Go Back   Disc Golf Course Review > General Disc Golf Discussions > Tournaments & Leagues

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #81  
Old 03-19-2018, 05:51 PM
JTacoma03's Avatar
JTacoma03 JTacoma03 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Baton Rouge, LA and SF, CA
Years Playing: 9.4
Courses Played: 128
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 4,000
Niced 592 Times in 214 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvphobic View Post
A few thoughts to get back on track.


2. I love that the manufacturers are getting involved and helping out the crews. But they are also holding the entire media back by restricting access to events based on WHO is supporting "rival" crews. I don't think that we are not in a position to turn away free media for our largest events. And if CCDG wants to cover LVC, or Masters Cup, or GBO, or ANY NT of Major at no cost to the event, they should be allowed to. Or IF SmashBoxx wanted to show up on OUR OWN DIME to NTs and Majors, we should be allowed to attend. These are the PDGA's biggest events and restricting media access to them isn't the way we should be approaching this.
I don't agree with this. With the amount of money that manufacturers put into title sponsoring (and running with their own staff these days), they have the right to have exclusivity should they desire it. Our sports biggest events cost 6-figures to execute all in. Manufacturers have rights to ROI on hosting these events, otherwise there will be no future, because the professional tour absolutely depends on the pockets of the biggest companies within the sport to even survive.

Unfortunately, there's not enough money to buy out all of the advertising slots in everybody's coverage, and it's disrespectful to ask you, Ian, et al to work for fractions of pennies, AND kowtow to pros demands of more AND deeper payouts, AND provide spectator experience. You have to draw the line somewhere.

I want you to make money, but if I'm Manufacturer A I do not want to pay for Manufacturer B's advertising slots. Now, if the manufacturers work up a quid pro quo system? That would be an amicable and altruistic move, but they're under no obligation to do anything of the sort.


Views do not grow the game, money grows the game. Views are a means to money.
Sponsored Links

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 03-20-2018, 12:18 AM
jvphobic jvphobic is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 585
Niced 555 Times in 148 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTacoma03 View Post
I don't agree with this. With the amount of money that manufacturers put into title sponsoring (and running with their own staff these days), they have the right to have exclusivity should they desire it. Our sports biggest events cost 6-figures to execute all in. Manufacturers have rights to ROI on hosting these events, otherwise there will be no future, because the professional tour absolutely depends on the pockets of the biggest companies within the sport to even survive.

Unfortunately, there's not enough money to buy out all of the advertising slots in everybody's coverage, and it's disrespectful to ask you, Ian, et al to work for fractions of pennies, AND kowtow to pros demands of more AND deeper payouts, AND provide spectator experience. You have to draw the line somewhere.

I want you to make money, but if I'm Manufacturer A I do not want to pay for Manufacturer B's advertising slots. Now, if the manufacturers work up a quid pro quo system? That would be an amicable and altruistic move, but they're under no obligation to do anything of the sort.


Views do not grow the game, money grows the game. Views are a means to money.
So if an event agrees to be an NT or Major, and the major backing sponsor only wants to cover 2nd card of MPO because that is where THEIR most prized sponsored person is... that is acceptable? Or if an event doesn't want to cover FPO, that is acceptable? Or if the event wants to pay for ZERO media coverage... that is fine as well because they are the sponsor?

What I am talking about is our sports LARGEST events. Ones that agree to be be the face of our sport. PDGA NTs and PDGA Majors. The key word being PDGA. If they don't like the agreement, don't sign on to be an NT or Major. Until a company can afford to have coverage on every card, those events should be open. Of course they are currently not.

Now there needs to be some stipulations. Agreement to play presenting sponsors commercials X number of times, the presenting sponsor gets to pick premiere media partner, the media teams need to be vetted by the PDGA, etc. But if our media crews see enough value in covering the 2nd, 3rd, FPO, or FPO2 cards for these event the PDGA should allow them there.

I don't care if it is the GBO presented by DD, USDGC presented by Innova, or the Pittsburgh Flying Open presented by Discraft & Legacy... my goal is to provide exposure for the PDGA's biggest events and keep our media teams afloat.

Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 03-20-2018, 08:35 PM
JTacoma03's Avatar
JTacoma03 JTacoma03 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Baton Rouge, LA and SF, CA
Years Playing: 9.4
Courses Played: 128
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 4,000
Niced 592 Times in 214 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvphobic View Post
So if an event agrees to be an NT or Major, and the major backing sponsor only wants to cover 2nd card of MPO because that is where THEIR most prized sponsored person is... that is acceptable? Or if an event doesn't want to cover FPO, that is acceptable? Or if the event wants to pay for ZERO media coverage... that is fine as well because they are the sponsor?
So you're using an appeal to emotion here, an altruistic emotion. You're appealing to the common good and the social pressure. IMO I think you're glossing over an unfortunate reality in 2018, which is that there are very very few events which are truly great NT's - events which have the combination of quality of course, quality of venue/facilities, ease of access for traveling, etc. It's not like there's 100 people knocking down the PDGA's door with equally great facilities hoping to catch a NT or Major...except for the ones the manufacturers are HEAVILY subsidizing with manpower, hype, and cash.

I'm also talking about business, which FWIW and respectfully, I think you guys need to consider more. You know I say this out of love, but you and Terry tend to get heated when a tournament doesn't purchase your offerings. It comes across as "well we are the only live solution, so we MUST be hired" - which just isn't a realistic position to take.

Quote:
What I am talking about is our sports LARGEST events. Ones that agree to be be the face of our sport. PDGA NTs and PDGA Majors. The key word being PDGA. If they don't like the agreement, don't sign on to be an NT or Major. Until a company can afford to have coverage on every card, those events should be open. Of course they are currently not.
This is your opinion because this is the system you need to make money. It's not an objective look at the P&L's. We literally have no entity that can independently sustain a NT/M based on the demands these days.

Quote:
Now there needs to be some stipulations. Agreement to play presenting sponsors commercials X number of times, the presenting sponsor gets to pick premiere media partner, the media teams need to be vetted by the PDGA, etc. But if our media crews see enough value in covering the 2nd, 3rd, FPO, or FPO2 cards for these event the PDGA should allow them there.

I don't care if it is the GBO presented by DD, USDGC presented by Innova, or the Pittsburgh Flying Open presented by Discraft & Legacy... my goal is to provide exposure for the PDGA's biggest events and keep our media teams afloat.
Honestly man, no disrespect to you, but this is arrogant. We as youtube based producers have no leverage to dictate the business decisions or rights management tactics of manufacturers which have 8-figure brand values to protect. Such a statement leads me to believe that you think the manufacturers are invincible in their market positions. Dunipace's patents are expired, and injection molding can be done by larger corporations at lower costs. The world you're describing is fine for niche, but it doesn't scale.

Your argument keeps coming down to "well we are the a production company, and we're here, so you owe us money and the ability to work"

The bottom line is, if adding you (or me, or anybody) doesn't make the bottom line work, then we don't work. Follow the money, or bankrupt the sport.

I know this will not be a popular opinion, but this is the real world. If we do not operate this way, I 100% guarantee that we will either fizzle out like a shooting star, or the sport will grow despite it and major media companies will come in and squash us. There is nothing that any of us do that is proprietary, patented, or irreplaceable.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 03-21-2018, 12:05 PM
JTacoma03's Avatar
JTacoma03 JTacoma03 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Baton Rouge, LA and SF, CA
Years Playing: 9.4
Courses Played: 128
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 4,000
Niced 592 Times in 214 Posts
Default

Aww man I'm such a dick. I was getting real with JVD...and yesterday was his birthday!

Happy birthday dude, you know it's all love. Like I said earlier in the thread, we all want it to grow, we just have different ideas sometimes.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 03-21-2018, 04:22 PM
jvphobic jvphobic is offline
Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 585
Niced 555 Times in 148 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTacoma03 View Post
Aww man I'm such a dick. I was getting real with JVD...and yesterday was his birthday!

Happy birthday dude, you know it's all love. Like I said earlier in the thread, we all want it to grow, we just have different ideas sometimes.
NEVER apologize for "getting real" with me. Jamie. You and I are cool. Even if it WAS my 40th birthday. hahaha

I currently have a proposal in to the PDGA to update the Media agreement. AND it has nothing to do with live. It is strictly for the post production guys of which I personally have ZERO stake in. This has very little to do with me making money. "For me it is about the growth of the sport." (haha PDGA commercial). SmashBoxx is my side hustle, if it went away tomorrow it wouldn't affect my life other than giving me more time for my family.

SmashBoxx doesn't get upset when we are not used for events. We understand that the cost to bring us in is high and it isn't right for every event. The only time we were confused is when the PDGA offered to cover our costs for a PDGA major and the presenting sponsor more or less said "no thank you." And ultimately it was because, my point of view was that if you want to be a PDGA Major the PDGA should have some say in how the events that basically define the PDGA are represented, just like they do the rules.

So, lets leave USDGC out of the discussion because it isn't owned by the PDGA (which is an entirely another discussion on the bad decision of the PDGA over a decade ago). When an event agrees to be a representative of the PDGA by asking/agreeing to be an NT or Major, in my opinion, the PDGA should force on them a media agreement that benefits the sport and the PDGA.

And don't misconstrue my point in saying that the events are forced to bring in anyone. There would be zero HARD costs to any event for this. For instance if TDDG/CCDG/Jomez wants to come and film GBO (and GBO is an NT/M) then at NO cost to the event, they should be allowed to as long as they are a vetted PDGA approved media entity. Because maybe TDDG has outside sponsors. In fact, this could actually save the manufactures money because they would no long have to pay for media if they don't want to. Because in the agreement the stipulation would say that you are required to play the presenting sponsor's ad "X" number of times. The kick is that the production company can also play their other PDGA approved sponsors assets.

No one forces events to be PDGA NTs or Majors. They want to be them because it brings in bigger sponsorship dollars, prestige, top players, and eyeballs to their event. What the sponsors are currently doing is using the PDGA's name and brand to elevate the events that they sponsor. My idea is to put more power in the PDGAs hands when it comes to the representation of their tour.

I don't want to make anyone spend any money they don't want to. What I am looking for is better representation at what we consider our premier events, which are our NT's and Majors.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 03-23-2018, 03:43 PM
DiscFifty DiscFifty is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Tx
Years Playing: 7.3
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,060
Niced 295 Times in 168 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JTacoma03 View Post
or the sport will grow despite it and major media companies will come in and squash us.
I agree.
Reply With Quote
 

  #87  
Old 03-25-2018, 11:43 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 12
Courses Played: 180
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,007
Niced 162 Times in 103 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jvphobic View Post
So if an event agrees to be an NT or Major, and the major backing sponsor only wants to cover 2nd card of MPO because that is where THEIR most prized sponsored person is... that is acceptable? Or if an event doesn't want to cover FPO, that is acceptable? Or if the event wants to pay for ZERO media coverage... that is fine as well because they are the sponsor?

What I am talking about is our sports LARGEST events. Ones that agree to be be the face of our sport. PDGA NTs and PDGA Majors. The key word being PDGA. If they don't like the agreement, don't sign on to be an NT or Major. Until a company can afford to have coverage on every card, those events should be open. Of course they are currently not.

Now there needs to be some stipulations. Agreement to play presenting sponsors commercials X number of times, the presenting sponsor gets to pick premiere media partner, the media teams need to be vetted by the PDGA, etc. But if our media crews see enough value in covering the 2nd, 3rd, FPO, or FPO2 cards for these event the PDGA should allow them there.

I don't care if it is the GBO presented by DD, USDGC presented by Innova, or the Pittsburgh Flying Open presented by Discraft & Legacy... my goal is to provide exposure for the PDGA's biggest events and keep our media teams afloat.
To answer the red bolded, just refer back to the USDGC's 2015 and 2016, one year there was no live coverage, one year there was no post-production coverage and check what the comments were. JonnyV is spot on.
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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.