PPV Must Be A Fine Balance

[Johnnyt]

I haven’t had a business in over 10 years so I'm out of the loop so to speak. What I’m wondering is at what point (price of ppv) are you taking away viewers from your sponsors (1000+ free-as few as 100 ppv) that can’t or won’t pay over a certain amount for a stream? Seems to me it has to be more sponsor driven than ppv or a fine balance of the two. I am NOT talking about TAR ppv. I look at the TAR format like a ppv fight on HBO. Johnnyt

 

[JCIN]

I haven’t had a business in over 10 years so I'm out of the loop so to speak. What I’m wondering is at what point (price of ppv) are you taking away viewers from your sponsors (1000+ free-as few as 100 ppv) that can’t or won’t pay over a certain amount for a stream? Seems to me it has to be more sponsor driven than ppv or a fine balance of the two. I am NOT talking about TAR ppv. I look at the TAR format like a ppv fight on HBO. Johnnyt

I dont know that there is a magic number. It seems to me you have the people who will pay and the people who won't for whatever reason. It is very very hard to break even or make something on a sponsor/ad supported model.

A very good question though. I look forward to seeing what people think.

 

[jrt30004]

johnny, i view it the same way i look at spending my money on a ppv fight card. if the players are ones i really want to see in a big event i'll spend more. in a more direct way, i'll spend more to see a fighter i know is going to put on good fight say g.s.p. for a tiltle fight in canada (his home country) than i will to watch matt hughes (my favorite fighter) against fighter x, y or z in a meaningless fight.
so in pool terms i would spend more to watch chris bartram (my favorite player) in an action match or the us open than i would to watch a regional tournament that had maybe a few top guys in the field.
that was a longwinded way to say i'll spend propertionately more deping on who is playing and in what. but i won't put a cap on the amount. i have paid upwards of $55 to watch a one minute mile tyson destruction of someone back in the day and never complained.

 

[Woof Biscuit]

johnny, i view it the same way i look at spending my money on a ppv fight card. if the players are ones i really want to see in a big event i'll spend more. in a more direct way, i'll spend more to see a fighter i know is going to put on good fight say g.s.p. for a tiltle fight in canada (his home country) than i will to watch matt hughes (my favorite fighter) against fighter x, y or z in a meaningless fight.
so in pool terms i would spend more to watch chris bartram (my favorite player) in an action match or the us open than i would to watch a regional tournament that had maybe a few top guys in the field.
that was a longwinded way to say i'll spend propertionately more deping on who is playing and in what. but i won't put a cap on the amount. i have paid upwards of $55 to watch a one minute mile tyson destruction of someone back in the day and never complained.

That pretty much sums up the way I feel too.:thumbup:

 

[thuglife520]

I remember the good ol days when everyhting was on ABC for free with howard cosell..and you got to watch it on the black and white.

Players and Fighters were better then and we are paying now...what gives!

 

[dr9ball]

I haven’t had a business in over 10 years so I'm out of the loop so to speak. What I’m wondering is at what point (price of ppv) are you taking away viewers from your sponsors (1000+ free-as few as 100 ppv) that can’t or won’t pay over a certain amount for a stream? Seems to me it has to be more sponsor driven than ppv or a fine balance of the two. I am NOT talking about TAR ppv. I look at the TAR format like a ppv fight on HBO. Johnnyt

With enough data, you could develop a yield optimization model to predict the best mix of free and PPV. If you prefer to think of it as a linear regression you would have Total Profit = Ad/Sponsor Revenue (free)+PPV Revenue. That is assuming that cost is the same between the two options. One could also do a conjoint analysis to find an estimate of the most popular price point for PPV, though it would be an opinion rather than actual purchase data.

There's a chance that some free streaming could promote higher PPV numbers. Say the U.S. Open 9 ball was streamed and all the matches were streamed free until the quarter finals then they were PPV. It's possible that people would become emotionally engaged with the free content and excitement of the tournament and be more inclined to pay to watch the last few matches.

Just a thought.

 

[spktur]

I think it all gets down to the show presented. Some regional barbox tournament just isn't going to draw a PPV customer. This is even worse when the bandwidth connection speed at the location won't support a decent stream. But a good well planned and produced show will draw the PPV customers. It works like regular tv, there isn't much on the network channels I would pay extra for.

 

[pooljunkie4ever]

I feel the same as above, more than likely won't spend or haven't bought any regional PPV stops. IF the PPV has a paid list of the players that I can review in advance, and I feel I will get my moneys worth, than I will buy the PPV.

 

[meximan2469]

my 2 cents

I think there are alot of factors that have to be taken account into PPV customers minds. IE : Strength of Field, Quality of Production, Length of Production, Timing in regards to previous events (basically how long has it been since the last one)

I honestly think that the EPBF has the right formula, keep the price low and try to build on volume of sales. They charge $9.99 for 1 whole event or $30 for the yearly package which I believe is 5 events. In contrary you have the seminole event this weekend that is charging $9.95-14.95 per day for a tournament with a good field but is also missing the majority of the top players in the world who are in playing in the Predator event in Manila.

I think the key ingredient here is value......

 

[TorranceChris]

I feel the same as above, more than likely won't spend or haven't bought any regional PPV stops. IF the PPV has a paid list of the players that I can review in advance, and I feel I will get my moneys worth, than I will buy the PPV.

I second this sentiment. I will pay to watch the name players. Also, I have been playing more one pocket so I would be interested in watching high quality one-pocket matches with the top players. I don't know how successful the PPV has been for one-pocket compared to rotation pool though.

 

[Mr Hoppe]

Snip . . . There's a chance that some free streaming could promote higher PPV numbers. Say the U.S. Open 9 ball was streamed and all the matches were streamed free until the quarter finals then they were PPV. It's possible that people would become emotionally engaged with the free content and excitement of the tournament and be more inclined to pay to watch the last few matches.

Just a thought.

I noticed that the UFC is now using this same strategy. They broadcast the undercard matches for free on SPIKE network, but the main card is PPV. They also take that opportunity to insert short "commercials" promoting the main card PPV.

I also agree with your data analysis suggestion. With enough data points, you can build a demand curve to choose optimal pricing for your product.

 

[Celtic]

It's a good question and I would guess it is very subjective and depends on the person, how they value their money, and how much disposable income they have.

For me the $25-$30 range for a Friday-Sunday PPV event (whether it be a tournament or a challenge match) is the level where I feel value and entertainment mesh nicely. Going past $30 starts to get to close to the magic $50 number in subconcious "rounding" my head does. $35 is pushing it, and $40 is close enough to $50 to start to make no difference and "feels" ALOT more expensive and less of a value.

I would guess that past $25 price point ($30+) you start to push the price to a point where you lose more potential customers then the price increase covers to to going past the point of economic equilibrium price.

It is better to get 200 customers paying $25 for a PPV ($5000 total revenue), then getting 100 people to pay $40 ($4000 revenue). Not even taking into account sponsers and the benefits of building a customer base. If $20 would get 300 viewers that is $6000 in revenue. There IS a low price point where you start to get too few added viewers such that the lower price does not get you enough extra viewers and you start to lose money due to the cost cutting not amounting in enough new customers. You have to find out where that price point is. The optimal price for a PPV is the price that maximizes the revenue and it is

There most definately is a magic number, but finding that number requires alot of study of the market. I know for me $25 for a PPV like Shane vs Alex is a buy if I have the time to watch it, I know that $30 is about a 60% chance of me buying it (I will have to have the whole weekend with nothing to do), $35 is a tough sell, it has to be an awesome match and I have to be very bored, and I know that $40+ is likely going to make me pass on that PPV regardless of how unbusy and bored I am.

And that is just me, what PPV streamers have to do is look at their average potential customer base and find out the demand curve for that entire population as related to price (how many people will buy a certain calibre PPV at what price) and then work the quite simple math to find out the price that means the most revenue. There will be a magic number.

 

[Patrick]

If I went to this event live I would spend around $25-$35 on beer and food in a single day. From that perspective, the price seems fine for a four day stream.

The strength of field and that streams quality do play a role in the decision as well.

-Patrick

 

[elvicash]

I wonder how many buyers of this next TAR match will watch alone thus 1 viewer per PPV. Typically when i have bought a TAR match I am the only one watching my feed. How many have 2 or more or are at a pool room or bar watching the stream.

I think that 3 days for 35 bucks is a pretty cheap draw especially for a sports bar with pool tables and league players. UFC fights are commonly bought by sports bars at prices relative to the fire code of the establishment. Some places pay over a thousand buck for that fight. Many viewers of free stream will never buy a PPV but would go to watch one and drink beer if there was a bar or pool room showing this next match. A PPV stream at sports bar or pool room would be a free stream to thier customers and would draw some viewers.

I think the only way real big numbers (going viral) is going to be a reality for pool is to have more people know about the streams especially league players initially, so getting public venues to show / buy the streams would wake alot of potential viewers to the product of pool via streaming.

 

[calcuttaman]

It's a good question and I would guess it is very subjective and depends on the person, how they value their money, and how much disposable income they have.

For me, $10 is probably to much. I love playing pool, but have a hard time watching others play.

For me the $25-$30 range for a Friday-Sunday PPV event (whether it be a tournament or a challenge match) is the level where I feel value and entertainment mesh nicely. Going past $30 starts to get to close to the magic $50 number in subconcious "rounding" my head does. $35 is pushing it, and $40 is close enough to $50 to start to make no difference and "feels" ALOT more expensive and less of a value.

I would guess that past $25 price point ($30+) you start to push the price to a point where you lose more potential customers then the price increase covers to to going past the point of economic equilibrium price.

It is better to get 200 customers paying $25 for a PPV ($5000 total revenue), then getting 100 people to pay $40 ($4000 revenue). Not even taking into account sponsers and the benefits of building a customer base. If $20 would get 300 viewers that is $6000 in revenue. There IS a low price point where you start to get too few added viewers such that the lower price does not get you enough extra viewers and you start to lose money due to the cost cutting not amounting in enough new customers. You have to find out where that price point is. The optimal price for a PPV is the price that maximizes the revenue and it is

There most definately is a magic number, but finding that number requires alot of study of the market.

I think this really nails it. Find your price point. A similar item is hotels/venues selling beer at tournaments. How many times have you seen a $3.75 beer? Lots. If the venues put it $3 maybe they would sell more beer (And not have all the players going to there rooms to get it from there coolers.)

 

[OnTheMF]

I haven’t had a business in over 10 years so I'm out of the loop so to speak. What I’m wondering is at what point (price of ppv) are you taking away viewers from your sponsors (1000+ free-as few as 100 ppv) that can’t or won’t pay over a certain amount for a stream? Seems to me it has to be more sponsor driven than ppv or a fine balance of the two. I am NOT talking about TAR ppv. I look at the TAR format like a ppv fight on HBO. Johnnyt

The largest issue is that pool in general is not an ideal candidate for PPV. In addition to that the current PPV stream model is not well suited to your average fan. Those are two huge hurdles that the PPV streams will need to overcome if they want to increase viewership.

For me personally, I stay away from the TAR stream because it doesn't allow me to rewind or watch it at my own pace. I don't want to pay $35 for a stream, and then catch an hour here or there. That doesn't seem like good value for me. I'd be more inclined to purchase the DVD's, but I also don't have the patience to wait for the DVD's either.

In my opinion you won't see mainstream viewership of PPV streams until you get these features:
- Full pause, rewind, fast forward capabilities
- 7-day access to full stream
- Fast play rules
- Downloadable DVD (such as distribution over iTunes)
- More integrated checkout system (and one-click purchases for existing users)
- Shorter sets (lets face it, your average fan doesn't have the attention span to watch a race to 100, if you want to capture the bigger more lucrative market, you need to cater to the bigger more lucrative market)

If you look at insanely successful products like Netflix, Steam and iTunes you can see several common elements; more convenience over conventional distribution, easy checkout, good value.

 

[Celtic]

For me, $10 is probably to much. I love playing pool, but have a hard time watching others play.

Yeah, you would definately be below the price point that would be most productive. There are alot of people who wont pay for something over the internet as well regardless of the price, it could be $1 but the fact that the person has to go to paypal, input their credit card, ect... is the "real" crux of the issue for them, not the amount it costs. Alot of people who would be happy to let $25 cash disappear from their wallet and have the stream suddenly work will not buy the stream via credit card. Alot more prospective customers don't even have credit cards and thus buying a PPV stream is an even bigger hassle. All of these people are atm simply not prospective customers.

Probably best for another thread but I am curious Calcuttaman, is it all pool games that you don't care to watch? If the pro's switched to a different game or different table sizes or pocket sizes could you see yourself being more interested?

It is a question I am curious about because when pool players like you don't get that interested in watching the professional game it is clear this game has problems at the professional and fan level. I myself do understand what you are saying, I myself also get bored watching pro pool, but for me it is the too easy conditions and the game that is played that bore me to a large extent. If Alex and SVB were about to play a race to 100 in 8-ball on a 10-foot table with 4 inch pockets I WOULD pay $40 to watch that.

 

[yobagua]

Maybe this doesnt relate to this thread alone but I feel one element thats always missing in terms of live stream PPV discussion. And that is the obligation to the players. I know its tough making ends meet but there are times when I feel players should be compensated. After all you dont watch if it wasnt for them.
I know its the beginnings of a new market but this issue will come up. And that is what are the players getting out of the stream. If I was Efren, Shane, Alex, or Thorsten (14.1) I would not allow myself to be filmed unless I was guaranteed something. So far as I know Accu-Stats has already started with giving players some residual monies based on sales but I feel this is going to be part of the package. Theyve also made guarantees on there inhouse productions.
With the oncoming of mainstream sponsors and the fact that streaming is becoming a business instead of a hobby is going to make this a prevalent factor.

 

[JCIN]

The largest issue is that pool in general is not an ideal candidate for PPV. In addition to that the current PPV stream model is not well suited to your average fan. Those are two huge hurdles that the PPV streams will need to overcome if they want to increase viewership.

For me personally, I stay away from the TAR stream because it doesn't allow me to rewind or watch it at my own pace. I don't want to pay $35 for a stream, and then catch an hour here or there. That doesn't seem like good value for me. I'd be more inclined to purchase the DVD's, but I also don't have the patience to wait for the DVD's either.

In my opinion you won't see mainstream viewership of PPV streams until you get these features:
- Full pause, rewind, fast forward capabilities
- 7-day access to full stream
- Fast play rules
- Downloadable DVD (such as distribution over iTunes)
- More integrated checkout system (and one-click purchases for existing users)
- Shorter sets (lets face it, your average fan doesn't have the attention span to watch a race to 100, if you want to capture the bigger more lucrative market, you need to cater to the bigger more lucrative market)

If you look at insanely successful products like Netflix, Steam and iTunes you can see several common elements; more convenience over conventional distribution, easy checkout, good value.

Looks like our stuff just isnt for you then. All of your suggestions have merit and I have an answer for each of them but it doesnt really matter. People sometimes forget they are comparing one dude with half ass technical skills to companies like Netflix and Apple.

 

[JCIN]

Maybe this doesnt relate to this thread alone but I feel one element thats always missing in terms of live stream PPV discussion. And that is the obligation to the players. I know its tough making ends meet but there are times when I feel players should be compensated. After all you dont watch if it wasnt for them.
I know its the beginnings of a new market but this issue will come up. And that is what are the players getting out of the stream. If I was Efren, Shane, Alex, or Thorsten (14.1) I would not allow myself to be filmed unless I was guaranteed something. So far as I know Accu-Stats has already started with giving players some residual monies based on sales but I feel this is going to be part of the package. Theyve also made guarantees on there inhouse productions.
With the oncoming of mainstream sponsors and the fact that streaming is becoming a business instead of a hobby is going to make this a prevalent factor.

We pay the players in our challenge matches. Pretty well IMO. As for tournaments I think what you will see coming is the promoter is going to let it be known that if you want in on the added money for the event you are going to accept being streamed.

Its damn near impossible for a promoter to make a return on a tournament without an angel sponsor who is basically going to give away $20K+. One of the possible returns is either the revenue from the PPV stream or the eyeballs on a free stream.

Dont want to be streamed. Dont play the tournament.

As for DVD production after the fact that is something that each event, promoter and content producer will have to work out with players.

One of the reasons I quit selling most of our DVD's is we made deals for a percentage of the profit with players way back in the beginning. We did it for various reasons one of which was we hoped it would incent the players to push products they had a piece of. Yes. We were that naive.

It just wasnt worth the time to create, produce, stock, sell and ship the DVD's. Plus no matter what I did there was always that look of "Are you screwing me" like I secretly was making a fortune on DVD sales. It pissed me off to the point of just never making the damn things again. Now we pay up front for all rights. It is a huge pain in the ass and honestly we still dont make DVD's like we should but no one can ever give me that stupid look like I screwed them out of $100 over a DVD royalty. Just thinking about all the bullshit I went through over dumb ass DVD's puts me on tilt.