puckit
Jade Galbraith
Posts: 187
|
Webcast
Nov 29, 2015 0:37:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by puckit on Nov 29, 2015 0:37:17 GMT
I've missed the chance to get a ticket for Sunday's game vs steelers, it's sold out so why don't they have it on webcast? They're losing money as I'm sure a lot of ppl are in my boat!? With a sold out crowd they can't put it down to worrying about losing ticket sales.
|
|
|
Webcast
Nov 29, 2015 10:23:27 GMT
via mobile
Post by kievthegreat on Nov 29, 2015 10:23:27 GMT
I've missed the chance to get a ticket for Sunday's game vs steelers, it's sold out so why don't they have it on webcast? They're losing money as I'm sure a lot of ppl are in my boat!? With a sold out crowd they can't put it down to worrying about losing ticket sales. They did tweet this morning that there are still odd seats. They might be sighting seats only on the phone though.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Nov 29, 2015 13:05:55 GMT
The EIHL teams will one day be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Webcasts will be FAR higher quality and a combination of pay per view plus significant advertising / sponsorship and social media promo. Cardiff's webcast last night was excellent by the way compared to most others.
Just look at the new EIHL website for instance. Absolutely dire and unbelievably not mobile friendly which is strange as most traffic must come from mobile devices during games.
|
|
Dan
Forum Admin
Boss
Posts: 5,891
|
Post by Dan on Dec 2, 2015 17:09:46 GMT
Petty squabbling removed, stop acting like children and discuss the webcast issue itself.
For me, i'm glad we don't. I say that even as someone who lives some distance away. Webcasts hurt attendances, fact. I'd rather us have 6,000 there than 4,000 there and 5,000 at home.
|
|
nate24
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,415
|
Post by nate24 on Dec 2, 2015 17:12:04 GMT
Petty squabbling removed, stop acting like children and discuss the webcast issue itself. For me, i'm glad we don't. I say that even as someone who lives some distance away. Webcasts hurt attendances, fact. I'd rather us have 6,000 there than 4,000 there and 5,000 at home. Show me the source to your 'fact' please.
|
|
Dan
Forum Admin
Boss
Posts: 5,891
|
Post by Dan on Dec 2, 2015 18:21:17 GMT
Petty squabbling removed, stop acting like children and discuss the webcast issue itself. For me, i'm glad we don't. I say that even as someone who lives some distance away. Webcasts hurt attendances, fact. I'd rather us have 6,000 there than 4,000 there and 5,000 at home. Show me the source to your 'fact' please. I refer you to 'common sense'. Sheffield games will probably sell out regardless but imagine a Wednesday night at home v Edinburgh in January. You've got a family of 4 at home who want to watch the game. Do they come home from work, rush tea, drive into town, park, spend £40+ on tickets and drive home or just spend £10 to watch it in their own living room? Suddenly, instead of 4 fans, £45 and any program or food sales on top you've got empty seats and £10.
|
|
nate24
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,415
|
Post by nate24 on Dec 2, 2015 19:01:49 GMT
Show me the source to your 'fact' please. I refer you to 'common sense'. Sheffield games will probably sell out regardless but imagine a Wednesday night at home v Edinburgh in January. You've got a family of 4 at home who want to watch the game. Do they come home from work, rush tea, drive into town, park, spend £40+ on tickets and drive home or just spend £10 to watch it in their own living room? Suddenly, instead of 4 fans, £45 and any program or food sales on top you've got empty seats and £10. That's still not fact. It's speculative opinion. If they did the market research to validate the facts then you would know. As for common sense? Not really. All your doing is making the sport unaccesable to many who can't get to the game physically or financially. You can't prove that it would significantly attend the games. If the products good enough people will come. If they are not sure they won't. A few games via stream may convince them. Not a fact, just a guess like your statement.
|
|
Dan
Forum Admin
Boss
Posts: 5,891
|
Post by Dan on Dec 2, 2015 19:25:43 GMT
I can't see any doubt that it would lower crowds to be honest chap. Out of 5,500 there will definitely be at least a few hundred who would rather choose to watch it at home. Families, the slightly less cash-rich, the elderly or the busy. Not everyone has their life revolve around Panthers, some of them just fit it in and it would take half the time and half the money to watch it at home. These people would watch the game at home, reducing crowds and lowering income. There would be others (such as me) who live out of town who'd buy it frequently, but I don't see that making up the shortfall and it certainly wouldn't make up the attendances.
|
|
nate24
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,415
|
Webcast
Dec 2, 2015 19:29:15 GMT
via mobile
Post by nate24 on Dec 2, 2015 19:29:15 GMT
I can't see any doubt that it would lower crowds to be honest chap. Out of 5,500 there will definitely be at least a few hundred who would rather choose to watch it at home. Families, the slightly less cash-rich, the elderly or the busy. Not everyone has their life revolve around Panthers, some of them just fit it in and it would take half the time and half the money to watch it at home. These people would watch the game at home, reducing crowds and lowering income. There would be others (such as me) who live out of town who'd buy it frequently, but I don't see that making up the shortfall and it certainly wouldn't make up the attendances. I get what your saying but it's alienating a lot of fans. What they need to do is stream several games against varying opponents and then delve into the figures to check if it can work. You could well be right but so could I, I concede you are probably in the right but a test wouldn't hurt. If I'm right it's good for the club and fans.
|
|
Dan
Forum Admin
Boss
Posts: 5,891
|
Post by Dan on Dec 2, 2015 19:38:10 GMT
Possibly, but let's face it - we have the best crowds and the best profit and loss sheet in the league without it. Maybe that says a lot?
|
|
nate24
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,415
|
Webcast
Dec 2, 2015 20:04:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by nate24 on Dec 2, 2015 20:04:13 GMT
Possibly, but let's face it - we have the best crowds and the best profit and loss sheet in the league without it. Maybe that says a lot? Maybe it says we can take the gamble with a trial? Worst case scenario we are back to no stream.
|
|
Warren
Greg Hadden
Posts: 1,467
|
Post by Warren on Dec 2, 2015 20:07:19 GMT
For me I see both sides. Midweek V Edinburgh ? a web cast would seriously make a hit on the walk ups. A sold out game v Steelers? a web cast is only extra income. Also there are families that cant afford to do every game, so wouldn't be going but could afford a webcast so extra income. Blackouts are too easy to circumvent that they are not worth the effort IMO. I do believe that most webcast viewers would be away fans, I mean the only webcast I watch is an away fan The NFL has a policy (which they decided to not implement this year) that a game has to be a sellout 72hrs prior to kick off for the game to be shown in local markets. (Essentially a blackout to home fans) to encourage home attendance - though the speculation i have read is the lift this year was due to the blackouts being circumvented anyway, so may as well not bother. Panthers could do similar, if the game is over 75% sold out 72hrs before they put on a webcast. by that point people who are going either have tickets or are going to buy them. They may loose a small amount due to people changing there minds, but that is no different than plans falling through and people not coming anyway, perhaps they end up getting the webcast anyway so bonus cash?
|
|
|
Post by Peacock on Dec 2, 2015 20:52:17 GMT
I can't see any doubt that it would lower crowds to be honest chap. Out of 5,500 there will definitely be at least a few hundred who would rather choose to watch it at home. That rather conveniently ignores the 'away' fans who don't travel to Nottingham, but would pay to watch a webcast, much like I pay to watch Panthers away from home when a webcast is available.
|
|
|
Post by Bagheera on Dec 3, 2015 8:41:07 GMT
Back to this discussion again. The biggest question to answer is how much does it cost to put out a webcast? Licences, Cameras, live broadcasting equipment, etc, etc(I know some of this will already be there for the game tape/highlights) The cost of this has to be covered before you even look at covering the lost ticket sales, programmes, 50/50 & Refreshments. Very simple maths suggest that if you list 100 paying customers at an average of £15 a ticket you lose £1,500 so that 150 webcasts if you charge £10. Baring in mind you've then got a % of those lost ticket sales sharing webcasts.
How many more do you have to sell to cover loss of match day spending? Im very much sticking my fingure in the air but if it costs £2,000 on average per webcast thats another 200 webcasts to sell.
All Guess work I no, but it's not hard to see you probably need to sell around 400 webcasts just to break even. Thats if your charge £10. Which most clubs don't. Sell the building out first then do a webcast(But then half the people that would buy it are probably in the building).
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Dec 3, 2015 11:06:51 GMT
I wonder how many will be watching the webcasts from Belfast this weekend.
|
|
|
Webcast
Dec 3, 2015 11:59:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by wagstaff on Dec 3, 2015 11:59:21 GMT
For me I see both sides. Midweek V Edinburgh ? a web cast would seriously make a hit on the walk ups. A sold out game v Steelers? a web cast is only extra income. Also there are families that cant afford to do every game, so wouldn't be going but could afford a webcast so extra income. Blackouts are too easy to circumvent that they are not worth the effort IMO. I do believe that most webcast viewers would be away fans, I mean the only webcast I watch is an away fan The NFL has a policy (which they decided to not implement this year) that a game has to be a sellout 72hrs prior to kick off for the game to be shown in local markets. (Essentially a blackout to home fans) to encourage home attendance - though the speculation i have read is the lift this year was due to the blackouts being circumvented anyway, so may as well not bother. Panthers could do similar, if the game is over 75% sold out 72hrs before they put on a webcast. by that point people who are going either have tickets or are going to buy them. They may loose a small amount due to people changing there minds, but that is no different than plans falling through and people not coming anyway, perhaps they end up getting the webcast anyway so bonus cash? Sorry about the blank post, I attend every game I can at the skydome but as said if it's difficult with work etc I get the webcast, but there's nothing like being there! However, I don't travel and would willingly pay for a webcast for the away games as I do for odd games against other teams.
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,625
|
Post by Yotes on Dec 3, 2015 12:11:38 GMT
What they need to do is stream several games against varying opponents and then delve into the figures to check if it can work. This. To me it shows a lack of faith in their own product, in the match night experience, as if they think those of us that do go will abandon it to save a few quid. Going to a game is not, or should not be, equal to watching a game on a webcast. If it turns out their lack of faith in us was correct, then stop running the webcasts, release the figures and explain the decision. And improve the match night experience, obviously.
|
|
iginla
Chick Zamick
Posts: 13,484
|
Post by iginla on Dec 3, 2015 12:14:38 GMT
Much depends on who you are playing and when.
Sheffield,Belfast,Braehead and probably Cardiff games then you probably would make money doing a webcast. Against any of the other teams I would say not worth doing one as their fan bases are not big enough to get enough away team purchasers.
I reckon Mr Kelman is the man to answer the question of if its worth it....next time you interview him Jonno put the question on the agenda.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Dec 3, 2015 12:53:20 GMT
What they need to do is stream several games against varying opponents and then delve into the figures to check if it can work. This. To me it shows a lack of faith in their own product, in the match night experience, as if they think those of us that do go will abandon it to save a few quid. Going to a game is not, or should not be, equal to watching a game on a webcast. If it turns out their lack of faith in us was correct, then stop running the webcasts, release the figures and explain the decision. And improve the match night experience, obviously. This.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Dec 3, 2015 13:04:39 GMT
Much depends on who you are playing and when. Sheffield,Belfast,Braehead and probably Cardiff games then you probably would make money doing a webcast. Against any of the other teams I would say not worth doing one as their fan bases are not big enough to get enough away team purchasers. I reckon Mr Kelman is the man to answer the question of if its worth it....next time you interview him Jonno put the question on the agenda. There is a lot more to a webcast than just making money and this is obviously the 1970's style thinking behind the refusal to do it. Things such as branding and sponsorship will come a big part of it (through Mr Kelman at least). The same thinking is behind the Panthers office blanking Jono and them being afraid that the vastly superior Cats Whiskers is a threat to the new Checking It Out program when the reality is that both will get traffic week after week anyway. Jono (and co) should have been guesting on CIO now anyway in my view as some of these guys have been following the Panthers almost from day one in the modern era and have done more for REAL fans over the years than anyone else I can think of.
|
|
Dan
Forum Admin
Boss
Posts: 5,891
|
Post by Dan on Dec 3, 2015 13:22:45 GMT
That rather conveniently ignores the 'away' fans who don't travel to Nottingham, but would pay to watch a webcast, much like I pay to watch Panthers away from home when a webcast is available. No need to be so confrontational, we're all civil here. It does indeed, I hadn't considered that. However, our biggest away crowds are Sheffield and Coventry. I can't imagine a stream changing their followings too much, it'd be the Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfasts of this world that would be affected, but they only really bring 100/200 as a rule anyway. I don't see a downside of the trial idea (it would benefit me greatly) but I think long term it makes business sense NOT to offer it. Let's face it, 90% of the people who attend games probably live in close proximity of the arena. There is a lot more to a webcast than just making money and this is obviously the 1970's style thinking behind the refusal to do it. I think that's a little harsh. It will be more convenient for sure, but it would likely hurt us financially. That's not 1970's thinking, it's business sense. To me it shows a lack of faith in their own product, in the match night experience, as if they think those of us that do go will abandon it to save a few quid. Going to a game is not, or should not be, equal to watching a game on a webcast. If it turns out their lack of faith in us was correct, then stop running the webcasts, release the figures and explain the decision. And improve the match night experience, obviously. I think we'll all agree that the Panthers care about the profit and loss sheet. The fact they've not done this at all would suggest they've thought about it and they're unsure of the benefit. I think the thought that some wouldn't go isn't a comment on the match night experience, it's just that life nowadays is tough for people. As I say, it's a real effort for people to get to midweek games, especially if you've got kids. Watching at home is a convenient and cheaper option. Back to this discussion again. The biggest question to answer is how much does it cost to put out a webcast? Licences, Cameras, live broadcasting equipment, etc, etc(I know some of this will already be there for the game tape/highlights) The cost of this has to be covered before you even look at covering the lost ticket sales, programmes, 50/50 & Refreshments. Very simple maths suggest that if you list 100 paying customers at an average of £15 a ticket you lose £1,500 so that 150 webcasts if you charge £10. Baring in mind you've then got a % of those lost ticket sales sharing webcasts. How many more do you have to sell to cover loss of match day spending? Im very much sticking my fingure in the air but if it costs £2,000 on average per webcast thats another 200 webcasts to sell. All Guess work I no, but it's not hard to see you probably need to sell around 400 webcasts just to break even. Thats if your charge £10. Which most clubs don't. Sell the building out first then do a webcast(But then half the people that would buy it are probably in the building). This is my thinking, the sharing webcasts in particular. They wouldn't be paying for the webcast each.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Dec 3, 2015 13:45:52 GMT
That rather conveniently ignores the 'away' fans who don't travel to Nottingham, but would pay to watch a webcast, much like I pay to watch Panthers away from home when a webcast is available. No need to be so confrontational, we're all civil here. It does indeed, I hadn't considered that. However, our biggest away crowds are Sheffield and Coventry. I can't imagine a stream changing their followings too much, it'd be the Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfasts of this world that would be affected, but they only really bring 100/200 as a rule anyway. I don't see a downside of the trial idea (it would benefit me greatly) but I think long term it makes business sense NOT to offer it. Let's face it, 90% of the people who attend games probably live in close proximity of the arena. There is a lot more to a webcast than just making money and this is obviously the 1970's style thinking behind the refusal to do it. I think that's a little harsh. It will be more convenient for sure, but it would likely hurt us financially. That's not 1970's thinking, it's business sense. To me it shows a lack of faith in their own product, in the match night experience, as if they think those of us that do go will abandon it to save a few quid. Going to a game is not, or should not be, equal to watching a game on a webcast. If it turns out their lack of faith in us was correct, then stop running the webcasts, release the figures and explain the decision. And improve the match night experience, obviously. I think we'll all agree that the Panthers care about the profit and loss sheet. The fact they've not done this at all would suggest they've thought about it and they're unsure of the benefit. I think the thought that some wouldn't go isn't a comment on the match night experience, it's just that life nowadays is tough for people. As I say, it's a real effort for people to get to midweek games, especially if you've got kids. Watching at home is a convenient and cheaper option. Back to this discussion again. The biggest question to answer is how much does it cost to put out a webcast? Licences, Cameras, live broadcasting equipment, etc, etc(I know some of this will already be there for the game tape/highlights) The cost of this has to be covered before you even look at covering the lost ticket sales, programmes, 50/50 & Refreshments. Very simple maths suggest that if you list 100 paying customers at an average of £15 a ticket you lose £1,500 so that 150 webcasts if you charge £10. Baring in mind you've then got a % of those lost ticket sales sharing webcasts. How many more do you have to sell to cover loss of match day spending? Im very much sticking my fingure in the air but if it costs £2,000 on average per webcast thats another 200 webcasts to sell. All Guess work I no, but it's not hard to see you probably need to sell around 400 webcasts just to break even. Thats if your charge £10. Which most clubs don't. Sell the building out first then do a webcast(But then half the people that would buy it are probably in the building). This is my thinking, the sharing webcasts in particular. They wouldn't be paying for the webcast each. I have been involved in webcasts and streaming media online with several different companies from day one of the technology and done properly I have yet to see a single company do anything but grow their business with it. In fact the same analogy can be put with live television and sports and there are plenty of examples there that can show that without television a lot sports would still be in the dark ages with regards fan base and income.
|
|
Dan
Forum Admin
Boss
Posts: 5,891
|
Post by Dan on Dec 3, 2015 13:50:56 GMT
True, but take Sky Sports for example, the fanbase will have grown but attendances suffer as a result. The hardcore still go every week, but the casuals watch at home when they can.
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Shirt on Dec 3, 2015 14:09:06 GMT
True, but take Sky Sports for example, the fanbase will have grown but attendances suffer as a result. The hardcore still go every week, but the casuals watch at home when they can. It hasn't with football, British Superbikes, Cricket, Horse Racing/jumping, Swimming, Tennis, Snooker, Darts, etc, etc, etc. If you just think of it as bums on seats against bums in the sitting room in front of a webcast that's really missing a lot of the the business side available. If they were really worried about drop off in audience why did the EIHL 'pay' Sky to broadcast live games? The thing is that you can grow a sports turnstile revenue very slowly week by week (very slowly) or you can use the modern day tools and technology to do it a lot faster. The EIHL teams really are at the very bottom of a very steep learning curve with regards webcasts, social media and additional revenue streams and without the right people in place it's going to struggle but done properly it would really work well. Ice Hockey (unless you are a Coventry fan at the moment) is an amazingly exciting team sport and the hardcore Hockey fans are every bit as passionate about their team as any football fan. Sometimes I think we forget that.
|
|
Yotes
Forum Admin
Posts: 16,625
|
Post by Yotes on Dec 3, 2015 14:22:09 GMT
I think the thought that some wouldn't go isn't a comment on the match night experience, it's just that life nowadays is tough for people. Of course, but if people are struggling with the cost of the games, isn't it more likely they'll just opt out of the game altogether? Perhaps a cheaper way to see the game would simply offer the club a chance to get something rather than nothing, even if it's just a tenner from a family of four crowded around a laptop? As I say, it's a real effort for people to get to midweek games, especially if you've got kids. Watching at home is a convenient and cheaper option. We have very few midweek games in fairness, and as above if it's such a chore for people to go midweek, perhaps they already just don't go? Besides, there'd be no reason to say no web casts for mid week games, if they think that's likely to be an issue. I just think it's been easily dismissed. We've heard this "once we sell out every week", well will we ever do that? Seems unlikely, and even if we do, why would they then introduce something that they've already predicted will reduce the crowd, we'd be back to not selling out. If they'd said they don't want to pay the setup costs, or simply can't be bothered with it, I'd find it far more believable.
|
|