Analog aficionados have squared off versus digital devotees. And a business model hangs in the balance.
Are you a person who doesn't want to know how the Olympics turn out until you can watch it on television? Or do you watch events live during the day on a tablet and perhaps again later at home on the wide screen?
If there's one thing the flow of text and video from the Olympics has demonstrated to us, it is that we're an information society divided. It is not unlike the way we look at the national political discourse as red vs. blue states. Only in this case, it is those who want their information in real-time vs. those who only want content when it presented on television, even delayed.
Twitter presented a unique opportunity for people who wanted to watch hijacked streams of the opening ceremonies. NBC opted not to offer online video streams of both the opening and closing ceremonies. So when Tweets started appearing to point out a live feed (such as from the BBC intended for the British audience), more than just a few folks began watching. In the end it didn't seem to hurt ratings and NBC now expects to avoid taking a loss on the games. It will be interesting to see if a future decision is made in favor of live feeds domestically in the U.S. for opening and closing ceremonies.When you are paying $1 billion for the rights, it is understandable that an enterprise is looking to manage risk. The only problem is that enraged viewers can find also find a potentially sympathetic global audience through social media. Check out some of the angry hashtags on Twitter, such as #nbcfail.
The bulk of the viewing public appeared to be just fine with watching the delayed telecast, as if it were happening in real time. Better at home on the bigger screen perhaps?
Similarly, it has been clear that some folks don't want to know about the outcome of the competitions ahead of their delayed viewing. Social media is full of people complaining that they weren't given "spoiler alerts". In case you don't know, an example of a spoiler alert is a sort of warning given before an important movie plot twist or resolution is revealed, such as in a movie review. This divide has put some news/entertainment organizations in the position of having to decide whether to help keep the "secret", at least with headlines, or strictly hold to tradition in reporting news when it happens uniformly across all platforms.
It seems like a fair bet that as more "digital natives" and their successors come of age, as we older folks go on to that viewing room in the sky, the proportion of the audience demanding real-time content and information flow will predominate. It also might be that traditional television and Internet technology will have melded by then anyway, making obsolete the question of whether to force delayed viewings and to withhold information on results.
Are you a person who doesn't want to know how the Olympics turn out until you can watch it on television? Or do you watch events live during the day on a tablet and perhaps again later at home on the wide screen?
If there's one thing the flow of text and video from the Olympics has demonstrated to us, it is that we're an information society divided. It is not unlike the way we look at the national political discourse as red vs. blue states. Only in this case, it is those who want their information in real-time vs. those who only want content when it presented on television, even delayed.
Twitter presented a unique opportunity for people who wanted to watch hijacked streams of the opening ceremonies. NBC opted not to offer online video streams of both the opening and closing ceremonies. So when Tweets started appearing to point out a live feed (such as from the BBC intended for the British audience), more than just a few folks began watching. In the end it didn't seem to hurt ratings and NBC now expects to avoid taking a loss on the games. It will be interesting to see if a future decision is made in favor of live feeds domestically in the U.S. for opening and closing ceremonies.When you are paying $1 billion for the rights, it is understandable that an enterprise is looking to manage risk. The only problem is that enraged viewers can find also find a potentially sympathetic global audience through social media. Check out some of the angry hashtags on Twitter, such as #nbcfail.
The bulk of the viewing public appeared to be just fine with watching the delayed telecast, as if it were happening in real time. Better at home on the bigger screen perhaps?
Similarly, it has been clear that some folks don't want to know about the outcome of the competitions ahead of their delayed viewing. Social media is full of people complaining that they weren't given "spoiler alerts". In case you don't know, an example of a spoiler alert is a sort of warning given before an important movie plot twist or resolution is revealed, such as in a movie review. This divide has put some news/entertainment organizations in the position of having to decide whether to help keep the "secret", at least with headlines, or strictly hold to tradition in reporting news when it happens uniformly across all platforms.
It seems like a fair bet that as more "digital natives" and their successors come of age, as we older folks go on to that viewing room in the sky, the proportion of the audience demanding real-time content and information flow will predominate. It also might be that traditional television and Internet technology will have melded by then anyway, making obsolete the question of whether to force delayed viewings and to withhold information on results.
No comments:
Post a Comment