shive
Par Member
Response to Chuck Kennedy
to Cgkdisc (post #219):
Yours is the counterargument, very well articulated. I have struggled with it, and I don't have a blanket answer. I take it on a case-by-case basis, and my attitude evolves. So, for example, I do believe that Amateurs are seriously shortchanged and should receive more than they currently do. I believe that we treat our Tournament Directors shamefully, and my Number 1 recommendation is to do something meaningful for them. When I ran for the Board in 2007 I was all for the magazine, but now I'd probably vote to discontinue it. It would be close.
So why do I believe that live programming, in particular, should be pay-per-view? First, because (unlike the magazine) it could be, if we can believe the hype we hear from both the producers and the consumers. Second, I think it should be because live programming is an expensive way to market and promote the PDGA to its own membership, a poor use of our resources if we want to grow the sport.
Finally, and most importantly, I see the PDGA on the cusp of a portentous decision, which is whether we would prefer to have disc golf evolve more as a participant sport or a spectator sport. We know for sure that members value the playing experience so highly that they pay (literally) millions of dollars to participate. But we only guess at how much value it has as a spectator sport. So, pay-for-view is a necessary experiment that must be done so we don't end up making that decision in the dark.
to Cgkdisc (post #219):
Yours is the counterargument, very well articulated. I have struggled with it, and I don't have a blanket answer. I take it on a case-by-case basis, and my attitude evolves. So, for example, I do believe that Amateurs are seriously shortchanged and should receive more than they currently do. I believe that we treat our Tournament Directors shamefully, and my Number 1 recommendation is to do something meaningful for them. When I ran for the Board in 2007 I was all for the magazine, but now I'd probably vote to discontinue it. It would be close.
So why do I believe that live programming, in particular, should be pay-per-view? First, because (unlike the magazine) it could be, if we can believe the hype we hear from both the producers and the consumers. Second, I think it should be because live programming is an expensive way to market and promote the PDGA to its own membership, a poor use of our resources if we want to grow the sport.
Finally, and most importantly, I see the PDGA on the cusp of a portentous decision, which is whether we would prefer to have disc golf evolve more as a participant sport or a spectator sport. We know for sure that members value the playing experience so highly that they pay (literally) millions of dollars to participate. But we only guess at how much value it has as a spectator sport. So, pay-for-view is a necessary experiment that must be done so we don't end up making that decision in the dark.
Last edited: