too.
I used to love the Olympics - the unity and excitement of the world (wassup, Sydney 2000) - but it's all become a vessel to pump ads. All the excitement is manufactured and I really couldn't give a shit.
e: also, it was easier for me to read headlines and learn what happened during the games than watch hours upon hours of them.
I'm saying a large number of people travelling into LAX for some event from out of country is an everyday event.
I find it interesting that you'd try and prop up an Olympics on American soil as something unusually vulnerable to terrorism when the single greatest terrorist attack (and most influential world event period) in the last 20+ years happened on American soil and directly targeted Americans. I think we're fairly familiar with the potential risks.
Saying the Super Bowl (the biggest sporting event in the country) cost $4.8M and then making the leap to $6B is fairly flimsy. One hundred Super Bowls would then total $480M (which, last I checked, is not $6 billion), and one hundred Super Bowls the Olympics are not.
I have no idea why you're bringing up the San Bernadino Health Department, to be honest.
And again, you keep making monetary arguments when I've said over and over that the money is meaningless unless you value money over human dignity (which is the entire problem with the Olympics in the first place). $6B for an Olympic games in LA is an enormous waste and there's no reasonable way to justify it. If you disagree, fine - I'm not going to bother trying to convince you in that case. My time will be better spent arguing the roundness of the Earth with B.O.B.
You are moving goal posts--I can agree that $6B for the Olympic games is expensive. I can disagree that you think it would cost the same as hosting 2-4 NBA games.
$4.8 million was the cost of security for 1 Super Bowl event. I stated $300 million for security costs for the Olympics. There are over 300 events at the Olympics. There are about 525 Paralympic events. It seems about right in terms of security costs.
The total cost of hosting a Super Bowl is $50 million (2016) to $70 million (2013), by the way. One hundred Super Bowls cost $5-$7 billion.
I have no idea why you're bringing up 9/11 to be honest. Most people would say that the Olympics would have a higher threat of terrorism than a sporting event. There was also a bombing at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta.
You said the the murders at the San Bernardino Public Health Department were ordinary and that it wouldn't change what they would do for sporting events. I think the increase in mass shootings does mean that they increase security for sporting events. It kind of is a fact, since security has been increasing for the SuperBowl.
How am I moving goalposts when the post that kicked off this whole argument was the one in which you tried to argue in defense of the IOC's $6B figure?
And if you're going to try and claim that this post was not defending it, I must honestly ask why you ever brought it up in the first place.
As I said before, the Olympics are not 100 Super Bowls - so even the average of the total cost 100 Super Bowls would still cost far more than it would reasonably cost to host the Olympics in LA - which you yourself admit. I'm fully aware that that figure was only for security. My point is that the rest of the supposedly "necessary" costs are not actually necessary - they don't need to remodel the stadiums, they don't need to block off entire lanes of 405 for IOC members, they don't need to do any of that shit.
The Olympics would have a higher threat of terrorism than a sporting event? What in the entire fuck are you talking about? The Olympics are a sporting event. The presence of international athletes would not suddenly cause us to double security - our country is so paranoid that they assume every major sporting event is already a target of such relevance. The Atlanta bombing was pre-9/11, which has nothing to do with what I'm trying to explain to you. After 9/11, any major public event of significance in this country gets the same amount of security that an Olympics would get.
I was correct when I said that the murders would not change what they do for sporting events - if you think San Bernadino was some tipping point or something new rather than just another data point in decades and decades of similar events you're sadly mistaken. Costs for security go up because things in general cost more dollars as time goes on - plus the NFL can't keep asking TV networks for ever-increasing amounts of TV revenue if they cut spending
Wind's Howling
Member
Blaming it on the younger audience and not realizing your coverage is shit. Sounds like NBC to me.
- Status