Speedway On Social Media

[stevehone 3,429]

with no TV deal currently in place for 2018, does this mean that GoSpeed will have to relinquish the rights to all media at speedway tracks?

will this mean people will be able to do more filming of their own to put on social media etc, where it currently has the GoSpeed restrictions?

 

we need more speedway in the public domain

[MattK 3,447]

What's to stop people sharing content today? The SGB web site regularly posts videos, full meetings are available on YouTube and yet I never see speedway outside of the community's echo chamber on Twitter and Facebook.

[waytogo28 2,054]

with no TV deal currently in place for 2018, does this mean that GoSpeed will have to relinquish the rights to all media at speedway tracks?

will this mean people will be able to do more filming of their own to put on social media etc, where it currently has the GoSpeed restrictions?

 

we need more speedway in the public domain

 

I and many more are up for Pay Per View, why is it so difficult to set this up in the UK? I do not expect fun broadcast quality, so what's the problem?

[MattK 3,447]

PPV is a good option if no TV deal is forthcoming. Technically it is quite straight-forwards, but like any new business you have to get the product and price right.

How many people (and how much) would pay to see a meeting filmed from a single camera angle, similar to what Bet365 offered a few seasons back?

Similarly, if you had a BT Sport style presentation, would the additional viewers justify the significant increase in production costs?

[Odds On 373]

PPV would be the death of certain tracks, lets use Wolverhampton as an example, less people through the gate means less secondary spend for the landlords of the track, so the next time Wolverhampton speedway sit down to do a yearly deal, the Landlords will then have to up the rent to cover the loss of bar/food takings etc etc..

PPV is usually half the price of gate entrance fees, so all of a sudden a family can stay at home making a huge saving, the promoter looses out, the landlord losses out, so who wins?

Edited September 21, 2017 by Odds On

[Grand Central 2,654]

 

PPV is a good option if no TV deal is forthcoming. Technically it is quite straight-forwards, but like any new business you have to get the product and price right.

How many people (and how much) would pay to see a meeting filmed from a single camera angle, similar to what Bet365 offered a few seasons back?

Similarly, if you had a BT Sport style presentation, would the additional viewers justify the significant increase in production costs?

 

 

I really liked the bet365 coverage even though it was so basic.

Something like £4.99 would have been the maximum to be paid for that sort of format, I would think, for me.

And for the right meetings.

 

Add in a bit more to the production that improved the quality even a fair bit and I don't think I would be ineterested in paying any more.

Just getting to see the action from an away fixture that I was never going to travel to would be it's USP.

[waytogo28 2,054]

 

I really liked the bet365 coverage even though it was so basic.

Something like £4.99 would have been the maximum to be paid for that sort of format, I would think, for me.

And for the right meetings.

 

Add in a bit more to the production that improved the quality even a fair bit and I don't think I would be ineterested in paying any more.

Just getting to see the action from an away fixture that I was never going to travel to would be it's USP.

 

Agree, but would be prepared to pay more for a better quality product. Up to a maximum of a tenner for something like the quality of the Swedish coverage on Premier Sports. I never saw the Bet365 coverage so I have no idea of what sort of quality it was or how basic.

PPV would be the death of certain tracks, lets use Wolverhampton as an example, less people through the gate means less secondary spend for the landlords of the track, so the next time Wolverhampton speedway sit down to do a yearly deal, the Landlords will then have to up the rent to cover the loss of bar/food takings etc etc..

PPV is usually half the price of gate entrance fees, so all of a sudden a family can stay at home making a huge saving, the promoter looses out, the landlord losses out, so who wins?

 

I can't argue with that thinking but if we continue as we are there will not be enough fans passing through the gate to make speedway viable anyway ( at a goodly number of tracks ). The sound of the 2018 tinkering and "big names" back ( covered by sponsors ) such like a backward step especially if the price was upped again. If that is the BSPA final throw of the dice then they have not beeb listening to fans, who prefer other changes.

[nw42 2,048]

 

Agree, but would be prepared to pay more for a better quality product. Up to a maximum of a tenner for something like the quality of the Swedish coverage on Premier Sports. I never saw the Bet365 coverage so I have no idea of what sort of quality it was or how basic.

 

I can't argue with that thinking but if we continue as we are there will not be enough fans passing through the gate to make speedway viable anyway ( at a goodly number of tracks ). The sound of the 2018 tinkering and "big names" back ( covered by sponsors ) such like a backward step especially if the price was upped again. If that is the BSPA final throw of the dice then they have not beeb listening to fans, who prefer other changes.

I agree with Grand Central, a fiver would be about right for the standard that B365 provided, as said it was just one camera, there was no commentary and you were lucky if you got to hear the track announcer giving out the riders names etc, didn't really matter though as it was free as long as you had money in your account.

Memory fades but I'm fairly sure you could watch the whole meeting without even betting on it as long as your account held funds, whereas with horse or dog racing you have to bet on the actual race to view it.

 

Have to assume they dropped it because too few of us laid bets, many preferring to just watch the free stream, can't blame them really I suppose.

 

I'd be happy to pay a tenner to view the Semi final from the NSS next week, still can't see why someone isn't able to at least explore this option, plenty of football clubs do beam-backs these days, can't be that expensive. Wasn't Darcy Ward's return to Poole streamed live (or was it recorded?), if so I'm sure that didn't cost a lot.

[Gemini 4,894]

 

 

..............nw42..................Memory fades but I'm fairly sure you could watch the whole meeting without even betting on it as long as your account held funds, whereas with horse or dog racing you have to bet on the actual race to view it.

 

Yes, that's how it worked. I've never had a bet in my life but opened an account with £5 so I could watch Coventry's away matches. Small screen, one camera and no sound, although at some tracks it was possible to hear the announcer. When they stopped showing Speedway I was able to withdraw the £5 so it was great value.

[The White Knight 9,039]

 

Yes, that's how it worked. I've never had a bet in my life but opened an account with £5 so I could watch Coventry's away matches. Small screen, one camera and no sound, although at some tracks it was possible to hear the announcer. When they stopped showing Speedway I was able to withdraw the £5 so it was great value.

Winner, winner - Chicken Dinner. :approve:

[Gemini 4,894]

I'm veggie. Winner, winner chips for dinner.

[George Dodds 310]

 

I really liked the bet365 coverage even though it was so basic.

Something like £4.99 would have been the maximum to be paid for that sort of format, I would think, for me.

And for the right meetings.

 

Add in a bit more to the production that improved the quality even a fair bit and I don't think I would be ineterested in paying any more.

Just getting to see the action from an away fixture that I was never going to travel to would be it's USP.

So after VAT, IP rental, fee collection fees, security (to stop the usual BSF thieves stealing the feed) each club would receive at best a pound per viewer - hardly a windfall, especially if just one person decides to watch from home rather than attend.

To be honest if tracks offered admission for £4.99 they might make more money

[Grand Central 2,654]

So after VAT, IP rental, fee collection fees, security (to stop the usual BSF thieves stealing the feed) each club would receive at best a pound per viewer - hardly a windfall, especially if just one person decides to watch from home rather than attend.

To be honest if tracks offered admission for £4.99 they might make more money

 

You are right.

It may very well not be viable at the price I, and many others, would be prepared to pay.

 

Unlike you, I never mentioned or intimated any form of 'windfall' for anyone.

But charging more for the service would not make it more viable either.

 

When the bet365 feed was working I used it a fair bit.

And took up the betting option as well.

If that had been better handled than 'giving away' the pictures it may have had more chance of producing revenue.

 

But hey, what do I know.

I was only giving my view on the service that I found entertaining.

It may just be a non starter in any form for all the reasons you state.

 

Another dead end for the sport.

Edited September 23, 2017 by Grand Central

[MattK 3,447]

So after VAT, IP rental, fee collection fees, security (to stop the usual BSF thieves stealing the feed) each club would receive at best a pound per viewer - hardly a windfall, especially if just one person decides to watch from home rather than attend.

To be honest if tracks offered admission for £4.99 they might make more money

 

Where are you getting your figures from? I've seen streaming services which would easily meet speedway's needs for as little as £99 per month. In turn, the only other cost is that of actually filming for meetings.

 

The aim of PPV is to generate revenue from people who cannot attend the meetings. As others have said, you run the risk of people choosing to stay at home, but this has to be weighed against what can be received from having a much wider audience.

[George Dodds 310]

 

Where are you getting your figures from? I've seen streaming services which would easily meet speedway's needs for as little as £99 per month. In turn, the only other cost is that of actually filming for meetings.

 

The aim of PPV is to generate revenue from people who cannot attend the meetings. As others have said, you run the risk of people choosing to stay at home, but this has to be weighed against what can be received from having a much wider audience.

Agree but the benefit is for those who cannot or do not want to pay admission at tracks. "Only £99" per month is still £99 per month which has to be recovered before the costs of hiring a streaming service is covered. Other costs are simple business and tax cost which many on here seem to ignore when they talk about hown cheap it is to do something.

If it was going to be done then it should be sport-wide with a minimum £100 per year access fee. Then there is the possibility of it making money for the clubs and only then is it a worthwhile exercise.

Sharing content via Netflix, Facebook and the like is a more likely avenue to follow - how you monetize that is beyond my brainpower I'm afraid.