At least for the Chicago event in June. Rumor has it that not everyone at the PSP is on board with this decision. How, you may wonder, could anyone in their right mind object to another awesome and entertaining webcast? From a player and fan perspective it looks like a win-win but there are other points of view. One source suggested it may cost the league upwards of 30K. That's a substantial piece of change for a league that is perpetually pleading poverty and telling its customer base, players and vendors alike, that survival depends on sometimes significant changes even though their costs won't see any relief. Fair enough but doesn't a complete turnaround in mid-season send at least a conflicting message? Can the league afford to do this or can't they? And if they can't, why are they? Heck, even if they can, why are they?
It is not from the gooey butter cream goodness of their hearts so what's the motivation? Is it because of the other guys? (The guys who did HB but not Chicago. The guys who are rumored to have turned down ESPN3 because ESPN wasn't gonna kick some cash into the project and the league had no more to spend. Those guys?)
I'm glad in a selfish way there's gonna be a webcast but we've been down this road before and nothing positive has come of it. Will a webcast generate enough paintball-wide interest to encourage new (or other) teams to participate in the PSP? Is the PSP doing a webcast just because the other guys did one? Is the PSP working on their own let's get back to TV angle? (Not that I've heard.) Maybe it's just me but I'm not seeing the point. And I'm not seeing the payoff. I don't see how a webcast in Chicago benefits the PSP or ever begins to pay for itself unless we're headed--once again--toward some sort of pay-per-view effort. Could that work? I'd like to think so but the track record ain't great.
What am I missing?
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Maybe they are doing a webcast just so you can publicly snub me again? Isn't that worth $30k?
Come on Paul "nothing positive has come of it." Really...
-patrick
A fair question would be: what is the return on investment (ROI) from the web cast? Does a web cast translate into increased numbers of entries?
ROI aside, why make the event live-streaming at all? The YouTube approach (used for PSP Galveston) is just as good in many respects, if not better.
Still waiting for the match in which the Ironmen somehow beat the Russians to be posted, however.
Dammit, I am not anonymous. Blogger still isn't recognizing my account when commenting.
Baca says:
Sorry, Patrick. That was rather all-encompassing, wasn't it? I meant something closer to sdawg's ROI. Given the recent history of the league it seems to me an expenditure of this sort ought to be justified and I don't see it. I'm not one to look a gift webcast in the mouth but how does it advance the PSP's agenda?
Yes your right it is hard to quantify the effect of a webcast on the paintball community as a whole. Just as it's hard to quantify the effects of my films over the years. Just from the feedback alone that I receive from individuals telling me how my films got them into tournament paintball and that the webcast has rekindled a flame to get back on the fields and play, I have to believe that the effects are pretty positive.
It's not a quick fix, but it is a right step and as long as we move forward with out undermining the league than that is a step forward for paintball.
-patrick
I would have thought that personal relationships came into this decision. I am a huge fan of the webcast, and also of Pat. I think Pat has many other fans, some of whom are no-doubt involved in PSP ownership. There is a definite value to creating HQ coverage of the league, however I don't think the game is necessarily mature enough to capitalize on that value at this time. I certainly don't think that the original, and substantial, investment in equipment, or Pat's talent, should be allowed to go to waste. If owners of the PSP feel the same, and also have the money to put the show on, without effecting their core business, and without promise of any ROI, then I think it's a good move for the game, if maybe not for the guy who ponies-up the necessary..
If it effects core business, and causes a price-hike before the end of the season, then there will no doubt be a shit-storm of e-abuse. If all goes well, then all the players in the league got more than they originally paid for, through their entries, and they should feel well taken-care-of.
Pay per view webcasts I'm sure are sometimes more troublesome to operate and given that that a regular audience hasn't been groomed most would be too tight to pay up, but I think there should be enough sponsors (paintball and non-paintball related) willing to throw some advertising cash at a PSP webcast to at least cover some of the costs for production. (15 sponsor advertisers at 2k each?)
Get moving on it PSP...
PSP seem to have a better marketing capabilities than others so they should be able to create enough hype to attract a webcast audience. I know we made a ton of suggestions right here about the webcasts
Pat- set up a donation link at the least and I'll contribute a $100.
Thanks Missy Q!
-patrick
baca, are their any real viewing numbers from previous year(s), espn3 at 2011 HB this year, etc that could shed some light on what kind of reasonable pay per view might work? (maybe another poll on VFTD???)
houdini's point seem valid also. maybe a hybrid of small pay per view plus advertising dollars could work.
im down with annon to contribute $100 and i wil be at the event. It just seems like we should be able to make this happen. matty/patrick & co are doing a great job.
PPV numbers are a fraction of Free viewers.
Don's PPV numbers justify not doing PPV and for PSP to concentrate on promoting the webcast to increase viewership (therefore helping justify advertising rates)
There is generally so much downtime during a webcast that I can't see why PSP marketing can't attract enough advertising $ to cover the webcast costs - either as short adverts, branding opportunities or sponsor mentions by the webcast hosts.
If PSP are already looking for advertisers then great - heck I may even fork out some $ to advertise my website.
Baca says:
Don is correct about past experience with PPV vs. freebie to viewer.
When the PSP was doing regular webcasts the idea was to generate enough viewers to then be able to go to potential advertisers.
I think if you review some past webcasts from both leagues there have been PBIndustry sponsors who undoubtedly kicked some cash the league's way for the promotion but to date the numbers have never drawn sufficient sponsor/advertiser money to even cover expenses.
Re: HB broadcast. There seems to be reason to believe the league hit their (& ESPN3's) target numbers. It seems though that while the numbers were sufficient to keep ESPN3's interest it wasn't enough to capture any of their cash to help support continuing webcast(s).
ESPN3 will broadcast pretty much anything that someone else pays to produce. They don't have a limit on the number of things they can show so anything they get for free is just more options for them.
As for PSP, it seems the webcast is based on PSP's finances. If PSP is going to lose money, the first thing they cut is the webcast. If PSP looks like they might have some profits, webcast comes back. So we should all thank PSP's owners for preferring to do a webcast over having profits.
If ESPN3 isn't going to kick in any money for the webcast, if NPPL does do a webcast, they'll probably not do it on ESPN3, since that just limits the potential audience with no benefit to them.
Post a Comment