|
Post by 405LAX on Mar 18, 2019 23:53:06 GMT -5
Well... how many viewers would you want to realistically see on each court feed? I think you’ll just see friends and family watching those matches. I dont think multi-court would necessarily have a ton of value in increasing the number of overall viewers. But where it would have value is in maintaining viewers. Lets say there are 10,000 people that want to watch AVP on a given day. They log on, ready to see some volleyball. The first match shown is April/Alix versus the lowest-seeded qualifier. (the most popular of the 5 matches scheduled at that time) Of those 10k fans, Group 1 - 1,500 fans of men's volleyball. Don't care about the women's game. They logoff and make a note to check in later when there might be a men's match. Group 2 - 2,000 fans who know enough to understand that this is going to be 21-12, 21-12 and they aren't interested in watching a blowout, so they logoff with the intent to come back later once the matches are more competitive. Group 3 - 1,000 fans who didnt anticipate a blowout but don't want to see one, particularly when April/Alix are playing 75% and not hitting bombs etc. and they log off. So of the potential audience, the AVP has 50% by the end of this match, which is still probably their best case for a single match. If all courts were streamed, Group 1 could watch Bomgren/Field play Casebeer/Schalk, Group 2 could pick a match they think will be competitive, and Group 3 can shop around for a different match as opposed to logging off when they see April/Alix half-assing it. Thats what I see as the value of multiple courts. Not expanding the audience, but maximizing the time spend watching by people already inclined to do so. 10-star post G2.
|
|
|
Post by beachballboy on Mar 19, 2019 12:40:32 GMT -5
Instead of whining about more cameras, you could just go to the tournaments. Then you can watch any match on any court live.
|
|
|
Post by 405LAX on Mar 19, 2019 15:53:06 GMT -5
Instead of whining about more cameras, you could just go to the tournaments. Then you can watch any match on any court live. If you bothered reading any of my posts you'd see I attended every SoCal tournament, not flying to Austin to watch matches I want to see. Thanks for your zero calorie post.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Mar 20, 2019 2:03:04 GMT -5
Instead of whining about more cameras, you could just go to the tournaments. Then you can watch any match on any court live. I go to HALF the tournaments scheduled and don't get 5% of what G2 and 405 elicit...Look, it's great to "go after what is obvious (possibly not attending)", but you can't just attack people because "you weren't there", just attack the hypotheses and most of their statements are completely reliable....You can watch a match online and gather 95% of what is happening...It's not a good critique....
|
|
|
Post by newenglander on Mar 20, 2019 12:15:47 GMT -5
So here are my thoughts on that... - why is the AVP choosing to show a low value match like that? - sounds like they'd need a different broadcast crew for each court. Their only other option would be no commentary, fixed camera positions (with no switching cameras) and perhaps a shot of the scoreboard - if they are streaming all these matches their bandwidth costs go up
I 100% agree that more options will get more viewers watching for longer. That means they can quote better numbers to advertisers or sell more streaming access (whichever their business model is oriented towards). That's going to make their coverage a lot more complicated (and expensive).
|
|
|
Post by 405LAX on Mar 20, 2019 12:29:29 GMT -5
So here are my thoughts on that... - why is the AVP choosing to show a low value match like that? - sounds like they'd need a different broadcast crew for each court. Their only other option would be no commentary, fixed camera positions (with no switching cameras) and perhaps a shot of the scoreboard - if they are streaming all these matches their bandwidth costs go up I 100% agree that more options will get more viewers watching for longer. That means they can quote better numbers to advertisers or sell more streaming access (whichever their business model is oriented towards). That's going to make their coverage a lot more complicated (and expensive). FIVB simply places a camera on end line, score is in corner, AVP could configure their avpscoring.com page or simply direct traffic there if they wanted to do it minimally. This isn't a hard process, P90 figured it out, one of the few things they nailed.
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Mar 20, 2019 14:28:01 GMT -5
So here are my thoughts on that... - why is the AVP choosing to show a low value match like that? - sounds like they'd need a different broadcast crew for each court. Their only other option would be no commentary, fixed camera positions (with no switching cameras) and perhaps a shot of the scoreboard - if they are streaming all these matches their bandwidth costs go up I 100% agree that more options will get more viewers watching for longer. That means they can quote better numbers to advertisers or sell more streaming access (whichever their business model is oriented towards). That's going to make their coverage a lot more complicated (and expensive). FIVB simply places a camera on end line, score is in corner, AVP could configure their avpscoring.com page or simply direct traffic there if they wanted to do it minimally. This isn't a hard process, P90 figured it out, one of the few things they nailed. I’m guessing the AVP couldn’t do that without breaching their contract with Amazon. But as a fun little experiment you could set up a live stream camera at one of the events and see if anyone sends you a cease and desist letter!
|
|
|
Post by newenglander on Mar 20, 2019 21:43:25 GMT -5
People used to live stream matches using periscope. I used to watch those.
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Mar 22, 2019 7:20:44 GMT -5
Funny, we got a full time partner like amazon, and people b#@$, and give the broadcast crappy ratings... You know what happens? Amazon passes when the contract is up. Every single one of us should be sharing, and liking this or it will just go away.
While the 1st season wasn't perfect, I still enjoyed the quality of the feed. And I'll hope they make some adjustments, since it was their 1st season.
|
|
|
Post by 405LAX on Mar 22, 2019 10:12:09 GMT -5
Funny, we got a full time partner like amazon, and people b#@$, and give the broadcast crappy ratings... You know what happens? Amazon passes when the contract is up. Every single one of us should be sharing, and liking this or it will just go away. While the 1st season wasn't perfect, I still enjoyed the quality of the feed. And I'll hope they make some adjustments, since it was their 1st season. AVP.com gave us nearly identical coverage JB, don't remember that?
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Mar 22, 2019 10:16:16 GMT -5
Funny, we got a full time partner like amazon, and people b#@$, and give the broadcast crappy ratings... You know what happens? Amazon passes when the contract is up. Every single one of us should be sharing, and liking this or it will just go away. While the 1st season wasn't perfect, I still enjoyed the quality of the feed. And I'll hope they make some adjustments, since it was their 1st season. AVP.com gave us nearly identical coverage JB, don't remember that? And that expanded the brand how? They are trying to make it legit, let's support them. And the the AVP stream was never that strong.
|
|
|
Post by 405LAX on Mar 22, 2019 10:23:24 GMT -5
I don't have an issue with AP broadcasting center court and whatever else they want to show but asking to simply place cameras on outer courts like FIVB has done for years now is NOT asking too much. Give casual viewers main coverage option, hardcore fans can pick. I don't see why this is difficult.
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Mar 22, 2019 10:28:02 GMT -5
I don't have an issue with AP broadcasting center court and whatever else they want to show but asking to simply place cameras on outer courts like FIVB has done for years now is NOT asking too much. Give casual viewers main coverage option, hardcore fans can pick. I don't see why this is difficult. lets see what they come back with year 2.
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Mar 22, 2019 10:35:12 GMT -5
I don't have an issue with AP broadcasting center court and whatever else they want to show but asking to simply place cameras on outer courts like FIVB has done for years now is NOT asking too much. Give casual viewers main coverage option, hardcore fans can pick. I don't see why this is difficult. By the way, your opening post was a tantrum, this post is much better stated. Your opinions get brushed aside because you come all in. This reminds me of a young bull and an old bull sitting on a hill......
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Mar 22, 2019 10:51:50 GMT -5
I don't have an issue with AP broadcasting center court and whatever else they want to show but asking to simply place cameras on outer courts like FIVB has done for years now is NOT asking too much. Give casual viewers main coverage option, hardcore fans can pick. I don't see why this is difficult. It’s all about the $$$. How much would you be willing to pay for this? And BTW, the FIVB only does this for 5 Star events, and it’s not free.
|
|