Shameless OLN Product Placements

At least they're covering it, which is a lot better than I remember. When I started cycling in the late 1970's, live coverage of any cycling was just a distant dream. Had to read about the TDF a week after it was finished.

Believe me, if product placement is the price of getting live coverage, place away.

I don't think live coverage will completely die off post Lance. There are a number of competitive American cyclists now, and while it won't displace other sports, it has achieved a following over here that won't go away. Lance got me back on a bike after 15 years off.

JohnO said:

At least they're covering it, which is a lot better than I remember. When I started cycling in the late 1970's, live coverage of any cycling was just a distant dream. Had to read about the TDF a week after it was finished.

Believe me, if product placement is the price of getting live coverage, place away.

I don't think live coverage will completely die off post Lance. There are a number of competitive American cyclists now, and while it won't displace other sports, it has achieved a following over here that won't go away. Lance got me back on a bike after 15 years off.

I remember in 86 when Lemond won the TdF. All we got was a weekly wrap up on Sundays on CBS or ABC. I cant remember which. I was happy to get that much.

Agree that I can deal with the promotion as long as I get coverage. I guess you could say I'm one of the prototypical Americans who only follow the TdF...but that's mostly because it's the only extensive coverage we get over here.

In '99 I started watching the Tour and came to realize what a great sport it is. It's pretty aggrivating that you have sports "experts" on TV shows saying they won't recognize cycling as a sport because they used to ride a bike when they were a kid - I used to play basketball and baseball as a kid, does that mean these sports don't count, either?

I wish they would show the Giro and Vuelta, but I also understand about ratings and overall interest in the sport here. It's funny how sports commentators and everyone else who follows sports over here can dismiss cycling without even knowing what it's about (other than "riding a bike"😉, but NASCAR (which is the king of shameless promotion) is cool?

The fact is I would eat up any coverage we can get over here - it just happens that the TdF is about all we get (other than subscribing to a few magazines and going on forums).

thebluetrain said:

I remember in 86 when Lemond won the TdF. All we got was a weekly wrap up on Sundays on CBS or ABC. I cant remember which. I was happy to get that much.

That's funny because I remember the coverage being NBC.😄 I sure do love cable TV! I think the first year the USA had any cycling coverage was the year Zoetemelk won the TDF...1980 I think.

Emigrate to Europe. Plenty of Cycling fans/TV coverage here 😎

segamartinez said:

Agree that I can deal with the promotion as long as I get coverage. I guess you could say I'm one of the prototypical Americans who only follow the TdF...but that's mostly because it's the only extensive coverage we get over here.

In '99 I started watching the Tour and came to realize what a great sport it is. It's pretty aggrivating that you have sports "experts" on TV shows saying they won't recognize cycling as a sport because they used to ride a bike when they were a kid - I used to play basketball and baseball as a kid, does that mean these sports don't count, either?

I wish they would show the Giro and Vuelta, but I also understand about ratings and overall interest in the sport here. It's funny how sports commentators and everyone else who follows sports over here can dismiss cycling without even knowing what it's about (other than "riding a bike"😉, but NASCAR (which is the king of shameless promotion) is cool?

The fact is I would eat up any coverage we can get over here - it just happens that the TdF is about all we get (other than subscribing to a few magazines and going on forums).

babylou said:

That's funny because I remember the coverage being NBC.😄 I sure do love cable TV! I think the first year the USA had any cycling coverage was the year Zoetemelk won the TDF...1980 I think.

This is from Lemonds personal website. I was half right. 😉

In 1986, Greg LeMond, despite being constantly threatened by his own teammate, Bernard Hinault, became the first American to win the largest single annual sporting event in the world, the Tour de France. Millions watched on CBS Television as Greg's historic victory catapulted him into the media spotlight.

homeycheese said:

I was just commenting on another thread of all the shameless "product placements", like the equipment profiles, that are being shown on OLN's telecast.

Their coverage has become one big "infomercial" considering the end of the LA gravy train is only 2 weeks away.

How many product placements can you find that aren't pure advertisements? How about the laptop prominently displayed in front of Al Trautwig? 😎

I mean this in the nicest way, 'SHUT THE HELL UP'.

You get to listen to Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen commentate the world's greatest sport. For the three hours it's on tv (multiple times a day) you get to watch cycling. And I guess you aren't really absorbed in the race if you pay attention to all the 'informercial' stuff. They gotta pay the bills.

There is just no pleasing people.

TrekDedicated said:

I mean this in the nicest way, 'SHUT THE HELL UP'.

LOL! Honestly, I can understand those who get annoyed with the constant marketing with which we are bombarded every time we access a media. On the other hand, I've never been able to marshal much resentment, knowing, as you just pointed out, that if OLN doesn't make a profit through its tie-ins, maybe there is no Le Tour televised next year. With no Armstrong for them to slaver over, I'm already shuddering at the likely prospect they'll ditch the Tour for more re-runs of rodeo competitions. :eek:

LMAO, you make my point completely, "TREKDEDICATED." I understand paying the bills and have commented numerous times on this board about this being a business. Do you really think coming to this thread to show your ass contributes anything? You took it upon yourself to login, choose the thread and read the comments. Get a clue.

As for 3 hours of coverage, LOL. We get about 20 minutes an hour of substance and the rest is infomercial. I'm not turning off my TV though, just musing for others on this board how they feel about.

Lighten up, Francis.

homeycheese said:

LMAO, you make my point completely, "TREKDEDICATED." I understand paying the bills and have commented numerous times on this board about this being a business. Do you really think coming to this thread to show your ass contributes anything? You took it upon yourself to login, choose the thread and read the comments. Get a clue.

As for 3 hours of coverage, LOL. We get about 20 minutes an hour of substance and the rest is infomercial. I'm not turning off my TV though, just musing for others on this board how they feel about.

Lighten up, Francis.

Yes, I'm 'showing my ass' , I've got over 550 posts on this board, so I show 'my ass' a lot. I contribute, I was riding Treks way before Lance was winning all the time. So, I built my loyalty long before. So don't hound my name.

20 minutes of substance? You obviously do not listen to Phil or Paul, these guys are the best commentators ANYWHERE. The things you learn from them are amazing.

By me coming to this thread, I'm showing that people like you complain about getting any exposure about the sport. Hey! I know what, why don't you go watch Sportscenter for the highlights! You'll get all the TdF info in 15 seconds! With women's tennis commercials interlaced. Whether you accept it or not, cycling especially, relies heavily on sponsorships. So if you want your cycling, make due. And since you have probably never had to deal with sponsorships for cycling, I wouldn't expect you to understand. Least commercials like Mitchum "If shaving your legs etc etc" are hilarious. Being in America, where cycling is still trying to build its fan base on tv, they need to get funding. You should be glad tampons,periods, and adult diapers are sponsors and ask for air time. If that was the case, then yes, HC, I would agree with you, but since sponsors are relevant I don't mind.

Meanwhile, the rest of us watch OLN, for the scenery/landscape, riders interactions, attacks, learning new things about the sport, commentary, and seeing our sport thrive.

With love,

TREKDEDICATED

*Flame away*

I'm sorry you're so terribly confused. First, the thread was on product placements, not commercials. Second, there is no disregard in any of my posts for the great work of Phil and Paul (you must have dreamed that up so you could add to your vast collection of posts.) Third, I've both dealt with sponsorships as a cyclist and now as one who writes the checks, so get the sanctimonious chip off your shoulder and clue in to the substance of the thread.

Lastly, as is the case in my comment of 3 hours of TV does not mean it all contains meaningful content, the same could be said for your 550 posts. :eek:

BTW - do a little homework on tv viewerships / ratings / Q-Scores, cultivating fan bases and the marketing efforts of those involved before you make an uninformed comment like "Being in America, where cycling is still trying to build its fan base on tv, they need to get funding." It clearly shows you do not understand the business side of the equation and what marketing companies like OLN and Discovery are all about.

homeycheese said:

I'm sorry you're so terribly confused. First, the thread was on product placements, not commercials. Second, there is no disregard in any of my posts for the great work of Phil and Paul (you must have dreamed that up so you could add to your vast collection of posts.) Third, I've both dealt with sponsorships as a cyclist and now as one who writes the checks, so get the sanctimonious chip off your shoulder and clue in to the substance of the thread.

Lastly, as is the case in my comment of 3 hours of TV does not mean it all contains meaningful content, the same could be said for your 550 posts. :eek:

BTW - do a little homework on tv viewerships / ratings / Q-Scores, cultivating fan bases and the marketing efforts of those involved before you make an uninformed comment like "Being in America, where cycling is still trying to build its fan base on tv, they need to get funding." It clearly shows you do not understand the business side of the equation and what marketing companies like OLN and Discovery are all about.

I think the problem most people are referring to, are the "advertorials".

They have an OLN "journalist" do reports on "the technology of the tour" and "behind the race" that are supposed to be part of the coverage, not part of the commercials.

These pieces are supposedly to enlighten both newbie fans and veterans about some of the behind the scenes stuff. Some pieces are interesting. I watched a video clip online about Hutchinson tires. It was aimed at fans probably less familiar with cycling gear than most of us on this forum, and it almost could have squeaked by as a legitimate "background" piece, but the clincher (no pun intended) was at the end, when the presenter said something like...(not an exact quote)

"Hutchinson puts this amount of care into all of their tires. Maybe that's why Lance has never had a flat in Six Tour Victories."

I think that sort of tie-in is what the posts in this thread were complaining about.

I own dozens of videos with Phil Liggett and Paul Sherwen doing commentary on the Classics and Grand Tours, and I only wish that this OLN coverage had more of Paul and Phil, and fewer of the Advertorials and no big-mouth, no-brain Al Trautwig.

Cheers...

homeycheese said:

It clearly shows you do not understand the business side of the equation and what marketing companies like OLN and Discovery are all about.

Respectfully, if you are that marketing savvy and aware of "the business side of the equation" for these companies, why does it cause you so much consternation when they maximize their product placement opportunities?

In the meantime, I suspect we could compile all the television that's ever been broadcast since Vladimir Zworikin patented the TV camera tube and not find 3 hours of "meaningful content". 😉

strummer_fan said:

I only wish that this OLN coverage had more of Paul and Phil, and fewer of the Advertorials and no big-mouth, no-brain Al Trautwig.

'

I wonder, did you know that OLN's morning coverage is mostly Phil/Paul, and that the evening program is more of a "packaged" replay including the Roll/Trautwig commentary and featurettes, etc. If you have OLN, I'd suggest recording or TIVOing the morning telecast, which is much more about cycling and less about the Kirsten Gumm hoopla and the daily demonstrations of how little Trautwig knows about the sport.

rejobako said:

Respectfully, if you are that marketing savvy and aware of "the business side of the equation" for these companies, why does it cause you so much consternation when they maximize their product placement opportunities?

In the meantime, I suspect we could compile all the television that's ever been broadcast since Vladimir Zworikin patented the TV camera tube and not find 3 hours of "meaningful content". 😉

You mean 3 hours of "Bob in the buff" isn't meaningful and good for mankind? :eek:

My intent was to bring about a discussion on "product placement." It's an insidious and disingenuine form of maketing that is more and more abused, greatly distracts from real commercials, distorts fact from opinion (like the previous comment on the "tire" story) and cons the viewer. It's this eras form of subliminal advertising, taken to a more overt and abusive level.

All that being said, it appears many are willing to put up with this stuff in order to get 20 minutes of Paul and Phil per hour. 🙁

I'd like to see how many viewers acutally catch this stuff nowadays and realize they are being "conned."

homeycheese said:

You mean 3 hours of "Bob in the buff" isn't meaningful and good for mankind? :eek:

My intent was to bring about a discussion on "product placement." It's an insidious and disingenuine form of maketing that is more and more abused, greatly distracts from real commercials, distorts fact from opinion (like the previous comment on the "tire" story) and cons the viewer. It's this eras form of subliminal advertising, taken to a more overt and abusive level.

All that being said, it appears many are willing to put up with this stuff in order to get 20 minutes of Paul and Phil per hour. 🙁

I'd like to see how many viewers acutally catch this stuff nowadays and realize they are being "conned."

Your point is well-taken, although I'm not as convinced that product-placement ads are any more abused than they always have been. I think they're just more subtle and sophisticated.

rejobako said:

'

I wonder, did you know that OLN's morning coverage is mostly Phil/Paul, and that the evening program is more of a "packaged" replay including the Roll/Trautwig commentary and featurettes, etc. If you have OLN, I'd suggest recording or TIVOing the morning telecast, which is much more about cycling and less about the Kirsten Gumm hoopla and the daily demonstrations of how little Trautwig knows about the sport.

I don't have OLN and have only been able to watch the packaged three hour segment that one can download from the OLN website, (using the URL shortening technique that WILMAR13 posted in another thread.)

I've mostly been following the stages live on cyclingnews.com, eurosport, and occasionally catching Sean Kelly's live audio on Eurosport. The only problem is the NINE hour time difference to California.

I have literally been listening to the audio at 5:30AM!

aye. this is a great edition of the tour.

homeycheese said:

You mean 3 hours of "Bob in the buff" isn't meaningful and good for mankind? :eek:

My intent was to bring about a discussion on "product placement." It's an insidious and disingenuine form of maketing that is more and more abused, greatly distracts from real commercials, distorts fact from opinion (like the previous comment on the "tire" story) and cons the viewer. It's this eras form of subliminal advertising, taken to a more overt and abusive level.

All that being said, it appears many are willing to put up with this stuff in order to get 20 minutes of Paul and Phil per hour. 🙁

I'd like to see how many viewers acutally catch this stuff nowadays and realize they are being "conned."

If you understand anything about marketing you would realize that product placement is the future of marketing. With TIVO and other Digital Recording methods that allow views to skip commercials advertisers have little choice but to use product placement. I should also point out that the product placement is effective, as you apparently noticed the products.

How does placing a "LiveSTRONG laptop" on the desk distort fact from opinion? How does product placement take away from the real commercials? If anything it enchances the consumer's awareness that a product exists. When the commerical does air the consumer is more likely to pay attention after having been exposed to the product through effective product placement.

On a side note...I think you are off base with your remarks about knowing the business side of the equation. OLN and cycling in general have a very limited viewship in the United States. Compared with Golf, Football, Baseball, Basketball, and Soccor...cycling does not have the fan base, nor the advertising sponsorships that those sports have. To get exposure (via OLN's coverage of cycling) and develop the fan base in the United States it is certainly necessary for OLN to take what money it can from potential sponsors. That being said...the product placement is an additional means for generating revenue and keeping the broadcast on air.

SuperTiger18 said:

If you understand anything about marketing you would realize that product placement is the future of marketing. With TIVO and other Digital Recording methods that allow views to skip commercials advertisers have little choice but to use product placement. I should also point out that the product placement is effective, as you apparently noticed the products.

How does placing a "LiveSTRONG laptop" on the desk distort fact from opinion? How does product placement take away from the real commercials? If anything it enchances the consumer's awareness that a product exists. When the commerical does air the consumer is more likely to pay attention after having been exposed to the product through effective product placement.

On a side note...I think you are off base with your remarks about knowing the business side of the equation. OLN and cycling in general have a very limited viewship in the United States. Compared with Golf, Football, Baseball, Basketball, and Soccor...cycling does not have the fan base, nor the advertising sponsorships that those sports have. To get exposure (via OLN's coverage of cycling) and develop the fan base in the United States it is certainly necessary for OLN to take what money it can from potential sponsors. That being said...the product placement is an additional means for generating revenue and keeping the broadcast on air.

oh i understand the business very well and you make my point in your 2nd paragraph. when frankie andrieu does a piece on bike technology that is presented as part of the "story" and in fact it promotes the bontrager 'buzz kills" that are currently on sell at Trek bike shops,then it's not about building a fan base for cycling, it's about selling products, whatever they may be...it's shameless and dishonest...the

Despite the limited access to on air coverage in the US, don't confuse OLN with "cycling"...while I'm grateful for the last few years to have the chance to watch le tour, don't for one minute think some noble experiment is going on...they all want to catch the next "X-Games" trend ahead of its time and milk the current trend on its way down...