The fact that you made such a blanket suggestion without addressing basic things such as financial and logistical considerations is what makes it a deceivingly easy (and in the real world, unhelpful) statement to make.
This is the real world, you can do all of the theorycraft on viewership numbers that you want, but as I addressed in my previous post we are still a physical competition that relies on the events for media fodder.
So, logically, if the media relies on TD's for subject matter that makes ad revenue and generates subscription interest, then it is prudent to imbue our hypothetical scenarios with some real world attachment.
Finally, your post doubles down on the subjective nature of the critique. What you think is a good quality course, and what an audience thinks is a good quality course, may in fact not be a great course for the TD's, media, staff, volunteers, or elite competitors in addition to spectators - which were the only group you considered.
If you take the long-view of your paradigm, you're essentially suggesting that disc golf move to make appeasing an online audience which mostly watches for free the #1 priority. This is neither a good business model due to declining CPM rates and increased content noise, nor is it a good culture-growth model because it marginalizes the people putting in the hours in favor of people who might donate a few dollars. The reason media has become popular is because my peers and I have worked very hard to make it an authentic reflection of what's on the ground.
From my perspective as both a member of disc golf media, and from my experience running tournaments, I fundamentally disagree with that prioritization. The course is only one portion of the entire event. Just because to date most of the coverage directly involves the course, doesn't mean that it's the future of media. It also doesn't mean we should put blinders on to all other issues involved and focus solely on the abstract, subjective notion of "course quality".
Of course everyone wants better "course quality" - again - the statement is deceivingly easy to make. You're not considering all that is involved, least of which is that you brought up an arbitrary, subjective metric.
Really succinct response:
My original statement - Originally Posted by Chains Bailey
I do not think the value of spectators is worth the loss of course quality.
It is an opinion, echoed by many, deal with it.
TLDR version:
My original statement - Originally Posted by Chains Bailey
I do not think the value of spectators is worth the loss of course quality.
I made a basic statement that is valid regardless of how nuanced you would have preferred it be stated. It is a general statement similar to "I like it when it is warm outside.", which is just fine on its own....but if you want to ASSUME that I am not considering skin cancer, heat stroke, dehydration or agricultural drought, then you are reading too much into things in the first place. Your following response was full of misplaced assumptions that are naïve of my experiences and knowledge at best or just simply ego-masturbation on your part at worst.
LONG response I refuse to delete since I typed it all and it adds drama, which is good for all viewers regardless of course:
First - I, personally, watch all of the disc golf media regardless of venue.
Second - Just trying to correct some parts of your pompous spew is going to be a chore.
...you're essentially suggesting that disc golf move to make appeasing an online audience which mostly watches for free the #1 priority...
Yes - I can tell you that without that online audience, you cease to exist or at minimum work for no profit. Without viewers - manufacturers, sponsors, advertisers and so on would see no reason to infuse finances into something that no one consumes. That is "real world" and no "blinders" here as I am aware of what it takes to run events.
I made a basic statement that holds true if asking the majority of players/viewers from what I have witnessed on message boards (DGCR/Reddit...) - live chats - online magazine' media...maybe the dislike of certain types of courses is all in my imagination?
Whether you consider it easy or hard to state, the following is true - Catering to live spectators at the cost of what (Players/viewers) consider a lower level of course to compete on and or view is (Fill in with any word that does not offend you, but means a negative result).
I know when asking individual people, course quality is subjective, but I am addressing the DGolf community in general and what they have gravitated towards being better/worse courses. Your statement of "...what an
audience thinks is a good quality course, may in fact not be a great course for the TD's, media, staff, volunteers, or elite competitors in addition to spectators..." becomes irrelevant without said
audience. If there is no audience, then EVERYONES' opinion becomes moot.
What kind of fantasy is this? "...it marginalizes the people putting in the hours in favor of people who might donate a few dollars..." Are YOU paying TDs, staff and volunteers? The "people who might donate a few dollars" are the ones funding media overall. Or are YOU CHARGING the TDs, staff, sponsors and volunteers for your services? Who is really marginalizing others efforts here? If you were so concerned with "good culture-growth model" then you would surely donate ALL of your profits to those being marginalized, right?
Again, I am not going to preface every statement I make to cover every possible scenario or interested entity. Your response points out the flaws of being succinct, which is usually something I have a hard time doing - (Obviously). I did hit upon the media/sponsor side of things earlier, if you would like to go back and read the thread.
Simply, correct me where I am wrong:
I do not believe that catering to a few hundred live spectators over tens of thousands online viewers is a good business model.
I believe that the majority of players/viewers would prefer/like/want/expect a certain level/type of course to take priority over live spectators.
It is not more nuanced than the above - cell signal and other restrictions set aside...I am aware of TDs, volunteers etc...if you can honestly tell me that live spectators are more important than what online viewership is asking for, then more power to you.
If any media company ignores, or disregards, their viewership's preferences consistently - I promise you that all of the "TD's, media, staff, volunteers, elite competitors, (sponsors) and spectators" will go elsewhere.
You are well spoken and make some valid observations, although well out of place in reaction to my basic statement that holds true in general terms. It is not always necessary to surgically dissect something simple into a complicated mess of misplaced assumptions - (I fall into this category by entertaining your misplaced assumptions in the first place). It seems to me that your pomposity serves as sufficient "blinders", as you say, to basic truths.
