[pongle]

I'm surprised the IOC didn't put a requirement for a live broadcast into the contracts with the broadcasters.

Putting it out live on a separate channel would probably make sense in terms of segmenting their audience for advertising purposes. I guess since they depend on raw volumes of viewers, instead of necessarily on quality of viewers, they have to push people to all watch the same thing at the same time.

[jrockway]

Why would the IOC ever do anything good for the "end user"? They solely exist to make lots and lots of money. NBC offered them lots of money, so why would the IOC turn that down?

[pongle]

I was surprised because I believe that a large portion of the excitement of sport is its event nature and viewing a live-event live enhances that experience, improving the Olympic brand. I guess the IOC was willing to compromise the brand for the bundle of cash from NBC.

[mdasen]

Well, it's an interesting problem. If the IOC is nice to the "end user", they bring in less revenue. A lot of the revenue that the IOC brings in goes to things like promoting sport. So, if they bring in less revenue, there is less money for charitable purposes.

I tend to agree with your stance and specifically I think all too often non-profits exist more for their own perpetual existence than for a charitable purpose - take 3rd level education in the United States - but one could definitely go the other way.

[thwarted]

Remember the failed Olympic Triple Cast? It might have worked with advertising, but it was pay-per-view.

[jonknee]

He who pays the $900m makes the rules.