How I Would Change the PDGA

[turbosteve]

to turbosteve:

You ask, "Peter the IOC just recognized the WFDF. If you are reelected would you advocate that the PDGA join the WFDF so that disc golf can get back into the world games and potentially the Olympics if disc sports keep on growing?"

It all depends on how we deal with the drug testing issues. We couldn't get into the World Games or the Olympics unless we had a drug-testing program that was consistent with their requirements. I've looked at the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) requirements and find them so daunting that I'm not even ready to recommend we start down that path at this time.

I believe that we used to be a member of WFDF, and split because they had policies we were unwilling to accept. There's no advantage in joining WFDF if that is still true.

If we rejoin the WFDF we may be able to receive some funding from the USOC.

 

[turbosteve]

Another question I have is what happened to the Sporting Goods Manufacturing Association including disc golf in its annual survey of sports participation?

 

[turbosteve]

Here is the story from the IOC.
http://www.olympic.org/news/executive-board-meeting-wraps-up-in-st-petersburg/200077

 

[shive]

Disc golf TV/Video part 2: Who get paid and who doesn.t?

Our major effort in the TV/Video area consists in throwing increasingly large amounts of money at DiscGolfPlanet.tv. Somehow, without any formal action specifying it, DGP.tv has taken on the status of the PDGA's visual media partner.

I'd prefer competition. Why? Because I don't want all our eggs in one basket, and because I see a lot of very good stuff out there that we should also consider.

Example? Here's a homework assignment for you. We hired DGP.tv to cover the 2012 Worlds. Check out any of their clips of that event on youtube. Then look at www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZBbSH4n2dU, a clip of the 2012 Pro Worlds men's final nine that was produced by Jonathan Gomez at no cost to us. Wouldn't you agree that Jonathan's is at least competitive?

I'm making two arguments here. First, that we should award major contracts competitively. Second, that we should find ways to encourage independent operators who produce good stuff.

 

[JoakimBL]

I have no idea how much the PDGA is donating to DGP.tv, but there is a huge difference between a guy with a video camera posting to youtube, and doing live web broadcasts. I am a huge fan of lcgm8's videos on youtube, but the tournaments are old news by the time they finish editing them and post them. It's not that I demand live coverage, but we only need to go back to worlds 2011 to see what the alternative can be like.
It's fair to debate if we are getting value for money by funneling money to DGP.tv, but I don't think that there is an alternative. No one will buy the broadcasting rights to disc golf in any foreseeable future. I personally think that the money spent on broadcasting, is a lot better spent than the magazine.

 

[LukeButch]

Our major effort in the TV/Video area consists in throwing increasingly large amounts of money at DiscGolfPlanet.tv. Somehow, without any formal action specifying it, DGP.tv has taken on the status of the PDGA's visual media partner.

I'd prefer competition. Why? Because I don't want all our eggs in one basket, and because I see a lot of very good stuff out there that we should also consider.

Example? Here's a homework assignment for you. We hired DGP.tv to cover the 2012 Worlds. Check out any of their clips of that event on youtube. Then look at www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZBbSH4n2dU, a clip of the 2012 Pro Worlds men's final nine that was produced by Jonathan Gomez at no cost to us. Wouldn't you agree that Jonathan's is at least competitive?

I'm making two arguments here. First, that we should award major contracts competitively. Second, that we should find ways to encourage independent operators who produce good stuff.

if there was any money to be made, then there would be competing broadcasters (discgolfplanettv is only at a few events and doesn't have a stranglehold on the market) however there isn't, so except for random players (and murdermike) there won't be anyone to compete with dgplanettv.

Your someone who wants to spread money and coverage to older divisions but I'm sorry to fill you in but very few people care about watching 50 year olds shoot 980-1000 rated rounds when there are top pros shooting 1050s. TV/internet coverage should focus only on our top players with our limited resources. Guess I'm just surprised that this is even on your radar

 

[Lewis]

I have seen many posts about Ams supporting Pros. I have seen very few tournaments where Amateurs did not get fair value for their entry fee. ... This perception that amateur money is filling the pockets of touring pros is getting out of control.

If somebody pays $35.00 to enter a tourney as an AM and gets back a player pack valued at $35-$40, one could argue that is "fair value" for their money spent. ... I could go home with nothing having spent $5-$15 to enter and feel like I got a lot more VALUE out of my money than if I had spent $35 and went home with a player pack of useless goods.

I don't think it's ever fair to complain that you're being paid out at retail prices just because the TD is able to get the discs at a lower price. There's markup in every business and expecting TDs to just pass along the wholesale price to the players is unrealistic.

You are in the minority when it comes to playing trophy only. We (Illinois Open Series) offered trophy only for several years. Very few players took registered as trophy only. ... A lot of players overlook the value of playing. ... Personally I find an entire days worth of tournament disc golf as an excellent value even if I win no prizes. I can't think of too many organized activities that offer that kind of value. ... When you start comparing other activities and disc golf tournaments amateurs are getting cheap and fair value across the country.

Isn't that the big no-no that the PDGA system created with all the focus on the payout? If you spend all your time harping on player pack here and cash added there, you end up with the value of the experience at $0.00. Certainly the value of the experience is higher than $0.00, but that is not promoted. All that gets promoted is cash added/killer player pack/players party included/etc. ... We have now several generations of players with the idea that a tournament is judged solely on the payout. They don't seem to value the experience at all. This is the system that we have built.

It is a bit of a paradox/conundrum though that the PDGA membership is made up primarily of tournament players with aspirations of excellence.

It's great that you'd find value in the time and effort of the TD to put on an event, I wish more people did. Unfortunately, a lot of players just don't. They don't see the competitive experience as being worth something in and of itself, it's all about what you get to take home.

Semantics.

...

When Wham-O was bought out and the IFA was folded, the money train went off the tracks. The PDGA had to reorganize as a player-run organization, and they eventually realized they needed to include amateurs. They couldn't just drop the "P" and be the DGA because Ed was already using that name for his company. They did a poll, and the Amateurs who had joined the PDGA overwhelmingly wanted to keep "Professional" in the name. So the organization changed but the name didn't. The PDGA isn't really a Pro disc golf organization and hasn't been since the late 80's. It's a disc golf organization with "Professional" in the name.

Like it or not, there's a lot more in a name than semantics. What I gather from the pile of posts I took excerpts from above is that the "P" in "PDGA" lets the competitive-minded amateurs take on a "professional" attitude while pretending they're pros by association. It enables the mercenary attitude that has amateurs clamoring for payout and ignoring the value of the event itself; it encourages amateurs to choose playing in world-class tournaments rather than enjoying the true top-level pros' games as spectators -- and many amateurs who register say they would rather stay home altogether than spectate; generally, letting amateurs masquerade as "professionals" normalizes the payout-hungry, unwilling-to-pay-the-pros amateur culture that can never be satisfied and leads to the lion's share of the TDs' burnout.

For all these reasons, I still feel that the PDGA is making a mistake by trying to "be all things to all people." Recognize that "you can't serve two masters," and make a choice which is worth the time and effort. If the pro tour would wither on the vine without including a mass of "amateurs" in their members' organization, then that alone is a significant indicator of systemic dysfunction. Until the leaders of the sport have the courage and resolve to break the bad traditions that have led to all these problems, we'll be living under some kind of Orwellian "Newspeak" culture where "professional" and "amateur" are supposed to mean the same thing, and that won't solve any problems any time soon.

On the TV issue, why would anyone pay to watch disc golf on TV when they won't even pay to watch the event live?

 

[Dave242]

I have heard PDGA leaders often say things like "the PDGA is a Professional organization for all Disc Golfers". That is what they act like in my observation.

What many want/expect is them to be an organization devoted to the aspirations of Professional disc golfers.

I am not a historian, but I believe that the mission & vision statements have been stated as this for quite a while:
Vision Statement: The PDGA is a membership organization dedicated to the promotion and sustainable growth of disc golf.
Mission Statement: To develop disc golf into a globally-recognized competitive sport and recreational activity

I believe that a huge part of why the majority do not get this is that the PGA is an organization for Professional golfers, so then the PDGA must be the same for DGers. It's not.

 

[turbosteve]

I do think the PDGA needs to strengthen the Affiliate Club program

 

[onemilemore]

Our major effort in the TV/Video area consists in throwing increasingly large amounts of money at DiscGolfPlanet.tv. Somehow, without any formal action specifying it, DGP.tv has taken on the status of the PDGA's visual media partner.

I'd prefer competition. Why? Because I don't want all our eggs in one basket, and because I see a lot of very good stuff out there that we should also consider.

Example? Here's a homework assignment for you. We hired DGP.tv to cover the 2012 Worlds. Check out any of their clips of that event on youtube. Then look at www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZBbSH4n2dU, a clip of the 2012 Pro Worlds men's final nine that was produced by Jonathan Gomez at no cost to us. Wouldn't you agree that Jonathan's is at least competitive?

I'm making two arguments here. First, that we should award major contracts competitively. Second, that we should find ways to encourage independent operators who produce good stuff.

This is a great point Peter, and one that I imagine will be met with resistance because people seem quite loyal to DGP.tv. However, competition is always a key component of growth in any industry, and I think having the PDGA do more diligence in rewarding broadcasting contracts would be a fantastic idea.

I have no idea how much the PDGA is donating to DGP.tv, but there is a huge difference between a guy with a video camera posting to youtube, and doing live web broadcasts. I am a huge fan of lcgm8's videos on youtube, but the tournaments are old news by the time they finish editing them and post them. It's not that I demand live coverage, but we only need to go back to worlds 2011 to see what the alternative can be like.
It's fair to debate if we are getting value for money by funneling money to DGP.tv, but I don't think that there is an alternative. No one will buy the broadcasting rights to disc golf in any foreseeable future. I personally think that the money spent on broadcasting, is a lot better spent than the magazine.

Think about this, though: Jomez, murdermike, centralcoastdiscgolf - All these guys are doing a fantastic job of production, editing, and commentary on their own dime. Of course there is no way to know how they would do with a live broadcast because they don't have any PDGA funding to do one. If there was a competition for contracts, though, and these guys could give it a shot with a live to the Internet broadcast, then who knows? I don't think you can shoot them down just because they haven't done it and their footage is "old news" by the time it is distributed.

Also, a good comparison here would be these YouTube-based producers' output versus the DGP.tv Memorial Wrap that came out 3 months after the Memorial. These other guys could likely do a similar job in a shorter amount of time based on their track record.

I do think the PDGA needs to strengthen the Affiliate Club program

I agree with this. Making the affiliate program more than a discount program and instead allotting specific amounts to be given to clubs could go a long way toward player development.

 

[Dave242]

There is something to be said though for working with a group that you have confidence in. It seems like so many promotional partnerships in DG that initially seem like a great idea pretty quickly flake out.

 

[mashnut]

How many other producers have ever even tried to get that contract? Are we sure that anybody other than DGPTV actually wants to do it?

 

[Pete Kenny]

I'm sorry to fill you in but very few people care about watching 50 year olds shoot 980-1000 rated rounds when there are top pros shooting 1050s. TV/internet coverage should focus only on our top players with our limited resources. Guess I'm just surprised that this is even on your radar

And I am sorry to fill YOU in.

Very few people care about watching top pros shooting 1050s either.

 

[JoakimBL]

I was in no way trying to shoot anyone down. I love the free disc golf videos on youtube. And the DGP.tv archives are way to slow paced to watch after the event. They could use some editing, and I don't understand why they don't do that. But I don't think spreading the wealth, so to speak is a smart way to go about it. Without knowing for sure, I think the cost in setting up livestream capabilities og a semi professional standard is way to expensive to do for there to be multiple competitors in this market. What it would do is dilute the quality, not promote competition.

 

[coupe]

How many other producers have ever even tried to get that contract? Are we sure that anybody other than DGPTV actually wants to do it?

Was there an opportunity for others to bid on the contract prior to it being awarded to DGPtv?

 

[mashnut]

Was there an opportunity for others to bid on the contract prior to it being awarded to DGPtv?

I'm certainly not arguing that contracts like that could and should be bid out. I don't know if this one was, and whether or not it was I'm curious how many other producers did/would have bid for it.

 

[Cgkdisc]

For some projects, there's a person or company that approaches the PDGA with a specific idea, skills and resources to do a project with the PDGA. The proposal is either a thumbs up or down if Brian and the BOD want to pursue the project. Bidding doesn't make sense in some of these cases. For example, EDGE is the only entity with a curriculum for schools so the PDGA works with and helps fund them. I get the general idea that bidding can be procedurally good for an org even if no one else bids. But that also takes staff resources and time to go through a formal process like that when sometimes it's a specialty project that combines a unique combination of skills, resources and relationships.

 

[shive]

Disc golf TV/Video #3: Who should pay for live video?

Many of our members, like JoakimBL above, want live video coverage of certain events. And that desire, frankly, is what drives the live video part of our program. I have no problem with that, and am happy to work to satisfy that desire. I do object, however, to making the whole membership pay for it.

PDGA members want primarily to play, not to watch. I work to satisfy that desire too. But when PDGA members play, they pay to play. We don't make the whole membership pay their entry fees and player fees. I'd be fine with the live video program if it were pay-per-view. But it isn't.

So the question is, "If you don't have to pay for us to play, why should we have to pay for you to watch?" Putting it another way, some members want a disc golf bag with the PDGA logo on it. Do we make the whole membership pay for it?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Peter, something like 20% of the members do not play a sanctioned event each year and perhaps another 20-25% do not play enough events in relation to just paying the $10 non-member fee to truly get their money's worth. Everyone has to pay for the magazine with apparently many not thinking it's worth it, at least in print. Is your general position that there should be a low priced base membership and people only pay for certain services they use? I'm not sure what services 100% of members must use other than someone managing the payment for membership. Going ala carte and having a menu of services only some might pay for would be unmanageable and several items might never be available if only funded by those who specifically use it. I think it's important to differentiate between things that are available to all members whether they choose to use them or not (live online video) versus things like added cash and labor costs to things like the NT which only some members can access even if they wanted to.

 

[Dave242]

Many of our members, like JoakimBL above, want live video coverage of certain events. And that desire, frankly, is what drives the live video part of our program. I have no problem with that, and am happy to work to satisfy that desire. I do object, however, to making the whole membership pay for it.

PDGA members want primarily to play, not to watch. I work to satisfy that desire too. But when PDGA members play, they pay to play. We don't make the whole membership pay their entry fees and player fees. I'd be fine with the live video program if it were pay-per-view. But it isn't.

So the question is, "If you don't have to pay for us to play, why should we have to pay for you to watch?" Putting it another way, some members want a disc golf bag with the PDGA logo on it. Do we make the whole membership pay for it?

I see what you are saying and agree to a large degree, and I think there is also a little apples-oranges going on in your comparisons.

There is strategic benefit in growing and promoting the sport to a wider audience of both viewers and potential sponsors by use of video. It is a similar thing (but better IMO) to the way the magazine is underwritten by the entire membership even though the personal benefit of the magazine varies from person to person. The magazine gives intangible legitimacy to the sport in ways that other things can't. Same deal with live coverage of events.

Edit: I started typing this before seeing Chuck's post....which says a very similar thing. Got distracted by my job.