If AVP won't give us cameras on EVERY court, let's boycott!
Mar 23, 2019 12:05:23 GMT -5
via Tapatalk
guest2 likes this
Post by ajm on Mar 23, 2019 12:05:23 GMT -5
As someone who has done work with online usage tracking and metrics (in a completely different industry) I can tell you that it is fairly common for a feature to have a few very loud and vocal criticisms, but when you actually look at the data you find that the feature is actually quite popular and even increasingly so. And yes, there are always individual corner cases where the metric doesn't measure exactly what you intended, but in general, and in aggregate, they do a pretty good job. The cool thing about the Amazon Prime deal is that they can now get into things like attribution, where they can measure exactly how many consumers watched the latest original Prime TV series only after seeing an advertisement for it during the AVP coverage. That kind of data is a gold mine for marketers, and I'm sure that's a big reason why Amazon is willing to invest some real money in the AVP.
I don't dispute that scenario is something that happens, but what evidence do we have that it applies to this one? Are there any indicators that people like the Amazon broadcast? That is it is popular and that its popularity is growing?
I am also somewhat familiar with how that data is used/collected, athough likely not as much as you are, and I would suggest that confirmation bias is absolutely rife throughout the industry, particularly when small amounts of data are all that is available, as in this case with 8 events, many of which took place in very different situations (May tourney competing with maybe baseball or NBA, June with no comp other than midseason mlb, Sept v football) And also when there are no credible baselines for comparison (I imagine they compare to NBC or the AVP.com stream but those are not good comparisons)
I don’t think any of that is necessarily wrong as the data isn’t public. The one piece of evidence we have is Barnett insisting that Amazon is happy with the broadcasts, although some of what he says can be taken with a grain of salt. I think we also can assume that Amazon is in it to make money, and the fact that they didn’t make significant changes to the broadcast as the season went on suggests they think they’re on the right path. We shall see what 2019 looks like soon enough.
As for the simultaneous multiple courts coverage, I just doubt anyone has figured out how to do that profitably. The FIVB has tried it. P1440 has tried it. Even the NVL tried it. I’m guessing the numbers just aren’t there. IMHO, the AP coverage represents a reasonable compromise where they focus primarily on center court matches, but also switch to an outer court if the situation warrants it.