How I Would Change the PDGA

[shive]

Response to Chuck Kennedy

to Cgkdisc (post #219):

Yours is the counterargument, very well articulated. I have struggled with it, and I don't have a blanket answer. I take it on a case-by-case basis, and my attitude evolves. So, for example, I do believe that Amateurs are seriously shortchanged and should receive more than they currently do. I believe that we treat our Tournament Directors shamefully, and my Number 1 recommendation is to do something meaningful for them. When I ran for the Board in 2007 I was all for the magazine, but now I'd probably vote to discontinue it. It would be close.

So why do I believe that live programming, in particular, should be pay-per-view? First, because (unlike the magazine) it could be, if we can believe the hype we hear from both the producers and the consumers. Second, I think it should be because live programming is an expensive way to market and promote the PDGA to its own membership, a poor use of our resources if we want to grow the sport.

Finally, and most importantly, I see the PDGA on the cusp of a portentous decision, which is whether we would prefer to have disc golf evolve more as a participant sport or a spectator sport. We know for sure that members value the playing experience so highly that they pay (literally) millions of dollars to participate. But we only guess at how much value it has as a spectator sport. So, pay-for-view is a necessary experiment that must be done so we don't end up making that decision in the dark.

 

[Picked_Up]

Maybe it would be worthwhile to take a look at the entire business platform. After all, this is a business, right?

All-in-all, it seems the consensus is that people do not want to pay the PDGA for tournaments that they do not play in. So why make them pay? Ball golf seems to have a pretty good cash-flow model in place where individuals do not pay the governing body directly; rather, they pay dues to a club. Who in turn pays its dues to the governing body. The body also has an additional cash flow model centered around the licensing of its ratings software. Start recognizing the clubs and letting them set up their own events help them set up camps. help where it is needed but don't spread your resources too thin. Yes, it will cost a but of money at first. As the addage goes "you have to spend money to make money" right? This also gives the PDGA an opportunity to concentrate its resources on a smaller number of more prestigeous events. I am not saying this is the perfect model, but it can be a good starting point.

As far as the magazine goes. I would personally stop unnecessary print runs. Not because the magazine does not need to exist, but because people are just not consuming print as much anymore. Making the magazine online only could potentially increase your subscription rate, while cutting printing costs. A $1.50/issue online magazine could be a lot more attractive than a $5/issue print magazine.

Why jump straight into the pay-per-view model when (like the magazine) high quality alternatives are currently available? A live stream with Advertisements on either a cost per action or cost per click model could serve a much higher return on investment in the short term.

I havent sat down and really built anything out. This was just my "off the top of my head" stuff.

 

[JTacoma03]

to JTacoma03:

Thanks again. I too have enjoyed reading your posts, and wish we had more time for that issue. Probably I should have brought it up with the membership before the campaign, so I would have felt less pressure to cover more ground in a short time.

OK, disc golf on TV. I'm getting ready for a Board teleconference tonight, so I won't get deeply into this until tomorrow. But for starters, I can at least define "Vanity TV".

It's a term I coined in the Fall of 2011, reacting to the way we run our disc-golf-on-TV program. It is a takeoff on the term "Vanity Publishing". Vanity Publishing is when someone writes a book and can't find a publisher that thinks it's worth producing, so he pays to publish it himself.

That's basically what we do with our material. We assume that the rights to broadcast our events are worthless. Less than worthless, in fact, because we pay large amounts of money for someone to take them off our hands, like they were some form of garbage or toxic waste.

There are serious implications to this attitude. I have many problems with what we are doing. I don't like who we pay to take those rights off our hands, who we don't pay, how much we pay and where the money comes from. I will cover all these topics and more, so it will take some time.

Judging from your previous posts, I suspect that you aren't going to like what I have to say. But I find you a good target audience because your objections are thoughtful and informative. And even if you don't like it, at least it won't be boring!

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.

Whoa. I had no idea that the PDGA was the one PAYING DGPTV. That's absurd. They turn around and charge money for membership!

How do you get paid out of both ends of this? This makes literally 0 logical sense to me.

One of two things should happen. Never both:

1. PDGA should commission (pay) someone to do a video which the PDGA then sells for profit. The PDGA buys a service, and sells a finished good.

2. The PDGA should take bids for a contract/broadcast rights, and then the producer of the content has all (or most) of the selling rights.

Now, in light of the 2011 Worlds DVD debacle, I can understand the PDGA's hesitancy to go with other independent contractors. Derek Hastings is a good friend of mine and brother-in-arms as far as I'm concerned, but ultimately that DVD should have been done long before.

So - hey Peter, we agree!

There's only one problem: how do we value our broadcast rights? Market value won't dictate much I'm afraid (see: disc golf cheapskates). The problem is we can't make the argument "we're not getting enough for our $50/year" and at the same time claim that we have valuable broadcast rights, because the constituency isn't supporting that argument as of today.

I don't want to circle the thread around again, but I would just like to hint that this is one facet of what I'm getting at with my "improve the tour" platform. Broadcast rights can be a valuable thing, and with strategic moves and proper grooming our NT's could be an attractive option for online streaming from somebody like CBS or ESPN3.

Bottom line is, we need a more diverse and numerous audience for our broadcast rights to be worth anything. That said, I like your thought process to be as elite as possible and make people want us.

 

[JTacoma03]

Maybe it would be worthwhile to take a look at the entire business platform. After all, this is a business, right?

All-in-all, it seems the consensus is that people do not want to pay the PDGA for tournaments that they do not play in. So why make them pay? Ball golf seems to have a pretty good cash-flow model in place where individuals do not pay the governing body directly; rather, they pay dues to a club. Who in turn pays its dues to the governing body. The body also has an additional cash flow model centered around the licensing of its ratings software. Start recognizing the clubs and letting them set up their own events help them set up camps. help where it is needed but don't spread your resources too thin. Yes, it will cost a but of money at first. As the addage goes "you have to spend money to make money" right? This also gives the PDGA an opportunity to concentrate its resources on a smaller number of more prestigeous events. I am not saying this is the perfect model, but it can be a good starting point.

As far as the magazine goes. I would personally stop unnecessary print runs. Not because the magazine does not need to exist, but because people are just not consuming print as much anymore. Making the magazine online only could potentially increase your subscription rate, while cutting printing costs. A $1.50/issue online magazine could be a lot more attractive than a $5/issue print magazine.

Why jump straight into the pay-per-view model when (like the magazine) high quality alternatives are currently available? A live stream with Advertisements on either a cost per action or cost per click model could serve a much higher return on investment in the short term.

I havent sat down and really built anything out. This was just my "off the top of my head" stuff.

I'd just like to quote this as a great post IMO.

Peter - as you and I had bantered earlier in the thread about setting up/empowering local or regional leagues, this post can take it one step further and have it be a profitable venture.

It's win-win. The local clubs know their particular scene well, and the PDGA can manage the nation through liasons with local clubs and regional series instead of via every member, while simultaneously turning more attention to the pro tour to improve our brand and find a profitable broadcast partner to gain us exposure and further audience.

 

[JoakimBL]

Whoa. I had no idea that the PDGA was the one PAYING DGPTV. That's absurd. They turn around and charge money for membership!

First of all, you don't have to become a member at DGP.tv to watch. And secondly your alternatives are either more expensive or not feasible at all. PDGA contributes as a partner, as I understand it. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm pretty sure the PDGA wouldn't be doing it, if there were multiple networks lining up to buy the broadcasting rights. I think You are grossly overestimating the current value of the product, if you think there is profit to be made. It's about exposure and building a potential fan base.

 

[shive]

Selling the videos?

to JTacoma03:

Your suggestion, "PDGA should commission (pay) someone to do a video which the PDGA then sells for profit. The PDGA buys a service, and sells a finished good.", sounds great, but there's a big problem.

The PDGA used to do just this, and lost money every time. So now, guess what? We're still paying DGP.tv plenty to produce the Worlds videos "for archival purposes only". We aren't even trying to sell them.

Just another aspect I find a bit surreal.

 

[shive]

to LukeButch:

You say, "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."

Where did you ever get the idea that I want, or expect, or hope for people to watch amateurs and older pros?

I am only asking for amateurs and older pros to have exciting opportunities to play, because that's what they want. I don't care in the slightest whether anyone else watches them or not.

 

[chris deitzel]

We need Donald Trump to run the PDGA.

 

[turbosteve]

What goals has Pat Govang proposed with his strategic planning?

 

[shive]

to turbosteve:

You ask, "What goals has Pat Govang proposed with his strategic planning? "

None yet. We did have a session with Pat at the Spring Summit in early May, but that was just to provide him with input. Hopefully we can wrap it up at the Fall Summit.

 

[JTacoma03]

First of all, you don't have to become a member at DGP.tv to watch. And secondly your alternatives are either more expensive or not feasible at all. PDGA contributes as a partner, as I understand it. It makes perfect sense to me. I'm pretty sure the PDGA wouldn't be doing it, if there were multiple networks lining up to buy the broadcasting rights. I think You are grossly overestimating the current value of the product, if you think there is profit to be made. It's about exposure and building a potential fan base.

Try reading my post past the first sentence. I addressed all of this.

 

[mashnut]

Peter, check out the "quote" button at the bottom of each post. Instead of typing out what the person you're responding to said you can click that then reply below it. It helps the rest of us see the post you're responding to and helps make it clear which part of the response is coming from you.

 

[Dieno]

Peter

Thank you for serving on the BOD. Thank you for understanding the way to grow this sport is NOT to throw more resources at the top players, or to dress up the top events, but to encourage new players.


JTACOMA. I will be voting FOR Peter in an effort to vote AGAINST candidates like yourself. Many things you propose have already been tried before with little success.




Having a dressed up venue, only gives you a dressed up venue; it does not attract more spectators or PDGA members or make the event high caliber.


This has already been tried. For example, The Golden State Classic NT event was hosted at La Mirada from 2004-2008. It was run by the late Tim Selinske, who was a master promoter. He had the entire park decked out from end to end with banners and signs and flags. Everyone who was near La Mirada Park KNEW something big was going on that weekend. Tim had demonstrations for Guts and Freestyle and Distance. He paid for radio advertising and had a beer garden!! No one came. He booked a frisbee dog demonstration and at least several hundred people came out to the Golden State Classic that year; but only to ask "Where are the Frisbee dogs?" They didn't care about disc golf before, during or after. Once the dogs left, all the people left. And not one cared if Ken Climo or Dave Feldberg was in the lead. Tim also did all this production for the US Masters PDGA Major event that he hosted from 2000 to 2008.

So Tim spent this massive amount of time and energy and money and volunteer staff putting up banners and flags and paying for radio advertising and beer gardens and public disc demonstrations. No one except the players showed up then. No one except the players are going to show up now. Here it is nine years later and you are proposing tournament visibility is what we need to make our events high caliber. Tim proved you can wear the prettiest dress to the ball, but it doesn't make a difference if there is no one there to dance with you.

Also, the Memorial has always been a high visibility event at both the Vista and Fountain Hills venues. Although these parks are packed with disc golfers, 90% of the other park users don't have a clue what is going on....even with all the disc golf banners flying and the PDGA circus tent in attendance!


Again, I will be voting for Peter and any other candidates that are looking to step away from growing this sport from the top down.


Suzette Simons
California PDGA State Coordinator - South
PDGA Competition Committee Volunteer

There is a serious lack of focus for sure on what DG is supposed to deliver in tournament mode. Soccer clubs seem to have a good idea in that they develop team focused fans ... rabid for sure. If that kind of focus could be developed for disc golf then we'd have something. I say we split up the USA into 6 regions NE, MID East, SE NW, SW, & MID Lands also Canada West and Canada East. Hold yearly super team tournaments with all the best Ams and Pros that each region can muster. Winner takes the super title, N American Championship. Only way to qualify for your region is to win your way in by way of points. Fans and players could join their teams and their dues could help those short of funds get to the super tourneys. Watch the fans build and go rabid. Just like soccer......:thmbup:

 

[joegraham]

Peter, what do you think about Duval's proposal to look at the "sustainability" of high speed drivers mentioned just now in Sinclair's thread. Do you think we need to limit or roll back disc specs to blunter or lighter discs?

 

[shive]

disc sustainability?

Peter, what do you think about Duval's proposal to look at the "sustainability" of high speed drivers mentioned just now in Sinclair's thread. Do you think we need to limit or roll back disc specs to blunter or lighter discs?

I couldn't find the the sustainability post on Shawn's thread, but I did hear Harold's presentation at the Spring Summit. He wanted to limit disc weight because of two concerns -- the health of the throwers and the safety of the poor slobs who get hit.

I'm not buying it, on either count. Not yet, not without convincing evidence. In fact, my intuition suggests that it may be just the other way round.

My health data is anecdotal because it refers just to my own experience. I'll be 72 in July and have thrown 180gm Rocs my whole career. My throwing arm and shoulder are about the only parts of me that haven't experienced some degeneration! Ironically, the only time my elbow ever hurt was when I tried to throw very light discs. Hyperextension from throwing light discs may cause just as many problems as muscle and joint strain from throwing heavy ones.

Now think about the safety issue. The anount of damage a disc will do to a target depends on the amount of kinetic energy that is imparted to that target. Kinetic energy is proportional to the weight of the disc, but to the square of its velocity. Lighter discs can be thrown faster, so they can do as much or more damage as heavier ones. In other words, a bullet (fast and light) and a bowling ball (slow and heavy) may have about the same amount of kinetic energy. Which would you rather get hit by?

In my opinion, the best way to make a disc safer is to make it more flexible (ie, floppy), not lighter. That way more of the kinetic energy goes into internal deformation of the disc, and less to deformation of the target.

 

[iacas]

I couldn't find the the sustainability post on Shawn's thread, but I did hear Harold's presentation at the Spring Summit. He wanted to limit disc weight because of two concerns -- the health of the throwers and the safety of the poor slobs who get hit.

I don't think health or safety was the topic - it was sustainability.

Harold discussed the sustainability of disc golf. He suggests the technical standards re-evaluate the high speed, heavy weight drivers.
The USDGC and Innova would strongly support the initiative. The USDGC would be glad to be a test bed if the association requested.
MOTION –Decker/McCoy
Motion that we direct the tech standards committee to look into the sustainability issue relative to our equipment standards.
Motion passes unanimously.

 

[shive]

What does "sustainability" mean?

I don't think health or safety was the topic - it was sustainability.

We used the the word "sustainability" as a catchall term, but the real issues are those of health and safety. As in, "Is disc golf sustainable if we continue to use heavy weight drivers?"

And why might it not be sustainable? Because, according to Harold, heavy discs could lead to more physical problems in the throwers, and would cause more damage to people they hit.

As I said above (post #235), I don't buy it. Not yet, anyhow.

 

[iacas]

We used the the word "sustainability" as a catchall term, but the real issues are those of health and safety. As in, "Is disc golf sustainable if we continue to use heavy weight drivers?"

And why might it not be sustainable? Because, according to Harold, heavy discs could lead to more physical problems in the throwers, and would cause more damage to people they hit.

As I said above (post #235), I don't buy it. Not yet, anyhow.

You seem to have a different recollection of the events than the person in the other thread.

I wasn't there. If you were, great. But sustainability means a lot of things, and I don't know that it means exclusively or even primarily "health and safety."

 

[shive]

What was the message anyway?

to iacas:

Well, Harold talked a long time, and his preamble with the hats was a bit confusing to me. It's certainly possible that two people could have come away with somewhat different messages.

I've responded to what I got out of it. If you think there are different aspects of sustainability that I should address (eg, course size, etc) please let me know and I'll be happy to do so.

Best of course would be for Harold to put it all in writing so there would be no misunderstandings.

 

[onemilemore]

Peter, back to disc golf broadcasting: It appears as if DGP.tv hasn't shown any live coverage of the KCWO yet, but is instead doing a studio-style wrap show. Does this further lead you to think the PDGA needs to reconsider its resources in this regard?