Lesson from the Olympics: Online Customers are Not Always Right

In recent years, NBC has made a plethora of baffling decisions that justly produced a reputation for being out of touch with today’s television viewer.

No matter what customers say on Twitter, Facebook and message boards, its strategy for broadcasting the 2012 Olympic Games is not one of them.

As the athletic spectacular gets underway, the television media is concerning itself not with NBC’s brilliant profiling of the athletes, which in a single night turned the relatively-unknown members of America’s female gymnastics team into household names. It is not concerning itself with NBC’s expert storytelling, which has continued to cement three swimmers—Michael Phelps, Ryan Lochte and Missy Franklin—as bona fide superstars.

That media, including some of the business’ most highly-regarded critics, is focused squarely on viewers’ supposed vitriol over NBC’s decision to air the key events on tape-delay during the primetime hours.

When it comes to sports and other results-driven entertainment broadcasting, the debate over live versus tape-delayed is an unavoidable one. Excitement over the outcome is a key part of the viewing experience, and audiences are well within reason to prefer watching the action as it actually unfolds.

Social as an Epidemic

And the rise of social media has made the "spoiler" epidemic a considerably more widespread and dangerous one. Now, instead of having to make the conscious decision to locate spoilers for tape-delayed events, Olympics viewers might have to consciously avoid those results likely to propagate their feeds and streams.

If something happens in the afternoon or evening in London, it is unlikely to stay a secret until the primetime hours in America.

But the bigger hazard of social media is its ability to portray the words of the few as the opinion of the masses. The potential for viral escalation can literally turn a handful of Tweets into a movement, often leading reporters, media, brands and even the newsmakers themselves to mistake social sentiment for overall audience sentiment.

Though social users have commented on a number of Olympic pain points, including frustration over the IOC’s refusal to include a tribute to the 1972 Munich victims in its opening ceremony and later NBC’s refusal to air the tribute to the 7/7 bombing victims that did take place, the prevailing issue has been the American broadcaster’s decision to run the London-based events on tape delay.

That reality naturally, and perhaps justly, frustrated some fans, who were looking forward to experiencing these competitions as live events. They wanted to get caught up in the intrigue and mystery of an unknown outcome; they wanted to witness the action unfold as it was actually unfolding.

But thanks to social, that one reaction from some fans was mistaken for the reaction from fans, period. Some fans were outraged by NBC’s strategic decision, and it was therefore irrefutable that the network was failing as America’s only Olympics broadcaster.

Once that determination was made, it seemed key television media could not legally talk about the Olympics without referencing fan ire at NBC’s embarrassing decision.

Deadline.com, the home blog for popular Hollywood reporter Nikki Finke, became particularly passionate about the charge, referencing fan frustration over the tape delay and numerous posts, one of which was simply a stream of angry Tweets posted to the #NBCFail hashtag.

"NBC once again is screwing with (and screwing up) American viewers’ Olympics," wrote Finke. "Which begs the question: why does the IOC keep handing the games on a platinum platter to the Numbskull Broadcasting Company?"

Finke was hardly the only reporter to condemn NBC with such certainty. She was hardly the only one to treat a selection of comments on Twitter and message boards as definitive proof that her negative attitude towards NBC’s broadcast was the correct one.

But a funny thing happened when NBC released the early Nielsen ratings for its Olympic coverage: fans were watching the primetime coverage in droves.

Tweets of Inaccuracy

The "dumb decision" to air the opening ceremony on a delay did not prevent the broadcast from scoring record viewership. The widespread "spoiling" of the first Phelps-Lochte race did not prevent that night’s primetime broadcast from scoring record viewership. And the strong primetime ratings performance is persisting as the Games continue.

The initial reaction was one of bewilderment. With the results already out and viewers so frustrated, how could there still be such a massive audience for the primetime coverage? I mean, so many Twitter, Facebook and message board users HATED NBC for its idiotic decision to broadcast the key events on a tape-delay. Who was left to tune in?

The answer: the audience for the 2012 Olympic Games.

While the negative social sentiment was difficult to ignore, it was not nearly as universally representative as the media led its readers to believe. It was a legitimate reaction, and it was a loud reaction, but it was still just one reaction from what ultimately amounts to a small segment of the potential Olympics audience.

Though NBC’s horrific scheduling decisions over the past few years might suggest otherwise, the network’s brass is not inherently clueless or sadistic. It developed its 2012 Olympics coverage based on a strategic appreciation for how its audience absorbs the games, not based on a lack of appreciation for what the customers really want.

Primetime is the prime time for a reason; it is when families come together to enjoy important television moments. And as the Olympics are, above all, and opportunity to unify families and friends behind the stories and abilities of its national athletic heroes, it makes sense to feature the key events in primetime.

Obviously, the premature availability of results dampens the dynamic, but that is an unavoidable reality of an Olympics competition that takes place in a European time zone. The actual competitions in London are not coordinated with primetime in the US, but given the fact that the nature of American television viewing necessitates programming in that window, NBC would be a fool not to broadcast in that slot.

And if it is going to broadcast something in the most important television segment of the day, does it not make sense to broadcast the day’s most significant competitions and storylines?

There is indeed a large audience for daytime sports (sometimes even larger than it is in primetime), particularly when those events fall on a weekend; it is not as if an afternoon broadcast of a Michael Phelps race would only air for ten or twelve people. But that kind of race is ultimately best suited for the primetime segment; it is what audiences most want to see when they get together for a special primetime event.

Those opposed to NBC’s broadcasting strategy have leveraged the Super Bowl as an analogy; given the importance of the outcome, would NBC ever air the Super Bowl on a tape delay?

It is an interesting point, but those supportive of that analogy are also encouraged to consider another one: would anyone ever air the Super Bowl at 11AM?

The game’s position as a special event necessitates its broadcast on Sunday evening, and that same logic explains NBC’s Olympics broadcasting format.

There is no reason to believe NBC wants to air the Games on a tape delay, and it is quite likely that if the competitions were being held in New York City, the most prominent events would all air live in the United States. But schedulers for the Olympics are not going to run events after midnight in the London home base simply to appease NBC’s American audiences, and so a choice had to be made.

Either downplay the significance of the games by running them live in the afternoon; or solidify their significance by portraying them as primetime events. NBC made the latter decision, and thus far, it is paying off.

Who is "The Internet?"

In recent years, discussion on message boards and social networks has become so powerful that users have begun using the broad term "The Internet" to describe the prevailing online sentiment. They then portray that prevailing online sentiment as overall customer sentiment.

When "Snakes on a Plane" and "Grindhouse" released, they were not niche films appealing to a small segment of the population; they were films that the entire "Internet" wanted to see and, therefore, films that everyone wanted to see. They were going to be massive box office hits.

Until box office data confirmed that they were not.

How many brands, meanwhile, have been pronounced dead after social media fiascos, only for actual financial data to confirm limited—if any—negative effects?

With social conversation becoming a fixture of daily life, it creates a bubble of insulation for many reporters, analysts and brand strategists. They confuse prevailing sentiment with majority sentiment, forgetting that a key hook of social media is its ability to broadcast a singular viewpoint to millions and millions of people.

Social provides an invaluable window into the opinions of customers, and brands would be insane not to pay attention to what audiences are saying.

But they would be just as insane to ignore statistical concepts when monitoring social conversations. "Going viral" does not require support from a statistically significant sample, particularly when it comes to representativeness and scope, and it therefore has no business being treated as gospel. It should be treated as a viewpoint, but it often will not speak to what the bulk of a business’ customers really think.

Has NBC’s coverage of the 2012 Olympics been perfect? Absolutely not. But when it comes to the actual structure of the broadcasts, the key audience—that which is being asked to watch the show on television—is responding favorably, even though "the Internet" has vehemently condemned the structure as a bad one.

As a brand, you certainly listen to both—and all other—perspectives when making strategic decisions.

But when trying to assess the overall customer sentiment, would you feel wise in ignore the strong television ratings simply because some people on Twitter are unhappy?