Clarification: The CBC is funded mostly by the state (the rest by advertising), but there is no Gov't control of content. The only qualification from the Gov't funding is that it goes to Canadian content (a big chunk of that is sports). Besides, don't advertisers control the American media?
SomeActualData wrote:
I want the existing private media to do a better job of serving its customers (and for "customers" read "me"). ...
Mr. Bill wrote:
Just to correct one point: you are not the media's customer. Advertisers are the media's customers. You are the advertiser's customer. The media is simply the middle man whose job it is to bring the two of you together.
Since I have cable TV, I pay for NBC, so I figure I'm a customer. But you have a good point, that viewers (even in aggregate) are not the *important* customers for NBC, the advertisers are.
I'd rather have a publicly funded high quality television than one controlled by private advertizing interests. State-controlled? The BBC is hardy Chinese state TV.
And yes, NBC bought itself a temporary monopoly. The competition stopped after the bidding. The people who benefit from competition in bidding for exclusive rights are those who sell the rights, certainly not the viewers. Viewers would benefit from several channels being allowed to broadcast the games. But it seems that such an odd idea went out of favor a while ago...
ron sterling wrote:
I keep seeing threads pop up all over the place about the poor Olympic coverage from NBC. These posts have fawning praise for CBC and the BBC. I have to ask: do you really want state controlled television? You want your media to be controlled by the government? This doesn't make much sense.
This is just typical brain-washed American thinking, that anything government owned must be bad. The BBC is impartial, regularly falls out with the government, has no adverts, shows every track event live in its entirity and produces excellent all-round programming. But somehow this must be bad because it's not private enterprise. You carry on watching your delayed broadcast, ad-infested tosh, we'll stick with the BBC.
I guess if you watch TV everyday, then maybe it's worth it to you. Not me. I don't even have cable. I do realize I am probably in the minority in that respect.
He he... Harsh but true.
On the Beeb, a half hour programme lasts for 30 mins... Not 18 minutes padded out by tedious and low quality commercials.
This is just typical brain-washed American thinking, that anything government owned must be bad. The BBC is impartial, regularly falls out with the government, has no adverts, shows every track event live in its entirity and produces excellent all-round programming. But somehow this must be bad because it's not private enterprise. You carry on watching your delayed broadcast, ad-infested tosh, we'll stick with the BBC.[/quote]
Big John wrote:
I guess if you watch TV everyday, then maybe it's worth it to you. Not me. I don't even have cable. I do realize I am probably in the minority in that respect.
The BBC are also broadcasting up to 5 or 6 events online simultaneously. No TV license necessary to view them.
Television now is controlled by advertisers. I don't see where that's much of an advantage over having it controlled by the government. But what I'd really like is for the IOC to require NBC to cover the Games better than they do before they give them the contract.
You propose a false alternative, I think. The praise for CBC and BBC is not that they are state funded or even controlled (the extent to which it is is a complicated issue). It is rather than they show track and field events live. The criticism of NBC is that they don't and SHOULD. Indeed, there is another thread on this site having to do with ESPN's declaration that they would like to do the 2014 and 16 Olympics and, most importantly, that their philosophy is very different from NBC's, in that they are devoted to showing events live, whatever time they take place. I had a fantastic time watching Euro 2008 on weekday afternoons, despite the fact that they might have gotten a larger audience at other times. NBC is also criticized for not showing complete events--the women's 10000 was an unmitigated disaster by any measure--and showing other events--the men's steeplechase--at times that only vampires could watch. Indeed, so far, there has been better coverage of men's field hockey--the game today between Germany and the Netherlands was very exciting--than track and field. Finally, if one lives on the west coast, one must be infuriated, for nothing is shown live. America has the best television in the world, one can watch practically anything, however, while I was thrilled to watch the US women beat Brazil today live, I am not prepared to watch NBC's early coverage, never knowing whether something I want to watch will really be shown, and if so, when. So, long live commerce, and NBC, well . . . #############################.
"early coverage" s/b "evening coverage"--sorry
ron sterling wrote:
I keep seeing threads pop up all over the place about the poor Olympic coverage from NBC. These posts have fawning praise for CBC and the BBC. I have to ask: do you really want state controlled television? You want your media to be controlled by the government? This doesn't make much sense.
nbc IS state controlled television - that's the problem.
The thing is, even if NBC showed things on tape at godawful times, you could decide to watch at that time or set your VCR to tape it and then try to steer clear of places where you might see the results. But they'll only tell you that an even will be on in a very general time frame.
My son and I blew all of Sunday waiting for them to show the men's 10,000. We started watching before noon and it wasn't on until something like 4:00 PM. And we spent the whole day watching a lot of stuff we weren't really interested in because for all we knew, the 10,000 was going to be "next."
I understand why NBC does this sort of thing. They don't want me watching only at 4:00 PM or so when "my" event is on. They want me watching all day so their ratings are jacked up and their advertisers are happy.
Would I pay $280 a year to watch TV? Not here, not to watch the crappy coverage we get of things that I want to see. But to have network that showed EVERYTHING at events like the WCs or the Olympics without commercials every nine seconds? Heck yes.
[quote]Montesquieu wrote:
You propose a false alternative, I think. ........
But! If:
a. you knew an event was going to be shown
b. you knew what time it was going to be shown
c. they showed the whole thing
then:
a. you could watch it live and see the outcome
b. you could tape/pvr it and see the outcome
Both are reasonable options, but they have to show it in the first place. NBC just assumes that because no/few Americans are in distance events that people won't want to watch them- who knows if they are right?
Olympics Are Ratings Bonanza for Chinese TV
By DAVID BARBOZA
BEIJING — When the Beijing Olympic Games kicked off two weeks ago with a four-hour spectacular, more than 840 million people in China tuned in, perhaps the largest television audience in history for a single event.
The broadcast was the first in a series of Olympic bonanzas for China Central Television, or CCTV, one of the chief propaganda arms of the Chinese state and perhaps also a new global media titan.
Analysts say global corporations seeking a foothold in this potentially huge market have begun to notice CCTV, whose audience is vastly larger than every major television network in the United States and Europe combined.
So, while NBC is celebrating average prime-time audiences of 29 million viewers in the United States, CCTV is smashing ratings records everywhere. The opening ceremony had an average audience of nearly half a billion people, and 842 million watched at least a minute of it, according to CSM Media Research, based here.
More than 80 percent of Chinese households have tuned in to some broadcasts, guaranteeing the $2 billion company a huge pot of advertising gold.
CCTV paid about $17 million for exclusive broadcast rights in China but could reap $394 million in Olympic advertising revenue, according to Group M, a media company that tracks television advertising revenue here. By comparison, NBC paid $894 million for broadcast rights in the United States and is expected to garner more than $1 billion in ad revenue.
“They’re a TV powerhouse in China,” said Richard Ji, an Internet and media analyst at Morgan Stanley, referring to CCTV. And they are likely only to grow more powerful. “Global brands want to tap into China’s consumer market. So they’ll be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Olympics,” Mr. Ji said.
The company is also a model of how the Communist Party in China manages to keep state-owned companies profitable as it moves the nation toward a market economy with less government influence.
That the biggest corporations in the world are bankrolling that evolution — as well as party propaganda — is one of the ironies of modern China.
CCTV’s 18 channels reach more than a billion viewers. Its advertisers include Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and Adidas. It has cut television and marketing deals with the National Basketball Association and IMG Worldwide, the global sports and entertainment giant.
Perhaps the most striking symbol of its ascent is its new corporate headquarters here, a gleaming $700 million architectural landmark designed by the Dutch architect Rem Koolhaas.
CCTV is this country’s only national television network and is under the direct control of the powerful State Administration for Radio, Film and Television. CCTV journalists travel with the president and politburo leaders; they disseminate government news bulletins and often get approval for “exclusive” interviews with important public figures.
For instance, CCTV was the only media outlet to interview Liu Xiang, the Chinese track star who pulled out of the Games on Monday with a foot injury, guaranteeing he would not face any embarrassing questions.
Surveys by Nielsen Media Research indicate that up to 96 percent of Chinese households with television sets have tuned into some portion of the Olympics, which can be seen on seven different channels operated by CCTV.
The viewership numbers are staggering. A women’s weightlifting contest on Aug. 9 drew 155 million television viewers and the men’s basketball game between the United States and China attracted 170 million. The women’s table tennis gold medal match — won by China — drew 330 million viewers last Sunday, according to CSM, more viewers than the entire population of the United States.
CCTV says that in the first 10 days of the Games, more than 100 million people in China watched streaming video on its Web site, CCTV.com.
“That was part of the idea of having the Games in China — opening new markets for the Olympics,” said Ben Seeley, a spokesman for the International Olympic Committee, which awarded the Games to Beijing in 2001.
Perhaps that desire helped CCTV get a good deal when negotiating broadcast rights in the 1990s — or at least an enviable position. The company acquired the rights through the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union, a consortium of dozens of Asian nations (not including Japan or South Korea). But CCTV is also an instrument of the state, a network of television channels whose news and programming is censored and packaged largely to show the country’s happy, harmonious moments, to inspire pride in the people and, if necessary, unify them against a common enemy.
The mission this summer, however, is simpler: cheer on Team China as it racks up a record haul of gold medals at home.
“All of our planning has been geared toward the scale of our coverage of the Olympics,” said Jiang Heping, executive director of CCTV 5, called the Olympics channel.
For CCTV 5 and its sister channels, that has meant running documentaries about the Olympics, profiles of Chinese and foreign athletes and even primers on sports like fencing and sailing. Advertising rates on CCTV channels have jumped 200 to 400 percent during the Olympics, according to R3, a media research company with offices in Beijing.
By the time the Olympics end on Sunday, CCTV says it will have broadcast 2,900 hours; the NBC networks are planning to broadcast about 1,400 hours of coverage in the United States.
“We’ve got programs looking at high-tech shoes and swimsuits, telling the stories of Olympians, past and present. And a show called ‘Rivals,’ which looks at who’s the No. 1 American, No. 1 Kenyan. We want to cover the games from an international perspective, not just a Chinese perspective,” Mr. Jiang said.
Because of its reach and its monopoly, the network plays a huge role in shaping public opinion. After the huge earthquake in Sichuan Province last spring, CCTV reporters were among the first allowed to report from the scene, beaming images of Prime Minister Wen Jiabao consoling victims and reporting tales of heroic rescue efforts. Images of death and anger over shoddy school construction were censored from news coverage. But government censorship does not seem to hurt the company’s bottom line.
The network’s annual auctions of its prime advertising slots are fiercely competitive, with rates rising 20 to 30 percent each year. This year, CCTV revenue is expected to top $2.5 billion, from about $1 billion in 2002 — a huge sum in a country where the average worker earns less than $200 a month.
“Their revenues look rather small for a company that is a fusion of ABC, CBS and NBC,” Mr. Ji at Morgan Stanley said. “It can get a lot bigger.”
That may be one reason Cleveland-based IMG, which owns and manages sports and entertainment events like Wimbledon and represents athletes like Tiger Woods, is teaming with CCTV to tap China’s growing love affair with professional sports.
Robert Lawrence Kuhn, a Citigroup adviser and partner in the IMG deal with CCTV, said IMG could help commercialize and market China’s huge sports industry.
“Our joint venture would create events and CCTV would broadcast the events,” he said. “It is arguably the world’s largest broadcaster in terms of eyeballs and potential for growth. And they dominate televised sports in China.”
Sports are only part of the story. CCTV reaches 30 million Chinese living overseas. It has broadcasts in English, Spanish and French.
And while American television networks are closing foreign bureaus, CCTV is expanding its global newsgathering presence.
Today, the network can cash in on foreign brands that want to get into China, because foreign broadcasters are shut out. But one day, it could do a lot more, like bring the world to China and China to the world.
ron sterling wrote:
You want your media to be controlled by the government? This doesn't make much sense.
What a moron. I am Canadian - let me explain something to you. Just because the government pays for the CBC doesn't mean it controls the end product. You make it seem like I live in a harsh communist regime-led country. You have no idea how stupid your fear-mongering sounds. You are an embarrassment to Americans who know better.
I concur, of course.
HRE wrote:
The thing is, even if NBC showed things on tape at godawful times, you could decide to watch at that time or set your VCR to tape it and then try to steer clear of places where you might see the results. But they'll only tell you that an even will be on in a very general time frame.
My son and I blew all of Sunday waiting for them to show the men's 10,000. We started watching before noon and it wasn't on until something like 4:00 PM. And we spent the whole day watching a lot of stuff we weren't really interested in because for all we knew, the 10,000 was going to be "next."
I understand why NBC does this sort of thing. They don't want me watching only at 4:00 PM or so when "my" event is on. They want me watching all day so their ratings are jacked up and their advertisers are happy.
Would I pay $280 a year to watch TV? Not here, not to watch the crappy coverage we get of things that I want to see. But to have network that showed EVERYTHING at events like the WCs or the Olympics without commercials every nine seconds? Heck yes.
Good luck making this fly in America. This is the land of corporate ownership and branding. The idea of the public good died along with those who experienced a world war. Now it's all about what is mine (it's *mine*, hands off!) and what the corporations can buy.And anything which can be construed as a nod to the public good is labeled "socialist", and the weary, uninformed public knows that *that's* a clear reductio.Enjoy America. (Though don't criticize it too much; this whole conversation is being monitored: http://www.eff.org/issues/nsa-spying .)
hot in the car wrote:
Here is a re-post of something I put in another thread:
I obviously don't know much about broadcasting but why can any network purchase the rights to broadcasting the Olympics? The Olympiad is an international event for which the US has a national interest. I'm all for free market economics but this arrangement seems to take all choice away from the American consumer. It would be similar if CNN purchased the sole rights to cover the Iraq War or if ABC purchased the sole right to broadcast the state of the union address or the election results.
Don't tell me there is not a case for a national interest in the Olympics because Jimmy Carter forced a national boycott at the 1980 games in Moscow.
This is America. You can buy anything (including a private army to fight for you overseas-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide#Iraq_War_involvement ).
hot in the car wrote:
Here is a re-post of something I put in another thread:
I obviously don't know much about broadcasting but why can any network purchase the rights to broadcasting the Olympics? The Olympiad is an international event for which the US has a national interest. I'm all for free market economics but this arrangement seems to take all choice away from the American consumer. It would be similar if CNN purchased the sole rights to cover the Iraq War or if ABC purchased the sole right to broadcast the state of the union address or the election results.
Don't tell me there is not a case for a national interest in the Olympics because Jimmy Carter forced a national boycott at the 1980 games in Moscow.
We in the US pay a fair amount of taxes, but much of it goes to the military. We're simply not willing to invest very much in social or physical infrastructure. And as everything sucks and crumbles around us, we take this as proof of the fact that spending money on things that help all of us is a bad investment. Large private corporations take over where government used to exist and does exist in other industrialized countries.
howie wrote:
Also, here is another thought on this.....the BBC and CBC may be state funded, but both have competition from private broadcaster such as ITV and CTV.
During the next winter Olympics the CBC will not be the official broadcaster because they were outbid by CTV.
Similarly in the UK the BBC does not show Premier League football because another company (Sky I think) bought the rights a while back for a ridiculous amount of money.
In both countries, moreso in the UK, there are multiple other broadcasters.
So really, with the presence of private broadcasters as a foil, why does it hurt to have state funded television as a service and cultural institution for our citizens? Arguably higher taxes, but really, I would cut other services first.
The content is controlled by the advertisers. Yet, somehow, we think that it's better that than have the state involved with media.
A Canadian wrote:
Clarification: The CBC is funded mostly by the state (the rest by advertising), but there is no Gov't control of content. The only qualification from the Gov't funding is that it goes to Canadian content (a big chunk of that is sports). Besides, don't advertisers control the American media?