collage investor wrote:
Good point. To get more advertisers they need more viewers. BUT, is charging $20 per month going to get them more viewers? I don't think so. Making your content free to everyone will get you more viewers. Free may not be optimal but maybe 4.99 a month. Maybe 1.99 per event. The higher the price the less viewers you will get and less reason for advertisers to invest.
Investment 201.
Exactly! pay per view would be a great option IMO.
peanutbutterprincess wrote:
I mixed up who is who here.
I don't think the VALUE I place on it would change.
But actually I believe the quality would rise after thoughtful analysis. I think they view themselves as Denny's quality and if they are relying on other businesses to support the company then it will negatively impact the value they place on themselves and reduces their quality even further.
If they adjusted things and operated at a higher level that is more appropriate to their abilities then yes, the quality would continue to go up. Whether a business is Denny's or CPK, the value is the same though. But not perating where they know they can deflates the value they place on themselves.
Perhaps. But they could have produced a higher-quality, more mature video to urge Weldon to debate for the same cost as the one they chose to post. So maybe what we've seen the last several years is an accurate gauge of what we'll see in the future.
well duh wrote:
Goodonebro wrote:http://www.flotrack.org/video/652703-FloHouse-reaction-to-Leo-Manzano-silver-medal-Most-Memorable-Moment-Best-of-2012Watch as a group of humans turn into a raving band of screaming apes. Disgusting!
Pretty gay, bro
I turned it off when I saw I had to watch a Revlon commercial first.
I love how mark was being all agressive about a debate, but disappeared from this thread entirely early on.
Do a PPV charge, I would do this quite often.
Duh.
Is this whole feud about the rrw article which wasn't written by the brojo's but rather posted by the brojo's? Is it all a ploy?
somestudent wrote:
collage investor wrote:Good point. To get more advertisers they need more viewers. BUT, is charging $20 per month going to get them more viewers? I don't think so. Making your content free to everyone will get you more viewers. Free may not be optimal but maybe 4.99 a month. Maybe 1.99 per event. The higher the price the less viewers you will get and less reason for advertisers to invest.
Investment 201.
Exactly! pay per view would be a great option IMO.
Or have the option to pay yearly like a magazine subscription. However, I think if you gave an option of per view, daily, monthly, or yearly,(with different pricing) you would have even better chance of profiting. And as for free... well, I think you could have a time trial for 30 days or have the subscribers @ least click on an advertisement once a week or buy an item from one of the sponsors from the site w/in a 3 month period. Therefore everyone would win. Including this site...;)
Besides, nothing should be "free" unless you worked for it. Just my humble opinion.
Someone should look up how much top porn websites charge for their "pro" access. It is very comparable to this.
I am amazed that so many of you jump to the defense of letsrun when all they basically do is give you links to other people's work. It's obvious that letsrun.com is terrified of flotrack. Runnerspace and flotrack actually add something positive to the sport. Letsrun is a cesspool. I'm out of here.
This thread is so interesting, because we are having the exact same discussion on the gymnastics boards about the $20 charge for the Metroplex meet. Gymnastike is laid out exactly like flotrack though the owner, Anne, has claimed she doesn't know what flotrack is and that she has no idea why her site looks exactly the same (down to the "Workout Wednesdays, etc.) My point is that clearly this is a new corporate policy being applied to all the blogs in the "family" across the board, in the exact same way - being charged $20 for "pro" content. We were wondering what the NCAA teams thought of this, given that streams have always been free for college meets or part of a minimally priced package where you get every meet in the conference. $20 for one meet, like in this case, is outrageous.
(you can see the layout is the same.)
Runnerspace and Flotrack had their chance but now it's over for them. They have to get real jobs teaching at public schools. The conferences are streaming free TV for us now. Thanks for the memories. Adios, amigos.
gymspy wrote:
This thread is so interesting, because we are having the exact same discussion on the gymnastics boards about the $20 charge for the Metroplex meet. Gymnastike is laid out exactly like flotrack though the owner, Anne, has claimed she doesn't know what flotrack is and that she has no idea why her site looks exactly the same (down to the "Workout Wednesdays, etc.) My point is that clearly this is a new corporate policy being applied to all the blogs in the "family" across the board, in the exact same way - being charged $20 for "pro" content. We were wondering what the NCAA teams thought of this, given that streams have always been free for college meets or part of a minimally priced package where you get every meet in the conference. $20 for one meet, like in this case, is outrageous.
http://www.gymnastike.org(you can see the layout is the same.)
Lying seems to be endemic.
http://www.gymnastike.org/article/14128-Fall-Internships-at-GymnastikeOk, so she admits it now I guess. When the site first started she was asked point blank by someone why her site looked like flotrack and she said she had no idea what flotrack was. I was there for this exchange. She claimed her idea was totally original and she wasn't copying from anywhere. Maybe now she's successful she's willing to be part of the flocast network and get the benefits, but at the beginning I know for a fact that she denied copying the content idea and layout and said it was all her own idea.
What a crock. It's this some clown from flot trying to give us here on LR the impression that flot has some sort of unique propeitary techonology? (Since you've already been shot down by meet directors and athletic federations). In fact hundreds of open source CMS's do what flot does for free and have done so for over 20 years. myspace and facebook does the same as well although not open source.
gymspy wrote:
Ok, so she admits it now I guess. When the site first started she was asked point blank by someone why her site looked like flotrack and she said she had no idea what flotrack was. I was there for this exchange. She claimed her idea was totally original and she wasn't copying from anywhere. Maybe now she's successful she's willing to be part of the flocast network and get the benefits, but at the beginning I know for a fact that she denied copying the content idea and layout and said it was all her own idea.
Can you shut up? She works in the same ROOM as Ryan and Alex, and has for years. She's married to Ryan Ponsonby (Manzano's coach), and has been part of Flocasts for years, if not since the beginning.
Letsrun the internet outhouse!
I will watch anything involving running on the internet but I will not pay 20 bucks to watch a high school meet. The entire plan was a debacle.
Mary Cain's stellar achievement was blacked out even for news VNR unlike the Allan Webb sub 4 indoor mile which I saw live and on CBS news and ESPN. Flo track robbed or more accurately pimped the young girl at such an early stage in her career.
Dr. Sanders at the Armory and some other misguided soul in Boston robbed everyone a chance to see history. How many viewers saw the event on the internet? A shame.
I hope this is not the future of athletics? Boxing followed this route years ago and it's the reason I have no ideal who the current heavyweight Champion is (Klitscho)? I love how any silly ideal to make money is called a business model.
jx10 wrote:
I will watch anything involving running on the internet but I will not pay 20 bucks to watch a high school meet. The entire plan was a debacle.
Mary Cain's stellar achievement was blacked out even for news VNR unlike the Allan Webb sub 4 indoor mile which I saw live and on CBS news and ESPN. Flo track robbed or more accurately pimped the young girl at such an early stage in her career.
Dr. Sanders at the Armory and some other misguided soul in Boston robbed everyone a chance to see history. How many viewers saw the event on the internet? A shame.
I hope this is not the future of athletics? Boxing followed this route years ago and it's the reason I have no ideal who the current heavyweight Champion is (Klitscho)? I love how any silly ideal to make money is called a business model.
Business is business but you are so right about boxing. You watched the big fights on ABC and once it went pay-for view boxing lost its major influence in the collective conscience. Anyone over 45 remembers watching this sport the same as NFL, NBA, and MBL and the big fights were as big as the championships in those sports in the 1970's.
However track has been a niche sport since the dawn of television. If Flo-Track can produce a product (even if its a high school race) and spend the money to produce the coverage, why shouldn't they try to profit. They spend money to travel and video races live and if people are willing to pay to see live feeds and not wait, then what is wrong with that?
I agree they need to drop it down to 9.99 a month. At the most.
They have to pay their bills and make a profit. They do a great job. And if you think charging money to watch track meets would "kill" the sport, 25 years ago you had to wait a month later to read about these races in Track and Field News. Or you would go to the library that weekend and check the newspapers from other cities.
I don't think the sport is any more relevant and growing in the sportsworld since you could watch races from your computer for free all year long. That doesn't pick up new fans, just means saving money to travel to meets.
Wow. I read the thread. Then watched the video. If Mark wants to make a pitch as to the unique content he feels his site offers and why it is valuable, then great. He probably got a lot of clicks on the site today, and I now know more about the pricing model for Flo-track than I did 24 hrs ago. I guess in the manner, he wins. Viral marketing.
That said, it's not effective marketing. Even though I now have greater awareness of his site, I'm no more likely to subscribe than I was 24 hrs ago, and doubt that will change.
I don't see CNBC and Fox having a debate among their execs about their respective business plans.
I suppose faux controversy has done well for many a reality TV show, so I guess I can't blame them for trying, but doesn't look that the strategy will pay off financially for them here.
R U Serious wrote:
Letsrun the internet outhouse!
I stand corrected, I said it was a toilet.
I haven't read this whole thread, but this thing by Flotrack seems very immature and is not helping their reputation. I understand that they need attention and income to survive, but by creating fake controversies, they are not helping themselves.