6 Thoughts on Millrose Being on Youtube

Robert pointed out Millrose was on live tv ESPN2 last year.

Some years it has been on live ESPN2 with a one hour highlight show on NBC the next weekend.

The recent 168st Youtube broadcast had technical problems.

Let's hope they have it together this time.

I still think that live stream every trial heat for the serious T&F junbkies and put to gether an edited recap show- serious editing putting as much relevent action in as the can. The current live to tape and then show it delayed misses a the chance to artfully craft the story of the meet- The producers/directors/editors should be framing the edit like a writer would recap the meet---"These are all the important images from the meet".

I'm a card carring Neo-Luddite but bright enough to understand the way todays fanbase receives it's information in a different way than I did in the 1960's...lets make sure the info they receive tells an entertaing story with the one to one drama underscored.

and please if you continue to miss call the leader, say stupid things or miscall splits or pace---- edit that sh!t!

I disagree. I think moving to a live broadcast online is a good thing. What we need to be trying to achieve is to get live broadcast on hulu or netflix. That's where most viewers are headed/heading. Watching TV as we knew is a passive activity and I think we can add more value to viewership if we move to live web broadcasting. For instance, NFL on nbcsports.com has 4-5 different camera angles you can view at anytime during the game (or even commercial breaks).

With all due respect - Wejo still uses a pre-paid cell phone plan and has left the messageboard design like this. It still screams 1999. Neither of the brothers are the authority on what is best (tv or online webcasting).

what's wrong with prepaid cell service? It can save a fortune.

Anyway - does this mean it will be replayable later? anyone know?

Great News:

Youtube is pretty much the only video service that can scale. Ever tried watching a Marathon live stream on the homepage of that Marathon --> 404.

This does not need to be promoted, all it needs is a "share on facebook" button. Any runner probably has another 20-30 running friends on facebook so this will be known by everyone pretty quickly. Add links on letsrun, runnersworld and runningtimes and done.

Youtube is also available on pretty much every platform. Apple/MSFT/Linux, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Android. Done.

wejo wrote:

5 years from now an event on Youtube could have the reach of a cable channel.

Uh...

Highest rated cable channel - July of 2011: TBS with just over 102 Million.

*Nielsen

YouTube: 133 Million UNIQUE MONTHLY VISITORS

*Compete

Oh wait, did you write that post back in 1999 when you last updated the website?

Truth Sayer wrote:

I disagree. I think moving to a live broadcast online is a good thing. What we need to be trying to achieve is to get live broadcast on hulu or netflix. That's where most viewers are headed/heading.

Yes I understand that more and more things are headed to the internet. However, understand ANY sport in the world can be online live.

Last year this meets was on ESPN2 Live. Now it is on just the internet live. That is a much smaller audience (unless youtube gives Millrose hundreds of thousands of dollars of free promotion)

That is the apple to apple comparison.

I think it is great the meet will be on youtube after the fact. All meets should do that. Youtube is a huge, huge distribution channel that works great for archival purposes. Why every met doesn't have its stuff on there baffles me.

I had someone write me and say, "The one thing that struck me was the downplaying of 'worldwide' as it relates to a live broadcast. A potential worldwide web audience is so much larger than just an American cable one, which makes reference to it in comparison valid."

A few points."World-wide" applies to every event streamed on the internet. So everything on Universalsports.com, livestream.com, nameyoursite.com has a world-wide audience. Have you heard all those meets that have been streamed online only bragging about their audiences?

The one thing youtube will be better at anyone else monetizing a world wide audience. So if 20 people in Kenya are watching, normally the meet may not make any money but Google/Youtube has worldwide advertising and you can at least make something. Right now these numbers (audience and $) aren't there.

This incremental global distrubtion will be worth something eventualy. Now it is not. I think for sure every meet that is on live tv will eventually be streamed online live at least outside of the territories its on tv. Why not? That will probably be the case in a couple of years.

So if you're live on ESPN2 in the US, why not also stream worldwide on ESPN3 or youtube. You're reaching people you wouldn't otherwise reach.

Having said that Millrose is at 7pm at night. That is 1 am in Europe.

Name me all the international athletes competing in this meet? Andy Baddeley in the mile is one I can think of. The New York Road runners didn't even stream their 5th avenue mile this year and it had more name international competitors than Millrose. Now maybe next year they will think of using youtube.

Even if this was a Diamond League meet (many of which are streamed worlwide) with a stud international field, tv in each country is a bigger audience. Its why the IAAF tries to get TV deals everywhere.

Yes more and more will be on the internet in 5 years. I expect all meets to be streamed worldwide. Then realize however, every other sport you don't watch now, will also be streamed worlwide.

The problem is still reaching the biggest audience possible. Going with youtube was making lemonade out of a lemon. Youtube has marketing potential. And if other sports don't realize it and track is the biggest sport that will partner with youtube then great as we will get free promotion, but youtube has signed rights deals paying other action sports I believe millions. This deal doesn't seem to indicate that happening.

The question is how much marketing does google put behind it?

Big thumbs up to Millrose for picking youtube (the online giant where there is marketing ptoential) and big thumbs up for them realizing the archival reach of youtube after the fact.

For live events TV still rules. In a few years youtube will be another cable channel for many people. The challenge then will still be getting promoted.

Claude is the man.. have worked with him over the years and he will turn this youTube sports thing into something cool. Trust me on this one. The reason it is not on major network is that it would have not been done live and delayed by a considerable amount of time. So I am totally into this youTube thing. Honestly who cares about regular tv at this point? I just want to see the action.. now I can watch at home and on my phone.

On a side note with TV vs. Web debate. We definitely CAN benefit from a cable TV show dedicated to track and field news/talk. It could be weekly.

Some shows that come to mind for other sports:

Baseball Tonight

College Gameday

Sunday NFL Countdown

etc...

What these shows above do is engage users to have conversations with their buddies about the details of the sport. Who is getting the biggest contract? Why is so-and-so getting traded? etc... That's something most casual track fans don't do outside of the "hardcore" fans here on letsrun. They watch it on TV and might be entertained but probably don't talk about the track meet at the water cooler at work. They might talk about their favorite player sucking at fantasy football instead.

That's my 2Cents. Less focus on getting meets to be shown on ESPN2 and more on getting related SHOWS to be shown on ESPN2.

Media Darling wrote:

wejo wrote:

5 years from now an event on Youtube could have the reach of a cable channel.

Uh...

Highest rated cable channel - July of 2011: TBS with just over 102 Million.

*Nielsen

YouTube: 133 Million UNIQUE MONTHLY VISITORS

*Compete

Oh wait, did you write that post back in 1999 when you last updated the website?

He was referring to a specific sporting event, like a marathon or track meet. He was not referring to overall Youtube visitors which would cover a HUGE variety of videos and subjects like music videos etc...

Anyway, why would you compare just a single cable channel to all of Youtube? That's dishonest.

JX wrote:

Claude is the man.. have worked with him over the years and he will turn this youTube sports thing into something cool. Trust me on this one. The reason it is not on major network is that it would have not been done live and delayed by a considerable amount of time. So I am totally into this youTube thing. Honestly who cares about regular tv at this point? I just want to see the action.. now I can watch at home and on my phone.

Claude deserves a ton of credit for coming up with Universal Sports. He had a vision to bring these events not big enough for tv to the hard-core fans who want to watch them. Actually that last sentence describes perfectly what live on the internet is. Claude saw the trend way before most people did. And youtube will be huge on people's tvs very soon. Claude going there seems like a very good fit as they are thinking a few years ahead. Curious to see what happens to Universal Sports with the NBC Sports Cable network now in the fold.

As for your comment about not caring about regular tv, the live stream is great for everyone who comes to letsrun.com. Actually I should the hard-core part of our audience. They'll eat up Lagat in the 5k and Centro and the collegiate record falling in the mile (I'll be shocked if it doesn't happen). But we are preaching to the choir. On letsbadminton.org I'm sure they hard-core people are like "who needs tv?"

Just remember NBC didn't bother to stream the Olympic Marathon Trials.

In today's age of fragmentation if we're all watching our minor sports on the internet it doesn't make our sport bigger. Our sport gets bigger if we bring in new fans. TV keeps our sport relevant. Youtube can help do that if Google feels it needs to drop some cash on free advertising to get a foothold as a real network (which is the direction they are going). Ultimately one needs distribution to get fans but distribution doesn't matter if you don't put out an interesting product. Even if you accept the false premise that distribution is free on the internet, you still need to put on entertaining product to get people to watch. We do that and people are interested in it, then our sport will get before more and more people.

This YouTube thing is the greatest thing to happen to Athletics/track and field since the Mondo Track. Years from now we will laugh at the debate we are having now. My 8 year old son hates regular tv and only want's to watch the laptop tv.

Anyway watch my athletics weekly roundup...I used to produce something similar for regular tv but internet is a better platform for all of this stuf..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGpddV3kr_I

This was last weeks show...and I have a show for every week of the year 2012. I am working on the current weeks show and it will contain Avia meet in Glasgow, Dubai marathon,Osaka ladies marathon, USA Open, The jump off in Belgium and the Czech Republic. Stay tuned.

JX wrote:

This YouTube thing is the greatest thing to happen to Athletics/track and field since the Mondo Track.

Your sentiments apply to every minor sport in thew world:

This YouTube thing is the greatest thing to happen to ______(any sport not on tv) since ______.

The internet is just a platform. The TV/computer, internet/network difference is fading. Yes everything will be on the internet/on your tv(they'll be the same) soon.

We still have to compete with other sports.

Saying the "internet will solve our problems" is what every sport in the world can say.

Now if track really does still get pretty good ratings on tv and the networks ignore it because its harder to monetize without a league behind it, then we will have a slight advantage going to the internet than other sport. But if we put out a boring product it doesn't matter.

I guess this whole distribution debate is secondary. Put something out there people want to watch and it will get before a large audience.

Web only is the future. T&F can do a lot for itself by getting its foot in the door of this emerging media. In ten years, cable/satellite TV will be to web video content what the 8 track is to MP3s. Web TV providers are already coming up with original content (Arrested Development will be a web only series for Netflix). Eventually, web tv providers will be able to deliver better content without commercials on demand for cheaper than cable/satellite. Sure, it would be better for Millrose to be prime time on NBC. But getting into web only broadcasting is going to be good for T&F in the long run.

As it is, tape-delayed, over-long, and ill-informed television coverage benefits no one. This is obviously a positive step.

Worrying about whether Millrose is on Youtube or TV is worrying about a symptom, not a cause.

If track is something that there is a real demand for it will end up on the medium that gets the most eyeballs for advertisers, whether that's streaming or broadcast TV or cable. If track is getting pushed off of a bigger stage (broadcast TV) onto a smaller stage (streaming Internet), it's because the demand isn't there.

Track needs to figure out a way to improve the product and create demand and the media question will take care of itself.

LSMFT wrote:

Worrying about whether Millrose is on Youtube or TV is worrying about a symptom, not a cause.

If track is something that there is a real demand for it will end up on the medium that gets the most eyeballs for advertisers, whether that's streaming or broadcast TV or cable. If track is getting pushed off of a bigger stage (broadcast TV) onto a smaller stage (streaming Internet), it's because the demand isn't there.

Track needs to figure out a way to improve the product and create demand and the media question will take care of itself.

You said it best. If track was super popular there would be no debate about this as it would be on tv. If people can make money off of it they will put it before the biggest audience they can.

And for the poster who said this about taped tv vs live internet, I disagree. Millrose was on live tv (ESPN2 I think each time) the last 5 years, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. So Millrose by pulling out of the Garden at least in year 1 has reduced its visibility. Hopefully youtube throws them a lot of free love.

wejo wrote:

And for the poster who said this about taped tv vs live internet, I disagree. Millrose was on live tv (ESPN2 I think each time) the last 5 years, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011. So Millrose by pulling out of the Garden at least in year 1 has reduced its visibility. Hopefully youtube throws them a lot of free love.

What did all of that national TV visibility do for the Millrose games or for the sport, exactly?

113 wrote:

What did all of that national TV visibility do for the Millrose games or for the sport, exactly?

It got it exposure. More exposure for athletes in theory means more money from sponsors, etc.

But your point is a good one. We put out a boring product and we won't be on tv anywhere.

TV and exposure brings more money into the sport. Name me one sport that isn't on live tv that you have respect for.