Quantcast

With Harts win

aaronjb

Turbo Monkey
Jul 22, 2010
1,105
659
Marlboros, mumbling and knee-high socks are IN.

Also, riding like you'll hit the deck at any moment.
 

- seb

Turbo Monkey
Apr 10, 2002
2,924
1
UK
Do we know what sort of geo danny rides? I assume he's on a custom slacked-out bike, especially for that track?
 

Mo(n)arch

Turbo Monkey
Dec 27, 2010
4,441
1,422
Italy/south Tyrol
Do we know what sort of geo danny rides? I assume he's on a custom slacked-out bike, especially for that track?
Yes there was a feature on pinkbike about Neethlings proto. They ARE slacker than the stock frames. Before that they were on CaneCreek anglesets.
 

stoney

Part of the unwashed, middle-American horde
Jul 26, 2006
21,520
7,069
Colorado
Have you guys seen the spread of the race video? It's hitting the blogosphere with speed and drive behind it. That boys career just went vertical, let alone the revenue to freecaster from all of the advertising dollars.
 

davetrump

Turbo Monkey
Jul 29, 2003
1,270
0
Have you guys seen the spread of the race video? It's hitting the blogosphere with speed and drive behind it. That boys career just went vertical, let alone the revenue to freecaster from all of the advertising dollars.

that last part is funny.... how is someone videotaping their computer screen to capture a payperview video helping freecaster? the vid is essentially stolen and reposted to youtube. None of those hits are going to freecaster from what is a pirate video.

I love the exposure this gives the sport, but completely disagree with stealing content like this.

"Raymond Dulieu (founder of freecaster):

How one person can hurt many!!!

"Erwin Ruiz decided that posting Danny Hart's clip on YouTube was a smart move as we still have it as pay per view (at 4,99€ for the replay). As a result many people will not buy the access on Freecaster and our revenues will be impacted. But it gets worst with all MTB sites then embedding the YouTube clips and in effect amplifying the movement. Therefore dear YouTube fans, in the months to come, you more than anyone will know why Freecaster is not longer around."
 

atrokz

Turbo Monkey
Mar 14, 2002
1,552
77
teedotohdot
^ And if were FREE he'd have that many people visiting his site instead. It's everywhere. Even my friends who know nothing about the sport are posting it up on their FB pages. Freecaster dropped the ball on this one, imo. Could have had so many hits on their site in a matter of days.
 

bdamschen

Turbo Monkey
Nov 28, 2005
3,377
156
Spreckels, CA
that last part is funny.... how is someone videotaping their computer screen to capture a payperview video helping freecaster? the vid is essentially stolen and reposted to youtube. None of those hits are going to freecaster from what is a pirate video.
maybe if freecaster had allowed a free replay of Hart's run they wouldn't have this issue.


I can understand charging for the live broadcast of the event. Shoot- I can understand charging for the replay of the entire event (I paid for it and loved it). But why not let the average joe watch a link to Hart's run off your site and rack up the number of hits to show to your advertisers?? By limiting who can watch, they have created a need for pirate video.

The people who were going to pay have already paid for the full run.
 

davetrump

Turbo Monkey
Jul 29, 2003
1,270
0
maybe if freecaster had allowed a free replay of Hart's run they wouldn't have this issue.


I can understand charging for the live broadcast of the event. Shoot- I can understand charging for the replay of the entire event (I paid for it and loved it). But why not let the average joe watch a link to Hart's run off your site and rack up the number of hits to show to your advertisers?? By limiting who can watch, they have created a need for pirate video.

The people who were going to pay have already paid for the full run.
so since they didnt, you think it is ok for someone to steal it and post pirated footage on youtube?

:thumb:
 

atrokz

Turbo Monkey
Mar 14, 2002
1,552
77
teedotohdot
so since they didnt, you think it is ok for someone to steal it and post pirated footage on youtube?

:thumb:
Him, or I, never said anything that could be construed as such. Saying one thing (Would have been smart for freecaster to release that footage themselves, thus gaining a substaintial increase in views/site hits) doesn't mean we're saying the other (I promote stealing!!). :rolleyes:
 

bdamschen

Turbo Monkey
Nov 28, 2005
3,377
156
Spreckels, CA
so since they didnt, you think it is ok for someone to steal it and post pirated footage on youtube?

:thumb:
Never said it was ok, only that it was inevitable. They missed a great opportunity and and I hope they are learning from their mistake. I would like to see them around next year doing what they do.

However, just because they are a small company that's doing something awesome for a relatively small community doesn't mean people who pirate content are going to give them a break. That's just part of being a content provider on the internet. There are ways to survive in such an environment and they're going to have to learn what those are pretty fast.
 

Nagaredama

Turbo Monkey
Nov 15, 2004
1,596
2
Manhattan Beach, CA USA
maybe if freecaster had allowed a free replay of Hart's run they wouldn't have this issue.


I can understand charging for the live broadcast of the event. Shoot- I can understand charging for the replay of the entire event (I paid for it and loved it). But why not let the average joe watch a link to Hart's run off your site and rack up the number of hits to show to your advertisers?? By limiting who can watch, they have created a need for pirate video.

The people who were going to pay have already paid for the full run.
Hindsight is 20/20.

Judging from past replays nothing would have led them to believe this race would get anymore mass media attention than the last several races. Freecaster like any other business needs to cover their cost and make money. Thus they charge for the broadcast.

After the media fervor dies down Freecaster's site views will more than likely return to normal. Having a one tome big spike in UV's won't do much to convince companies to sign up and advertise with them.
 

jackalope

Mental acuity - 1%
Jan 9, 2004
7,596
5,894
in a single wide, cooking meth...
^^

Incorrect I'm afraid. After a recent, secret REDT (Ridemonkey E-spec Design Team) meeting, it was determined that we need to reverse course post haste. Thus, DH bikes will have 66* HA and 15" BB's, AM bikes will have 72* HAs, and 16" BBs, DH bars will be 680 mm or shorter, and you will need to start wearing your camelback during race runs. Apologies in advance...
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
^ And if were FREE he'd have that many people visiting his site instead. It's everywhere. Even my friends who know nothing about the sport are posting it up on their FB pages. Freecaster dropped the ball on this one, imo. Could have had so many hits on their site in a matter of days.
How did they drop the ball by trying to cover their own expenses? :thumb: Jesus, some people really do have some massive self-entitlement issues.
 

Bikael Molton

goofy for life
Jun 9, 2003
4,010
1,146
El Lay
It's 2012 guys. Hoping that quality content on the web won't be copied, downloaded, stolen, reposted and repurposed is just head-in-the-sand silly. Entire media industries are going out of business for these reasons.
 

CBJ

year old fart
Mar 19, 2002
12,862
4,160
Copenhagen, Denmark
What happened is still the reality of the Internet and if you act quick you can often turn it around. I have no idea if they were even allowed to post anything for free but I wish they would have used the buzz to come up with a video that people could have watched for free one the site that could have spread in stead of the Youtube pirate version.
 

atrokz

Turbo Monkey
Mar 14, 2002
1,552
77
teedotohdot
How did they drop the ball by trying to cover their own expenses? :thumb: Jesus, some people really do have some massive self-entitlement issues.
Just releasing the Winning run as it's already over the web, Mr 'CNC' Fraser ;) . The two posts above mine reiterate this point. They dropped the ball by not doing anything to gain momentum with free footage for people to visit their site. Even PB has the run for VOD. Ball: dropped.

I paid to watch. Pretty sure that means I 'helped' cover their expenses.
 
Last edited:

Bikael Molton

goofy for life
Jun 9, 2003
4,010
1,146
El Lay
Agree - Freecaster should put up their own version of the run on Youtube with text links to their site. Capitalize on it.

The video going viral could be the biggest thing ever in DH marketing. Look at what Youtube vids have done for McAskill.
 

gemini2k

Turbo Monkey
Jul 31, 2005
3,526
117
San Francisco
How did they drop the ball by trying to cover their own expenses? :thumb: Jesus, some people really do have some massive self-entitlement issues.
It's called self-promotion.

They should've realized that it getting posted on youtube was inevitable. Right or wrong, it is reality. People aren't gonna pay $20 to watch some 3 minute clip of a guy they've never heard of from a sport they've never heard of. They had a chance to bring some mass market appeal to their operation for the price of a $0 cash outlay (yes I realize putting the whole video/footage/operation isn't free), but, they decided not to and lost out.

I don't know how many of you watch football, but when the Patriots went 16-0, the last game was originally slated to be a Thursday night game shown only on NFL network, which few people have. So you know what the league did? "Hey we have a great event here and a chance to boost our long term health by letting EVERYONE watch this game. So instead of only letting the people who only have NFL network watch it, we'll change our strategy for this ONE game and put it on the major networks". Freecaster stepped over the dollars to pick up the pennies, bottom line.

P.S. I love freecaster and everything they're doing and will continue to support them.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
It's called self-promotion.

They should've realized that it getting posted on youtube was inevitable. Right or wrong, it is reality. People aren't gonna pay $20 to watch some 3 minute clip of a guy they've never heard of from a sport they've never heard of. They had a chance to bring some mass market appeal to their operation for the price of a $0 cash outlay (yes I realize putting the whole video/footage/operation isn't free), but, they decided not to and lost out.

I don't know how many of you watch football, but when the Patriots went 16-0, the last game was originally slated to be a Thursday night game shown only on NFL network, which few people have. So you know what the league did? "Hey we have a great event here and a chance to boost our long term health by letting EVERYONE watch this game. So instead of only letting the people who only have NFL network watch it, we'll change our strategy for this ONE game and put it on the major networks". Freecaster stepped over the dollars to pick up the pennies, bottom line.

P.S. I love freecaster and everything they're doing and will continue to support them.
So they should go bankrupt on the off chance that some retard will infringe copyright and put something on youtube?

Your business model sucks as much as theirs.
 

gemini2k

Turbo Monkey
Jul 31, 2005
3,526
117
San Francisco
So they should go bankrupt
They're going to bankrupt if all the people who watched it on youtube don't pay for it?

on the off chance that some retard will infringe copyright and put something on youtube?
Ya dood, people TOTALLY don't infringe on copyrights these days. This was completely out of left field. I never could've imagine someone would put something up on youtube they didn't have the rights for.

I'm not trying to argue right/wrong. Just pragmatic v. non-pragmatic
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
They're going to bankrupt if all the people who watched it on youtube don't pay for it?



Ya dood, people TOTALLY don't infringe on copyrights these days. This was completely out of left field. I never could've imagine someone would put something up on youtube they didn't have the rights for.

I'm not trying to argue right/wrong. Just pragmatic v. non-pragmatic
The fact is, the people watching it on youtube probably would never have paid for it anyways. So at the end of the day, freecaster still makes money from the people who ARE willing to pay. Make it free, and they go bankrupt. In this case, some is better than none.
 

S.G.D

Monkey
Jun 14, 2002
505
0
Vancouver
there is no way 4$ replays are going to keep them in business anyway.

sometimes you need to give a little to expand your user base.
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
The fact is, the people watching it on youtube probably would never have paid for it anyways. So at the end of the day, freecaster still makes money from the people who ARE willing to pay. Make it free, and they go bankrupt. In this case, some is better than none.
Popular videos on youtube get revenue sharing even for regular users. Free for the user doesn't mean no profit source.

http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/25/youtube-extends-revenue-sharing-program-to-anyone-with-a-viral-video/
 

syadasti

i heart mac
Apr 15, 2002
12,690
290
VT
their "partner program" would have been great if they had uploaded Hart's video.
Yup. If they had a youtube channel as a content provider they would have made more money with run clips than charging for the event as the only choice and losing out on the viral hart run. Myopic and greedy. You'd think the music industry's entry in to the digital age would make things clear for everyone else.
 

S.G.D

Monkey
Jun 14, 2002
505
0
Vancouver
Personally, I see offering free embedded videos for significant events like that to be a funnel to bring people into the Freecaster ecosystem.

If Freecaster was allowing people to embed THEIR video player while it goes viral they can use that as leverage to draw in potentially interested people (future customers) by allowing them access to other significant videos -- think of how much sick footage Freecaster has recorded in 4 years -- and upsell these people on the pay per view or whatever their goal is.

Suggested, Highlighted and Related videos are all options you see at the end of the youtube clips specifically placed there to keep you in their ecosystem even if it only occupies 320px on your screen. Further from there, if you want more in depth options (HD would be a nice up sell) you're required to view it on site, where their ads are present.

I think this in conjunction with branded accounts on all major video suppliers (youtube etc) could do them a lot better than having it out in the wild. Why would anyone watch some ****ty video camera recording in 230p when freecaster is offering the real deal for FREE in a good quality while suggesting other content to keep interested engaged users on their channel.

There is obviously a market and a desire for non-industry people to see these videos -- look at how many views that Valaparaiso video got in one day -- Freecaster just need to figure out how to capitalize on it. Killing desire with limited availability and then crying about when their video BLOWS UP is the wrong way to go about it personally.

They have so much potential and I love what they do and I couldn't image the World Cup without them so hopefully they figure it out.
 
Last edited: