• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
NFL - UK Broadcasting Thread
<<
<
40 of 64
>>
>
aberboy
25-10-2015
Originally Posted by mavreela:
“It is nothing to do with Ofcom regulations.

There is nothing in Ofcom regulations about "broadcasting companies," let alone Ofcom have no remit, not care, to decide which companies outside the UK are and are not broadcasting companies.

The BBC could show a McDonald's logo and be compliant with Ofcom regulations.

It is purely a decision made by the two broadcasters for their own reasons.”

They wouldn't be compliant. BT were cautioned recently for their coverage of the Little League World Series with a sponsors logo on screen; they now cut very quickly to their static logo when companies are credited. I doubt either the BBC or Sky would take such a odd stance to a score bar logo if it wasn't for advertising and compliance reasons; considering in previous matches they have shown it.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enforcement/broadcast-bulletins/obb290/
mavreela
25-10-2015
Originally Posted by aberboy:
“They wouldn't be compliant. BT were cautioned recently for their coverage of the Little League World Series with a sponsors logo on screen/”

No, they were cautioned for a "call to action" in the voiceover. As you link states.

Quote:
“However, for the reasons explained above, the broadcast of this sponsorship credit was in breach of Rule 9.22(a).”

Quote:
“9.22 Sponsorship credits must be distinct from advertising. In particular:

a) Sponsorship credits broadcast around sponsored programmes must not contain advertising messages or calls to action. Credits must not encourage the purchase or rental of the products or services of the sponsor or a third party. The focus of the credit must be the sponsorship arrangement itself. Such credits may include explicit reference to the sponsor's products, services or trade marks for the sole purpose of helping to identify the sponsor and/or the sponsorship arrangement.”

A live feed from an overseas broadcaster that has embedded sponsorship is not prohibited where it is outside of the editorial control of the regulated broadcaster.

And that has never been taken to mean they must take a clean feed and providing alternative graphics to avoid such things.
ocav
25-10-2015
Given up and watching it on Yahoo! just because I kind of like knowing the plays and distance information, plus when theres a touchdown, its really weird seeing it as an ouchdown
muppetman11
25-10-2015
Originally Posted by ocav:
“Given up and watching it on Yahoo! just because I kind of like knowing the plays and distance information, plus when theres a touchdown, its really weird seeing it as an ouchdown”

I've had a few issues with the stream locking up on Yahoo and it's certainly not an ISP issue as I tried it over 4G and the result was the same.
ocav
25-10-2015
Originally Posted by muppetman11:
“I've had a few issues with the stream locking up on Yahoo and it's certainly not an ISP issue as I tried it over 4G and the result was the same.”

Haven't had any problems, a bit jumpy when cutting between the game and the US based adverts.
mavreela
25-10-2015
I have had the Yahoo! feed on my phone since midday using O2 3G (would have to lose my old unlimited data contract to get 4G) and it did once before half time go black and stop. Quitting and reloading Safari fixed it.

Otherwise it has been fine, and less buffering delay than iPlayer.

Incidentally, on the latter what frame rate does the BBC use because motion on the iPlayer is incredibly smooth, nothing like the other streaming or broadcast options.
popeye13
25-10-2015
Originally Posted by aberboy:
“They wouldn't be compliant. BT were cautioned recently for their coverage of the Little League World Series with a sponsors logo on screen; they now cut very quickly to their static logo when companies are credited. I doubt either the BBC or Sky would take such a odd stance to a score bar logo if it wasn't for advertising and compliance reasons; considering in previous matches they have shown it.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/enf...letins/obb290/”

It comes down to a rule OFCOM has called 'Undue Prominence' but showing the Yahoo logo as part of a broadcast wouldn't fall under that rule so they'd be fine.
If it was onscreen as part of advertising, they'd have to blur it or make an effort to mask it like ITV did when they had the IPL and there was a Pepsi logo onscreen.
If you watch replays of US sports on BT, they blur the sponsor and onscreen logo's of sponsors to comply with that rule.
If its static onscreen, as in, always there, they have to mask it live. (Or supposed to but OFCOM doesn't always enforce this as its not always practical to mask it live)
The Yahoo logo isn't there because of sponsorship but because they're showing it so its the same as having the FOX or ESPN or CBS logo so that rule doesn't apply.
Its purely because both BBC & Sky don't want to give them free advertising

What id like to know is why the NFL and US sports organisations such as NFL, MLS, NHL in general are so incapable of creating a world-feed without all the host broadcaster crap onscreen i will never know!
MLS have finally done it so whats the holdup for the rest?!
mavreela
25-10-2015
Originally Posted by popeye13:
“What id like to know is why the NFL and US sports organisations such as NFL, MLS, NHL in general are so incapable of creating a world-feed without all the host broadcaster crap onscreen i will never know!”

The NFL is not popular enough internationally and the NHL has over 1,200 regular season games that for both it is difficult to justify the value of doing so.

It is not like the Premier League who earn billions from international rights that it adds value for them to produce additional programming and so can also tailor the match coverage to provide a standard, clean, version for international broadcasters.

I guess the difference for MLS is that soccer is globally popular and they do not clash with the European leagues. So by offering suitably packaged matches they can attract broadcasters to buy as a secondary offering alongside more premium leagues. Plus they only have around 350 matches per season.
hallstar
25-10-2015
It was the same for the Miami game but it is the endzones that are bugging me most. Although the lack of play clock is not great.
Chris_Wilson
25-10-2015
The plus points were the great game and kevin harlan on the call
mavreela
25-10-2015
Originally Posted by sheff71:
“Looks like I was right with the BBC coverage of the London game, and they hadn't allowed enough spare time if it ran over - so the rugby was the casualty.”

And today, with a slot the same length and the game being contested until the end, the F1 highlights started only 109 seconds after 5pm. It could have been 30 seconds after, but the BBC still showed three different promos between the programmes.
Bosox
25-10-2015
Only caught a couple of minutes of the Wembley game today but those scoreboard graphics looked awful. If BBC/Sky decided to do that rather than being forced to do it then that's really poor.
ukdude7
26-10-2015
So Yahoo numbers were

33.6 million streams
15.2 million unique user streams
5 million + international unique user streams

1.64M average minute audience in the USA. The previous low for a national US game was 1.9M for a game on NFLN.

BBC2 coverage got 381,000 viewers.
TheSubaru2012
26-10-2015
Originally Posted by ukdude7:
“So Yahoo numbers were

33.6 million streams
15.2 million unique user streams
5 million + international unique user streams

1.64M average minute audience in the USA. The previous low for a national US game was 1.9M for a game on NFLN.

BBC2 coverage got 381,000 viewers.”

15.2m is a fantastic figure for Yahoo which is higher than the average MNF game which is on cable, the NFL and Yahoo should do more of this, the stream was fantastic as well.

33.6m worldwide... I'm going to wrap that up in one word... phenomenal

1.64m for the CBS figures is the lowest rated game in the USA however considering it was only on TV in the home markets that actually a very good rating unlike the latter which is available across the US.

The 381k on BBC2 is better than the first game but it is still not great, is there any Sky Sports 3 ratings anywhere for the game?
ukdude7
26-10-2015
Originally Posted by TheSubaru2012:
“15.2m is a fantastic figure for Yahoo which is higher than the average MNF game which is on cable, the NFL and Yahoo should do more of this, the stream was fantastic as well.

33.6m worldwide... I'm going to wrap that up in one word... phenomenal

1.64m for the CBS figures is the lowest rated game in the USA however considering it was only on TV in the home markets that actually a very good rating unlike the latter which is available across the US.

The 381k on BBC2 is better than the first game but it is still not great, is there any Sky Sports 3 ratings anywhere for the game?”

Not seen the Sky Sports 3 ratings yet. Prob have to wait until they're released by barb next week.

From recode.net...

'CNN’s Brian Stelter crunched the data and concluded that about 2.3 million people watched on average, or were watching simultaneously, the closest we’d get to a TV ratings figure.'

I've also seen it said that Yahoo were autoplaying the game on Yahoo Mail.
TheSubaru2012
26-10-2015
Originally Posted by ukdude7:
“From recode.net...

'CNN’s Brian Stelter crunched the data and concluded that about 2.3 million people watched on average, or were watching simultaneously, the closest we’d get to a TV ratings figure.'

I've also seen it said that Yahoo were autoplaying the game on Yahoo Mail.”

Still that's a great rating, overall I'm very pleased with the information released
Wallasey Saint
26-10-2015
Originally Posted by hallstar:
“It was the same for the Miami game but it is the endzones that are bugging me most. Although the lack of play clock is not great.”

The endzones have been weird recently, on the main camera they've been coloured in, yet on other cameras they only have the outline of the team name/nickname.
seanwalford
26-10-2015
Worth adding yesterday's rating over here on BBC 2 again likely affected with super Sunday line-up, both Tyneside and Manchester derby's plus Liverpool vs Saints. Meant it was football for me and likely a few others.
mavreela
27-10-2015
Originally Posted by Wallasey Saint:
“The endzones have been weird recently, on the main camera they've been coloured in, yet on other cameras they only have the outline of the team name/nickname.”

The virtual graphics only work on the main camera position. Though it is odd they feel the need to do it anyway.

Because of the schedule at Wembley, first game before an England one, now two NFL ones back-to-back, they cannot fully pain the pitch. But this is no different to the US where football and baseball teams shared the same stadium which also meant uncoloured end zones whilst the seasons overlapped.

Admittedly that is not much of a problem now that only Oakland remains in that position.

Originally Posted by seanwalford:
“Worth adding yesterday's rating over here on BBC 2 again likely affected with super Sunday line-up, both Tyneside and Manchester derby's plus Liverpool vs Saints. Meant it was football for me and likely a few others.”

The Premier League does seems to be taking the NFL as a serious threat the way they have been scheduling their biggest fixtures against the first two of the NFL games in London.

I assume the only reason they do not next week is because it precedes a Champions League round, with all the scheduling restrictions that brings. Although they got lucky that because of the first test against New Zealand the BBC has had to put the NFL on the red button.
Ads
27-10-2015
Caught up with the game on Iplayer last night, after going to Wembley on Sunday. I didn't think the BBC scorebar looked that bad, but the game clock was weird, as it kept flickering.

381k isn't great, but I guess that would be the average across the whole 4 hours, including the half an hour build up - the peak may have been over half a million.

Agree with the poster that said its great to hear Kevin Harlan - he is one of the best NFL commentators, but only around 4th choice for CBS for some reason.
aberboy
27-10-2015
Originally Posted by mavreela:
“The virtual graphics only work on the main camera position. Though it is odd they feel the need to do it anyway.

Because of the schedule at Wembley, first game before an England one, now two NFL ones back-to-back, they cannot fully pain the pitch. But this is no different to the US where football and baseball teams shared the same stadium which also meant uncoloured end zones whilst the seasons overlapped.

Admittedly that is not much of a problem now that only Oakland remains in that position.



The Premier League does seems to be taking the NFL as a serious threat the way they have been scheduling their biggest fixtures against the first two of the NFL games in London.

I assume the only reason they do not next week is because it precedes a Champions League round, with all the scheduling restrictions that brings. Although they got lucky that because of the first test against New Zealand the BBC has had to put the NFL on the red button.”

It's not the Premier League who put the fixtures up against the NFL; when the fixture list is compiled all games are a standard Saturday 3pm kick off. It's Sky and BT who move games into the required slots for broadcast.
The complexities of the football fixtures is so large that the NFL games wouldn't be a factor in the decision making.
ukdude7
27-10-2015
Originally Posted by mavreela:
“
I assume the only reason they do not next week is because it precedes a Champions League round, with all the scheduling restrictions that brings. Although they got lucky that because of the first test against New Zealand the BBC has had to put the NFL on the red button.”

Though you could say the NFL got lucky with England and northern hemisphere's poor performances at the RWC meaning the semi final on Sunday had less of a draw to ITV and also any post tournament growth for rugby less likely.

Also the Lions v Falcons game last year (kick off 1:30) was up against Burnley v Everton on Sky Sports (Man u v Chelsea kicked off at 4pm) and that also didn't rate very well (369,000 with peak of 461,000 at kick off) despite lead in programming from 9:30 on Channel 4.

No NFL TV figures in the UK show any growth over the last 4/5 years. It's very static although it's been dipping this year on Sky Sports (Gamepass international subs are up 22% this year though - but who knows what those actual numbers are.)
mavreela
27-10-2015
Originally Posted by aberboy:
“It's not the Premier League who put the fixtures up against the NFL; when the fixture list is compiled all games are a standard Saturday 3pm kick off. It's Sky and BT who move games into the required slots for broadcast.”

Do you seriously believe there is any chance that British broadcasters would decide against showing a Manchester derby, Liverpool derby, or Arsenal vs Man United?

And do you seriously believe whoever has the first (and second) pick packages would skip those matches to let another broadcaster chose them?

They may have technically been scheduled for Saturday at 3pm before broadcasters got to start moving things around. But there was no doubt from the moment the league picked those fixtures that they would be played on the Sunday afternoon.

As for the complexities of scheduling, if you truly do not think that the Premier League, or any league, does not factor in what else is happening on specific weekends then you are very naïve.

Originally Posted by ukdude7:
“Though you could say the NFL got lucky with England and northern hemisphere's poor performances at the RWC meaning the semi final on Sunday had less of a draw to ITV and also any post tournament growth for rugby less likely.”

I would not because major tournaments still attract general sport fans to neutral matches too.

The loss in audience for such matches compared to home nations one is not the general sports fans but those who only ever watch sport when it is their country in major tournaments, or the Grand National.

As for last year, you know full well the difference being on the BBC makes compared to Channel 4 (or anyone else) that you cannot compare figures like-for-like.

I also would not call Sunday Brunch 'lead-in' programming. They did a tie-in to promote the coverage, but that does not automatically make the audience for the two compatible. I accept I am grossly stereotyping, but middle England housewives will not suddenly want to watch football just because they had Adam Richman on.

(Incidentally is Richman okay? I still do not know who he is other than he has something to do with cooking and who turns up on TV at all the Wembley games. But I do not remember seeing him on BBC or Sky on Sunday.)

Out of interest, how many sports have shown growth of recent? It seems to me a lot of sports on TV see to be in decline (as is he general trend with television). That being the case, to remain static would be an achievement.
ukdude7
27-10-2015
Originally Posted by mavreela:
“Out of interest, how many sports have shown growth of recent? It seems to me a lot of sports on TV see to be in decline (as is he general trend with television). That being the case, to remain static would be an achievement.”

Didn't Sky Sports come out last year to say they had seen a 23% increase in viewing across all their sports?
Darts has definitely seen another increase in the last five years I would say (though is that a sport?).

The thing is no-one is banging the drum about how the interest in their sport is growing like NFLUK does when viewing figures do not back it up.
aberboy
27-10-2015
Originally Posted by mavreela:
“Do you seriously believe there is any chance that British broadcasters would decide against showing a Manchester derby, Liverpool derby, or Arsenal vs Man United?

And do you seriously believe whoever has the first (and second) pick packages would skip those matches to let another broadcaster chose them?

They may have technically been scheduled for Saturday at 3pm before broadcasters got to start moving things around. But there was no doubt from the moment the league picked those fixtures that they would be played on the Sunday afternoon.

As for the complexities of scheduling, if you truly do not think that the Premier League, or any league, does not factor in what else is happening on specific weekends then you are very naïve.
.”

I wasn't suggesting that a broadcaster wouldn't want to show these games.
The football league fixtures do factor in events that happen; but an event like this weekends NFL wouldn't affect the fixture list in the massive way that you are suggesting; the Rugby WC hasn't affected it. (Fulham for example played at home this Saturday despite their being a semi final held a few miles down the road)
The NFL is a niche sport in the UK. I highly doubt the Premier League are that concerned.

And yes, local factors do affect the football fixtures; I am not 'naive' as you suggest.
<<
<
40 of 64
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map