DGPT Sold to Todd Rainwater

[swhite]

<deleted because I misread a post>

 

[ThunderEagle]

It would also be significantly more expensive. With what we see now, I imagine costs vs benefits is a delicate balance. Adding significantly more cost without assurances of more benefit (more value = more revenue) is a risky proposition.

I didn't intend to infer that it wasn't more expensive. JVD was talking about adding value and also adding revenue with some adds. I was just offering that I felt was of more value to the viewer and telling the story.

Personally, I think a significant step forward from where we are now will require a big leap of faith that the ends will justify the means. To this point, it's been the media guys doing all the leaping. Somewhere along the line, I think the viewers are going to have to make a leap (financially) and trust that the media teams will do well with the added funding. Yes, I'm talking about some sort of pay per view model.

I still think some kind of entity needs to be created, where hopefully all of the content creators can become a part of, if they are a joint owners/partners or it is an avenue for revenue. I want to see a "channel", I'll subscribe some amount a year/month (obviously depending on content) to have access to this channel. I would sort of like it to be a continuous stream channel. It can have post produced rounds, live rounds, replays, live call in shows, technical breakdowns, etc, etc. They can be from a whole host of content providers as long as they meet a baseline standard of production. They would provide content in return for some money, the "channel" would then bundle all of this together, negotiate ads, schedule shows, etc. Maybe this is what DiscGolfPlanet was back in the day, but that is before my Disc Golf Time.

 

[JTacoma03]

I know you weren't asking me but I want to play. I cannot lay out an argument for the event getting a cut of the ad revenue. It does seem however that when the media groups get paid upfront and get all that revenue they have effectively managed to shift all the risk in the proposition away from themselves. Kudos to them on savvy business I suppose.

We also have heard repeatedly from jvd (pretty sure that's where i got it- apologies to jvd if not) that the manufacturers are growing tired of footing the bill for media. Seems to me at some point the end user is going to need to pay but again I am an absolute neophyte in the workings of online media. Is free video a sustainable model with such a limited audience?

Is there an over-saturation of media crews already?
How much ad revenue does one round of coverage have the opportunity to generate?

I was quoted a figure in the neighborhood of $10k from one group to come film an event. Under that figure I would have had the rights to the advertising revenue but I would also have had to sell said advertising. Does that math potentially add up for an organizer?

Full disclosure.. I personally was not part of anything related to hiring of jomez for the VPO. It was just discussed in a public group that I am part of.



No, plus that would be a hassle to deal with. Otherwise it depends on the negotiations and who ends up owning the rights to the resulting media. Based on comments, discussions in the last year or so, it seemed like disc golf media producers were charging to cover events and assuming they were the legal owners of the resulting media and could monetize the media anyway they see fit.

I totally understand for small tournaments where the TD wants a video archive of the tournament, they should pay a media crew to come out and film it. I would hope moving forward, negotiations now go something like this:

For $xxx we come out and film the event.
For an additional $xxx you own all rights to the media, otherwise we own the rights and can monetize the media as we see fit.

For larger events it makes sense for the coverage to go to the highest bidder(s). And in that case there should be no revenue split due to the financial risk being taken by the media producer.

I'll try to keep this brief, and as a general reply. If anything is unclear let me know-

As Dreadlock86 mentioned, frame the purchase as a service, not a product. It's weird because the service is literally converting something into a product that is able to be monetized. However that's the 2nd step of the process - if you're hiring me to produce media for your event, you're hiring my time and expertise to produce that content. Because you can't separate the creator from the content (i.e. I will make a different video than Ian or Jonathan or JVD) it helps to consider it this way rather than to think "I'm buying the video" because there's no video to buy at that stage. There is an intention to produce an agreed-upon slate of content, but you're hiring the people to create from scratch.

The end video product is what the audience is "buying" - and that media outlet's audience is what the advertisers are paying to access. This is why I believe that by default, event revenue and media revenue should be separated, and only mixed in where there is a contractual agreement to do so.

Let's chat about "rights" - oftentimes there is an (unintentional, I believe) confounding of "media rights" and "ownership of footage". If a tournament is selling its "media rights" - we're talking about granting permission, usually exclusively, for the media group to broadcast the event on their platform. When we're talking about who owns the footage, it is always the content creator, unless that person has signed a "work for hire" agreement/contract. A quick example would be let's say a movie producer comes and wants to use your house as a set. Yes you own the house, but you still wouldn't own the footage shot in your house, and you don't own the resulting movie (unless you negotiated that in a contract, and if so you'd be a bonified badass in this particular example, lol).

So, let's bring this full circle and a little more big picture - how does a non-tour A-tier create valuable media rights? In short, you have to have a situation where they (media crews) need to be at your event more than you need them to be there. Part of this, like Biscoe said, will be the continuing saturation of media teams - aka competition. As supply (of popular events) becomes relatively more scarce amongst growing demand (more media teams looking to "make it") TD's who can run events attracting big names and 1060+ MPO play and 1000+ FPO play will garner more leverage in negotiating, and revenue sharing from ads could be a creative solution. It's kind of like investing in the eventual product with the creator. Right now, just about every event in our sport needs the cameras more than the cameras need them. Why? Because it loses less money to not go to the event, than to pay the TD to be there.

In short - TD's have to create an event that attracts players, then the cameras will want to be there too. At that point you could get creative with how you get value out of that demand.

Hope I didn't ramble too much or over-emphasize the "duh" stuff.

 

[wolfmandragon]

I didn't intend to infer that it wasn't more expensive. JVD was talking about adding value and also adding revenue with some adds. I was just offering that I felt was of more value to the viewer and telling the story.



I still think some kind of entity needs to be created, where hopefully all of the content creators can become a part of, if they are a joint owners/partners or it is an avenue for revenue. I want to see a "channel", I'll subscribe some amount a year/month (obviously depending on content) to have access to this channel. I would sort of like it to be a continuous stream channel. It can have post produced rounds, live rounds, replays, live call in shows, technical breakdowns, etc, etc. They can be from a whole host of content providers as long as they meet a baseline standard of production. They would provide content in return for some money, the "channel" would then bundle all of this together, negotiate ads, schedule shows, etc. Maybe this is what DiscGolfPlanet was back in the day, but that is before my Disc Golf Time.

That's a model from the past. Even the big sports are dropping this model.

Streaming in demand is the present, who knows what the future is, but I doubt it's going back to the 1980s

 

[ThunderEagle]

That's a model from the past. Even the big sports are dropping this model.



Streaming in demand is the present, who knows what the future is, but I doubt it's going back to the 1980s

Problem is, I'm not paying 5 different media companies. I'd pay more to one entity that had all of the content though. If they want us to pay, I'm not doing it a la cart.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[jvphobic]

That's a model from the past. Even the big sports are dropping this model.

Streaming in demand is the present, who knows what the future is, but I doubt it's going back to the 1980s

I think they mean that a channel that streams 24 hours a day AND has the ability to pick and choose content. For instance there are some services that are experimenting with a "lean back" experience. Where you tune in and there is just something there for you to watch all the time. But, if you choose, you can pick from their pre-recorded content as well. Kinda a "best of both worlds." Who wouldn't like to get sucked into the 2015 PDGA World championships once in a while. Or something like that.

Personally, I hope that we move to a PPV model someday. I don't know when that will be, if ever. But most major sports have them now, and even smaller sports like bowling, darts, swimming, rodeo, boxing, etc have a niche channel dedicated to PPV. And then after xxx amount of time (weeks, months?) it gets released into the general public.

And I can already hear people yelling that it will stifle the growth of the sport. And I disagree. Because you could have the NTs behind a paywall and the DGPT free, or vice versa. Or A-tiers not behind a paywall and everything else? I don't know the right solution. It would all be easier if we had a big corporate sponsor, but I don't see that right now.

 

[Putt for D'oh]

Personally, I hope that we move to a PPV model someday. I don't know when that will be, if ever. But most major sports have them now, and even smaller sports like bowling, darts, swimming, rodeo, boxing, etc have a niche channel dedicated to PPV. And then after xxx amount of time (weeks, months?) it gets released into the general public.

Purely from a quality of coverage standpoint do you think we are in a place PPV could work? and if not how far off do you think that would be?

My opinion there is it is all the $$$ game right? You guys have talked about the jump in really orders of magnitude in cost for what DG has now for live coverage to ball golf coverage, being able to split between holes, having those :30 second delayed shots queued up to cut to or other live footage where we have ~"dead" time now in the walk up the fair way and such. I don't even watch much tourney footage but I think the improvements made with the live coverage this year has roped me in. As a casual observer and someone newly excited about the live coverage, I'm not sure what I would pay and what exactly I would need to see to pay up front.

 

[jvphobic]

Purely from a quality of coverage standpoint do you think we are in a place PPV could work? and if not how far off do you think that would be?

My opinion there is it is all the $$$ game right? You guys have talked about the jump in really orders of magnitude in cost for what DG has now for live coverage to ball golf coverage, being able to split between holes, having those :30 second delayed shots queued up to cut to or other live footage where we have ~"dead" time now in the walk up the fair way and such. I don't even watch much tourney footage but I think the improvements made with the live coverage this year has roped me in. As a casual observer and someone newly excited about the live coverage, I'm not sure what I would pay and what exactly I would need to see to pay up front.

I don't know if live could survive PPV alone. Not as long as high quality next day coverage is available for free. I am talking about a package deal. I am saying that you would get live & next day coverage as a package, and you get to choose what you want to watch, or watch it all! I don't know what the cost would be, I haven't actually sat down and worked out any numbers because it isn't currently in the realistic phase yet. Maybe it is something I will look at this winter.

 

[SD86]

I think the viewers are going to have to make a leap (financially) and trust that the media teams will do well with the added funding. Yes, I'm talking about some sort of pay per view model.

IMHO this has been the plan/goal all along. Jussi failed with the DGWT, and Dodge failed after burning too many bridges and his hamfisted way of excluding Jomez and CCDG and Smashboxx, which alienated a LOT of viewers.

I'm not saying this as what I want or don't want, just as an observation: I don't know if disc golf is ready for PPV at this time. Try it if you want to, but don't be surprised if expectations of its success in generating revenue aren't met.

 

[Glide]

IMHO this has been the plan/goal all along. Jussi failed with the DGWT, and Dodge failed after burning too many bridges and his hamfisted way of excluding Jomez and CCDG and Smashboxx, which alienated a LOT of viewers.

I'm not saying this as what I want or don't want, just as an observation: I don't know if disc golf is ready for PPV at this time. Try it if you want to, but don't be surprised if expectations of its success in generating revenue aren't met.

You mean speculation, not observation.

 

[SD86]

You mean speculation, not observation.

Semantics on your part, but to get granular: speculations based upon observations.

 

[JTacoma03]

IMHO this has been the plan/goal all along. Jussi failed with the DGWT, and Dodge failed after burning too many bridges and his hamfisted way of excluding Jomez and CCDG and Smashboxx, which alienated a LOT of viewers.

I'm not saying this as what I want or don't want, just as an observation: I don't know if disc golf is ready for PPV at this time. Try it if you want to, but don't be surprised if expectations of its success in generating revenue aren't met.

DGWT did not paywall media, nor did DGPT, seems like you're taking potshots there.

Despite that, I agree with the principle of your post, which is that the PPV model was not a big success when used with DiscGolfPlanet.tv and therefore many will be hesitant to trust it again. However, that was in reality a completely different age of technology and media. Production capabilities at comparable costs to 10 years ago paint a far more optimistic picture for the future.

Plus, Patreon is a hybrid model of PPV already. It's a band-aid, a temporary solution. You can't scale if you can't put a more concrete value on your content. That's just the way the industry is evolving.

 

[gammaxgoblin]

DGWT did not paywall media, nor did DGPT, seems like you're taking potshots there.

Despite that, I agree with the principle of your post, which is that the PPV model was not a big success when used with DiscGolfPlanet.tv and therefore many will be hesitant to trust it again. However, that was in reality a completely different age of technology and media. Production capabilities at comparable costs to 10 years ago paint a far more optimistic picture for the future.

Plus, Patreon is a hybrid model of PPV already. It's a band-aid, a temporary solution. You can't scale if you can't put a more concrete value on your content. That's just the way the industry is evolving.

^^^^
How I know a thread is dead for me =)

 

[wolfmandragon]

...
And I can already hear people yelling that it will stifle the growth of the sport. And I disagree. Because you could have the NTs behind a paywall and the DGPT free, or vice versa. Or A-tiers not behind a paywall and everything else? I don't know the right solution. It would all be easier if we had a big corporate sponsor, but I don't see that right now.

I agree. Money is got to start coming in from somewhere or the sport will stagnate and start shrinking.

 

[DavidSauls]

I agree. Money is got to start coming in from somewhere or the sport will stagnate and start shrinking.

How has the sport grown to this point, without all that money?

 

[jvphobic]

How has the sport grown to this point, without all that money?

Currently that money is coming from manufacturers.

 

[SD86]

DGWT did not paywall media, nor did DGPT, seems like you're taking potshots there.

No, not taking potshots. It'd be very clear if I had been.

I did not say that DGWT or Dodge's DGPT were paywalled, only that it is my belief that was the intent of what they were doing (especially Dodge), but they didn't get there.

Eventually the best solution will work itself out. But it may not be what some think or hope it will be... opcorn:

 

[wolfmandragon]

Currently that money is coming from manufacturers.

How has the sport grown to this point, without all that money?

(Yes, I reversed these on purpose)

Manufactures putting money back in the sport with the expectation of a bigger paycheck down the road. Volunteers from clubs and private course owners, like you, of course help out a lot.

It appears that we are seeing manufactors stalling out. I don't have any insider knowledge, but it appears that most are cutting back on funding, cutting their line of discs and some their pros.

It appears that DG is a failure at getting outside sponsorships; if this site is a valid cross section of players, no wonder.

As it appears manufactors money os drying up and without outside sponsor money, volunteer effort will only go so far in keeping the sport afloat.

In no way am I suggesting that the cure-all is pay per view coverage of the DGPT, nor do I claim to know the entire solution. What is obvious is that here we have people upset that someone would charge $2000 to come to town and film a tournament whilst in regular golf, many have a single driver that costs that much.

We have a long ways to go.

 

[ru4por]

(Yes, I reversed these on purpose)

Manufactures putting money back in the sport with the expectation of a bigger paycheck down the road. Volunteers from clubs and private course owners, like you, of course help out a lot.

It appears that we are seeing manufactors stalling out. I don't have any insider knowledge, but it appears that most are cutting back on funding, cutting their line of discs and some their pros.

It appears that DG is a failure at getting outside sponsorships; if this site is a valid cross section of players, no wonder.

As it appears manufactors money os drying up and without outside sponsor money, volunteer effort will only go so far in keeping the sport afloat.

In no way am I suggesting that the cure-all is pay per view coverage of the DGPT, nor do I claim to know the entire solution. What is obvious is that here we have people upset that someone would charge $2000 to come to town and film a tournament whilst in regular golf, many have a single driver that costs that much.

We have a long ways to go.

I think this begs the question.....why. IMO, because sponsors understand that the sport does not lend itself to bigtime viewer numbers. It is a tiny niche sport. Sponsors are much better off putting money towards bowling, darts, cornhole, poker, surfing.....

 

[wolfmandragon]

I think this begs the question.....why. IMO, because sponsors understand that the sport does not lend itself to bigtime viewer numbers. It is a tiny niche sport. Sponsors are much better off putting money towards bowling, darts, cornhole, poker, surfing.....

With the exception of corn hole, all of those sports cater to, in cross section, those more affluent. Cornhole == beer.

That very well could be the answer. Pay per view match play where the winner of each hole has to take a shot....
I only half way say that tongue in cheek. I would pay to watch that.