No, probably not--the future of paintball, that is--but I wanted to grab your attention and shake you like a rag doll. No, you (yes, I mean you) didn't do anything--that I know of--to make me angry--but if instead I start talking about politicians, automatic weapons and steel-jacketed ammo the next thing I know jackboots will be kicking in my door and ruining what's left of a bad day.
Some days I decry the future of this stupid game and other days I mock the pitiful efforts made to save it and still other days I think I could have had a V8--and not one of the fruity ones either. Some of you will recall that a fairly concerted effort was once made to keep the milsim and paramilitary overtones of some elements of paintball out of the public eye like crazy uncle Harry locked in the basement when the neighbors dropped by for a visit. That day is over, both from the industry and at the retail level where a lot of paintball stores sell Airsoft side-by-side with their paintball gear. One upshot of that trend may have been the recent California bill aimed at toy guns that originally included paintball markers--and could again. While paintball dodged that bullet--this time--paintball is clearly headed down a path that will further entwine our game with guns of all sorts--and it won't be to paintball's betterment.
But that isn't what I want to rant about today. While paintball looks to relive the Vietnam experience (or D-Day or whatever) minus all the ugly and, you know, deadly parts for fun and recreation Hasbro & Nerf are flat ripping us off. No, I'm not kidding. Here's the deal: check it out. (Watch the short video.) Not convinced, try here. Or here. (Watch this video too.) Getting the picture? Hasbro has taken Nerf to the next level and they've done it by looking at tourney paintball and recreating a Nerf version currently aimed at kids. It's cheap. It's clean. It's easy to play and it might even be fun. And they've taken a giant step or two past that with an annual tour of event stops to play in regional events with a chance to win a trip to Disney's WWOS (Wide World of Sports)--you may have heard of it--for the annual championships and a chance for the winning team to take home 25 grr. The tour, btw, is the Dew Tour featuring a line-up of so-called extreme sports.
Dart tag regional events compete with the other sports on the Dew Tour with regional winners eligible for the championships in Orlando. They play inside inflated, netted arenas with inflatable bunkers, penalty boxes and referees and score points by capturing an opponent's nerf something and returning it to their Home base in a timed game that offers multiple breakouts. Sound familiar?
Meanwhile, in paintball land after 20 years TV treats us like the hired help and our industry is all monkey see, monkey do without being able to agree on anything that might be in everyone's best interest all the while leaving a crumbling retail network to fend for itself.
Is nobody either ashamed or offended that Hasbro is kicking paintball's ass? Hasbro? And Nerf?
Of course, it also begs the question of whether dart tag and the other Nerf products are precursors--potential gateways to paintball--or, as silly as it may sound, the foundation of an easy to play, energetic, painless variant of tag that will pull potential paintballers away from paintball. And if nerf tag kids are potential future paintballers will anybody do anything about it or are we too far gone with our picatinny equipped replica AK-47s and battle vests to care?
H/T to Steve Davidson for bringing Nerf Dart Tag to my attention. Like there aren't enough things in the world that already aggravate me. Thanks, Steve. I owe you one and I will get even.
Showing posts with label trends. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trends. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Sunday, April 25, 2010
The Further Adventures of Small Ball
Or, the Rise or Demise of Joy Division?
You may recall after Phoenix I reported on a conversation I had about small ball and more specifically GI Milsim's future plans. At that time the North American focus looked to be aimed directly at the mil-sim market--which still seems to be the case.
But Euroland looks a bit different. A new French team Boost Air Rennes joined the SPL--bought their way in--were handed an open spot--whatever--sponsored by Paint Distribution, the French distributor of GI Milsim in order, one presumes, to give 50 cal paint and guns a boost. (Yes, I did that on purpose.) They appear to have played one match and I'm quite certain that short of a podium finish, SPL or not, nobody cares. (Although I suppose it's conceivable that French forums are full of Boost Air Rennes watchers--but I doubt it.)
Which is where Joy comes into play. (I am assuming the Nanos in question are of the small ball variety although I have yet to receive official confirmation. Far as I can tell GI Milsim do not produce a 68 cal version of the Nano.) It's a no-brainer that Joy has the profile to make their use of small ball and the Nano marker a story of interest regardless of results--and they have a history of being one of the CPL's top teams as well. That makes Dark Sports interest obvious and standard operating procedure for a new company intent on promoting its products. On the flip side this could be a make or break situation for tournament small ball. If Joy don't continue with their consistently high results won't small ball get the blame, deserved or undeserved?
Of greater interest (to me) is what it says about Joy (and Angel Paintball Sports) and sponsorship in the present environment. Over the years no team has shown greater brand and sponsor loyalty than Joy in their relationship with Angel but the present realities (at both Angel and Joy) are compelling changes. It's swell to say Joy will continue using Angels in non-MS events but the simple fact is the MS is Joy's showcase series and the majority of fans will only follow those results. And how does a team of Joy's rep and longevity start a season without a paint deal? And how is it Angel allowed things to come to this pass? Doesn't this mean that either they simply aren't able to support Joy the way they once did or that they couldn't justify making that level of commitment?
Tourney ball doesn't need anymore cautionary tales. What we need are some new success stories--which leaves me a little torn when it comes to the future of small ball in the competitive paintball arena.
UPDATE: Sems there's some contradictory info out there. For links and the latest check out the comments.
You may recall after Phoenix I reported on a conversation I had about small ball and more specifically GI Milsim's future plans. At that time the North American focus looked to be aimed directly at the mil-sim market--which still seems to be the case.
But Euroland looks a bit different. A new French team Boost Air Rennes joined the SPL--bought their way in--were handed an open spot--whatever--sponsored by Paint Distribution, the French distributor of GI Milsim in order, one presumes, to give 50 cal paint and guns a boost. (Yes, I did that on purpose.) They appear to have played one match and I'm quite certain that short of a podium finish, SPL or not, nobody cares. (Although I suppose it's conceivable that French forums are full of Boost Air Rennes watchers--but I doubt it.)
Which is where Joy comes into play. (I am assuming the Nanos in question are of the small ball variety although I have yet to receive official confirmation. Far as I can tell GI Milsim do not produce a 68 cal version of the Nano.) It's a no-brainer that Joy has the profile to make their use of small ball and the Nano marker a story of interest regardless of results--and they have a history of being one of the CPL's top teams as well. That makes Dark Sports interest obvious and standard operating procedure for a new company intent on promoting its products. On the flip side this could be a make or break situation for tournament small ball. If Joy don't continue with their consistently high results won't small ball get the blame, deserved or undeserved?
Of greater interest (to me) is what it says about Joy (and Angel Paintball Sports) and sponsorship in the present environment. Over the years no team has shown greater brand and sponsor loyalty than Joy in their relationship with Angel but the present realities (at both Angel and Joy) are compelling changes. It's swell to say Joy will continue using Angels in non-MS events but the simple fact is the MS is Joy's showcase series and the majority of fans will only follow those results. And how does a team of Joy's rep and longevity start a season without a paint deal? And how is it Angel allowed things to come to this pass? Doesn't this mean that either they simply aren't able to support Joy the way they once did or that they couldn't justify making that level of commitment?
Tourney ball doesn't need anymore cautionary tales. What we need are some new success stories--which leaves me a little torn when it comes to the future of small ball in the competitive paintball arena.
UPDATE: Sems there's some contradictory info out there. For links and the latest check out the comments.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The UK Experiment
One of the claims for the 50 cal paintball is that the availability of lower priced paint will help reinvigorate paintball. Another claim, unrelated to the small ball, is that the problem with paintball is too much paint in the air propelled by guns with ridiculous rates of fire. Can both of those things be true? And if they aren't both correct, then what? Does small ball actually make things worse? Or is all that ROF hand-wringing nonsense?
There is little doubt that cheaper to the consumer paint would be great for the existing competitive paintball crowd. But then the question arises–again–of why has there been a recent drop off in new tournament-oriented players entering the game? If this is a real phenomenon has it occurred because paint cost too much or for some other reason? Clearly there is a line of thinking that associates high ROF and volume of paint with a decline in participation but is it the cost or the resulting sort of game you get with high ROF that's the problem? Or, is something else at the root of this problem?
Over in the UK there is a fairly strict dividing line separating the kind(s) of paintball available by site. The largest face of paintball is recreational rental play with most of the players being first timers and the once or twice a year sort. Many of the fields that cater to that customer do not want even regular rec players. At one time it was widely accepted (among the tourney types) that such practices were severely inhibiting the development of the tourney scene by having a huge disconnect between entry level paintball and tournament style paintball. If the majority of the occasional players don't even know tourney ball existed they weren't likely to seek it out, much less play. In the U.S. there appears, at least on a regional basis, to be a lot more interaction between the levels and types of players as lots of fields offer both woods and airball and welcome the regular repeat customer. And yet, if the claims of decline are correct (and they seem to be) we're both experiencing similar results. (Of related interest is the fact that many of the UK sites targeting new and very occasional players have consistently done very good business so there was little or no reason for them to change. Draw your own conclusion. Everybody's doing it.)
Maybe it is both high ROF and cost with each "cause" affecting a different part of the market. And both discouraging some percentage of potential tourney players from getting more involved. I don't know but it doesn't seem unreasonable. Of course, if true, does the small ball help more than it hurts? (Pun intended.) Right now there are a lot more questions than there are answers and that isn't going to change anytime soon. (It's hard to come up with definitive answers when everyone is mostly guessing at both the problems and the causes. The tourney concerns are partly raw numbers and partly anecdotal and the declining playership claim is based almost exclusively on product sales figures which do not necessarily equate to player numbers.) It would seem that we're going to get small ball regardless. (Unless all the claims being made for it turn out to be bogus.) Small ball probably isn't the answer but it could be an answer.
There is little doubt that cheaper to the consumer paint would be great for the existing competitive paintball crowd. But then the question arises–again–of why has there been a recent drop off in new tournament-oriented players entering the game? If this is a real phenomenon has it occurred because paint cost too much or for some other reason? Clearly there is a line of thinking that associates high ROF and volume of paint with a decline in participation but is it the cost or the resulting sort of game you get with high ROF that's the problem? Or, is something else at the root of this problem?
Over in the UK there is a fairly strict dividing line separating the kind(s) of paintball available by site. The largest face of paintball is recreational rental play with most of the players being first timers and the once or twice a year sort. Many of the fields that cater to that customer do not want even regular rec players. At one time it was widely accepted (among the tourney types) that such practices were severely inhibiting the development of the tourney scene by having a huge disconnect between entry level paintball and tournament style paintball. If the majority of the occasional players don't even know tourney ball existed they weren't likely to seek it out, much less play. In the U.S. there appears, at least on a regional basis, to be a lot more interaction between the levels and types of players as lots of fields offer both woods and airball and welcome the regular repeat customer. And yet, if the claims of decline are correct (and they seem to be) we're both experiencing similar results. (Of related interest is the fact that many of the UK sites targeting new and very occasional players have consistently done very good business so there was little or no reason for them to change. Draw your own conclusion. Everybody's doing it.)
Maybe it is both high ROF and cost with each "cause" affecting a different part of the market. And both discouraging some percentage of potential tourney players from getting more involved. I don't know but it doesn't seem unreasonable. Of course, if true, does the small ball help more than it hurts? (Pun intended.) Right now there are a lot more questions than there are answers and that isn't going to change anytime soon. (It's hard to come up with definitive answers when everyone is mostly guessing at both the problems and the causes. The tourney concerns are partly raw numbers and partly anecdotal and the declining playership claim is based almost exclusively on product sales figures which do not necessarily equate to player numbers.) It would seem that we're going to get small ball regardless. (Unless all the claims being made for it turn out to be bogus.) Small ball probably isn't the answer but it could be an answer.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Major League Paintball Held Hostage, Day 28
"The PSP is pleased to announce that for the 2009 Season all of our events will host an exclusive manufacturers' tradeshow. In an effort to respond to the overwhelming request of our industry's manufacturers and sponsors, companies will now only be able to represent their own brands within the tradeshow."
The above is a partial quote from a PSP press release sent out this morning. I'm sure some of you received it, too. It appears to be a more moderate version of what the Millennium is doing this year. (If you missed those posts and are interested look here and here for some background.) It is also a form of protectionism. In the last couple of seasons vendor sales have been soft. So soft almost nobody has made any profits in the process. (And more than a few have struggled to break even.) Soft sales encouraged a few vendors to offer mainstream products at cut rate prices well below msrp and map pricing and that in turn further eroded an already weak sales environment. Given that situation this move appears (there's that word again) to make some sense. However --
There's more to it than that. The PSP is changing the model of what sponsorship is and what it receives in return. What was a vendors village of diverse retailers is to be a manufacturers tradeshow with the proviso the manufacturers are selling retail. The result is that manufacturers prices are protected and they become the only game in town. Which means potentially higher prices to the customer--assuming there are any. Customers, that is.
Is this really a good idea? Probably not. Will it work? Depends on what you (or I) mean by work. Will it protect the manufacturers and their appointed reps? Yes, but that only means at the event site for the duration of the event. Will it garner sufficient sales to be worthwhile? Guess we will see. Will it, by the end of the year, turn World Cup into a legit tradeshow (with direct sales on the side)? If it does will the PSTA still need Paintball Extravaganza? (And what about Mary?)
Other problems remain but aren't really the PSP's problem. One of them is manufacturers competing against retailers for retail business. Another is manufacturers selling to retailers who don't uphold manufacturers guidelines.
The above is a partial quote from a PSP press release sent out this morning. I'm sure some of you received it, too. It appears to be a more moderate version of what the Millennium is doing this year. (If you missed those posts and are interested look here and here for some background.) It is also a form of protectionism. In the last couple of seasons vendor sales have been soft. So soft almost nobody has made any profits in the process. (And more than a few have struggled to break even.) Soft sales encouraged a few vendors to offer mainstream products at cut rate prices well below msrp and map pricing and that in turn further eroded an already weak sales environment. Given that situation this move appears (there's that word again) to make some sense. However --
There's more to it than that. The PSP is changing the model of what sponsorship is and what it receives in return. What was a vendors village of diverse retailers is to be a manufacturers tradeshow with the proviso the manufacturers are selling retail. The result is that manufacturers prices are protected and they become the only game in town. Which means potentially higher prices to the customer--assuming there are any. Customers, that is.
Is this really a good idea? Probably not. Will it work? Depends on what you (or I) mean by work. Will it protect the manufacturers and their appointed reps? Yes, but that only means at the event site for the duration of the event. Will it garner sufficient sales to be worthwhile? Guess we will see. Will it, by the end of the year, turn World Cup into a legit tradeshow (with direct sales on the side)? If it does will the PSTA still need Paintball Extravaganza? (And what about Mary?)
Other problems remain but aren't really the PSP's problem. One of them is manufacturers competing against retailers for retail business. Another is manufacturers selling to retailers who don't uphold manufacturers guidelines.
Monday, December 8, 2008
New Look Pro
At last--it's New Look Pro. (About time too.) While the focus will be the on field playing of the game it's nearly impossible to completely separate from the business & politics of the game.
I'm writing this based on a couple of assumptions. That the PSP has an interest in maintaining a pro division that serves as the pinnacle of competition paintball. And, that the ultimate goal remains the mainstreaming of competition paintball. (Or, as I prefer, the "selling" of paintball.) Even if there is now a willingness to take a more incremental approach than in the past. You know, actually build the game.
It will be interesting--to me anyway--to see what comes out of the Vegas meeting (apparently not everything that happens in Vegas stays in Vegas) with respect to the pro game and the rumored semi-pro or open division. The news could also be exciting or disappointing or horrifying.
Four issues strike me as being most significant. One (1), changes to the actual on field competition. Two (2), changes to the rules (ROF & penalties for example) and/or practices of the PSP. Three (3), the 'lost' generation of players who may be too good to play. Four (4), the relationship, if any, that the league fosters with the pro teams.
Regarding point 3 there already exists a lost generation of players. Back in July I discussed the issue as it related to D1 here, here and here. And with the prospect of a single national league and a limited (locked?) pro division there exists the potential for a glut of pro ranked players looking for a place to play. I expect this to be addressed by either adding a new division or turning D1 back to an Open division. The core problem is that if the issue isn't handled well the league may end up squandering the skills and motivation to compete of a lot of players [who also have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the game]--and unintentionally send a counterproductive message to all the lower division teams--your motivation and desire to be the best you can be will drive you out of our league.
Point 4 is the critical issue. How it is addressed, or if it is addressed, will be reflected in the choices made related to points one and two. Last year's changes proved less than effective for a couple of reasons. One reason was a miscalculation of what would make a real difference and the second was because no decision made last off season altered in any significant way the relationship of the pro teams to the league--it remained fundamentally adversarial. (That's a 'loaded' term but I don't mean to attach any negative connotation.) In my view that miscalculation was a direct result of the nature of the relationship. It is also my view that until the relationship is altered many of the changes that will be made (or have been made) will not serve their intended purpose.
Regarding point 1 the relevant aspect here is do choices made now lock the league (and the teams and the players) into a version of not-gonna-call-it-xball-anymore that is less than optimum? And is less a showcase of the sport and just generally less. Less may be unavoidable for the time being but my concern is that these choices will be put forward as beneficial to the teams but will only result in compromising the potential of the game.
Point 2 is mostly a subset of 1 but is also intended to cover stuff like the release of field layouts, etc. The pertinent question with any changes made in this category is do they benefit only the league or only the teams or some combination. Another area of concern is that the league sees a need to economize and in that process simply shifts some additional burden to the teams either unintentionally or in the guise of helping them. For example the changes made last year reduced field time for most lower div teams with no changes or increases in cost. Or the NXL maintaining their operational decisions on the backs of the competing teams even with a substantially altered game.
As to how this plays out on the field an xball lite variant at the pro level will result in lost strategic and tactical options. [I'll explain how another time.] It will almost certainly also result in more cautious, less exciting play and increase the potential for poor officiating to impact the outcome of matches.
Once the official announcements are made the VFTD will break them down in detail but until then it's difficult to be more specific.
I'm writing this based on a couple of assumptions. That the PSP has an interest in maintaining a pro division that serves as the pinnacle of competition paintball. And, that the ultimate goal remains the mainstreaming of competition paintball. (Or, as I prefer, the "selling" of paintball.) Even if there is now a willingness to take a more incremental approach than in the past. You know, actually build the game.
It will be interesting--to me anyway--to see what comes out of the Vegas meeting (apparently not everything that happens in Vegas stays in Vegas) with respect to the pro game and the rumored semi-pro or open division. The news could also be exciting or disappointing or horrifying.
Four issues strike me as being most significant. One (1), changes to the actual on field competition. Two (2), changes to the rules (ROF & penalties for example) and/or practices of the PSP. Three (3), the 'lost' generation of players who may be too good to play. Four (4), the relationship, if any, that the league fosters with the pro teams.
Regarding point 3 there already exists a lost generation of players. Back in July I discussed the issue as it related to D1 here, here and here. And with the prospect of a single national league and a limited (locked?) pro division there exists the potential for a glut of pro ranked players looking for a place to play. I expect this to be addressed by either adding a new division or turning D1 back to an Open division. The core problem is that if the issue isn't handled well the league may end up squandering the skills and motivation to compete of a lot of players [who also have the potential to make a valuable contribution to the game]--and unintentionally send a counterproductive message to all the lower division teams--your motivation and desire to be the best you can be will drive you out of our league.
Point 4 is the critical issue. How it is addressed, or if it is addressed, will be reflected in the choices made related to points one and two. Last year's changes proved less than effective for a couple of reasons. One reason was a miscalculation of what would make a real difference and the second was because no decision made last off season altered in any significant way the relationship of the pro teams to the league--it remained fundamentally adversarial. (That's a 'loaded' term but I don't mean to attach any negative connotation.) In my view that miscalculation was a direct result of the nature of the relationship. It is also my view that until the relationship is altered many of the changes that will be made (or have been made) will not serve their intended purpose.
Regarding point 1 the relevant aspect here is do choices made now lock the league (and the teams and the players) into a version of not-gonna-call-it-xball-anymore that is less than optimum? And is less a showcase of the sport and just generally less. Less may be unavoidable for the time being but my concern is that these choices will be put forward as beneficial to the teams but will only result in compromising the potential of the game.
Point 2 is mostly a subset of 1 but is also intended to cover stuff like the release of field layouts, etc. The pertinent question with any changes made in this category is do they benefit only the league or only the teams or some combination. Another area of concern is that the league sees a need to economize and in that process simply shifts some additional burden to the teams either unintentionally or in the guise of helping them. For example the changes made last year reduced field time for most lower div teams with no changes or increases in cost. Or the NXL maintaining their operational decisions on the backs of the competing teams even with a substantially altered game.
As to how this plays out on the field an xball lite variant at the pro level will result in lost strategic and tactical options. [I'll explain how another time.] It will almost certainly also result in more cautious, less exciting play and increase the potential for poor officiating to impact the outcome of matches.
Once the official announcements are made the VFTD will break them down in detail but until then it's difficult to be more specific.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Addendum to Limbo & the Minefield
Couple of additional thoughts on yesterday's post--and no, this doesn't count as an all new post (it's an addendum) so 'New Look Pro' will (still) be the next new post. That is the official VFTD rationalization and I'm sticking with it.
While I think the MS is flirting with having a league that nobody shows up for if they follow through with the new gun sponsor restrictions (particularly in a worsening economic climate) I can see why the big manufacturers might consider it a bargain. If the price is a barrier to other gun makers then the cost/benefit works in two ways. One, it clears the field of competitors (for sales and promotion) and Two, it retains the traditional promotional value (potentially enhanced by the TV show). One not-so-secret characteristic of the leaders of PBIndustry is they don't actually want competition (which makes them just like every other industry leader.)
Final Thought--Will Ford, GM & Chrysler be paying NASCAR the old going rate next year for the "privilege" of having their brands compete?
Despite the changes made last off season by the PSP there was an attitude that in some respects dismissed the loss of pro teams because there were others waiting to fill in for them. With all the pro teams at loose ends this off season will that attitude carry over? After all, it worked out so well last year. It was considered a 'realistic' approach to the hard facts of life. Fair enough but can THE national league promoting a world competition standard survive and succeed without a functional pro division? It ain't clear to me that they understand that this is what they are flirting with.
While I think the MS is flirting with having a league that nobody shows up for if they follow through with the new gun sponsor restrictions (particularly in a worsening economic climate) I can see why the big manufacturers might consider it a bargain. If the price is a barrier to other gun makers then the cost/benefit works in two ways. One, it clears the field of competitors (for sales and promotion) and Two, it retains the traditional promotional value (potentially enhanced by the TV show). One not-so-secret characteristic of the leaders of PBIndustry is they don't actually want competition (which makes them just like every other industry leader.)
Final Thought--Will Ford, GM & Chrysler be paying NASCAR the old going rate next year for the "privilege" of having their brands compete?
Despite the changes made last off season by the PSP there was an attitude that in some respects dismissed the loss of pro teams because there were others waiting to fill in for them. With all the pro teams at loose ends this off season will that attitude carry over? After all, it worked out so well last year. It was considered a 'realistic' approach to the hard facts of life. Fair enough but can THE national league promoting a world competition standard survive and succeed without a functional pro division? It ain't clear to me that they understand that this is what they are flirting with.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Mr. Curious Again
Over at John Amodea's (new) blog, (welcome to the new media, John) he began a series of posts that are, in part, a retrospective of the history of paintball. I recommend anyone interested in the current state of the game check John's blog out. So many involved in the game today know amazingly little about what came before which makes it all the more ironic that some of the peeps most in need of John's review are the ones who made that history.
The broad strokes of the post are unassailable but donning my Mr. Curious personae, which requires only an expression of wonderment mixed with confusion--and not a great personal stretch--I am curious about a couple of things in John's post. I wonder what gun sales were in say, 2000 or 2001 compared to 2008. I also wonder what impact the burgeoning market in almost new virtually identically performing used guns is having on new sales particularly during an economic downturn. I'm also curious about the real impact of media and industry focus on the tourney side in recent years (and the varied effort over the last couple years to reintroduce recreational paintball into the pages of most of the magazines.) I have no doubt that poor local field operation has been exacerbated by punks with blazing gats and alienated some numbers of newbies but were these ever players interested in rec and/or woods ball? And have these assumed losses impacted the numbers of rec/woods players? Lastly, did anyone expect the explosive growth of the early part of this decade to go on endlessly? (Well, doh, some parts of PBIndustry clearly did but still ...)
In any event it's great to have multiple voices and more venues in which to discuss this wretched game called paintball.
The broad strokes of the post are unassailable but donning my Mr. Curious personae, which requires only an expression of wonderment mixed with confusion--and not a great personal stretch--I am curious about a couple of things in John's post. I wonder what gun sales were in say, 2000 or 2001 compared to 2008. I also wonder what impact the burgeoning market in almost new virtually identically performing used guns is having on new sales particularly during an economic downturn. I'm also curious about the real impact of media and industry focus on the tourney side in recent years (and the varied effort over the last couple years to reintroduce recreational paintball into the pages of most of the magazines.) I have no doubt that poor local field operation has been exacerbated by punks with blazing gats and alienated some numbers of newbies but were these ever players interested in rec and/or woods ball? And have these assumed losses impacted the numbers of rec/woods players? Lastly, did anyone expect the explosive growth of the early part of this decade to go on endlessly? (Well, doh, some parts of PBIndustry clearly did but still ...)
In any event it's great to have multiple voices and more venues in which to discuss this wretched game called paintball.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Ghost Town
Just took a look at paid registration for the NPPL San Diego Commander's Cup season finale and it ain't a pretty sight. Only 85 teams paid as of this evening with about twice that registered with only 3 more days until registration closes. I wonder what impact the Houston cancellation is having as well as the state of the Cali economy. We'll have some idea how soft the market is getting on the strength of the last minute entries paid from the registrants pool. Not looking good.
If you want to participate in a positive way and can't play make sure you check out the free webcast of the event from nppl live and show some support.
UPDATE: Friday 3:00pm EST and registered paid is up to 103. 12 hours to go.
If you want to participate in a positive way and can't play make sure you check out the free webcast of the event from nppl live and show some support.
UPDATE: Friday 3:00pm EST and registered paid is up to 103. 12 hours to go.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Cross Polination
Over at PB Nation. A View reader made an effort to start an intelligent conversation in the PSP forum beginning with his take on some of the stuff he's seen here at the View. It more or less degenerated into a debate over the merits of sideline coaching with the typical 20/80 ratio of reasonable comments to brain dead gibberish. Let that be a lesson to all y'all.
While I applaud the effort and certainly don't mind the collateral promotion one of the reasons for starting this blog in particular was to offer a forum where intelligent conversation and debate is actually welcomed and not shouted down by the mob. (Doesn't mean there won't be any disagreement--there ought to be disagreements but ones conducted in a productive manner.) I know perfectly well why some you are reticent to post but this blog won't and can't fulfill its intended purpose if'n y'all are skeered to post even as anonymous.
While I applaud the effort and certainly don't mind the collateral promotion one of the reasons for starting this blog in particular was to offer a forum where intelligent conversation and debate is actually welcomed and not shouted down by the mob. (Doesn't mean there won't be any disagreement--there ought to be disagreements but ones conducted in a productive manner.) I know perfectly well why some you are reticent to post but this blog won't and can't fulfill its intended purpose if'n y'all are skeered to post even as anonymous.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
A Tale of Two Leagues
One of the fascinating (and when I say fascinating I mean ironic) things about this season is the decisions made by the two leagues leading into the current season. If you heard last January that one of the leagues would offer to discount the Pro Division entry for an event who would you have assumed it was? Or that one of the leagues was discussing ways of shoring up participation in the lower divisions?
Instead, they got it bass-ackwards.
Super 7 has shown year-to-year a growing weakness in the lower divisions which are, as everyone knows, the critical revenue divisions and yet everything was business as usual. Although one might say the NPPL tried more of the same it doesn't appear to be working. Nor did last year's really bad idea of discounted entries. And I can't see your typical D2 team being particularly thrilled with discounts for Pros. At any rate whatever NPPL has been thinking with regards their player (customer) base their implementation hasn't turned things around.
PSP enjoyed its best year ever in '07 and they decide the thing to do is tweak the format across the board and charge the lower divisions more in '08. (It's a testament to the popularity of Xball that the '08 numbers to date aren't far off last year's but WC will determine just how good or not '08 turns out to be.) Of course they also tweaked the format for the Pros as well--the division that was really hurting--ostensibly to make it less expensive to compete. Trust me, it ain't no cheaper. Some teams may be using a bit less tourney paint but that's it. The only other savings are in practicing less.
To date the result is one league has a fairly strong Pro Division (though both have problems but for different reasons) with weak lower divisional support and the other is pretty strong everywhere but in their premier Pro Division.
Between the two I think the NPPL has the larger problem because I think their problems are predicated on the core assumptions of their promotion but if PSP doesn't take some decisive action on behalf of the NXL they may end up in the position of seeing how strong Xball is without a flagship division.
Instead, they got it bass-ackwards.
Super 7 has shown year-to-year a growing weakness in the lower divisions which are, as everyone knows, the critical revenue divisions and yet everything was business as usual. Although one might say the NPPL tried more of the same it doesn't appear to be working. Nor did last year's really bad idea of discounted entries. And I can't see your typical D2 team being particularly thrilled with discounts for Pros. At any rate whatever NPPL has been thinking with regards their player (customer) base their implementation hasn't turned things around.
PSP enjoyed its best year ever in '07 and they decide the thing to do is tweak the format across the board and charge the lower divisions more in '08. (It's a testament to the popularity of Xball that the '08 numbers to date aren't far off last year's but WC will determine just how good or not '08 turns out to be.) Of course they also tweaked the format for the Pros as well--the division that was really hurting--ostensibly to make it less expensive to compete. Trust me, it ain't no cheaper. Some teams may be using a bit less tourney paint but that's it. The only other savings are in practicing less.
To date the result is one league has a fairly strong Pro Division (though both have problems but for different reasons) with weak lower divisional support and the other is pretty strong everywhere but in their premier Pro Division.
Between the two I think the NPPL has the larger problem because I think their problems are predicated on the core assumptions of their promotion but if PSP doesn't take some decisive action on behalf of the NXL they may end up in the position of seeing how strong Xball is without a flagship division.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
