|
|
Post by LTFan on Nov 24, 2020 14:49:24 GMT
In my mind there's a difference between the league wanting to put coverage out there for free knowing it's the best way to attract new followers, and existing fans not wanting to pay for coverage. My point was in response to people giving their time for free to produce the coverage. Pay for people to do it, you get a better product Agree with that. But if you're paying someone to produce the coverage you'll probably have to charge for it to recover the costs. And whilst us existing basketball fans should have no problem with doing that, the numbers show it's not the best way to increase followers of the league. Eagles are averaging 200 paying fans and 300 season ticket fans - so 500 watching each game via the PPV route. Lions are averaging 5,000 watching each game via the 'free to stream' route. But I understand poor quality coverage, even if it's free, isn't the best way to increase followers of the league. I don't think there's an easy answer to this (unless you've got loads of money to throw around). |
|
|
|
Post by youngrocks on Nov 24, 2020 16:08:07 GMT
Believe rocks had 4000 on their first game. I believe alot is due to any conflict of other games.
|
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Nov 24, 2020 16:39:53 GMT
Believe rocks had 4000 on their first game. I believe alot is due to any conflict of other games. 4,700. Again, a free stream though. Evidence suggests that would have been about approximately 470 if it had been PPV - which I believe is what they're now doing/planning. |
|
|
|
Post by chesterdonnelly on Nov 24, 2020 17:56:01 GMT
Believe rocks had 4000 on their first game. I believe alot is due to any conflict of other games. 4,700. Again, a free stream though. Evidence suggests that would have been about approximately 470 if it had been PPV - which I believe is what they're now doing/planning. They could try keeping it free but suggesting an optional voluntary donation amount, and make it really easy to pay. Or have a free option and a prime option which includes scoreboard, clock and commentary. |
|
|
|
Post by swimmingbadger on Nov 25, 2020 23:26:38 GMT
4,700. Again, a free stream though. Evidence suggests that would have been about approximately 470 if it had been PPV - which I believe is what they're now doing/planning. They could try keeping it free but suggesting an optional voluntary donation amount, and make it really easy to pay. Or have a free option and a prime option which includes scoreboard, clock and commentary. Why should only the prime option get scoreboard and clock? Surely that's the very basic of tv coverage unless you expect me to sit with a stopwatch and pen/paper? |
|
|
|
Post by samgray on Nov 25, 2020 23:50:07 GMT
Why should decent quality sport be free? You can’t pay the athletes if it is....
|
|
|
|
Post by chesterdonnelly on Nov 26, 2020 0:50:49 GMT
Why should decent quality sport be free? You can’t pay the athletes if it is.... Plenty of sport is free to view. If there are thousands of paying spectators in stadium, and it's broadcast to hundreds of thousands on TV, companies will pay large sums for sponsorship and advertising. That is how sports can be free to view and still pay the athletes. Of course that doesn't work for minor sports like basketball. Only for big sports like rugby. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2020 3:53:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by chesterdonnelly on Nov 26, 2020 8:52:32 GMT
"Plenty of sport is free to view" certainly is true. Because I view plenty of sport for free. The Six Nations Championship is one example. The RFU makes most of its money from Twickenham. GB vs France on Friday (if it wasn't for Covid) should be a windfall for British basketball. Our oldest rival. A giant of basketball. The David Beckham of basketball, Ovie Soko, playing against his country of residence. Broadcasted free to air on Friday evening prime time from a sold out Copperbox Arena. In terms of free to view basketball (Basketball England aside) there is plenty of free basketball on the FIBA YouTube channel. Australia's WNBL, EuroBasket and hopefully London Lions's FIBA Europe Cup games. Plus lots of basketball from around the world which I'm not going to watch, but it's still there for anyone who wants to watch it, free. Obviously, someone somewhere is paying for that, but not me, the viewer. A lot of the free to view sport is women's sport. The weekend before last I watch women's international rugby, women's super league football, and women's basketball. I guess women's sport is a lot cheaper than men's sport because the players are paid a lot less, and by broadcasting it for free not as much potential revenue is being lost, so the sport in question gets a double win. Now I don't know exactly how it works, but I imagine the men's game which is expensive but also generates a big income subsidises the women's game which is lower cost and lower income. BBL could go down this route. Or have BBL1 as the premium product behind a pay wall partially subsidising BBL2 which could be available free to view to ensure British basketball gets exposure and attracts new fans, sponsors etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2020 10:40:10 GMT
Ok. I'll bow to your superior knowledge about a game you, apparently, just discovered.
If you believe
"GB vs France on Friday (if it wasn't for Covid) should be a windfall for British basketball"
You're clearly living in a different dimension to me
|
|
|
|
Post by davef on Nov 26, 2020 10:49:29 GMT
1. The RFU own Twickenham. Seats 85,000 (well-off) punters.
Corporate income is enormous.
2. GB basketball do not own the copper box. They would be paying significant rent. Corporate facilities are very limited.
The comparison is fatuous.
|
|
|
|
Post by chesterdonnelly on Nov 26, 2020 11:42:07 GMT
1. The RFU own Twickenham. Seats 85,000 (well-off) punters. Corporate income is enormous. 2. GB basketball do not own the copper box. They would be paying significant rent. Corporate facilities are very limited. The comparison is fatuous. So that is a major problem then for GB basketball. It's difficult to generate an income without any assets. I have the same problem. |
|
|
|
Post by swimmingbadger on Nov 26, 2020 12:06:13 GMT
1. The RFU own Twickenham. Seats 85,000 (well-off) punters. Corporate income is enormous. 2. GB basketball do not own the copper box. They would be paying significant rent. Corporate facilities are very limited. The comparison is fatuous. So that is a major problem then for GB basketball. It's difficult to generate an income without any assets. I have the same problem. The penny finally drops |
|
|
|
Post by dandayr on Nov 26, 2020 12:26:01 GMT
"Plenty of sport is free to view" certainly is true. Because I view plenty of sport for free. The Six Nations Championship is one example. The RFU makes most of its money from Twickenham. did you enjoy the autumn nations cup games - I certainly did not as not a realistic option, have watched Scotland's autumn games in the past but rugby decided the right place is not free for all but behind a pay wall, and a pay wall in Amazon Prime that has fewer sports fans already committed to it than other platforms (than SKY or BT Sports have) all sports have a choice - and yep 6 nations is currently not behind a pay wall but as cricket found out, if you hide your crown jewels from the majority, your general audience drops away and you need to rebuild it. Rugby is at that crossroads IMHO. other sports have to balance if the viewing figures and commercial income they can link to it makes free viable or if they need to go behind pay wall to cover costs - assuming they cant afford to do a loss leader approach. I view plenty sport - not cause its free but because it is on the platform I have already paid for e.g. I have no idea who the two college teams were I watch on BT ESPN last night but it was sport (basketball) and drew me in. (and was interesting to see one ref managed to do his role in a face covering!). This is why BBL to SkySports is good to see - its a platform many sports fans already have and has broadcast quality standards. FIBA are showing games free - but they have managed to tie in adverts for income. They must have considered if going behind a pay wall and that income balances that an advertiser will give them less for lower viewing figures. To close - just cause it is free, doesnot mean it is watchable. I will pay attention to some of the free BBL games on various club youtube channels, but others I will quickly loose interest, and that is a issue that existed prior to this covid season. |
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Nov 26, 2020 12:31:39 GMT
Not in the US... that's maybe the best example of how major league sports coverage can be free to air on television if you have big enough audiences in person and watching on TV. The likes of the Premier League are just greedy. But unfortunately British basketball has neither, as you say. Should also note that free to air sports coverage in the US has an unbelievable amount of advertising in it, and I'm not just talking about the commercial breaks every few minutes. Anyone who watches the NBA live will surely testify to that. |
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Nov 26, 2020 12:41:20 GMT
"Plenty of sport is free to view" certainly is true. Because I view plenty of sport for free. The Six Nations Championship is one example. The RFU makes most of its money from Twickenham. If you're referring the FIBA EuroBasket Qualifiers then they're not the best example. FIBA will always attempt to get their games on television, paywall or otherwise, in all territories. And if they can't they put the coverage for free on YouTube, given the coverage is already being produced, to help increase awareness of the sport/competition. It would be foolish just to waste it. Take the GB v France game tomorrow, I've not checked but I suspect a French broadcaster will be broadcasting it so the YouTube coverage will be geo-blocked in France but available in the UK (where there's no television broadcaster). |
|
|
|
Post by chesterdonnelly on Nov 26, 2020 12:49:05 GMT
"Plenty of sport is free to view" certainly is true. Because I view plenty of sport for free. The Six Nations Championship is one example. The RFU makes most of its money from Twickenham. did you enjoy the autumn nations cup games - I certainly did not as not a realistic option, have watched Scotland's autumn games in the past but rugby decided the right place is not free for all but behind a pay wall, and a pay wall in Amazon Prime that has fewer sports fans already committed to it than other platforms (than SKY or BT Sports have) all sports have a choice - and yep 6 nations is currently not behind a pay wall but as cricket found out, if you hide your crown jewels from the majority, your general audience drops away and you need to rebuild it. Rugby is at that crossroads IMHO. other sports have to balance if the viewing figures and commercial income they can link to it makes free viable or if they need to go behind pay wall to cover costs - assuming they cant afford to do a loss leader approach. I view plenty sport - not cause its free but because it is on the platform I have already paid for e.g. I have no idea who the two college teams were I watch on BT ESPN last night but it was sport (basketball) and drew me in. (and was interesting to see one ref managed to do his role in a face covering!). This is why BBL to SkySports is good to see - its a platform many sports fans already have and has broadcast quality standards. FIBA are showing games free - but they have managed to tie in adverts for income. They must have considered if going behind a pay wall and that income balances that an advertiser will give them less for lower viewing figures. To close - just cause it is free, doesnot mean it is watchable. I will pay attention to some of the free BBL games on various club youtube channels, but others I will quickly loose interest, and that is a issue that existed prior to this covid season. Dandayr Scotland's pool for the Autumn Nations Cup is a bit more interesting, but England's pool has been dull. Four teams, all at very different levels making for very one-sided games. My wife actually has paid for Amazon Prime for her own reasons so I do have access to it. I watched a bit. I don't usually get to see England outside of the Six Nations because they are behind a pay wall. That's probably why I'm an England fan for the Six Nations and the World Cup, but not interested the rest of the time. Cricket, like a lot of people I have gradually lost interest altogether because I never see it. Rugby and basketball are alike in that there is so much of it, it is possible to have some behind a pay wall and some free to view. It is down to the leaders of those sports to decide what should be free and what can generate an income from pay to view. |
|
|
|
Post by chesterdonnelly on Nov 26, 2020 13:13:14 GMT
So that is a major problem then for GB basketball. It's difficult to generate an income without any assets. I have the same problem. The penny finally drops Well actually, not owning assets only part of the problem. Not having wealthy fans is another problem. There are thousands of wealthy basketball fans in London no doubt, but they are not attracted to British basketball. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2020 13:23:06 GMT
What leads you to believe there are 1000s of wealthy basketball fans in London?
There is no point conparing basketball with rugby or football. It's not apples and oranges, it's apples and wildebeest
|
|
|
|
Post by chesterdonnelly on Nov 26, 2020 13:36:38 GMT
What leads you to believe there are 1000s of wealthy basketball fans in London? There is no point conparing basketball with rugby or football. It's not apples and oranges, it's apples and wildebeest I am absolutely sure of it. There are 300,000 French people in London. Basketball is a major sport across France. There are hundreds of thousands of people in London from other countries where basketball is a major sport. They are there alright. They exist. But they are not interested in British basketball. |
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Nov 26, 2020 15:19:02 GMT
Just getting all those interested in the NBA in this country interested in British basketball should probably be the starting point. Maybe having the BBL on Sky Sports - home of the NBA in the UK, will help that?
NBA League Pass saw a 30% growth in UK subscriptions in 2019. Did the BBL's fanbase increase by 30% in 2019. I very much doubt it. There's a disconnect there that needs to be worked on somehow.
|
|
|
|
Post by chesterdonnelly on Nov 26, 2020 15:45:43 GMT
Just getting all those interested in the NBA in this country interested in British basketball should probably be the starting point. Maybe having the BBL on Sky Sports - home of the NBA in the UK, will help that? NBA League Pass saw a 30% growth in UK subscriptions in 2019. Did the BBL's fanbase increase by 30% in 2019. I very much doubt it. There's a disconnect there that needs to be worked on somehow. Sky Sports is the best place for that. |
|
|
|
Post by LTFan on Nov 26, 2020 16:19:52 GMT
Just getting all those interested in the NBA in this country interested in British basketball should probably be the starting point. Maybe having the BBL on Sky Sports - home of the NBA in the UK, will help that? NBA League Pass saw a 30% growth in UK subscriptions in 2019. Did the BBL's fanbase increase by 30% in 2019. I very much doubt it. There's a disconnect there that needs to be worked on somehow. Sky Sports is the best place for that. Yes, agreed. And to give the BBL some credit they have tried to promote themselves at the NBA London games... but the NBA demand large sums of money to just hand out leaflets at their events let alone anything more than that. |
|
|
|
Post by bullets92 on Nov 26, 2020 18:26:50 GMT
Centralised streaming service will be launched this weekend, as per Mark Woods.
Neutral fans rejoice.
|
|
|
|
Post by drivethebody on Nov 26, 2020 18:28:58 GMT
I see that MarkBritball has tweeted that BBL from this weekend have a centralised streaming service (so not managed by the clubs) which will be payable.
He’s usually right on stuff
|
|
