• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

2019 USDGC (Jomez lovefest optional)

All i gotta say, is I know I won't be able to watch it live... I don't care which media team is covering it (although Jomez and CCDG are the best), but if Innova or other usual culprits post any spoilers without warning immediately after the tournament like they have a tendency to do... Then I'm definitely going to lose my shiz.

They're providing live, real time coverage of the event (on video and on udisc/pdga.com). As long as those options exist, there are NO SUCH THING AS SPOILERS. If you can't or choose not to watch live and you want to remain unspoiled until you can watch the post-produced, that's on you, bub. It's not Innova or USDGC or PDGA's responsibility to ensure your delayed viewing is pure and unspoiled.

I'm hoping all of those outlets and more are posting videos and pictures throughout the tournament, with the "congratulations to the winner" posts coming within five minutes of the final putt falling. You see any of those things, that's your fault. Lose your shiz on yourself.
 
Speaking of this point Jamie. Say this is a smashing success, and then next year, every major, NT and DGPT event goes this route. I just spent this money for USDGC, and I'm OK with it, but I won't spent 10 an event for all of those next year. Some, sure, all?

Do you think all of those premier pro events can somehow get a singe "Season Pass" package together? If everyone does their own one off paywall, there will be many events that suffer because of it IMO.

Just curious on what you think the next evolution is after USDGC, depending on the success of course.

This is what I like to call "next year's problem"

We can What If? ourselves to death, but lets see what happens here first, how successful the PPV model is, and if it's sustainable before worrying about that! ;)
 
They're providing live, real time coverage of the event (on video and on udisc/pdga.com). As long as those options exist, there are NO SUCH THING AS SPOILERS. If you can't or choose not to watch live and you want to remain unspoiled until you can watch the post-produced, that's on you, bub. It's not Innova or USDGC or PDGA's responsibility to ensure your delayed viewing is pure and unspoiled.

I'm hoping all of those outlets and more are posting videos and pictures throughout the tournament, with the "congratulations to the winner" posts coming within five minutes of the final putt falling. You see any of those things, that's your fault. Lose your shiz on yourself.

While I do agree with you, I got off of anything that could have given me spoilers for the European Open and Worlds and the final results still got to me before I was able to watch it. The results came in the form of the womans coverage and because of that now I wont watch the womans coverage. Jomez also does their weird leader board check on the 8th hole of their coverage so now because of that I wont be watching Jomez. It is getting very hard to try and stay in the dark for those of us who try to.
 
This is what I like to call "next year's problem"

We can What If? ourselves to death, but lets see what happens here first, how successful the PPV model is, and if it's sustainable before worrying about that! ;)

Exactly. Worry about what happens next when next arrives.

It seems to me that if there is enough revenue generated to call the PPV a success that should be repeated for other tournaments, it means that there are viewership numbers big enough to start getting the attention of advertisers outside the usual disc golf manufacturers and retailers. Not just high numbers of eyeballs, but eyeballs motivated to spend money (because they spent just to be able to watch).

In other words, PPV could represent a temporary step to get where we all eventually want to be, which is having quality, multi-card live tournament coverage of tournaments with purses and coverage funded primarily by outside sponsors/advertisers.
 
I think (and I do make this particular point on The Upshot) that what Victor is speaking against is the specific complaint about PPV, while still wanting live.

Personally, I accept it if someone says, "you suck, I'm not watching because you're on it." - fine. Do you boo boo. It took awhile to grow thick skin, many people on this forum watched me stumble through that semi-publicly, but now I'm at the point where if they hate me and like someone else at least they're watching disc golf. It's all good.

I accept it if someone says, "I don't see the value in live, and I can't budget both, so I'd rather pay Jomez/CCDG/whoever"

BUT, if someone says, "I don't mind JT on the mic, and I like live coverage, but WTF RICHARD $7.99?!?!?"

That's the eye-roll moment. Realistically, we all drop far more on far less in this sport. Complain about any aspect of the show you don't like? Fine, no problem. Complain about the completely reasonable maximum price point of $3.33 per round of coverage for non-PDGA members? Cmon man.

First I think I should be clear, I'm pretty much have Charlie's viewpoint that he laid out in The Upshot of let's try it and see how it goes. I think keeping post-production free and next day is actually smart in this case because it creates a lower risk for the live. If something goes wrong with the live, Innova can say sorry, that sucks it didn't work out, but here is two cards available to you for free to watch. Also, I hope it didn't come across as taking a shot at your as I'm a big fan of you and The Upshot and have written to the show a few times (I sent in the question about charging rake for tournaments that you discussed with Sean Jack).

I am all for ppv, and I would be perfectly happy if at some point companies like CCDG and Jomez did next day only for Patreon supporters and then it became free for all a few days or a week later. On DGAM they talked about ppv in other sports, and while I don't watch UFC, I did watch WWF back in the 90s and I remember their ppv structure was something like small events were $20, their bigger events like Summer Slam was something like $30, and WrestleMania I think was 40-50. I be totally in support of live going to a model like that where it is tiered based on the prestige of the event.

Really, everyone just needs to chill out and let companies try new things. Innovation isn't going to happen if we keep trying to do the same things hoping for different results.
 
How is the PDGA handling the media rights for players in regards to PPV events? Seems like there would be some kind of compensation for the players are well. Or at the least, a percentage of PPV money generated goes in to the pro purse?
 
Speaking of this point Jamie. Say this is a smashing success, and then next year, every major, NT and DGPT event goes this route. I just spent this money for USDGC, and I'm OK with it, but I won't spent 10 an event for all of those next year. Some, sure, all?

Do you think all of those premier pro events can somehow get a singe "Season Pass" package together? If everyone does their own one off paywall, there will be many events that suffer because of it IMO.

Just curious on what you think the next evolution is after USDGC, depending on the success of course.

Pure speculation on my part here, but I would imagine that scenario happens in some fashion. From a business perspective you want to reward your early supporters - it's the impulse buyers that should be paying max rates. Plus, it helps to eliminate variables early on, so if you can trade a discount for early commitment from your core audience you can plan better and be more efficient with your budget. It's a, "help me, help you" kind of scenario.

On that last point - that's why I believe Jomez went strictly to a monthly model on their Patreon. The per-video price allowed for too much fluctuation in income, and now that they have a more consistent schedule throughout the year they can better estimate their costs, so they needed a better estimation of their support level.

First I think I should be clear, I'm pretty much have Charlie's viewpoint that he laid out in The Upshot of let's try it and see how it goes. I think keeping post-production free and next day is actually smart in this case because it creates a lower risk for the live. If something goes wrong with the live, Innova can say sorry, that sucks it didn't work out, but here is two cards available to you for free to watch. Also, I hope it didn't come across as taking a shot at your as I'm a big fan of you and The Upshot and have written to the show a few times (I sent in the question about charging rake for tournaments that you discussed with Sean Jack).

I am all for ppv, and I would be perfectly happy if at some point companies like CCDG and Jomez did next day only for Patreon supporters and then it became free for all a few days or a week later. On DGAM they talked about ppv in other sports, and while I don't watch UFC, I did watch WWF back in the 90s and I remember their ppv structure was something like small events were $20, their bigger events like Summer Slam was something like $30, and WrestleMania I think was 40-50. I be totally in support of live going to a model like that where it is tiered based on the prestige of the event.

Really, everyone just needs to chill out and let companies try new things. Innovation isn't going to happen if we keep trying to do the same things hoping for different results.

Agreed with your last point, I think the superfans are just new to the game, they might even see tournaments/organizers as a monolith because their perspective is almost completely through the lens of being a fan of Jomez (credit to their reach and influence)...and that's where I see most of the complaining coming from. People who watch the USDGC know that nothing is held sacred by the organizers except the existence of the event itself, everything is subject to scrutiny and can be changed.

I will admit that I inserted my opinion without being asked on when to release post production, I don't know if it went up the chain, or if it affected their decision making - but I did advocate for not delaying the Post-Produced content this year. I think, for now anyway, it's two separate audiences and it would have just made both mad.

If it were me, I would eventually bundle all of it under PPV (24 hour access to Post + Live all in one price) and just lean totally into the freemium model, because that solves the problem of "do I like Live? Or Post?" - doesn't matter, you're paying for urgency-of-access, not product type in that scenario. It can all be free after a time delay.

...and thank you for listening and writing in that question! Keep it coming, more mailbag soon when we get some breathing room from the news cycle! :D
 
While I do agree with you, I got off of anything that could have given me spoilers for the European Open and Worlds and the final results still got to me before I was able to watch it. The results came in the form of the womans coverage and because of that now I wont watch the womans coverage. Jomez also does their weird leader board check on the 8th hole of their coverage so now because of that I wont be watching Jomez. It is getting very hard to try and stay in the dark for those of us who try to.

What's your solution? Even if Innova and the USDGC didn't post any updates online, someone attending the event would.

And if they held back sharing results in a timely manner and say Paul McBeth won, there would be scores of people on this forum with their pitchforks accusing Innova of not giving Paul his proper due in a timely manner.
 
How is the PDGA handling the media rights for players in regards to PPV events? Seems like there would be some kind of compensation for the players are well. Or at the least, a percentage of PPV money generated goes in to the pro purse?


They get more exposure for themselves and their sponsors?

I mean, it's up to them if they want to capitalize on that opportunity.
 
They get more exposure for themselves and their sponsors?

I mean, it's up to them if they want to capitalize on that opportunity.

Plus every dollar that Innova doesn't have to put into the broadcast is a dollar that can be put into the purse or event amenities instead. So the players get their "cut", one way or another.
 
How is the PDGA handling the media rights for players in regards to PPV events? Seems like there would be some kind of compensation for the players are well. Or at the least, a percentage of PPV money generated goes in to the pro purse?

Is there a cut taken out of the purse, to cover video expenses?
 
Is there a cut taken out of the purse, to cover video expenses?

So...just trying to understand your logic... I want to offer a ppv view event and I want you as a player to help cover my expenses and in return you're not going to get any cut of the sales I take in.

Nothing wrong with PPV, but I would hope the players are savvy enough to speak out and make sure some of the PPV income is added to the purse.
 
So...just trying to understand your logic... I want to offer a ppv view event and I want you as a player to help cover my expenses and in return you're not going to get any cut of the sales I take in.

Nothing wrong with PPV, but I would hope the players are savvy enough to speak out and make sure some of the PPV income is added to the purse.

Which players are helping cover expenses? What exactly are you referring to here?
 
What's your solution? Even if Innova and the USDGC didn't post any updates online, someone attending the event would.

And if they held back sharing results in a timely manner and say Paul McBeth won, there would be scores of people on this forum with their pitchforks accusing Innova of not giving Paul his proper due in a timely manner.

I dont think there is any solution nor do I think we need to look for solutions. I was just saying that even if you try to stay away from spoilers that there is still nothing you can do. Pointing out that a lot of people on here say its really easy to stay away from spoilers but its really not that easy.
 
So...just trying to understand your logic... I want to offer a ppv view event and I want you as a player to help cover my expenses and in return you're not going to get any cut of the sales I take in.

Nothing wrong with PPV, but I would hope the players are savvy enough to speak out and make sure some of the PPV income is added to the purse.

Do you guys not read? The income is going to the EDGE charity. They are only taking in enough to help cover the cost of the production.
 
So...just trying to understand your logic... I want to offer a ppv view event and I want you as a player to help cover my expenses and in return you're not going to get any cut of the sales I take in.

Nothing wrong with PPV, but I would hope the players are savvy enough to speak out and make sure some of the PPV income is added to the purse.

I don't entirely disagree with you, but my guess is Innova almost certainly takes a net loss on this event. If Innova was making considerable profits themselves, then it could be reasonable for the players to expect a kick back via purse money, but until then the exposure itself is the payoff.

It already has one of the highest payouts for an event and almost nobody (Innova, TDs, Volunteers, some media partners) are making a direct profit from the event. Fulcrum of course is making money. Innova likely throws this in the marketing costs column on the balance sheet. IMO the players are in no position to expect anything from the PPV revenue.
 
Last edited:
Which players are helping cover expenses? What exactly are you referring to here?

I was trying to understand this previous comment to my post... which made it sound like if players get a cut of the PPV profits, then players should also take a cut in the purse to pay for ppv expenses. :confused:

Is there a cut taken out of the purse, to cover video expenses?
 
Top