On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:00 PM, JW <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm still not convinced/ > > Much of this is just me thinking out loud. > > > Let's face it, not many of us are going to be tuning in to see > promotional videos about how a > > Doha games in the middle of the desert will be a really good idea (not > that it's stopped either > > FIFA or the IAAF). > > The IOC probably has the complete video archive of the past several Games, > as well as whatever was filmed at Olympics before that. There should be a > small audience for, say, the entire 2004 judo competition, and a larger one > for the 100-yard dash. That's a lot of programming available right there. >
Yup. I'm pretty certain that's what a lot of the new channel will be. But it's one thing watching Carl Lewis winning his golds again in highlights form, and quite another watching the entire 2004 judo competition. If I was a big judo fan, I'm not sure I'd want to possibly watch much beyond the final bouts. Surely I'm more interested in today's competitions? > > > I really just don't think that the IOC can use its weight to gain > carriage. While NBC's owner > > Comcast could ensure some distribution, that doesn't mean that it's any > other operators' > > interests to carry the channel. > > The IOC might be able to make it part of rights negotiations. > But most rights owners aren't also distributors. There are cases where they are, but for the most part, producing TV channels, and providing the technology backbone to distribute TV channels are two separate businesses. I think the IOC will continue to use the size of cheques as their main negotiating factor in addition to universal access. > > > And threats don't really make sense either. There is a long standing > part of the Olympic > > charter that says: > > > > "The IOC takes all necessary steps in order to ensure the fullest > coverage by the different > > media and the widest possible audience in the world for the Olympic > Games." > > > > In other words they need to make the Olympics widely available. And > niche channels go > > against that ideal. In any case, the Coca Colas and Visas of this world > don't pay millions of > > dollars for the games not to reach mass audiences. The impact of this > clause means that > > mostly the Olympics is seen on free-to-air television globally. > > In the States, a lot of the Olympics end up on cable anyway, some channels > being nicheier than others, and even more online. However, if all the > Olympic Channel does is give the IOC an alternative to point to in > negotiations, it'll probably pay for itself. > > See above. If the 2036 rights come around (can't believe I'm typing that number), and ABC says "We'll distribute your channel plus give you $10bn, and NBC says "We'll give you $12bn," I'm pretty sure which offer the IOC will pick. > > As I say, a channel showing niche sports is fine. But those rights will > always be of value to > > someone. I suspect speed skating TV rights have some value in the > Netherlands for example. > > So then you start getting into having to produce regional variants as > rights permit, and that > > begins to increase costs. In any case, when is your prime time on a > global channel? Even > > news channels struggle with this globally - Asia is waking up while > America is winding down... > > In fact, this is probably not so much of a problem. Let's say that the > channel has a basic feed of archival footage and exciting promotional video > that's then split up for the various systems it's going to, with local > language and local advertising. So the IOC goes to the Speed Skating > Federation and says, "We don't want to disrupt your deals. However, we'll > take the rights for the markets who aren't buying from you," perhaps for a > nominal fee. > > I assume that, like the Olympics themselves, major international > competitions have one set of cameras covering them. If the Dutch produce > speed skating, part of the deal becomes the Olympic Channel taking their > feed, sending it back to Madrid where commentary gets added in different > languages, and the result then being sent to markets that don't have local > coverage. Systems that already have the speed skating get the "Visit > Beautiful Pyongyang" programming. The event can be repeated to make it > accessible in different time zones. Rightsholders who want to give their > announcers some practice can send them over to provide coverage, or > in-house commentators can do the call. The federation gets added worldwide > exposure for the sport and the IOC gets to show viewers some of the > athletes they'll be seeing at the next games. And there are enough > competitions all year in various sports that it should provide a lot of > programming. > You're right - that's very doable, and it's what channels like Eurosport do. The UK version is different to the French version with localised offerings to an extent depending on rights and audience needs. But I wouldn't underestimate the cost. You have to black out by territory which gets fiddly and complicated, as well as reversion stuff in some studio in Madrid (Eurosport basically does this in Paris!). Indeed some sports actually pay to produce TV coverage of their sports themselves, and then offer them to TV channels free of charge, just to get the exposure for their sport and their sponsors. This has happened in the UK for example with horse racing which still goes out on Channel 4 several times a week in the afternoons. > > > They're talking about running a channel for less than $100m a > year and > I can see a > > significant chunk of that going in just paying for carriage globally. > For example, it'll cost > > something like $100,000 pa to go on one digital platform in the UK. > Multiply that up by > > multiple platforms in multiple territories and you get to a big number > quickly. > > If they can piggyback on events that already being televised in the way I > described above, they won't be spending much on producing live events, at > least early on. And this wouldn't be the first time someone overestimated > the value of their own cable channel. But there seem to be ways it can work. > I definitely don't see them spending much beyond editing their own material, graphics and voiceover talent in terms of production, but they are up against massively funded sports networks like ESPN, Sky Sports or Canal+ around the world. > -- > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- -- 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/d/optout.
