« Something Isn't Right. | Main | The 'Voice of God' »
July 20, 2006
Split-screen or not to split-screen?
By Mike Harper
That is the question.
In March 2005 ESPN impressed me. On an off weekend for the Nextel Cup Series, I tuned into ESPN to watch an IRL event and much to my surprise ESPN was utilizing a concept where they split the screen with live race coverage and commercials.
That week I wrote a column about how the NASCAR broadcasters should follow ESPN in developing the split-screen concept. In my opinion, it’s a brilliant incentive to keep the fans in front of the tube during commercials.
Earlier this year I interviewed ESPN's VP of Programming, Scott Guglielmino. I asked him if the split-screen concept would be implemented for NASCAR and he said, "We do not anticipate doing so."
In a column published this week in the Long Island Press, the split-screen topic was raised and now we find out that ESPN wants to use the concept, however NASCAR wants to kill it. According to Ramsey Poston, NASCAR’s managing director of corporate communications, NASCAR fans don’t benefit from watching an entire race live. "We’ve looked at a lot of options to enhance the fan/viewer experience but feel that a split-screen presentation of ads and racing serves neither the fan nor advertiser," he said.
What? Live racing doesn’t serve the fan?
Poston continued, "Our TV partners do an excellent job of immediately returning to significant track action when it happens during commercials. With replays and other technology, the networks make sure NASCAR fans get the best, most comprehensive race coverage anywhere."
How many times have fans missed a green-flag restart? How many times have fans missed a pass on the track or a wreck because they’re watching a commercial? And how many times are fans stuck watching promo ads for network television shows instead of actual paid ads?
More than a fan should!
In my opinion, this is a slap in the face. Regarding this topic, NASCAR is telling their fan base that the IRL fan deserves the split-screen concept, but NASCAR fans don’t. And revenue from ads mean more than providing live uninterrupted racing even though a network is willing to implement the concept for their viewers.
"We are engaging focus groups and other research in an effort to quantify the positive feedback we’ve received from people who’ve enjoyed the viewing experience," says an ABC/ESPN executive about the split-screen concept.
Hopefully the NASCAR fan base will speak out and ABC/ESPN will have success in convincing NASCAR that this concept is the way to go. Maybe it’s me, but I see the split-screen concept adding value to the NASCAR partnership with their advertisers. In this TIVO technology era, when people can fast-forward through commercials, I’d think NASCAR would see this as an opportunity to increase revenue by providing more live race coverage while promoting advertisers. Am I wrong?
Until the time comes when the split-screen is utilized, I’ll continue to use my TIVO in the way it was meant to be used – record, pause and fast forward!
July 20, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
Once again NASCAR is sticking its big nose where it doesn't belong. If a network pays hundreds of millions of dollars to televise sports I would leave them alone and let them do the job they know best. NASCAR just needs to worry about racing and let ESPN worry about the TV side of things.
Posted by: Mark | Jul 20, 2006 2:37:22 PM
Split screen for a caution or a commercial is an iffy thing. "If" it was a Bristol race, I might be inclined to stay by the screen since there might be action. For Pocono or other boring tracks...I'm watering the lawn, painting the house etc. I think the event matters more than the split screen or not. Just like fans at the track we need a rest now and then for refreshments and nature. I dont think split makes any difference.
Posted by: Keith | Jul 20, 2006 2:54:19 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Advertisements
Subscribe to this blog's feed