really?! then what are they all doing while thumbing on their phones in the train/on the street/riding their bikes/all the time?!
Freecaster to charge to watch World Cup coverage.
- Thread starter Gunner
- Start date
same as e-mail, typical address will be something like abc123@docomo.ne.jp where docomo is the cell phone company. Most people would be completely unaware that a thing called SMS exists.really?! then what are they all doing while thumbing on their phones in the train/on the street/riding their bikes/all the time?!
definitely hope that's the case, thanks for the link.
My thoughts -
- I'd like more course coverage
- I'd like no drops in the stream
- If a product met these needs, I'd be willing to pay ~$10 USD per race
- I think some serious market research and a few months putting together an airtight business plan would make it easier on Freecaster by helping to sus out a) if this is really a viable product offering and b) how to best execute
- If you're a for-profit entity, you'll make it tough on yourself with the mentality that your users should "support" whatever it is you're doing. It's easier by approaching it from a product management/marketing mentality - "What does the user need, can I provide perceived value meeting those needs and is there a business model so I can feed myself."
Why does everyone still think that Freecaster has control over this. Its been mentioned countless times that the UCI governs this aspect. Freecaster just has the rights to this feed.
Because Freecaster posted this -
This indicates that increased coverage is possible given resources.
I can tell you that they have loads of marketing materials and business proposals. I have been helping get them out to the industry all winter The industry isn't interested in helping, only in reaping the benefits of free advertising.
In stream advertising is the only way for an entity like this to survive. Even if you paid $10 a race, it would be tight to cover costs over a season. I don't think some of you understand the infrastructure required. Sat time, uplink and downlink time, studio time at the downlink facility, travel costs and expenses for on ground team members & and finally the biggest cost - pure bandwidth. This is not to mention the development work behind the scenes for the player etc at Freecaster.
It's a very expensive endeavour that the industry said it would sponsor...and isn't.
Last edited:
Ya know, if their production quality was up there w/ professional sports, I'd even pay the ungodly PayPerView amount (like boxing, mixed martial arts, porn, but that's not live). That's usually like $40-60 depending on the event. But again, the quality (course coverage, announcing, interviews, practice, pits, stats, etc.) has to be there. Just sayin....
maybe transcend, you can explain why the bike companies, who seem pretty intent on spending not inconsiderable amounts of $$$ on DH frames and components, but aren't willing to help promote the sport which will recoup those R&D $$$.
Or is the reality simply that what we spend mega $$$ on simply aint worth their tag price? So why blow that super mark up on sponsoring race events? In F1, teams pay pretty much top dollar to the FIA, who in turn markets the viewing to the various outlets. (no doubt the FIA burns the cash candle at both ends, quite successfully).
I dont know how the marketing aspect works to recoup R&D dollars, so if I'm wrong, please clue me up.
Or is the reality simply that what we spend mega $$$ on simply aint worth their tag price? So why blow that super mark up on sponsoring race events? In F1, teams pay pretty much top dollar to the FIA, who in turn markets the viewing to the various outlets. (no doubt the FIA burns the cash candle at both ends, quite successfully).
I dont know how the marketing aspect works to recoup R&D dollars, so if I'm wrong, please clue me up.
Last edited:
You speak the truth. I remember seeing the costs of some smaller endevours and it goes big fast.
And for the people who demand ESPN quality - it's downhill, not football - you don't have tens of millions of people wanting to watch it live. The quality is better because there is more money and no matter how much we will pay we probably won't even be able to get close to the price of one superbowl commercial
Personaly I have faith in the idea even though I'm a bit scared that living in an eastern european hole the sms paying won't be ready for maribor.
Transcend/Freecaster -
I may be able to help, PM me your contact info if you're interested. I work on developing proposals going out to very large mainstream advertisers that target out market segment. If the metrics are where they need to be some may be interested.
I may be able to help, PM me your contact info if you're interested. I work on developing proposals going out to very large mainstream advertisers that target out market segment. If the metrics are where they need to be some may be interested.
Yeah but you can't even begin to compare the scale of the olympics to downhilling. The olympics are sponsored by McDonalds and half a dozen other companies that are among the biggest in the world, they have an operating budget measured in billions of dollars.
Beer is really cheap there, and quite expensive in Australia and Canada. Pretty easy to spend $15 on a six pack hereEither beer is really cheep here or I am very impressed
How about DirtTV quality then? Is that too much to ask for?
I'd pay for what we had last year if it always worked and I'd prefer not having to watch live.
For 15$-20$ here if you go to the right shop you might even get a full 24pack here so that's why I was impressedYeah but you can't even begin to compare the scale of the olympics to downhilling. The olympics are sponsored by McDonalds and half a dozen other companies that are among the biggest in the world, they have an operating budget measured in billions of dollars.
Beer is really cheap there, and quite expensive in Australia and Canada. Pretty easy to spend $15 on a six pack here
Especialy that you mentioned you also tried to watch and I'm pretty sure the feed would be a little fuzzy
norbar: TV has made some sports more accessible to not only those who actually participate in their personal capacities in that sport, but also to the armchair achievers, and that is probably by design, because that's where the money is: in the majority not the minority.
From my side, winter sports is a poster child, as here in sunny south africa, it's impossible to ever njoi any sport mildly snow and ice related, but due to the way the winter olympics and other winter based sports are presented, i'm a pretty big fan of it.
Same thing can happen with DH. I have a couple of work buddies who dont even cycle, but find the DH clips i watch, pretty compelling viewing. There is huge potential,but as Transcend et al have pointed out, it needs a few more big pockets to come aboard.
As for folks calling out for more viewing angles etc etc, whether or not the money is there, it's what the sport needs to succeed from the perspective of the as yet untapped market that is the armchair achiever.
IMO of course
From my side, winter sports is a poster child, as here in sunny south africa, it's impossible to ever njoi any sport mildly snow and ice related, but due to the way the winter olympics and other winter based sports are presented, i'm a pretty big fan of it.
Same thing can happen with DH. I have a couple of work buddies who dont even cycle, but find the DH clips i watch, pretty compelling viewing. There is huge potential,but as Transcend et al have pointed out, it needs a few more big pockets to come aboard.
As for folks calling out for more viewing angles etc etc, whether or not the money is there, it's what the sport needs to succeed from the perspective of the as yet untapped market that is the armchair achiever.
IMO of course
As for camera angles, what some of you don't really is that there is only a limited amount of cameras to use (they cost big bucks + operator salary). The second biggest hurdle is that DH courses aren't exactly the most accessible places. The best areas, are often the most steep/technical. Getting the equipment and cables to the areas you and I would most like to see is borderline impossible much of the time due to equipment limitations (XXX, worth of cable) as well as scheduling. The olympics had MONTHS to get broadcast locations in place. The UCI crews have sometimes 1 day to do it.
Imagine back to back triples. They need to setup and move equipments for XC, 4x and DH and then sunday it needs to be broken down, packed up and trucked across europe. Then it needs to happen all over again with limited personnel etc.
Cables can only stretch so far before they become to heavy and unwieldy to move and a microwave system simply costs way too much to employ.
Imagine back to back triples. They need to setup and move equipments for XC, 4x and DH and then sunday it needs to be broken down, packed up and trucked across europe. Then it needs to happen all over again with limited personnel etc.
Cables can only stretch so far before they become to heavy and unwieldy to move and a microwave system simply costs way too much to employ.
You give them all you and your friends profile information and they give you a voucher to view.
norbar: TV has made some sports more accessible to not only those who actually participate in their personal capacities in that sport, but also to the armchair achievers, and that is probably by design, because that's where the money is: in the majority not the minority.
From my side, winter sports is a poster child, as here in sunny south africa, it's impossible to ever njoi any sport mildly snow and ice related, but due to the way the winter olympics and other winter based sports are presented, i'm a pretty big fan of it.
Same thing can happen with DH. I have a couple of work buddies who dont even cycle, but find the DH clips i watch, pretty compelling viewing. There is huge potential,but as Transcend et al have pointed out, it needs a few more big pockets to come aboard.
As for folks calling out for more viewing angles etc etc, whether or not the money is there, it's what the sport needs to succeed from the perspective of the as yet untapped market that is the armchair achiever.
IMO of course
I agree with what you are saying but it is still much less marketable and viewer friendly than most of the team sports. I know some people who can watch it but most of them are bored out of their minds. Extreme sports are ok as longs as people do tricks and crash. Imho it's a bit more closed sport like moto that has a far smaller % of archair fans.
As for the more camera thing - I was in Schladming during the worldcup and I'm pretty sure if anyone saw it they'd gain respect and have more understanding how hard it should be. The camera crew were often in places that took a lot of work to set up. Also - you have a cable running to the top of a 3km course. It's a lot of work. Yes it would probably be possible to find spots for more cameras (in schlad I can think of 2, max 3) but given the short time Fraser mentioned I don't think it's easily possible.
Maybe the option of a helmet cam should be further explored to fill in the gaps between the static trackside cameras. Perhaps even more zip line cams? But as was previously hinted it, the tech for this sort of thing quickly becomes expensive and complicated to set up: cables, wireless, accessibility etc..
I think you touched on a crucial point there, one I've often overlooked: is DH really that viewable in terms of the non-riders? I definitely think so, but as a rider, I do have a natural bias toward the affirmative.
I also agree with you on the morbid attraction to thrills and spills: if it werent for crashes, I do sometimes change the channel even when watching the Super G, and slalom runs during the Winter Olympics.
I think you touched on a crucial point there, one I've often overlooked: is DH really that viewable in terms of the non-riders? I definitely think so, but as a rider, I do have a natural bias toward the affirmative.
I also agree with you on the morbid attraction to thrills and spills: if it werent for crashes, I do sometimes change the channel even when watching the Super G, and slalom runs during the Winter Olympics.
I actualy can watch super g (slalom not so much) but I'm a nerd and I can follow everything that's got numbers to it as long as it's a lottery (well that or the fact that once I planned to try racing snowboard in my younger days).
The microwave systems most TV crews etc use require line of sight besides being exceptionally expensive. This is why you lose signal when an F1 car goes under the casino bridge in Montreal and why NASCAR races all have a blimp and or helicopter following things as a relay station.
The cost and logistics really aren't feasible for a production this small (compared to the NFL, F1, Nascar, MotoGP etc).
I think $3 per race is a bargain even for the coverage from last year. I too wonder how they did it without charging. I would still pay $5-$10 per race without question for the current coverage, even more for better coverage.
I do not see the issue with other's (Dirt, MTBcut ...etc) covering the race. That is exactly what they are doing, covering the event, not broadcasting the race. Every channel covers the Superbowl, but only one channel can actually show the game. This is no different.
I am not sure how many people here have been to a WC, it was crazy watching the camera crews set up and then tear it all down so quickly to move from DH to 4x. The only way they could get "great coverage" is to have at least 20-25 camera's on course, and they are not using $5000 cameras. And it would only be worth having that many cameras for the top ten when they start to open up the start intervals.
I do not see the issue with other's (Dirt, MTBcut ...etc) covering the race. That is exactly what they are doing, covering the event, not broadcasting the race. Every channel covers the Superbowl, but only one channel can actually show the game. This is no different.
I am not sure how many people here have been to a WC, it was crazy watching the camera crews set up and then tear it all down so quickly to move from DH to 4x. The only way they could get "great coverage" is to have at least 20-25 camera's on course, and they are not using $5000 cameras. And it would only be worth having that many cameras for the top ten when they start to open up the start intervals.
Started watching the XC about 15mins ago to see how things would go with dh in a few weeks.
I see the riders, but in very low quality. The playing also stops everytime someone posts a comment on the right side of the page (quite annoying)... is there any way to remove that comment thing?
I see the riders, but in very low quality. The playing also stops everytime someone posts a comment on the right side of the page (quite annoying)... is there any way to remove that comment thing?
Good that the stream worked for you. Well if you saw it in low quality that is because your line didn't allow for me. We streamed at 350, 650 and 1000 kbit/s versus 500 and 1000 last year. The system detects automatically what YOUR bandwidth allows. If on top the Facebook comments froze YOUR the page on your computer, you might need to start questioning your internet connection and your computer, because the comments have NO interaction with the stream as they both come from totally different source i.e. akamai for the stream and facebook for the comments. Once the Freecaster page is loaded there is no more interaction with our servers ....
I'll have to complain to Belgacom again the I believe. Paying for a fast line they never provide... My bad Ray!
I checked it out, worked flawless for me. I'm happy to pay $3 if it means we get to keep watching the races live. Even when the UCI's camera work is lousy it's still much more entertaining than watching a results spreadsheet hours later. Cheers to freecaster!
The lags may be due to flash or some other plugin connected with comments not working properly. Updating works for my crappy laptop
Have you guys thought about having a tiered pricing scheme? For instance, I would easily pay $10 per race (as would a lot of other people it sounds like) if the quality were a little better and perhaps a few more camera angles.
You could offer maybe something like a $2 option, a $5 option and a $10 option; all with increasing value for the subscriber? Just a thought...it may make it easier to get those extra cameras on course.
You could offer maybe something like a $2 option, a $5 option and a $10 option; all with increasing value for the subscriber? Just a thought...it may make it easier to get those extra cameras on course.
freecaster is not in charge of camera placement, funding for cameras, # of camera angles, or anything else that has to do with producing video of the race. The UCI makes all such decisions and Freecaster simply has the rights to broadcast the video feed produced by the UCI.Have you guys thought about having a tiered pricing scheme? For instance, I would easily pay $10 per race (as would a lot of other people it sounds like) if the quality were a little better and perhaps a few more camera angles.
You could offer maybe something like a $2 option, a $5 option and a $10 option; all with increasing value for the subscriber? Just a thought...it may make it easier to get those extra cameras on course.
It could just be me, but i don't get the whole "live" thing. It doesn't really make it that much more exciting, and 2 hours worth of riders? Only the true superfans watch that much. The vast majority of viewers only care about the top 20 men and top 10 women. Would it not be vastly cheaper to broadcast a show featuring just the top competitors? And with less riders to cover make a more "mainstream" program that appeals to a wider market rather than the endless footage (and commentary that is clearly not that interested) in the first 50 riders?
In my mind the sport will never reach a mass market in it's current format because the first half of the program is fairly boring repetitive "filler" before the main action kicks off.
In my mind the sport will never reach a mass market in it's current format because the first half of the program is fairly boring repetitive "filler" before the main action kicks off.
Oh, that must be why Frasier posted this on the previous page...freecaster is not in charge of camera placement, funding for cameras, # of camera angles, or anything else that has to do with producing video of the race. The UCI makes all such decisions and Freecaster simply has the rights to broadcast the video feed produced by the UCI.
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3439849&postcount=136
Good point really, I aggree The show is too long, a bit of a drag for the first part, with Rob warner trying to fill space really. Technically of course adds to the expense of the production. Id prefer a bit interviewing riders at the start pit area some information etc... a summary of the slower riders. and then the top 25 or so riders full runs.....
Huh? Notice I said the UCI crews... Freecaster has nothing to do with cameras or placement. The UCI production crew does.Oh, that must be why Frasier posted this on the previous page...
http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3439849&postcount=136
I agree 100% too.
The things start to be interesting only in top 20.
Till there I think Freecaster should interview pros, best moments of qualyfing, cut to some live action, then return to pros, interview the pro's mechanic, the bike setup, etc
The problem is once and awhile the top guys are out of the top 20 and you could potentially miss their run (ie: Fabien at maribor as mentioned).
Top 20 go together no matter what, but, if like barel you had an injury prior, you may be out of the top 20 and the winning run would be missed altogether.
Top 20 go together no matter what, but, if like barel you had an injury prior, you may be out of the top 20 and the winning run would be missed altogether.