Poor septics, viewing on tape delay ...

http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/27/nbc...ning-ceremony/

--
Adrian C

Adrian C wrote:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/27/nbc...ning-ceremony/


I don't follow links presented without an abstract that explains why I
should follow them, but I'm sure that the NHS part of the presentation
would insist they had taken all necessary anti-septic precautions.

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:05:03 +0100, David Woolley
wrote:

Adrian C wrote:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/27/nbc...ning-ceremony/


I don't follow links presented without an abstract that explains why I
should follow them, but I'm sure that the NHS part of the presentation
would insist they had taken all necessary anti-septic precautions.

Have some extracts:

While most of the rest of the world — or at least Europe — was
watching the ceremony live, U.S. audiences were held hostage by NBC,
which holds the rights to the games here. Rather than broadcasting
the biggest event of the Games live as it happened, NBC decided it
would air the ceremony on a tape delay, to capture a larger overall
audience.

Now, tape delays are nothing new, but they do seem archaic at a time
when online video and social media bring an air of immediacy to live
events. The existence of the NBC Olympics Twitter account is
evidence of this, but the account seems totally misused in this
case: NBC live tweeted the whole ceremony, with no apparent sense of
irony around the fact that its target audience couldn’t actually
watch the events it was describing. Instead of building excitement
around the ceremony, and engaging with its viewers, all NBC ended up
doing was frustrating its audience — the people who care most about
watching the thing.

So really, how bad was NBC’s strategy around the U.S. broadcast of
the 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony in London? So bad that Mark
Benioff, chairman and CEO of Salesforce.com, and someone who should
really ****ing know better, tweeted out a link to a pirated live
stream of the ceremony taking place in London. (Ironically enough,
he was tweeting about the appearance of Sir Tim Berners-Lee, creator
of the World Wide Web, that magical thing which made the pirate
stream available to the rest of us.)

Think about that for a second — you’ve got a titan of industry
telling viewers to ignore the local broadcast rights and pay
attention to an illegal copy of the event instead. Telling viewers
not to worry about waiting for the taped broadcast, that this is
something you should be watching right ****ing now, and damn NBC if
they’re not making the stream available and someone else is. The big
lesson here is that if people care enough about finding a certain
piece of content and watching it — live or otherwise — they probably
will.

The sad thing is that NBC probably could have had things both ways —
it could have live streamed and broadcast for the work-time crowd
and those kicking it at home, and still had people show up for a
re-broadcast after work, if they couldn’t watch live.
....

One of the comments on that report:

Saif Shams
We saw it Live in Afghanistan through an Afghan Channel that holds
the right to broadcast Olympics live.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

David Woolley wrote:
Adrian C wrote:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/27/nbc...ning-ceremony/


I don't follow links presented without an abstract that explains why I
should follow them,

We have a dog like that. Won't set off across a bridge unless she can
clearly see the other side. It's no way to live your life, I keep
telling her, but she woofs "Look before you leap, that's my motto!"

Bill

And how many times have we said that here and people still assume its
somthing we all do, no wonder so many people get viruses.


Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"David Woolley" wrote in message
...
Adrian C wrote:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/27/nbc...ning-ceremony/


I don't follow links presented without an abstract that explains why I
should follow them, but I'm sure that the NHS part of the presentation
would insist they had taken all necessary anti-septic precautions.

I cannot believe the US did not carry it live. Surely it must have been on
one of the many satalites over there?

Crazy. Are the NBC now a laughing stock?

Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:05:03 +0100, David Woolley
wrote:

Adrian C wrote:
http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/27/nbc...ning-ceremony/


I don't follow links presented without an abstract that explains why I
should follow them, but I'm sure that the NHS part of the presentation
would insist they had taken all necessary anti-septic precautions.

Have some extracts:

While most of the rest of the world - or at least Europe - was
watching the ceremony live, U.S. audiences were held hostage by NBC,
which holds the rights to the games here. Rather than broadcasting
the biggest event of the Games live as it happened, NBC decided it
would air the ceremony on a tape delay, to capture a larger overall
audience.

Now, tape delays are nothing new, but they do seem archaic at a time
when online video and social media bring an air of immediacy to live
events. The existence of the NBC Olympics Twitter account is
evidence of this, but the account seems totally misused in this
case: NBC live tweeted the whole ceremony, with no apparent sense of
irony around the fact that its target audience couldn't actually
watch the events it was describing. Instead of building excitement
around the ceremony, and engaging with its viewers, all NBC ended up
doing was frustrating its audience - the people who care most about
watching the thing.

So really, how bad was NBC's strategy around the U.S. broadcast of
the 2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony in London? So bad that Mark
Benioff, chairman and CEO of Salesforce.com, and someone who should
really ****ing know better, tweeted out a link to a pirated live
stream of the ceremony taking place in London. (Ironically enough,
he was tweeting about the appearance of Sir Tim Berners-Lee, creator
of the World Wide Web, that magical thing which made the pirate
stream available to the rest of us.)

Think about that for a second - you've got a titan of industry
telling viewers to ignore the local broadcast rights and pay
attention to an illegal copy of the event instead. Telling viewers
not to worry about waiting for the taped broadcast, that this is
something you should be watching right ****ing now, and damn NBC if
they're not making the stream available and someone else is. The big
lesson here is that if people care enough about finding a certain
piece of content and watching it - live or otherwise - they probably
will.

The sad thing is that NBC probably could have had things both ways -
it could have live streamed and broadcast for the work-time crowd
and those kicking it at home, and still had people show up for a
re-broadcast after work, if they couldn't watch live.
....

One of the comments on that report:

Saif Shams
We saw it Live in Afghanistan through an Afghan Channel that holds
the right to broadcast Olympics live.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 11:20:14 +0100, Adrian C
wrote:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/27/nbc...ning-ceremony/

Was the delay really implimented with spools of tape?

Would internet video streaming really be imposible without the concept
of the Worldwide Web?



--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:03:50 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

I cannot believe the US did not carry it live. Surely it must have been on
one of the many satalites over there?

Crazy. Are the NBC now a laughing stock?

I think NBC has the TV rights to the Olympics in the USA.

There is a problem for US TV channels which are supported by
advertising. They need to take commercial breaks several times an hour.
That makes it very difficult for them to cover events that have
continuous action. One very popular sport is American football. That has
frequent breaks which nicely fit the broadcasters' needs for commercial
breaks. I've seen it said that soccer could never become a major
televised sport in the US because of the lack of breaks in the action.
That is, breaks lasting a few minutes each time.

The TV coverage of one non-sporting event that I heard about was the
attacks on the World Trade Center, etc. on 9/11. Some American news
channels gave continuous coverage to that, 24 hours a day for a few
days. They did not show any adverts. Advertising would have been
inappropriate and intrusive, and anyway, the advertisers didn't wanted
to be associated with the tragedy.

The TV companies that gave continuous coverage had to do so from their
own financial resources because of the absence of normal advertising
income.


--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:10:17 +0100, Graham.
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 11:20:14 +0100, Adrian C
wrote:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/27/nbc...ning-ceremony/

Was the delay really implimented with spools of tape?

Would internet video streaming really be imposible without the concept
of the Worldwide Web?

Would the Internet still exist without the WWW?

Steve

--
Neural Network Software. http://www.npsl1.com
EasyNN-plus. Neural Networks plus. http://www.easynn.com
SwingNN. Forecast with Neural Networks. http://www.swingnn.com
JustNN. Just Neural Networks. http://www.justnn.com

Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:10:17 +0100, Graham.
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 11:20:14 +0100, Adrian C
wrote:
snip

Would the Internet still exist without the WWW?
Steve

What do you think you are posting on?
Usenet was on the net long before the WWW

Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk