I was thinking today how annoying commercial delays and tv timeouts are making games last longer, especially for the fans in the stands. and I was curious what tv and internet viewers like you would prefer if the tv timeouts were actually eliminated from the live game and the tv broadcasters had to adjust somehow.
Here are some options I thought of. Maybe you can think of some more.
1) show the game live, then tv breaks away to show commercials. When tv comes back to the game, it immediately rejoins the action live and you just miss everything that happened during the commercials.
2) tv goes to commercial, when it comes back, it plays "catch up" by showing replays of every play that you missed and "fast-forwards" through the standing around between plays until it catches up to the live action.
3) tv goes to commercials, and when it comes back, it shows the action on delay so that you don't miss any plays and you never catch up to live action. You won't know the end result until 1 or 2 hours after the game ends.
4) live games are shown on some pay-for -play streaming option without commercials.
(03-06-2014 07:43 AM)goofus Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking today how annoying commercial delays and tv timeouts are making games last longer, especially for the fans in the stands. and I was curious what tv and internet viewers like you would prefer if the tv timeouts were actually eliminated from the live game and the tv broadcasters had to adjust somehow.
Here are some options I thought of. Maybe you can think of some more.
1) show the game live, then tv breaks away to show commercials. When tv comes back to the game, it immediately rejoins the action live and you just miss everything that happened during the commercials.
2) tv goes to commercial, when it comes back, it plays "catch up" by showing replays of every play that you missed and "fast-forwards" through the standing around between plays until it catches up to the live action.
3) tv goes to commercials, and when it comes back, it shows the action on delay so that you don't miss any plays and you never catch up to live action. You won't know the end result until 1 or 2 hours after the game ends.
4) live games are shown on some pay-for -play streaming option without commercials.
For better or for worse, the comfort of the thousands of people in the stands are going to receive a lot lower priority than the potentially millions of people watching on TV. Nothing personal, but I don't like any of those ideas. As a TV viewer, I want every moment live (especially in a Twitter universe where not knowing the result in advance is impossible) and don't want ANYTHING cut out. Anything less than that is unacceptable and I'm sure the TV networks paying billions of dollars for these games would agree. A lot of streaming options actually have few or no commercials (i.e. ESPN3 or the BTN online), which sounded great on paper at first, but believe it or not, the dead air is way more annoying to me than the commercials. Artificially making the TV experience worse in order to accommodate the people in the stands is backwards from how the world is going.
Unless Americans start showing that they won't stay with a game during a commercial and on-screen graphics commercials as are done is soccer are highly effective, the system we have will be the system we keep.
I think that option #2 is doable.
Could also just shorten the commercial breaks between the change of possession such as a punt or turnover. Cut those commercials in half maybe.
Right now, the average televised game has the 4 commercial breaks per quarter (typically under 12:00, under 9:00, under 6:00 and under 3:00 though they will move them up earlier in the quarter if there are logical breaks in action like a scoring play, change of possession or a timeout). Then there are two additional breaks at the quarter breaks and then there's halftime, a slot less desirable for advertisers because people will flip to other games at that point.
I think they could cut 1 break out per quarter by going to a PIP like NASCAR does, with the game action in one window and the commercial in another (with game play by play dropping out in favor of the commercial spot's audio).
again.. what's wrong with split-picture? Mini-box to the left/right of the screen and the commercial right there as well.
I don't understand why only IRL does this, and nobody else will adopt the policy. (Nascar only does it so far twice in a race.. the first commercial break, and right before they get to their 20-laps-to-go marker where they run commercial free after that point).
(03-06-2014 11:46 AM)Chappy Wrote: [ -> ]Right now, the average televised game has the 4 commercial breaks per quarter (typically under 12:00, under 9:00, under 6:00 and under 3:00 though they will move them up earlier in the quarter if there are logical breaks in action like a scoring play, change of possession or a timeout). Then there are two additional breaks at the quarter breaks and then there's halftime, a slot less desirable for advertisers because people will flip to other games at that point.
I think they could cut 1 break out per quarter by going to a PIP like NASCAR does, with the game action in one window and the commercial in another (with game play by play dropping out in favor of the commercial spot's audio).
The context is a bit different, though. I'm not a NASCAR guy (so I can't speak to what NASCAR fans might notice in terms of strategy during the course of a race that I'd never be able to pick up), but it would seem to the average viewer that following the early stages of a race with PIP or split-screen is less intrusive since the complete focus for the viewer isn't required at that point, whereas it's much more difficult to devote that type of attention during basketball or football action (where, as much as we complain about a lot of announcers, most viewers really do need them to guide the action). It might work a little better in a slower-paced game like baseball, but that sport has the most natural breaks of all with the inning changes (so the PIP/split-screen concept really doesn't add much there). Golf is really the only other sport where I could see the PIP/split-screen concept working from a practical standpoint since that, like NASCAR, truly doesn't have any mechanisms at their disposal (i.e. timeouts, innings, periods, quarters, halftime, etc.) to "create" commercial breaks.
Like I've said, these TV networks are paying billions of dollars for these sports rights, so I don't see how they're going to make it more difficult to follow TV action in order to provide a better experience for the fans in the stands (as unfair as that might be). It's always going to be the reverse (and increasingly so).
CFB has surrendered the power to make such decisions to the TV guys.
The NFL has enough power to make changes in the display of commercials, but they won't, because they want the networks to make as much money as possible on NFL broadcasts -- or, more accurately, they want the networks to be able to recover at least some of the money they're losing by overpaying the NFL.
(03-06-2014 12:07 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]The context is a bit different, though. I'm not a NASCAR guy (so I can't speak to what NASCAR fans might notice in terms of strategy during the course of a race that I'd never be able to pick up), but it would seem to the average viewer that following the early stages of a race with PIP or split-screen is less intrusive since the complete focus for the viewer isn't required at that point, whereas it's much more difficult to devote that type of attention during basketball or football action (where, as much as we complain about a lot of announcers, most viewers really do need them to guide the action). It might work a little better in a slower-paced game like baseball, but that sport has the most natural breaks of all with the inning changes (so the PIP/split-screen concept really doesn't add much there). Golf is really the only other sport where I could see the PIP/split-screen concept working from a practical standpoint since that, like NASCAR, truly doesn't have any mechanisms at their disposal (i.e. timeouts, innings, periods, quarters, halftime, etc.) to "create" commercial breaks.
Like I've said, these TV networks are paying billions of dollars for these sports rights, so I don't see how they're going to make it more difficult to follow TV action in order to provide a better experience for the fans in the stands (as unfair as that might be). It's always going to be the reverse (and increasingly so).
Well, I wonder what kind of data there is out there on how many people channel surf during commercial breaks (I know I do) or start watching the game on their DVR after 30 minutes have been played so they can fast forward through the commercials (I know my dad does this).
If enough people do these things, going split screen might actually expose the ads to more viewers who then wouldn't be able to change the channel or fast forward without missing game action. Advertisers AND fans in the stands would win.
I personally thought FS1 had it figured out when they first started broadcasting some games... they'd be showing a game, and then the screen of the game would shrink to about 3/4's of the screen and the advertisement banner would wrap along the bottom and the right of the screen.
It was basically a quick ad, that would sit there for a while, you couldn't miss it, all the while the game kept going on.
(03-06-2014 07:43 AM)goofus Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking today how annoying commercial delays and tv timeouts are making games last longer, especially for the fans in the stands. and I was curious what tv and internet viewers like you would prefer if the tv timeouts were actually eliminated from the live game and the tv broadcasters had to adjust somehow.
Here are some options I thought of. Maybe you can think of some more.
1) show the game live, then tv breaks away to show commercials. When tv comes back to the game, it immediately rejoins the action live and you just miss everything that happened during the commercials.
2) tv goes to commercial, when it comes back, it plays "catch up" by showing replays of every play that you missed and "fast-forwards" through the standing around between plays until it catches up to the live action.
3) tv goes to commercials, and when it comes back, it shows the action on delay so that you don't miss any plays and you never catch up to live action. You won't know the end result until 1 or 2 hours after the game ends.
4) live games are shown on some pay-for -play streaming option without commercials.
As someone with season tickets that goes to seven games a year I honestly don't mind the delays because of the TV timeouts. The thing that kills me is how long halftime lasts.
(03-06-2014 09:32 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ] (03-06-2014 07:43 AM)goofus Wrote: [ -> ]I was thinking today how annoying commercial delays and tv timeouts are making games last longer, especially for the fans in the stands. and I was curious what tv and internet viewers like you would prefer if the tv timeouts were actually eliminated from the live game and the tv broadcasters had to adjust somehow.
Here are some options I thought of. Maybe you can think of some more.
1) show the game live, then tv breaks away to show commercials. When tv comes back to the game, it immediately rejoins the action live and you just miss everything that happened during the commercials.
2) tv goes to commercial, when it comes back, it plays "catch up" by showing replays of every play that you missed and "fast-forwards" through the standing around between plays until it catches up to the live action.
3) tv goes to commercials, and when it comes back, it shows the action on delay so that you don't miss any plays and you never catch up to live action. You won't know the end result until 1 or 2 hours after the game ends.
4) live games are shown on some pay-for -play streaming option without commercials.
For better or for worse, the comfort of the thousands of people in the stands are going to receive a lot lower priority than the potentially millions of people watching on TV. Nothing personal, but I don't like any of those ideas. As a TV viewer, I want every moment live (especially in a Twitter universe where not knowing the result in advance is impossible) and don't want ANYTHING cut out. Anything less than that is unacceptable and I'm sure the TV networks paying billions of dollars for these games would agree. A lot of streaming options actually have few or no commercials (i.e. ESPN3 or the BTN online), which sounded great on paper at first, but believe it or not, the dead air is way more annoying to me than the commercials. Artificially making the TV experience worse in order to accommodate the people in the stands is backwards from how the world is going.
As a TV viewer, I don't want to have to watch commercials for one second longer than I have to. The commercial breaks aren't there for the TV viewers' comfort, they're because the networks demand it. If we as viewers could demand from the networks a way to limit commercials during live sports, I'm all for it. It's the main reason I watch NFL Redzone instead of the local network game of the week (and ESPN Goal Line if I'm not at the game or if my team isn't playing).
You can always record games on your DVR and watch them later, fast forwarding through all the commercial breaks. I often do this.
the "fix" is to improve fan experience. larger video boards, more comfortable seats, better replay angles, free wifi etc.
(03-06-2014 11:46 AM)Chappy Wrote: [ -> ]I think they could cut 1 break out per quarter by going to a PIP like NASCAR does, with the game action in one window and the commercial in another (with game play by play dropping out in favor of the commercial spot's audio).
(03-06-2014 01:59 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote: [ -> ]I personally thought FS1 had it figured out when they first started broadcasting some games... they'd be showing a game, and then the screen of the game would shrink to about 3/4's of the screen and the advertisement banner would wrap along the bottom and the right of the screen.
It was basically a quick ad, that would sit there for a while, you couldn't miss it, all the while the game kept going on.
Either one of these ideas would speed things up and I do not understand why it hasn't already become the norm.