Its definitely a curious model to operate.
'Lets go ahead and spoil everything on social media and then hope that the ADD millennials (OUR COVETED DEMOGRAPHIC) will care enough to watch the edited round when it comes out 2 days later'
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
No live coverage at DGWT events
- Thread starter Consult20
- Start date
'Lets go ahead and spoil everything on social media and then hope that the ADD millennials (OUR COVETED DEMOGRAPHIC) will care enough to watch the edited round when it comes out 2 days later'
cdunlapb12
Par Member
The live streams are exciting when I have the time, but some of us don't have the luxury to sit down and watch those. This is where nice Jomez quality post productions are a god send. I can come home from work on tournament days and watch HD footage without all of the walking between shots and useless banter, and AND sometimes get to listen to pro commentary from a player with insight into shot selection and other such things.
Why can't we just have both?
Why can't we just have both?
For me. I can have it on in the background during work on a Friday or while I'm doing stuff around the house on a Saturday.
I don't sit and watch every second with baited breath. Just like how people have the NFL on for HOURS on end every single Sunday. You dip in and dip out depending on what is going on with the action. Awesome part about the live stream on Youtube is you can just rewind on-demand if you miss something and then catch back up with the live portion. Or start 30-60mins late and 'fast forward' through all of the commercials/boring parts.
Crazy, huh?
Because Jussi won't allow it.
cdunlapb12
Par Member
Seems very counter-intuitive to remove any form of exposure for disc golf. I've only been playing a year but honestly live stream is where I started watching. I would think if he really wanted to grow the sport and sell product he would want as much coverage from as many people until he could afford to pick and choose.
Cool story. You aren't part of the demographic that enjoys live disc golf. We get it.
Hampstead
* Ace Member *
I take it you don't binge watch any TV shows or do movie marathons either.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
I sit in front of my computer as a regular part of my job doing such things as processing TD reports for the ratings. In fact, I'll sometimes plan my computer time to line up with the live coverage to multitask. As a member of the Competition, Course and Ratings Committees plus RC adviser, live coverage provides the mostly unvarnished reality of what's happening without the clean-up niceness that occurs with next day videos. As Terry, Dodge and a few other TDs can attest, I've either been contacted or I contacted them when seeing a situation unfold where I can advise even though it's in an unofficial capacity. In addition, I've texted media during live coverage with some relevant stat facts on things like best rated rounds or score to hit 1100 rating, etc.
onemilemore
* Ace Member *
lyleoross
* Ace Member *
Isn't it time to move beyond the "I don't like live, and don't understand why you all make the time" discussion?
I can't hardly stand pro football, thirty seconds of activity followed by two minutes of guys in a circle doing whatever guys do in a circle, bores me. That said, it would take an imbecile to not recognize that there is value in the sport, and a lot of money to be made, no matter what I like or dislike. The discussion here reminds me losely of the soccer debate. "yeah, it s****, I know it's the most profitable/popular sport in the world, but who cares ya losers."
There is an audience, is it sufficient, is a better question than, can you belive those guys wanna watch that?
Judging Jussi. The defense and condemnations of Jussi range from the ridiculous to the ridiculous. Spite to OMG, did you see his resume? I prefer to judge him by his actions, something we could use a bit more of per say. If Jussi is a brilliant businessperson, why did he broadcast La Mir? It's numbers. He should have known, cost, advertising and had a vauge feel for audience share etc. before he even started. He did it and only after, decided it didn't pay. We don't know what pays, but we do know that at least one other player in live broadcast decided he could do it. Again, we don't know numbers, but DGPT did it and did it well.
Jussi, marketing genius or not, made a classic marketing blunder. He took away an option that people had and loved (might not be a large segment, but it was a vocal one). The live stream of USDGC was established, at least in the minds of some, and Jussi didn't consider that in his decision making process. Marketing 101, if you're gonna reduce the value, you have to replace it or at least convince your customer you're replacing it, with something of equal or greater value. You can slip in a change if the customer isn't paying attention (no really, the candy bar was always .7 oz). If Jussi's background is in marketing, nope I didn't go look, then he isn't as good at it as others might be.
He misunderstood the relationship within the online community between, live, and social media, overplaying the role of social media in a sporting event. I've not seen any sporting event choose his model, no matter what argument he makes. Social media plays a role when there is no live option. Kim Kardashion gets mugged. Well, unless the mugger is wired, no live. You see the difference? If that is a testament to his marketing skills, oh wait, I already covered that point.
Jussi then got out the BSometer. He gave a price that was too high (according to an expert voice) and said that he couldn't get it done when the PDGA offered. The first point is clear, Jussi didn't want to pay whatever the price was, and he pushed the estimate up to justify his decision. The second is somewhat subjective. By Jussi's measure, there wasn't time, but his isn't the expert voice in this, the broadcast guys are the ones to listen to. Jussi didn't bother to ask, he simply said no. That is the reason some feel he was being spiteful. I work with micro-managers on a daily basis. If a manager trusts their experts to get things done, it typically happens, and relatively efficiently. When a micro-manager over manages the expert, well, yeah, there isn't enough time. This strikes me as classic micro-management. That isn't a sin, nor is it a reason to condemn Jussi, many micro-managers are quite successful. But it does say that Jussi gets some of the blame for the outcome.
In the end, Jussi's decision not to live brodcast was made to keep money in Jussi's pocket. As good capitalists, well, those that are, we should be able to understand that. But good capitalists realize, if someone is willing to pick up the bill, you let it happen. Jussi couldn't do that, or even take an hour to explore the topic. And in a social media world, the one Jussi claims to know (at least by his broadcast decisions) that is a no no. That makes him look bad.
Jussi is a succesful business person, that doesn't mean he's perfect. He blew this, and in the end, it's a small thing, unless he does it again next year.
I can't hardly stand pro football, thirty seconds of activity followed by two minutes of guys in a circle doing whatever guys do in a circle, bores me. That said, it would take an imbecile to not recognize that there is value in the sport, and a lot of money to be made, no matter what I like or dislike. The discussion here reminds me losely of the soccer debate. "yeah, it s****, I know it's the most profitable/popular sport in the world, but who cares ya losers."
There is an audience, is it sufficient, is a better question than, can you belive those guys wanna watch that?
Judging Jussi. The defense and condemnations of Jussi range from the ridiculous to the ridiculous. Spite to OMG, did you see his resume? I prefer to judge him by his actions, something we could use a bit more of per say. If Jussi is a brilliant businessperson, why did he broadcast La Mir? It's numbers. He should have known, cost, advertising and had a vauge feel for audience share etc. before he even started. He did it and only after, decided it didn't pay. We don't know what pays, but we do know that at least one other player in live broadcast decided he could do it. Again, we don't know numbers, but DGPT did it and did it well.
Jussi, marketing genius or not, made a classic marketing blunder. He took away an option that people had and loved (might not be a large segment, but it was a vocal one). The live stream of USDGC was established, at least in the minds of some, and Jussi didn't consider that in his decision making process. Marketing 101, if you're gonna reduce the value, you have to replace it or at least convince your customer you're replacing it, with something of equal or greater value. You can slip in a change if the customer isn't paying attention (no really, the candy bar was always .7 oz). If Jussi's background is in marketing, nope I didn't go look, then he isn't as good at it as others might be.
He misunderstood the relationship within the online community between, live, and social media, overplaying the role of social media in a sporting event. I've not seen any sporting event choose his model, no matter what argument he makes. Social media plays a role when there is no live option. Kim Kardashion gets mugged. Well, unless the mugger is wired, no live. You see the difference? If that is a testament to his marketing skills, oh wait, I already covered that point.
Jussi then got out the BSometer. He gave a price that was too high (according to an expert voice) and said that he couldn't get it done when the PDGA offered. The first point is clear, Jussi didn't want to pay whatever the price was, and he pushed the estimate up to justify his decision. The second is somewhat subjective. By Jussi's measure, there wasn't time, but his isn't the expert voice in this, the broadcast guys are the ones to listen to. Jussi didn't bother to ask, he simply said no. That is the reason some feel he was being spiteful. I work with micro-managers on a daily basis. If a manager trusts their experts to get things done, it typically happens, and relatively efficiently. When a micro-manager over manages the expert, well, yeah, there isn't enough time. This strikes me as classic micro-management. That isn't a sin, nor is it a reason to condemn Jussi, many micro-managers are quite successful. But it does say that Jussi gets some of the blame for the outcome.
In the end, Jussi's decision not to live brodcast was made to keep money in Jussi's pocket. As good capitalists, well, those that are, we should be able to understand that. But good capitalists realize, if someone is willing to pick up the bill, you let it happen. Jussi couldn't do that, or even take an hour to explore the topic. And in a social media world, the one Jussi claims to know (at least by his broadcast decisions) that is a no no. That makes him look bad.
Jussi is a succesful business person, that doesn't mean he's perfect. He blew this, and in the end, it's a small thing, unless he does it again next year.
gsw_03
Par Member
...until he does it again next year.
Cgkdisc
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
Even though this thread is about lack of live coverage, it seems like this is the best one to discuss specifically what media output and viewer numbers Jussi has provided so far. I've got a couple questions:
1. Are the numbers short term and projecting long term sufficient to justify the cost and effort needed to produce them? In essence, was there a way to measure a direct financial return or using internet metrics that indicate what return one can expect over time from x amount of exposure? If not measurable, then how do you know what's worth doing for media other than generating the biggest numbers of views per dollar/time spent?
2. Let's say the response versus cost was acceptable or at least within budget. How do we know the differential views gained by generating this quality of output at a high level event versus just any tournament or for that matter, just good video quality disc golf content in general? So for the cost of this media effort, if it was economically worthwhile, you would want to know if you could get almost as many views as any kind of tournament that was much less expensive to run for even better returns. For example, a large Am tournament like Am Nats or BG Ams would be much less expensive and effort to run producing even higher returns for the event and the sponsoring companies.
1. Are the numbers short term and projecting long term sufficient to justify the cost and effort needed to produce them? In essence, was there a way to measure a direct financial return or using internet metrics that indicate what return one can expect over time from x amount of exposure? If not measurable, then how do you know what's worth doing for media other than generating the biggest numbers of views per dollar/time spent?
2. Let's say the response versus cost was acceptable or at least within budget. How do we know the differential views gained by generating this quality of output at a high level event versus just any tournament or for that matter, just good video quality disc golf content in general? So for the cost of this media effort, if it was economically worthwhile, you would want to know if you could get almost as many views as any kind of tournament that was much less expensive to run for even better returns. For example, a large Am tournament like Am Nats or BG Ams would be much less expensive and effort to run producing even higher returns for the event and the sponsoring companies.
SD86
Banned
Thank you for that post. The only thing I'll add is that Jussi (and really all of DGWT) lost a LOT of credibility and integrity in the aftermath of the original mistake. Continuing to tell us it was about money after the PDGA had blown that excuse to pieces, then the total disrespect of Disc Golf fans by attacking those not in jackbooted lockstep with Jussi's preferences and the dismissive attacks by proxy posters... was nothing but totally insulting to the core base of DG viewers.
I really do not believe it's too much of a stretch to compare Jussi's actions then the attacks on those in disagreement... with the actions of the Salient people. The parallels are right there. And we know what ended up happening to Salient.
If Jussi & Co. don't come correct and being showing respect to the viewers, they can expect the continued backlash... and the continued questioning of Jussi's motives and his integrity.
I've always found this double standard pretty funny. It's totally awesome and cool to support the up-and-comers in the disc golf industry, but as soon as you cross that threshold of daring to turn profit (even if you're not quite there yet) you get turned upon and branded the evil machine.
You continue posting these really inflammatory and venomous interpretations of events while trying to masquerade them as truth, and it's extreme almost to the point of comedy.
...but you already know that. You're not stupid (your posts are well written and have a twisted, bitter tonal eloquence), you're just stubbornly refusing to admit that .05% of the disc golfing population truly feels that spiteful. You're the Rush Limbaugh of DGCR.
In order to declare that the USDGC has lost credibility, you need some yourself, and your aforementioned extremist interpretations preclude that. You lack the quintessential component of credibility...rationalism (and you could use a sprinkle of empathy as well).
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,180
These are basically the same thing?
Why would he not? He tried it, it didn't produce the numbers he was looking for to work with his overall vision, he canned it. That's good business. Why would he keep investing in something that doesn't produce the return (possibly not financial return) he wants?
It was/is a very very small one. It echoes itself and magnifies through these tiny echochamber forums we frequent. If I could be bothered to go and do the research I would warrant there have been no more than 100 people on DGCR complaining across all these threads, they are most likely the same people that pop up trolling the Spin TV youtube channel and moaning on the facebook feeds. Certainly some of the user names are the same.
That's not a lot of people with a complaint against hundreds of thousands of views yet because they see their complaint reflected in a very small environment they think it must be the same view held by everyone. This is the same mindset seen with the Discraft is tiny because "no one in my town carries Discraft moulds."
If my customer base is hundreds of thousands, I'm not going to really give a damn what 100 or even 1000 people think however loud they are.
I think you're missing something quite key here. Why does he not want the livestream there?
He is packaging up a brand to take to advertisers and investors, to show people the numbers the sport can create, if that offering is diluted through a load of different channels even if the overall views add up to the same the individual impact is lessened. To be able to say the Facebook channel got over 1 million hits is a lot of power (even if they are not unique) . If 1000 people are upset as a result of that, well, if it was your business would you care? Of those 1000 how many will actually not watch any of the coverage you are putting out?
Then you're not watching very closely. Every major sport is packaging up lots of little bitesize video chunks and teasers, great plays, anything that gets social media engagement. Yes they also have the budget to run the big live stuff, but this sort of smaller cheaper social media engagement is integral to all sports and businesses now.
that is totally subjective, IMO the media I received at USDGC was better than the stop/start streaming, awkward commentary livestreams I've watched like all you other addicts for the last ten years and I've sat through a lot of them start to finish (often staying up till 4 in the morning). I love this sport, I love watching it even when what I'm watching is clunky in the extreme. They've got better but god if I wasn't addicted to this sport there is no way in the world I or any of you would watch this stuff live, really take yourselves out of it and ask yourself would you?
Trying to take myself out of the Disc Golf bubble the only live coverage I have seen that might have drawn me in without already knowing about the sport and being desperate to see some live coverage of it has been the European TV coverage and even the most recent one was a bit shaky despite costing in the 10's of thousands to air. Those wrap up shows were slick, if I was on the edges of disc golf or just happened to flick onto it, that sort of coverage could get you to watch.
If you were someone investing and trying to make that investment back in advertising showing a livestream on youtube, would this make you eager or not to show it? Would you be better off giving a smaller package where you could force engagement with your advertisers or brand or whatever you wanted to showcase?
pmatt1969
Eagle Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 522
You don't know what percentage of the disc golf population is spiteful any more than I do. These are opinions. Disc golfers are the biggest whiners I have ever dealt with. I am sure you have no bias.
You probably think Hillary has credibility.
cdunlapb12
Par Member
I'm disappointed that he canned livestream. I'm more disappointed that it appears he tried to lie about it when everyone got upset. If it isn't lucrative just come out and say that point blank, then provide numbers and such to back up his point. So far all that I've read or seen is that Jussi decided he didn't want it so he could make more profit and then made up a story about not having enough money.
Similar threads
