#181  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:35 PM
swhite swhite is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: central Mass
Posts: 943
Niced 820 Times in 392 Posts
Default

<deleted because I misread a post>
Sponsored Links

Last edited by swhite; 09-04-2019 at 03:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 09-04-2019, 03:50 PM
ThunderEagle ThunderEagle is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chesterland, OH
Years Playing: 1.4
Courses Played: 30
Posts: 223
Niced 216 Times in 83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC17393 View Post
It would also be significantly more expensive. With what we see now, I imagine costs vs benefits is a delicate balance. Adding significantly more cost without assurances of more benefit (more value = more revenue) is a risky proposition.
I didn't intend to infer that it wasn't more expensive. JVD was talking about adding value and also adding revenue with some adds. I was just offering that I felt was of more value to the viewer and telling the story.

Quote:
Personally, I think a significant step forward from where we are now will require a big leap of faith that the ends will justify the means. To this point, it's been the media guys doing all the leaping. Somewhere along the line, I think the viewers are going to have to make a leap (financially) and trust that the media teams will do well with the added funding. Yes, I'm talking about some sort of pay per view model.
I still think some kind of entity needs to be created, where hopefully all of the content creators can become a part of, if they are a joint owners/partners or it is an avenue for revenue. I want to see a "channel", I'll subscribe some amount a year/month (obviously depending on content) to have access to this channel. I would sort of like it to be a continuous stream channel. It can have post produced rounds, live rounds, replays, live call in shows, technical breakdowns, etc, etc. They can be from a whole host of content providers as long as they meet a baseline standard of production. They would provide content in return for some money, the "channel" would then bundle all of this together, negotiate ads, schedule shows, etc. Maybe this is what DiscGolfPlanet was back in the day, but that is before my Disc Golf Time.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:37 PM
JTacoma03's Avatar
JTacoma03 JTacoma03 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Baton Rouge, LA and SF, CA
Years Playing: 10.6
Courses Played: 133
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 4,273
Niced 1,341 Times in 405 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by biscoe View Post
I know you weren't asking me but I want to play. I cannot lay out an argument for the event getting a cut of the ad revenue. It does seem however that when the media groups get paid upfront and get all that revenue they have effectively managed to shift all the risk in the proposition away from themselves. Kudos to them on savvy business I suppose.

We also have heard repeatedly from jvd (pretty sure that's where i got it- apologies to jvd if not) that the manufacturers are growing tired of footing the bill for media. Seems to me at some point the end user is going to need to pay but again I am an absolute neophyte in the workings of online media. Is free video a sustainable model with such a limited audience?

Is there an over-saturation of media crews already?
How much ad revenue does one round of coverage have the opportunity to generate?

I was quoted a figure in the neighborhood of $10k from one group to come film an event. Under that figure I would have had the rights to the advertising revenue but I would also have had to sell said advertising. Does that math potentially add up for an organizer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscFifty View Post
Full disclosure.. I personally was not part of anything related to hiring of jomez for the VPO. It was just discussed in a public group that I am part of.



No, plus that would be a hassle to deal with. Otherwise it depends on the negotiations and who ends up owning the rights to the resulting media. Based on comments, discussions in the last year or so, it seemed like disc golf media producers were charging to cover events and assuming they were the legal owners of the resulting media and could monetize the media anyway they see fit.

I totally understand for small tournaments where the TD wants a video archive of the tournament, they should pay a media crew to come out and film it. I would hope moving forward, negotiations now go something like this:

For $xxx we come out and film the event.
For an additional $xxx you own all rights to the media, otherwise we own the rights and can monetize the media as we see fit.

For larger events it makes sense for the coverage to go to the highest bidder(s). And in that case there should be no revenue split due to the financial risk being taken by the media producer.
I'll try to keep this brief, and as a general reply. If anything is unclear let me know-

As Dreadlock86 mentioned, frame the purchase as a service, not a product. It's weird because the service is literally converting something into a product that is able to be monetized. However that's the 2nd step of the process - if you're hiring me to produce media for your event, you're hiring my time and expertise to produce that content. Because you can't separate the creator from the content (i.e. I will make a different video than Ian or Jonathan or JVD) it helps to consider it this way rather than to think "I'm buying the video" because there's no video to buy at that stage. There is an intention to produce an agreed-upon slate of content, but you're hiring the people to create from scratch.

The end video product is what the audience is "buying" - and that media outlet's audience is what the advertisers are paying to access. This is why I believe that by default, event revenue and media revenue should be separated, and only mixed in where there is a contractual agreement to do so.

Let's chat about "rights" - oftentimes there is an (unintentional, I believe) confounding of "media rights" and "ownership of footage". If a tournament is selling its "media rights" - we're talking about granting permission, usually exclusively, for the media group to broadcast the event on their platform. When we're talking about who owns the footage, it is always the content creator, unless that person has signed a "work for hire" agreement/contract. A quick example would be let's say a movie producer comes and wants to use your house as a set. Yes you own the house, but you still wouldn't own the footage shot in your house, and you don't own the resulting movie (unless you negotiated that in a contract, and if so you'd be a bonified badass in this particular example, lol).

So, let's bring this full circle and a little more big picture - how does a non-tour A-tier create valuable media rights? In short, you have to have a situation where they (media crews) need to be at your event more than you need them to be there. Part of this, like Biscoe said, will be the continuing saturation of media teams - aka competition. As supply (of popular events) becomes relatively more scarce amongst growing demand (more media teams looking to "make it") TD's who can run events attracting big names and 1060+ MPO play and 1000+ FPO play will garner more leverage in negotiating, and revenue sharing from ads could be a creative solution. It's kind of like investing in the eventual product with the creator. Right now, just about every event in our sport needs the cameras more than the cameras need them. Why? Because it loses less money to not go to the event, than to pay the TD to be there.

In short - TD's have to create an event that attracts players, then the cameras will want to be there too. At that point you could get creative with how you get value out of that demand.

Hope I didn't ramble too much or over-emphasize the "duh" stuff.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:40 PM
wolfmandragon's Avatar
wolfmandragon wolfmandragon is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Morristown, TN
Years Playing: 5.8
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,467
Niced 1,010 Times in 585 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderEagle View Post
I didn't intend to infer that it wasn't more expensive. JVD was talking about adding value and also adding revenue with some adds. I was just offering that I felt was of more value to the viewer and telling the story.



I still think some kind of entity needs to be created, where hopefully all of the content creators can become a part of, if they are a joint owners/partners or it is an avenue for revenue. I want to see a "channel", I'll subscribe some amount a year/month (obviously depending on content) to have access to this channel. I would sort of like it to be a continuous stream channel. It can have post produced rounds, live rounds, replays, live call in shows, technical breakdowns, etc, etc. They can be from a whole host of content providers as long as they meet a baseline standard of production. They would provide content in return for some money, the "channel" would then bundle all of this together, negotiate ads, schedule shows, etc. Maybe this is what DiscGolfPlanet was back in the day, but that is before my Disc Golf Time.
That's a model from the past. Even the big sports are dropping this model.

Streaming in demand is the present, who knows what the future is, but I doubt it's going back to the 1980s
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 09-04-2019, 05:24 PM
ThunderEagle ThunderEagle is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Chesterland, OH
Years Playing: 1.4
Courses Played: 30
Posts: 223
Niced 216 Times in 83 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfmandragon View Post
That's a model from the past. Even the big sports are dropping this model.



Streaming in demand is the present, who knows what the future is, but I doubt it's going back to the 1980s
Problem is, I'm not paying 5 different media companies. I'd pay more to one entity that had all of the content though. If they want us to pay, I'm not doing it a la cart.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 09-04-2019, 05:24 PM
jvphobic jvphobic is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 941
Niced 1,755 Times in 417 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfmandragon View Post
That's a model from the past. Even the big sports are dropping this model.

Streaming in demand is the present, who knows what the future is, but I doubt it's going back to the 1980s
I think they mean that a channel that streams 24 hours a day AND has the ability to pick and choose content. For instance there are some services that are experimenting with a "lean back" experience. Where you tune in and there is just something there for you to watch all the time. But, if you choose, you can pick from their pre-recorded content as well. Kinda a "best of both worlds." Who wouldn't like to get sucked into the 2015 PDGA World championships once in a while. Or something like that.

Personally, I hope that we move to a PPV model someday. I don't know when that will be, if ever. But most major sports have them now, and even smaller sports like bowling, darts, swimming, rodeo, boxing, etc have a niche channel dedicated to PPV. And then after xxx amount of time (weeks, months?) it gets released into the general public.

And I can already hear people yelling that it will stifle the growth of the sport. And I disagree. Because you could have the NTs behind a paywall and the DGPT free, or vice versa. Or A-tiers not behind a paywall and everything else? I don't know the right solution. It would all be easier if we had a big corporate sponsor, but I don't see that right now.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 09-04-2019, 05:43 PM
Putt for D'oh's Avatar
Putt for D'oh Putt for D'oh is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Years Playing: 4.5
Courses Played: 24
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 1,105
Niced 463 Times in 267 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvphobic View Post
Personally, I hope that we move to a PPV model someday. I don't know when that will be, if ever. But most major sports have them now, and even smaller sports like bowling, darts, swimming, rodeo, boxing, etc have a niche channel dedicated to PPV. And then after xxx amount of time (weeks, months?) it gets released into the general public.
Purely from a quality of coverage standpoint do you think we are in a place PPV could work? and if not how far off do you think that would be?

My opinion there is it is all the $$$ game right? You guys have talked about the jump in really orders of magnitude in cost for what DG has now for live coverage to ball golf coverage, being able to split between holes, having those :30 second delayed shots queued up to cut to or other live footage where we have ~"dead" time now in the walk up the fair way and such. I don't even watch much tourney footage but I think the improvements made with the live coverage this year has roped me in. As a casual observer and someone newly excited about the live coverage, I'm not sure what I would pay and what exactly I would need to see to pay up front.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 09-04-2019, 05:47 PM
jvphobic jvphobic is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 941
Niced 1,755 Times in 417 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Putt for D'oh View Post
Purely from a quality of coverage standpoint do you think we are in a place PPV could work? and if not how far off do you think that would be?

My opinion there is it is all the $$$ game right? You guys have talked about the jump in really orders of magnitude in cost for what DG has now for live coverage to ball golf coverage, being able to split between holes, having those :30 second delayed shots queued up to cut to or other live footage where we have ~"dead" time now in the walk up the fair way and such. I don't even watch much tourney footage but I think the improvements made with the live coverage this year has roped me in. As a casual observer and someone newly excited about the live coverage, I'm not sure what I would pay and what exactly I would need to see to pay up front.
I don't know if live could survive PPV alone. Not as long as high quality next day coverage is available for free. I am talking about a package deal. I am saying that you would get live & next day coverage as a package, and you get to choose what you want to watch, or watch it all! I don't know what the cost would be, I haven't actually sat down and worked out any numbers because it isn't currently in the realistic phase yet. Maybe it is something I will look at this winter.

Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:28 PM
SD86's Avatar
SD86 SD86 is online now
Snowflake
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Atlanta, GA
Courses Played: 8
Posts: 9,075
Niced 2,148 Times in 1,582 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC17393 View Post
I think the viewers are going to have to make a leap (financially) and trust that the media teams will do well with the added funding. Yes, I'm talking about some sort of pay per view model.
IMHO this has been the plan/goal all along. Jussi failed with the DGWT, and Dodge failed after burning too many bridges and his hamfisted way of excluding Jomez and CCDG and Smashboxx, which alienated a LOT of viewers.

I'm not saying this as what I want or don't want, just as an observation: I don't know if disc golf is ready for PPV at this time. Try it if you want to, but don't be surprised if expectations of its success in generating revenue aren't met.
Reply With Quote
 

  #190  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:33 PM
Glide Glide is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Madison, WI
Courses Played: 1
Posts: 342
Niced 130 Times in 44 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD86 View Post
IMHO this has been the plan/goal all along. Jussi failed with the DGWT, and Dodge failed after burning too many bridges and his hamfisted way of excluding Jomez and CCDG and Smashboxx, which alienated a LOT of viewers.

I'm not saying this as what I want or don't want, just as an observation: I don't know if disc golf is ready for PPV at this time. Try it if you want to, but don't be surprised if expectations of its success in generating revenue aren't met.
You mean speculation, not observation.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DGPT: Host a Pro Tour House Party: Win a DGPT Zuca Cart! DGPT General Disc Golf Chat 2 09-07-2016 12:15 PM
CE QJLS Sold for What? Webslinger General Disc Golf Chat 28 05-23-2014 10:16 PM
Sold a Course This Morning Sadjo Course Development 11 09-22-2013 09:06 PM
just like that...another course sold Sadjo Course Development 4 04-28-2013 10:41 PM
Z xtreme - i'm sold! :::LSWT::: Discs 31 06-09-2011 02:43 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.