For $58.95, we get seven days of matches. At 6 matches per day (maybe fewer near the end), let's call it about 40 matches. So if you watched them all, it works out to just about $1.50 per match. Seems pretty cheap to me, especially compared with the cost of attending the event in person.
Seeding Could Be Hurting Streaming #'s
- Thread starter Johnnyt
- Start date
For $58.95, we get seven days of matches. At 6 matches per day (maybe fewer near the end), let's call it about 40 matches. So if you watched them all, it works out to just about $1.50 per match. Seems pretty cheap to me, especially compared with the cost of attending the event in person.
Watching 6 matches a day when 100's were played....Do you really feel you "watched" the US Open? I think more options to watch more matches would be better.
I obviously paid so I can watch the matches, but if you want broader appeal, this isn't going to work. I don't feel that I've really watched the tournament. Today's matches were pretty boring to be honest and didn't really keep my attention.
I'm not attacking the idea as bad, just giving my criticism from a buyers/viewers perspective. It's not even really about the price, it could be $24.95 and I don't think that the broader base of potential viewers is going to be interested. I know a good 20 or 30 people that play pool avidly...out of them 0 others that I know of have purchased the stream. These are people that DO enjoy pool and are aware that it's available, but when I say "yeah, it's $60.00 for the whole week" I get the same response every time. Explaining that I get to watch 6 matches a day of apparently random choosing, my pitch doesn't get better. So take it for what you want.
I obviously paid so I can watch the matches, but if you want broader appeal, this isn't going to work. I don't feel that I've really watched the tournament. Today's matches were pretty boring to be honest and didn't really keep my attention.
I'm not attacking the idea as bad, just giving my criticism from a buyers/viewers perspective. It's not even really about the price, it could be $24.95 and I don't think that the broader base of potential viewers is going to be interested. I know a good 20 or 30 people that play pool avidly...out of them 0 others that I know of have purchased the stream. These are people that DO enjoy pool and are aware that it's available, but when I say "yeah, it's $60.00 for the whole week" I get the same response every time. Explaining that I get to watch 6 matches a day of apparently random choosing, my pitch doesn't get better. So take it for what you want.
Of course it is not the same atmosphere and feeling as being there in person. And you have no choice of which matches to watch.
BUT ... even when I attend a pro event in person, I pretty much watch just one match at a time, i.e., I don't keep changing my focus among a lot of matches going on at the same time. To me, to really see what's going on in a match, I have to be really close to the table. Watching a match in person from more than 10 or 15 feet away is to just watch balls rolling around on a table. I need to be close to see the angles, to see whether one ball passes another, to see how the CB is being struck, to see the results of the position play, etc. With Accu-Stats streaming, I can see all that -- same as if I were at the event watching one match per time period from close range.
The Open stream is terrific and Accustats is among the elite providers no doubt. There are limitations such as a not having multiple choices etc. but that all costs money, much more money. The industry just isn't there yet. Cameras all over the golf course at a PGA event is only possible because of the money golf throws off for the network. Heck, there's tons of money in tennis and with all the glitzy production you still only get basically one chosen match at a time while they're may be more interesting matches unfolding on the other 20 courts.
I see both sides. The price being charged for the open is very fair for the quality of coverage provided and is certainly not out of line with other pool streams. I also like the matinee/evening daily pricing so you can catch some of it and not be out the whole amount for a stream you just don't enough time to watch and make it pencil out.
But let's face it, pool streams generally are pretty pricey at current levels to really get the numbers up there. Say $25 to watch a tournament every weekend and you're talking $100 a month just for watching pool on a stream. That's too much money for too many people to build a loyal following in large numbers.
But like everything else in pool, there isn't enough money in streaming for a provider to be able to take the long range view of making it real cheap (and lose money) in order to build an audience in the hopes of attracting sponsors and profits down the road. I get that too.
I see both sides. The price being charged for the open is very fair for the quality of coverage provided and is certainly not out of line with other pool streams. I also like the matinee/evening daily pricing so you can catch some of it and not be out the whole amount for a stream you just don't enough time to watch and make it pencil out.
But let's face it, pool streams generally are pretty pricey at current levels to really get the numbers up there. Say $25 to watch a tournament every weekend and you're talking $100 a month just for watching pool on a stream. That's too much money for too many people to build a loyal following in large numbers.
But like everything else in pool, there isn't enough money in streaming for a provider to be able to take the long range view of making it real cheap (and lose money) in order to build an audience in the hopes of attracting sponsors and profits down the road. I get that too.
Last edited:
I think we need to separate the issues about seeding from what is hurting PPV streaming. I'm personally not willing to invest the time or money to buy the whole week of PPV when the first three days or so consist of having to watch "baby seals" play one of the top players.
For my time and money, I prefer to watch the marquee performers even if that means waiting until later in the tournament. I think that Accu-stats needs to try to get the better players on the tv table if they want more people to watch PPV in the early rounds.
Last edited:
This is just the nature of a tournament with a large field. I have been here on site since last week. I havent sat and watched a complete match yet. Tonight is the first real matches that interest me and I think it will start getting better as we go. There is a lot of chaff in a 256 player field.
Just saw your edit and wanted to add that many of the top guys didnt even play yesterday due to the structure. The ones that did it was baby seal clubbing time for most. Personally this is one of the reasons I dont enjoy streaming tournaments sometimes there just is no good option.
Last edited:
This is exactly what Accu-Stats has done and tries to do. Every single round they have streamed they are selecting the best possible matches (without putting someone on the table two times in a row mind you). Monday was great with SVB v Shuff, Pinegar v Owen, Alex v Justin Hall, etc. Yesterday was difficult because it was all early loser side matches, but they still selected the best of the bunch. This thread is so out of whack.
Seriously, what is the problem? Why is there so much complaining? Pat and his crew, just like everyone else that streams an event, is allowing hundreds/thousands of players and fans to see a tournament that they wouldn't be able to see otherwise.
This type of thread makes me appreciate the work from TAR/Accu-Stats/InsidePool/whoever so much more because some of you are absolutely impossible to please. Their threshold of patience is something we can all learn from.
It's this way because people are different, pool players are picky, sometimes
, and you ''roll up'' & ''power down'' all the other STUFF and you have the St. Louie Louie Mixture, it's why we go to pool rooms, but don't socialize will EVERYONE. 
Last edited:
I'm certainly not faulting Accu-stats as they are trying to make the best of the situation.
However, one option might be to simply not do any PPV streaming in the early rounds and just have PPV streaming in the later rounds (similar to what ESPN does for other pool tournaments).
I am/did not bash Accu-Stats or any other streamer. I believe the TD choses the players for the tables...including the streaming table. Just because you type something doesn't make it fact/true/or right.
I bring things like this up so if there are more thinking like me, maybe the problem can be corrected. I have no problem with TAR because they show one great match with camera angles from everywhere. Johnnyt
Why on earth would this be better? Right now you have a choice to watch (and buy) the early rounds or not. If you don't feel the early round matches are going to be worth either the money or the time you would have to devote to watch them then just sign up for the last 2-3 days of the event.
I wish someone would start a thread explaining the economics of pool streaming because I don't know how it works. I see two basic possibilities. One is that the promoter hires a streamer for a fee to do the production and the other the streamer does it at his own financial risk (does it for free or perhaps even has to pay a fee to the promoter for the stream rights), hoping to make money on sponsor ads and PPV sign ups if it is not a free stream. Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't know how this works but I suspect the streamer is not getting paid from the promoter. Obviously it is clearer how it works with a TAR challenge match because they are both, but these other events I just don't know.
In any event, the reason I bring that up is simply to suggest that whoever is paying the bills for the stream should probably be the one who gets to (or should get to) decide what match gets shown, whether that's the promoter or the stream provider.
By having PPV streaming in the later rounds instead of the entire tournament, Accu-stats might be able to reduce production costs substantially.
I haven't seen much complaining. That is just your perspective on the feedback in this thread. No one that I have seen is complaining about the streams or complaining about how it's run. What we are doing is offering up information as the consumer as to how we feel the experiene can be improved and how it could appeal to a broader base. If they refuse to listen or don't take the feedback, then it's their loss and it's why things don't get better and good ideas go to the crapper.
I think that everyone here appreciates the hard work that goes into this sort of thing, but hard work doesn't always create a great product and/or a market for said product. A lot of that often comes from gaining the feedback from your customer base and gaining a better understanding of who the consumer is and what they would like to see.
I would prefer perhaps a lower production value in the earlier rounds with more options to watch more tables and/or choose the tables I'd like to watch. Perhaps 5 or 6 tables (although it would be awesome to have ALL tables) with one camera each and no commentary and/or commentary only on select tables in the earlier rounds and as it gets later I can see narrowing in the focus and getting the higher production quality as we get towards the end of the tournament.
This is a good point, inexpensive and fluff not needed, your right, some would like to see their boyfriend or their family/friends might like also to watch.
That is a good point, especially if it makes the PPV more affordable to more people. While I would think costs would be much lower (P/R, meals, hotel etc.) I wonder if it actually results in much lower costs that would translate into a more affordable stream.
I mean right now you can watch each day for $10 ($13 for the final day). To the extent this pricing reflects recouping costs earlier in the week when PPV numbers are lower, you would expect that if they didn't stream until the last 2-3 days the daily fee would be way less. But look at how two and three day events are currently priced. They are approximately what Accustats is charging for the Open and they are broadcasting all week. I mean you can watch the last two days for $23. Most two day PPV events cost approximately this much. If you buy the whole package you are watching for under $10/day. Most PPV's average that much for events much shorter in duration.
I don't know. But I do believe these guys put in an awful lot of work and aren't getting rich.
I don't know. But I do believe these guys put in an awful lot of work and aren't getting rich.
Well, you've identified the problem. We'd like to see them rich, and the streaming experience improved. I think they should get an award for the hard work they put in, but I'm sure they'd rather get the REWARD for the hard work that they put in. IMHO (and for what that is worth), they do a great job, but have focused too much on really high production value and less on providing more valueable content. Just opinions, not directives or demands.
Well, you've identified the problem. We'd like to see them rich, and the streaming experience improved. I think they should get an award for the hard work they put in, but I'm sure they'd rather get the REWARD for the hard work that they put in. IMHO (and for what that is worth), they do a great job, but have focused too much on really high production value and less on providing more valueable content. Just opinions, not directives or demands.
Yes, we saw some poor play in yesterday's streamed matches. But none of the matches was, prospectively, cupcake vs. cupcake. We saw Parica, Zvi, Hopkins, Wiseman, Kang, E. Dominguez, and B. Bryant. Two of those guys are among the best players in the history of the game. And a couple of the losers were pretty good players, too. I enjoyed the opportunity to watch such players for such a relatively small charge.