NBC's Coverage Of The Olympic Games

[ralmcg]

Not strictly track and field but the topic about NBC's coverage of the Olympic Games does have a track-and-field element. In my opinion the coverage as a whole is an improvement over 1996 when there was only the NBC network coverage and no other channels showed it. In time other channels belonging to NBCUniversal began to show parts of the games, much of it live. It really improved with the live streams. No longer do you have to wait to watch your favorite event at the time of NBC's choosing. You can watch the stream live. The streaming was especially good for lovers of field events since you can watch the event in its entirety, even if there was no commentary.

[SoCal45]

who remembers the Triple Cast...I think it was the first time cable really got involved...for a price, of course!

[ralmcg]

who remembers the Triple Cast...I think it was the first time cable really got involved...for a price, of course!

The Triple Cast was ahead of its time. Took streaming to do individual event transmission justice.

[Atticus]

who remembers the Triple Cast...I think it was the first time cable really got involved...for a price, of course!

I gladly paid that price, and thought it a bargain. I don't do Flotrack but usatf.tv has been worth it and the $6 I paid to watch a recent distance meet was worth and I'm not even a primary distance fan!

[Conor Dary]

who remembers the Triple Cast...I think it was the first time cable really got involved...for a price, of course!

Triple cast was great....Rio was great too. The live feed of the track events with no commentators and just the field mic.

[Atticus]

Rio was great too. The live feed of the track events with no commentators and just the field mic.

Yup, I almost prefer that!

[cigar95]

I had the TripleCast but I can't recall how it worked - did the cable providers just set up three new channels and then they were treated just like other premiums, so that only subscribers could watch them? About all I can recall is that there was a "red" channel, a "white", and a "blue".

ETA - okay, I just read the wikipedia, and it worked more or less like I thought. Most of their story focuses on what a flop it was.

I remember how I thought of myself as "hard core" at the time, and set up my VCRs to record *all* of it.

[ralmcg]

I had the TripleCast but I can't recall how it worked - did the cable providers just set up three new channels and then they were treated just like other premiums, so that only subscribers could watch them? About all I can recall is that there was a "red" channel, a "white", and a "blue".

If my memory serves me correctly the Triple Cast was a premium service you pay extra for, if your cable system offered it. Simular to pay-per-view. More information can be found at Olympics Triplecast - Wikipedia.

[Conor Dary]

You had to pay for it and it wasn't cheap....I remember going to a bar to watch....but it was good...also NBC lost a bundle on it.

[Atticus]

I had to look it up:

For $125, you can subscribe to the Olympics Triplecast - three channels of 24-hour-a-day coverage from Barcelona.

$125 was a lot back then (to me), but I ponied it up and while I watched all the Blue Channel T&F, the rest of the family (wife, children of 14, 10 and 6) watched a lot too. We got our money's worth.

[ralmcg]

Would the Triple Cast have been more popular, and therefore more subscriptions to it, had it been $50 for all three channels? Or order just one channel for $20? I think it was a mistake expecting people to fork over $90+ and have to buy the whole thing instead of just parts of it.

[tm71]

who remembers the Triple Cast...I think it was the first time cable really got involved...for a price, of course!

I do remember it very well. Watching from two TVs at the same time. Red, white and blue channels,

[gm]

Heard a TV type say it would have been cheaper for them to fly everyone who bought the Triplecast to the Games instead of doing that broadcast.

[18.99s]

Would the Triple Cast have been more popular, and therefore more subscriptions to it, had it been $50 for all three channels?

Of course there would have been more subscriptions. The question is whether the overall revenue would have been greater if it cost $50 instead of $125 (which is equivalent to about $240 in today's dollars).

I think $50 would have done that, but I doubt it would have brought in the tenfold revenue increase they needed to break even; the $50 price would require 25X as many subscribers to get 10X the revenue.

[bad hammy]

Heard a TV type say it would have been cheaper for them to fly everyone who bought the Triplecast to the Games instead of doing that broadcast.

I would have taken them up on the offer but up until recently the Triple Cast was the gold standard for Oly coverage and I thoroughly enjoyed it, taking time off from work to watch. While I could afford the package it was expensive and there were tech issues setting it up such that the local cable company had to make a house call to get it to work (installing some kind of line filter), so logistics & affordability were issues but the broadcast was spectacular.

With all of the extended field event coverage the highlight (or lowlight) to me was my first (supposed to be) extended look at PV god Bubka, who promptly exited with a NH.