Pay Per View: The Enemy of Growth
DNN's First-Person September continues with something even more unusual for us than narrative: Opinions! Please enjoy our first ever Editorial.
Edit: this editorial originally appeared under the headline "Pay Per View: The Enemy of Success." Upon further reflection, it's clear that "success" has a wide range of definitions within the derby community. The headline has been changed to more precisely reflect the point of the editorial.
This year, for the first time ever, the live online broadcasts of roller derby's top competitive events are viewable only for people who are willing to pay to watch. Many (many) people in the derby community have expressed dissatisfaction with this course of action. We agree; we think it's very shortsighted and counterproductive to place obstacles between the sport and its potential audience.
The rationale that led to the adoption of a Pay Per View-only model, as best we understand it, went something like this:
a) "We want to grow roller derby until hundreds of thousands play, tens of millions are fans, and the top players can quit their day jobs and skate professionally;"
b) "Sports that are on TV have millions of fans, therefore the way to achieve the above goal is to get on TV;"
c) "To get on TV, we need to make it look like a TV sport, with TV-level production values;"
d) "TV-level production values cost more money than we can figure out how to make -- unless we implement Pay Per View."
This thinking is flawed. Here are 6 reasons why:
1) Pay Per View doesn't get roller derby onto conventional television.
TV doesn't choose to broadcast sports because the sport "looks ready for primetime" and they think they can build an audience for it. That's a textbook causation fallacy. TV chooses to broadcast sports when they have already aggregated a proven, bankable audience. For a lot more detail, see the comment thread from our 2010 Fund Drive announcement, and in particular Mercy Less's description of WFTDA's prior TV negotiations.
In short: TV is not a medium for growth. TV is a medium for monetization. Once enough people already care about a sport, TV provides the avenue through which millions of eyeballs can be sold. By attempting to monetize very prematurely, WFTDA has cut some actual, viable growth avenues off at the knees.
In shorter: Field of Dreams is a great movie, but a terrible business model.
2) Pay Per View reduces the audience, rather than growing it.
The second you put a paywall in front of any service, you decrease consumption of it. WFTDA.tv doesn't release their numbers, but similar examples in other sports suggest a 50% audience reduction as a starting point, with many precedents for 90% or more.
Again in our 2010 Fund Drive comment thread, several examples surfaced. Even businesses that have managed to build a successful PPV business, such as perennial example UFC, are struggling to maintain audiences in recent years.
3) Pay Per View dramatically reduces sponsor value.
When you sell sponsorship and advertising, the value you're selling is exposure. The more people you aggregate into your audience, the more revenue you can generate through these nondestructive avenues.
By severely reducing the broadcast audience, Pay Per View cripples the broadcast's ability to sell advertiser exposure (further stunting options for non-paywall financing of future broadcasts).
4) Pay Per View deprives derby's best training tool from the people who most need it.
Roller derby continues to grow across the globe, with participants in a fast-growing number of relatively remote locations. From Montana, to Melbourne, to Munich, to Manitoba, to Medellín, derby people outside of major US metro areas face significant financial obstacles to participation.
Travel costs more, so access to experienced trainers costs more, and getting gear can cost a lot more depending on trade and tariff issues; even venues can be harder to come by, in locations with no tradition of roller skating. It's expensive to be in derby, for anyone, but all the more so if your home is out of the way.
We hear from them all the time. For these members of our community, internet media is a lifeline. It's the next best thing to actually being there, or to someone with experience actually visiting. London and Victoria, to name a couple of notable exceptions, have very specifically told us "without the free resources on DNN, we'd be lost." These people, who are the vanguard of our growth, who most need access to these resources, can least afford to pay for them.
Archived video, while valuable and essential, only addresses a fraction of this issue. People who are "active learners" will seek it out, but for every active learner in the sport, there are several passive learners -- people who might not think to go hunt down some top-teams video, but who will get caught up in a live broadcast experience and see some mind-expanding performance that gets their gears turning. When that population learns without even trying, everybody in derby benefits.
5) Pay Per View deprives derby of its best community-building opportunity.
Community is built through shared experience. Second only to (costly and time-consuming) travel to major events, live broadcasts provide a shared experience around the very purpose of this community.
Live broadcasts allow us to all enjoy an event together, to talk about it in person and online together, to get excited about a common experience. In the process, we get to know each other better, and those bonds fuel our further growth and mutual support.
But only if we're all afforded access to that common experience.
6) Pay Per View isolates participants from their personal support network.
Derby participants make many sacrifices to take part in the sport. So do their friends and family, as discretionary time and money are diverted to roller derby practice, travel, and gear, and away from other social opportunities. Sometimes this leads to friction.
Broadcasts can provide these friends and family with the opportunity to experience the fruits of all those sacrifices. When they're able to see the intensity of tournament competition, it helps them to understand why so much time and energy goes into getting there. But these friends and family, who may already feel neglected, are far less likely to watch a broadcast if it requires yet another sacrifice (of the Pay Per View fee).
Many in the derby community bemoan the fact that we can only seem to get our friends, our family, and other derby people to attend our bouts as spectators. That's not a flaw; that's a feature! Sports have always grown in this organic way. Derby is no different. We should provide every possible opportunity for participants to engage their friends and family in our shared passion.
There's another way
For us -- immersed in the realities of the broadcast business, attentive to the historical growth patterns of other sports, and with long experience as actual participants in the sport -- these drawbacks have long been evident, which is why DNN has never placed a paywall between the sport and its constituency.
In DNN's 2011 Big 5 Broadcast Bid (PDF), we outlined a model to provide paywall-free broadcast quality comparable to the current production. We were able to offer this option because we'd aggregated a substantial, coherent, 365-day audience, and built a sound and growing finance model on that foundation.
We've since moved away from our previous focus on DNN-produced internet broadcast, preferring to instead work with broadcast partners and focus on our many other services. We're not looking back -- we have new directions on the horizon, which we'll describe in our imminent 2012 Fund Drive launch. We're engaging this topic because we think the conversation is important, and we want to show the community that there are realistic alternatives to Pay Per View.
Excerpts from DNN's 2011 Big 5 Broadcast Bid
On audience service (from page 8):
(from page 7):
On finance model (from page 7):
While others have struggled to cover the costs of production, DNN successfully finances our broadcast productions through sponsor and advertising sales, as well as voluntary contributions from our viewers. We have a proven track record of delivering value to live coverage sponsors, which in turn has led to robust growth in our sales efforts.
Notably, our funding model does not include pay-per-view, either in the form of a mandatory paywall or an added-value upgrade. We've carefully examined this approach, and we've determined that it runs completely counter to our accessibility mission. Rather than compromise the audience experience, we're setting out this year to provide the highest possible quality, highest possible definition stream, to make it available to viewers at no cost, and to finance it through methods that are consistent with a good viewer experience.
Furthermore, after careful examination, we believe the hybrid model (offering a free stream alongside a pay-per-view, higher quality stream) represents a moral hazard for the broadcaster, by potentially allowing the broadcaster to benefit directly from bad audience experiences. For example, if the free stream suffers technical problems, some fraction of its audience will upgrade in order to maintain access to the event. The broadcaster gains revenue, while the rest of the audience loses access.
We think it's essential to keep the broadcaster's interests directly aligned with those of the audience. DNN's finance model accomplishes this goal.
On content ownership:
We've been surprised in the past few days to hear some Pay Per View defenders claim (groundlessly) that this model was necessary in order for WFTDA to retain ownership of its content. That's simply not true.
Copyright can be assigned in the terms of a broadcast contract. We requested only the right to provide live broadcast and internet archives, with all other uses reserved for and owned by WFTDA (with the caveat that we be compensated for excess production costs, should WFTDA find a revenue-generating future use -- reasonable, since we proposed to take the entire business risk for the venture).
Comments
WHAT??? IT'S
WHAT??? IT'S AN...oh...well...you know.
Thank you, DNN, for being
Thank you, DNN, for being good with the words and the thinking things. All I knew is that deep down I didn't like the pay per view system but I didn't know all the reasons why. Gotcha!
Another reason not to pay for overseas viewers: Time zones
I am located in the Netherlands and my reason for not paying to watch this year is simple:
Except for the 1st or sometimes 2nd game (depending on the tournament time zone), all the bouts are in the middle of the night for me.
Last year I paid because I was able to get high quality archives that I and my league mates watched together days after the actual tournament. It was well worth the money, since we could rarely watch bouts at actual game time.
With archives now available for free afterwards, it is not really worth it for me to pay to be able to watch maybe 3 low seed games.
One thing I hate about what they're doing...
There is effectively no audience participation. Sure, you could tweet using whatever hashtag, but that lacks the immediacy and right-over-there factor that having a text-cast accompanying the video does.
WFTDA seems to want info to flow top-down. For me that's about as dull as watching it on TV. It also tends to be a lot less informative. We've lost a lot with the current model.
Easy enough to fix.
That would be great to have a chat room alongside the video window. We as announcers love the hash tag because it's easier to monitor during timeouts and when your partner is reading a commercial, but a chat room would certainly bring the community aspect of watching derby together if you don't have a big party going on.
The SecSE chat room, last
The SecSE chat room, last year, was monitored by a lot of the announcers during games, wasn't it? Or was it fewer than I thought? I remember instances of things we were discussing in the chat during the game coming up in conversations between announcers on several occasions. Not just in a "hey, we're all thinking the same thing" sort of manner, but in a "hey, the community watching this are hashing out this topic, lets talk about it during this time-out" fashion. It was genuinely a great experience in that regard. That system was working alongside the Twitter hashtags, but it seemed more fluid and direct. More conversational than abbreviated shout-outs.
The problem is, how do you have a chat room full of people watching a video feed be an inclusive, community aspect of the experience, when the feed in question is behind a paywall? You could argue that the chat room is something that could be placed alongside the audio stream, but it's hardly the same experience.
Easy enough to fix, but...
That would be great to have a chat room alongside the video window. We as announcers love the hash tag because it's easier to monitor during timeouts and when your partner is reading a commercial, but a chat room would certainly bring the community aspect of watching derby together if you don't have a big party going on.
Easy enough to fix, but not fixed from last year. Pretty much they did almost exactly what they did last year, but with a different URL.
They appear not to want to hear what we think. They want YOU telling us what to think, I guess? That way it's easier to pull the plug when folks are saying things they'd prefer not to hear or have heard.
?!?
They appear not to want to hear what we think. They want YOU telling us what to think, I guess? That way it's easier to pull the plug when folks are saying things they'd prefer not to hear or have heard.
Whoa, wait -- what?!? Any and all opinions I have on DNN or WFTDA.tv are mine and mine alone. And I was agreeing with you that a chat room would be a great addition to the feed. Yeesh!
a comparison - from another sport
This year in the UK the FIA Formula 1 is broadcast on a Pay Channel on Sky, costing £10 per month, with a highlights program shown on the BBC for free a few hours later.
10 of the races are shown live on the BBC for free, along side the Sky broadcast
Previously all races were shown free to air on the BBC
Viewing figures
Taking the Spanish race, which was a race broadcast live on both BBC and Sky (dont forget, to watch the Sky F1 channel, you either have the channel as part of your Sky HD package, or you commit to a 12 month contract paying £10 a month)
In 2011 the Spanish race was watched live by 6.2m on the BBC
In 2012 for the same race 1m watched live on sky, and a further 4.5m watched live on the BBC
This is kind of typical of the viewing figures - in 2011, BBC had around 5.5-6million people tuning in to watch the European races, and lot of the fly away races.
Sky have an average of around 1million tuning in to watch the race
BBC highlight programs shown later in the evening when the BBC dont show the live race get around 3.5million, while a live race on the BBC will draw betwen 4.5 and 5million on average.
So going pay per view has cut the live telivision audience by 1/5th for many of the races with more watching a highlight program, with 1million just not bothering watching at all.
Other side of the world
I'm with Ma Baker on this one.
great points.
great points.
DNN
is just full of the smarts.
Captain Obvious
Captain Obvious here, just wanted to point out the obvious.
Free is better than not free.
This statement, while meaning different things to different audiences, is true.
I know, I know, I'm living in the dark ages, but...
Not everyone has internet access at home. Shock!
I watched some of the earlier wftda.tv bouts this year on my smartphone, but even that I did judiciously due to data limits. What I'm saying is, it's not worth it for me to buy a weekend pay-per-view package to watch a few games on my phone (if the ppv feed was even smartphone compatible; it appears that the audio feed wasn't). So I was completely shut out from watching any of the NC bouts last weekend.
Sure, I could go back and watch the archives now, but I already know how the bouts end (thanks, DNN, for your excellent recaps! I read every one). I may view some for training purposes, but that doesn't capture the excitement of watching it live.
But since my internetless problems are probably just a me thing, I'd like to agree with the valid points that DNN and the international derby folks have stated.
To be fair, there are some
To be fair, there are some good things that have come out of this year's tournament broadcast model. I think the free archived bout thing, depending on how well it's done ((i.e., if it's not just Brewcity v. Outfit up there for four days in a row)), is huge. Just to have ((hopefully)) all the bouts located ((eventually)) in a clearly identified and easily accessible location, where a user can click on a bout and it works -- as opposed to the rather arcane jumble that bout archives currently are these days, where clicking on a link more often than not leads to an off-the-air justin.tv channel or similar dead end ((unless i'm just stupid and never do things correctly, which i admit is a possibility)) -- is a great value for the community. I'll also offer that the asking price of fifty bucks for five tournaments is not an onerous charge; it's actually reasonably reasonable. However, like many of the huddled masses yearning to breathe free these days, i'm not in particularly great financial straits, and fifty bucks is fifty bucks.
Therefore! Here's how this thing shakes out for me: There are/were viewing parties in this neck of the woods for North Centrals and Championships, so i've got those covered. I'll be attending South Centrals, so that one is covered as well. That leaves me Easterns and Westerns. Westerns is this weekend. I've got stuff going on Friday night, as well as most of Saturday. Ordinarily, i'd just have the bouts on all day, and watch them whenever i had a free moment -- squish 'em in here or there wherever my schedule permits. Now that i need to pay to watch derby this weekend, i am put into a position where i need to make value judgments, and cost-benefit analysises, and all that other crap: How many bouts will i really be able to watch this weekend? Which bouts will i be able to see live? Does it make sense to pay for a weekend package when i'll probably have to watch most of the bouts as archived footage anyway? Am i a douche for worrying about getting value for my twelve bucks when i'm already getting value in the form of the archived footage, which is probably worth the twelve bucks anyway, and i'm getting it for free? Shouldn't i just pay the twelve bucks out of gratitude for the archived bout footage and consider the live bouts i can catch a bonus? What's twelve bucks break down to per day? Per bout? Will i get to see any of the marquee bouts, or just bouts of lesser import? Am i under a moral compulsion to be altering my weekend plans to accommodate derby watching now that i've paid money for it? Is not altering my plans to accommodate derby watching after i've paid money to do so bourgeois and wasteful? WHO? WHAT? WHY? WHEN? WHERE? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH YOUR LIFE, SON????????????? ETC.!!! ETC.!!! ETC.!!! ETC.!!!
...I don't want to think about ANY of that. I just want to get up in the morning and be like "SACRED CITY vs. WASATCH, HELL YEAH!!!! WOOOOOOOO!!!" Therefore, anything that moves me towards the "SACRED CITY vs. WASATCH, HELL YEAH!!!! WOOOOOOOO!!!" model i like, and anything that moves me away from it i tend to dislike. Thanks for listening.
Undercutting their own model
I'm glad that the WFTDA got the archived games up so quickly after the first weekend was over. But I've only watched, and really only plan to watch, a few of the best games (even though they were all great) because I don't have the time or the impulse to watch them all ... not that the paying sponsors need the eyeballs of those who skip games or fast-forward through halftime.
I've realized something about this business model. Okay, so if we can't/don't want to pay to watch live, we can wait a few extra days to catch the archives. (And have the results spoiled in the meanwhile.) At that point, I can watch the games I want for free, presumably for the foreseeable future.
But if I can watch high-quality archives for free, why on earth would I buy a tournament DVD? I can just go to the website and see all the games again and again. Last year people didn't have a choice but to get the DVDs after the events because no archives were posted unless you bought the tournament pass. I presume the primary market for the archival DVDs are leagues that want to learn from them, so last year they had to pay at least something for that ability (either the archive pass or DVD). Now, they don't need to pay for either.
So not only is the WFTDA potentially devaluing their product to sponsors (fewer eyeballs watching = less reason to buy ads) they're killing any and all potential future revenue streams (DVD sales, "Skatest Hits" traffic) by giving away ALL of the archives for free. On top of that, if they don't see a significant increase in viewership this year–that's live, paid viewership–I can't see them doing as well as last year considering that they made the paid stream cheaper and are losing many secondary revenue opportunities.
I don't think this is something that has been properly thought through. Especially since this model relies on people feeling like they MUST purchase the live stream in order to get the best experience. I personally don't feel this is the case, and it's probably not going to be for someone who just wants to catch a couple of games, which is I imagine a significant amount of last year's audience. It's impossible to financially sustain high production values if what you're producing isn't compelling enough to get people to pay what you're asking for.
Tournament Archives
The tournament archives from last year, even with the tournament pass, were timexed. I'm *that* person, who will actively return to watch a specific game six months later, because something in training/conversation/another game reminded me of something I saw in a another game.
Those archives, which were advertised as one of the benefits of actually paying for the tournament pass, are gone. They were unavailable just a couple of months after the tournament. They're *still* not available, beyond a handful of Championship games that made it to WFTDA.tv. Now, I may never come across a situation where I want to watch, say, the 9th/10th place bout of Easterns, but if I did, the product *I paid for* is unavailable. I'm confined to highlight games.
Initially, I wasn't too bothered by having to pay for HD coverage of the Big 5 this year - probably because doing so last year softened the blow - but on top of the total lack of a free feed alienating most of the people on my team from catching games, the coverage quality is proving to be rather less than desirable. Technical issues from Game 1 aside, the option of a HD feed over a "High" quality option (the HD option in the menu was removed in the break between Game 1 and Game 2) is what I paid for. At times, during games, the stream would look like it's being rendered by a SNES. Some games had frame skipping errors that were so frequent and jarring, I switched to the audio feed and watched TV instead.
I'll accept there were technical issues in the arena, but if I'm paying to watch something behind a paywall - where the argument is the money goes to increased production values - I'd expect that production to stretch into testing the system before the tournament, not using Game 1 as a guinea pig.
Tournament drinking game rule addition: drink every time the announcer has to apologise for the feed, or mentions technical issues.
i'll buy that for a dollar.
i'd vote this one up a million times if i could. specifically this piece.
I'll accept there were technical issues in the arena, but if I'm paying to watch something behind a paywall - where the argument is the money goes to increased production values - I'd expect that production to stretch into testing the system before the tournament, not using Game 1 as a guinea pig.
WOW!
And *@!* you all for putting what I have been saying all week into more cogent terms. Agreed with each and every point, and I've more than a bit of broadcast experience.
One way or another...
It's going to cost SOMEBODY. DNN's proposal was quite thorough, and not unreasonable. I've worked in commercial and news production for 17ish years. There are two models that will work... advertising or pay per view. The advertising route requires up front sales in time to pay production expenses. Pay per view puts the revenue after the expenses, which is a bit of a gamble for whoever foots the bill. The prices for the pay per view weren't exactly outrageous, but it would be cool if it came with some added value... programs, stickers, coupon codes for discounts on tournament merch, etc.
I provide similar services to my home league, and I notice that as time goes on, they start expecting that not only will I do it for free, but that I will eat ever larger production costs, meet more and more insane deadlines, and constantly increase the value of the content. I'm happy to donate time and talent to the only sport I really care about, but it's important that people remember that not everything can be free just because so much of what we do is on a volunteer basis.
All of that said, Thrill of the Spill was a blast!
I gather I'm alone on this,
I gather I'm alone on this, but I don't understand the backlash on the pay-per-view model. I paid for the hi-def feed last year, got that, plus 90 days of archive access and I paid twice as much as what's getting charged this year. This year we're getting free archives and hi-def for half the price. I could go see a movie this weekend or catch a bunch of roller derby. My choice is made. Anyone who can't afford a movie ticket could get together with friends to split costs. I am very pleased with the current archive functionality on WFTDA.tv. (Revnorb, they had all the NC bouts up yesterday). This is just huge, and it is the archive that skaters learn from. Rewind, replay, repeat. And stats galore. Yummy stats. So we as consumers are getting more product for less cost than we did last year. The trade off is a free audio feed and free archives vs. a free video/audio feed. As a player I would choose the former over the latter if I had to, but it just so happens that I have a bunch of friends who play derby and collectively we have enough skrill to pay for a feed.
I have heard from people who said they were gonna watch some bouts, but then found out they had to pay and decided not to. Those people are still going to watch bouts, they'll just wait till the archive is up. No doubt there will be less unique IP address hits this year from last. But I also know that people were watching the bouts live at a bar in Indy where random bar patrons turned into derby fans. They got to learn about derby from people who play derby and excited fans who love the sport. I've heard plenty of stories of fans convincing bars to put derby up on a TV in the past so I'm sure it's not an isolated incident. This is where the expensive production crews come in. In this case derby *is* on TV for all anybody at the bar cares. It's just not broadcast through the air. Which makes me wonder who is introduced through roller derby without a connection to roller derby? Who discovers roller derby through a google search and justin.tv vs. being told about it by friends who are fans of the sport?
Bandwidth from a convention center costs an arm and a leg and somebody's soul to boot. It does not surprise me that the free audio option WFTDA is providing for tournament coverage requires less bandwidth.
As far as how sponsorship goes - how does anyone other than the sponsors in question get to be upset about what they were sold? I don't know that anyone commenting here knows how much it cost and the number of views projected. My assumption (caution!) is that WFTDA used the pay-per-view numbers from last year to sell sponsorship this year since they knew it was going to be pay-per-view.
As a consumer I think this is a total win. As someone who is sensitive to putting on a major tournament wrt cost I see it as fair. As a member of the community interested in how we use marquee events to create growth I'm willing to hold judgement until I see some numbers in terms of ticket sales next home season.
I also think editorials on DNN are great and I hope to see more.
Not alone at all.
Twelve dollars per weekend, people. That's what we're talking about. Twelve dollars for seventeen bouts. 71¢ per game. MNRG used to charge $10 for a home-team doubleheader, and there was nowhere near this level of anger.
I know what it's like being down on your luck, and deciding on expenses can be tough. But that's what watch parties are for. Invite ten friends. Everyone throws in $5 and shows up at Suxy Snotface's place. She's got the biggest screen and the Apple TV box. Everyone gets a weekend of derby, and there's money left over to get beer and pizza.
rambling rant
First off, I'm writing this at work while listening to a bunch of stupid goth music, so pardon my ramblings if it gets too rambly.
It seems to me that modern derby is suffering from delusions of grandeur at this stage what with all the talk about being "legitimate", aspiring to be in the Olympics, throwing PPV at an audience that is mainly other skaters, etc.
We're just not there yet, everyone. I know, I know, you're sick and tired of replicating Passover seders by having to explain to the unwashed masses how modern derby is different from derby in the past. You're putting a lot of literal blood, sweat, tears, time and money into this cute little hobby you picked up. You want a payoff. I get it. No, really...I GET IT.
But now is not the Great Comeback of Derby. It's gonna take more years beyond what most of us are going to be actively skating to get the rules sorted out, get enough leagues that can compete against each other beyond the top three of any region, and hopefully growing an audience to get that allegedly longed for "legitimate" label. IF that's really what you want. But that's another rant for another day.
In the end, who's the big audience for tournaments right now? Skaters and other direct participants in modern derby. There isn't a huge outside-of-derby audience just waiting to fork over their money to PPV right now. No one outside of the small community of derby isn't searching the interwebs for derby coverage, much less derby coverage that they have to pay for. I can imagine some could invoke the Field of Dreams mantra of, "Build it and they will come". But that worked because baseball is an already-established sport, and derby is far from that. You have to think more like a drug pusher when it comes to internet broadcasting: first hit's free. After you get a decent-sized audience hooked, THEN you ask for pay.
That requires us being broke for awhile longer, and a lot of altruism on our part. In the meantime, how do we pay for live game coverage if derby isn't ready for primetime? The equipment alone to run something like what you see at LA Derby Dolls boutcasts, last year's Big 5 or Battle on the Bank this year is costly. I don't know how it's been covered in the past, because my part in all that is volunteering my time to talk to y'all about derby. I guess my question on that is, if it's been able to be done in the past, what has changed so that it can't be done now until derby builds itself a sizable audience?
Anyway, building towards a profitable venture is great, but timing is everything. The timing and reasoning on this particular move was way too soon.
Tara
delusions
It seems to me that modern derby is suffering from delusions of grandeur at this stage what with all the talk about being "legitimate", aspiring to be in the Olympics, throwing PPV at an audience that is mainly other skaters, etc.
That pretty much captures it right there. We're so concerned with it growing in the direction we *want* it to grow in, when the main issue should just be growth of the sport. That takes new fans, fresh approaches, and easy access to all things derby.
...and hopefully growing an audience to get that allegedly longed for "legitimate" label. IF that's really what you want. But that's another rant for another day.
Don't get me started.
Anyway, building towards a profitable venture is great, but timing is everything. The timing and reasoning on this particular move was way too soon.
That's exactly it - this is a botched opportunity because the set up inevitably alienated potential new casual fans who could later become die-hards.
Let's get the game sorted out first and grow the sport. If we can grow it to the point where it's actual fans at regionals and nationals, instead of assholes from other teams, maybe then we start talking about PPV for big events.
first time caller, long time
first time caller, long time listener.
Had roller just hit the ground running, the pay to view model would probably be a much easier pill to swallow. The 'problem' is derby's DIY past, not just with DNN, but lots of small outfits and lone wolves out there with cameras wanting to share this exciting sport with anyone out there with enough interest to pay attention. People developed the expectation to be able to see any game, and for free. - Is that fair? Well, right, reliable footage does cost something. But I guess that's up to the community to navigate what that means as far as actually getting the derby out there.
I felt strange watching the tournament this past weekend, with guys threaded out in suits, seemingly emulating a media I thought we were all bucking in the first place. Where are the nsfw g-strings and derby names? Is the goal really to be picked up and buried somewhere on ESPN etc? I hope not. Traditional TV as we know it is on the way out, or at least its fragmenting. And maybe I'm missing something if that's what the point is. I think for most people the DIY aspect is whats most attractive about. WFTDA tv however, has done a good job of bringing everything together and creating a quality standard in production.
Hey DNN, I hear ya. My own crew has filmed numerous WFTA Regional tournaments, nationals (previous to 2011) and now world cup - its hard not to feel elbowed out by the video lock down. Is there still a place for us in derby video coverage? YES. but for the most part it won't be at upper level play with WFTDA. It will be back at our home leagues, other tournament and at least for the moment, I think MRDA maintains that DIY mentality.
More myth busting...
I'd like to add my $0.02 to this opining by mentioning a myth I have heard repeatedly that is annoying to me: that WFTDA.tv provides a higher and more consistent quality of broadcast than has ever been offered on DNN.
In 2008 at WFTDA Champs, DNN carried Mav TV's 7 camera HD broadcast with all the bells and whistles, live on the internet (free to viewers). I can't show it to you, because WFTDA and Mav own that content, and it no longer resides on the internet. But I have DVDs, and I would hold that up against any current production you can show me today, quality - wise.
Further, Hinckley Design and Production started shooting derby back in 2007 for the Mad Rollin' Dolls (I may even be wrong about that - they may have begun in 2006). Hinckley was the first professional production company to take a personal (fiscal) risk on derby, and for almost no money except possible, unproven DVD sales, they brought you the very first LIVE multicamera full-tournament production online on DNN in 2008 - Derby In Dairyland, and spent plenty of their own money and time in 2007 - 2010 bringing you tourneys like Denver's 2009 Westerns and Chicago's 2010 Champs. (I am not saying they didn't get paid, I am saying they worked for 1/25th of a normal professional rate, and in some cases only got paid that 1/25th and paid their own airfare and hotel, and other less than optimal arrangements).
Shoot, EMMY AWARD WINNING Director Vince Tennant has been pumping out a broadcast quality production (some would argue the best that has ever been done on almost no budget for derby) over at LA Derby Dolls for years on his own thin dime. Why not hire him? We've carried his high quality shows on DNN for years, as well.
When Blaze Streaming Media was bringing you quality like this, Hinckley and Vince "Wheel" Tennant had already been delivering an experienced multi-camera product with graphics, instant replay, in-show advertising and more, quality-wise for several years. With the right budget, this WOMAN OWNED, DERBY SUPPORTING business has the talent and capability to do amazing work. Look at this, and tell me they weren't qualified to build a website, put together broadcasts, and pay a white label streaming service for a secure, high quality feed.
My point is this: people who say the quality of production on DNN is low have a short memory, and insult several really talented, experienced production companies who brought you a quality product on a shoestring over the years. I want you to tell me that what you saw last weekend is better than what Hinckley provided you at 2010 Champs (and, no, the post-internet compression archives aren't a fair representation of this - watch the DVDs and tell me 2012 NC Regionals was better), or Vince "Wheel" Tennant showed you in 2009 and 2010's Battle On The Bank on DNN.
And I want you to question why it is that this woman who clearly delivers a quality product and is derby family for as long as DNN has existed didn't win the 2011 Big 5 bid (because she did put a bid in...). Because if all you're going to do is hire some production company, and throw a quarter of a million dollars at them to do what Hinckley and Tennant were already doing BETTER for years on much, much less money... and not hold the folks who are getting paid to a higher standard of professionalism* and broadcast quality than what was already happening for FREE, I don't really know what to tell you.
Most peoples' complaints about a DNN feed are streaming host and venue internet related. You can see in our proposal linked above that it's nothing 15K can't fix. Broadcast isn't magic - it's a trade like bricklaying or carpentry. Any one of you reading this could apply 15K of streaming and bandwidth $ to your home grown DNN broadcast and make it look better, too. If you watched 2010 Champs or 2012 World Cup on DNN, you understand what a real budget for a white label streaming service, solid equipment and good internet can do to improve the look of a production instantly. Your audience perception of the "quality" of a production seems to be about whether or not we can spend that 15K, not the capabilities of our best broadcasters.
Just because you say it's "better" doesn't make it true. Just one former fan's very personal opinion, and not a reflection on the opinions of the partnership of DNN.
*Professional standards include things like showing up days before an event and setting up and testing your entire rig including the internet under Day 1 broadcast conditions (which Hinckley and Tennant almost always did when they weren't getting paid)... when I worked in professional live broadcast, you didn't set up less than 24 hours before the event and hope for the best when a client was paying you real money.
Not enough upvotes
There are not enough upvotes in the world for this post. Well done!
LIKE!
"Broadcast isn't magic"
Marry me.
Also--
"Any one of you reading this could apply 15K of streaming and bandwidth $ to your home grown DNN broadcast and make it look better, too."
Challenge accepted.............. now who wants to give me some capital?
I couldn't agree more with
I couldn't agree more with this post. Also, how do you think those videographers who were donating their time feel about others getting paid for producing a lower quality product? Its a slap in the face to those volunteers. Not to mention the insult to photographers as well. Why should videographers get paid while photographers shouldn't? I find it difficult to fathom why you would want to insult your volunteers by paying a select few of them.
the old "why pay some and not all" argument
Its a slap in the face to those volunteers. Not to mention the insult to photographers as well. Why should videographers get paid while photographers shouldn't?
I've wondered that myself. The only answer I can come up with is free market dynamics. There are dozens of derby photographers lining up for the opportunity to shoot photos of the Big 5 on their own dime. There are essentially zero derby videographers doing the same.
I find it difficult to fathom why you would want to insult your volunteers by paying a select few of them.
This one's just a circular argument that never goes anywhere. Why does WFTDA pay for a video production crew, but not pay for the coaches? Why does your league pay the guy who makes the PBR served at the bout, but not pay the skaters? Basically, it's because nobody else is willing to make the PBR for free.
Free video
Its a slap in the face to those volunteers. Not to mention the insult to photographers as well. Why should videographers get paid while photographers shouldn't?
I've wondered that myself. The only answer I can come up with is free market dynamics. There are dozens of derby photographers lining up for the opportunity to shoot photos of the Big 5 on their own dime. There are essentially zero derby videographers doing the same.
Didn't Mercy's comment above just tell us about companies willing to work for free?
I think you'll see more video.
I've wondered that myself. The only answer I can come up with is free market dynamics. There are dozens of derby photographers lining up for the opportunity to shoot photos of the Big 5 on their own dime. There are essentially zero derby videographers doing the same.
I expect that number to increase as V-DSLR stuff becomes even more popular and people figure out how the damn video mode on their camera works (I know that I have a ton to learn in that respect and no time to devote to it). However, you're right that there are a lot more still shooters out there looking for things to do.
On a side note, WFTDA pays for photos now, and most of the top tier photographers charge sponsors and other commercial users of our photos (generally uses not related to league promotion/fundraisers/etc). It isn't a huge amount of money and nobody's getting rich, but it's appreciated to see a little bit trickle down to help cover gas money or a hotel room or something.
And also, what some others mentioned - the video crews might be a union obligation of the venue, or they may be required to the extent that it's just as economical to use them rather than try to field your own staff plus union "supervisors."
maybe, maybe not
Most people I've met who have a good DSLR that can also do video shoot stills and wouldn't tie up their camera doing video. It's not a matter of learning it. It's that if your camera is on a tripod tracking the action for a live broadcast, you're not taking stills.
Because...
Not to mention the insult to photographers as well. Why should videographers get paid while photographers shouldn't? I find it difficult to fathom why you would want to insult your volunteers by paying a select few of them.
Well, in certain circumstances (like NC Regional Playoffs this year, and every bout at the Roy Wilkins Auditorium or Xcel Energy Center), because it's a union house. It's written into the unions' contract with the venue that they have to be the ones to provide camera operators, and that they, yes, have to be paid.
Same reason that leagues in larger arenas have to pay someone to administer the tickets (The Roy and the Xcel are Ticketmaster venues), concession stand workers, security, etc.
It's an uneven playing field, absolutely, but that's the way it goes with growth.
Damn Dirty Unions
Where's Scott Walker when you need him?
Down I-94
A couple minutes from the Dairyland Dolls' HQ!
Don't...get...Hulk...started...
Where's Scott Walker when you need him?
Who needs him?
Names and boutfits...
I felt strange watching the tournament this past weekend, with guys threaded out in suits, seemingly emulating a media I thought we were all bucking in the first place. Where are the nsfw g-strings and derby names? Is the goal really to be picked up and buried somewhere on ESPN etc? I hope not. Traditional TV as we know it is on the way out, or at least its fragmenting. And maybe I'm missing something if that's what the point is. I think for most people the DIY aspect is whats most attractive about. WFTDA tv however, has done a good job of bringing everything together and creating a quality standard in production.
Well, speaking only for myself, I generally call bouts at home in a ridiculous ugly suit (and have since 2006), road games in a Twins road jersey (with "Minnesota" on the front and "Maddening" on the back). Tournaments I generally wore the same hideous cobbled-together Goodwill suit.
This year, at the announcers meeting, Hymen Heaven presented Bryant Mumble and myself with WFTDA.tv bowling shirts. I was initially taken aback, and asked if we were going to be required to wear them. She said, "Nope, just if you want to." I decided then and there that I would.
I don't think it's a betrayal of derby's DIY sensibilities to have Me in a WFTDA.tv shirt, Danny Mac in a tailored suit, Mumble in a cowboy shirt, Derby Nerd in a Toronto t-shirt...each of us chose how to present ourselves, just as we choose how to present ourselves at every home and road game. I love Rev. Al Mighty and Dumptruck, but I'm not interested in dressing like them (er, except that one time in Denver when DT couldn't make the bout). They have their own style, their own shtick, and that's cool.
As for names, I can assure you that John Maddening, Derby Nerd, Brawl McCartney, AK-40oz, and Muckety Muck are not our government names, so I'm not sure where that came from.
Thanks be to Hinckley, by the way, for the fantastic job they did at 2008 Eastern Regionals. I still have and occasionally watch the DVD of myself, Rev. Al, and Kool-Aid calling the MNRG/Providence bout.
I thought the bowling shirt
I thought the bowling shirt was pretty cool.
Yeah!
I dug it, though it was a rayon-polyester blend, so it felt like I was wearing the 70s.
After wearing that suitcoat
After wearing that suitcoat for so long, i'dve imagined you'dve been used to that.
Changing Names
I think the bowling shirts are awesome and since sometimes that's my normal announcing attire, I'm really hoping to score one at Eastern Region Playoffs.
I believe the writer was referring to the name changes by skaters.
That said, I'm changing my name as an announcer to what people know me as on Facebook - Amy Jo Moore. Technically, that's not my legal name but it's really close (Jo is not my middle name nor legally part of my first) and the bank takes my checks that way. Of course, my bank takes checks made out to Bitches Bruze which I still skate/coach/referee under.
I'm not upset. I was my choice. But I wasn't going to be happy having a byline of "Double B" which is what I was called at ECDX after intros. Hymen can do it, but it throws me off my beat to be called that on the microphone. I've been wanting to move away from Bitches anyway. I don't want to call attention to myself in this role and for some reason the name is offensive to some as much as it's a term of empowerment to me. I want to deliver the game and I do that with my voice, skill, and knowledge.
Call me a sell out if you will, but I like being part of something bigger than me and I'm still me with my opinions and insights regardless of what people call me. That I get invites from WFTDA.tv to announce with no affiliation to a league makes me pretty proud and happy to step up to the call of duty.
MRDA DIY
I heard MRDA is actually going a different direction. Some MRDA reps at RollerCon supposedly met with some hackers from DEF CON and will be introducing the world to PPNV. It stands for Pay Per Non-View. Anyone who does not watch or attend Gateway to the Best will be charged $12. This plan is expected to generate more revenue and will likely draw a lot of new attention to the sport.
You're right DNN!!
I have found that merely posting the full bouts after the fact has the effect of attracting many more spectators in the venues at future bouts. Live broadcasts have the same effect and until now, I could watch important LIVE events for free. How about this.... Have free viewing with commercial ads during the LIVE bouts, you could do this during the timeouts and even requiring one TV/Official timeout per half. If Derby has spectator entertainment value, then it will have advertiser value. With the new NO-MINORS rule set, this sport will become much more understandable and enjoyable for the casual viewer, both at the venues and on people's TV/puter screens. Someone now just needs to go out and sell it.
some devil's advocacy
I'll do my best to keep this brief. I believe I'm in a unique position as the only person on Earth who has both watched AND worked on DNN broadcasts AND both watched AND worked on WFTDA.tv broadcasts.
1) Perhaps advertising on a PPV broadcast is actually MORE valuable to the advertiser because it narrows the audience to only people with money. If I'm trying to sell $90 wheels, I'd rather advertise to people I know are willing and able to spend $12 on derby this month than advertise to people I know are not.
2) Based on my experience as a rabid fan trying to help grow attendance at my local team's bouts, the fanbase doesn't grow through tournaments. It grows through good local leagues putting on awesome bouts - either intraleague or interleague. I've never met any newcomer to the sport who is willing to watch roller derby on their computer until they've seen it in person first, even if the broadcast is free.
3) WFTDA.tv had months to analyze what went right and wrong at the 2011 Big 5, and plan for 2012. In 2011, there was a free (lower resolution) video option, and in 2012 there isn't. Why did they change? I don't personally know, but I bet it was for a good reason. If they didn't have a good reason to change, they'd just repeat the 2011 approach over again.
4) If you don't like WFTDA.tv's approach, remember - to paraphrase Pitchit's rant on this week's Derby Deeds - YOU are the WFTDA. If you play on a WFTDA team, then YOU are the WFTDA. If you've got a problem with what the Association is doing, YOU have the power to change it. Bitching on Facebook isn't gonna help, and complaining on the chatroom isn't going to help, but telling your WFTDA representative how pissed off you are IS going to help. And if it doesn't, maybe you need a better WFTDA representative, or a better WFTDA.
Some good points
I think your 1st three points are valid. I'm glad they were made cuz it gives everyone something to think about but I disagree with the last point. There are too many people in power (not just WFTDA but home leagues as well) who either don't want to listen, are happy with the status quo, or are too nervous to rock the boat. The people who tell their reps about their disapproval just becoming bitching pains in their ass which is why we have switch to this avenue. No one is listening to us but ourselves!! It's too hard to stop/change the wheels that are already set in motion.
Discussions are good
As the General Manager of a league who spends a lot of money on video productions, I understand pay-per-view. Boutcasting in high quality is expensive. Someone has to foot the bill. It's hard when your organization is picking up the cost for the good of the sport. I'm sure the WFTDA is looking to recoop some of their funds.
A funds drive is one way to do it. Charge per view is another. My league is not going to start charging any time soon but I don't see anything wrong with it. A lot of people put out a lot of free stuff into the world, but when you feel you have a product worth paying for, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for payment. Whether the WFTDA Big 5 is worth paying for is a personal question for each potential viewer to decide. Coaches coached for free for a long time. Now most charge. It's on a league or camp or organization to decide if they feel that coach's product is worth paying for. As the sport grows that seems like a natural progression.
I think discussion is good. I like this article b/c it gets people talking but I do not agree with much of its content. BTW, who is the author? It is just listed as Derby News Network.
Isabelle Ringer
San Diego Derby Dolls
WFTDA: We're a family... who needs fans?
The decision by WFTDA to go all PPV for the tournament is just an ongoing effort by the association to drive any person who does not skate, ref, NSO or is having sexual or blood relations with said persons ("non-attached" fans) away from the sport. PPV is as "by the skaters and for the skaters" as you can get.
If you look at other things that WFTDA and their member leagues are doing, you can realize how they are trying to keep the game from the non-attached fans away from the sport:
- Sanctioned bouts being closed to the public. This is an increasing practice of WFTDA member teams and while I can understand a logistical reason why they do this, it is very anti-fan and is doing nothing to attract new fans to the sport. By putting a significant requirement or perceived requirement on member teams (leagues) to a wider variety of opponents within a short period of time demonstrates that perhaps the regions within WFTDA are too large. Perhaps it's time to consider divisions within a region.
- Leagues not communicating about their away games. This was a huge problem in Arizona during the 2011 season. This has improved slightly in 2012 with the leagues that I cover. It is a bit of a surprise to hear about a game involving one of your teams from the opposing team's communications or after the fact on the DNN scoreboard.
- Leagues not reporting their home final scores. Leagues (both WFTDA and non-WFTDA) fall under two categories here: (1) those who don't report anything and (2) those who live-tweet their entire game but because the person who was live-tweeting is either up at the trackline for the victory lap, helping to tear down the track, going to the afterparty, etc., they forget the tweet the final score. I have found that for some leagues, the best source to get a final score is one of the working photographers as many of them take a pic of the scoreboard with the final score on it for their photoset.
- Leagues that do not communicate with fans except to promote a bout (that the public is welcome to attend) or to promote an alcohol related event.
- There is truly no efforts being made to attract mainstream sponsors and by restricting the feed to a PPV model, it makes any attempt either in a PPV or FTA (free to air) model to attract sponsors, futile.
- Of course, skaters still have to pay to play.
Of course, the current direction of the WFTDA game (stroller derby, stop derby, etc.) attracts only a certain breed of hardcore rollerfan and as a result, the sport is slowly squeezing away the non-attached fan from the game.
Leagues need to get better in fan relations. There are some good examples including a couple of the Arizona leagues that I cover that have substantially stepped-up and are improving the year-round fan experience, but there are others who need improvement. Derby is a business. If you don't want to run it like a business, then go back to meeting in parking garages on Thursday nights and forget about venues with seating capacity.
You can't get any more BTSFTS than that.
Also, if WFTDA wanted to this right, they should have allowed members of the mainstream and derby media with passes for tournaments that involve teams from their local markets. This would be basic courtesy and may result in more blogs, articles in the Examiner/Patch or in legacy media.
Imagine if the NFL restricted the Super Bowl and the Championship games to PPV.
Well, i don't think we're
Well, i don't think we're going to be talking about Aquaman anymore for a while...
Huh?
What does pay-per-view have to do with whether or not you skate?
Are Happy Customers allowed?
Very Interesting Article.
From Sydney Australia, a skater since 2008, the first boutcasts I viewed were on DNN in 2009 being the very interesting 2009 WFTDA championships.
Watching derby online is a lifeblood for skaters in developing derby countries. (ddc)
I have donated to DNN, I paid last year and this year for WFTDA viewing.
The way to get fans to love derby is to wait. NFL and baseball and cricket and rugby are old sports that have developed over time to become enmeshed in culture of non participant fans and viewing. In Australia, mainstream sports featuring female athletes DO NOT GET AIRED ON TV nearly to the extent of the male counterparts. Cricket, a sport I adored before derby is aired on tv is mainstream, players get paid etc..
The women's matches are not shown regularly are not promoted or accepted generally and more attention is paid at the annual awards night for cricket australia to what the girlfriends of the male cricketers are wearing rather than which female cricketer received an accolade for her actual participation in the sport.
REALITY
So let's not go acting like mainstream acceptance is something you can achieve by doing everything right from the beginning (whatever that is)
Better for derby in the long run to grow slowly but surely, than to become a massive craze and then fall in a heap because we volunteered and donated ourselves to death in an attempt to woo the very fickle and easily distracted general public.
Paying for a service puts an obligation on the provider to provide a product of quality that suits the needs of the consumer. It also allows consumers to expect and feel entitled to a product that matches what is advertised.
So, by paying my US$50, (an amount which since the doctors told me to stop drinking I am finding I have to spare) I expect access to online live derby, and I expect well organised and prompt archives. My mates who don't have fifty dollars, they come and visit me if they want to watch.
From Thrill of the Spill? TICK AND TICK
The first bout had hiccups, and the service provider apologised, fixed the issue, then fastracked the archive. (better service than i have had for nearly anything)
The rest I was able to view with the only requirement on my part to get up and whatever god-awful Australian time was required to watch the bouts I wanted to see.
The quality of the announcing was great, the quality of the feed was great, LAST BUT NOT LEAST THE QUALITY OF THE DERBY WAS GREAT.
It worked. I am a happy customer. I complemented my viewing experience by reading the very fine bout recaps on this website.
There is no need to moan about what isn't working or may not work or how it might crush us all.
Let's save our energy for creating and growing our new sport so that, in time, the fans will come.
Thanks DNN WFTDA LADERBYDOLLS and all who help me watch the derby all the way from down under.
Love Daisy
PS I also post tweets with the #talk2wftda hashtag cause it makes me feel less lonely at 3am, the announcers read out 2 of them. I felt loved.
(edited to include that bit about cricket... grr it makes me mad)
"i paid my $50 and i liked it"
To me, one of the most important points of the original editorial is...
... that there is probably no shortage of DNN regulars who felt like they got their $12-worth last weekend, and similarly, no shortage of DNN regulars who will feel like they'll get their $50-worth these coming weekends.
... but those are 'The Converted' - those of us who are already 'hooked' on roller derby. Those who are already part of the hyper-insular derby economy.
If you [not specifically you, Daisy, but you, the person reading this comment] -- ... as someone who, obviously, reads down to the bottom sub-posts on DerbyNewsNetwork.com threads -- thought you got your money's worth, then, YAY! Hooray for good derby, close bouts, good production values, etc...
... but in the grand scheme of things, the opinion of that already-converted person is pretty irrelevant to the larger discussion this editorial is trying to create. I think the main point DNN is trying to make is about how the whole package reaches (or doesn't reach) people who aren't regular DNN readers or #talk2wftda posters. Does the live PPV model expand the sport's prospects or doesn't it?
what is the goal?
You are correct, Derby Nerds, Fans, Players and those already associated with Derby are the number one customer for online broadcasting of Derby at this stage.
Derby's growth into mainstream popularity will take a few generations.
I think it is unreasonable to expect that the broadcasting model of a sport that is what a decade or so old in its current form should be required to enhance the sport's prospects.
The broadcasting model should enhance the viewers experience and the quality of the product.
Fans will love derby when they see it played well in an organised coherent competition with participants close to their geographic location or in some way connected to them.
When kids shoot hoops, they watch basketball, read the magazines, buy the tshirts etc, when kids have access to rinks and skates and structured leagues, they will watch derby.
Or not, but they won't care that five years ago the contest cost $50 to watch live.
This navel gazing wastes energy that could be better spent enjoying the sport.
If we enjoy it, and are seen to be enjoying it, maybe it will catch on.
To attract the more passionate fans that other more established sports have gathered overmany many years,we need to make derby attractive and enjoyable AS A SPORT.
Fans do not simply wander into online derby viewing.
So PPV may or may not enhance the sport's prospects but broadcasting is a tiny cog in the giant machine of popularity and all round rar rar derby goodness.
Love Daisy Boo Cannon
I paid $80 for the HD feed last year.
And now I only have to pay $50 for it this year. For people like me, this is a discount.
Yeah, I know it's a side point to this whole discussion about whether or not PPV is good, but I thought it was worth mentioning.
To answer your headline
To answer your headline question: yes, happy customers are allowed. DNN reserves the right to moderate for douchebaggery, but we don't censor opinion.
Let's break down WFTDA.tv's stated mission for a minute.
This will surely get buried since Westerns starts in a couple hours but I figured I'd toss my hat in the ring as well.
Let's break down WFTDA.tv's stated mission for a minute.
"WFTDA.tv plans to present high-quality productions of exciting WFTDA match-ups, encouraging new viewers to join us in our derby addiction, and to reinforce the love of the game for all viewers."
High quality is a relative term but for something streamed over the internet, it looks pretty good. It's missing a lot but I'll get to that later. Encouraging new viewers is where this statement trips up. What new viewers are paying $12 to watch a sport they don't know anything about in an online stream? ZERO. Zilch. No one. So, by putting up a paywall, they've already failed on one part of their mission.
"Proceeds from WFTDA.tv are reinvested into the membership’s programming and will help strengthen our common goals."
So, they're basically saying that they'll make more money by doing PPV-only in order to pay for more streams during the regular season. I guess the proof will be in the pudding and we'll see if they do more next year. However, I just don't see how the value of adding a few regular season games could possibly outweigh the value of having a much larger audience for the organization's marquee games of the year. These are the games you want to use to promote your sport, not the regular season games. If anything, they've got it backwards. Maybe the regular season should be pay-per-view.
The WFTDA isn't at the point where they can say that something is premium content. The organization should still be 100% focused on exposure. Roller derby isn't at the point where they want to control access in any way. WFTDA isn't the NFL. In reality, WFTDA isn't even high school football. The live attendance record for modern derby is around 6,000. There have been 5 high school football games that have pulled in over 40,000 since 2006 JUST IN TEXAS. ESPN airs dozens of games a year. Local networks and cable channels air thousands of games nationwide. Do you see high schools restricting anything about the press? No. Because they understand that coverage and exposure are what's important, not generating revenue. It's not a chicken and egg scenario where you get to choose one side. You need coverage and exposure before you can even think of generating revenue. WFTDA is clearly not at that point yet. The vast majority of the people paying for the PPV package, I can guarantee are skaters, not fans.
"WFTDA.tv represents our commitment to our member leagues, their skaters and support staff, and all who enjoy the sport."
And you do that by forcing them to pay in order to watch their teammates skate? BTSFTS is plastered all over WFTDA.tv but when it comes down to it, the whole site is just another way to gouge skaters out of more money. The percentage of fans paying $50 compared to skaters is negligible. At the very least, WFTDA skaters should get access for free, since they've already paid for it.
Then, from the about section: "We believe that by building a high-quality standard for broadcast of our sport, we set the groundwork for better, greater exposure of the sport when it is picked up by mainstream media networks."
This is laughable. Production values are acceptable but there's still no replays, no graphics other than the scorebug, no halftime filler, almost no between game filler, no media timeouts, etc. You know the things that are in EVERY sports broadcast on television from local cable access to NBC. It's cutting cameras with a score bug overlay. If they, in fact, want this to be a proof of concept for putting roller derby on television, it's a pretty poor attempt. Aside from maybe some of the camera guys (although, considering some of the camera work, I doubt it) there is NOTHING about the production that is ready for air. That's not to say Blaze doesn't do a good job with what they have. They do. It's just not broadcast quality and they know that. If WFTDA took this to ESPN and said "hey, look at the high quality groundwork we've provided you" they'll say "hahahahahahahahahahaha."
Not to mention that because they haven't updated their rules for ages, the entertainment value of the sport as a whole has dropped dramatically. The sport itself isn't even ready for television. WFTDA clearly just doesn't have its priorities straight. Why don't you focus on building a premium product before you start worrying about how to make money? You don't open up a restaurant and figure out that whole how to cook good food thing later. No, you cook good food and then open a restaurant.
I Can't Stop Talking
when it is picked up by mainstream media networks."
Meaning no disrespect to anyone, but i will be very, very, very, very, very, very, VERY surprised if flat track derby is ever picked up by a mainstream media network as long as banked track derby, or even the residual memory of banked track derby, exists in human consciousness. I say this with zero knowledge of the ins and outs of selling flat track derby to mainstream media outlets, but with a fair amount of knowledge gleaned from trying to sell flat track derby to mainstream video game publishers. You can get their ear, you can get them intrigued, but if they go "talk to their people" about doing something with roller derby, they're gonna come back and say "if we're gonna do roller derby, we need that thing with the railing." They just are. Flat track derby lacks that big visual signifier that informs the American public that HEY, HERE IS AN EVENT. LOOK AT THIS BIG COLORFUL THING HERE! THIS COMMANDS YOUR ATTENTION! A THING IS HAPPENING! YOU SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO THIS THING THAT IS HAPPENING! If you go to a banked track bout, you walk into the venue and think HEY! I'M AT A...THING!!! If you go a flat track bout, you walk into the venue and go HEY! I'M IN A CHURCH BASEMENT WITH TAPE ON THE FLOOR! Which is, of course, one of the reasons why flat track derby is GREAT. However, most people do not share that view, and CANNOT BE MADE TO SHARE THAT VIEW. Flat track derby fails to provide that crucial initial signifier of spectacle that the vast majority of the American ((global?)) public needs in order to capture their attention. Again, i say this meaning no disrespect to anyone, but if a businessdude ever decides "yeah, we can do something with this roller derby thing" and has a choice between presenting two potential concepts to the American public, one being "they skate around in a circle on a track with a railing and do some other stuff that you'll find out about later" and the other being "they skate around in a circle and do some other stuff that you'll find out about later," i'm pretty sure he's gonna go with the one that includes the phrase "track with a railing" every time. For the third time, i say this meaning no disrespect to anyone. Quite frankly, if it were up to me, i would let the banked track people go tilt at that particular windmill for the rest of their lives. I can't see flat track derby having success with that model. I mean, maybe pay-per-view internet IS the way to go for flat track derby. Maybe it isn't. But trying to get on mainstream TV as an ultimate goal? I just see that as wasted energy and heartbreak.
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE I WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE TWELVE WHOLE DOLLARS FOR 3 DAYS OF DERBY PROFESSIONALLY PRODUCED IS AN OUTRAGE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE WFTDA ARE THE BAD GUYS NOW AND I’M JUST GONNA TALK SHIT ON THEM NOT REALIZING I’M GOING TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR STUPID USARS AND JERK OFF JERRY SELTZER TO COME IN AND TAKE THIS THING AND SCREW US ALL OUT OF WHAT WE ALL HELPED CREATE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE I’M A DOUCHEBAG RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE IT’S NOT FAIR I’M A FAN AND SHOULD GET IT FOR FREE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE PUT A BEER ON IT AND GROW UP
[MODERATOR EDIT: removed ridiculous linebreaks between every word.]
So THAT'S what happened to
So THAT'S what happened to the Hamburglar!
hahaha
winner
Audio Only
If this is "the future" and we offer audio only for free, I would like to see the WFTDA not simply port over the video audio and announcers seek out audio only broadcasting training and tips. Audio sportscasting is a fine art and most other sports use a separate announcing crew that understands the complexities of visualizing a sport for those who cannot see the action.
Excellent point!
Excellent point!
True, and yet
I want to give credit to those announcers (at least last week... haven't heard this week yet) that remained aware that a significant portion of their audience was audio only and making an effort to do things like repeat the score frequently. It was much appreciated.
Just another opinion...
There are more non-skater vs skater opinions on here, so as a skater, I am proud to pay for this product because it's not free to produce. Every skater on that track is worth the money to me, and I am even more proud that my parent organization owns the product. THESE WOMEN ARE WORTH THE $12! The money goes back into the organization that we helped build from the bottom up. As a woman, as a skater, THIS MEANS A LOT TO ME!
It's easy to point out that some things aren't perfect, but I know that there are people working to fix any problems that may arise.
xo.
Apart from the fact Mercy
Apart from the fact Mercy Less already pointed out WFTDA already owned the footage (not DNN, not Justin.tv, etc)...
How about the fact that if this is our parent organization, that we already pay into it to be a member? How about the fact that without a visible revenue stream, it's most likely our membership dues and the insurance cut WFTDA takes that funded this partnership with Blaze?
I honestly can't remember if the Big 5 charge the normal tournament fees, but 'these women' aren't getting the money. It's not like if they make X dollars each team will get a cut back for travel/fees/etc.
The money is going straight back into Blaze/WFTDA.tv trying to do what DNN already had been doing well. I realize these things are expensive, I do these things for half a living (freelance TV work) but it's not like Blaze is buying all new equipment to get these events done. They're a production company, these are all things they should have before marketing themselves as such. The costs are not as staggeringly high as I think most people think they are.
Ask your WFTDA rep to see the Blaze figures from last year. If you didn't see them before WFTDA.tv launched, there are a whole lot of questions you should be asking.
Rebuttal for tinfoil helmet cover....
Just a tiny reality check.
Insurance is expensive. It's a game of chicken, using the wallets of the insured and the company underwriting the coverage. Given the degree of coverage, particularly for adults participating in a contact sport, WFTDA insurance is actually pretty reasonably priced.
I sincerely doubt there is so much fat in the insurance fees that they could skim from there to pay for other things.
oh?
I sincerely doubt there is so much fat in the insurance fees that they could skim from there to pay for other things.
Think again.
FN_Zebra if you're part of a
FN_Zebra if you're part of a WFTDA league ask your rep.
I'm not claiming WFTDA is secretly scrooge mcducking with gold coin swimming cross training but my statements aren't the stuff of tin-foil hats.
Hm, what else has WFTDA been doing with our money?
Oh, I don't know, hiring numerous full- and part-time employees at living wages?
Call. *knocks on table*
... waiting.
totally secondhand...
... but Multiple Sources Inside WFTDA Speaking On Condition of Anonymity make clear that the organization has accumulated a notable bank balance due largely to insurance revenues, with which they've financed this effort.
These anonymous sources...
...if they are members of WFTDA (or anyone else who is) are of course entitled to look at the books. If there were actually something shady going on, there are thousands of pairs of eyes that would be able to find it quite easily.
I think you're missing the point.
...if they are members of WFTDA (or anyone else who is) are of course entitled to look at the books. If there were actually something shady going on, there are thousands of pairs of eyes that would be able to find it quite easily.
Nobody's saying anything "shady" is going on.
WFTDA uses profits from its insurance plan the same way that USARS uses their membership fees to pay their salaries, put out a magazine, and run a by-appointment magazine. That's not "shady," it's a way to pay salaries, keep the lights on and of do the loss-leader streams they've been giving away all year. They likely weren't bringing in locals to do it. So they were flying Blaze around the country. That costs money.
I'll tell you the same thing I told my league when this thing was being voted on. If "we" (the derby public) don't pay for it in big enough numbers, then "we" (WFTDA member leagues) get to pay for it. With it being on a WFTDA web site it's not going to bring in fans who aren't already involved in derby. At least with the free streaming sites we were getting random folks popping in to view it because it was the most-watched sport event on the service that day. And half of them WEREN'T pissed that it wasn't soccer or football and would ask about it. Back in 2009 I probably sent 50-75 people links to their nearest derby league.
Insurance Isn't as Expensive as we Think
Given the degree of coverage, particularly for adults participating in a contact sport, WFTDA insurance is actually pretty reasonably priced.
I have been shopping/handling/buying insurance for a non-WFTDA club for almost 7 years. The policy we have has the same coverage and limits and better deductibles than the WFTDA and USARS policies at half the per-person price of the WFTDA package.
(Of course, WFTDA and USARS aren't insurance companies. They buy policies from other companies then sell them back to their members)
I sincerely doubt there is so much fat in the insurance fees that they could skim from there to pay for other things.
What Fawkes said. Any time you add another layer of sales to a transaction, you increase the price.
Thank you
Bazooka Joe
Pioneer Valley Roller Derby
Northampton, MA.
www.pioneervalleyrollerderby.com
I don't need to ask my WFTDA
I don't need to ask my WFTDA rep anything. I am a skater rep. And as one of "these women," I believe we are worth it.
Playing some devil's advocate real quick
First, some background on me-- I've been working in live TV production for going on 10 years, 5 of that was directing newscasts, another 5 was in sports. I may be just some asshole, but I'm just some asshole who knows video production.
1: During ECDX, I was lucky enough to hang out upstairs with the Blaze guys for a little bit. I can tell you that they're using a very small, comparatively cheap system for switching video and audio. Add to that processors, mics, HD cameras (not the HD friendly DSLRs that every other film maker is getting away with these days), cabling, back up plans, etc. Add it all up and the grand total probably comes out to at least the cost of a decent car, but not the cost of a decent house like it would've been a decade ago. So there's that.
(Note: this doesn't include web streaming equipment, only the stuff needed to pull off the production itself.)
2: Blaze HAS been buying new equipment. The system they were using at ECDX was not the same that I found in behind-the-scenes photos from when I e-stalked them, and there was mention of upgrading and purchasing some new stuff. You don't have just one set up for doing events all across the country-- something will break, you'll need stuff in 2+ places at the same time, not to mention different events require different set ups.
3: And this is going to sound shitty but... production services don't come cheap. They're a business in a VERY specialized line of work. I can tell you I'll do free video stuff for my league all day, because it's my league-- anyone else will need to cough up a few thousand bucks, or spend 10 years learning to do the job as well as I can. I'm not talking about pointing a camera at a track (which a lot of people can do-- and a lot of the video makes me cringe too), but directing while running audio and keeping an eye on video levels, switching out graphics, etc. What I'm saying is they're not running a charity.
I love roller derby, I want to see it everywhere, but I'm also looking at this from the production company's perspective. I don't know what WFTDA is paying them, but I doubt they would find a better price without dropping the quality (aka, back up plans when everything breaks). For the record, I haven't bothered to pay to watch the tournaments live yet. I'll pay for Eastern reg and nationals, but the others, I can wait for archives. I would hope that Blaze pays better than TV news schmucks.
Sorry, I saw video + roller
Sorry, I saw video + roller derby and got really excited.
Someone might have already said so...
I expect when I pay for a feed that it will be reliable. This morning I caved and shelled out the 12$ to watch Westerns while pretending to work.
So far, I'm halfway through period 2 and have had the feed drop 3 times, including the time when the page went down for about 2-3 minutes. And no, the problem isn't with my Internet connection, which tests at over 30 mb with the stream running...
If I watch a free feed and it goes down, I frown and shrug my shoulders. If I pay for a service and it goes down, I get real unsympathetic, real fast.
Disappointed in WFTDA, but Kudos to DNN
As the mother of a skater who started in Houston and is now in Austin with TXRG, I have volunteered & followed Houston Roller Derby since the very first bout, having missed just one of their home bouts since they started, but only because I was in Columbus for the first ever Eastern Regionals-where, incidentally, I was so excited to see Gotham's first major win. I have attended many out of city bouts and several out of state tournaments. Many more of you know me than I could ever imagine, because it seemed that people from all over the country were saying hi when I had no idea who they were. So thank you all for the recognition.
DNN has provided much of my weekend entertainment when there was nothing local going on, and done it for free, starting with the original boutcasts. Gosh, I was thrilled the first time I was able to actually follow a bout as it was happening. I do feel guilty that I have never donated to DNN, but all my extra money went to HRD. Now that I am too ill to travel and on SSD, my very limited income forces me choose between sending or watching. And I have chosen to donate those funds to help send the HRD team to regionals & hopefully nationals (yeah, I know-it ain't nationals anymore) instead of paying to watch wftda.tv. I know several people have said "it's only $50" or "only 71¢ a game", but for this senior citizen, that's a lot. So I am very disappointed that I will not be able to watch any of the bouts live this year, but I have been disappointed by lots of things in my 65 years and always gotten over it.
It's a shame that WFTDA didn't see how many people accidentally dropped into the free bouts and wondered what they were looking at, and stayed to watch. I know this because of the chats. And I wonder how many of those people became fans at their local derby bouts just because they accidentally saw a free bout online? No one is going to just drop into a ppv bout.
Thank you, DNN, and all the hard working people who have helped over the years. You have made my life so much more enjoyable. I have shared derby & DNN with almost everyone I have had any dealings with over these past few years, friends & complete strangers alike, and will continue to do so as long as I am able.
My money where my mouth is.
I know several people have said "it's only $50" or "only 71¢ a game", but for this senior citizen, that's a lot. So I am very disappointed that I will not be able to watch any of the bouts live this year, but I have been disappointed by lots of things in my 65 years and always gotten over it.
As a supporter of this policy (WFTDA's experimentation with PPV), and a big Texas Rollergirls fan, I would be happy to donate $12 so you can see your daughter skate at South Centrals. I can pass it along through Desi Cration, Koolaid, or mail a check to you directly.
Easier solution
It might just be easier for you to pay for it, and then give the login information to them, right?
Brilliant!
Yup.
You can ask those folks (Desi or Koolaid) for my contact info, and hook up with me before October 5!
Thank you so much John. I
Thank you so much John. I really do appreciate the offer. She is on the Hell Marys now, mostly as a blocker with a new skate name of Dodge, but doesn't skate with the Texecutioners anymore. So she won't be skating at regionals. :( Please donate that money to DNN instead.
Derby LOVE
hopefully nationals (yeah, I know-it ain't nationals anymore)
I know why everyone says hi to you where ever you traveled!! This made me smile so big!!!
I LOVE Houston too!! Tampa married them in a cute little after party ceremony last year!
Thanks for all you do as a fan, derby supporter, and above all, MOM!!
Here is the thing:
There is some crazy bananas talk going on here.
The deal is, the WFTDA considered every proposal presented and chose. We didn't vote on how all roller derby on the planet would be broadcast, or how member and/or non member leagues would be broadcast outside of the Big 5.
But we did look at proposals and vote for the one we thought was the strongest, and DNN didn't win. I like the folks at DNN a lot, like a lot. However sometimes you lose at shit, it happens.
This is also all a little nebulous, like who at the WFTDA are you trying to crucify? Is it the Tournaments Director? She didn't exist when we voted. Or the ED? Well the WFTDA uses democracy to avoid the downfalls of one person deciding everything. Are you after the member leagues? If so, do you think there is something to be said for the fact that the majority decided?
On a side note: I'm over hearing that 'By the Skater, for the Skater' = hoarding everything for ourselves and pushing everyone who isn't a skater out. Perhaps taking a moment to reflect on if a crazy bananas agro approach to telling the little ladies how to do everything is why 'By the Skater, for the Skater' is important (absolutely not directed at DNN). Is it ok for us to love and build our sport? Is it ok for us to work together and through democracy to make something in our own image? Is it ok for us to own our sport? Is it ok that we are women and we own our sport? Do we need to turn derby over to the masses?
Missed the point
When we started talking about making this statement, one of our concerns was that it'd be misinterpreted as sour grapes. That's not where we're coming from; there were several good reasons to favor another 2011 broadcast bid, starting with limits in our willingness to surrender branding, and not-unreasonable concerns about our track record in providing stream stability. We're not here to re-argue that RFP process, or to crucify anyone (though I question the idea that the democratic process reflected the will of the membership in this case; chatter on the social networks makes pretty clear that many, many people we surprised to learn that the result of their "yes" vote was PPV-only this fall).
Our point was simply this: Pay Per View is a *very* bad model for broadcast, if your goal is the continued broad-based growth of the sport.
agree
sure, I can get down with the two points you posted in response.
Just to clarify for those
Just to clarify for those following along at home: DNN did not bid for WFTDA Big 5 broadcast in 2012. That whole thing where DNN's proposal didn't win was way back in the spring of 2011. Of course we were disappointed when that happened, but we have long since moved on. If we were gonna sour grapes over that, we would have done it a year ago! Maybe we did. I don't remember. But this article isn't about that ancient drama. It's simply our opinion on this year's PPV model.
wait a minute
Just to be fair, this article is very heavily about the 2011 bid, in fact it's in shiny blue and hyper-linked.
Well, yes, you've got a
Well, yes, you've got a point. But those references aren't meant in a "waaah, we didn't win" sort of way. The article isn't *about* that bid. More a "we think there's a better way to pay for this, and here's our example" sort of way. I mean, obviously we think that, as we proposed it, and we still stand by that general approach.
Not a witch hunt
who at the WFTDA are you trying to crucify?
Personally, this did not read to me as an attack on the WFTDA. I took this article as an opinion as to why DNN believes PPV broadcasting is not for roller derby.
I believe the complaints on the WFTDA's product can be found on their facebook page, from the paying customers who would have liked to get through a whole bout this weekend without interruption of service.
Going from Free to PPV is a Big Change
Going from Free to PPV is a Big Change.
So is identifying a piece as Editorial Content as opposed to Factual Reporting on a News Network.
If you now have an Editorial Branch, I'm to be assured your Journalism shan't be Yellow, is that right?
Good point
I did use rather a lot of capitalized words in that previous comment.
Good points
I know several people that would watch, but are not because of the costs.
I decided to buy the full package this year but since I have yet to enjoy even 1 bout of NC or W playoffs without video problems (minimum of 5 minutes not viewable in each bout) I highly doubt I will do so again next year. Last year, there was a free stream but I paid to upgrade, but I felt I got my money's worth. This year I do not.
So pay-per-view is probably a suboptimal strategy, and that will become increasingly evident over time.
I wouldn't mind paying extra
I wouldn't mind paying extra for 3D PPV, but the HD feed should be free for Nationals. In other words, I want a free HD feed. PPV sucks like 3D TV and those stupid glasses. Or if someone who does pay the PPV cost, could you please post a stream up on onlive or justin.tv or any other megaupload site thing and let me know what the url is? Thanks.
Looking back and forward:
Perhaps drawing the following parallel isn't going to be seen as reasonable, but it's only a thought.
MMA broadcasts for bigger fights used to all be on Pay-Per-View, I remember convincing bar owners that we (the customers) would pay the fee to watch the fights that weren't available on "regular" TV. Now look at where MMA is at, it's one of the fastest growing most popular sports around. It began just like Derby: not seen as legit, struggled for sponsors and investors, begging for TV air time.
Now it's huge, there's a very successful TV series, also many fights are first PPV then broadcast later on basic cable channels.
This may look like a misstep, but at least there's an attempt to get derby viewing on TV.
This is how we do it
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/gotham-girls-roller-derby-ups-it...
We broadcast livestream, and then show archived bouts on NYCTV -- which is public access -- at like 1:30 in the morning. And I long ago lost count of the number of folks who have come up to me at bouts (or when I'm bartending, or when I'm on the train in my GGRD gang jacket) and told me they found out roller derby was alive and well in the 21st century by watching late night tv and catching our broadcasts. It's making a difference here. So I have to disagree about "tv for errybody" (my words) not growing the audience.
Wants vs. Needs
I had a very interesting conversation with Joe C of Blaze last weekend at Westerns. I don't want to divulge everything we talked about in case there's something that shouldn't be public knowledge. But I can say that the issue of PPV derby is a lot more complex than it may appear, on many levels.
So let me toss this out there: Does roller derby really need a high-definition webcast? I'm not even talking paid vs. free here. I'm just saying, why does (or do) the WFTDA feel like they absolutely "need" to put out an HD webcast and (probably) spend exponentially more money to do so?
It's strange how a lot of people that are defending the decision to go paywall are saying that derby isn't going to get in new fans off the webcast anyway, so since it's so expensive to put on this level of production it only makes sense to charge people to see the games live. But if this is saying derby people will pay to watch the games no matter what, why is so much money being put into producing an HD webcast when a rock-solid HQ SD feed would be more than adequate to meet the needs of the community?
Right now, derby is still in the growth/figuring itself out stage, and I don't see how effectively wasting a lot of the community's money on what is truly an unnecessary expenditure–high definition roller derby–is going to help with that in the near future. It's great that the WFTDA did the WFTDA.tv project and standardized their broadcast model, which was a necessary thing. But HD is not a necessity at this point, even though a lot of people may "want" it. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean it's always a good idea to do it.
The bottom line here is money. Always was, always will be. If the WFTDA can cover its costs or make money off this endeavor, more power to them. (More importantly, if the production company can make money despite giving exclusive rights to the games and video to the WFTDA.) But if they increase costs on the production side and expect the derby community to exclusively cover those costs, that's not smart. There's only a finite amount of money in the derbyverse, and until more outside money (sponsorships, specifically non-derby sponsorships) starts coming in, maybe it's a good idea to keep those pennies pinched until the game has improved to the point where sponsors are willing to throw money hand over fist to derby, at which point HD broadcasts would be necessary. But they're not now.
SD or HD?
So let me toss this out there: Does roller derby really need a high-definition webcast? I'm not even talking paid vs. free here. I'm just saying, why does (or do) the WFTDA feel like they absolutely "need" to put out an HD webcast and (probably) spend exponentially more money to do so?
That's a great question. In my experience, 95% of people who watch derby videos either can't tell the difference between standard definition and high definition, or don't care. Everything I shoot is in HD, but I almost always deliver it in SD (or worse) because that's all people want. If the frame rate and camera work are good, SD goes a long way.
interestingly enough
The very first thing people discussed with me last week at Westerns when asked about the PPV option was HD. The overarching opinion: they are willing to pay if it's full HD.
I bring this up not only as a counter to your statement but as a surprise for myself. I expected less support for PPV, to be honest.
Those who watch on big screen
Those who watch on big screen TVs can sure tell the difference. Also, the difference between SD and HD is being able to read the player numbers.
I'm curious as to what
I'm curious as to what percent of the time viewers are perceiving the feeds from the recent regional tournaments to be in HD. My feed quality varies seemingly constantly, from something fairly akin to HD to something as bad or worse than last year's free feed. I don't know if that's just a localized problem with my machine or what.
I second that curiosity
... since I seem to be a magnet for a good feed. I haven't had as many problems with mine as others have, and my HD looks excellent.
One thing you have to do is
One thing you have to do is make sure to switch it from the AUTO video quality setting on the player. It's set to auto by default, and it will switch the quality it gives you based on the internet connection at any given moment, and that seems to provide the worst possible experience. If you switch it to HD or even High quality (or one of the lower ones if you're internet connection is not so great) you'll get a more consistent feed.
The video feed is not HD
HD is defined a 1080progressive, or 1080 interlaced with 720p passing as HD. The archived bouts don't look 1080p or even 720p for that matter. The quality looks closer to 420p, which is SD (standard definition) like watching an old TV show. I doubt Blaze is using true HD video cameras to record the bouts. However, the encoding/compression quality is much better, which is why you can read the numbers on the back and see details besides blurs in motion. I still see some compression artifacts, like grainy edges and floating boxes on a 22" computer monitor. When I stream movies in HD from Netflix or Vudu, these artifacts don't exist. Hit pause during the play back, and it's more than obvious that these feeds are not HD (1900x1080 pixels per inch). It's easy to compare, set your computer screen resolution to 1900x1080, then compare how pictures, icons etc... look or even play an HD movie, then watch the bout video stream at full screen. Again, it's quite obvoius the stream is not HD. Blaze should call the feeds HQ (high quality) rather than actual HD (High Definition). Calling it HD is false advertising. When nationals start, I'll buy the stream to see how it compares live. My suspicion is it might even be worse live than archived. If wftda paid extra for HD feed, and we are covering that cost by buying passes to watch, then wftda should look into getting a refund or check their contract to make sure it says High Definition and not High Quality.
No-one's fault but the announcers (as usual)
Blaze should call the feeds HQ (high quality) rather than actual HD (High Definition). Calling it HD is false advertising. When nationals start, I'll buy the stream to see how it compares live. My suspicion is it might even be worse live than archived. If wftda paid extra for HD feed, and we are covering that cost by buying passes to watch, then wftda should look into getting a refund or check their contract to make sure it says High Definition and not High Quality.
The feed is High Quality, not High Definition, same as last year (where there was free standard or paid HQ). It says so in our announceers packet, and I believe we mentioned it at the pre-NC announcers meeting. However, people are used to saying "HD" or "high definition" in regular conversation, and we slip. I know I did on at least one occasion. I'll make sure it is hammered into our thick skulls.
While you're hammering things
While you're hammering things into announcers' skulls, a brief refresher on what it means when you claim an event takes place at something-STANDARD-time, when virtually nowhere in the country is on anything-STANDARD-time until we move the clocks back next month, might be in order as well, before my pet peeve is aggravated to such a degree that i go ballistic and my head explodes all over my living room and frightens the dog.
In AZ...
...we are always on Mountain Standard Time. This never changes.
it never changes except when it does
Are there any roller derby fans or teams in the Navajo Nation? I'm sure they would correctly honor daylight savings time, unlike the rest of Arizona.
None that I am aware of
Flagstaff is the closest, and has derby leagues, but they are not (yet) involved in the statewide conference. Once I heard of a planned bout in Chinle using local skaters, but it never got wings.
you're right
Despite the fact that most of what you wrote here about digital video is factually incorrect, your sentiment that it's not "HD" and should be called "HQ" is right on the money. And as Google will show, WFTDA has been very careful to always refer to it as "high quality" not "high definition". Everything they're written about it - websites, press releases, Facebook, etc. - says "high quality".
Completely innacurate
I think what John Maddening said was only accurate for North Centrals. There was no HD options for that tournament but there has been for the two.
As to what The Cheet says...seriously? If you can't tell that the bouts are shot on HD cameras then you have no right to talk about video ever again. All HD means is that there's more than 480 scanlines. It doesn't account for quality. Basically, you can compress something to look like pixelated crap but it would still technically be HD if it's still 720p or 1080p. You can't compare a movie you're watching off of Netflix. They have the money to spend on better compression. The compression doesn't have to be done in real time like it does during a live stream. They aren't limited by upload bandwidth at the venue. They were also shot on better cameras with better lighting. There's about 1000 reasons why Netflix looks better but that doesn't mean WFTDA.tv isn't HD.
Anything on my bluray player looks way better than what I get on cable. Everything on cable looks better than anything I can get online. Stuff I download online looks better than stuff I stream online. Guess what? It's all still HD.
Having said all that. I just checked an archived video and it didn't look HD but I don't think they ever said the archives are in HD. They are free after all.
HD?
The player does have an HD option in it though - so naturally people expect that setting to be HD. If it isn't, they should remove that from the list :)
Not to geek out or anything
"All HD means is that there's more than 480 scanlines." - Wrong. Here let me cut and paste from wikipedia for you.
High-definition television (HDTV) provides a resolution that is substantially higher than that of standard-definition television.
HDTV may be transmitted in various formats:
1080p - 1920×1080p: 2,073,600 pixels (approximately 2.1 megapixels) per frame
1080i - typically either:
1920×1080i: 1,036,800 pixels (approximately 1 megapixel) per field or 2,073,600 pixels (approximately 2.1 megapixels) per frame
1440×1080i:[1] 777,600 pixels (approximately 0.8 megapixels) per field or 1,555,200 pixels (approximately 1.6 megapixels) per frame
720p - 1280×720p: 921,600 pixels (approximately 0.9 megapixels) per frame
The letter "p" here stands for progressive scan while "i" indicates interlaced.
When transmitted at two megapixels per frame, HDTV provides about five times as many pixels as SD (standard-definition television).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television