For this, the short version, I will list a few observations and conclude with some predictions for the future of live-event coverage on the Internet. First the observations, in no particular order.
- There were examples of three sources of revenue for live streaming of events: the BBC's coverage of the Olympics (free with a license fee), NBC's coverage of the Tour de France (pay per view) and NBC's Olympic coverage (advertising). My favorite was pay-per-view, but there is a lot of room for improving NBC's advertising presentation and many people would rather pay by watching ads.
- The BBC's Internet coverage was better than NBC's. It was more interactive, had better video quality and commentary and no advertsing. BBC also has a terrific sports blog. They win the gold medal because the viewers are their customers while NBC's customers are their advertisers. BBC "gets" the Internet.
- NBC could learn something about Web design from BBC. The BBC Web site was more interactive, giving the user control, while NBC's more closely followed a passive television model. They also need to clean up glitches like broken links.
- NBC's Olympic coverage needed better direction -- adding expert commentary to all the streams, better timing of commercials and intelligent camera selection.
- Sadly, NBC deleted the archives of the Tour de France soon after end of the race. I believe they have an information stewardship obligation and should maintain the archives of important events for analysis by journalists, scholars, fans, remixers, etc. The cost of doing so would be low.
- NBC's Olympic archive is still online, but they have not said for how long. Since it contains ads, they may leave it up. The BBC archive will remain online until January.
- NBC allowed viewers to watch two streams at once (one in a larger window), but then they had to watch two streams of ads.
- The quality of NBC's Web stream was very poor at first, virtually unwatchable. The video quality using their phone and tablet apps was much better. The video quality of NBC's earlier streaming of the Tour de France was nearly as good as that on television.
- NBC's Web video quality seemed to improve during the Olympic games. I did a subjective evaluation on day nine and, while it was far from perfect, it was in the same ballpark as BBC's streaming coverage. (Note that I watched the BBC coverage using a proxy server, which limited my download speed to about 2.3 Mbps while I was getting around 15 Mbps when accessing NBC).
- NBC's video seemed to improve even further by the end of The Games. Looking at various performance tests during the games, I tentatively concluded that the bottleneck was in the network, although there are too many variables to be sure.
- NBC made changes to their user interface during the Olympics. They were acting a bit like an agile Internet start-up -- release early, revise often -- tweaking the network to improve performance and revising the user interface.
- The Olympic Organizing Committee did its best to control leaks of Olympic material. For example, WiFi hotspots were not allowed in the stands and they did their best to stop social media leaks.
- NBC did a much better job on the Tour de France than the Olympics, but it was an easier event to cover, they had experience covering it in past years and they did not have to deal with the presentation of ads.
Now for a few fearless predictions.
NBC paid the International Olympic Committee $4.38 billion for the media rights to 2014 - 2020 Summer and Winter Olympics. We will see major changes in the coverage and the industry by 2020.
There will two separate markets. The first will be for producing content -- video, commentary, interactive features, Web design, and so forth. NBC was the content producer in this case. The second market will be for efficient networking to distribute that content. During these Olympics YouTube (Google) provided the networking expertise.
Both the content producers and the networkers will have learned a lot from past experience and will do a much better job than they did this year. We have even seen improvement during these Olympics. This is just the start of the IP TV era -- it is like the crystal set era in the early days of radio.
Given the expected improvement, the majority of people will be watching live events and other video on the Internet by 2020 -- we will have cut the cord and be watching over the top.
While there will be both network and content industries, the content industries will not have a lock on production. As the comedian Louis C. K. showed us, the production company will be dropped in some cases. Louis C. K. decided that he could do a better job of producing his comedy DVDs than Sony, and the Internatinal Olympic Committee might decide that it can do a better job than NBC or another production company.
It will be interesting to see what Google does in this area. If their fiber pilot study in Kansas City looks promising and replicable, they may become a networking powerhouse. At the same time, they are developing content and learning by working with folks like NBC. They may end up being able to offer the whole package.
Of course, there is a disclaimer to these predictions -- never underestimate the power of well-funded, entrenched lobbyists and huge corporate legal staffs. On the other hand, it is hard to find good buggy whips these days.
I'd just like to say I watched the NBC one at work the last few days of the Olympics and never once got an add (and it was streaming nearly from as soon as I got to work until I left at 5). Maybe using my dish networks login removed ads? Not sure, but again it was pretty much a live raw feed without ads
ReplyDeleteWeird -- I saw tons of ads -- pre rolls and ads in the middle of events. I was watching on a Time Warner account, but it does not seem like that would matter. Which events were you watching?
DeleteI found NBC's coverage to be dire, and NBC's streaming video to be mediocre. However, NBC's legal department were efficient at keeping the lid on illicit streams.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line, for NBC, is that the quality of their Olympic presentation almost doesn't matter. People are going to watch anyway - a good presentation, slick online interface and so on won't persuade sports haters to watch, and unless it's really really dire, everyone else will watch and grumble. As long as they watch, NBC doesn't care.
The quality of NBC's presentation only becomes important if they lose their legal monopoly on the broadcasting rights, and the IOC aren't likely to take a risk on some kind of international pay-per-view streaming model when they can just take a big stack of cash from NBC. The only hope for real improvement is if NBC loses the bidding to someone like Google, but broadcast in 2020 will still be too big to ignore. I could maybe see someone like Google buying the rights, setting up a pay-per-view thing for users, and working with maybe ABC on an OTA broadcast.
I agree that in 2020 a lot people will still be watching the OTA and standard cable company programs, but I think NBC has an incentive to improve because in 2020 they will have competition from Fox, ESPN, etc. Maybe even BBC or Sky? Google?
DeleteI also think that there will be more emphasis on the streaming coverage than there was this year because more people will be drawn to it as quality improves. They will have seen better quality production and streaming in events that are easier to cover than the Olympics -- like the Tour de France. The Olympics is probably the hardest event to stream, and even that will improve during the next 8 years.
I also bet a lot more relatively small events, like Louie C. K. concerts, start doing their own Internet productions before 2020.
>NBC did their best to control leaks of Olympic material. For example, WiFi hotspots were not allowed in the stands and they did their best to stop social media leaks.
ReplyDeleteAnd you think this is something positive?
I don't recall saying that I thought it was positive, just that they did it.
DeleteWas there quite a bit of underground coverage? (I only watched NBC and BBC streaming and NBC OTA).
Larry,
ReplyDeleteI am glad you have such faith in NBC making the necessary and considerable improvements in "future" Olympics contracted coverage.
I had privilege of view much of the 2012 Olympics both via NBC delayed coverage here in USA, and via BBC through a VPN link to server in London.
The significant difference in quality of reporting and actual Olympic sports content between NBC and the BBC who were indisputably worlds better in every respect, even technically cannot be mitigated even over time due to the vast cultural lapses in USA about Olympic category sports.
Unless and until USA populace and US Sports media make monumental improvements in understanding, appreciating, respecting and becoming very proficient in Olympics sports reporting as compared to American only Baseball and American football for which the traditional and accepted commentary is bravado, and masculine with a "We are the greatest in the world" aura of false arrogance, little will have changed by the next summer and or winter Olympics.
It sounds like you are comparing the BBC live streaming with the NBC television programs, not their live streaming, right?
DeleteA lot of NBC's live streaming had no commentary at all. They also failed to offer the ability for the user to display data on the athletes, scores, etc. That really made watching something like the cycling road races a bad experience. But, I do think NBC will get better at production -- as I said in another comment, having to bid again in 2020 will keep them pushing and they will have learned a lot.
The live streams will also take on increased importance as part of the package because their technical quality will be improved and people will be more used to them. Cord cutters are still only a couple percent of the US TV population, but their numbers grew by 22.8% last year according to Nielsen (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2012/08/hbo-here-are-those-cord-cutting-stats-you-asked/55292/).
Also -- it seemed to me that toward the end, the percent of events with commentators increased and they seemed to have quite a few announcers with British accents. Again, I am speaking of the streaming coverage, not the televised coverage.
maybe they hired British guys from the UK networks to add the commentary - cheaper than flying US commentators over there, or maybe they just re-played someone else's stream for certain events.
DeleteMaybe they should just outsource their entire operation to the BBC next time and get the benefit of all that expertise.
That occurred to me too. I listened to both the BBC and NBC streams of the final basketball game between the US and Spain, and while both had an announcer with a British accent, they were different. The over the air broadcast on NBC had yet other announcers. (That OTA match was live as well).
DeleteIf I were on the Olympic Organizing Committee, I would look at offers from the BBC, Sky and whoever else bid on it this time as well as US firms. I would also consider separate contracts for broadcast and live streaming. A lot of people will have developed expertise in streaming live events by that time. Hey, maybe Louis C. K. can do the production for the 2024 summer Olympics!
PS -- giving the BBC the rights to stream or broadcast the Olympics in the US would not be "outsourcing." The Games are a global event and the contract is with the International Organizing Committee. The BBC has a lot of English speakers, which would put them in a good position for the US market. So do the Indians, Australians, Singaporeans ... Maybe it will be a team from Belize :-).
DeleteWhat about requiring cable/satellite TV service to watch some videos? Annoying!
ReplyDeleteSince they were showing commercials, I bet NBC would have been happy to let everyone see the streaming video. On the other hand, their parent company Comcast would not like that. It was pretty easy to circumvent this time -- may be tougher next.
DeleteThanks for your observations.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering how do you see projects like Google Glass change the streaming of live events?
With that athletes and spectators you share their views.
I mean 8 years are a long time and by then broadcast rights could be worthless as everybody streams his own stream.
I hadn't thought of that. They put microphones on coaches, race car drivers, etc. -- why not cameras? Did you follow Usain Bolt's Twitter feed during the Games? Would you like to subscribe to the Usain Bolt video stream while he runs and wanders around the stadium? How about watching a BBall game through Kobe's eyes? The IOC would want a cut from those streams.
DeleteHey, as long as we are free-associating and talking conceivable futures, check out the movie "Being John Malkovitch" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120601/).
I found that commercials were way too loud compared to the coverage. It was extremely annoying. Surely they can do a better match on that. Cable companies have previously been caught doing this on purpose.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100%. (I complained about that in one of the blog posts I did). The volume jumped way up during commercials. Also -- during the first week or so, the commercials seemed to stream better than the live coverage.
DeleteYou say the cable companies were caught, but did that stop them from doing it? There is a law requiring OTA broadcasters not to boost commercials (http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials/) but that may not apply to cable.
The January limit for the BBC's streaming content is not a BBC limitation, it was imposed by the IOC. See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2012/08/digital_olympics_reach_stream_stats.html?postId=113427062#comment_113427062
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting. I imagine they will try to package it up for sale in some fashion.
ReplyDeleteI understand that one can argue that the IOC paid a lot of money and should have the right to maximize their profit on that investment, but I also feel that there is a class of event that should be kept available as part of our cultural and political history for which there is a stewardship responsibility. I don't know where to draw the line, but in this case, I would urge the IOC to plan on keeping the archive available to the public and adjusting the terms of their contract to take that into account. If not this time, in 2020.