why the fffffff

Braaap14
Profile picture for user Braaap14
Posts
826
Joined
5/10/2012
Location
USA
Braaap14
Edited Date/Time 1/27/2013 7:22pm
if they can stream practices LIVE ?


why can they not offer a coverage package LIVE online for us ?


I would GLADLY pay up to $100 for a seasons worth of live, race night streams.


what's needed to do so is obviously already in place....................................................................................
|
Grieby54
Profile picture for user Grieby54
Posts
2826
Joined
7/1/2008
Location
Castle Rock, CO, USA
Grieby54 1/26/2013 3:55pm
1/26/2013 3:55pm
Where do we see practice streamed?
Jamie_Munro 1/26/2013 3:58pm
1/26/2013 3:58pm
Braaap14 wrote:
if they can stream practices LIVE ? why can they not offer a coverage package LIVE online for us ? I would GLADLY pay up to...
if they can stream practices LIVE ?


why can they not offer a coverage package LIVE online for us ?


I would GLADLY pay up to $100 for a seasons worth of live, race night streams.


what's needed to do so is obviously already in place....................................................................................
absolutely !
TripleFive 1/26/2013 3:59pm
1/26/2013 3:59pm
Grieby54 wrote:
Where do we see practice streamed?
You serious bro?

Check the race day link sticky.
goinrcn44h
Profile picture for user goinrcn44h
Posts
378
Joined
9/20/2011
Location
Sedro Woolley, WA, USA
goinrcn44h 1/26/2013 4:01pm
1/26/2013 4:01pm
Grieby54 wrote:
Where do we see practice streamed?
Last set of timed stuff just started.. hurry up...lol
44h

The Shop

See All »
fader418
Profile picture for user fader418
Posts
2831
Joined
9/14/2009
Location
Lake Forest, CA, USA
fader418 1/26/2013 4:32pm
1/26/2013 4:32pm
Grieby54 wrote:
Where do we see practice streamed?
They practice before they race?
jonesaustin
Profile picture for user jonesaustin
Posts
2653
Joined
7/6/2009
Location
Austin, TX, USA
jonesaustin 1/26/2013 4:41pm
1/26/2013 4:41pm Edited Date/Time 1/26/2013 4:42pm
quite simply it's because a few people at the leadership level are not doing their job. you'll often hear such people respond "you just don't understand how things work", but that's pretty typical and usually isn't the reality. the truth is, there isn't any reason not to have a live stream, except for sheer dereliction of responsibility and a lack of creative urgency on behalf of the decision makers.
Electro21
Profile picture for user Electro21
Posts
2142
Joined
6/11/2008
Location
Dumfries, VA, USA
Fantasy
143rd
Electro21 1/26/2013 4:44pm
1/26/2013 4:44pm
I would pay the same amount I pay for the Sunday Ticket if I could get a supercross race packagage on DirectTv.
jonesaustin
Profile picture for user jonesaustin
Posts
2653
Joined
7/6/2009
Location
Austin, TX, USA
jonesaustin 1/26/2013 4:47pm
1/26/2013 4:47pm Edited Date/Time 1/26/2013 4:48pm
Electro21 wrote:
I would pay the same amount I pay for the Sunday Ticket if I could get a supercross race packagage on DirectTv.
precisely. even the radio show Holley and Weigandt had ... that was still, imo, the very best way to experience the race. i would pay $100 for the season to listen in. but tonight, i'll use Twitter to have something live, which really just spoils the race. you can only tweet so fast.
Electro21
Profile picture for user Electro21
Posts
2142
Joined
6/11/2008
Location
Dumfries, VA, USA
Fantasy
143rd
Electro21 1/26/2013 4:55pm
1/26/2013 4:55pm
I can't hold out until the next day either. I have got to see the results. Not as entertains to watch when you know who wins. Would love to at least have the option of pay-per view.
ando
Profile picture for user ando
Posts
4490
Joined
8/20/2009
Location
Perth, AU
ando 1/26/2013 5:23pm
1/26/2013 5:23pm
jonesaustin wrote:
quite simply it's because a few people at the leadership level are not doing their job. you'll often hear such people respond "you just don't understand...
quite simply it's because a few people at the leadership level are not doing their job. you'll often hear such people respond "you just don't understand how things work", but that's pretty typical and usually isn't the reality. the truth is, there isn't any reason not to have a live stream, except for sheer dereliction of responsibility and a lack of creative urgency on behalf of the decision makers.
LMAO. I've worked in senior leadership roles in large organisations for many years. It's easy to throw out accusations of poor decision making when you aren't either legally, financially or morally responsible for the outcome.
tbanks
Profile picture for user tbanks
Posts
1515
Joined
5/28/2011
Location
Great Mills, MD, USA
tbanks 1/26/2013 5:29pm
1/26/2013 5:29pm
With today's technology and seemingly smaller sports offering live paid packages I don't know why we can't do the same.
MX690
Profile picture for user MX690
Posts
826
Joined
11/13/2009
Location
AU
MX690 1/26/2013 5:35pm
1/26/2013 5:35pm
Electro21 wrote:
I can't hold out until the next day either. I have got to see the results. Not as entertains to watch when you know who wins...
I can't hold out until the next day either. I have got to see the results. Not as entertains to watch when you know who wins. Would love to at least have the option of pay-per view.
Now that's the way to go, A full supercross season on pay per view, i would definitely pay for that.
APLMAN99
Profile picture for user APLMAN99
Posts
12577
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
348th
APLMAN99 1/26/2013 5:56pm
1/26/2013 5:56pm
Braaap14 wrote:
if they can stream practices LIVE ? why can they not offer a coverage package LIVE online for us ? I would GLADLY pay up to...
if they can stream practices LIVE ?


why can they not offer a coverage package LIVE online for us ?


I would GLADLY pay up to $100 for a seasons worth of live, race night streams.


what's needed to do so is obviously already in place....................................................................................
I think you'd have to pony up a lot more than that.

One big thing to consider is that if they stream on Saturday, every commercial that they try to sell for Sunday just goes down in value. And because most of the commercials seem to be industry related, and aimed primarily at the same demographic that would be likely to purchase the live stream, the value of that commercial space would drop drastically.

I'd bet that to make up for the loss in ad revenue, they'd have to charge a ton for the stream and the revenue drop on Sunday might be enough to make it not worthwhile to televise. Vicious circle that would probably result in the sport being seen by fewer people overall, and especially those not already into the sport who the promoters want to hook in.
jonesaustin
Profile picture for user jonesaustin
Posts
2653
Joined
7/6/2009
Location
Austin, TX, USA
jonesaustin 1/26/2013 7:08pm
1/26/2013 7:08pm Edited Date/Time 1/26/2013 7:08pm
ando wrote:
LMAO. I've worked in senior leadership roles in large organisations for many years. It's easy to throw out accusations of poor decision making when you aren't...
LMAO. I've worked in senior leadership roles in large organisations for many years. It's easy to throw out accusations of poor decision making when you aren't either legally, financially or morally responsible for the outcome.
look, i'm sure you have a wealth of experience but companies have been run into the ground by Wharton MBA's. it's not about that, with all due respect. the people want live coverage and the streaming technology is NOT cost prohibitive. this is simply a matter of effort, of putting together a plan. it's about how creative these individuals want to get, in order to work through the challenges, legally, financially, or otherwise. the concept for having a live radio or video stream is very sound, and it can and should be addressed.
Pdub
Profile picture for user Pdub
Posts
1477
Joined
8/2/2006
Location
Wheaton, MD, USA
Pdub 1/26/2013 7:11pm
1/26/2013 7:11pm
jonesaustin wrote:
quite simply it's because a few people at the leadership level are not doing their job. you'll often hear such people respond "you just don't understand...
quite simply it's because a few people at the leadership level are not doing their job. you'll often hear such people respond "you just don't understand how things work", but that's pretty typical and usually isn't the reality. the truth is, there isn't any reason not to have a live stream, except for sheer dereliction of responsibility and a lack of creative urgency on behalf of the decision makers.
ando wrote:
LMAO. I've worked in senior leadership roles in large organisations for many years. It's easy to throw out accusations of poor decision making when you aren't...
LMAO. I've worked in senior leadership roles in large organisations for many years. It's easy to throw out accusations of poor decision making when you aren't either legally, financially or morally responsible for the outcome.
Tou and che. Well played.
pawsan
Profile picture for user pawsan
Posts
174
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Belfast, IE
pawsan 1/26/2013 7:16pm
1/26/2013 7:16pm
i'd certainly pay!

it's the only sport i follow, and the only sport i cant watch live!
Mikexxx
Profile picture for user Mikexxx
Posts
137
Joined
1/15/2013
Location
Beverly Hills, CA, USA
Mikexxx 1/26/2013 7:18pm
1/26/2013 7:18pm
Silly 10 years ago we could listen to Jason and Jim for free online...now nothing

Pit Row

See All »
jonesaustin
Profile picture for user jonesaustin
Posts
2653
Joined
7/6/2009
Location
Austin, TX, USA
jonesaustin 1/26/2013 7:21pm
1/26/2013 7:21pm
APLMAN99 wrote:
I think you'd have to pony up a lot more than that. One big thing to consider is that if they stream on Saturday, every commercial...
I think you'd have to pony up a lot more than that.

One big thing to consider is that if they stream on Saturday, every commercial that they try to sell for Sunday just goes down in value. And because most of the commercials seem to be industry related, and aimed primarily at the same demographic that would be likely to purchase the live stream, the value of that commercial space would drop drastically.

I'd bet that to make up for the loss in ad revenue, they'd have to charge a ton for the stream and the revenue drop on Sunday might be enough to make it not worthwhile to televise. Vicious circle that would probably result in the sport being seen by fewer people overall, and especially those not already into the sport who the promoters want to hook in.
you raise a valid point. i still believe there are ways to work through this, should the right people spend the time to pursue it. i'm just not convinced that's been done.
jonesaustin
Profile picture for user jonesaustin
Posts
2653
Joined
7/6/2009
Location
Austin, TX, USA
jonesaustin 1/26/2013 7:22pm
1/26/2013 7:22pm
Mikexxx wrote:
Silly 10 years ago we could listen to Jason and Jim for free online...now nothing
exactly, and it was excellent.
Trav138
Profile picture for user Trav138
Posts
1477
Joined
3/8/2012
Location
USA
Trav138 1/26/2013 7:23pm
1/26/2013 7:23pm
Its because Feld is making to much money to give a fuck, unlike what some on here would have you believe.
Pdub
Profile picture for user Pdub
Posts
1477
Joined
8/2/2006
Location
Wheaton, MD, USA
Pdub 1/26/2013 7:27pm
1/26/2013 7:27pm
I've been a supercross-watching fan for a couple of decades now, and I used to lament the lack of television coverage just like most of you. But I finally get it now, and I'll spell it out for those of you who need help:

The business model of the supercross promoter is based on selling their inventory of stadium seats and merchandise. That's IT. That's where the revenue comes from, and any activities that hinder the sales of that inventory or adversely affect the profit margin in any way are UNACCEPTABLE. Making supercross easier to see from the comfort of one's home is a surefire way to diminish ticket sales, particularly in markets that have many other options competing for entertainment dollars (e.g. California). The promoters understand this and program accordingly.
MotoX85
Profile picture for user MotoX85
Posts
2199
Joined
10/9/2011
Location
Centralia, IL, USA
MotoX85 1/26/2013 7:28pm
1/26/2013 7:28pm
I would never Pay per View for ANYTHING, ridiculous, I already pay for TV. I'll wait till next week to see the race.
Pdub
Profile picture for user Pdub
Posts
1477
Joined
8/2/2006
Location
Wheaton, MD, USA
Pdub 1/26/2013 7:29pm
1/26/2013 7:29pm
Mikexxx wrote:
Silly 10 years ago we could listen to Jason and Jim for free online...now nothing
Do you remember the season they started charging for the formerly free webcast? They said at the time that they couldn't afford to do it for free anymore. Then after a season of pay-to-listen, it was decided that there wasn't enough money in it.
Pdub
Profile picture for user Pdub
Posts
1477
Joined
8/2/2006
Location
Wheaton, MD, USA
Pdub 1/26/2013 7:30pm
1/26/2013 7:30pm
I am actually surprised the AMA is not charging us to get the live timing feed...
Mikexxx
Profile picture for user Mikexxx
Posts
137
Joined
1/15/2013
Location
Beverly Hills, CA, USA
Mikexxx 1/26/2013 7:32pm
1/26/2013 7:32pm
Pdub wrote:
I've been a supercross-watching fan for a couple of decades now, and I used to lament the lack of television coverage just like most of you...
I've been a supercross-watching fan for a couple of decades now, and I used to lament the lack of television coverage just like most of you. But I finally get it now, and I'll spell it out for those of you who need help:

The business model of the supercross promoter is based on selling their inventory of stadium seats and merchandise. That's IT. That's where the revenue comes from, and any activities that hinder the sales of that inventory or adversely affect the profit margin in any way are UNACCEPTABLE. Making supercross easier to see from the comfort of one's home is a surefire way to diminish ticket sales, particularly in markets that have many other options competing for entertainment dollars (e.g. California). The promoters understand this and program accordingly.
"It's not live". My buddy told me that about A2 so I decided to take the trek with him. I rather watch from home.

So the live events are the events they get the best crowds regardless if its live or not? Like Atlanta or Vegas?
Mikexxx
Profile picture for user Mikexxx
Posts
137
Joined
1/15/2013
Location
Beverly Hills, CA, USA
Mikexxx 1/26/2013 7:37pm
1/26/2013 7:37pm
Mikexxx wrote:
Silly 10 years ago we could listen to Jason and Jim for free online...now nothing
Pdub wrote:
Do you remember the season they started charging for the formerly free webcast? They said at the time that they couldn't afford to do it for...
Do you remember the season they started charging for the formerly free webcast? They said at the time that they couldn't afford to do it for free anymore. Then after a season of pay-to-listen, it was decided that there wasn't enough money in it.
I purchased the events for something like $35 dollars. It worked for me because I was accustomed to listening. Now with Speed and CBS I would never listen to pure audio.
Pdub
Profile picture for user Pdub
Posts
1477
Joined
8/2/2006
Location
Wheaton, MD, USA
Pdub 1/26/2013 7:37pm
1/26/2013 7:37pm
Pdub wrote:
I've been a supercross-watching fan for a couple of decades now, and I used to lament the lack of television coverage just like most of you...
I've been a supercross-watching fan for a couple of decades now, and I used to lament the lack of television coverage just like most of you. But I finally get it now, and I'll spell it out for those of you who need help:

The business model of the supercross promoter is based on selling their inventory of stadium seats and merchandise. That's IT. That's where the revenue comes from, and any activities that hinder the sales of that inventory or adversely affect the profit margin in any way are UNACCEPTABLE. Making supercross easier to see from the comfort of one's home is a surefire way to diminish ticket sales, particularly in markets that have many other options competing for entertainment dollars (e.g. California). The promoters understand this and program accordingly.
Mikexxx wrote:
"It's not live". My buddy told me that about A2 so I decided to take the trek with him. I rather watch from home. So the...
"It's not live". My buddy told me that about A2 so I decided to take the trek with him. I rather watch from home.

So the live events are the events they get the best crowds regardless if its live or not? Like Atlanta or Vegas?
I honestly have no clue how they determine which ones to cover live. But my guess is that it costs more to do a live broadcast, so that's one more reason not to do all or most of them live.

I would also guess that they would avoid doing a live broadcast for an event they have trouble selling out... makes sense.
MX690
Profile picture for user MX690
Posts
826
Joined
11/13/2009
Location
AU
MX690 1/26/2013 7:43pm
1/26/2013 7:43pm
Pdub wrote:
I am actually surprised the AMA is not charging us to get the live timing feed...
Shh don't give them ideas.
jonesaustin
Profile picture for user jonesaustin
Posts
2653
Joined
7/6/2009
Location
Austin, TX, USA
jonesaustin 1/26/2013 7:55pm
1/26/2013 7:55pm Edited Date/Time 1/26/2013 7:58pm
Pdub wrote:
I've been a supercross-watching fan for a couple of decades now, and I used to lament the lack of television coverage just like most of you...
I've been a supercross-watching fan for a couple of decades now, and I used to lament the lack of television coverage just like most of you. But I finally get it now, and I'll spell it out for those of you who need help:

The business model of the supercross promoter is based on selling their inventory of stadium seats and merchandise. That's IT. That's where the revenue comes from, and any activities that hinder the sales of that inventory or adversely affect the profit margin in any way are UNACCEPTABLE. Making supercross easier to see from the comfort of one's home is a surefire way to diminish ticket sales, particularly in markets that have many other options competing for entertainment dollars (e.g. California). The promoters understand this and program accordingly.
Pdub that makes sense, until you look at the increase in live TV coverage we've enjoyed over the past 5 years (12 events in 2013). there seems to exist no reticence on the promoters part, if they're scoring these broadcast deals -- that's obviously a new, ad revenue stream. stick n' ball sports were once only seen in person but things evolve, just as we will. sometimes we need to stoke the fire to get that evolution in gear, as i think a live radio or video stream is simply not being addressed as it could .. and should be! having a live webcast (radio or video) does not threaten live television advertising value any more than live tv coverage threatens how many seats are filled in stadiums. if they want to find a way to provide a live stream they could do it. perhaps offer radio ads that mirror those on television. there are ways to make it work, but if everyone comes at this with your approach, nothing will change. why think in limitations?

Post a reply to: why the fffffff