Why tape delaying the Olympics is smart

NBC's decision to tape-delay the broadcast of the Olympics has been met with considerable derision. In the world of the Internet and social media, it's hard to not know the results of events before they're broadcast during primetime. Fans have asked, "Why they can't treat the Olympics the way ESPN treats any international event?" There are multiple reasons for this, and they all relate to money.

A primer on rights fees.

Broadcasters pay sport properties for the right to broadcast the events, and there is competition among broadcasters for the opportunity to do so. For the Olympics, NBC competes against bidders like ESPN/ABC (Disney) and Fox (NewsCorp), and each entity has its own attractive offerings for the IOC (e.g., tie-ins with Disney theme parks). NBC paid about $1.18 billion for the rights to broadcast the 2012 London Games.

Revenue streams.

Broadcasters are willing to pay that much because they feel they can make up that money through their own revenue generating channels. But this is where it gets interesting.

• NBC is free-to-air, and thus makes its revenue primarily through advertising on its programs.


• ESPN is a cable channel, and thus makes revenue through advertising and through payments from cable providers like Time Warner, Comcast, etc. ESPN charges a carriage fee of about $4.69 per subscriber per month, over four times higher than any other basic cable channel. That is a lot of extra revenue to supplement advertising dollars. That added revenue option gives ESPN a big advantage in terms of the amount that it can bid for sport programming.

Viewers.

There are more viewers at primetime than during the day. People are home from work, kids are in bed, and they have a little time to relax with TV. Advertisers will pay more to reach more viewers, and thus will pay more to NBC for programming on at night. Despite results known ahead of time, early results from London show great ratings (up 17% from Beijing).

Even with more eyeballs, NBC still expects to lose money. Don't worry, they plan to make it up in the long run through promoting their own shows (OMG, did you know The Voice is on NBC!?! If not, you will. Ugg.), building the NBC Sports brand, etc.

People want to watch the Olympics, and the time when they're able to watch TV is in the evenings - why not give viewers what they want? Advertisers are happy, viewers are happy-ish. (And for all their whining, viewers can watch events live online if they really want to see the events as they unfold)

The future.

Things are changing a bit now that NBC is owned by Comcast (a provider). Events are shown on the NBC Sports Network (née Versus), CNBC, etc., each of which have their own carriage fees, albeit paltry in comparison to ESPN. Given this, and the increase in access to results, we could see more live programming in the future.

For Rio 2016, where there isn't a large time discrepancy with the USA, I wouldn't be surprised if the best events aired live during the day and then were tape delayed at night. That is, the events are shown twice. The day-cast will appeal to a certain audience segment, but the primetime broadcast will capture more viewers and can incorporate the schmaltz production and personal interest stories that people love (see Will Leitch's argument of Olympics as reality television).

Remembering that our sporting events are filtered

NBC edited the London 2012 Opening Ceremonies and has caught flak for doing so because the cuts included a tribute to victims of the 7/7/2005 terrorist attacks. NBC's response: "our programming is tailored for the U.S. audience." Aside from the questionable public relations tact, NBC is doing nothing unusual. Deadspin summed up the situation like this:

Everywhere else in the world—including places like China and Saudi Arabia—the Olympics are considered a major international news story, worthy of coverage as such and, thus, live and as uninterrupted as possible. Comparisons include the Royal Wedding (which NBC *did* show live in its entirety) or a natural disaster like a tsunami. Our editor emeritus Will Leitch says the Olympics aren't sports, but reality TV; he's right, only insofar as an American perspective goes, though. We're conditioned to think we should be fed our salad pre-tossed because that's how we've always received it; NBC has taken this liberty we've given them and used it to craft narratives that do not actually exist and to eliminate the ones they'd rather we not see.

In their classic, cynical viewpoint, Deadspin and Leitch are right. What we see from the Olympics is filtered in a way that NBC's producers feel will be most enjoyable to the most American viewers. What's surprising about this is that it's surprising -- all sport consumed via media is filtered.

Sport is mediated through broadcast production (see Jarvie, 2006). The entirety of an event cannot be captured through the media and thus broadcasters select particular visual sights/angles, sounds, individual competitors, commentary, etc. Consumers tend to forget that they aren't watching "the real thing" and are instead being provided with a perspective. Below are a few examples, some obvious, some more nuanced:

• NBC focuses its Olympic coverage on American athletes and the sports about which Americans care and our athletes are expected to do well. Primetime coverage (which is delayed) is more likely to show an American swimmer's silver medal than the gold medal match in handball.
• Viewers on TV hear sounds of the sport that those in the stadium don't hear (for now), some of which have been pre-recorded.


• The camera in football focuses on the quarterback. WRs are running routes and lineman are opening up holes, but the center of attention is the QB. Many believe the view of what's actually going on is better from behind (why video games show this perspective), but television viewers prefer the view down the line of scrimmage.


• Only a small fraction of a baseball diamond is viewable at any one time. (Jeter didn't "come out of nowhere;" he just wasn't in frame)


• SiriusXM radio broadcasts NFL games on two channels - one with the home team's commentators, one with the away team's. The audio from those broadcasts will be filtered to offer the perspective most relevant to that team's fans.

It's not wrong for the broadcasters to filter like this. In fact, it makes watching the sports a lot more enjoyable for us at home. We want our sport viewing to be filtered, and the media does it for us. Sometimes they make mistakes, like cutting away from a soccer player just as she cheap shots her opponent; or not capturing an AFL player making a run to catch a mark; or focusing on the lead car in a NASCAR instead of the more interesting jockeying for position five cars back; or cutting out a tribute to terrorism victims that will be perceived a insensitive by just about everyone.  But in general, broadcasters do a good job showing us what we want to see.

We just need to remember that we are not getting a true representation of the sport on the field. And that's okay.

Stuff I Like: Yahoo Sports

I don't remember when I stopped defaulting to ESPN.com for my sports news, but it has probably been a decade.  My default is Yahoo Sports, and I haven't looked back. I know I'd stopped visiting ESPN.com almost altogether once they made the site so multimedia heavy - how am I supposed to be clandestinely reading about sports at work when videos are automatically starting?

Recently on OKTC, Clay Travis wrote about how Yahoo Sports became ESPN's biggest competitor (HT: Tom Dienhart).  It's an article that's well worth reading (I don't agree that it's ESPN's biggest competitor, but I do think it's ESPN.com's biggest).  Some of his points are right on the money, but he missed one that I'll get to below.

Fantasy sports
On this, he is 100% correct.  The reason Yahoo is in the position its in today is because of Fantasy sports.  All that traffic that Travis talked about?  It comes from Fantasy. I'd like to believe that it's people checking the ladder at Yahoo's Aussie Rules page, but that's not the case. [after living in Australia, I can attest, this is one of the best sites for AFL updates]

Get good writers developing original content
The stories are good (and I do like fellow UMass-alumnus Dan Wetzel), but there are good writers on SI.com and [sorry] ESPN.com too.  Yahoo keeps pace here, but is not a leader. Travis rightly notes that because Yahoo doesn't have broadcast deals or other such interests, it can maintain independence, which does give them an edge in reporting.

Where Yahoo is a leader is in their investigative reporting.  How did this happen? How did Yahoo Sports uncover some of the biggest stories, especially in college sports (e.g., Reggie Bush, UNC, etc)? There is stellar investigative journalism going on over there, and I'm glad that the guys writing the checks are backing expensive work that takes months or years to develop.

Travis also mentions the sport blogs, which are strong. I've already made it known that Matt Hinton is one of the best out there, and the other blogs are enjoyable to read too (e.g., Dirty Tackle, Big League Stew).  And I agree that buying Rivals.com was a great move.

What I think Travis missed was Yahoo's site simplicity.  It is very easy to get the information you want. The site is light weight and streamlined, more HTML than Flash. Sure, there are some design changes that I'd make, but I still prefer it to ESPN.  When I just want a score, it's fastest to go to Yahoo... and then while I'm there I'll check recruiting, read a blog post, etc.  Maybe I'm wrong here, and people would prefer glitz, but I'm too utilitarian. I'm also not as sold as Travis is that radio is the key for the future, but good luck to them.

Keep up the good work, Yahoo.

Stuff I like: Dr. Saturday

I tend to be critical of the media, particularly those in the sport media.  It's therefore only right that I salute those who I feel are doing a good job.

One of the best college football blogs is written by Matt Hinton: Dr. Saturday (or how I learned to stop worrying and love the BCS).  Below is an explanation of why I like this blog and why other college football fans should be enjoying it too.

1. Good writing. The writing is well structured and easy to read.  Compare that writing with someone like CBS' Gregg Doyel (choppy sentences, written like college sophomore at best) to see the difference in style.  The Dr Saturday articles flow well with sentences move nicely from one to another and are aimed at readers with a high school education.


2. Entertaining writing. It's witty, humorous, and fun, all without being obnoxious.  The writing doesn't say, "Look at me!  I'm witty!", but it still comes through nicely.  The following paragraph about the Cam Newton scandal serves as a brilliant example: "If only explaining the gap in the Watergate tapes had been so easy. (Then again, the general public probably cared a lot less about the fate of Richard Nixon's presidency and reputation than Deep South football fans do right now about Cam Newton's eligibility. The threat of federal indictment is one thing; but the wrath of Paul Finebaum callers is more than anyone can withstand.)"


3. Content. Simply, the stuff is good.  He writes about current issues that are of importance  and interest to college football fans, summarizing games well and breaking down off-the-field issues. The writing is concise, yet the articles are pithy.  And if there isn't enough detail for you in the article, he points you to where you can find more (see point #4 below).  The quantity is also good; the posts are frequent, but not overwhelming.


4. Links. One of the tenets of all blogs is the prevalence of links to other sources, but he is one of the best.  The LPA (links-per-article) average for Dr Saturday has to be among the highest out there (if he were making a similar claim to what I just did, he would have provided links to 3rd-party reports with complete LPA metrics).  Everything he says is supported, and I learn so much by going back to sources referenced or allusions made to past events.  Dr. Saturday has links like law review articles have footnotes.


5. Balance. He presents a fairly objective view of college football.  He isn't overtly pushing an agenda or injecting his own views unnecessarily.  His editorializing is done with full disclosure and comes off as just his view, and if the reader disagrees with it, s/he's welcome to do so without feeling like an idiot [as you're meant to feel if you dare to disagree with the likes of CBS' Dennis Dodd, Fox Sports' Jason Whitlock, etc.]. The Dr Saturday articles are very... pleasant.  Unfortunately, it's controversy that drives clicks, so people like Hinton are at a disadvantage in their field.


6. The blog title.  Hey, it's a clever reference.

Thanks Matt, your blog definitely qualifies as stuff I like.  I hope that others feel the same way too and you can influence future sport writers.