|
On February 14 2012 15:07 ottersareneat wrote:
We’re at (and when I say “we,” I mean, teams, tournaments, content providers, everyone) an incredibly crucial moment in the lifespan of this industry. We’re at a point at which we, as an industry, need to become less reliant on third-party, outsider revenue (like corporate sponsors), and increase the percentage of our revenue that’s generated within the eSports ecosystem (direct-to-consumer revenue like subscriptions and merchandise).
The reason for this is that it’s actually still way too hard for teams and tournaments (including those you guys view as the most prestigious and the richest in all of eSports) to make things work financially. Trying to remain viable as a business based on sponsorships and non-industry revenue alone is an unbelievably dangerous path to walk, and it’s just not sustainable in the long term. And I say this as the mind behind what is commonly viewed as the richest pro team in the industry right now.
eSports companies, whether you’re talking about EG, or MLG, need to increase their direct-to-consumer revenue in order to survive long-term. For EG, that means selling more merchandise in our store, and offering a monthly EG subscription package for our fans (which you’ll see later this year, with the release of our new website). For MLG, that means - very similarly - selling more merchandise in their store, and, you guessed it, offering more subscription-based stuff (such as the Winter Arena weekend pass).
There's something I don't quite get (actually at this point don't agree upon, but maybe just lack the insight), so I will just ask and hope for an answer.
Q: Why does the Industry need to become less reliant on third-party, outsider revenue (like corporate sponsors)?
The way I see it, any sport utterly depends on those. Even if you take a soccer club with 80000 seats in their stadium and 20$ (dollar just chosen as example currency for sake of the argument and calculation purposes) per ticket, that's 1,6 Million $ per home game (which is 50% of games, reducing the income to 800k per game). This is an optimistic approach, for in this scenario every game is sold out and every seat is worth 20$. For a stadium with 80k seats however you have to be a top notch team, so player expenses far exceed those 800k per game. This is just the players, adding travel, Hotels, coaches, cooks and whatnot, soccer could never survive without MASSIVE sponsoring.
As I perceive the situation (again, correct me in case I am terribly wrong) there are two ways to handle the situation:
A) Take money for events, This will limit your viewers in any scenario, because even if everybody watching E-Sports right now would agree to pay the 10$ you deem appropriate, new people would not. Yes the events would probably grow, while price pools would increase and income for teams would increase. As this happened I imagine salaries for players would also skyrocket. Meaning expenses would rise as well while travel costs would not be a problem anymore, for those, of yourse, would stay the same. Making it possible for Players to attend more events around the world.
The danger I see in this is simply, that over time, viewers will stop watching (peoples interests change) while not many new people come to watch.
And if you argue that "well player streams and some events are still free", then events charging money would benefit from smaller events which build the community paying events can live of. This might be a realistic, but in no way fair, scenario.
B) Make everything free of charge and live off of sponsoring. I have no idea how hard it is to get sponsoring these days, but I imagine it's not easy. And this is actually a good thing, for it might facilitate competition among events. Maybe do some fun 4v4 pro games, play against viewers etc to keep people entertained. Think of new ways to sell the product, rather then just charge money for the same.
This scenario actually has the heavy possibility of increasing the number of total E-Sport viewers, as everybody likes fun stuff, it's fun right? This would make the scene as a total grow, increasing the number of regular viewers and thus making it interesting for advertisement.
I liked for example what you did with the "gracken" theme (although due to his latest showmatch I'hm rather inclined to it). I tink generating new ideas and fun stuff, interactive and not, will raise viewers and therefore increase sponsoring.
Yes, increasing the direct-to-consumer revenue is great, and having your players live in a team house should make specials kind of easy. I kind of miss events of that kind, where teams just set up a stream and do stuff (for instance "win a mouse from our sponsor for showing us some amazing strat/ beat our team in 4v4.. etc etc).
While I do want E-Sports to grow and am willing to buy my gaming gear exklusively from the sponsors of my favourite team /LAN I enjoyed and such, I am not willing to pay for a stream, for I feel it limits the amount of people watching, reduces the amount of new /entertaining ideas events bring to get more viewers, and ultimatively decreases the amount of people watching E-Sports, thus hurting it. If there is one thing I have gathered from most internet phenomena like Athene and such, it's that what it all comes down to is the amount of people watching. I feel any PPV model is a fast way to get more money into one's own pocket while decreasing the money going into the sport. This, of course, is a business model many businesses use, yes it ultimatively hurts everybody, doesn't it?
Vanimar (concerned Starcraft fan)
|
On February 14 2012 15:46 Lavalamp799 wrote:
E) Just watch Assembly for free
My choice as well. Assembly will provide more than enough high level Starcraft for one weekend.
|
On February 14 2012 19:07 Geiko wrote:Poll from this thread+ Show Spoiler +Poll: How much would you pay for MLG PPV?I wouldn't even buy it for $10 or less. (959) 39% I'd pay $10, but not $20. (945) 38% I'm fine with the $20 price point, but I'd gladly pay $10. (205) 8% I bought Gold, and I think I should receive the Arena passes at no extra charge. (169) 7% I bought Gold, and I'd pay $5 if the regular price were $10. (111) 5% I bought Gold, and I'd pay $10 if the regular price were $20. (67) 3% 2456 total votes Your vote: How much would you pay for MLG PPV? (Vote): I'm fine with the $20 price point, but I'd gladly pay $10.
(Vote): I'd pay $10, but not $20.
(Vote): I wouldn't even buy it for $10 or less.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I'd pay $10 if the regular price were $20.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I'd pay $5 if the regular price were $10.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I think I should receive the Arena passes at no extra charge.
Poll: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members?No (1520) 74% Yes (539) 26% 2059 total votes Your vote: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Is this another one of those "results disagree" bugs ? Or do TL forumers just agree with whatever was said in the OP...
Er, those polls agree as far as I can tell. The second poll is for MLG gold members
|
On February 14 2012 18:26 d9mmdi wrote:
Also i dont think its clever to start at 20$ for the first event. Convince us with the first event for a very low price then increase it when you have proven its worth it (they plan to do that on the very weekend though so lets hope they blow our minds that we actually want to spend the money =D)
I have to agree with this point. It devalues the brand they are trying to establish if they transition from $20 to $10.
As for the choices, I would pick B. Simply put, when the price for the winter arena is almost 28.5% of a yearly GSL light ticket, I would find more value leaning towards a GSL ticket.
However, I'm willing to see how it works out when they "test run" it.
|
On February 14 2012 19:16 zeMoose wrote:My choice as well. Assembly will provide more than enough high level Starcraft for one weekend.
Same for me. Plus Assembly should be at a more reasonable time for Europeans. I would be willing to buy MLG tickets in the future, but there's no way I'm gonna spend more than 10$ for only one weekend. 10$ would be a bit expensive but still okay imo and if I'm gonna watch it together with a friend or something it's fine.
|
Great post! $10 maybe....but $20 really?!? Will not do that for sure.
|
These comments about creating a barrier to entry for newcomers to the SC2 e-sports scene are important.
I really started following pro SC2 because of MLG Anaheim. It was a free-to-watch event that was well promoted around the sort of entry level content I was consuming at the time, like day[9] and husky; it was free; it was very accessible to an American audience (timezone, foreign players); and it had an air of importance to me at the time. I recall being very discouraged at "recommend a VOD" threads because of how much pay-only GSL content they contained. It felt very prohibitive. Only after months of MLGs did I really dig deeper into the scene. I used to be bored from a lack of content inbetween MLGs... I had no idea that 6 months down the line I'd literally have so much content available to me that I just ignore whole tournaments, like on a weekly basis.
A pricing structure like this is actively discouraging new viewers and members of the e-sport scene.
|
On February 14 2012 19:07 Geiko wrote:Poll from this thread+ Show Spoiler +Poll: How much would you pay for MLG PPV?I wouldn't even buy it for $10 or less. (959) 39% I'd pay $10, but not $20. (945) 38% I'm fine with the $20 price point, but I'd gladly pay $10. (205) 8% I bought Gold, and I think I should receive the Arena passes at no extra charge. (169) 7% I bought Gold, and I'd pay $5 if the regular price were $10. (111) 5% I bought Gold, and I'd pay $10 if the regular price were $20. (67) 3% 2456 total votes Your vote: How much would you pay for MLG PPV? (Vote): I'm fine with the $20 price point, but I'd gladly pay $10.
(Vote): I'd pay $10, but not $20.
(Vote): I wouldn't even buy it for $10 or less.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I'd pay $10 if the regular price were $20.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I'd pay $5 if the regular price were $10.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I think I should receive the Arena passes at no extra charge.
Poll: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members?No (1520) 74% Yes (539) 26% 2059 total votes Your vote: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Is this another one of those "results disagree" bugs ? Or do TL forumers just agree with whatever was said in the OP... They look close enough to me. Plus polls like these are probably extremely effected by "what I think is in my best interest" votes which makes me think the content of the threads should make a pretty big difference.
|
I feel so cheated right now. What is the point of buying Gold package if you have to again pay for specific events...
20 $ for the week end is insane, I love in general the content produced at MLG, but this time I will watch something else. PPV only is really stupid, it isn't what's make people getting to know more of foreign esports tournaments...
|
On February 14 2012 18:58 SweetNJoshSauce wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 18:55 FXOpen wrote:On February 14 2012 18:29 lessQQmorePEWPEW wrote:
Do not agree with mass commercialization. Keep it free, make money off the ads... we all know they reap in good money from sponsors! The general community has 0 idea on how much money is sponsored on e-sports.. And I tell you now, the amount the community believes is incorrect.. by far. Yeah don't fill us in on the numbers though. Best to keep us in the dark and we'll just take youre word for it
He doesnt have to. its his word against pewpew's. Which one is more likely to be credible? make a judgement call.
Is it annoying that he leaves us in the dark? Yeah. But from his perspective, is it understandable that he didn't cite numbers? Yeah.
|
On February 14 2012 19:26 Akta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 19:07 Geiko wrote:Poll from this thread+ Show Spoiler +Poll: How much would you pay for MLG PPV?I wouldn't even buy it for $10 or less. (959) 39% I'd pay $10, but not $20. (945) 38% I'm fine with the $20 price point, but I'd gladly pay $10. (205) 8% I bought Gold, and I think I should receive the Arena passes at no extra charge. (169) 7% I bought Gold, and I'd pay $5 if the regular price were $10. (111) 5% I bought Gold, and I'd pay $10 if the regular price were $20. (67) 3% 2456 total votes Your vote: How much would you pay for MLG PPV? (Vote): I'm fine with the $20 price point, but I'd gladly pay $10.
(Vote): I'd pay $10, but not $20.
(Vote): I wouldn't even buy it for $10 or less.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I'd pay $10 if the regular price were $20.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I'd pay $5 if the regular price were $10.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I think I should receive the Arena passes at no extra charge.
Poll: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members?No (1520) 74% Yes (539) 26% 2059 total votes Your vote: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Is this another one of those "results disagree" bugs ? Or do TL forumers just agree with whatever was said in the OP... They look close enough to me. Plus polls like these are probably extremely effected by "what I think is in my best interest" votes which makes me think the content of the threads should make a pretty big difference.
First poll shows that more than 50% of people would buy it for 10$ whereas second poll shows 66% of people wouldn't buy it for 10$. How is that close enough ?
|
On February 14 2012 19:40 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 19:26 Akta wrote:On February 14 2012 19:07 Geiko wrote:Poll from this thread+ Show Spoiler +Poll: How much would you pay for MLG PPV?I wouldn't even buy it for $10 or less. (959) 39% I'd pay $10, but not $20. (945) 38% I'm fine with the $20 price point, but I'd gladly pay $10. (205) 8% I bought Gold, and I think I should receive the Arena passes at no extra charge. (169) 7% I bought Gold, and I'd pay $5 if the regular price were $10. (111) 5% I bought Gold, and I'd pay $10 if the regular price were $20. (67) 3% 2456 total votes Your vote: How much would you pay for MLG PPV? (Vote): I'm fine with the $20 price point, but I'd gladly pay $10.
(Vote): I'd pay $10, but not $20.
(Vote): I wouldn't even buy it for $10 or less.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I'd pay $10 if the regular price were $20.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I'd pay $5 if the regular price were $10.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I think I should receive the Arena passes at no extra charge.
Poll: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members?No (1520) 74% Yes (539) 26% 2059 total votes Your vote: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Is this another one of those "results disagree" bugs ? Or do TL forumers just agree with whatever was said in the OP... They look close enough to me. Plus polls like these are probably extremely effected by "what I think is in my best interest" votes which makes me think the content of the threads should make a pretty big difference. First poll shows that more than 50% of people would buy it for 10$ whereas second poll shows 66% of people wouldn't buy it for 10$. How is that close enough ?
Pay closer attention, the first one is about the price for everyone pretty much whilst the second poll is about people who purchased the gold pass and feel ripped off because it's not included.
|
On February 14 2012 19:40 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 19:26 Akta wrote:On February 14 2012 19:07 Geiko wrote:Poll from this thread+ Show Spoiler +Poll: How much would you pay for MLG PPV?I wouldn't even buy it for $10 or less. (959) 39% I'd pay $10, but not $20. (945) 38% I'm fine with the $20 price point, but I'd gladly pay $10. (205) 8% I bought Gold, and I think I should receive the Arena passes at no extra charge. (169) 7% I bought Gold, and I'd pay $5 if the regular price were $10. (111) 5% I bought Gold, and I'd pay $10 if the regular price were $20. (67) 3% 2456 total votes Your vote: How much would you pay for MLG PPV? (Vote): I'm fine with the $20 price point, but I'd gladly pay $10.
(Vote): I'd pay $10, but not $20.
(Vote): I wouldn't even buy it for $10 or less.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I'd pay $10 if the regular price were $20.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I'd pay $5 if the regular price were $10.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I think I should receive the Arena passes at no extra charge.
Poll: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members?No (1520) 74% Yes (539) 26% 2059 total votes Your vote: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Is this another one of those "results disagree" bugs ? Or do TL forumers just agree with whatever was said in the OP... They look close enough to me. Plus polls like these are probably extremely effected by "what I think is in my best interest" votes which makes me think the content of the threads should make a pretty big difference. First poll shows that more than 50% of people would buy it for 10$ whereas second poll shows 66% of people wouldn't buy it for 10$. How is that close enough ?
You didn't read the OP? In the first poll, answer B means "I won't pay 20$ for this event, but I would have with a lower price" (where did you see 10$? ... in the 2nd poll, obviously), so people who would pay less than 10$ answered B in first poll but didn't answer 10$ on the other one...
|
On February 14 2012 18:45 Tristran wrote:
An eSports business attempts to make a big step forward to improve their business model and they get crucified by the community they are trying to provide better entertainment to.
I would be happier if it were $10, but I will still be paying the $20. MLG has given me some of the most enthralling and emotional spectating of Starcraft 2 ever. I hope they make some changes to appeal to the widest audience and they keep growing, they deserve it.
How is charging 20$ for PPV moving esports foward?
|
I find this original post quite manipulative in how it attempts to astroturf support for $10 as an acceptable price.
|
On February 14 2012 19:10 Vanimar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 15:07 ottersareneat wrote:
We’re at (and when I say “we,” I mean, teams, tournaments, content providers, everyone) an incredibly crucial moment in the lifespan of this industry. We’re at a point at which we, as an industry, need to become less reliant on third-party, outsider revenue (like corporate sponsors), and increase the percentage of our revenue that’s generated within the eSports ecosystem (direct-to-consumer revenue like subscriptions and merchandise).
The reason for this is that it’s actually still way too hard for teams and tournaments (including those you guys view as the most prestigious and the richest in all of eSports) to make things work financially. Trying to remain viable as a business based on sponsorships and non-industry revenue alone is an unbelievably dangerous path to walk, and it’s just not sustainable in the long term. And I say this as the mind behind what is commonly viewed as the richest pro team in the industry right now.
eSports companies, whether you’re talking about EG, or MLG, need to increase their direct-to-consumer revenue in order to survive long-term. For EG, that means selling more merchandise in our store, and offering a monthly EG subscription package for our fans (which you’ll see later this year, with the release of our new website). For MLG, that means - very similarly - selling more merchandise in their store, and, you guessed it, offering more subscription-based stuff (such as the Winter Arena weekend pass).
There's something I don't quite get (actually at this point don't agree upon, but maybe just lack the insight), so I will just ask and hope for an answer. Q: Why does the Industry need to become less reliant on third-party, outsider revenue (like corporate sponsors)? The way I see it, any sport utterly depends on those. Even if you take a soccer club with 80000 seats in their stadium and 20$ (dollar just chosen as example currency for sake of the argument and calculation purposes) per ticket, that's 1,6 Million $ per home game (which is 50% of games, reducing the income to 800k per game). This is an optimistic approach, for in this scenario every game is sold out and every seat is worth 20$. For a stadium with 80k seats however you have to be a top notch team, so player expenses far exceed those 800k per game. This is just the players, adding travel, Hotels, coaches, cooks and whatnot, soccer could never survive without MASSIVE sponsoring. As I perceive the situation (again, correct me in case I am terribly wrong) there are two ways to handle the situation: A) Take money for events, This will limit your viewers in any scenario, because even if everybody watching E-Sports right now would agree to pay the 10$ you deem appropriate, new people would not. Yes the events would probably grow, while price pools would increase and income for teams would increase. As this happened I imagine salaries for players would also skyrocket. Meaning expenses would rise as well while travel costs would not be a problem anymore, for those, of yourse, would stay the same. Making it possible for Players to attend more events around the world. The danger I see in this is simply, that over time, viewers will stop watching (peoples interests change) while not many new people come to watch. And if you argue that "well player streams and some events are still free", then events charging money would benefit from smaller events which build the community paying events can live of. This might be a realistic, but in no way fair, scenario. B) Make everything free of charge and live off of sponsoring. I have no idea how hard it is to get sponsoring these days, but I imagine it's not easy. And this is actually a good thing, for it might facilitate competition among events. Maybe do some fun 4v4 pro games, play against viewers etc to keep people entertained. Think of new ways to sell the product, rather then just charge money for the same. This scenario actually has the heavy possibility of increasing the number of total E-Sport viewers, as everybody likes fun stuff, it's fun right? This would make the scene as a total grow, increasing the number of regular viewers and thus making it interesting for advertisement. I liked for example what you did with the "gracken" theme (although due to his latest showmatch I'hm rather inclined to it). I tink generating new ideas and fun stuff, interactive and not, will raise viewers and therefore increase sponsoring. Yes, increasing the direct-to-consumer revenue is great, and having your players live in a team house should make specials kind of easy. I kind of miss events of that kind, where teams just set up a stream and do stuff (for instance "win a mouse from our sponsor for showing us some amazing strat/ beat our team in 4v4.. etc etc). While I do want E-Sports to grow and am willing to buy my gaming gear exklusively from the sponsors of my favourite team /LAN I enjoyed and such, I am not willing to pay for a stream, for I feel it limits the amount of people watching, reduces the amount of new /entertaining ideas events bring to get more viewers, and ultimatively decreases the amount of people watching E-Sports, thus hurting it. If there is one thing I have gathered from most internet phenomena like Athene and such, it's that what it all comes down to is the amount of people watching. I feel any PPV model is a fast way to get more money into one's own pocket while decreasing the money going into the sport. This, of course, is a business model many businesses use, yes it ultimatively hurts everybody, doesn't it? Vanimar (concerned Starcraft fan)
i'm tired of "community leaders" elevating themselves to make these divine statements above the noise. if the current esports model is unsustainable, then it's because it has been made so by a rediculous arms race based on naive venture capital - $200k salaries for players who can't even stay in code a or play a showmatch without rage 6-pooling half the games included.
MLG has been losing money for a decade, it's almost become renound for how to run a business for a decade without making a single cent of profit. SC2 was their great white hope, specifically an american GSL. the problem was the NA scene never developed like they hoped, and attempting a regular circuit which involves flying almost your entire roster from all corners of the world is totally unsustainable at this point in SC2.
so MLG can't make money. they certainly can't make enough money to fund a business model which involves high rise NYC offices and a centre of operations in the most expensive location in america.
MLG is like the guy who buys a $2k suit to look the part in despite barely having enough money for stationary. comparitively, GSL runs a tight ship - modest, professional and effective. i feel like every penny that i give to them is invested exactly where it's needed. compare this to the opulent veneer that MLG are trying to present, that $20 will probably pay about 1/100th of the monthly rent of JP's office alone.
the use of "pitchforks" in this case represents the term's transition to a tool for those who wish belittle the community's ire. i'm usually a contrarian but i feel the community is dead on this time, and nobody in any place of tutting authority is providing any data to convince me otherwise - so quit with the all knowing "oh well, if you want esports to die..." horseshit.
people have to ask themselves what they want esports to be, an insular inustry based on gouging a small base to facilitate opulent budgets and big living of those providing it, or a modest reflection of the community - built on careful budgets which don't send them wildly into a deficit.
one has the potential to grow budgets, the other has the potential to grow the community.
which esports do you want?
|
I'll be surprised if this doesn't drop to $10. Why? Because they've wanted $10 all along. This seems like a classic negotiating tactic and $20 is just too absurd to be believable. It will even make Sundance and MLG look good when they "listen" to the fans.
|
the use of "pitchforks" in this case represents the term's transition to a tool for those who wish belittle the ire the community's ire.
I am glad you said this.
|
On February 14 2012 19:40 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 19:26 Akta wrote:On February 14 2012 19:07 Geiko wrote:Poll from this thread+ Show Spoiler +Poll: How much would you pay for MLG PPV?I wouldn't even buy it for $10 or less. (959) 39% I'd pay $10, but not $20. (945) 38% I'm fine with the $20 price point, but I'd gladly pay $10. (205) 8% I bought Gold, and I think I should receive the Arena passes at no extra charge. (169) 7% I bought Gold, and I'd pay $5 if the regular price were $10. (111) 5% I bought Gold, and I'd pay $10 if the regular price were $20. (67) 3% 2456 total votes Your vote: How much would you pay for MLG PPV? (Vote): I'm fine with the $20 price point, but I'd gladly pay $10.
(Vote): I'd pay $10, but not $20.
(Vote): I wouldn't even buy it for $10 or less.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I'd pay $10 if the regular price were $20.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I'd pay $5 if the regular price were $10.
(Vote): I bought Gold, and I think I should receive the Arena passes at no extra charge.
Poll: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members?No (1520) 74% Yes (539) 26% 2059 total votes Your vote: Would you pay if it was 10$ and 5$ for MLG Gold Members? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
Is this another one of those "results disagree" bugs ? Or do TL forumers just agree with whatever was said in the OP... They look close enough to me. Plus polls like these are probably extremely effected by "what I think is in my best interest" votes which makes me think the content of the threads should make a pretty big difference. First poll shows that more than 50% of people would buy it for 10$ whereas second poll shows 66% of people wouldn't buy it for 10$. How is that close enough ?
Edit: Alright I'm retarded apparantly I dunno wtf is going on
|
On February 14 2012 19:58 eloist wrote:Show nested quote +the use of "pitchforks" in this case represents the term's transition to a tool for those who wish belittle the ire the community's ire. I am glad you said this.
i'd be more glad if i didn't fuck that line up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
