|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x17k for the big blue - yikes. Holy shit That is an atrocious number double yikes That is a no new tv deal number.From anyone. Not Fox, not Optus. Certainly no FTA commercials. It is actually a no more A League number.The question for several seasons now is when will the metrics hit bottom. We must be getting very close. The problem is that the bottom is so low that a recovery to a commercially viable level looks to be impossible. Totally agree.
We have an entire round rating under 20k. That is a national audience figure. That is genuinely 2 blokes and a dog.
And for our marquee game, MVFC V SFC, the original big city rival clubs, to rate 17k really shows where we’re at.
It’s depressing. I don’t see a recovery from here. We simply don't have the population to sustain a professional national competition in a 4th tier sport. The US does - they have 300 million plus people. Can't be done with 26 million. Population doesn't pay for leagues. Money does The A League at one stage was offered a $60m a year TV deal and knocked it back for being too small. They also had 16 teams bid for a spot in the league with the highest offering $15m. Not to mention heavy international interest in club ownership Our game has opportunities. They just doesnt reflect the traditional investment the AFL / NRL gets which is everything paid for out of a central TV deal and sponsorship Citing the number of rival sports for the incompetence showed time and time again by the one trick pony Australian sports administrators is a cop out. The only thing we couldnt afford was the AFL / NRL model, particularly as both of these codes have already outgrown what little this model has to offer, and cricket is fast heading down the same pathway The FFA fucked up. Pure and simple. It has nothing to do with population or number of other sports Are you seriously suggesting there is no connection between population and money??? There's no need for the hypothetical Fact 1: Australia has only 26 million people Fact 2: The A League has enough money for it to be viable Whatever hypothetical calculations you want to make to to try to establish the position of the A League is nullified by what we factually know The FFA didnt make enough of the opportunities presented because it didnt match the AFL / NRL model. Under different leadership the A League would have thrived Where is that BS meter.....LOL Arguably, under different leadership (ie one without the power/influence of the Lowy’s), the HAL may never have got off the ground. I was talking about the game and opportunities today, not 15 years ago The opportunities weren't squandered 15 years ago because they didn't exist I have long said that the starting point of the A League was a necessary evil and if the league was done over 100 times you would end up with the same result. But it was the next steps where the FFA fucked it Yes the Lowy led FFA gets credit for what they did at the start. But it wasn't on anybody's blue print for a "me too" "soccer" version of the AFL / NRL. This mainly came into play after the collapse of the game in season 6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xLook perhaps he was our Napoleon we had to have after our Reign of Terror, a dictator to crush dissent and enforce stability after the revolution, I'll give you that, but really with the government backing we could have had anyone sit in his chair and rebooted the game quite well but unfortunately it was someone who was a bit more used to looking after number one than serving the game. Your French history needs work. Well there's certainly some Frankophiles in this thread lol Robespierre was the guy you were looking for.. But Frank was definitely more Napoleon-like But Robespierre was in charge during the Reign of Terror, which is what I already used to equate with the NSL, so that wouldn't have made sense. Thanks for getting my Frankophile joke.
|
|
|
|
|
Footballer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x17k for the big blue - yikes. Holy shit That is an atrocious number double yikes That is a no new tv deal number.From anyone. Not Fox, not Optus. Certainly no FTA commercials. It is actually a no more A League number.The question for several seasons now is when will the metrics hit bottom. We must be getting very close. The problem is that the bottom is so low that a recovery to a commercially viable level looks to be impossible. Totally agree.
We have an entire round rating under 20k. That is a national audience figure. That is genuinely 2 blokes and a dog.
And for our marquee game, MVFC V SFC, the original big city rival clubs, to rate 17k really shows where we’re at.
It’s depressing. I don’t see a recovery from here. We simply don't have the population to sustain a professional national competition in a 4th tier sport. The US does - they have 300 million plus people. Can't be done with 26 million. Population doesn't pay for leagues. Money does The A League at one stage was offered a $60m a year TV deal and knocked it back for being too small. They also had 16 teams bid for a spot in the league with the highest offering $15m. Not to mention heavy international interest in club ownership Our game has opportunities. They just doesnt reflect the traditional investment the AFL / NRL gets which is everything paid for out of a central TV deal and sponsorship Citing the number of rival sports for the incompetence showed time and time again by the one trick pony Australian sports administrators is a cop out. The only thing we couldnt afford was the AFL / NRL model, particularly as both of these codes have already outgrown what little this model has to offer, and cricket is fast heading down the same pathway The FFA fucked up. Pure and simple. It has nothing to do with population or number of other sports Are you seriously suggesting there is no connection between population and money??? There's no need for the hypothetical Fact 1: Australia has only 26 million people Fact 2: The A League has enough money for it to be viable Whatever hypothetical calculations you want to make to to try to establish the position of the A League is nullified by what we factually know The FFA didnt make enough of the opportunities presented because it didnt match the AFL / NRL model. Under different leadership the A League would have thrived Where is that BS meter.....LOL Arguably, under different leadership (ie one without the power/influence of the Lowy’s), the HAL may never have got off the ground. I was talking about the game and opportunities today, not 15 years ago The opportunities weren't squandered 15 years ago because they didn't exist I have long said that the starting point of the A League was a necessary evil and if the league was done over 100 times you would end up with the same result. But it was the next steps where the FFA fucked it Yes the Lowy led FFA gets credit for what they did at the start. But it wasn't on anybody's blue print for a "me too" "soccer" version of the AFL / NRL. This mainly came into play after the collapse of the game in season 6. It’s tricky.
We had to have the start up Lowy league with catchy names, colours and one-city clubs. Sounds cringey, but that what it was.
When could the transition have happened? Precisely what year?
Part of the start up deal was one-city clubs with a 5 year moratorium to protect them.
The WC Bid was a shocker. That was all Lowy. Tied to that, was the NQ and Heart ‘expansion’. A couple of bad years, a sugar hit with WSW, more mediocrity...we just never transitioned the model. Those at FFA knew the game was broke despite all the promise. We never became what we should be.
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that?
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x17k for the big blue - yikes. Holy shit That is an atrocious number double yikes That is a no new tv deal number.From anyone. Not Fox, not Optus. Certainly no FTA commercials. It is actually a no more A League number.The question for several seasons now is when will the metrics hit bottom. We must be getting very close. The problem is that the bottom is so low that a recovery to a commercially viable level looks to be impossible. Totally agree.
We have an entire round rating under 20k. That is a national audience figure. That is genuinely 2 blokes and a dog.
And for our marquee game, MVFC V SFC, the original big city rival clubs, to rate 17k really shows where we’re at.
It’s depressing. I don’t see a recovery from here. We simply don't have the population to sustain a professional national competition in a 4th tier sport. The US does - they have 300 million plus people. Can't be done with 26 million. Population doesn't pay for leagues. Money does The A League at one stage was offered a $60m a year TV deal and knocked it back for being too small. They also had 16 teams bid for a spot in the league with the highest offering $15m. Not to mention heavy international interest in club ownership Our game has opportunities. They just doesnt reflect the traditional investment the AFL / NRL gets which is everything paid for out of a central TV deal and sponsorship Citing the number of rival sports for the incompetence showed time and time again by the one trick pony Australian sports administrators is a cop out. The only thing we couldnt afford was the AFL / NRL model, particularly as both of these codes have already outgrown what little this model has to offer, and cricket is fast heading down the same pathway The FFA fucked up. Pure and simple. It has nothing to do with population or number of other sports Are you seriously suggesting there is no connection between population and money??? There's no need for the hypothetical Fact 1: Australia has only 26 million people Fact 2: The A League has enough money for it to be viable Whatever hypothetical calculations you want to make to to try to establish the position of the A League is nullified by what we factually know The FFA didnt make enough of the opportunities presented because it didnt match the AFL / NRL model. Under different leadership the A League would have thrived Where is that BS meter.....LOL Arguably, under different leadership (ie one without the power/influence of the Lowy’s), the HAL may never have got off the ground. I was talking about the game and opportunities today, not 15 years ago The opportunities weren't squandered 15 years ago because they didn't exist I have long said that the starting point of the A League was a necessary evil and if the league was done over 100 times you would end up with the same result. But it was the next steps where the FFA fucked it Yes the Lowy led FFA gets credit for what they did at the start. But it wasn't on anybody's blue print for a "me too" "soccer" version of the AFL / NRL. This mainly came into play after the collapse of the game in season 6. I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? We can only stand a chance if we can get something close to the current deal next time, or at least stay above $40 mill per annum
|
|
|
|
|
The_Wookie
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 346,
Visits: 0
|
+x
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch.
|
|
|
|
|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x17k for the big blue - yikes. Holy shit That is an atrocious number double yikes That is a no new tv deal number.From anyone. Not Fox, not Optus. Certainly no FTA commercials. It is actually a no more A League number.The question for several seasons now is when will the metrics hit bottom. We must be getting very close. The problem is that the bottom is so low that a recovery to a commercially viable level looks to be impossible. Totally agree.
We have an entire round rating under 20k. That is a national audience figure. That is genuinely 2 blokes and a dog.
And for our marquee game, MVFC V SFC, the original big city rival clubs, to rate 17k really shows where we’re at.
It’s depressing. I don’t see a recovery from here. We simply don't have the population to sustain a professional national competition in a 4th tier sport. The US does - they have 300 million plus people. Can't be done with 26 million. Population doesn't pay for leagues. Money does The A League at one stage was offered a $60m a year TV deal and knocked it back for being too small. They also had 16 teams bid for a spot in the league with the highest offering $15m. Not to mention heavy international interest in club ownership Our game has opportunities. They just doesnt reflect the traditional investment the AFL / NRL gets which is everything paid for out of a central TV deal and sponsorship Citing the number of rival sports for the incompetence showed time and time again by the one trick pony Australian sports administrators is a cop out. The only thing we couldnt afford was the AFL / NRL model, particularly as both of these codes have already outgrown what little this model has to offer, and cricket is fast heading down the same pathway The FFA fucked up. Pure and simple. It has nothing to do with population or number of other sports Are you seriously suggesting there is no connection between population and money??? There's no need for the hypothetical Fact 1: Australia has only 26 million people Fact 2: The A League has enough money for it to be viable Whatever hypothetical calculations you want to make to to try to establish the position of the A League is nullified by what we factually know The FFA didnt make enough of the opportunities presented because it didnt match the AFL / NRL model. Under different leadership the A League would have thrived Where is that BS meter.....LOL Arguably, under different leadership (ie one without the power/influence of the Lowy’s), the HAL may never have got off the ground. I was talking about the game and opportunities today, not 15 years ago The opportunities weren't squandered 15 years ago because they didn't exist I have long said that the starting point of the A League was a necessary evil and if the league was done over 100 times you would end up with the same result. But it was the next steps where the FFA fucked it Yes the Lowy led FFA gets credit for what they did at the start. But it wasn't on anybody's blue print for a "me too" "soccer" version of the AFL / NRL. This mainly came into play after the collapse of the game in season 6. I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? We can only stand a chance if we can get something close to the current deal next time, or at least stay above $40 mill per annum That is absolutely not going to happen. Utterly impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. what's the latest on the OPtus bid for the rugby rights?
|
|
|
|
|
Footballer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA.
|
|
|
|
|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement.
|
|
|
|
|
southmelb
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K,
Visits: 0
|
Sydney fc v Brisbane - 17k
super rugby
Brumbies v reds - 52k
Blues v chiefs - 43k (both teams from nz)
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially.
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+xSydney fc v Brisbane - 17k super rugby Brumbies v reds - 52k Blues v chiefs - 43k (both teams from nz) By historic standards, those Super Rugby numbers are low, and we're one third of that.
|
|
|
|
|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially. Everything depends on the willingness of the clubs to invest in the competition. If they aren't, the A League will fold. It's as simple as that. Your model would work, if the clubs invest.
|
|
|
|
|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xSydney fc v Brisbane - 17k super rugby Brumbies v reds - 52k Blues v chiefs - 43k (both teams from nz) By historic standards, those Super Rugby numbers are low, and we're one third of that. We are sitting at commercial death ratings. There will be no new TV deal on these figures.
|
|
|
|
|
charlied
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
And watching yet another hear affected game, we have to go back to a winter season.
|
|
|
|
|
jatz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 361,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially. First point, if your streaming the A league free everywhere, why is anyone going to pay for a streaming App? Second, if you have a streaming App, AND, free youtube content, why would any other broadcaster or streaming service touch it with a barge pole? Third, there is an English guy runs a channel on youtube, he goes by the name Lindybeige (he likes to wear beige jumpers), he does videos on military and historical stuff mainly, but it varies a bit. He has just short of 1 million followers. His videos range between sub 100k views to +3 million. `Why use clips when you can use magazines` was especially popular. His channel provides a nice living for 1 bloke. Based on what we know so far, do you think the A League will out perform Lindybeige internationally on youtube? Bearing in mind, this is a 1 person channel. Now, the A league has a lot more content to put out than good old Lindy, however, Lindybeiges content costs 3 fifths of bugger all to make. Your going to video and package all A league games, and put them on youtube? Your undermining all other forms of paying service provision for the A League, to compete with Lindybeige, and even if it works, it would need a ripple in the space time continuum to make back even a fraction of the cost. Are you sure that is wise?
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially. First point, if your streaming the A league free everywhere, why is anyone going to pay for a streaming App? Second, if you have a streaming App, AND, free youtube content, why would any other broadcaster or streaming service touch it with a barge pole? Third, there is an English guy runs a channel on youtube, he goes by the name Lindybeige (he likes to wear beige jumpers), he does videos on military and historical stuff mainly, but it varies a bit. He has just short of 1 million followers. His videos range between sub 100k views to +3 million. `Why use clips when you can use magazines` was especially popular. His channel provides a nice living for 1 bloke. Based on what we know so far, do you think the A League will out perform Lindybeige internationally on youtube? Bearing in mind, this is a 1 person channel. Now, the A league has a lot more content to put out than good old Lindy, however, Lindybeiges content costs 3 fifths of bugger all to make. Your going to video and package all A league games, and put them on youtube? Your undermining all other forms of paying service provision for the A League, to compete with Lindybeige, and even if it works, it would need a ripple in the space time continuum to make back even a fraction of the cost. Are you sure that is wise? Valid concerns - I'll address them one by one. Point 1 The purpose of the Youtube streaming is, as I mentioned in my original post, to be the 'FTA equivalent' on the internet. That is, provide the basic footage of the game to get people interested in the game. It'll be limited to a 720p stream as well as have in game ads (usually a banner on the bottom of the screen) with no pre- or post-game coverage - it's just the game and nothing else. Sure, you can watch the game, but if you're fanatical, you're not really going to put up with banner ads on the screen every 3 minutes in 720p quality. The purpose is to engage the changing consumer tastes away from FTA and to streaming - as I mentioned, broadcasting on Youtube is simply an extension of the FTA model, in that it is a shop window that provides a stream of revenue (small or large) via ad revenue - casual fans may watch the game if it's free, but they're certainly not paying to watch it as of right now. Having the MyFootball app as the premium experience is designed to give the fanatical fan a far greater experience: >4K 60FPS streams (this is the money spinner) >Completely ad-free during matches - not even banner ads >Multiple audio options (commentary, no commentary, crowd noise only etc) >A week's worth of shows including pre- and post-game analysis You're a fanatical fan of the league, and you want to watch it in the best quality available - that's who this product is aimed at. Point 2 The purpose of an in-house production and broadcast service is so that we don't have to rely on the other services and/or channels to stump up the big bucks for sports rights. Sure, subscription services like Optus or Foxtel wouldn't be interested, but there is still a market for a FTA player to be involved (especially with the dire state of the NBN in large part of the country). As I mentioned in my post, FTA coverage is the shop window, and shouldn't be seen as the sole breadwinner for the league. You want direct subscriptions (MyFootball), large Youtube viewers (ad revenue) and large crowds (ticket sales) to generate the cash for the league. I'd even be content if the FTA content was provided to someone like the ABC for a free or nominal fee, simply to ensure that we get coverage nationwide. Point 3 As things stand, we're not trying to get a million viewers - not right out of the gate anyway. I'm talking about starting small - if we get even 50k viewers on Youtube, we're practically tripling the current A-League audiences. In addition, the coverage is already being 'created' for both the MyFootball app and FTA (in this scenario), so sending it out on Youtube as well is a miniscule cost (if at all) - simply create the account, and plug the coverage in, so I disagree that it'd be costly to include the Youtube option in the media package. Sell off some ad space on the coverage, and it begins to pay for itself. I appreciate the questions, and I'm far from suggesting I have all the answers haha. What I am tired of however, is the FFA continually trying to do what the AFL and NRL do, and finding it bleeding the game dry. It's clear we can't rely on massive bidding wars for our game - that much is simple. So, let's try something different? If the clubs are serious about investing in the league, then investing in an in-house broadcasting solution is certainly one place to start in my humble opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Footballer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially. First point, if your streaming the A league free everywhere, why is anyone going to pay for a streaming App? Second, if you have a streaming App, AND, free youtube content, why would any other broadcaster or streaming service touch it with a barge pole? Third, there is an English guy runs a channel on youtube, he goes by the name Lindybeige (he likes to wear beige jumpers), he does videos on military and historical stuff mainly, but it varies a bit. He has just short of 1 million followers. His videos range between sub 100k views to +3 million. `Why use clips when you can use magazines` was especially popular. His channel provides a nice living for 1 bloke. Based on what we know so far, do you think the A League will out perform Lindybeige internationally on youtube? Bearing in mind, this is a 1 person channel. Now, the A league has a lot more content to put out than good old Lindy, however, Lindybeiges content costs 3 fifths of bugger all to make. Your going to video and package all A league games, and put them on youtube? Your undermining all other forms of paying service provision for the A League, to compete with Lindybeige, and even if it works, it would need a ripple in the space time continuum to make back even a fraction of the cost. Are you sure that is wise? Valid concerns - I'll address them one by one. Point 1
The purpose of the Youtube streaming is, as I mentioned in my original post, to be the 'FTA equivalent' on the internet. That is, provide the basic footage of the game to get people interested in the game. You must be joking.
If I am not interested or unaware of ALeague, how do I ‘become interested’ in it via YouTube?
are ads constantly directing me to it?
Do I just stumble upon it? Do I search for HAM but accidentally type in HAL, and this football competition pops up?
what if I stumble upon european handball first?
will that twang my interest and I might become a paying customer of professional European handball?
heaven forbid, what if I’m directed to the EPL?
the only people who would watch a HAL game on YouTube are those who are already fans of the HAL AND are specifically searching for it. There’s no other way. And those fans already have Foxtel or Kayo or whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
walnuts
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially. First point, if your streaming the A league free everywhere, why is anyone going to pay for a streaming App? Second, if you have a streaming App, AND, free youtube content, why would any other broadcaster or streaming service touch it with a barge pole? Third, there is an English guy runs a channel on youtube, he goes by the name Lindybeige (he likes to wear beige jumpers), he does videos on military and historical stuff mainly, but it varies a bit. He has just short of 1 million followers. His videos range between sub 100k views to +3 million. `Why use clips when you can use magazines` was especially popular. His channel provides a nice living for 1 bloke. Based on what we know so far, do you think the A League will out perform Lindybeige internationally on youtube? Bearing in mind, this is a 1 person channel. Now, the A league has a lot more content to put out than good old Lindy, however, Lindybeiges content costs 3 fifths of bugger all to make. Your going to video and package all A league games, and put them on youtube? Your undermining all other forms of paying service provision for the A League, to compete with Lindybeige, and even if it works, it would need a ripple in the space time continuum to make back even a fraction of the cost. Are you sure that is wise? Valid concerns - I'll address them one by one. Point 1
The purpose of the Youtube streaming is, as I mentioned in my original post, to be the 'FTA equivalent' on the internet. That is, provide the basic footage of the game to get people interested in the game. You must be joking.
If I am not interested or unaware of ALeague, how do I ‘become interested’ in it via YouTube?
are ads constantly directing me to it?
Do I just stumble upon it? Do I search for HAM but accidentally type in HAL, and this football competition pops up?
what if I stumble upon european handball first?
will that twang my interest and I might become a paying customer of professional European handball?
heaven forbid, what if I’m directed to the EPL?
the only people who would watch a HAL game on YouTube are those who are already fans of the HAL AND are specifically searching for it. There’s no other way. And those fans already have Foxtel or Kayo or whatever. ok
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially. First point, if your streaming the A league free everywhere, why is anyone going to pay for a streaming App? Second, if you have a streaming App, AND, free youtube content, why would any other broadcaster or streaming service touch it with a barge pole? Third, there is an English guy runs a channel on youtube, he goes by the name Lindybeige (he likes to wear beige jumpers), he does videos on military and historical stuff mainly, but it varies a bit. He has just short of 1 million followers. His videos range between sub 100k views to +3 million. `Why use clips when you can use magazines` was especially popular. His channel provides a nice living for 1 bloke. Based on what we know so far, do you think the A League will out perform Lindybeige internationally on youtube? Bearing in mind, this is a 1 person channel. Now, the A league has a lot more content to put out than good old Lindy, however, Lindybeiges content costs 3 fifths of bugger all to make. Your going to video and package all A league games, and put them on youtube? Your undermining all other forms of paying service provision for the A League, to compete with Lindybeige, and even if it works, it would need a ripple in the space time continuum to make back even a fraction of the cost. Are you sure that is wise? Valid concerns - I'll address them one by one. Point 1
The purpose of the Youtube streaming is, as I mentioned in my original post, to be the 'FTA equivalent' on the internet. That is, provide the basic footage of the game to get people interested in the game. You must be joking.
If I am not interested or unaware of ALeague, how do I ‘become interested’ in it via YouTube?
We're not in the "two papers, three TV stations" era anymore. Might be a bit of an adjustment for the boomers, but the new generation of fans are already there. I stream the news of ABC's iView in the mornings, got Netflix, got Kayo for A-League, but I would use Youtube for a variety of content more often than all those put together. My computer monitor is actually a TV, and it's plugged in to the arial and probably still works, but the last time I actually used it for traditional commercial FTA was the Victory Juventus match in 2016.
|
|
|
|
|
Eldar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
It's also pretty well known that people consume sports through highlights packages a lot more these days. Im not going to sit down and watch every a-league game on the weekend but I will catch up with every game as a kayo mini during the week.
Beaten by Eldar
|
|
|
|
|
Footballer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially. First point, if your streaming the A league free everywhere, why is anyone going to pay for a streaming App? Second, if you have a streaming App, AND, free youtube content, why would any other broadcaster or streaming service touch it with a barge pole? Third, there is an English guy runs a channel on youtube, he goes by the name Lindybeige (he likes to wear beige jumpers), he does videos on military and historical stuff mainly, but it varies a bit. He has just short of 1 million followers. His videos range between sub 100k views to +3 million. `Why use clips when you can use magazines` was especially popular. His channel provides a nice living for 1 bloke. Based on what we know so far, do you think the A League will out perform Lindybeige internationally on youtube? Bearing in mind, this is a 1 person channel. Now, the A league has a lot more content to put out than good old Lindy, however, Lindybeiges content costs 3 fifths of bugger all to make. Your going to video and package all A league games, and put them on youtube? Your undermining all other forms of paying service provision for the A League, to compete with Lindybeige, and even if it works, it would need a ripple in the space time continuum to make back even a fraction of the cost. Are you sure that is wise? Valid concerns - I'll address them one by one. Point 1
The purpose of the Youtube streaming is, as I mentioned in my original post, to be the 'FTA equivalent' on the internet. That is, provide the basic footage of the game to get people interested in the game. You must be joking.
If I am not interested or unaware of ALeague, how do I ‘become interested’ in it via YouTube?
We're not in the "two papers, three TV stations" era anymore. Might be a bit of an adjustment for the boomers, but the new generation of fans are already there. I stream the news of ABC's iView in the mornings, got Netflix, got Kayo for A-League, but I would use Youtube for a variety of content more often than all those put together. My computer monitor is actually a TV, and it's plugged in to the arial and probably still works, but the last time I actually used it for traditional commercial FTA was the Victory Juventus match in 2016. So digital content/providers have largely replaced traditional tv.
Ok. How does having our games on YouTube “get people interested in the game” ?
|
|
|
|
|
bluebird
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially. First point, if your streaming the A league free everywhere, why is anyone going to pay for a streaming App? Second, if you have a streaming App, AND, free youtube content, why would any other broadcaster or streaming service touch it with a barge pole? Third, there is an English guy runs a channel on youtube, he goes by the name Lindybeige (he likes to wear beige jumpers), he does videos on military and historical stuff mainly, but it varies a bit. He has just short of 1 million followers. His videos range between sub 100k views to +3 million. `Why use clips when you can use magazines` was especially popular. His channel provides a nice living for 1 bloke. Based on what we know so far, do you think the A League will out perform Lindybeige internationally on youtube? Bearing in mind, this is a 1 person channel. Now, the A league has a lot more content to put out than good old Lindy, however, Lindybeiges content costs 3 fifths of bugger all to make. Your going to video and package all A league games, and put them on youtube? Your undermining all other forms of paying service provision for the A League, to compete with Lindybeige, and even if it works, it would need a ripple in the space time continuum to make back even a fraction of the cost. Are you sure that is wise? Valid concerns - I'll address them one by one. Point 1
The purpose of the Youtube streaming is, as I mentioned in my original post, to be the 'FTA equivalent' on the internet. That is, provide the basic footage of the game to get people interested in the game. You must be joking.
If I am not interested or unaware of ALeague, how do I ‘become interested’ in it via YouTube?
We're not in the "two papers, three TV stations" era anymore. Might be a bit of an adjustment for the boomers, but the new generation of fans are already there. I stream the news of ABC's iView in the mornings, got Netflix, got Kayo for A-League, but I would use Youtube for a variety of content more often than all those put together. My computer monitor is actually a TV, and it's plugged in to the arial and probably still works, but the last time I actually used it for traditional commercial FTA was the Victory Juventus match in 2016. So digital content/providers have largely replaced traditional tv.
Ok. How does having our games on YouTube “get people interested in the game” ? The shift in habit is the game no longer finds people, people find the game This notion of clean air is a hang over of the 2 paper, 3 station era. With so many different platforms and countless live and delayed content, it is no longer a case of hoping somebody will stumble across an A League ad or footage and become a fan People's interest in the A League will come from a social or cultural interest in football, which will then direct a portion of fans to the elite Australian league. You don't see this with TV shows or mobile games and their means of trying to get people even aware, let alone interested is different The next TV rights equation is simple: Whichever gives our game the most money is the option we go for
|
|
|
|
No Mates
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 162,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xSydney fc v Brisbane - 17k super rugby Brumbies v reds - 52k Blues v chiefs - 43k (both teams from nz) By historic standards, those Super Rugby numbers are low, and we're one third of that. We are sitting at commercial death ratings. There will be no new TV deal on these figures. Agree, Rugby should get a slight increase in there next TV deal and remain on Foxtel, same cant be said about HAL. With the current ratings and poor crowd numbers the HAL would be lucky to even get $20m from Optus.
Wellington Phoenix FC
|
|
|
|
|
Footballer
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially. First point, if your streaming the A league free everywhere, why is anyone going to pay for a streaming App? Second, if you have a streaming App, AND, free youtube content, why would any other broadcaster or streaming service touch it with a barge pole? Third, there is an English guy runs a channel on youtube, he goes by the name Lindybeige (he likes to wear beige jumpers), he does videos on military and historical stuff mainly, but it varies a bit. He has just short of 1 million followers. His videos range between sub 100k views to +3 million. `Why use clips when you can use magazines` was especially popular. His channel provides a nice living for 1 bloke. Based on what we know so far, do you think the A League will out perform Lindybeige internationally on youtube? Bearing in mind, this is a 1 person channel. Now, the A league has a lot more content to put out than good old Lindy, however, Lindybeiges content costs 3 fifths of bugger all to make. Your going to video and package all A league games, and put them on youtube? Your undermining all other forms of paying service provision for the A League, to compete with Lindybeige, and even if it works, it would need a ripple in the space time continuum to make back even a fraction of the cost. Are you sure that is wise? Valid concerns - I'll address them one by one. Point 1
The purpose of the Youtube streaming is, as I mentioned in my original post, to be the 'FTA equivalent' on the internet. That is, provide the basic footage of the game to get people interested in the game. You must be joking.
If I am not interested or unaware of ALeague, how do I ‘become interested’ in it via YouTube?
We're not in the "two papers, three TV stations" era anymore. Might be a bit of an adjustment for the boomers, but the new generation of fans are already there. I stream the news of ABC's iView in the mornings, got Netflix, got Kayo for A-League, but I would use Youtube for a variety of content more often than all those put together. My computer monitor is actually a TV, and it's plugged in to the arial and probably still works, but the last time I actually used it for traditional commercial FTA was the Victory Juventus match in 2016. So digital content/providers have largely replaced traditional tv.
Ok. How does having our games on YouTube “get people interested in the game” ? The shift in habit is the game no longer finds people, people find the game This notion of clean air is a hang over of the 2 paper, 3 station era. With so many different platforms and countless live and delayed content, it is no longer a case of hoping somebody will stumble across an A League ad or footage and become a fan People's interest in the A League will come from a social or cultural interest in football, which will then direct a portion of fans to the elite Australian league. You don't see this with TV shows or mobile games and their means of trying to get people even aware, let alone interested is different The next TV rights equation is simple: Whichever gives our game the most money is the option we go for That’s right.
The idea that YouTube will be some kind of modern miracle advertising platform for the HAL and one that will generate new “interest” is totally misconstrued.
Putting it on YouTube would be like slipping another needle into that already giant haystack.
If people don’t already watch the HAL, they’re unlikely to spontaneously start.
As much cash as we can muster - that’s the only goal for the next deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Jegga7698
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 236,
Visits: 0
|
The drop off in numbers has been dramatic this season. The owners have a lot to answer for after their first season of running the league.
|
|
|
|
|
CHEP
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 227,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially. First point, if your streaming the A league free everywhere, why is anyone going to pay for a streaming App? Second, if you have a streaming App, AND, free youtube content, why would any other broadcaster or streaming service touch it with a barge pole? Third, there is an English guy runs a channel on youtube, he goes by the name Lindybeige (he likes to wear beige jumpers), he does videos on military and historical stuff mainly, but it varies a bit. He has just short of 1 million followers. His videos range between sub 100k views to +3 million. `Why use clips when you can use magazines` was especially popular. His channel provides a nice living for 1 bloke. Based on what we know so far, do you think the A League will out perform Lindybeige internationally on youtube? Bearing in mind, this is a 1 person channel. Now, the A league has a lot more content to put out than good old Lindy, however, Lindybeiges content costs 3 fifths of bugger all to make. Your going to video and package all A league games, and put them on youtube? Your undermining all other forms of paying service provision for the A League, to compete with Lindybeige, and even if it works, it would need a ripple in the space time continuum to make back even a fraction of the cost. Are you sure that is wise? Valid concerns - I'll address them one by one. Point 1
The purpose of the Youtube streaming is, as I mentioned in my original post, to be the 'FTA equivalent' on the internet. That is, provide the basic footage of the game to get people interested in the game. You must be joking.
If I am not interested or unaware of ALeague, how do I ‘become interested’ in it via YouTube?
We're not in the "two papers, three TV stations" era anymore. Might be a bit of an adjustment for the boomers, but the new generation of fans are already there. I stream the news of ABC's iView in the mornings, got Netflix, got Kayo for A-League, but I would use Youtube for a variety of content more often than all those put together. My computer monitor is actually a TV, and it's plugged in to the arial and probably still works, but the last time I actually used it for traditional commercial FTA was the Victory Juventus match in 2016. So digital content/providers have largely replaced traditional tv.
Ok. How does having our games on YouTube “get people interested in the game” ? The shift in habit is the game no longer finds people, people find the game This notion of clean air is a hang over of the 2 paper, 3 station era. With so many different platforms and countless live and delayed content, it is no longer a case of hoping somebody will stumble across an A League ad or footage and become a fan People's interest in the A League will come from a social or cultural interest in football, which will then direct a portion of fans to the elite Australian league. You don't see this with TV shows or mobile games and their means of trying to get people even aware, let alone interested is different The next TV rights equation is simple: Whichever gives our game the most money is the option we go for That’s right.
The idea that YouTube will be some kind of modern miracle advertising platform for the HAL and one that will generate new “interest” is totally misconstrued.
Putting it on YouTube would be like slipping another needle into that already giant haystack.
If people don’t already watch the HAL, they’re unlikely to spontaneously start.
As much cash as we can muster - that’s the only goal for the next deal. The desperate cash grabs have been going on for the last 15 years and have gradually made things worse. We sell our soul to Foxtel year after year who are slowly running us into the ground cause the league has no autonomy to grow or plan for the future. Time for a new strategy.
There’s going to come a point where we need to break free and if it means taking a hit to the kitty in the short term well so be it. It’s time to start thinking bigger picture and go with a deal that will provide long term opportunity and growth, not just the biggest lump sum. The way we’re going we’re just collecting the annual pay cheque yet gradually losing value and direction. Plus if Fox go belly up, which is very much a possibility, then we are truly screwed cause we’re stuck with their decisions yet none of their money.
As much as I can’t stand the Big Bash, they left Fox cause they were getting nowhere, took a hit and went to 10 for peanuts. They had a resurgence and the rest is history. I know cricket is much more supported and funded than football but the principle is still the same.
|
|
|
|
|
jatz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 361,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially. First point, if your streaming the A league free everywhere, why is anyone going to pay for a streaming App? Second, if you have a streaming App, AND, free youtube content, why would any other broadcaster or streaming service touch it with a barge pole? Third, there is an English guy runs a channel on youtube, he goes by the name Lindybeige (he likes to wear beige jumpers), he does videos on military and historical stuff mainly, but it varies a bit. He has just short of 1 million followers. His videos range between sub 100k views to +3 million. `Why use clips when you can use magazines` was especially popular. His channel provides a nice living for 1 bloke. Based on what we know so far, do you think the A League will out perform Lindybeige internationally on youtube? Bearing in mind, this is a 1 person channel. Now, the A league has a lot more content to put out than good old Lindy, however, Lindybeiges content costs 3 fifths of bugger all to make. Your going to video and package all A league games, and put them on youtube? Your undermining all other forms of paying service provision for the A League, to compete with Lindybeige, and even if it works, it would need a ripple in the space time continuum to make back even a fraction of the cost. Are you sure that is wise? Valid concerns - I'll address them one by one. Point 1 The purpose of the Youtube streaming is, as I mentioned in my original post, to be the 'FTA equivalent' on the internet. That is, provide the basic footage of the game to get people interested in the game. It'll be limited to a 720p stream as well as have in game ads (usually a banner on the bottom of the screen) with no pre- or post-game coverage - it's just the game and nothing else. Sure, you can watch the game, but if you're fanatical, you're not really going to put up with banner ads on the screen every 3 minutes in 720p quality. The purpose is to engage the changing consumer tastes away from FTA and to streaming - as I mentioned, broadcasting on Youtube is simply an extension of the FTA model, in that it is a shop window that provides a stream of revenue (small or large) via ad revenue - casual fans may watch the game if it's free, but they're certainly not paying to watch it as of right now. Having the MyFootball app as the premium experience is designed to give the fanatical fan a far greater experience: >4K 60FPS streams (this is the money spinner) >Completely ad-free during matches - not even banner ads >Multiple audio options (commentary, no commentary, crowd noise only etc) >A week's worth of shows including pre- and post-game analysis You're a fanatical fan of the league, and you want to watch it in the best quality available - that's who this product is aimed at. Point 2 The purpose of an in-house production and broadcast service is so that we don't have to rely on the other services and/or channels to stump up the big bucks for sports rights. Sure, subscription services like Optus or Foxtel wouldn't be interested, but there is still a market for a FTA player to be involved (especially with the dire state of the NBN in large part of the country). As I mentioned in my post, FTA coverage is the shop window, and shouldn't be seen as the sole breadwinner for the league. You want direct subscriptions (MyFootball), large Youtube viewers (ad revenue) and large crowds (ticket sales) to generate the cash for the league. I'd even be content if the FTA content was provided to someone like the ABC for a free or nominal fee, simply to ensure that we get coverage nationwide. Point 3 As things stand, we're not trying to get a million viewers - not right out of the gate anyway. I'm talking about starting small - if we get even 50k viewers on Youtube, we're practically tripling the current A-League audiences. In addition, the coverage is already being 'created' for both the MyFootball app and FTA (in this scenario), so sending it out on Youtube as well is a miniscule cost (if at all) - simply create the account, and plug the coverage in, so I disagree that it'd be costly to include the Youtube option in the media package. Sell off some ad space on the coverage, and it begins to pay for itself. I appreciate the questions, and I'm far from suggesting I have all the answers haha. What I am tired of however, is the FFA continually trying to do what the AFL and NRL do, and finding it bleeding the game dry. It's clear we can't rely on massive bidding wars for our game - that much is simple. So, let's try something different? If the clubs are serious about investing in the league, then investing in an in-house broadcasting solution is certainly one place to start in my humble opinion. The importance of digital is unquestioned, I just dont think you realise how hard it is to make it pay - if its your primary source of income. Its undoubtedly a nice little bit of extra income if you have significant revenue elsewhere. Firstly, your pitching the App at the fanatical fan, and YouTube at the person who may be enticed to become a fan, but there are a shitload of people in between those 2 options (I would suggest most people). These are the people that WILL look for the A league on line, but who may baulk at paying extra for an app, if YouTube is available. Footballs strength is the A leagues weakness. Its a universal game, so there is a shitload of football online already. I dont think YouTube will act to entice new people to the sport. I just do not see many people surfing the web for football becoming addicted to the A league after stumbling across it. I think the majority that watch will be looking for it, and they will be looking for it instead of getting the App. My story about Lindybeige was to illustrate, you need a LOT of viewers to generate decent income on YouTube. The revenue you generate and the new subscribers you recruit from YouTube will be less than the revenue you forgo by giving people tossing up whether to get the app or not, a free alternative imop. Its all well and good people crying about the viewing habits of the new generation, and how they like highlights, and stream from multiple platforms, and its the way of the future, but you still have to make it pay. AFL had 1.7 million subscribers for its app in 2018. Yearly cost was $90.00 If we assume they subscribed for the year (which many wouldn't have), thats $150 million per annum. Thats a nice sum that the A league could do with. The AFL has constructed a pyramid to maximise revenue. Quite a few games on FTA, generates lots of dollars. People that dont have foxtel or the App can get quite a bit. But, FTA cannot stream the games, or put them in their On Demand service. Foxtel has all games, in HD. If your a fanatic, its the way to watch, they get a premium from Fox. The App has all games and extra content, but cannot be streamed to a large screen, you have to watch on a phone or tablet. However, its MUCH cheaper than Foxtel. People that want access to all games but dont have or want foxtel can buy the app. They also have a YouTube channel, but it does not show games. Its highlights, specials, draft news, packages, but no games. Each service is designed to minimise its impact on other options. Every option they add decreases the value of everything else This is what your plan does I think, the options cannibalise each other, so that the whole is less than the sum of the parts.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
you could put the current product on any media platform you like and it will still fail as it is stale, boring to watch and full of recycled pensioners and journeymen. fix the product and income from media (and other sources) fixes itself
|
|
|
|
|
bettega
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x
I don’t see the league prospering under the current conditions. Certainly the next broadcast deal will be almost guaranteed to be zilch. How does the professional tier recover from that? I think Optus will bid, Foxtel wont match it in a repeat of the EPL rights. Revenue will be nowhere near as much, but wont be zilch. Optus taking on production as opposed to just the feed would be a big game changer for them. Also more costs for them. It would be a tiny deal for the FFA. A more likely scenario is that Optus requires the independent A League to provide the broadcast. In other words, the A League would do what Fox does now and subcontracts an OB company,who then do everything. Crew, and cameras, all equipment. A straightforward arrangement. A lot of the major leagues do production and broadcast in house and sell the broadcast - easier to entice broadcasters with a 'finished' product, albeit at a cost to the league of course. It also gives the league complete control over the tone and quality of the broadcast - a positive, I would've thought. I think everyone is frustrated with the current scenario - so in my mind, why not switch things up? Here is what I would consider an ideal broadcast scenario: A-League >A streaming app (MyFootball or otherwise) owned and operated by the league that has EVERY game live, ad-free and up to 4K 60fps for a monthly fee (maybe $10/month for starters). Available worldwide. >Every game broadcast in 720p on Youtube for free with ads worldwide. This is the internet equivalent of 'free to air' - a lower quality product with ads, but provided free as a gateway to attending a game. Worldwide ad revenue via Youtube is an untapped revenue source that, in my opinion, few other sports in this country can access. >Friday night and Saturday night games on a FTA channel - having one bid for the rights is preferable, but I could live with giving away this for free initially as this is the shop window for the majority of the country. Write the cost off as marketing. >Every final live on every platform (MyFootball, Youtube and FTA) - these games are the cherries on top. As many eyeballs as possible must be watching these showpiece matches. These are just my thoughts on the A-League situation - I get that the type of scenario I've described costs money, but if the clubs are willing to invest in the league as much as they claim they will, then having an in-house production and broadcast team is a worthwhile investment to unlock eyeballs that Fox Sports aren't giving us. We're following the status quo when it comes to sports rights in this country, and we're drowning - why not try something different to capture not just the domestic market, but potentially a small international audience (surely there are some Indonesian bookies who'd love to have bets on the A-League?). If we can get 100k eyeballs from overseas, we're increasing our audience exponentially. First point, if your streaming the A league free everywhere, why is anyone going to pay for a streaming App? Second, if you have a streaming App, AND, free youtube content, why would any other broadcaster or streaming service touch it with a barge pole? Third, there is an English guy runs a channel on youtube, he goes by the name Lindybeige (he likes to wear beige jumpers), he does videos on military and historical stuff mainly, but it varies a bit. He has just short of 1 million followers. His videos range between sub 100k views to +3 million. `Why use clips when you can use magazines` was especially popular. His channel provides a nice living for 1 bloke. Based on what we know so far, do you think the A League will out perform Lindybeige internationally on youtube? Bearing in mind, this is a 1 person channel. Now, the A league has a lot more content to put out than good old Lindy, however, Lindybeiges content costs 3 fifths of bugger all to make. Your going to video and package all A league games, and put them on youtube? Your undermining all other forms of paying service provision for the A League, to compete with Lindybeige, and even if it works, it would need a ripple in the space time continuum to make back even a fraction of the cost. Are you sure that is wise? Valid concerns - I'll address them one by one. Point 1 The purpose of the Youtube streaming is, as I mentioned in my original post, to be the 'FTA equivalent' on the internet. That is, provide the basic footage of the game to get people interested in the game. It'll be limited to a 720p stream as well as have in game ads (usually a banner on the bottom of the screen) with no pre- or post-game coverage - it's just the game and nothing else. Sure, you can watch the game, but if you're fanatical, you're not really going to put up with banner ads on the screen every 3 minutes in 720p quality. The purpose is to engage the changing consumer tastes away from FTA and to streaming - as I mentioned, broadcasting on Youtube is simply an extension of the FTA model, in that it is a shop window that provides a stream of revenue (small or large) via ad revenue - casual fans may watch the game if it's free, but they're certainly not paying to watch it as of right now. Having the MyFootball app as the premium experience is designed to give the fanatical fan a far greater experience: >4K 60FPS streams (this is the money spinner) >Completely ad-free during matches - not even banner ads >Multiple audio options (commentary, no commentary, crowd noise only etc) >A week's worth of shows including pre- and post-game analysis You're a fanatical fan of the league, and you want to watch it in the best quality available - that's who this product is aimed at. Point 2 The purpose of an in-house production and broadcast service is so that we don't have to rely on the other services and/or channels to stump up the big bucks for sports rights. Sure, subscription services like Optus or Foxtel wouldn't be interested, but there is still a market for a FTA player to be involved (especially with the dire state of the NBN in large part of the country). As I mentioned in my post, FTA coverage is the shop window, and shouldn't be seen as the sole breadwinner for the league. You want direct subscriptions (MyFootball), large Youtube viewers (ad revenue) and large crowds (ticket sales) to generate the cash for the league. I'd even be content if the FTA content was provided to someone like the ABC for a free or nominal fee, simply to ensure that we get coverage nationwide. Point 3 As things stand, we're not trying to get a million viewers - not right out of the gate anyway. I'm talking about starting small - if we get even 50k viewers on Youtube, we're practically tripling the current A-League audiences. In addition, the coverage is already being 'created' for both the MyFootball app and FTA (in this scenario), so sending it out on Youtube as well is a miniscule cost (if at all) - simply create the account, and plug the coverage in, so I disagree that it'd be costly to include the Youtube option in the media package. Sell off some ad space on the coverage, and it begins to pay for itself. I appreciate the questions, and I'm far from suggesting I have all the answers haha. What I am tired of however, is the FFA continually trying to do what the AFL and NRL do, and finding it bleeding the game dry. It's clear we can't rely on massive bidding wars for our game - that much is simple. So, let's try something different? If the clubs are serious about investing in the league, then investing in an in-house broadcasting solution is certainly one place to start in my humble opinion. The importance of digital is unquestioned, I just dont think you realise how hard it is to make it pay - if its your primary source of income. Its undoubtedly a nice little bit of extra income if you have significant revenue elsewhere. Firstly, your pitching the App at the fanatical fan, and YouTube at the person who may be enticed to become a fan, but there are a shitload of people in between those 2 options (I would suggest most people). These are the people that WILL look for the A league on line, but who may baulk at paying extra for an app, if YouTube is available. Footballs strength is the A leagues weakness. Its a universal game, so there is a shitload of football online already. I dont think YouTube will act to entice new people to the sport. I just do not see many people surfing the web for football becoming addicted to the A league after stumbling across it. I think the majority that watch will be looking for it, and they will be looking for it instead of getting the App. My story about Lindybeige was to illustrate, you need a LOT of viewers to generate decent income on YouTube. The revenue you generate and the new subscribers you recruit from YouTube will be less than the revenue you forgo by giving people tossing up whether to get the app or not, a free alternative imop. Its all well and good people crying about the viewing habits of the new generation, and how they like highlights, and stream from multiple platforms, and its the way of the future, but you still have to make it pay. AFL had 1.7 million subscribers for its app in 2018. Yearly cost was $90.00 If we assume they subscribed for the year (which many wouldn't have), thats $150 million per annum. Thats a nice sum that the A league could do with. The AFL has constructed a pyramid to maximise revenue. Quite a few games on FTA, generates lots of dollars. People that dont have foxtel or the App can get quite a bit. But, FTA cannot stream the games, or put them in their On Demand service. Foxtel has all games, in HD. If your a fanatic, its the way to watch, they get a premium from Fox. The App has all games and extra content, but cannot be streamed to a large screen, you have to watch on a phone or tablet. However, its MUCH cheaper than Foxtel. People that want access to all games but dont have or want foxtel can buy the app. They also have a YouTube channel, but it does not show games. Its highlights, specials, draft news, packages, but no games. Each service is designed to minimise its impact on other options. Every option they add decreases the value of everything else This is what your plan does I think, the options cannibalise each other, so that the whole is less than the sum of the parts. This post makes some good points. If we're looking to earn the bulk of our revenue from an exclusive streaming app, you'd need 500,000 subscribers paying $100 per annum to make annual revenue of $50 mill per annum (production costs of $5 mill or so would come out of that). You're probably earning a bit of advertising revenue on top of that. It seems impossible right now, but I wonder if something like that is achievable over the next decade?
|
|
|
|