Obviously sound running attracted a great deal of talent and provided great opportunity for those athletes. From a fans perspective the main appeal of these races was the ppv aspect. How is chat feelin about buying a flo sub to watch these races?
Obviously sound running attracted a great deal of talent and provided great opportunity for those athletes. From a fans perspective the main appeal of these races was the ppv aspect. How is chat feelin about buying a flo sub to watch these races?
runner2121 wrote:
Obviously sound running attracted a great deal of talent and provided great opportunity for those athletes. From a fans perspective the main appeal of these races was the ppv aspect. How is chat feelin about buying a flo sub to watch these races?
75% hate it, 25% think flotrack is great and wants to be abused by them for some reason. A few threads have been posted. Looks like it may have been a good race, but I don’t care. I’ll only see American distance runners in the Olympics and then barely so I’ll cheer for people I can watch and/or who actually race.
I don't think we can call it "selling out." Sound Running cares about this meet being World Athletics labeled at a high level (silver), which matters to the athletes, and to do so they need a substantial guaranteed amount of prize money.
Under the old self-stream, pay-per-view model, a portion of each pay-per-view order went to the prize purse (and fans could also choose to additionally crowdfund a larger purse). Under the new World Athletics labeling model, $5,000 of prize money per (silver label) event (this obviously doesn't apply to the high school races, and I don't think it applies to the "B" races) and $75,000 of prize money total for the meet must be guaranteed; otherwise, the meet won't get its label.
I don't think Sound Running (a small operation) could put up that large a guaranteed prize purse without the upfront streaming rights fee paid by FloTrack (I bet FloTrack also took on the production costs of the stream, too). So Sound Running made a decision that would allow them to still deliver a silver-label meet, and also still allow viewers to be able to watch. That seems reasonable--and in line with Sound's "good for the sport" goals--to me.
That being said, yeah, this current change is obviously worse for us (the fans), and that stinks. But I bet this isn't where this lands. Gaming this out a bit:
I'm sure some people paid for a one-month ($30) FloTrack subscription to view this meet, although not as many as at Sound Running's previous, lower price point. But, based on the difference between FloTrack's one-month and annual subscription rates ($150, or just $12.50/month), FloTrack clearly views driving annual subs as its main business goal; however, I bet even fewer of us were spurred to sign up for an annual sub by this event (for the record, I did neither, and checked live results and message board threads last night and this morning, and I am a diehard fan).
So there's a "donut hole" here--how we as fans value this meet doesn't align with FloTrack's two available price points. I see there as being two ways this could get solved (one much more likely than the other):
1 (the less likely option)) FloTrack adopts something like a $15-$17, single-event pay-per-view option to fill this pricing "donut hole" in the future. Not as good as the previous Sound Running deal, but something that a lot more of us would be willing to pay.
2 (the more likely option)) FloTrack making efforts to pick up more programming that makes more of us want to pay the $150 annual sub fee (which will assuredly go up over time), with no individual event being worth that to us but the cumulative package being worth it. I don't love this as much as the pay-per-view option, but if I could get a package that included most of the currently unstreamed or independently-streamed primarily pro-focused indoor meets (stuff at the Armory, Spokane Podium, and JDL Fast Track), outdoor meets (Sound Running's meets, Ed Murphy, Portland Track Fest, Adrian Martinez), and domestic road races (Bloomsday, Bolder Boulder, Falmouth, Beach to Beacon, Grandma's, CIM, Twin Cities, LA), I would pay $150/year. And that drives FloTrack the annual sub revenue that they so clearly desire.
So I bet that (buying rights to the currently unavailable-on-streaming pro competitions and bundling it into an annual subscription) is how FloTrack fills the donut hole, which means expect more meets and races coming to FloTrack soon (whether we like it or not--although this doesn't seem like the worst value-proposition outcome if FloTrack gets the rights to a good set of competitions).
Would be nice if they put all the races up on youtube at this point, still holding boys 1600m and 800m hostage for some reason.
I was disappointed. Would have paid the $10 or whatever like it used to be, plus felt good to support the athletes. Not interested in many other meets TBH so a Flotrack sub doesn't make sense
Peacock - all the Diamond League meets and more, most commercial free.
Paying $30 a month (billed monthly) is absolutely insane. There just isn't enough content to justify a price like that. It would be cool to see them add a pay-per-view system where you can pay $5-15 to watch specific events/meets live. To be fair though, the full races were uploaded to YouTube just a couple hours after to be watched for free.
Not An Expert wrote:
I don't think we can call it "selling out." Sound Running cares about this meet being World Athletics labeled at a high level (silver), which matters to the athletes, and to do so they need a substantial guaranteed amount of prize money.
Under the old self-stream, pay-per-view model, a portion of each pay-per-view order went to the prize purse (and fans could also choose to additionally crowdfund a larger purse). Under the new World Athletics labeling model, $5,000 of prize money per (silver label) event (this obviously doesn't apply to the high school races, and I don't think it applies to the "B" races) and $75,000 of prize money total for the meet must be guaranteed; otherwise, the meet won't get its label.
I don't think Sound Running (a small operation) could put up that large a guaranteed prize purse without the upfront streaming rights fee paid by FloTrack (I bet FloTrack also took on the production costs of the stream, too). So Sound Running made a decision that would allow them to still deliver a silver-label meet, and also still allow viewers to be able to watch. That seems reasonable--and in line with Sound's "good for the sport" goals--to me.
This makes way too much sense. Critical thinking and intelligent takes in a letsrun post? Stop it. This site is for trolls and cavebrains only.
Not An Expert wrote:
I don't think we can call it "selling out." Sound Running cares about this meet being World Athletics labeled at a high level (silver), which matters to the athletes, and to do so they need a substantial guaranteed amount of prize money.
Under the old self-stream, pay-per-view model, a portion of each pay-per-view order went to the prize purse (and fans could also choose to additionally crowdfund a larger purse). Under the new World Athletics labeling model, $5,000 of prize money per (silver label) event (this obviously doesn't apply to the high school races, and I don't think it applies to the "B" races) and $75,000 of prize money total for the meet must be guaranteed; otherwise, the meet won't get its label.
I don't think Sound Running (a small operation) could put up that large a guaranteed prize purse without the upfront streaming rights fee paid by FloTrack (I bet FloTrack also took on the production costs of the stream, too). So Sound Running made a decision that would allow them to still deliver a silver-label meet, and also still allow viewers to be able to watch. That seems reasonable--and in line with Sound's "good for the sport" goals--to me.
Super conflicting because it's good for the athletes to have more pro level meets in the US but having it on FloTrack drives away any casual viewers.
Remarkable insights! This blog has fulfilled my search for understanding.
3 posts were removed from this page.