We failed at making the Vancouver 2010 Olympics an Internet showcase #van2010

Printer-friendly version

Photo by Robert Scales

There, I said it. I really needed to get that off my chest. It's 2010. We don't have hoverboards, but we sure as heck should know how to run large scale interactive websites.

I think I have some unique perspective on this. I'm a technologist that has been experimenting with cutting edge code and devices for over a decade. I was at the 2006 Olympics in Torino, where we put on a symposium around "The Olympics and Web 2.0".

The ticket sales site crashed in Torino back in 2006. I didn't expect that it would crash horribly in 2010.

In Torino, we were using Nokia phones, ShoZu, and cheap Italian 3G connectivity to take pictures and upload them to Flickr in realtime. I remember Darren Barefoot watching from back home. These were isolated incidents.

Today, just hit reload on the #van2010 tag on Twitter, and you'll get a constant stream of on the ground and watching from afar commentary. With links, photos, and hashtags a plenty. This may very well go down as the first "Internet" Olympics with this kind of activity.

But I think we blew it. The "we" being CTV, CBC, and most definitely VANOC initiatives. OK, perhaps I shouldn't expect much from top down IOC controlled bodies who believe in the "magic of television".

But CBC, for 4 years, has known this is coming. What kind of infrastructure have they put in place? A "blog" called The Hub, where they invite comments (I put blog in quotes because there is no RSS). No aggregation of activity, no submission of news stories, no geo-tagged map of interesting stories / photos / tweets happening across the Vancouver region.

And that's just a beginning. I thought those would be table stakes. Single services like Twitter or Flickr cover the majority of those technology needs out of the box. It's not like CBC would have had to invent a bunch of this from scratch!

Why am I so annoyed? Well, I've personally been talking to people about the possibilities since I came back from Torino. CBC lost the bid for official coverage rights, meaning that they had almost $1B that they wouldn't be spending on licensing. They could own the Internet experience while CTV was doing traditional broadcast like suckers. Instead: a handful of Twitter accounts and an interactive web presence that simply isn't up to today's standards.

Anything else I have to add would just end up being more of a rant. I'm writing this commentary singling out CBC because I actually care that our Canadian public broadcaster evolve.

Will the Summer Olympics in 2012 be any different? What would you build to help support and highlight Internet coverage in coming years?

Comments

Anonymous's picture

They snooze they lose.

They snooze they lose. Someone else will have to take the lead (rising up from the grass roots perhaps?) and they will play catch up.

Anonymous's picture

I've been really impressed

I've been really impressed with some of the work Google has been doing, from the streetview of the Whistler mountains, to the integration of events into Google Maps.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/landing/games10/index.html

bmann's picture

Media, local industry

Yes, definitely. Google and other online "big Internet" companies are doing cool things. I was thinking that our local media and local industry would be doing more -- including leveraging some of the great tools.

Anonymous's picture

Hey Boris. I'm not sure

Hey Boris.

I'm not sure that CBC was ever destined to make the games an internet showcase. Not having the rights simply cripples a broadcaster's ability to service their main channels. Their recent copyright fiasco http://www.insidethecbc.com/clearing-up-the-copyright-confusion/ doesn't exactly show forward thinking on their web platform.

We were at the QE last night for a performance of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet and the National Ballet of Canada. Sitting in the front row of the balcony and looking down during intermission revealed the real "internet showcase" of 2010: the glow of a mobile screens, everywhere.

Walking around downtown in the sunshine today, I heard over and over again, regular folks talking about going to this part of town or that part of town because of something they'd just picked up on their phone (text, tweet, whatever).

I think a lot of 'regular folks' who aren't digital thought leaders are simply beginning to aggregate on their own, without needing CBC or CTV. And that marks a huge difference in how people consume and forward content.

-Robert

bmann's picture

Right

I absolutely 100% agree that there are tons of tools that "regular folks" are doing interesting things with -- even just by sharing at all.

I also increasingly see our public institutions falling further and further behind. I'm stating my dissatisfaction with this, and serving notice that we *noticed* that they failed.

Frankly, I see it as a revenue opportunity lost, never mind an experience failure.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Anonymous's picture

The "We" aren't goverened by institutions

Who is "we" today? Does the public need CTV or VANOC to help us find content? The promise of social media is being delivered. It's social not sitting aggregated in a silo.

I've been more engaged on Twitter than I have been since the last US primaries because of how fun and exciting the Twittersphere has been.

I'm frankly surprised that you would put the onus on institutions instead of people-powered community aided by networks and tools.

And given the tremendous restrictions (not just in content like we've already seen) but sponsorship issues, avoidance of controversy etc etc, there is no way that any institution officially involved in the games could do anything like what we're already seeing and doing without the help of any institution.

--Tom