Who Has a Good Recipe for Chicken Salad?
Having the Golden League on ESPN? Great. Having it called by announcers who are watching a cut-up feed on monitors? Not great.
Today was Day One in the 2008 Golden League, which ESPN, it was recently announced, would be covering at each stop on the tour. I don’t know what I was expecting from the coverage, but suffice it to say, the telecast didn’t exactly encourage me to settle in and enjoy some track. Now, I’m not going to get into a critique of the individual broadcasters because we do enough of that already. Rather, I’m curious about what the viewership thought of the format. Why do we need ESPN to provide two guys to narrate the Eurosport feed, when Eurosport already provides more than capable broadcasters? Do Larry Rawson and Dwight Stones really bring that much to the broadcast that we’d rather them than the Euros?
I suspect that ESPN decided Americans stumbling onto the meet would be turned off by hearing British accents calling the meet; or, at the least, that those accents and the wholly un-ESPN-affiliated personalities that produce them, wouldn’t dovetail with the network’s standards in format and presentation. (Which is kinda silly given that the graphics package is OBVIOUSLY not produced by the “Worldwide Leader.”)
To be clear, my understanding is that while ESPN uses Rawson and Stones, they are, essentially freelancers on a loose retainer — hardly “the face of ESPN.” (Anyone with more information, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.) In essence, its not as if ESPN’s brand image would suffer some huge blow by having other voices calling the action. So here’s my question: what IS the best way to present the Golden League meets?
1) As done for Berlin: Stones & Rawson, et al, reacting to the Eurosport feed.
2) Straight feed, cut to time.
3) Strong ESPN personality in a studio, throwing to the Eurosport feed to orient the viewer to the fact that they are watching a feed that has been cut to meet time constraints.
Other possibilities are more than welcome.
Last 5 posts by Jeremy Mosher- Shedding Light on the Business of Contracts - June 9th, 2008
- Athletics Catching the Fantasy Sports Craze - May 28th, 2008
- The Death of a Marathon - May 7th, 2008
- If Pope Benedict XVI Were a Runner... - April 17th, 2008
- Re: Vecsey On Olympic Protests - Say Amen Somebody! - April 17th, 2008
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:13 am |
Last Sunday I watched both the live online video cast on USATF’s website and the ESPN coverage. Personally, I found the announcer on the on-line footage to be much better at his profession. He was more informed of the athletes and the sport in general. Stones and Rawson had many comments that seemed to take away from the competition or failed to add to it. There were many, many comments about the fact that they didn’t know what image would be displayed next… If you look at the good British announcers, they know when to talk and when to focus on the event at hand, while Stones and Rawson tend to talk while the athletes are in action or have irrelevant comments at inappropriate times.
Although, the live on-line announcer was an improvement on Rawson and Stones (And the dreaded Carol Lewis) he was still not as good as Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen. Two announcers at the pinnacle of their profession. I found myself drawn more to the Versus Giro de Italia coverage, on at the same time as the Golden League ESPN coverage, mostly due to the excitement in their voices. Do Stones and Rawson really love the sport? I’m not feeling it! Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen have British accents and don’t seem to push American audiences away from watching. Athletics (or Track & Field) is mostly a European sport, as is Cycling, so why not sell it as such like cycling does?
By the way, what do Phil Sherwen and Phil Liggett do when not announcing cycling events?
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 am |
Dwight may have his place doing interviews, but his play by play needs to be refined AND updated. On Saturdays Grand Prix meet he said about the 400M, “its also known as the quarter mile”. Not only inaccurate, but who under the age of 40 enen thinks in those terms anymore.
So my bottom line is, try maximizing the action and use the local commentary - and any commentary only relative to the action. Track and field,especially on cut up feed doesn’t have the long pauses of other sports requiring commentary to hold viewer interest. There’s no 30-seconds to huddle - or getting the ball back to the pitcher or setting up for face-offs. The gun goes off and there’s your action..
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 pm |
I agree, Dwight does a good job with interviews, and the duo is at a disadvantage doing it via satellite. That being said, they just slaughtered the broadcast. I’m a die hard track guy, but it has got to the point where I take no enjoyment in watching it on tv anymore. I always throughly enjoy the euro announcers and the broadcast always trying to catch as much action as possible. They are informed and pay attention to the race and offer information that is related to the race or to the athletes in the race. And sometimes, and this will leave American announcers gasping, they don’t say anything and just let the race play out in certain spots.
When Rawson went on a rant about the Africans having all of the top “x” times in “y” event from last year it just sent me through the roof. Yes, Larry, we get it, the Africans are really good. We know this. It is not the first time viewers have seen the Africans kick some butt in a race. It is old news. Stop treating the viewers like there has never been a track meet on tv.
Please, ESPN, let the euro feed play with the euro announcers. If you do one thing for me this summer, this would be it. I have been a good boy. And, if I tape it, I won’t fast forward through the commercials.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:33 pm |
To take that point one step further, for the commentary to begin and end with “Africans are dominating the 5k and 10k” is not just lazy — it marginalizes the event and the sport. Basically, announcers who go that route are saying “There are no relevant Americans, so we don’t really care about this event much, and we assume you don’t or won’t, either.” An American audience will never LEARN to care though, if they aren’t provided with stories. The Kenyans and Ethiopians can become more interested if presented as individuals. Yes, there was some mention of Tariku’s link with his brother, but it stopped after acknowledging that they were brothers. Why not ask some rhetorical questions to engage the viewership emotionally: “Does Tariku feel overshadowed by his brother?” “Do you wonder if he is constantly trying to prove himself each time out?”
And so on.