DGPT Sold to Todd Rainwater

[JTacoma03]

I'm curious if any of the media teams have figured out if there's any course fatigue where viewership has gone down in the following year(s) on a course even if the groups playing them continue to be top rated.

I think proving that correlation would be nearly impossible, as it connects an assumption (course fatigue) with an action (delta in views). Even if you found a tournament where viewership decreased, you'd have to interview the people who didn't watch to confirm their reasoning, and since we don't know who those people are I don't see a way to conclude any intention.

The best you could do is to look at the "tail" of the videos year over year - after the initial spike in views when it's fresh, how steep is the slope of the decline after 3 days? After 7? After 30? etc. You'd then have to control for increase in subscriber base in the preceding 12 months. You'd then have to find a way to weed out whether it was due to better crew, better techniques, etc.

Basically, I don't believe we have the data to give an answer with any real degree of confidence, though at the same time I do recognize that our courses are the weakest part of the tour.

 

[biscoe]

I still have a bad taste about Jomez allegedly charging the local organization $2000.00 to film the VPO Tournament in Texas and then also apparently getting all ad revenue as well. I've always said media companies should be bidding, etc, for the right to cover an event. Glad this is happening now.

If it was $2k you got off light in my experience.

 

[JTacoma03]

I still have a bad taste about Jomez allegedly charging the local organization $2000.00 to film the VPO Tournament in Texas and then also apparently getting all ad revenue as well. I've always said media companies should be bidding, etc, for the right to cover an event. Glad this is happening now.

Serious question-

Can you lay out the argument for the event getting a cut of the ad revenue by default?

 

[jvphobic]

My understanding was there was an issue between VPO and Jomez in that one company sponsored the event and another the ads in the coverage.

I see blame on both sides. The event needed to be more clear in what was offered for the money they paid. And Jomez should have made it more clear as to what they planned on doing and including.

Welcome to the media world today.

 

[biscoe]

Serious question-

Can you lay out the argument for the event getting a cut of the ad revenue by default?

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?

 

[DavidSauls]

I've always said media companies should be bidding, etc, for the right to cover an event. Glad this is happening now.

What is the value of that right?

I'll admit to being both clueless, and skeptical. I'd have to know (1) how much does it cost the media company to cover an event and (2) how much ad revenue might they anticipate?

If #1 is more than #2, the value of the media rights would be nothing. Someone's going to have to pay them to show up.

If #2 is more than #1, then a portion of that difference is what they should be able to bid. My clueless side doesn't know, but my skeptical side thinks that it isn't.

 

[jvphobic]

What is the value of that right?

I'll admit to being both clueless, and skeptical. I'd have to know (1) how much does it cost the media company to cover an event and (2) how much ad revenue might they anticipate?

If #1 is more than #2, the value of the media rights would be nothing. Someone's going to have to pay them to show up.

If #2 is more than #1, then a portion of that difference is what they should be able to bid. My clueless side doesn't know, but my skeptical side thinks that it isn't.

It is very hard to judge value. But... some companies have thousands of dollars a month coming in to Patreon. Plus a thousand or so for commercials. Plus another thousand or so from YouTube revenue on a popular video, combined with big events which will have residual viewing for years to come. There is some money to be made certainly.

I mean, biscoe said he got a quote for 10K to have all the ads under his control, that probably gives you a good estimate as to what some media companies have the potential to make if that is what they are trying to charge.

 

[Casey 1988]

I think proving that correlation would be nearly impossible, as it connects an assumption (course fatigue) with an action (delta in views). Even if you found a tournament where viewership decreased, you'd have to interview the people who didn't watch to confirm their reasoning, and since we don't know who those people are I don't see a way to conclude any intention.

The best you could do is to look at the "tail" of the videos year over year - after the initial spike in views when it's fresh, how steep is the slope of the decline after 3 days? After 7? After 30? etc. You'd then have to control for increase in subscriber base in the preceding 12 months. You'd then have to find a way to weed out whether it was due to better crew, better techniques, etc.

Basically, I don't believe we have the data to give an answer with any real degree of confidence, though at the same time I do recognize that our courses are the weakest part of the tour.

Most of that is due to Steve Dodge being Grounded to having to have live coverage.

If the next phase of the Disc Golf Pro Tour were not Grounded to having live coverage, then they could do what a few events in the PDGA National Tour do as they do not get cell coverage and are not live via Smashbox or whoever is doing the live feed. This way we could have tournaments in places like Highbridge Hill on the Pro Course and the next most difficult for a cool change up course in the middle day of tournament in Wisconsin should the course(s) survive or be back again at Minnesota Majetsic as a Disc Golf Pro Tour event.

 

[jvphobic]

Most of that is due to Steve Dodge being Grounded to having to have live coverage.

If the next phase of the Disc Golf Pro Tour were not Grounded to having live coverage, then they could do what a few events in the PDGA National Tour do as they do not get cell coverage and are not live via Smashbox or whoever is doing the live feed. This way we could have tournaments in places like Highbridge Hill on the Pro Course and the next most difficult for a cool change up course in the middle day of tournament in Wisconsin should the course(s) survive or be back again at Minnesota Majetsic as a Disc Golf Pro Tour event.

Yes, Steve was committed to live. And from what we are currently hearing, we are set for next year live as well. But remember, not only does a DGPT event have to have live coverage, they have to be in a city where Pros want to go, an event that can raise thousands of dollars, and can provide enough facilities for people to stay at.

Highbridge is a great couple of courses, but they literally just got their feet under them this year, and it would probably be a few years before anyone is willing to put them on the national scene. Like all events, they need to prove they can provide all those things.

 

[aredoubles]

The DGPT 2019 Championship has been moved to Charlotte NC
https://discgolf.ultiworld.com/2019...r-moving-2019-championship-emporia-charlotte/

Sounds like Rainwater/Spring pushed for the change soon after assuming leadership. Seems like a popular move amongst the pros at least.

 

[Hampstead]

I'm curious if any of the media teams have figured out if there's any course fatigue where viewership has gone down in the following year(s) on a course even if the groups playing them continue to be top rated.

If Vegas wasn't early, those numbers would definitely drop.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Hornet's Nest:thmbup:

 

[DiscFifty]

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.

Serious question-
Can you lay out the argument for the event getting a cut of the ad revenue by default?

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.

 

[dreadlock86]

so...

they did basically what you suggest they should and you agree that there's no argument the event ought to automatically get a cut of ad revenue and apparently they offered a great rate of 2k compared to 10k

so why are you mad again?

 

[DinosaurThunder]

Hornet's Nest:thmbup:

I like the new owner and tour director already. Saved us from having to watch emporia courses twice this year!

 

[DiscFifty]

so...

they did basically what you suggest they should and you agree that there's no argument the event ought to automatically get a cut of ad revenue and apparently they offered a great rate of 2k compared to 10k

so why are you mad again?

Didn't say I was "mad" I said the idea of paying for a product, not owning the result, and then on top they also get additional ad revenue, leaved a bad taste in my mouth. If things worked out differently behind the scenes, so be it, but that was the perceived public perception of the deal at the time, and not just at VPO from various discussions I was privy to.

 

[dreadlock86]

no offense but it sounds like you weren't privy to much other than a bunch of locals grumbling about having to pony up cash for a service (typical disc golfers)


also... sounds like the crux of the issue is that you and/or the group think they're buying a product and while Jomez is really selling a service. Jomez owns their product and if i were them i wouldn't do it any other way, especially not for some A tier in TX.

 

[teemkey]

From a TD perspective, having big name pros at your event means you can justify higher event fees, advertising fees, and it's easier to recruit volunteers. Might well be worth $2K, $10K would probably be a stretch.

 

[ThunderEagle]

That isn't bad. But one of the main complaints that we have is that we show too many commercials. So we would have to cut that down in order to show more golf. Or, we try to put them in bigger chunks and miss some action.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't watch the PGA in years. However they don't show every single shot of one card do they? Sure, they may follow a main card primarily, sprinkling in other shots, but if they miss mundane upshots, tap in puts, etc, they don't care, be that they happened during commercial break or while showing a different card. Now, they always have a camera rolling, and if something significant happens we get a "Moments Ago" replay.

Post produced can still be there to watch every single shot, live needs to tell the relevant story. An extra crew or two that can bounce around the course I think would be more valuable to the product than more produced "filler" content.

 

[JC17393]

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I haven't watch the PGA in years. However they don't show every single shot of one card do they? Sure, they may follow a main card primarily, sprinkling in other shots, but if they miss mundane upshots, tap in puts, etc, they don't care, be that they happened during commercial break or while showing a different card. Now, they always have a camera rolling, and if something significant happens we get a "Moments Ago" replay.

Post produced can still be there to watch every single shot, live needs to tell the relevant story. An extra crew or two that can bounce around the course I think would be more valuable to the product than more produced "filler" content.

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.

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.

If we're not willing to do that, than all we're going to get is the same incremental changes we've seen the last few years...meaning sustained multi-card live coverage is still a LONGGGGGGGGGGG way down the road.