SUBJECT: BILLIARDS/POOL Channels on YouTube Unite!

[Goldy]

I don't understand the point of the POV partnership? If I want billiard related videos on youtube, I just type in what I'm after in the search bar. Whether its straight pool, or a specific player, or a specific tournament, etc. Even though the matches are all over the place, the search brings them together for me. What does uniting the separate billiard channels under some sort of umbrella offer further?

Regarding n0risc's posts, I've been reading some of his stuff for a year or more now. I know he has not been well received by the other members of the streaming community, but I think he makes some valid points. I believe the crux of his argument is that the vast majority of the monetary gains from sponsors of popular videos on Youtube go TO youtube, not to the content creator, or content actors (pool players in our case).

Removing our pool videos from Youtube and keeping them on a network dedicated to billiards, would keep get rid of the huge middlemen (youtube, ustream, etc) and return that money to the pool community. The pool community can then split it up however they see fit. But the point is, the pool community would be splitting up the whole pie of advertising money, not a tiny slice of the pie.

I don't know if n0risc's technical solution to this idea is feasible or not. I have been to his website, and frankly don't understand it. But I think I understand his philosophy on keeping the money from advertisers amongst ourselves.

Yes, I apologize for the sloppy website and it's also difficult to navigate. But onsitepool.com/"channel" is well received by viewers on 80% of devices on the fly. It also houses many characteristics to self promote. It is very we attached to Facebook. It also pin points every viewer all the way to their city & state, what browser they use, what phone their on, and what resolution they are watching in. Currently I do not run unsolicited advertisements over video player as of yet.

I have been building another more user friendly site @ billiardsondemand.com, which will be launched Jan 1st that will offer the same exact feel and automation as Ustream, Livestream, and Justin.tv, but will be completely for billiard related streams only (at least for a while).

The requirements thus far to stream on OSPN completely for free with technical support 24/7 will require:

That you host your current website, or create a new website and host it with us, or strictly use onsitepool.com/"channel" to display your stream. (The stream will not be able to be embedded on a website outside of OSPnetwork) This is crucial to collect all valuable information for sponsors and advertisers to review. Web hosting with OSPN is 100% free. It is unlimited. Embedding is getting more and more difficult in recent upgrades to HTML and web browsers. It costs a boat load of cash manage and administer.

Broadcasters that provide a free stream, their broadcasts will be used exclusively and immediately available for On Demand at onsitepool.tv, in which a subscription would be required to view 'offair' Currently there is no plans to share this revenue, as it will directly pay for the network to operate. OSPN will review footage and individualize the content per request.

A PPV model will be an instant hit for streamers that want to do a PPV, they can simply change the stream ID and it will then require a subscription to watch. There are plans to split 50% of this revenue with the brodcaster.

I know this model is commish, but if we want to build a LASTING infrastructure that will support the industry financially, the selling out of content the the "You's and U's" will be a dismal failure financially in the future.

AZB, Facebook, and email does a mighty fine job promoting our sport, believe it or not. We do not need, however, full length matches plastered all over, to promote our sport. YouTube is simply not paying enough. They pay just enough to pay for the streaming operation. Unless of course, you have 26 million views. Which only 1 operation has succeeded with this.

 

[cmbwsu]

Bob, you're exactly right about using YouTube to promote pool and billiards. YouTube has plenty of videos as a matter of fact. Do they need more? Also, if I may add, YouTube does not need full length matches to promote the art and sport of billiards either. And this international point you bring up. The Internet doesn't stop at the United States Border, the last time I checked.

It's not a matter of YouTube needing more, rather a matter of pool and billiards needing more -- the more the merrier! Of course the internet doesn't stop at the border but language differences can and do. People do not go out willy-nilly and purchase or get involved in something without knowing what it's about. Videos/Live streams here and there on YouTube, Kozoom, Ustream, BamBusher, Livestream, HaHa, Lemon, and a myriad of others all act as advertisement snippets for our sport -- FREE advertisements that many who volunteer in a variety of capacities use to help promote the sport for the mere love of it. The reward is the growth. Personal monetary reward does not even enter the picture. It's "voluntary" ... it's about giving back.

Pay who? I didn't see you mention anything about the players being compensated directly from videos who which are featured?

You must have missed this part: "Once the audience base becomes more worldwide and large sponsors come on board there will be monies available for the players, broadcasters, commentators, promoters, and the like."

Large base audience = large results.

So we need an audience in the millions to satisfy the goal of and outside sponsor, correct? We'll I can assure you that our industry will not land that audience through YouTube or Ustream, even Internationally, combined.

The amount of audience needed varies from company-to-company and even country-to-country. It is "their" decision and their monies to invest as to whether that decision is based on demographics, number count, or seeing the potential growth and wanting to get in on the ground floor.

As for folks like YouTube, Ustream and the many others, if it weren't for them having the avenues to get the sport out there and getting the interest to where it is now we would not be having this discussion!

However, OSPN will reach an audience in the millions through its network channels combined, and it's sister streaming networks "billiards on demand", and live on demand. At that time will be able to secure a large corporate sponsor as the 'COMBINED' audiences throughout all channels through exclusive monetization will sell much much easier.

The operative word you used is "will" which means it's not there yet; however, those you criticize are leap years ahead. There is nothing wrong with them proceeding as they are and you proceeding as you are. You are obviously steadfast in the belief that your way is the better way; but, until you meet their level the "will-factor" does not enter the picture and their way gets the nod.

And if I may ask? If per say, you achieve the level of audience by some miracle, which network are you going to use? Yeah I thought so. I'm going to tell you right now, that it won't fly, because it will be in direct violation with Ustream's terms of service. :grin:

I'm not going to use any network--I'm not a streamer and don't intend to be one. I have and will continue to voluntarily promote them whether free or PPV. It's my time and my desire to promote the sport via live streams ... the last time I checked this was America.

Sponsors have nothing to do with Ustream as pertains to broadcasters. They do not and cannot dictate to companies who they can or cannot sponsor. You seem to bring up Ustream time and time again over this argument whether on a forum or on Facebook. They are not the only one that streamers use but do have the most who utilize their services; hence, their links show up more frequently which in turn has helped develop the interest in streaming of the sport more than any other.

You see it's a conflict of interest, because why would a larger sponsor settle for 1 million viewers on 4,000 channels, when the network has 40,000 channels, and 25 million viewers. Who won't get 100% of the sale.

You will have to ask them that .. again, it's their decision to make. Maybe you need to work more on your "will-factor" with them so that it becomes a "reality-factor" rather then argue with people who are merely trying to promote the sport via the avenues available to them "here and now".

You guys need to do some more adequate research and get caught up with ways of eCommerce. The internet isn't Television or ESPN.

Have a good one.

Perhaps you need to do some more adequate research on people skills and get caught up on what has already been proven to work or go to work proving them wrong by illustration rather then condemnation.

Now let me ask you a few questions. Does NAPA pay those wearing their patch while on stream .. BCA ... APA? Do you or other streamers pay players when they wear your/their T-Shirt while on stream? And what if it's your T-Shirt on "so-and-so's" stream -- do you pass some cheese then and what about the streamer in this case as well? Do you pay people to wear your T-Shirts while at league when their is no stream -- advertising is advertising right!? Just askin'!

 

[SloMoHolic]

What a mess.

As a live streamer you will always get praise and condemnation no matter what you do.

I'm lucky enough to have been given the opportunity to stream multiple-day tournaments, have pros on my mics, stream production advice from the top leaders in the field, paying sponsors, and even a self-produced live stream of my own match.

I'm also lucky to be new enough on the pool streaming scene that I haven't committed to this as a career.

Personally, I've decided to go back to playing pool instead of streaming it.

I like playing pool and I like watching pool. I like delivering quality content to others that enjoy it. I love trying new ways to enhance the viewer experience and experimenting on the production side (scoreboards, mixers, etc).

However, I don't like drama, I don't enjoy not getting paid, and I don't like being forced to "pick sides" between several parties (or factions) that I consider friends.

So...

I will occasionally put on a quality stream of a tournament (or match) in the future, but I will do so only on my dime and my time.

Thanks to all of you that have watched and contributed to my streams and videos in so many ways.

-Blake

 

[Mr. Bond]

If norisc is planning to replace YouTube as THE source of online pool content, the reasoning behind this conflict is quite clear: Daniel's plan is a direct threat to the success of his operation.

Or, maybe I'm seeing something that isn't there. Its happened once before.

 

[POVPOOL]

If norisc is planning to replace YouTube as THE source of online pool content, the reasoning behind this conflict is quite clear: Daniel's plan is a direct threat to the success of his operation.

Or, maybe I'm seeing something that isn't there. Its happened once before.

You are half correct, Mr. Bond.
My plan is only a direct threat to Zach Goldsmith of Onsite Pool because he insists that his way is the only way and that he believes there is no other way to bring pool to the masses. In this manner, Zach is actually acting as a direct threat to himself.

I did not start this thread for the purpose of competing with Onsite Pool or any other streamer of media provider for that matter. In fact, I am happy also to concede that Zach's idea is a good idea, but only to a certain extent. I have been solicited almost a dozen times by Zach's team, (He and TV Mike (R.I.P)) to join forces with them. I have turned them down for a number of reasons which I don't care to discuss on this forum, except to say that currently I feel that pool needs more viewers in general and Onsite Pool is not where I wish to park my content for less than 150 viewers to watch on a monthly basis.

Also - I'm not willing to give up my content or license my branding until someone can guarantee me some type of national or global distribution deal which makes sense.

Furthermore, I will NEVER get 'hi-pressured' into a deal by someone who says, 'This is the ONLY model that will work for pool!' TOTALLY UNPROFESSIONAL!

I simply feel that the Onsite Pool model is not yet ready because it takes free streaming and free content for talent like Carlo Biado, Wang Can, Mary Rakin, Johnny Kang and many more to develop a name and a reputation. Carlo Biado & Alex Pagulayun's final match on YouTube received over 37,000 hits in less than 4 months. Because of this and a few other recent videos of him provided by Inside Pool and Accustats, Carlo has become an overnight sensation. So has Wang Can! If you were to have all those matches at Onsite Pool, everyone would still be sitting around wondering, "Who's this Carlo guy?" You'd have to subscribe to Onsite Pool, a company with no major backing, funding or media connections, other than themselves. Sure they have a few sponsors, but hell, I have a few sponsors.

I am not interested in bottlenecking the audience!

And if you believe that Onsite Pool is going to be able to provide free streaming at an affordable rate on the scale that Ustream or Justin TV can do it, you are all falling under deception. The cost of being able to do this is astounding!

I'll say it again - I am not here to trash or compete with Onsite Pool! For god sakes, join the Onsite Pool service and enjoy their shows. Check out their content. Join for one month if you want. Just leave me the hell alone and stop trying to tell me that I am doing the wrong thing for pool.

Live and let live, buddy!

That being said, there is and will be the world's first Pool and Billiard Multi-Channel Network on YouTube! If you are already a YouTube channel and would like to become a part of it, please visit - http://www.scalelab.com

Thanks to AZ Billiards, by the way for making this forum possible.

 

[Goldy]

If norisc is planning to replace YouTube as THE source of online pool content, the reasoning behind this conflict is quite clear: Daniel's plan is a direct threat to the success of his operation.

Or, maybe I'm seeing something that isn't there. Its happened once before.

You are correct. But, It also is a direct threat to the profitability of billiard players as selling out content to YouTube essentially creates another hand (middleman) in-between the sport and the player. And guess what? The player(s) suffer yet again.

YouTube and other free media outlets took a long long time to change the feelings of how YouTube infringed on copyright and intellectual property rights. Just because YouTube is stereotypical now, doesn't hide the fact that trading content for delivery satisfies all involved, FINANCIALLY.

Also Mr. Bond. The intent at On Site Pool Network is not to replace YouTube. That would be impossible. We are trying to break away from YouTube and create a similar content delivery network that is dedicated to our industry. Whereas in the future, instead of YouTube pocketing 100% of unsolicited and larger corporate sponsored ads, On Site Pool Network will essentially be able to do the same thing. Then, as 'good Samaritans' in the billiard industry, we would in turn pass the profitability to Promoters and Players. Because as of right now, YouTube only offers 3-10% back from monetization of unsolicited ads, and that is a drop in the hat. Ustream offers ZERO! So, if you really want to break down the Math. THAT IS WHY, players in our industry go under compensated. And if we continue the path of taking new technology to MIDDLEMEN, then we stand to lose a bunch more.

 

[Fast Lenny]

I like Ustream because it is free to use for me and I can store videos on there or with the click of a button put them right on my Youtube channel. Youtube and Ustream are well known and have a good deal of traffic that goes to these sites so my videos get more views because of it. You can monetize videos on Youtube and get paid for them depending on your number or views they have. I enjoy streaming and feel it is good for the game, I never looked at it as a means to an end but I know some streamers do and are which I wish most of them luck in that especially my buddy Daniel.

I have said many times that PPV is not the way to go with streaming, too many variables and as soon as you take money from someone they expect perfection which is fine but with equipment, internet connection and the streaming service provider all in this chain to bring it to people there are things that can, do and will happen. I believe free streaming with sponsors and room support is a way to go. I know there is not enough money to play the players unless the room is putting up a purse or added money in a tournament but players should be afforded the opportunity to get in the booth and promote their sponsors or the commentators give shout outs to them on the mic for the sponsors of the players in that current match.

I streamed the other day for the first time in many months, it was fun and I look forward to doing more again. I find the politics interesting and ever since I have been involved with streaming I have seen people getting into, some very friendly and just looking to share knowledge and others looking at it as a cut throat business and that you are taking a piece of "their" pie.

 

[Goldy]

You are half correct, Mr. Bond.
My plan is only a direct threat to Zach Goldsmith of Onsite Pool because he insists that his way is the only way and that he believes there is no other way to bring pool to the masses. In this manner, Zach is actually acting as a direct threat to himself.

I did not start this thread for the purpose of competing with Onsite Pool or any other streamer of media provider for that matter. In fact, I am happy also to concede that Zach's idea is a good idea, but only to a certain extent.

Thank you Daniel. I appreciate that, sincerely.

I have been solicited almost a dozen times by Zach's team, (He and TV Mike (R.I.P)) to join forces with them. I have turned them down for a number of reasons which I don't care to discuss on this forum, except to say that currently I feel that pool needs more viewers in general and Onsite Pool is not where I wish to park my content for less than 150 viewers to watch on a monthly basis.

I approached you 1 time. Not a Dozen. If TvMike bombarded you, I'm sorry. That is his nature. Not mine. Pool HAS PLENTY OF VIEWERS currently, in the current scheme. There is enough videos on YouTube and Ustream to perpetuate our sport for the next 100 years. We don't need to give them anymore, really. It's time to start protecting the content so it REMAINS valuable for our industry, not for the mere principal of more viewers and attract more people to our sport/game. We can do that on our own through Social Media and branding our own websites. We can do this without YouTube and Ustream Daniel. I'm sorry that you just want to continually wash your hands OF THE FREAKING RESPONSIBILITY we have to the players.

Also - I'm not willing to give up my content or license my branding until someone can guarantee me some type of national or global distribution deal which makes sense.

Furthermore, I will NEVER get 'hi-pressured' into a deal by someone who says, 'This is the ONLY model that will work for pool!' TOTALLY UNPROFESSIONAL!

I'm sorry that TvMike tried to over-sell. I had no idea that he did that without my knowledge. And I think what was trying to conveyed, was 'This is the ONLY model that will work for pool!' - From a FINANCIAL standpoint..

I simply feel that the Onsite Pool model is not yet ready because it takes free streaming and free content for talent like Carlo Biado, Wang Can, Mary Rakin, Johnny Kang and many more to develop a name and a reputation. Carlo Biado & Alex Pagulayun's final match on YouTube received over 37,000 hits in less than 4 months. Because of this and a few other recent videos of him provided by Inside Pool and Accustats, Carlo has become an overnight sensation. So has Wang Can! If you were to have all those matches at Onsite Pool, everyone would still be sitting around wondering, "Who's this Carlo guy?" You'd have to subscribe to Onsite Pool, a company with no major backing, funding or media connections, other than themselves. Sure they have a few sponsors, but hell, I have a few sponsors.

I am not interested in bottlenecking the audience!

We are actually backed by TAP, NAPA, WPBA, & BadBoys Productions to name a few. With a few sponsors here and there that help us out along the way, WHEN THEY CAN..

I got a test for you Daniel. Start streaming a match, and TELL NO ONE that it's streaming. Let me know how many viewers you get from just ustream's promotional team. Oh wait. u-stream doesn't have a promotional team. YouTube and Ustream rely on outsite sources to promote your channel Daniel. AND I CAN GUARANTEE YOU that it's not just because you use ustream or youtube. So do it for me one time. No Facebook Posts, No AZBilliard posts, no twitter posts, no Live Stream News help, nothing. Tell me how many viewers you'd get.

We all really cross promote each other, as a matter of fact.

And if you believe that Onsite Pool is going to be able to provide free streaming at an affordable rate on the scale that Ustream or Justin TV can do it, you are all falling under deception. The cost of being able to do this is astounding!

I'll say it again - I am not here to trash or compete with Onsite Pool! For god sakes, join the Onsite Pool service and enjoy their shows. Check out their content. Join for one month if you want. Just leave me the hell alone and stop trying to tell me that I am doing the wrong thing for pool.

Live and let live, buddy!

Actually if done properly Daniel, On Site Pool Network will be able to Trade the content for the delivery, JUST LIKE USTREAM. It will cost the broadcaster nothing. However, if done together, you'd actually get a CHECK for streaming to the network, just as if you would from YouTube (and how minuscule they are).

 

[Goldy]

I like Ustream because it is free to use for me and I can store videos on there or with the click of a button put them right on my Youtube channel. Youtube and Ustream are well known and have a good deal of traffic that goes to these sites so my videos get more views because of it. You can monetize videos on Youtube and get paid for them depending on your number or views they have. I enjoy streaming and feel it is good for the game, I never looked at it as a means to an end but I know some streamers do and are which I wish most of them luck in that especially my buddy Daniel.

I have said many times that PPV is not the way to go with streaming, too many variables and as soon as you take money from someone they expect perfection which is fine but with equipment, internet connection and the streaming service provider all in this chain to bring it to people there are things that can, do and will happen. I believe free streaming with sponsors and room support is a way to go. I know there is not enough money to play the players unless the room is putting up a purse or added money in a tournament but players should be afforded the opportunity to get in the booth and promote their sponsors or the commentators give shout outs to them on the mic for the sponsors of the players in that current match.

I streamed the other day for the first time in many months, it was fun and I look forward to doing more again. I find the politics interesting and ever since I have been involved with streaming I have seen people getting into, some very friendly and just looking to share knowledge and others looking at it as a cut throat business and that you are taking a piece of "their" pie.

So when you post up the video on YouTube, do you break off a percentage of that check for the players that provided that content for you? Or is it only enough to cover your expenses?

I understand you can make a quick couple bucks setting up a camera, pointing it at a pool table. More power to you for being able to do that. It actually is a GREAT SHORT TERM SOLUTION to perpetuate our sport and game. But is it good financially for the ACTUAL PLAYERS? Absolutely not.

With our own network folks, we have more FLEXIBILITY to take control of the REVENUE STREAM. Until we do that, we will GET ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE. The more and more videos and content we sell out to YouTube and Ustream for free to get exposure, will just get them richer and richer, and us poorer and poorer. It is a SAD reality.

 

[Fast Lenny]

So when you post up the video on YouTube, do you break off a percentage of that check for the players that provided that content for you? Or is it only enough to cover your expenses?

I understand you can make a quick couple bucks setting up a camera, pointing it at a pool table. More power to you for being able to do that. It actually is a GREAT SHORT TERM SOLUTION to perpetuate our sport and game. But is it good financially for the ACTUAL PLAYERS? Absolutely not.

With our own network folks, we have more FLEXIBILITY to take control of the REVENUE STREAM. Until we do that, we will GET ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE. The more and more videos and content we sell out to YouTube and Ustream for free to get exposure, will just get them richer and richer, and us poorer and poorer. It is a SAD reality.

If there is a purse being put up then the players are being paid for the appearance and that goes for added money tournaments also, so it is good for the players. Most understand that it is a part of tournaments now just like ESPN used to do, I doubt ESPN paid players either but they did bring exposure to those sponsors putting up the dough. I believe every pool streamer who has a Youtube account monetizes it, it is nickel and dimes but still something to help buy a cheap piece of equipment or maybe cover some gas going to events. I believe FREE for people to watch is the way to go for big numbers and sponsors who want to be involved want those numbers, why sponsors attach themselves to a stream that is PPV with 100-200 viewers is beyond me as it does not make sense other then to just support it.

Understand this I never got into streaming for money, it is not a business for me. I have done streaming on contributions, my own dime and some sponsor support with the intention of bringing a little more exposure to the game and allow people to watch it for FREE worldwide. The room that puts up that money gets value by having a streamer there and possibly gets sponsors they would not have for the event because of the online exposure so it does benefit the players. You have your way of doing things and hopefully for your sake it will grow or you will give up. I do not see anyone jumping on board with you and have you even figured out why they are not? I am sure you are frustrated by that and the lack of growth, good luck to you.

 

[Goldy]

I really don't have much more to say about this subject. I think I've outlined the root causes of why NOW and why IN THE FUTURE we are setting up the industry to loose more and more revenue.

If there's a need to keep steering our industry away from our own potential, that I guess 1 voice will not really make an impact.

I will continually work on the On Site Pool Network project.

I wish everyone luck with their projects as well. Technically it's all a positive motion to go forward.

I'll hi-jack another post probably down the road.

Zach.

 

[Goldy]

If there is a purse being put up then the players are being paid for the appearance and that goes for added money tournaments also, so it is good for the players. Most understand that it is a part of tournaments now just like ESPN used to do, I doubt ESPN paid players either but they did bring exposure to those sponsors putting up the dough.

That purse is provided by players initial contribution in some form throughout the year. If you think televising or live streaming an event puts more money in the players pockets, you are mistaken. Why do you think we have more events where players go UNPAID than before? THERE'S NO OUTSIDE SURPLUS!

Since ESPN pulled their gravy train for billiards was from lack of respect and the rudeness from a business perspective. Maybe billiards is just not suitable enough to generate outside surplus from actually televising it. If anyone were to do the duty to get it to the point, it would have been ESPN. So I would assume that the quality of broadcasts TODAY would be sub par to ESPN. So we're worse off than what ESPN initially tried to provide.

I believe every pool streamer who has a Youtube account monetizes it, it is nickel and dimes but still something to help buy a cheap piece of equipment or maybe cover some gas going to events. I believe FREE for people to watch is the way to go for big numbers and sponsors who want to be involved want those numbers, why sponsors attach themselves to a stream that is PPV with 100-200 viewers is beyond me as it does not make sense other then to just support it.

So I guess it's the way to go? When players continually work for FREE? And then the excuse of "The Billiard Industry Is In Such Trouble" to cover up the fact that we have to live stream and spread it all over YouTube for FREE? The mere nickles and dimes we get from YouTube, only covers the expense of exposure? That is a HORRIBLE BUSINESS MODEL! STOP!

Understand this I never got into streaming for money, it is not a business for me. I have done streaming on contributions, my own dime and some sponsor support with the intention of bringing a little more exposure to the game and allow people to watch it for FREE worldwide. The room that puts up that money gets value by having a streamer there and possibly gets sponsors they would not have for the event because of the online exposure so it does benefit the players. You have your way of doing things and hopefully for your sake it will grow or you will give up. I do not see anyone jumping on board with you and have you even figured out why they are not? I am sure you are frustrated by that and the lack of growth, good luck to you.

So then, you'd have no problem taking that $25.02 check from YouTube from your past productions and streams and give it back to the industry right? Or are you ashamed of the such small amount that it's not even worth contributing it back?

Lenny. I have the up most respect for your efforts in the industry hands down! My posts here is not personal, or a personal attack on your character or well being. I'm merely debating a IMPORTANT argument. The current BUSINESS MODEL for live billiard streaming IS IN REVERSE! And I may sound that I'm yelling and screaming from the sentences your read, but i'm not. I'm more worried than most about billiards, and at the end of the Day, YouTube and Ustream probably pocket about $10,000 in revenue if not more from EVERYONE'S Videos. And the players DON'T SEE A DIME! And the responsibility always goes back on the Sponsors!

Until Next Time. Have a good one.

 

[Fast Lenny]

That purse is provided by players initial contribution in some form throughout the year. If you think televising or live streaming an event puts more money in the players pockets, you are mistaken. Why do you think we have more events where players go UNPAID than before? THERE'S NO OUTSIDE SURPLUS!

Since ESPN pulled their gravy train for billiards was from lack of respect and the rudeness from a business perspective. Maybe billiards is just not suitable enough to generate outside surplus from actually televising it. If anyone were to do the duty to get it to the point, it would have been ESPN. So I would assume that the quality of broadcasts TODAY would be sub par to ESPN. So we're worse off than what ESPN initially tried to provide.



So I guess it's the way to go? When players continually work for FREE? And then the excuse of "The Billiard Industry Is In Such Trouble" to cover up the fact that we have to live stream and spread it all over YouTube for FREE? The mere nickles and dimes we get from YouTube, only covers the expense of exposure? That is a HORRIBLE BUSINESS MODEL! STOP!




So then, you'd have no problem taking that $25.02 check from YouTube from your past productions and streams and give it back to the industry right? Or are you ashamed of the such small amount that it's not even worth contributing it back?

Lenny. I have the up most respect for your efforts in the industry hands down! My posts here is not personal, or a personal attack on your character or well being. I'm merely debating a IMPORTANT argument. The current BUSINESS MODEL for live billiard streaming IS IN REVERSE! And I may sound that I'm yelling and screaming from the sentences your read, but i'm not. I'm more worried than most about billiards, and at the end of the Day, YouTube and Ustream probably pocket about $10,000 in revenue if not more from EVERYONE'S Videos. And the players DON'T SEE A DIME! And the responsibility always goes back on the Sponsors!

Until Next Time. Have a good one.

Like I said many tournaments and challenge matches with added money are occurring because they are being streamed, room owners, promoters and sponsors see the benefit of that camera and the thousands of people who watch online. Whether the show is free or PPV, without the live stream some of these events would not even happen because certain people like room owners and sponsors would not bother putting up the dough for something only the people at the venue will only see. Do you think the Steinway and Sandcastle challenge matches would happen as much if they did not get the online exposure with streaming or TAR matches happening if there was no streaming?, those matches due to streaming put money in the players pockets.

The players play the game whether there is a camera there or not and if a room owner wants it streamed and the players don't want to play because of that then they do not have to play and get a piece of that added money. Sponsors get on board for added events for exposure usually or just to be a part of the event, a promoter or room owner has a better opportunity to get more sponsorship/money because of this if they know how to sell it right to them. Telling someone who has a company especially with a website you can get them thousands of people to see their product is much better then the 50-100 who show up to the poolroom and see some banner hanging around.

So for you to say the players do not make money off of it is totally wrong and misleading but then again anyone with a brain can figure out how this works. All those people putting on events are getting more value for that money including sponsors because more people are seeing the event so streaming is benefiting the pro players. If a room owner ask me to do an event I usually ask for my expenses to be covered and maybe a little jelly to help with equipment upgrades or to buy a case of Mickeys.

You say it is not working but added money events are happening with streamers attached and people expect those events to be streamed now, to not have them broadcast is bad for the event, players and fans. It is working, when your plan works then let us know. As far as I see what you are trying to do makes no sense because there is no following and if someone streams through you they will get less numbers then Ustream. As for your comment about monies from Youtube, trust me every year in some way shape or form I give much more that that to players and have put thousands into players pockets.

 

[Goldy]

You say it is not working but added money events are happening with streamers attached and people expect those events to be streamed now, to not have them broadcast is bad for the event, players and fans. It is working, when your plan works then let us know. As far as I see what you are trying to do makes no sense because there is no following and if someone streams through you they will get less numbers then Ustream. As for your comment about monies from Youtube, trust me every year in some way shape or form I give much more that that to players and have put thousands into players pockets.

I didn't say what is currently in place is not working. Obviously they'll be tournaments and added money tournaments regardless. Whether they are profitable or not profitable, we really don't know. But would you agree that the consensus is the PLAYERS GO UNDER COMPENSATED? And many ADDED money tournaments is made up from Greens Fees and Registration Fees! Not Outside Sponsorship!

How have you put thousands into players pockets? You've landed them a sponsorship from exposure, so they get sponsored? Is that what you're referring to as far as thousands of dollars?

If ustream and youtube's product to so great? Then why do we have to perpetuate the referral to the videos from Facebook & AzBilliards, & Twitter then?

Let me post you up some proof FROM ON SITE POOL NETWORK, and show you that ustream and youtube are not SELF SUFFICIENT to the extent you claim. Also, if this where the case? Then why does Live Stream News exist?

Here are OSPN's numbers for 1 YEAR since we started.. Pretty good considering we only need Facebook, Twitter, and AZBilliards.. I could only imagine what the ustream numbers would be WITHOUT Facebook, Twitter, and AZBilliards.

You'll think I'm just a troll talking out of my head. I back up my claims.

 

[Mr. Bond]

If ustream and youtube's product to so great? Then why do we have to perpetuate the referral to the videos from Facebook & AzBilliards, & Twitter then?

......


Let me post you up some proof FROM ON SITE POOL NETWORK....
...... Pretty good considering we only need Facebook, Twitter, and AZBilliards...

Um........irony alert.


By the way, just in case some people don't realize this, a video producer (who posts it on YouTube) doesn't have to rely on YouTube ad revenue alone. It would be very simple to get a sponsor that is completely independent of youtube, who would benefit from their name being attached to a particular video for years to come.

Just sayin

 

[Goldy]

Um........irony alert.

By the way, just in case some people don't realize this, a video producer (who posts it on YouTube) doesn't have to rely on YouTube ad revenue alone. It would be very simple to get a sponsor that is completely independent of youtube, who would benefit from their name being attached to a particular video for years to come.

Just sayin

You're missing the point. The point is getting a independent sponsor outside of the billiard industry to contribute outside surplus of cash. That would not be possible with YouTube alone. Plus why would that sponsor want to get double dipped and write a check to YouTube and The Producer?

 

[Scott Lee]

Zach...I have no dog in this fight. That said...So...according to your own data the lion's share (80%+) of your viewership is connected with TVMike (who is a complete nutcase). Small wonder people are not jumping on board in droves. Oh, and according to you, you have severed your "relationship" with TV Mike...so where are your numbers going to come from now? Not that there is anything inherently wrong with what you're doing (other than your "my way is the ONLY way" attitude),but the truth is that there's room for lots of different ideas. As a professional instructor, I am quick to express to my students that ANYBODY (including me) who purports that there is only one way to accomplish something, should run the other direction. There is always more than one acceptable choice...that why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

I didn't say what is currently in place is not working. Obviously they'll be tournaments and added money tournaments regardless. Whether they are profitable or not profitable, we really don't know. But would you agree that the consensus is the PLAYERS GO UNDER COMPENSATED? And many ADDED money tournaments is made up from Greens Fees and Registration Fees! Not Outside Sponsorship!

How have you put thousands into players pockets? You've landed them a sponsorship from exposure, so they get sponsored? Is that what you're referring to as far as thousands of dollars?

If ustream and youtube's product to so great? Then why do we have to perpetuate the referral to the videos from Facebook & AzBilliards, & Twitter then?

Let me post you up some proof FROM ON SITE POOL NETWORK, and show you that ustream and youtube are not SELF SUFFICIENT to the extent you claim. Also, if this where the case? Then why does Live Stream News exist?

Here are OSPN's numbers for 1 YEAR since we started.. Pretty good considering we only need Facebook, Twitter, and AZBilliards.. I could only imagine what the ustream numbers would be WITHOUT Facebook, Twitter, and AZBilliards.

You'll think I'm just a troll talking out of my head. I back up my claims.

 

[POVPOOL]

Here are OSPN's numbers for 1 YEAR since we started.. Pretty good considering we only need Facebook, Twitter, and AZBilliards.. I could only imagine what the ustream numbers would be WITHOUT Facebook, Twitter, and AZBilliards.

You'll think I'm just a troll talking out of my head. I back up my claims.

I use Twitter, Facebook and AZ too. I don't ever rely on Ustream for numbers. Yes, people follow me there and I post a schedule, but I'm not 'expecting' YouTube or Ustream to drive numbers my way.

From October last year to October this year, my site received 90,046 visits. What's your point?

 

[Goldy]

Zach...I have no dog in this fight. That said...So...according to your own data the lion's share (80%+) of your viewership is connected with TVMike (who is a complete nutcase). Small wonder people are not jumping on board in droves. Oh, and according to you, you have severed your "relationship" with TV Mike...so where are your numbers going to come from now? Not that there is anything inherently wrong with what you're doing (other than your "my way is the ONLY way" attitude),but the truth is that there's room for lots of different ideas. As a professional instructor, I am quick to express to my students that ANYBODY (including me) who purports that there is only one way to accomplish something, should run the other direction. There is always more than one acceptable choice...that why Baskin Robbins has 31 flavors.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Good question Scott. I think when billiardsondemand.com launches Jan 1st which will allow anyone/everyone to do live billiard streaming for free with OSPN's Cloud Distributed Network, will add viewership. And obviously OSPN will add more flexibility to live billiard streamers, because with OSPN being developed by billiard streamers alike, then obviously OSPN will be welcoming. There is a SLEW of technology billiard streamers cannot tap into to drive the costs of live billiard streaming down. because other CDN's don't care and they are there to serve the masses on the general consensus.

Yes, the relationship has been severed with TvMike.

I hope I'm not conveying or coming across as "my way is the only way". That could be further from the truth. I'm conveying a very important revelation in eCommerce. Currently the revenue is running backwards away from the players. Do you agree?

 

[Goldy]

I use Twitter, Facebook and AZ too. I don't ever rely on Ustream for numbers. Yes, people follow me there and I post a schedule, but I'm not 'expecting' YouTube or Ustream to drive numbers my way.

From October last year to October this year, my site received 90,046 visits. What's your point?

So your general consensus is that ustream, by itself, is not boosting your audience?