|
On April 22 2012 09:23 MonkSEA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2012 12:37 Hot_Bid wrote:
Conclusion
We believe that a PPV-only stream listing is advertising that outweighs the contribution and utility to our calendar. While MLG understood our viewpoint, they disagreed with our decision to charge for PPV stream calendar advertising. Nevertheless, we simply cannot treat PPV-only listings the same as events with free options, just as we can't treat Sponsored Threads the same as normal threads. We hope you understand why the event is not on our calendar, and we apologize in advance for any inconvenience it causes for those paying for and watching the Winter Arena.
We will still cover the event in news because we believe the function of our news section is also to show people something they couldn't or didn't watch, while the function of the calendar is to show something users can watch. We owe it to our users to cover an event with such an elite player pool and production value as MLG. It's arguably even more important for people to read news coverage of this event because some won't even be watching it.
To be clear, we are still in a close and open relationship with MLG, we communicate with their staff daily. In the end, we TL staff are fans too, and some of the best experiences we've had have been watching and attending MLGs. We hope that MLG finds a revenue model that allows them to keep running successful events.
Are you guys all dumb? I bolded the part in the OP. Obviously MLG bought the the calendar advertisement. I don't see what's so hard to understand, or what is so wrong about it. Why is it a big fuss any ways?
Exactly. TL never stated anything otherwise. If you are not free to watch entirely, i.e. the sole purpose of your service is of a commercial nature, it should be treated as one.
|
Braavos36402 Posts
Sorry for the late response, please let me clarify.
We are not against PPV streams altogether, we are just against putting PPV events on our calendar without some sort of advertising agreement in place with the organizer. Last time MLG and TL did not reach a suitable agreement for calendar listing, this time we did.
|
would it be possible to add a small PPV in bracket next to the stream so we know we need to pay ???
|
On April 22 2012 12:46 Hot_Bid wrote:
Sorry for the late response, please let me clarify.
We are not against PPV streams altogether, we are just against putting PPV events on our calendar without some sort of advertising agreement in place with the organizer. Last time MLG and TL did not reach a suitable agreement for calendar listing, this time we did.
While I'm happy that MLG is paying TL to list their PPV live-stream, I'm disappointed at the implementation. In your original post you state that PPV listings will be treated just like Sponsored Threads. Yet, this isn't the case as there is no differentiation between the MLG PPV stream and the non-PPV streams in the calendar:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jQLZy.png)
I think most people would agree that this goes too far as sponsored and non-sponsored content on any website should never be indistinguishable. Websites that cross this line are often seen as being more interested in exploiting their users instead of serving them. As this the first attempt at a sponsored calendar listing it's excusable here, but the implementation should definitely be reconsidered.
|
Canada13428 Posts
On April 22 2012 13:33 OpticalPhonon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 12:46 Hot_Bid wrote:
Sorry for the late response, please let me clarify.
We are not against PPV streams altogether, we are just against putting PPV events on our calendar without some sort of advertising agreement in place with the organizer. Last time MLG and TL did not reach a suitable agreement for calendar listing, this time we did. While I'm happy that MLG is paying TL to list their PPV live-stream, I'm disappointed at the implementation. In your original post you state that PPV listings will be treated just like Sponsored Threads. Yet, this isn't the case as there is no differentiation between the MLG PPV stream and the non-PPV streams in the calendar: I think most people would agree that this goes too far as sponsored and non-sponsored content on any website should never be indistinguishable. Websites that cross this line are often seen as being more interested in exploiting their users instead of serving them. As this the first attempt at a sponsored calendar listing it's excusable here, but the implementation should definitely be reconsidered.
I think a small sponsor tag should be added, or seperation implemented in some way. Or a PPV tag perhaps.
However, to imply TL is exploitative in any way is an interpretation that should never be made.
|
thanks a lot for doing that.
I actually was gonna find a way to hide it from my calendar because it had been bothering me a lot.
I always thought it is a form of sponsoring MLG since it is PPV and I don't really want to buy it
|
On April 22 2012 14:07 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 13:33 OpticalPhonon wrote:On April 22 2012 12:46 Hot_Bid wrote:
Sorry for the late response, please let me clarify.
We are not against PPV streams altogether, we are just against putting PPV events on our calendar without some sort of advertising agreement in place with the organizer. Last time MLG and TL did not reach a suitable agreement for calendar listing, this time we did. While I'm happy that MLG is paying TL to list their PPV live-stream, I'm disappointed at the implementation. In your original post you state that PPV listings will be treated just like Sponsored Threads. Yet, this isn't the case as there is no differentiation between the MLG PPV stream and the non-PPV streams in the calendar: I think most people would agree that this goes too far as sponsored and non-sponsored content on any website should never be indistinguishable. Websites that cross this line are often seen as being more interested in exploiting their users instead of serving them. As this the first attempt at a sponsored calendar listing it's excusable here, but the implementation should definitely be reconsidered. I think a small sponsor tag should be added, or seperation implemented in some way. Or a PPV tag perhaps.
I don't think a simple PPV tag goes far enough but either of those other suggestions are fine.
On April 22 2012 14:07 ZeromuS wrote:
However, to imply TL is exploitative in any way is an interpretation that should never be made.
I was just listing the reason why it's problematic for any website to mix paid and non-paid content without making it clear to its users. Only a very cynical person would view this one instance as exploitative (especially since this is their first attempt at a paid Calendar listings).
|
Canada13428 Posts
On April 22 2012 14:34 OpticalPhonon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 14:07 ZeromuS wrote:On April 22 2012 13:33 OpticalPhonon wrote:On April 22 2012 12:46 Hot_Bid wrote:
Sorry for the late response, please let me clarify.
We are not against PPV streams altogether, we are just against putting PPV events on our calendar without some sort of advertising agreement in place with the organizer. Last time MLG and TL did not reach a suitable agreement for calendar listing, this time we did. While I'm happy that MLG is paying TL to list their PPV live-stream, I'm disappointed at the implementation. In your original post you state that PPV listings will be treated just like Sponsored Threads. Yet, this isn't the case as there is no differentiation between the MLG PPV stream and the non-PPV streams in the calendar: I think most people would agree that this goes too far as sponsored and non-sponsored content on any website should never be indistinguishable. Websites that cross this line are often seen as being more interested in exploiting their users instead of serving them. As this the first attempt at a sponsored calendar listing it's excusable here, but the implementation should definitely be reconsidered. I think a small sponsor tag should be added, or seperation implemented in some way. Or a PPV tag perhaps. I don't think a simple PPV tag goes far enough but either of those other suggestions are fine. Show nested quote +On April 22 2012 14:07 ZeromuS wrote:
However, to imply TL is exploitative in any way is an interpretation that should never be made. I was just listing the reason why it's problematic for any website to mix paid and non-paid content without making it clear to its users. Only a very cynical person would view this one instance as exploitative (especially since this is their first attempt at a paid Calendar listings).
Ok, I misunderstood your post 
I agree it should be noted as seperate in some way though I think a PPV tag would suffice for the primary concern.
The primary issue I can see is somewhat of a bait and switch wherein people are used to free stream content, click the link get an external link and then can't watch because of PPV. It isnt a bait and switch in the technical sense of the term but it can provide the same feeling for the viewer who clicks the link.
Making it clear it is not a free stream alleviates this primary issue. Sponsored or not link is I think less of an issue. I think the issue is since its PPV it needs to be sponsored by tl standards but for users its really the PPV trick as it were that matters as outlined above.
|
please give us the option: [x] remove all streams that require PPV in the sidebar settings.
If that is not possible or not going to happen then make it at least obv what stream requires payment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
