NBC has been America's Olympic Network for 20 years. It's hard to imagine that ever changing, but that's exactly what ESPN and FOX hope will happen. Representatives from all three networks are currently at IOC headquarters in Lausanne, Switzerland to present their bids for the 2014 and 2016 Games, with the possibility of also bidding for the 2018 and 2020 Olympics. If Dick Ebersol was still running things at NBC, it would've been virtually impossible for NBC not to retain the rights. But his sudden resignation last month makes this a whole new ballgame. Hopefully not enough for the IOC to make the wrong decision.
It probably isn't a shock to any of you that I think the Olympics belong on NBC, but I'll explain why. For starters, NBC needs the Olympics. Certainly more than the other two. Other than me, nobody watches NBC. Except for Sunday Night Football and the Olympics. Comcast, NBC's new majority owner, knows that. Yes, the network suffered significant losses in Vancouver. But the Beijing Olympics were also the most-watched event in television history. I'm just playing a hunch here, but I have a feeling that London will be more like Beijing than Vancouver.
More importantly, NBC cares about the Olympics. If we're being technical here, Dick Ebersol cares about the Olympics. But even though Ebersol doesn't work for NBC anymore, the Olympics have become such a part of the network's identity that it's hard to ignore the commitment NBC has shown to the Games. "NBC Olympics" is a brand that's as firmly established for the network as Seinfeld, Friends or The Office. They've also created Universal Sports, a very good digital channel that covers nothing but Olympic sports. Among the offerings on Universal Sports are beach volleyball, track & field, cycling, skiing, figure skating, etc. And now that it's on the Olympic program for 2016, they've begun showing rugby sevens.
Without Universal Sports, where (and when) would these sports going to be shown? That's right, nowhere! In addition, NBC wisely utilizes its cable channels CNBC, MSBC, Bravo, USA and now Versus in Olympic coverage. They also show live streaming of some of the less popular events on NBCOlympics.com. That's the type of commitment that the IOC likes and that no other network in the U.S. is able (or willing) to offer. Plus, NBC has covered every Summer Olympics since 1988 and every Winter Olympics since 2002. They've been a loyal and dedicated partner to the Olympic movement. Even without Dick Ebersol running the show, I don't see why they'd be stupid enough to let that change.
The favorite criticism of NBC's Olympic coverage is the use of tape delay for marquee events. ESPN and FOX have both said that they'll show everything live. Yeah right. I'll believe that when I see it. The 2014 Winter Olympics are in Sochi, Russia (9 hours ahead of New York) and the 2018 Games will likely be in Pyeogchang, South Korea (14 hours ahead). In fact, the only Olympics up for bid in a U.S.-friendly time zone is the 2016 Summer Games in Rio de Janeiro. Complain all you want about it, but tape delay is actually the way to go. By doing it that way, NBC is able to let people see the events they want to watch when they're actually awake and watching TV. They might tell you otherwise, but ESPN and FOX would do the exact same thing. Not only that, but some events take place simultaneously, meaning there's no possible way to show them both live. Knowing the results ahead of time doesn't change the viewing experience at all. At least not for me. The people who only want to know who won just don't get it. There's more to the Olympics than gold, silver and bronze.
ESPN is going to mount a serious bid and has the powerful Disney brand behind it. The IOC would love adding Disney to its stable of sponsors. But I think the only reason ESPN wants the Olympics is because they have everything else. And that's exactly the problem. ESPN has everything! I'm not sure they'd even be able to find the room to fit the Olympics into their schedule. Take Sochi, which would be ESPN's first Olympics, and also happen to fall right smack in the heart of college basketball season. You want to piss off the college basketball fans by showing the Winter Olympics instead? ESPN does have the ability to utilize ABC, but how happy would Disney be with pre-empting two weeks of primetime programming on the broadcast network during February sweeps? In fairness, if ESPN does show the proper commitment, I'm sure they'd do an excellent job. Their coverage of last year's World Cup was exceptional, and they also do a nice job with Wimbledon. I'm just not sure ESPN would care enough to give the Olympics the type of coverage they deserve.
The same thing goes for FOX. I honestly think FOX doesn't have a prayer. Most people only finally accepted FOX as a legitimate fourth broadcast network when they got the NFL in 1994. Now FOX is No. 1, thanks largely to American Idol, but also to excellent programs like Glee, House and Bones. Women between the ages of 18-49 watch FOX. That's also the largest demographic that watches the Olympics. Frankly, I think that's the only reason FOX is even bidding. That's about the only thing that FOX can offer the IOC that's better than the other two. Don't count on it being enough.
There might've been a little bit of rambling in there (I get like that about the Olympics from time to time), but I think I laid it out nicely. I also tried to be fair, even though I clearly have a preference. FOX is only bidding to drive the price up, while ESPN just wants to stick it to NBC and get the only thing it doesn't have yet in the process. ESPN has a chance, but I'd be incredibly surprised (as well as extremely disappointed) if NBC doesn't retain the Olympic rights. NBC IS the Olympics in the U.S. If the IOC awards the rights to ESPN or FOX, they'll quickly realize it was a mistake. Sadly, this might come down to money. Comcast has said the NBC bid won't be as high as it was for Vancouver and London (for which NBC greatly overbid, thus the major deficit after Vancouver). Hopefully it's still the highest. Even if it isn't, hopefully it's high enough for the IOC to decide its worth it to continue a mutually beneficial relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment