Subscribe to this blog's feed« 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
I know this is one fan who would love the split screen. Nascar is obviously not listening to the fans on this one. If ESPN is willing to do it, then Nascar should stay out of it and let ESPN do it.
Posted by: Michelle | Jul 20, 2006 4:35:13 PM
Hey Mike,
Glad you jumped on this topic! I would very much like to see the split screen adopted. It makes watching Indycar racing easier on the eyes. Have read that nascar says the sponsors don't like it (no, can't tell you where I read it).
This fan looks at sponsors willing to share the screen most favorably. It shows that the sponsor really wants to SHOW it's potential customers the race. We are watching billboards during green flag coverage. I submit that we are watching commercials for 3 1/2 hrs!
Will it happen, probably not. Nas wants to be more like the NFL. That would mean a Sunday Ticket type pay-per-view. I have believed for a long time that the coverage is pitiful on purpose.
Would I pay? Maybe as an experiment. Probably not long, as it would go up faster than ticket prices did.
Posted by: Larry | Jul 20, 2006 6:11:52 PM
I've seen split-screen and while it has some usefulness it isn't all it's cracked up to be. WE as fans need to stop complaining and just accept how the telecasts are done, because they can't be done any better.
Posted by: Mike Daly | Jul 20, 2006 6:22:13 PM
and, (just could not leave it alone)
why not go a format made for tv. Have heat races and a feature. They want to turn everything upside down anyway. With heat races, show all green flag racing. Gee, they could even have a half-time show!
Posted by: Larry | Jul 20, 2006 6:24:48 PM
"...because they can't be done any better." WHAT? I usually choose to ignore Mr. Daly, but that statement is beyond belief.
Mike, I was hoping for Side-by-Side when ESPN took over. I don't SIT and watch most races, but when I'm watching IRL, I'll stop and watch the S-B-S just so I won't miss anything. I would do the same with NASCAR or any other sport I watch. The statements you posted were as asinine as Mr. Daly's.
I'd like to know what ESPN did that upset the France family. Remember after ESPN lost their contract, their reporters were not allowed INSIDE the track. They had to report from OUTSIDE the gates. I can't remember the reasoning NASCAR came up with, but I had a feeling someone at ESPN did something to tick someone off. Wonder if those bad feelings are still evident in Daytona.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. So much for looking forward to better coverage. Maybe Brian should just buy a network and produce/direct the "show" himself!
Posted by: Shirley | Jul 20, 2006 6:42:02 PM
Perhaps it would be worth our while to let ESPN know that Nascar doesn't speak for the fans? If enough of us let them know that we support the idea, and are more willing to buy/support products from sponsors that agree tp use a split screen, maybe they would listen to fans, rather than Nascar.
The article also pointed out that split screen might interfere with people purchasing Track Pass (more $$ to Nascar), since that is, at present, the only way to get lap by lap coverage.
Posted by: sal | Jul 20, 2006 8:04:28 PM
Mike Daly, the voice of reason. We pay for lower broadcast prices with commercials. We have to hope the media uses that time in the best possible way.
LOL Sorry MIke...I still think Poconap is a bad venue for NASCAR.
Posted by: Keith | Jul 20, 2006 8:49:01 PM
Can anyone tell me WHEN Nascar EVER listened to it's fans?
Posted by: Tbfka# 5 | Jul 20, 2006 11:02:03 PM
Keith, you can say all that until you're blue in the face and it won't become true.
Shirley, here is what ESPN did to upset NASCAR - they paid the lowest rights fees of all the broadcasters, and they never promoted the sport.
The broadcasters do the best they can; it cannot be done any better than now.
Posted by: Mike Daly | Jul 21, 2006 12:12:48 AM
Nascar would lose $$ that is why they won't allow ESPN to do SBS. On another board i suggested that Pay Per View would better serve the fan that wanted to see commercial free racing at the Cup level. I still feel this way, even if it came at a rather high price, i'd still pay for it. I'd rather watch flag to flag coverage, than sit through 3-4 hours of commercials.
Posted by: Mopardh9 | Jul 21, 2006 5:32:57 AM
Six to Eight laps of racing, four to six missed laps due to commercials. What if this were to happen to NFL, NBA, or MLB coverage. Granted we have no real time outs except for yellow flags.
For the true race fan the split coverage would be ideal. However money is always the number one factor.
Let the fans vote to see what the fans want and show the suits what the people really want.
Posted by: Al | Jul 21, 2006 6:40:09 AM
Believe me, there must be a reason NASCAR is against a split screen...and that is $$$$$$. Somehow, NASCAR feels it will not make/or could lose money on the split screen concept. I don't know how, but for those of us that know NASCAR know that $$$$$ is the only thing they think about. Not the fan, not the sponsors, not the car owners and not the track operators.
Posted by: Ken | Jul 21, 2006 8:45:32 AM
I agree with you. I make it a point now to not to watch commericals. I usually start watching the race an hour later (but now with TNT/NBC, i have to start watching it 1 1/2 hours later) where i can fast forward through the comercials with tivo. Maybe when advertisers start complaining to NASCAR then maybe they will listening because the split screen better serves the fan and the advertisers.
Posted by: Reagan | Jul 21, 2006 8:58:05 AM
This is a GREAT idea. I can't say how many times we have missed significant happenings on the track while we watch promos for the next great movie or comedy series. Split screen would actually benefit the advertiser, since most true race fans would be sitting in front of the TV instead of getting up to do other things while a commercial runs. Split screen? DO IT!!!
Posted by: Mike | Jul 21, 2006 9:03:32 AM
I think you should put it to a vote, on your webb site. and then take the results to NASCAR. I vote for split-screen
Posted by: William Ruger | Jul 21, 2006 9:03:52 AM
Lots of factors to consider here. I don't have a theater-sized screen, so the split-screen images on the IRL telecasts are pretty small. I'm old-fashioned, not much in tune with visual multi-tasking, and therefore don't like a lot of clutter on the screen, so much of modern television is frustrating to me. But if we're putting it to a vote, mark me in the "yea" column. It does represent an acknowledgement of the ongoing, uninterrupted nature of this sport in comparison to the traditional games with halftime breaks, innings, time-outs, et cetera. That's a good thing for TV partners to keep in mind regardless of the package they deliver to us.
Posted by: David Green | Jul 21, 2006 9:16:45 AM
I agree that the split-screen approach being used by ESPN would be most welcome for NASCAR telecasts! As I've attended some 55+ races since 1998, I can honestly say that the "non-commercial" aspect of viewing a race is SO much better than that of a constantly-interrupted viewing on TV. I see so much more at a race that is simply not able to be seen by TV viewers due to the ever-present breaks from the action. It would not even be easy for TV to "replay" what has been missed while away on break because they would constantly be in 'catch-up' mode. I would gladly pay extra money for a Pay-per-view telecast of every race if I could be guaranteed of a continuous live television feed--even if the network has to break--keep the feed ongoing for pre-paid customers. Otherwise, split-screen is the next best thing!
Posted by: Mark Wagner | Jul 21, 2006 9:17:31 AM
Mr. Daly..It is far better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt! Your'e an IDIOT!
Posted by: Stan Welsh | Jul 21, 2006 9:24:20 AM
THANKS NASCAR and BRIAN FRANCE
God forbid you may lose a few $$$, it would be a shame if we actually were able to watch a race on TV. At least NBC/TNT are gone. PLEASE NASCAR dont take Benny with you..
Posted by: Kurt2 | Jul 21, 2006 9:31:02 AM
Here we go again...NASCAR has $$$ in their eyes and tries to tell the fans what we want. Missing restarts, lead changes and wrecks is one of the biggest complaints I hear on a regular basis. We have a network who is trying to address it and NASCAR tries to shut it down. Do the right thing NASCAR and your money will follow. If they keep at it, they are really going to fall on their face.
Posted by: Joe | Jul 21, 2006 9:32:23 AM
I think this is a great idea. Maybe TNT could use it. Last sunday from lap 125 to the end of the race TNT had 16 commercials lasting 40 minutes.How sad is that.
Posted by: Bob9 | Jul 21, 2006 10:03:10 AM
As usual NASCAR is thinking more about the all mighty $$$$ than it's fan base. This is just an other example of NASCAR trying to "save money". As if that's an issue with America's top growing sport.
I believe that if IRL (a sport that was on the decline and is slowly making it's way back up) can "afford" to use a split screen, then NASCAR shouldn't have ANY financial problems with the concept! NASCAR corporate partners and networks aren't concerned with the average fan and more concerned with padding their own pockets. It shouldn't be up to NASCAR whether to use the split screen or not, it's the networks choice.
If I were ESPN/ABC I wouldn't give NASCAR the choice and do it anyway. It's not like the advertisers are losing money anyway. I usually go to the can or get a drink during the commericals anyway not matter what I'm watching!!
Posted by: Rick | Jul 21, 2006 10:14:01 AM
Stan wrote: "Mike Daly is an idiot".
Please Stan, Mike is not an idiot. It's not fair to all the self-respecting idiots out there to be compared to Mike Daly. Now if you called him a MORON, you would be more acurate.
Remember, Daly's the one who likes PocoNAP & NH, restrictor plates, day races, but dislikes night races and short tracks, and thinks our race broadcasts can't be any better. He's in the lowest 1 percentile opinion wise, but is never wrong, because everything he says are "facts" (according to him).
Oh I forgot, I vote FOR the split-screen.
Posted by: BillyRayBubbaBob | Jul 21, 2006 11:01:42 AM
Post a comment
Advertisements
