On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Adam Bowie <[email protected]> wrote:
> My father - who lived in NY in the 60s - claims that the first time US TV > tried football (soccer), they had officials hold up throw ins and corners > to squeeze a thirty second spot in. > > In answer to the original query, I'm certain that there ate no technical > difficulties, but the broadcaster would be hammered for doing it. Are there > really not enough spots already through the games for as much inventory as > NBC can sell to be 'got away?' > Fair question. You're not "adding" spots: rather, you'd move that time into the game action. Given how intermissions are frequently filled on the local level (and on the national level if it involves Mike Millbury), I'd actually not mind having the intermission time "reduced" from a TV perspective. I'd assume that advertisers would pay more for in-game spots than intermission spots. To be clear, the idea is that the time that you're behind would be made up at the intermission, not lagging throughout the game. So for football, if you inserted two 150-second breaks every approximately 15 minutes, then you'd join halftime five minutes in so the kickoff for the second half is live (with the presumption that matches that go to extra time would not have breaks in extra time, just like they do here for playoff OTs in hockey.) -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
