|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Feb 13, 2019 13:00:04 GMT -5
In the end somebody has to sell something and I don't see what that is. The beach volleyball players over the last 25 years have seemed to have the approach of "I'm a good volleyball player, pay me" and "the AVP is making too much money for them not to pay me more". I've enjoyed the AVP and always liked watching (on TV and in person) but the eyeballs aren't there for the sponsors. It's not that they hate volleyball or don't want to be associated with that lifestyle, it's that the fans aren't spending the money to make it worth sponsoring. There needs to be some admission charged (at least to the center court area). Look at a girls juniors volleyball tournament. They get these parents to pay $30+ per person (plus parking) for the weekend to go watch their own kids play (and they pay big $ to have their kids play too). They sit in a crappy loud convention center and eat terrible and wildly overpriced food. If I have point (I rarely do, that's part of my charm), it's perhaps you run juniors/pro on the same day and location. The kids parents come and willingly throw money at you for entry fee, spectator entry and t-shirts. The hard part is controlling access (and it always is on the beach). The kids can go watch the pros on their matches off or after getting eliminated and then buy even more stuff... and it's at the beach! I agree with a $5-$10/day, or $20/weekend admission fee to center court, while it has been amazing to just walk in and out some gate money would help soften the blow of trying to make an event profitable over time. Also I will never understand people that complain about facilities and venues charging people to watch their own kids play, do people think that these tourneys just get set up for free with no overhead to manage it, rental costs, or maintenance costs to continue running these events for years to come? |
|
|
|
Post by newenglander on Feb 13, 2019 14:04:45 GMT -5
Wait, you're saying that you can't rent a convention center for free? Just to argue both sides, the people that run these make a fortune.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2019 16:26:28 GMT -5
obviously they are complaining because they already pay thousands to have them play, not because they think it’s free to run an event. don’t act naive
|
|
|
|
Post by moderndaycoach on Feb 13, 2019 18:19:36 GMT -5
obviously they are complaining because they already pay thousands to have them play, not because they think it’s free to run an event. don’t act naive Right so paying coaches, court rental/mortgage, facility maintenance from basically 5-7 days of use per week in season, utility bills if they have a facility, uniforms, tourney entry fees, insurance, etc all cost a substantial amount of money. Now you take the door which could be from $3-$5 for entry, it would be incredibly difficult to have just your parents come for free and it would get out of control and then they just have to pay somewhere else also - so simplify and everyone pays a gate fee. This goes to parking lot maintenance, bathrooms/bleachers being destroyed from having 1,500 - 3,000 people per weekend come through, and not to mention I am sure people running the clubs/facilities want to make a little profit as well. Naive is not the word I would use to defend the idea people should pay admission, ignorance is what I would say could be used for those who complain about having to pay $3-$5 to go somewhere to watch their kid. Any large high school varsity sport is going to charge admission, and most of those are publicly funded buildings where you are more than likely not paying for your kid to participate unless there was a raw deal with a referendum or the district is broke. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 13, 2019 18:38:08 GMT -5
i agree that an entry fee is fine. i am just letting you know why parents complain, not agreeing with their complaints. you’re naive if you think parents complain about paying to get in because they think it’s free to run a tournament
|
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Feb 14, 2019 8:31:41 GMT -5
It's kind of like a "resort tax" checking into a hotel. It's not about the $7, its the feeling of being nickled and dimed.
I think some clubs sell a year pass up front for all their events, that way you don't have to pay every time. Semantics.
|
|
|
|
Post by breakoutsports on Feb 14, 2019 16:59:59 GMT -5
I have to think that the marketing must be lacking for AVP tournaments. I’ve only been to one tournament, several years ago, and I was blown away by the atmosphere! It was like a party at the beach where I got to watch some of my favorite players!
They need to get more people there and give them more ways to spend their money. Roll up the merchandisers and food trucks!
|
|
|
|
Post by soflobvb on Feb 16, 2019 15:38:16 GMT -5
One thing that struck me from this article is the reported TV viewership numbers. The San Jose event had 496,000 viewers on ABC, while Las Vegas had only 87,000 viewers on ESPN2 in the same Sunday afternoon time slot three weeks later. That seems like a pretty huge drop, even accounting for the switch from an over-the-air network to cable. I'd love to know what numbers the AVP typically gets on NBC/NBCSN. ABC is a free station; ESPN is a paid station. Even worse ESPN2 isn’t ESPN (main channel). One step away from ESPN3, ESPNU, or ESPN the Ocho. But surely some of the drop is real and unrelated to the station change. |
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Feb 17, 2019 18:15:25 GMT -5
One thing that struck me from this article is the reported TV viewership numbers. The San Jose event had 496,000 viewers on ABC, while Las Vegas had only 87,000 viewers on ESPN2 in the same Sunday afternoon time slot three weeks later. That seems like a pretty huge drop, even accounting for the switch from an over-the-air network to cable. I'd love to know what numbers the AVP typically gets on NBC/NBCSN. ABC is a free station; ESPN is a paid station. Even worse ESPN2 isn’t ESPN (main channel). One step away from ESPN3, ESPNU, or ESPN the Ocho. But surely some of the drop is real and unrelated to the station change. I did some searching to see if I could determine what kind of numbers other beach volleyball broadcasts got. It turns out to be a lot harder to track down than I thought! But I did find a couple of sources reporting that the AVP finals on NBCSN typically gets around 100,000 viewers, and that's also in line with what the 2016 WSOBV got on NBCSN. So those ESPN2 Las Vegas numbers don't look awful by comparison, especially for a late-October event going up against the NFL. I also found out that the NCAA Women's Beach Volleyball Championship broadcasts have been getting about 300,000 viewers on TBS and now ESPN. |
|
|
|
Post by qww on Mar 8, 2019 17:52:01 GMT -5
recently I was reading a golf book, and something interesting hit me: golf is a sport where people spend money to buy physical products in hopes of becoming a better player. tons of clubs, gadgets, bags etcetc are bought year after year, and these brands are happy to sponsor tours to get peoples eyeballs onto their logos. a new club might not make an average player any better, but for the human mind it is much easier to spend money on a new club rather than coaching, because the physical product you buy is easier to understand, and therefore golfers (and players of other gear heavy sports!) tend to spend relatively big amounts of money on gear in hopes of becoming better.
beach volleyball, on the other hand, is a sport where the amount of performance enhancing gadgets are really really limited. hell, players barely even wear clothes! pretty much the only brands that make something for beach volleyball that people continually buy, is balls. maybe some portable net systems, but these are often shared with people and last for a long time. even if people buy balls, how much does the average player spend on balls per year? $40?
i'm wondering if ultimately, the lack of money in beach volleyball comes from the sport being so cheap and the opposite of "gear heavy"? since you barely need to buy anything to play, there is no continuous money stream coming from players which will then be the engine for tours etc.
as far as i've understood, in the days when beach volleyball was thriving financially, it was sponsored by beer brands? and the "thing" was to make the tournaments a party?
if that was the case, then all of the sudden, we do have a similar economic system running as in other sports that are financially thriving - a tons of "average level" players spending money on both:
1. something they feel the get direct value from (much easier to buy a gadget that is $50 overpriced but that $50 goes to tour sponsorships rather than just straight up donating $50 "for the good of the sport)
2. something that can be directly associated with the sport, so that it would make sense for the brand of the product to sponsor a tour.
because "beach volleyball clothing" is nonspecific to beach volleyball, it doesn't make so much sense for clothing brands to sponsor beach tours for example.
I hope what I am rambling about here makes sense to someone. it's like there are certain "critical points" in how "average level players" (the masses) spend money in the sport, but if those requirements are not met, the sport will suffer financially..
i might be very wrong here, and I'd love feedback on these thoughts. in general, i see a lot of "there's no money in this sport" but very little "i wonder why there's no money in this sport" thrown around, so I guess this is an attempt towards the latter, even if it might not be perfect. hope it inspires some conversation or new thoughts for someone!
|
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Mar 8, 2019 20:10:42 GMT -5
recently I was reading a golf book, and something interesting hit me: golf is a sport where people spend money to buy physical products in hopes of becoming a better player. tons of clubs, gadgets, bags etcetc are bought year after year, and these brands are happy to sponsor tours to get peoples eyeballs onto their logos. a new club might not make an average player any better, but for the human mind it is much easier to spend money on a new club rather than coaching, because the physical product you buy is easier to understand, and therefore golfers (and players of other gear heavy sports!) tend to spend relatively big amounts of money on gear in hopes of becoming better. beach volleyball, on the other hand, is a sport where the amount of performance enhancing gadgets are really really limited. hell, players barely even wear clothes! pretty much the only brands that make something for beach volleyball that people continually buy, is balls. maybe some portable net systems, but these are often shared with people and last for a long time. even if people buy balls, how much does the average player spend on balls per year? $40? i'm wondering if ultimately, the lack of money in beach volleyball comes from the sport being so cheap and the opposite of "gear heavy"? since you barely need to buy anything to play, there is no continuous money stream coming from players which will then be the engine for tours etc. as far as i've understood, in the days when beach volleyball was thriving financially, it was sponsored by beer brands? and the "thing" was to make the tournaments a party? if that was the case, then all of the sudden, we do have a similar economic system running as in other sports that are financially thriving - a tons of "average level" players spending money on both: 1. something they feel the get direct value from (much easier to buy a gadget that is $50 overpriced but that $50 goes to tour sponsorships rather than just straight up donating $50 "for the good of the sport) 2. something that can be directly associated with the sport, so that it would make sense for the brand of the product to sponsor a tour. because "beach volleyball clothing" is nonspecific to beach volleyball, it doesn't make so much sense for clothing brands to sponsor beach tours for example. I hope what I am rambling about here makes sense to someone. it's like there are certain "critical points" in how "average level players" (the masses) spend money in the sport, but if those requirements are not met, the sport will suffer financially.. i might be very wrong here, and I'd love feedback on these thoughts. in general, i see a lot of "there's no money in this sport" but very little "i wonder why there's no money in this sport" thrown around, so I guess this is an attempt towards the latter, even if it might not be perfect. hope it inspires some conversation or new thoughts for someone! Its a great point and it goes back to BVB does not get money from its fans the way all successful sports do. In the AVP's heyday there was volley specific fashion and the switch to surf style gear coincided with the sport falling off - I dont think that was necessarily causative but did play a role. Sports like golf and surfing are much better at engaging fans financially because they have pricier equipment. |
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Mar 8, 2019 20:27:58 GMT -5
recently I was reading a golf book, and something interesting hit me: golf is a sport where people spend money to buy physical products in hopes of becoming a better player. tons of clubs, gadgets, bags etcetc are bought year after year, and these brands are happy to sponsor tours to get peoples eyeballs onto their logos. a new club might not make an average player any better, but for the human mind it is much easier to spend money on a new club rather than coaching, because the physical product you buy is easier to understand, and therefore golfers (and players of other gear heavy sports!) tend to spend relatively big amounts of money on gear in hopes of becoming better. beach volleyball, on the other hand, is a sport where the amount of performance enhancing gadgets are really really limited. hell, players barely even wear clothes! pretty much the only brands that make something for beach volleyball that people continually buy, is balls. maybe some portable net systems, but these are often shared with people and last for a long time. even if people buy balls, how much does the average player spend on balls per year? $40? i'm wondering if ultimately, the lack of money in beach volleyball comes from the sport being so cheap and the opposite of "gear heavy"? since you barely need to buy anything to play, there is no continuous money stream coming from players which will then be the engine for tours etc. as far as i've understood, in the days when beach volleyball was thriving financially, it was sponsored by beer brands? and the "thing" was to make the tournaments a party? if that was the case, then all of the sudden, we do have a similar economic system running as in other sports that are financially thriving - a tons of "average level" players spending money on both: 1. something they feel the get direct value from (much easier to buy a gadget that is $50 overpriced but that $50 goes to tour sponsorships rather than just straight up donating $50 "for the good of the sport) 2. something that can be directly associated with the sport, so that it would make sense for the brand of the product to sponsor a tour. because "beach volleyball clothing" is nonspecific to beach volleyball, it doesn't make so much sense for clothing brands to sponsor beach tours for example. I hope what I am rambling about here makes sense to someone. it's like there are certain "critical points" in how "average level players" (the masses) spend money in the sport, but if those requirements are not met, the sport will suffer financially.. i might be very wrong here, and I'd love feedback on these thoughts. in general, i see a lot of "there's no money in this sport" but very little "i wonder why there's no money in this sport" thrown around, so I guess this is an attempt towards the latter, even if it might not be perfect. hope it inspires some conversation or new thoughts for someone! Its a great point and it goes back to BVB does not get money from its fans the way all successful sports do. In the AVP's heyday there was volley specific fashion and the switch to surf style gear coincided with the sport falling off - I dont think that was necessarily causative but did play a role. Sports like golf and surfing are much better at engaging fans financially because they have pricier equipment. I think the biggest difference is that recreational golfers follow the pro tours much more so than rec volleyball players. Maybe part of that is due to the signatures on the clubs, gloves, etc. But go down to your local beach or sand court and ask the players to name one non Olympian pro beach volleyball player. 90% can’t do it. I agree that more apparel and equipment would help form a connection between the pros and would-be fans. |
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Mar 8, 2019 21:23:42 GMT -5
Every golfer I know (two or three?), had a set of clubs and then upgraded them (at least once), and watched golf on TV regularly. And of course balls, tees, etc., are always needed. The equipment money is a real factor. Clothing is never going to make up that difference.
Increasing the audience (getting casual/rec players more interested) would help. But BVB is never going to be golf.
Tennis might be a better analogy. They do have to buy a lot of balls, and just one racket, so there is probably still more money. Tennis has a much bigger audience than BVB. And a lot of tradition. Wimbledon is the Wimbledon of tennis.
|
|
|
|
Post by gr8hands on Mar 9, 2019 8:47:14 GMT -5
Every golfer I know (two or three?), had a set of clubs and then upgraded them (at least once), and watched golf on TV regularly. And of course balls, tees, etc., are always needed. The equipment money is a real factor. Clothing is never going to make up that difference. Increasing the audience (getting casual/rec players more interested) would help. But BVB is never going to be golf. Tennis might be a better analogy. They do have to buy a lot of balls, and just one racket, so there is probably still more money. Tennis has a much bigger audience than BVB. And a lot of tradition. Wimbledon is the Wimbledon of tennis. Don't forget how many rich people play golf and tennis. And those sports have super stars recognized worldwide. Major sponsorships are a lot easier to land with 2 in hand. Volleyball is a hard business unless you're talking about girls juniors or college women's sand (apparently). Hence you see p1440 jumping into to those market sectors now. Their business model was doomed to fail imo. Bad name, bad marketing (social media effort was nonexistent), bad business model, no starpower. I think they overestimated Kerry's brand to be able to fill some seats, but I doubt that would work even if she had Misty with her and they were in their heyday with this business model. The festival concept has some merit to it but it they could have taken on a lot less risk their first year if they concentrated on the volleyball and piggybacked on an existing/established venue. It's basically the same concept the NVL tried to do at the Preakness and ECSC (I'm sure there were others). P1440 could done the same concept with smaller footprints at venues that already have the foot traffic year one instead of trying to do the biggest and really expensive FIVB 4 star at an unproven venue. Now it looks AlB is teaming up with p1440 to run their rise jr's program. They will be trying to promote jr beach tournaments to tap into that girls volleyball cash cow. The problem is with Volley America merging with the AVP, they are coming late to table with arguably a weak/failing/tarnished brand that everyone knows may not be around for long haul. The best thing for beach volleyball would have been for Kerry to work out a deal with AVP and help keep promoting the one brand that everyone still recognizes as the pennical of pro beach volleyball (eventhough its been bankrupt 2 or 3 times, go figure). In its heyday, the AVP was a beach party (with plenty of beer flowing) that people wanted to be part of regardless if they were die hard volleyball fans. Pretty much the polar opposite of a health and wellness festival. And Casey Jennings is a daydreamer with no business sense. I was embarrassed for everyone involved with p1440 when got on The Net Live and tried to go toe to toe with Kevin and Jeremy. The man sounded like a complete idiot making zero sense on any topic. |
|
