I got to watch a portion of the television broadcast of the 2012 New Balance Indoor Grand Prix. It has been the first television broadcast of a track meet I've seen in quite sometime, honestly I don't know when the last time I watched track on TV was?? When you are at the events its very rare I get to go back and watch a broadcast after the fact. Fortunately my flight left Chicago at 1:55pm and I got to watch about 35 minutes of the broadcast. Unfortunately, it was not very good.
I was voicing some opinions on twitter and felt I should organize some of these thoughts and share with the community because damn, we seriously need some work on this stuff!!! The presentation of track and field is horrendous….at least the TV broadcast of the NB Indoor Grand Prix. I am not throwing sponsors or anyone specific under the bus here either, this is to get conversation going around what is happening with the sport. If I was to pick one person though, I'd hope the producer of these shows gets an eye on this list to help invoke some thought about how track and field is presented. And side question, who is the producer and do they produce all televised track events in the US? We do this every week at a "smaller" level, but we understand the sport and presentation of it…..hire us as consultants and see how the next broadcast goes. Ok ok, onto my thoughts…
Note: I watched the broadcast from a Chicago airport restaurant that had multiple TVs, none of which had sound as the airport was music playing throughout the terminal. I picked a TV that had no super bowl coverage or college basketball and also looked to be around people that weren't really paying attention. Sad to admit I was worried about pissing someone off by asking the waitress to put on track and field. Speaking of the waitress, when I asked her to put on ESPN2 she asked what was showing. I said track and field. She tilted her head and said "what?" I repeated and she said "I don't even know what that is." To our (track in the US) defense, she may have been foreign (I would have guessed eastern european??) so maybe if I had called it athletics or running she would have understood….but regardless, someone in the US didn't know what track and field was. For a moment I didn't think they were going to change it. The manager came to change the channel and saw track and field on the viewing guide, looked around kind of confused and was about to disregard the waitress's request. I spoke up to assure him I had asked for the TV to be tune to that station. He laughed a little and said "Oh, ok ok, got it!" The television tuned in just as the 400 meters was finishing. I felt a small victory that no one in eyesight looked disgusted with the change.
1. Negativity. First thing I saw was subtitles from an analyst (not sure which one, but I could take a guess) saying that Maggie Vessey was running out of time to figure out the event. This wasn't the direct quote but it is what I interpreted from what I read. If I wasn't a diehard track fan and working in the sport, seeing that I would think "oh this woman is probably on the verge of retirement" or on the outs in the sport. Maggie just made the last two world teams and made it too her first championship final this past summer….why are we choosing to say negative things. "Hey this is the best runner in the field and one of the best in the world, she better figure her s*** out"……WHAT??? That doesn't make any sense. Maggie is the only US 800 meter run to make the last two world teams so maybe she did have some things figured out?? I read a tweet after I caught my flight that said the broadcast featured Centro before the race and when he didn't finish up from they said something like "Centro needs to learn how to mix it up." Seriously? The college kid just earned a bronze medal and yesterday ran his fastest time ever in his first pro race of his career. Go interview the guy, let the people hear what he has to say about his race if he's a guy you want to highlight (more on this point later) but no need to make rando statements about learning to mix it up. Its freaking February and a season opener. Refrain from the negativity on live TV, unwarranted and irrelevant negativity. This leads me to my next point….
2. Build up the athletes, not tear them down. This isn't an opinion only about this broadcast, but others in the past. Its also an opinion I've heard through talking with athletes that have been victim to this. I think it was Doc Patton I spoke with (Doc, correct me if I'm wrong) that asked me what other pro sport do you watch that people are told the athletes are not doing things correctly or not that impressive? None? If Derrick Rose or Tom Brady has a bad game, yeah they'll get some flack for that but at the end of the day they are amazing athletes and that's what sells tickets and tunes people into their games. # of touchdowns/rushing yards, points per game, etc….stats of why the players are the best is what you hear in major sports. If we have to downplay or always tell people they have to work on things, then why are they on TV and why are we expecting people to watch them…..people that don't know track and are flicking through the channels. I have never heard someone dissect and instruct Lebron on his jump shot. These athletes are the best in the world so lets not focus on what they "need to work on in a limited amount of time", lets talk about why what they do is so special. Side note, I challenge any of you to measure 27 feet in your house. Chances are there probably isn't an uninterrupted 27' in your house but if there is that will give you a good reference point of a good long jump. I did that in college to get a sense of how far our 25' long jumper was really going and holy s***! From the back of my bedroom, through the living room to the door of the guest bathroom. I instantly had a greater respect for LJ. What the athletes do is amazing, make it known to the public!
3. Be relevant to the general public. And no, this does not mean dumb it down. Another tweet I saw after I was no longer watching was about the reference of pace makers. That alone is something that shouldn't even be on TV in track and field IMO, but even further, why are we discussing pace makers from an event that took place a week ago that I would venture to say, not many people even saw? If we need to take time in a broadcast to talk about how a rabbit did a bad job at a meet we aren't even watching then "Houston, we have a problem." Seriously, is that all there was to talk about? Talk about confusing a viewer who is unfamiliar with the sport. Furthermore…
4. NO SOLO MISSIONS ON TV! One of the few races I got to see was the women's 2 mile…a race that is very similar to the 3k and makes you ask "why did they run both?" That whole thing is ridiculous and I'm not going to even address that here. But the point is, we shouldn't be watching a time trial on live television. Image this: you don't know anything about track, you switch the TV to this event with two women running….one drops out….now there is one woman running alone…..oh wait there is other people on the banked oval too…..am i watching two different things?…..oh wait, this is all the same thing which i think they usually call a race…..
Hopefully you see what I'm getting at. In actuality, the race would have been more exciting if they just focused on the pack…that was actually a race. If an athlete doesn't want to race, they shouldn't be in the meet. Not sure if Dibaba was avoiding competition but thats what it looks like when you see Defar in a stacked 3k field (which props to her, she looks like she's in a good place right now with how she destroyed everyone). The only way you could try to market a race like the 2 mile is as a world record attempt, which in that case you really only need the one athlete in the race anyway….but you'd need those weird things we call pacers. (remember, thoughts coming from the point of view of someone that doesn't know the sport well if at all)
5. Need actual races and match-ups. We need to make these races mean something and the way you do that is with people. You and I can probably get geeked out by watching one man/woman running really fast but is that was is compelling for people watching on TV? How many times on TV have you seen a guy try to shoot consecutive free throws in basketball or a pitcher throw 100 mph fast balls into a radar gun. None. Those things are impressive but its not exciting or competitive. Why do we watch sports? At the very basic level, I think we watch because we want to see someone win over another in a competitive setting. Creating races with great competition and head to head match-ups does this. If they run the two mile and had Defar vs. Dibaba how sweet would that have been. And then have the 3k if you want and its the "Battle for US supremacy" with all the top Americans. Those would have been awesome races and great story lines. The head to head thing is ridiculous now a days with athletes never racing each other. Money, ego and whatever else all takes account into that but…..ATTENTION ATHLETES: You will NOT last forever in the sport. You will not be remembered in your career for how much appearance money you gained by showing up to a race, but you will be remember by racing the best and making memorable competition within the sport. Why is the sport not talked about on a greater level? I'm guessing a big reason is because these kind of match-ups happen once or twice a year. What sport has the best compete so infrequently? Talk about something thats hard to follow. I am getting off the broadcast topic a little here….
6. Intro the athletes in the field. While I was watching the broadcast, it came back from a commercial and almost immediately the gun went off. With no sound it stood out even more that the broadcast went immediately from a break to a race. After seeing Dibaba I realized it was the 2 mile, but I assure you the guy next to me had no idea. Without sound I didn't know if there was an intro to the race or fields so I asked via twitter and a few responded that they didn't really say much before the race. If you're not going to put effort into presenting an event, why present it at all? If production doesn't care enough to put time into making the event noteworthy, then why would you expect viewers to care. Every race should have a run down or image of competitor names and a big/bold graphic of what the event is. And it would be nice if the competitors PRs in the events were shown so that a viewer could easily see who the favorites are and could form their own expectation of what might happen. If you have people in the field lets let people know their credentials for the race. And no, not everyone will be highlighted as much as the best names but they shouldn't be totally disregarded, otherwise whats the point in having them at all for a broadcast.
6b. (added to original post) Tom Bernhard, a follower of ours, brought up a good point on our facebook wall that I neglected to mention. Stop focusing on one athlete! Not sure about NB Indoor GP, but in most broadcasts in the US this happens a lot. When I was young I remember watching the 100 meters on TV and knowing the names of guys like Carl Lewis, Dennis Mitchell, Leroy Burrell, Michael Marsh, Jon Drummond...the field of athletes running an event. Every athlete had major credentials and reasons they were part of the elite field. We rarely see that anymore. Now the focus is on one athlete and the problem is if that athlete doesn't do well everything just seems out of place. One of my favorite examples is Tyson Gay at the Pre classic a couple years ago. They only talked about Tyson and "the curve." Apparently they thought the storyline should be how the race was going to be between him and this bend on the track because it was where he was injured the year prior. Seriously?? They expected people to believe and get into the idea that a person was competing against at turn? And in the end Tyson got beat by Walter Dix who is a great athlete but they didn't bother to highlight him at all. If I didn't know anything about track I would be wondering what was going on....shoot I do know about track and I was still wondering! Make the field important. They sport will not survive on one person. I could go one about more, but instead I will leave you with this question...when Usain Bolt is done with the sport, what will be left for people to promote? Relying on one person is not a small way to grow a sport, sport stays (hopefully) while individuals come and go.
7. Feature an athlete and follow through. In a few of the races there was an athlete feature. The only one I actually saw was David Oliver and fortunately he won the hurdles so that worked out nicely. However I was told via twitter that Matt Centrowitz was featured in the 3k but after the race he was not talked about much (with the exception of the negative comment we discussed earlier). If you are going to put the time into featuring someone, you should speak with them after the competition regardless of their results to follow up with the story you started. This happens all too often. You try to make an athlete stand out to others but its done half assed. Now because you wrote this person off in the broadcast for not fulfilling your expectations, the viewers see the person as not that big of a deal. Now there is a disconnect in what they are viewing, not good.
8. For points 6 and 7 this would require more time in the broadcast to accomplish those things so you may ask how do you get more time in a small window. Answer: CUT OUT THE FLUFF! No offense to the girl's high school milers, they are incredible young athletes but was the race TV worthy? Was it compelling to watch a girl run 200 meters of a race and then show an instant replay of it? Again, not talking smack on the girls milers here but think in terms of compelling TV for a non-track fan. It seemed like it was just thrown in there as a space filler when you could have used that time to intro a field in a more major race or talk to centro after the 3k. Instead of letting viewers get to know some of these athletes a little more we have just thrown more athletes at them that they know nothing about. Not all races need to be in a broadcast, if they are not compelling for TV then leave them out…..especially in a broadcast that is tape delayed! Also, before the hurdles it showed the guys just standing at their blocks with Ryan Wilson picking his nails and looking uninterested. Show action, highlight clips of the competitors or something to get the race amped up! If we have minimal opportunities to present the sport to a national audience then we need to be more careful on how its done. Save the fluff for a webcast that us die-hards will watch.
9. This isn't directed specifically at this broadcast seeing as how I had no sound but this is something that should be kept in mind for TV….make it about the race and not about the time. As I mentioned earlier, when you're on TV it needs to be about athletes competing against one another not about them and a stopwatch. Maybe a split is mentioned here or there, but never should be the main focus (unless some world record attempt is being thrown in which is very rare now a days). A great race should be able to live by itself with the competition where as a great time should be an enhancement of the performance you just watched, the icing on the cake if you will. I admit, I am guilty of this in our broadcasts sometimes with college track and field where we focus a lot on time with qualifying marks and breaking barriers (i.e. 4 minute mile)….however, we are catering to a different audience that understands that part of the sport. But I still believe competition is the key and its why I've grown to love the dual meet format over the past two years. Thats something that should be broadcast on TV….teams, points, a winner, a loser and times are irrelevant.
10. Camera shots. Track is a beautiful sport with the athletes, competition, emotion and the fact that there is no time outs, the gun goes off and there's no stopping the action. So now lets bring that action out and smack viewers in the face with it! The men's 60m hurdles, one of the fastest events out there and then throw in some obstacles. Did you see how close the guys are to the hurdles and each other?? Probably not because the cameras didn't do a great job of showing that. There was one main camera which was a side angle that wasn't even in line with the finish and thats what people saw. There was no zoomed in slo-mo replay of Merritt and Oliver going over the hurdles and fighting for the win, but there should have been. Did you see the slow mo shots they used in Daegu?? They were so sick! If I had the slow-mo footage they had of Bekele dropping out of the 10k you would be amazed at the detail in emotion that it provided. We saw it in the media room with absolutely no sound and it was amazing. Give fans some drama somehow! If you treat a 7 second race as simply that then I wouldn't call that TV compelling.
11. (added to original post) One thing I left out of this blogis the intro and exit of the broadcasts. Good intro, good recap....both are great opportunities to educate/inform people on the event and leave on a good note. When you watch a major sporting event on TV there are always analysts talking about the upcoming event, things to look for and how it plays into the bigger picture of the season. Again, not having sound and missing the very beginning of the broadcast I am not sure how the show opened up. I did see Ato/Lewis/Dwight/Tim highlight some key athletes like Mo Farah, Dibaba and Defar. I also noticed Galen Rupp, Jenny Simpson and Shannon Rowbury mentioned so that was good. However its never structured consistently. When you watch NFL or NBA you know what to expect and you know they will analyze the competition at the conclusion of the event, which I feel is very important. You look back at what happened and again, like you should have done in the beginning, talk about how it all fits into the bigger picture. In this case that bigger picture is easy....the Olympic Games, start building it up! I'd be curious to know how it closed but based on twitter comments from NB Indoor and US Open it sounded like it ended abruptly. This is pretty typical with track broadcasts I remember watching. It always seems like the broadcast is rushed to finish on time, like we someone is standing over the production team with their watch out saying "you have 10 seconds left before you are done!" In any broadcast you should plan for some kind of close, especially with a tape delayed broadcast where you have the ability to do that. Again, get rid of the fluff and plan for this. Letting viewers leave the broadcast with a recap of what they saw, where they can expect to see it again and how to follow these athletes along their journey to the olympic would be a great start. Don't rush out the door leaving people without a proper goodbye.
A huge problem in track and field is that track meets are not made for entertainment first. They are made for athletes, coaches and at the pro level they revolve a lot around what a few key athletes are making for money. And then after all that fans are considered and a TV broadcast seems to be an after thought, or at least thats the perception that is given. This equation needs to be flipped around at all levels, especially college with these loooooong events. Two to three consecutive 10-12 hour days its pretty crazy. High school, college and professional all need to think about entertaining fans, fans in the stands. Obviously athletes and coaches are going to come to a good event because its a great opportunity to race, hit times, etc… But how are you going to fill what little stands that they have with fans? With programs getting cut and football/basketball being the major players in collegiate athletics its more important now than every that these things are considered. Show your administration there is a value for your sport and that it's something people are interested in. Make the final day of competition about the fans with the best athletes and races on the track and market it out in your local communities. Get some music, an MC/interviewer and an excited annoucner. Again, this is moving away from the broadcast but its all a part of the pie we know as "problems with track and field." I feel that everyone who puts on a major event (an event that us track geeks see as a major) has a responsibility to try and grow the sport at their local levels. Forget the time events are run because coaches want to try and catch the last flight out on a Saturday afternoon, when I hear that I am like WTF?? If we expect changes at the professional level and on TV then it needs to start at the base and work its way up.
Two more asides from the broadcasts. 1) Full fields need to be made and announced ahead of time. What kind of major events don't have fields announced two days before the actual event? Don't have the event if you can't get athletes that are interested. I am not sure what the requirements are to host major competition, but I know at some meets certain events need to be included or there has to be a certain number of events presented (if someone has the rules around this at the professional level please weigh in below). Whatever the reasons, these major professional meets need to fill the event with competition that can be promoted. And this is on the athletes too when going back to match-ups. Athletes need to be more willing to announce where they are going to race. Sometimes track and field is a big secret and no one can know where people will be and who they will be competing against. NBA, NFL, NCAA basketball/football schedules are made a year in advance? I know this isn't totally realistic in track and field, but we don't even know week to week where people are going to race. Again, example of the sport being only for the athlete and not the fans.
2) I received a few comments on twitter while I was throwing out some opinions of the broadcast, comments that were kind of sad to read. "Having Tim Hutchings on commentary over Tom Hammond greatly enhances the broadcast, so lets just take what we can get." Let's take what we can get? And should we take it at the expense of the sport? I hope that defeatist attitude doesn't live in a majority of you out there otherwise we're in trouble. I am all for having track and field on TV, but I am not totally on board with the thought that any TV time is good time. I remember the broadcast of the NCAA Cross Country Championships, I think it was two years ago or maybe three, and the broadcast was terrible. I couldn't help but think that we threw the sport further under the bus and lost many potential fans due to the presentation of the event. Thats when I first said, if we can't do it well then we shouldn't do it at all. If you produce crap, the expectation of the next event will be crap. Then after people come to associate the sport with that kind of broadcast what do they expect come Olympic Trials time? What was once the biggest sport at the Olympics now becomes associated with a negative experience. I am not convinced showing track on TV just to show it helps promote it, I lean the opposite way. And to touch on that first part of the twitter statement... I think Tim Hutchings is great, one of the best out there for track and field, but can we end the myth that it takes a forgein commentator to make track and field exciting?? That's ridiculous, nationality has nothing to do with bringing excitement to a broadcast. Tim is knowledge, gets excited, shows emotion and brings that out in his work. Its not his British roots that enhances the broadcast.
I think a major test of a broadcast should be watching the first 30 minutes with no sound. It was a real interesting experience that helped me think about some of these issues. When you are competing for viewership against football and basketball we need to step up the game with limited opportunity. I could sit and watch any major sporting event with no sound because I understand the competitive nature of what is trying to be achieve at a given event. We need to do that with broadcasts of track and field. How are we grabbing people to watch the sport and understand at the most basic level.
That being said, there is a huge opportunity to improve our presentation. I think track and field is an amazing sport, so we need to figure this out. Seriously, hire Flotrack to consult with you on the next TV broadcast. You can even hire us to produce your athlete features! We do it ever week!! Anyway, that's where I'm at and remember I didn't get to see all of the broadcast so if I misspoke about anything please call me out. I'm sure there were some good things that happened in the broadcast but I wasn't able to catch them due to my flight. I welcome all opinions because like I said, we have to get this conversation start and then keep it going!
I was voicing some opinions on twitter and felt I should organize some of these thoughts and share with the community because damn, we seriously need some work on this stuff!!! The presentation of track and field is horrendous….at least the TV broadcast of the NB Indoor Grand Prix. I am not throwing sponsors or anyone specific under the bus here either, this is to get conversation going around what is happening with the sport. If I was to pick one person though, I'd hope the producer of these shows gets an eye on this list to help invoke some thought about how track and field is presented. And side question, who is the producer and do they produce all televised track events in the US? We do this every week at a "smaller" level, but we understand the sport and presentation of it…..hire us as consultants and see how the next broadcast goes. Ok ok, onto my thoughts…
Note: I watched the broadcast from a Chicago airport restaurant that had multiple TVs, none of which had sound as the airport was music playing throughout the terminal. I picked a TV that had no super bowl coverage or college basketball and also looked to be around people that weren't really paying attention. Sad to admit I was worried about pissing someone off by asking the waitress to put on track and field. Speaking of the waitress, when I asked her to put on ESPN2 she asked what was showing. I said track and field. She tilted her head and said "what?" I repeated and she said "I don't even know what that is." To our (track in the US) defense, she may have been foreign (I would have guessed eastern european??) so maybe if I had called it athletics or running she would have understood….but regardless, someone in the US didn't know what track and field was. For a moment I didn't think they were going to change it. The manager came to change the channel and saw track and field on the viewing guide, looked around kind of confused and was about to disregard the waitress's request. I spoke up to assure him I had asked for the TV to be tune to that station. He laughed a little and said "Oh, ok ok, got it!" The television tuned in just as the 400 meters was finishing. I felt a small victory that no one in eyesight looked disgusted with the change.
1. Negativity. First thing I saw was subtitles from an analyst (not sure which one, but I could take a guess) saying that Maggie Vessey was running out of time to figure out the event. This wasn't the direct quote but it is what I interpreted from what I read. If I wasn't a diehard track fan and working in the sport, seeing that I would think "oh this woman is probably on the verge of retirement" or on the outs in the sport. Maggie just made the last two world teams and made it too her first championship final this past summer….why are we choosing to say negative things. "Hey this is the best runner in the field and one of the best in the world, she better figure her s*** out"……WHAT??? That doesn't make any sense. Maggie is the only US 800 meter run to make the last two world teams so maybe she did have some things figured out?? I read a tweet after I caught my flight that said the broadcast featured Centro before the race and when he didn't finish up from they said something like "Centro needs to learn how to mix it up." Seriously? The college kid just earned a bronze medal and yesterday ran his fastest time ever in his first pro race of his career. Go interview the guy, let the people hear what he has to say about his race if he's a guy you want to highlight (more on this point later) but no need to make rando statements about learning to mix it up. Its freaking February and a season opener. Refrain from the negativity on live TV, unwarranted and irrelevant negativity. This leads me to my next point….
2. Build up the athletes, not tear them down. This isn't an opinion only about this broadcast, but others in the past. Its also an opinion I've heard through talking with athletes that have been victim to this. I think it was Doc Patton I spoke with (Doc, correct me if I'm wrong) that asked me what other pro sport do you watch that people are told the athletes are not doing things correctly or not that impressive? None? If Derrick Rose or Tom Brady has a bad game, yeah they'll get some flack for that but at the end of the day they are amazing athletes and that's what sells tickets and tunes people into their games. # of touchdowns/rushing yards, points per game, etc….stats of why the players are the best is what you hear in major sports. If we have to downplay or always tell people they have to work on things, then why are they on TV and why are we expecting people to watch them…..people that don't know track and are flicking through the channels. I have never heard someone dissect and instruct Lebron on his jump shot. These athletes are the best in the world so lets not focus on what they "need to work on in a limited amount of time", lets talk about why what they do is so special. Side note, I challenge any of you to measure 27 feet in your house. Chances are there probably isn't an uninterrupted 27' in your house but if there is that will give you a good reference point of a good long jump. I did that in college to get a sense of how far our 25' long jumper was really going and holy s***! From the back of my bedroom, through the living room to the door of the guest bathroom. I instantly had a greater respect for LJ. What the athletes do is amazing, make it known to the public!
3. Be relevant to the general public. And no, this does not mean dumb it down. Another tweet I saw after I was no longer watching was about the reference of pace makers. That alone is something that shouldn't even be on TV in track and field IMO, but even further, why are we discussing pace makers from an event that took place a week ago that I would venture to say, not many people even saw? If we need to take time in a broadcast to talk about how a rabbit did a bad job at a meet we aren't even watching then "Houston, we have a problem." Seriously, is that all there was to talk about? Talk about confusing a viewer who is unfamiliar with the sport. Furthermore…
4. NO SOLO MISSIONS ON TV! One of the few races I got to see was the women's 2 mile…a race that is very similar to the 3k and makes you ask "why did they run both?" That whole thing is ridiculous and I'm not going to even address that here. But the point is, we shouldn't be watching a time trial on live television. Image this: you don't know anything about track, you switch the TV to this event with two women running….one drops out….now there is one woman running alone…..oh wait there is other people on the banked oval too…..am i watching two different things?…..oh wait, this is all the same thing which i think they usually call a race…..
Hopefully you see what I'm getting at. In actuality, the race would have been more exciting if they just focused on the pack…that was actually a race. If an athlete doesn't want to race, they shouldn't be in the meet. Not sure if Dibaba was avoiding competition but thats what it looks like when you see Defar in a stacked 3k field (which props to her, she looks like she's in a good place right now with how she destroyed everyone). The only way you could try to market a race like the 2 mile is as a world record attempt, which in that case you really only need the one athlete in the race anyway….but you'd need those weird things we call pacers. (remember, thoughts coming from the point of view of someone that doesn't know the sport well if at all)
5. Need actual races and match-ups. We need to make these races mean something and the way you do that is with people. You and I can probably get geeked out by watching one man/woman running really fast but is that was is compelling for people watching on TV? How many times on TV have you seen a guy try to shoot consecutive free throws in basketball or a pitcher throw 100 mph fast balls into a radar gun. None. Those things are impressive but its not exciting or competitive. Why do we watch sports? At the very basic level, I think we watch because we want to see someone win over another in a competitive setting. Creating races with great competition and head to head match-ups does this. If they run the two mile and had Defar vs. Dibaba how sweet would that have been. And then have the 3k if you want and its the "Battle for US supremacy" with all the top Americans. Those would have been awesome races and great story lines. The head to head thing is ridiculous now a days with athletes never racing each other. Money, ego and whatever else all takes account into that but…..ATTENTION ATHLETES: You will NOT last forever in the sport. You will not be remembered in your career for how much appearance money you gained by showing up to a race, but you will be remember by racing the best and making memorable competition within the sport. Why is the sport not talked about on a greater level? I'm guessing a big reason is because these kind of match-ups happen once or twice a year. What sport has the best compete so infrequently? Talk about something thats hard to follow. I am getting off the broadcast topic a little here….
6. Intro the athletes in the field. While I was watching the broadcast, it came back from a commercial and almost immediately the gun went off. With no sound it stood out even more that the broadcast went immediately from a break to a race. After seeing Dibaba I realized it was the 2 mile, but I assure you the guy next to me had no idea. Without sound I didn't know if there was an intro to the race or fields so I asked via twitter and a few responded that they didn't really say much before the race. If you're not going to put effort into presenting an event, why present it at all? If production doesn't care enough to put time into making the event noteworthy, then why would you expect viewers to care. Every race should have a run down or image of competitor names and a big/bold graphic of what the event is. And it would be nice if the competitors PRs in the events were shown so that a viewer could easily see who the favorites are and could form their own expectation of what might happen. If you have people in the field lets let people know their credentials for the race. And no, not everyone will be highlighted as much as the best names but they shouldn't be totally disregarded, otherwise whats the point in having them at all for a broadcast.
6b. (added to original post) Tom Bernhard, a follower of ours, brought up a good point on our facebook wall that I neglected to mention. Stop focusing on one athlete! Not sure about NB Indoor GP, but in most broadcasts in the US this happens a lot. When I was young I remember watching the 100 meters on TV and knowing the names of guys like Carl Lewis, Dennis Mitchell, Leroy Burrell, Michael Marsh, Jon Drummond...the field of athletes running an event. Every athlete had major credentials and reasons they were part of the elite field. We rarely see that anymore. Now the focus is on one athlete and the problem is if that athlete doesn't do well everything just seems out of place. One of my favorite examples is Tyson Gay at the Pre classic a couple years ago. They only talked about Tyson and "the curve." Apparently they thought the storyline should be how the race was going to be between him and this bend on the track because it was where he was injured the year prior. Seriously?? They expected people to believe and get into the idea that a person was competing against at turn? And in the end Tyson got beat by Walter Dix who is a great athlete but they didn't bother to highlight him at all. If I didn't know anything about track I would be wondering what was going on....shoot I do know about track and I was still wondering! Make the field important. They sport will not survive on one person. I could go one about more, but instead I will leave you with this question...when Usain Bolt is done with the sport, what will be left for people to promote? Relying on one person is not a small way to grow a sport, sport stays (hopefully) while individuals come and go.
7. Feature an athlete and follow through. In a few of the races there was an athlete feature. The only one I actually saw was David Oliver and fortunately he won the hurdles so that worked out nicely. However I was told via twitter that Matt Centrowitz was featured in the 3k but after the race he was not talked about much (with the exception of the negative comment we discussed earlier). If you are going to put the time into featuring someone, you should speak with them after the competition regardless of their results to follow up with the story you started. This happens all too often. You try to make an athlete stand out to others but its done half assed. Now because you wrote this person off in the broadcast for not fulfilling your expectations, the viewers see the person as not that big of a deal. Now there is a disconnect in what they are viewing, not good.
8. For points 6 and 7 this would require more time in the broadcast to accomplish those things so you may ask how do you get more time in a small window. Answer: CUT OUT THE FLUFF! No offense to the girl's high school milers, they are incredible young athletes but was the race TV worthy? Was it compelling to watch a girl run 200 meters of a race and then show an instant replay of it? Again, not talking smack on the girls milers here but think in terms of compelling TV for a non-track fan. It seemed like it was just thrown in there as a space filler when you could have used that time to intro a field in a more major race or talk to centro after the 3k. Instead of letting viewers get to know some of these athletes a little more we have just thrown more athletes at them that they know nothing about. Not all races need to be in a broadcast, if they are not compelling for TV then leave them out…..especially in a broadcast that is tape delayed! Also, before the hurdles it showed the guys just standing at their blocks with Ryan Wilson picking his nails and looking uninterested. Show action, highlight clips of the competitors or something to get the race amped up! If we have minimal opportunities to present the sport to a national audience then we need to be more careful on how its done. Save the fluff for a webcast that us die-hards will watch.
9. This isn't directed specifically at this broadcast seeing as how I had no sound but this is something that should be kept in mind for TV….make it about the race and not about the time. As I mentioned earlier, when you're on TV it needs to be about athletes competing against one another not about them and a stopwatch. Maybe a split is mentioned here or there, but never should be the main focus (unless some world record attempt is being thrown in which is very rare now a days). A great race should be able to live by itself with the competition where as a great time should be an enhancement of the performance you just watched, the icing on the cake if you will. I admit, I am guilty of this in our broadcasts sometimes with college track and field where we focus a lot on time with qualifying marks and breaking barriers (i.e. 4 minute mile)….however, we are catering to a different audience that understands that part of the sport. But I still believe competition is the key and its why I've grown to love the dual meet format over the past two years. Thats something that should be broadcast on TV….teams, points, a winner, a loser and times are irrelevant.
10. Camera shots. Track is a beautiful sport with the athletes, competition, emotion and the fact that there is no time outs, the gun goes off and there's no stopping the action. So now lets bring that action out and smack viewers in the face with it! The men's 60m hurdles, one of the fastest events out there and then throw in some obstacles. Did you see how close the guys are to the hurdles and each other?? Probably not because the cameras didn't do a great job of showing that. There was one main camera which was a side angle that wasn't even in line with the finish and thats what people saw. There was no zoomed in slo-mo replay of Merritt and Oliver going over the hurdles and fighting for the win, but there should have been. Did you see the slow mo shots they used in Daegu?? They were so sick! If I had the slow-mo footage they had of Bekele dropping out of the 10k you would be amazed at the detail in emotion that it provided. We saw it in the media room with absolutely no sound and it was amazing. Give fans some drama somehow! If you treat a 7 second race as simply that then I wouldn't call that TV compelling.
11. (added to original post) One thing I left out of this blogis the intro and exit of the broadcasts. Good intro, good recap....both are great opportunities to educate/inform people on the event and leave on a good note. When you watch a major sporting event on TV there are always analysts talking about the upcoming event, things to look for and how it plays into the bigger picture of the season. Again, not having sound and missing the very beginning of the broadcast I am not sure how the show opened up. I did see Ato/Lewis/Dwight/Tim highlight some key athletes like Mo Farah, Dibaba and Defar. I also noticed Galen Rupp, Jenny Simpson and Shannon Rowbury mentioned so that was good. However its never structured consistently. When you watch NFL or NBA you know what to expect and you know they will analyze the competition at the conclusion of the event, which I feel is very important. You look back at what happened and again, like you should have done in the beginning, talk about how it all fits into the bigger picture. In this case that bigger picture is easy....the Olympic Games, start building it up! I'd be curious to know how it closed but based on twitter comments from NB Indoor and US Open it sounded like it ended abruptly. This is pretty typical with track broadcasts I remember watching. It always seems like the broadcast is rushed to finish on time, like we someone is standing over the production team with their watch out saying "you have 10 seconds left before you are done!" In any broadcast you should plan for some kind of close, especially with a tape delayed broadcast where you have the ability to do that. Again, get rid of the fluff and plan for this. Letting viewers leave the broadcast with a recap of what they saw, where they can expect to see it again and how to follow these athletes along their journey to the olympic would be a great start. Don't rush out the door leaving people without a proper goodbye.
A huge problem in track and field is that track meets are not made for entertainment first. They are made for athletes, coaches and at the pro level they revolve a lot around what a few key athletes are making for money. And then after all that fans are considered and a TV broadcast seems to be an after thought, or at least thats the perception that is given. This equation needs to be flipped around at all levels, especially college with these loooooong events. Two to three consecutive 10-12 hour days its pretty crazy. High school, college and professional all need to think about entertaining fans, fans in the stands. Obviously athletes and coaches are going to come to a good event because its a great opportunity to race, hit times, etc… But how are you going to fill what little stands that they have with fans? With programs getting cut and football/basketball being the major players in collegiate athletics its more important now than every that these things are considered. Show your administration there is a value for your sport and that it's something people are interested in. Make the final day of competition about the fans with the best athletes and races on the track and market it out in your local communities. Get some music, an MC/interviewer and an excited annoucner. Again, this is moving away from the broadcast but its all a part of the pie we know as "problems with track and field." I feel that everyone who puts on a major event (an event that us track geeks see as a major) has a responsibility to try and grow the sport at their local levels. Forget the time events are run because coaches want to try and catch the last flight out on a Saturday afternoon, when I hear that I am like WTF?? If we expect changes at the professional level and on TV then it needs to start at the base and work its way up.
Two more asides from the broadcasts. 1) Full fields need to be made and announced ahead of time. What kind of major events don't have fields announced two days before the actual event? Don't have the event if you can't get athletes that are interested. I am not sure what the requirements are to host major competition, but I know at some meets certain events need to be included or there has to be a certain number of events presented (if someone has the rules around this at the professional level please weigh in below). Whatever the reasons, these major professional meets need to fill the event with competition that can be promoted. And this is on the athletes too when going back to match-ups. Athletes need to be more willing to announce where they are going to race. Sometimes track and field is a big secret and no one can know where people will be and who they will be competing against. NBA, NFL, NCAA basketball/football schedules are made a year in advance? I know this isn't totally realistic in track and field, but we don't even know week to week where people are going to race. Again, example of the sport being only for the athlete and not the fans.
2) I received a few comments on twitter while I was throwing out some opinions of the broadcast, comments that were kind of sad to read. "Having Tim Hutchings on commentary over Tom Hammond greatly enhances the broadcast, so lets just take what we can get." Let's take what we can get? And should we take it at the expense of the sport? I hope that defeatist attitude doesn't live in a majority of you out there otherwise we're in trouble. I am all for having track and field on TV, but I am not totally on board with the thought that any TV time is good time. I remember the broadcast of the NCAA Cross Country Championships, I think it was two years ago or maybe three, and the broadcast was terrible. I couldn't help but think that we threw the sport further under the bus and lost many potential fans due to the presentation of the event. Thats when I first said, if we can't do it well then we shouldn't do it at all. If you produce crap, the expectation of the next event will be crap. Then after people come to associate the sport with that kind of broadcast what do they expect come Olympic Trials time? What was once the biggest sport at the Olympics now becomes associated with a negative experience. I am not convinced showing track on TV just to show it helps promote it, I lean the opposite way. And to touch on that first part of the twitter statement... I think Tim Hutchings is great, one of the best out there for track and field, but can we end the myth that it takes a forgein commentator to make track and field exciting?? That's ridiculous, nationality has nothing to do with bringing excitement to a broadcast. Tim is knowledge, gets excited, shows emotion and brings that out in his work. Its not his British roots that enhances the broadcast.
I think a major test of a broadcast should be watching the first 30 minutes with no sound. It was a real interesting experience that helped me think about some of these issues. When you are competing for viewership against football and basketball we need to step up the game with limited opportunity. I could sit and watch any major sporting event with no sound because I understand the competitive nature of what is trying to be achieve at a given event. We need to do that with broadcasts of track and field. How are we grabbing people to watch the sport and understand at the most basic level.
That being said, there is a huge opportunity to improve our presentation. I think track and field is an amazing sport, so we need to figure this out. Seriously, hire Flotrack to consult with you on the next TV broadcast. You can even hire us to produce your athlete features! We do it ever week!! Anyway, that's where I'm at and remember I didn't get to see all of the broadcast so if I misspoke about anything please call me out. I'm sure there were some good things that happened in the broadcast but I wasn't able to catch them due to my flight. I welcome all opinions because like I said, we have to get this conversation start and then keep it going!
I am just reading this today (Wednesday) after this weekend's Flotrack coverage of the Husky Invitational. I have to say I had more fun Saturday watching the Husky livestream than I think I have ever had watching just about any proffesional sporting event on TV bar the Olympics.
Bear in mind I am not a sports fanatic. Sports are not my first choice for TV entertainment. That may be because my husband is so I get exposure by default. My interest in the sport of running began when my daughter began running in junior high. I had a very limited understanding of the sport and decided to do a little research to find out the basics. Things like, what are the differences between XC and T&F, how are team events scored, what are the typical distances competed, shoes, etc. By the time my daughter was in high school and it was apparent that she really had a strong interest in running I found Dyestatcal.com. The boards in those days were amazing. I miss them. I was able to learn a lot from figuratively looking over the shoulders of coaches, fans, athletes of all ages and the occasional local official chiming in to verify a ruling.
This is the basis for my opinons. They are my own. I consider myself more educated on the sport than the general public but by no means an expert. I keep stats on my daughters efforts but can only quote times and PR's for a very few other athlets and those are, or were, on my daugher's team.
Friday's coverage: I was only able to tune in for some of the coverage. Well lets face it, because of technical difficulties (Flotracks) not much. I know communications must have been an issue as they have been in the past for some of the XC meet sites (they are parks not communications centers). It was clear that the Flotrack team was paying attention to the message feed they provided for the event. When we finally did get video and there continued to be no sound someone mentioned it (message) and nearly instantly we could hear the commentary along with acknowegements of the messages and encouragement to continue to message about issues. Think about it, although in main stream TV coverage you will rarely have such technical difficulties, you will also never get the chance to have one on one instant contact with the commentators. Most of the complaints from viewers likely come from the fact that with such personal contact we have a feeling of ownership.
Saturday's coverage: I was ready for this one since there were several athletes I know personally that were competing. I was totally geeked out. Tablet plugged in, HDMI feed to the TV, laptop running with Twitter, Facebook, heatsheets, schedule and as the races began to unfold, the school (ours) All Time Indoor record sheet up. Oh yeah it was awesome.
Flotrack did accomplish a lot of the things you mention in the original post. The field was introduced, rabbits were recognized, times/splits were, I think, appropriately comented on, there was more than one camera angle, managed beter than I have seen in the past, chase packs were covered pretty comprehensively, you mentioned the moving "light saber" and its significance and I thought you did a good job of talking race strategy. Technical difficulties were pretty minor. I will take waves (and they were minor and short lived) to no coverage any day. I thought the video quality was pretty awesome.
Good job guys! Just keep remembering there is plenty to say when your audience is not made up of running experts and you will continue to do the sport credit. Now all you have to do is cover every event our team is in and I will be one happy camper! LOL