h a l f b a k e r yRIFHMAO
(Rolling in flour, halfbaking my ass off)
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Multi-network Olympic coverage
Let one network televise figure skating etc. with smarmy bios etc., another do 'manly' events like the biathlon without smarmy commentary. | |
The Olympics are a big enough event that no one network can possibly cover everything. In addition, certain features of coverage (such as endless smarmy bios) tend to be enjoyable to some yet excrable to others.
It would seem that rather than trying to have one network provide 'compromise' coverage
which ends up not making anyone really happy, it might be better to have one network air coverage geared more toward a 'womanly' audience while the other geared its coverage toward a 'manly' audience. While there would be some overlap of potential audience among the networks (some guys like the smarmy soft-focus bios for some reason), the combined ad revenues of the two networks would far exceed the revenues any single network could get alone.
cbc olympics coverage
http://www.cbc.ca/olympics
better than average [mihali, Jan 23 2002, last modified Oct 05 2004]
[link]
|
| |
Supercat, I disagree that one network could not possibly cover everything...It's just a matter of whether you are willing to watch some of those events in the wee hours of the morning. Obviously, the Olympics Organizing Committe can structure the broadcast sales of their events any way they wish, but it would appear to me that it would be a good marketing idea to televise the events around the clock and around the world, pretty much in the order in which they occur, regardless of gender-bias and regardless of commentary. Interested parties can choose to video tape those events off satellite which are televised at inopportune times in their time zones, or the local network affiliates can choose to re-broadcast the most popular events in conjunction with local convention. |
|
| |
On the other hand, I understand that tickets for many of these events are going begging....Maybe nobody gives a darn about the Olympics this year. |
|
| |
Why do you automatically assume that women like these endless bios? My friends and I (females) all would rather see more of the competition and get rid of all the excess baggage. As it stands now, we get a whole lot of bios and see a lot of "highlights"; in other words, the top athletes. I'd like to see more of everything and get the athlete's life history some other way, if I even wanted it. |
|
| |
jurist: your thinking on your parents' gift sounds fine to me. |
|
| |
Olympic games coverage on TV just downright sucks - and has gotten worse and worse. I absolutely HATE those smarmy bio pieces. And the coverage of events only shows the top 3 or 5 or so competitors. I want to just see an event, beginning to end, with no frickin bio crap.
Oh, and they can ditch the digital video cameras, too. You can especially tell its digital when there's fast action. Just looks wrong.
I've wanted multi-channel coverage for a long time. It does make sense. Therefore it will never happen. |
|
| |
living in canada, we get the benefit of choosing between coverage by the canadian broadcasting corp. (see link) and the american coverage (i.e. one of nbc, cbs, abc). typically we end up watching the cbc, simply because they show much more actual sports than the americans do, and, while both the canadians and the americans can be accused of concentrating too much on just their own athletes, the canadians do it to far lesser extent than the americans. |
|
| |
anyway, with regard to this idea, didn't the pay-per-view networks try something like this during the last olympics, and wasn't it a big flop? something like three channels showing just the events, for like us$150? croissant because you want to eradicate smarminess. |
|
| |
This is baked: it was actually done and it failed. Free TV carried some events, and two cable channels other events. I'm not positive that they were pay-per-view channels (they may have just been Premium cable channels), but either way it was a flop. |
|
| |
Better use of the Internet (streaming media) is the way to go. Low overhead after the initial server setups, and you can "cover" every single event at the Olympics. |
|
| |
You might consider that many have no interest in the Olympics at all and don't want any more networks diverting programming time to them. |
|
| |
Maybe if you just had new cable channels devoted to the many facets of the Olympics instead, you'd be more likely to please your target audience without upsetting sit-com watchers, etc. |
|
| |