IBJNews

Super Bowl live stream online attracts 2.1 million viewers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The first live stream of the Super Bowl drew 2.1 million unique viewers, NBC said Thursday.

That's a small fraction of the record 111.3 million viewers that watched NBC's broadcast of the big game. But it was still enough to make it the most-watched single-game sports event online, according to the network.

Kevin Monaghan, managing director of digital media for NBC Sports Group, said the live stream "exceeded our expectations in every way."

The New York Giants 21-17 win over the New England Patriots was streamed on NBCSports.com and NFL.com. The Internet webcast included optional camera views, tweeting from a handful of personalities and HD-quality video. But it didn't feature the live TV broadcast commercials (they were clickable for on-demand viewing) or the Madonna halftime show, and the feed lagged behind the broadcast.

The webcast was available on some mobile phones from Verizon.

Monaghan framed the live stream not as an alternate viewing option from broadcast, but as "a complementary 'second screen' experience" to the televised game.

Previous major sporting events streamed live include the 2010 World Cup by ESPN, the 2010 Olympics by NBC and the annual NCAA men's basketball tournament by CBS and Turner Sports. More recently, ESPN offered live streams of this year's Rose Bowl and the Fiesta Bowl, though both of those games were watched by less than 400,000.

In the 2010 World Cup, ESPN said 1.1 million people watched at least some part of the USA's win over Algeria on its website.

But no sporting event is bigger in the U.S. than the Super Bowl, and NBC's first live stream of the game was surely a milestone in sports viewing. The Super Bowl stream had an average user engagement of 39 minutes per visit.

Hans Schroeder, senior vice president of media strategy and development for the NFL, said the league "will continue to look for more ways to reach our fans."

ADVERTISEMENT

  • "a complementary 'second screen' experience"
    I used the nfl.com app on my Verizon smartphone (enabled vcast for the day) to watch the first half as my "primary" screen for I could not be in front of a tv until shortly before half-time.

    I find the above referenced quote to be marketing speak. I use social media but what value does one get from having the SB streamed on a smartphone/PC/tablet as the "second screen experience"? A "second screen experience" would likely for me be a constant stream of stats or other relevant information.

    I can't speak for how the nbcsports.com site worked but I was queried about every 10 minutes "if I was still there". With the 3G network the feed would just stop for several seconds.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. The east side does have potential...and I have always thought Washington Scare should become an outlet mall. Anyone remember how popular Eastgate was? Well, Indy has no outlet malls, we have to go to Edinburgh for the deep discounts and I don't understand why. Jim is right. We need a few good eastsiders interested in actually making some noise and trying to change the commerce, culture and stereotypes of the East side. Irvington is very progressive and making great strides, why can't the far east side ride on their coat tails to make some changes?

  2. Boston.com has an article from 2010 where they talk about how Interactions moved to Massachusetts in the year prior. http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2010/07/interactions_banks_63_million.html The article includes a link back to that Inside Indiana Business press release I linked to earlier, snarkily noting, "Guess this 2006 plan to create 200-plus new jobs in Indiana didn't exactly work out."

  3. I live on the east side and I have read all your comments. a local paper just did an article on Washington square mall with just as many comments and concerns. I am not sure if they are still around, but there was an east side coalition with good intentions to do good things on the east side. And there is a facebook post that called my eastside indy with many old members of the eastside who voice concerns about the east side of the city. We need to come together and not just complain and moan, but come up with actual concrete solutions, because what Dal said is very very true- the eastside could be a goldmine in the right hands. But if anyone is going damn, and change things, it is us eastside residents

  4. Please go back re-read your economics text book and the fine print on the February 2014 CBO report. A minimum wage increase has never resulted in a net job loss...

  5. The GOP at the Statehouse is more interested in PR to keep their majority, than using it to get anything good actually done. The State continues its downward spiral.

ADVERTISEMENT