RALEIGH, North Carolina (Reuters) - CBS Interactive, the gaming wing of CBS Corp, has locked up exclusive advertising deals with six major professional leagues, capitalizing on a sport that is rapidly growing in popularity while managing to run under the mainstream radar.
Executives for CBS Interactive told Reuters on Wednesday that they had signed agreements to stream pro competitions with the North American Star League, Dreamhack, Electronic Sports League, Global StarCraft II League, EVO Championship Series, and Major League Gaming. CBSi also has a non-exclusive deal with a seventh, IGN Pro League.
"We've locked up 96 percent of all the advertising inventory around eSports, and now we have an opportunity to take that to market and turn this pond into an ocean," said Simon Whitcombe, general manager of CBSi Games.
...
CBSi Games also has partnered with Own3D, one of the world's largest live streaming companies to expand its reach. Own3D already attracts over 10 million people a month to watch live streaming game competitions and events.
The deal with Own3D comes on the heels of a separate CBSi partnership with TwitchTV, which attracts another 17 million gamers per month through its streaming game content.
Note: CBSi does not actually have direct partnerships with Dreamhack, ESL, GSL, or IPL.
Having control over the "advertising inventory" means that CBSi now has the right to sell advertising space during MLG, ESL, NASL, etc in a way that they choose. Since CBSi (I assume) has more knowledge about how to get the most out of advertising space than most of the leagues do, I'd imagine that this deal will be great for all parties, at least in theory.
According to Slasher, the control that CBSi has over advertising for Dreamhack, ESL, IPL, and GSL only exists if those leagues use Twitch TV. And even then, CBSi will only be handling their advertising in the US. So, for example, if ESL uses Twitch for the next IEM, CBSi will be handling their advertising in the US, but if ESL uses a stream of their own, CBSi will not be handling the advertising at all.
For reference, ESL, IPL, and Dreamhack used Twitch to stream their last major event. GSL did not.
On June 01 2012 05:08 Slasher wrote: I have spoken to CBSi Games General Manager Simon Whitcombe and would like to clarify a few things.
- CBS Interactive has direct partnerships only with MLG, TwitchTV, and now NASL and Own3d. CBSi will sell advertising for those leagues worldwide. EVO, DreamHack, ESL, and IPL were named because of those leagues' broadcast deals with TwitchTV. CBSi does NOT have a direct partnership with any of those leagues at this time, but are included as all broadcasts are done via TwitchTV. Advertising will be sold for these leagues in the US.
- GSL was listed as per their previous streaming via Twitch and Own3d, but there is again no direct partnership with GomTV
- "96% of all the advertising inventory" refers to only to LIVE VIDEO, and does not count VOD's such as YouTube and Blip.tv.
RALEIGH, North Carolina (Reuters) - CBS Interactive, the gaming wing of CBS Corp, has locked up exclusive advertising deals with six major professional leagues, capitalizing on a sport that is rapidly growing in popularity while managing to run under the mainstream radar.
Executives for CBS Interactive told Reuters on Wednesday that they had signed agreements to stream pro competitions with the North American Star League, Dreamhack, Electronic Sports League, Global StarCraft II League, EVO Championship Series, and Major League Gaming. CBSi also has a non-exclusive deal with a seventh, IGN Pro League.
"We've locked up 96 percent of all the advertising inventory around eSports, and now we have an opportunity to take that to market and turn this pond into an ocean," said Simon Whitcombe, general manager of CBSi Games.
GSL = Global Starcraft II League? It seems all the really big ones are in there.
This is lolwut cray cray. I'd love to see CBS introduce serious professional production quality and maybe make it more of an MMA fights sort of deal. I think that'd build up a lot more excitement team recognition. "Best" players are varying so often no adays. I think it'd be better to give them time to rest and develop new strategies.
This is apparently a lot of marketing because apparently CBSi has partnerships with twitch.tv and own3d, so my guess is they will provide expertise but twitch and own3d are still the primary players.
If I read this right, all this means is CBSi will be controlling the advertising for events, which is great imo. Who cares what ads get shown on stream, as long as the ad revenue money comes rolling in. CBSi has more experience selling ads and have their own network to get advertisers on board compared to every league doing it internally themselves.
The proof will be in the pudding though. If CBSi can get more mainstream companies to advertise in esports rather then just your computer, energy drink companies, etc, then it will be a success.
For people that don't know that much about marketing, this basically means CBSi will form and "project lead" all ads so they conform to the best interest of their investment.
Basically, they will control ads on a supplier level, before twitch, owned, or any of the tournaments under them have anything to say about it.
Generally, it's a good thing but can(and most likely will) lead to esports being under a global media company since they will control most of the income to the scene except for team and player sponsorships.
Isn't there an organization in the US, that prevents these kinds of monopoly situations? In germany the "Bundeskartellamt" is responsible for this.
Edit: Why should that be a positive situation for esports? This company has basically no competition and has almost full control over a market. Nothing to be cheerful about in my opinion...
These deal could be one of the best things to happen to E-Sports, CBS rolls with a pretty elite mainstream crowd, and could introduce a lot of new very large checkbooks companies to E-Sports. This is all on the surface however, who knows what the language of the contracts are, still cool stuff.
On June 01 2012 04:52 SomeONEx wrote: I have a bad feeling about this
my thoughts exactly... seems like to many eggs in one basket to soon... its like going all in really early in a poker tournament... if it doesn't go well the entire industry could suffer, but success means a long life =/ its just the risk is to high.
I hope teams can still have their own sponsors and let their players wear sponsored shirts and do sponsor shoutouts? If not this is really bad for the teams.
On June 01 2012 04:56 Josh_rakoons wrote: Is this a bad thing or a good thing?
Yes i too am hoping someone with a little law/business background can give us some pro and cons of this whole thing.
It is all pro and no cons. CBS interactive has made a deal with most of the major leagues to sell their ads through the leagues. This means that the leagues have to spend less time and effort attempting to get sponsors and more time running their specific league. It also means a broader base of ads and more money over all.
I think this just means that CBSi feels they can deliver higher overall ad revenue for MLG, etc. and that they are entitled to a portion of that increased ad revenue.
My guess is that, outside of increasing viewership (not their job), they are trying to make ads more effective, thus allowing the broadcasters to charge more per impression. By effective, I just mean generating more sales per impression. There's plenty of ways to do that, but my guess is that CBSi pitched a great algorithm for picking the right ad at the right time. Or perhaps they have developed interactive ad models that can integrate with livestreams (would you like to see TT1 ad or EA ad? i.e. the Hulu model).
I don't see any losers in this deal, provided the ads are actually more effective. Gamers can be a weird crowd to please. :/
It means if they fail or bail out due to not enough revenue, then the streaming industry is majorly f***ed.
Getting any aspect of the internet under control of a single media corporation is not a good thing. I no like this monopoly.
On the plus side they will have thrown money at the leagues and streaming companies, so short term we as consumers will see impovements of services for us. Midterm someone will want their investment money back and we know how this ends usually.
On June 01 2012 04:49 brokenLoL wrote: They forgot to make a deal with KeSPA.
Sounds like, to me, CBSi can sell the ad space to other companies, meaning if Degree wants to spam you with ads, they go through CBSi instead of the seperate companies. Also expect to see a LOT of ads for CBS programming, since it's pretty much a "free" filler if they can't sell all the ads they want.
I noticed how they took 96% of the advertising rights and didnt go for the full monopoly. CBS has some of the shittiest shows, and the news station at least in my state is fucking biased as fuck, more than fox. its w/e since i run abp.
I have spoken to CBSi Games General Manager Simon Whitcombe and would like to clarify a few things.
- CBS Interactive has direct partnerships only with MLG, TwitchTV, and now NASL and Own3d. CBSi will sell advertising for those leagues worldwide. EVO, DreamHack, ESL, and IPL were named because of those leagues' broadcast deals with TwitchTV. CBSi does NOT have a direct partnership with any of those leagues at this time, but are included as all broadcasts are done via TwitchTV. Advertising will be sold for these leagues in the US.
- GSL was listed as per their previous streaming via Twitch and Own3d, but there is again no direct partnership with GomTV
- "96% of all the advertising inventory" refers to only to LIVE VIDEO, and does not count VOD's such as YouTube and Blip.tv.
It could be good or bad. Its good because a big company decided it was time to not only invest heavily into e-sports but integrate it into their core business (advertising). On the other hand, it means that CBSi now has a monopoly on the space and if they screw up then its over. (all of our eggs are in one basket).
Holy smoke... On other note, I hope this means that GSL won't be broadcasted on the gom player anymore. Even though the player is quite nice, but I would also love to be able to watch the GSL without having to boot from Linux to Windows.
On June 01 2012 05:08 Slasher wrote: I have spoken to CBSi Games General Manager Simon Whitcombe and would like to clarify a few things.
- CBS Interactive has direct partnerships only with MLG, TwitchTV, and now NASL and Own3d. CBSi will sell advertising for those leagues worldwide. EVO, DreamHack, ESL, and IPL were named because of those leagues' broadcast deals with TwitchTV. CBSi does NOT have a direct partnership with any of those leagues at this time, but are included as all broadcasts are done via TwitchTV. Advertising will be sold for these leagues in the US.
- GSL was listed as per their previous streaming via Twitch and Own3d, but there is again no direct partnership with GomTV
- "96% of all the advertising inventory" refers to only to LIVE VIDEO, and does not count VOD's such as YouTube and Blip.tv.
good stuff slasher, thanks for the heads up. this should probably go in the OP
On June 01 2012 05:08 Slasher wrote: I have spoken to CBSi Games General Manager Simon Whitcombe and would like to clarify a few things.
- CBS Interactive has direct partnerships only with MLG, TwitchTV, and now NASL and Own3d. CBSi will sell advertising for those leagues worldwide. EVO, DreamHack, ESL, and IPL were named because of those leagues' broadcast deals with TwitchTV. CBSi does NOT have a direct partnership with any of those leagues at this time, but are included as all broadcasts are done via TwitchTV. Advertising will be sold for these leagues in the US.
- GSL was listed as per their previous streaming via Twitch and Own3d, but there is again no direct partnership with GomTV
- "96% of all the advertising inventory" refers to only to LIVE VIDEO, and does not count VOD's such as YouTube and Blip.tv.
On June 01 2012 05:08 Slasher wrote: I have spoken to CBSi Games General Manager Simon Whitcombe and would like to clarify a few things.
- CBS Interactive has direct partnerships only with MLG, TwitchTV, and now NASL and Own3d. CBSi will sell advertising for those leagues worldwide. EVO, DreamHack, ESL, and IPL were named because of those leagues' broadcast deals with TwitchTV. CBSi does NOT have a direct partnership with any of those leagues at this time, but are included as all broadcasts are done via TwitchTV. Advertising will be sold for these leagues in the US.
- GSL was listed as per their previous streaming via Twitch and Own3d, but there is again no direct partnership with GomTV
- "96% of all the advertising inventory" refers to only to LIVE VIDEO, and does not count VOD's such as YouTube and Blip.tv.
GSL should be removed then given that they don't really stream on Twitch.
Pros: Advertising agency representation makes starcraft a more attractive (larger) advertising market (Instead of just MLG and a few million viewers, 96% of starcraft league viewers, more often than MLG events alone.)
Cons: Potentially limited advertisement competition (e.g., Coke and Pepsi probably won't both sponsor MLG, twitch, etc.), if they're advertised all together. This might be averted if CBSi represents the advertising for each entity individually (e.g., Coke can sponsor MLG, Pepsi can sponsor Twitch), we'll have to wait and see.
It seems good in the short run, while eSports is still growing, hopefully CBSi can keep up. The people running these leagues aren't idiots, they recognize the advertising benefit they can gain from this deal, so I hope they are getting good rates compared to having to shop around independently.
Side note: This may help with league cooperation regarding event scheduling, since that potentially wastes ad revenue for both parties, and CBSi can be a middle-man.
I don´t know, don´t have a good feeling about this, every time there is lack of competition, it´s bad for the final users a.k.a us the viewers. Hope to be wrong though!
On June 01 2012 04:56 Josh_rakoons wrote: Is this a bad thing or a good thing?
It's never a bad thing. The only thing that affects normal viewers like you and me is we have to watch commercials, everybody gets good deal. When eSports proves itself enough, there will be other companies coming in, strike better deal with leagues, and snatch the exclusivity. This kind of stuff happens a lot.
Thanks for the clarification, Slasher. Unfortunately press releases in the past 6 months for many different parties are very liberal with their stretching of the facts.
On June 01 2012 05:08 Slasher wrote: I have spoken to CBSi Games General Manager Simon Whitcombe and would like to clarify a few things.
- CBS Interactive has direct partnerships only with MLG, TwitchTV, and now NASL and Own3d. CBSi will sell advertising for those leagues worldwide. EVO, DreamHack, ESL, and IPL were named because of those leagues' broadcast deals with TwitchTV. CBSi does NOT have a direct partnership with any of those leagues at this time, but are included as all broadcasts are done via TwitchTV. Advertising will be sold for these leagues in the US.
- GSL was listed as per their previous streaming via Twitch and Own3d, but there is again no direct partnership with GomTV
- "96% of all the advertising inventory" refers to only to LIVE VIDEO, and does not count VOD's such as YouTube and Blip.tv.
Very awesome. So it's a matter of advertising and not so much and interference in production quality or anything of the sort. I guess that means overall more attention to Starcraft!
On June 01 2012 05:10 brokenLoL wrote: So since they have ESL, and Blizz is working with ESL to do those shitty regional things, does that mean CBSi will do shit for Blizz as well?
Shitty? What is wrong with people these days? The regional championships is the best thing blizzard ever did for esports.
On June 01 2012 05:10 brokenLoL wrote: So since they have ESL, and Blizz is working with ESL to do those shitty regional things, does that mean CBSi will do shit for Blizz as well?
Shitty? What is wrong with people these days? The regional championships is the best thing blizzard ever did for esports.
If Blizzard wants to help our ESPORTS, they'd buy out RIOT games.
As the global analytics manager of an international advertising agency I feel like I can shed some light.
1.) This is a good thing. individual leagues don't have the sales staff and advertising knowledge to sell their own advertising inventory optimally. CBSi has a vast network of existing partnerships with agencies and major brands that it can leverage to get the most advertising revenue out of the inventory. (inventory = potential ad impressions) (Impressions = each time an ad is served to an individual computer)
2.) Most leagues focused on individual sponsorship's which are difficult to secure and often don't generate optimal revenue. Another challenge is that many sponsors prefer to have non-compete rights or the sole ability to display ads. Every sponsor has a target market so having one single advertiser limits revenue because inventory (impressions) will go unused.
For example. MLG is sponsored by Dr. Pepper/Snapple Group U.S. They are only targeting a US audience with their ads. In this scenario MLG does not get paid for any impression seen by a non-US person. The result is wasted inventory. CBSi can ensure that all available inventory is sold which means more revenue for everyone.
There are many more reasons but these two should suffice.
On June 01 2012 05:08 Slasher wrote: I have spoken to CBSi Games General Manager Simon Whitcombe and would like to clarify a few things.
- CBS Interactive has direct partnerships only with MLG, TwitchTV, and now NASL and Own3d. CBSi will sell advertising for those leagues worldwide. EVO, DreamHack, ESL, and IPL were named because of those leagues' broadcast deals with TwitchTV. CBSi does NOT have a direct partnership with any of those leagues at this time, but are included as all broadcasts are done via TwitchTV. Advertising will be sold for these leagues in the US.
- GSL was listed as per their previous streaming via Twitch and Own3d, but there is again no direct partnership with GomTV
- "96% of all the advertising inventory" refers to only to LIVE VIDEO, and does not count VOD's such as YouTube and Blip.tv.
LOL at bolded part
GOM has used Twitch what, 2 times in total? Out of their hundreds of broadcasts.. That can't even be considdered as an "unclear fact", it is straight up false
On June 01 2012 05:11 Ichabod wrote: Pros: Advertising agency representation makes starcraft a more attractive (larger) advertising market (Instead of just MLG and a few million viewers, 96% of starcraft league viewers, more often than MLG events alone.)
Cons: Potentially limited advertisement competition (e.g., Coke and Pepsi probably won't both sponsor MLG, twitch, etc.), if they're advertised all together. This might be averted if CBSi represents the advertising for each entity individually (e.g., Coke can sponsor MLG, Pepsi can sponsor Twitch), we'll have to wait and see.
It seems good in the short run, while eSports is still growing, hopefully CBSi can keep up. The people running these leagues aren't idiots, they recognize the advertising benefit they can gain from this deal, so I hope they are getting good rates compared to having to shop around independently.
Side note: This may help with league cooperation regarding event scheduling, since that potentially wastes ad revenue for both parties, and CBSi can be a middle-man.
CBSi isn't selling sponsorships, they are selling advertising. So the conflicting thing wont matter. When I watch NFL games, I see Coke/Pepsi, Bud/Coors, McDonalds/BurgerKing ads all the time. Same will happen here.
This is another quote from the article which just blew my mind.
Michael Pachter, video game analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities, believes that the audience for eSports will double every two years over the next decade.
Exponential growth. (like, literally exponential), not just a figure of speech. For the next decade. While we knew eSports was growing rapidly, this just drives the nail home, so to speak. This kind of growth is enormous, and really illustrates the kind of potential which investors are starting to see in this industry.
This is just a hype article as far as i can see. 96% of advertising.. Well, if you provide advertising to twitch and own3d, I think that can be assumed (for now) and doesn't require an article.
Find sponsors for 96% of e-sports, and I will happily bow down to you CBSi.
anyway, other important thing to take away is since they are just now partnering with a CBSi, it is quite likely that we will see an NASL season 4. Originally they said 3 seasons planned and then see where they were. Looks like we can expect to see them back
oof, i don't know about this. This could be really good for creating better tournaments ect, but at the same time it sounds a little too money oriented. "We've locked up 96 percent of all the advertising inventory around eSports, and now we have an opportunity to take that to market and turn this pond into an ocean" doesn't sound like they are worried about the love of the game at all. I understand that if we want to see more players better tournaments, more exposure, ect, we need more money in the scene, but i don't like the idea that a single business has this much sway over the scene especially when the people in charge hardly seem to care hopefully it will come out good though
On June 01 2012 05:17 Innovation wrote: As the global analytics manager of an international advertising agency I feel like I can shed some light.
1.) This is a good thing. individual leagues don't have the sales staff and advertising knowledge to sell their own advertising inventory optimally. CBSi has a vast network of existing partnerships with agencies and major brands that it can leverage to get the most advertising revenue out of the inventory. (inventory = potential ad impressions) (Impressions = each time an ad is served to an individual computer)
2.) Most leagues focused on individual sponsorship's which are difficult to secure and often don't generate optimal revenue. Another challenge is that many sponsors prefer to have non-compete rights or the sole ability to display ads. Every sponsor has a target market so having one single advertiser limits revenue because inventory (impressions) will go unused.
For example. MLG is sponsored by Dr. Pepper/Snapple Group U.S. They are only targeting a US audience with their ads. In this scenario MLG does not get paid for any impression seen by a non-US person. The result is wasted inventory. CBSi can ensure that all available inventory is sold which means more revenue for everyone.
There are many more reasons but these two should suffice.
Thanks for the insight man. I think this deserves to be reposted for its expertise and hopefully to clarify some of the confusion expressed by others on this thread as to what these deals actually mean.
On June 01 2012 05:17 Innovation wrote: As the global analytics manager of an international advertising agency I feel like I can shed some light.
1.) This is a good thing. individual leagues don't have the sales staff and advertising knowledge to sell their own advertising inventory optimally. CBSi has a vast network of existing partnerships with agencies and major brands that it can leverage to get the most advertising revenue out of the inventory. (inventory = potential ad impressions) (Impressions = each time an ad is served to an individual computer)
2.) Most leagues focused on individual sponsorship's which are difficult to secure and often don't generate optimal revenue. Another challenge is that many sponsors prefer to have non-compete rights or the sole ability to display ads. Every sponsor has a target market so having one single advertiser limits revenue because inventory (impressions) will go unused.
For example. MLG is sponsored by Dr. Pepper/Snapple Group U.S. They are only targeting a US audience with their ads. In this scenario MLG does not get paid for any impression seen by a non-US person. The result is wasted inventory. CBSi can ensure that all available inventory is sold which means more revenue for everyone.
There are many more reasons but these two should suffice.
Yep, basically this. CBS basically says "Look, we are partners, I'm gonna take care of advertising and marketing department, you guys focus on producing contents"
For tournament organizers, they don't have to actively look for sponsors anymore. Their budgets will gonna be more stable, which lead to more stable production quality theoretically. For streamers who use twitchtv or own3d, we may not notice, but in a bigger pictures, the more stable these services are financially, the better the service is going to be, maybe even better payout in the future.
96% of the live stream gaming contents are from twitchTV and own3d, the other 4% may come from ustream, livestream, dailymotion, etc. Of course, monopoly isn't the ideal, but everything has to start out with monopoly. Stuff will change as the scene grows.
On June 01 2012 05:30 Spec wrote: For some reason this doesn't sound as bad as it seems? Don't feel like monopoly of advertising is going to be a problem.
Yeah, I don't think this is bad at all. It depends on the details of the deals, which we don't know, but as long as those groups aren't locked in for a very long-term thing, then CBSi can't use monopoly power to shortchange them on advertising or anything like that, since they could always leave the deal if they wanted to.
Why dont I ever understand half of these news/drama/bussiness deal threads just by reading the OP? I always need to read smarter people's responses to get what the topic is about lol. I am a retard.
Ok so only 2/3 of the North American leagues are contracted, however the 2 major broadcast platforms. ESL, Dreamhack dont even run commercials on the platforms during major events but rather in-stream clips, so yea CEO-on-CEO hype-sale-talk right there.
Still I'll stand by my previous comment hat whenever CBSi will pull out again then the broadcasters and their customers are in major trouble, until then it's a good stuff.
As the global analytics manager of an international advertising agency I feel like I can shed some light.
1.) This is a good thing. individual leagues don't have the sales staff and advertising knowledge to sell their own advertising inventory optimally. CBSi has a vast network of existing partnerships with agencies and major brands that it can leverage to get the most advertising revenue out of the inventory. (inventory = potential ad impressions) (Impressions = each time an ad is served to an individual computer)
2.) Most leagues focused on individual sponsorship's which are difficult to secure and often don't generate optimal revenue. Another challenge is that many sponsors prefer to have non-compete rights or the sole ability to display ads. Every sponsor has a target market so having one single advertiser limits revenue because inventory (impressions) will go unused.
For example. MLG is sponsored by Dr. Pepper/Snapple Group U.S. They are only targeting a US audience with their ads. In this scenario MLG does not get paid for any impression seen by a non-US person. The result is wasted inventory. CBSi can ensure that all available inventory is sold which means more revenue for everyone.
There are many more reasons but these two should suffice.
Thank you for this post, I really could not decide myself if I like this but this sounds great. And nice writen/formatted, really rare
On June 01 2012 05:33 KrazyTrumpet wrote: Christ, people will seriously complain about anything.
This means more ad revenue...which is something that is desperately needed for some of these leagues.
^
This is what esports needs to get some really big money to come into the scene. If you want to see the finals of an MLG event (or Dreamhack or whatever) on ESPN or something some day, this kind of thing needs to happen.
I have a REALLY bad feeling about this one, not even KeSpa was able to provoke such a deep worry in me. I hope it turns out good and all but i frear this monopoly might ruin a lot of what others have build in over 10 Years, very quickly.
On June 01 2012 05:44 gCgCrypto wrote: I have a REALLY bad feeling about this one, not even KeSpa was able to provoke such a deep worry in me. I hope it turns out good and all but i frear this monopoly might ruin a lot of what others have build in over 10 Years, very quickly.
I know, I mean its crazy, they will be playing ADS THAT ARE LOCALIZED TO OUR COUNTRIES OH MY GOD ITS THE END OF ESPORTS
This is not a bad thing at all. I work for the marketing/sales dept of a media company as well.
1. This means CBSi is in charge of selling 96% of the ad inventory space available. The rest of the 4% could be inventory already sold by the leagues (Dr. Pepper, Monster, Red Bull, etc) that the leagues are already in charge of. My guess.
2. CBSi will be in charge of generating new clients/advertisers and they can go out in the marketplace as a shiny new thing to sell. The "NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE" is this, eSports.
3. The leagues themselves can, and probably will, receive more revenue due to the nature of receiving more advertisers. More revenue means more money into eSports. YES.
4. This relieves some duty of the leagues to find sponsors/advertisers/clients themselves, which CAN lead to a more efficient production team, which CAN lead to better quality production.
5. This generates buzz in the media industry, which will wake up their competition (ABC/NBC) and hopefully there will be more companies fighting for the inventory space to sell.
This is all good, question is.. how long is the exclusive partnership?
I don't think we should be too worried about this "monopoly". Take away this deal, and twitch and own3d are actually a duopoly. CBSi's simply making the advertising much more optimised.
Will they also direct the intensity of the ads? So for a huge tournement like MLG we will see 5 ads before and after a match, while a smaller tournement with less viewers like some ESL qualifiers, there will be only 1 ad per hour? Or is this still regulated by the leagues themselves?
Here lets break it down for some folks who are having a rough time with the report:
CBSi: Hey, Esports you have a ton of viewers and we think that is great. They seem to watch your stuff for HOURS.
Esports: Thanks CBSi, we have worked really hard to get all our streaming content up and going. Its rough though , getting ads is hard when we are all running tournaments and attempting to make a living.
CBSi: Well that’s why we called. You see, your views are males between the ages of 18-34. We cannot get ads to these bastards. They are to smart and tech savy to fall for any traditional ads and mostly watch Netflix. But they love you guys and we think they would love the ads we sell.
Esports: That’s awesome, we would love to show your ads on our streams. It will be a huge help if you guys are getting the sponsors and providing us with the ads.
CBSi: Not a problem. We also have these news sites, like Giant Bomb and GameSpot that report on this sort of stuff. Could you get us some access to players and teams for interviews and such.
Esports: No problem, we can do that. Glad to have you join the scene.
On June 01 2012 05:08 Slasher wrote: I have spoken to CBSi Games General Manager Simon Whitcombe and would like to clarify a few things.
- CBS Interactive has direct partnerships only with MLG, TwitchTV, and now NASL and Own3d. CBSi will sell advertising for those leagues worldwide. EVO, DreamHack, ESL, and IPL were named because of those leagues' broadcast deals with TwitchTV. CBSi does NOT have a direct partnership with any of those leagues at this time, but are included as all broadcasts are done via TwitchTV. Advertising will be sold for these leagues in the US.
- GSL was listed as per their previous streaming via Twitch and Own3d, but there is again no direct partnership with GomTV
- "96% of all the advertising inventory" refers to only to LIVE VIDEO, and does not count VOD's such as YouTube and Blip.tv.
So what you are saying is this press report actually says nothing really because they haven't signed anything with GOM or any of the other leagues that weren't mentioned previously. Side note I would presume that news corp would have something to say about CBSi signing a deal with IPL.
Michael Pachter, video game analyst at Wedbush Morgan Securities, believes that the audience for eSports will double every two years over the next decade.
Exponential growth. (like, literally exponential), not just a figure of speech. For the next decade. While we knew eSports was growing rapidly, this just drives the nail home, so to speak. This kind of growth is enormous, and really illustrates the kind of potential which investors are starting to see in this industry.
eeeuh, this is the same michael Patcher that said that RTS are kinda turn based single player games...
So let me get this strait. Everyone talks about e-sports going mainstream and how amazing it would be for it to be a legit sport... and now that wheels are beginning to turn to make that a reality people begin to freak out? You can take off the tinfoil hat guys.
How are people about to complain about people coming into esports for the money? would you rather it stay in the underground and never gain any attention at all? come on now people smarten up...this NEEDS to happen. Big thanks to CBSi for giving eSports a chance.
On June 01 2012 05:58 Reapafied wrote: So let me get this strait. Everyone talks about e-sports going mainstream and how amazing it would be for it to be a legit sport... and now that wheels are beginning to turn to make that a reality people begin to freak out? You can take off the tinfoil hat guys.
Dude, stuff like this has gone wrong before. I think it's only right to be a little bit skeptical. Some people are overdoing it though ;o
On June 01 2012 05:59 Blunt_Dr wrote: How are people about to complain about people coming into esports for the money? would you rather it stay in the underground and never gain any attention at all? come on now people smarten up...this NEEDS to happen. Big thanks to CBSi for giving eSports a chance.
a lot of people like things the way they are now, including me.
edit: not to say that I have any problems with this deal, It's just advertising as far as we know.
On June 01 2012 05:59 Blunt_Dr wrote: How are people about to complain about people coming into esports for the money? would you rather it stay in the underground and never gain any attention at all? come on now people smarten up...this NEEDS to happen. Big thanks to CBSi for giving eSports a chance.
a lot of people like things the way they are now, including me.
edit: not to say that I have any problems with this deal, It's just advertising as far as we know.
The scene cannot stay the way it is. Most of the leagues are losing money and need to get access to more profitable ads deals, like this one. But CBSi doesn't want to change things to much. They only have to sell the ads, not make the content.
On June 01 2012 05:59 Blunt_Dr wrote: How are people about to complain about people coming into esports for the money? would you rather it stay in the underground and never gain any attention at all? come on now people smarten up...this NEEDS to happen. Big thanks to CBSi for giving eSports a chance.
a lot of people like things the way they are now, including me.
edit: not to say that I have any problems with this deal, It's just advertising as far as we know.
The scene cannot stay the way it is. Most of the leagues are losing money and need to get access to more profitable ads deals, like this one. But CBSi doesn't want to change things to much. They only have to sell the ads, not make the content.
like I said there's nothing bad about this, my comment was just towards the bolded part. I don't want starcraft 2 to be " mainstream " and the scene obviously can continue the way it is, if that means some tournaments collapse then so be it. over- saturation of sc2 content is an issue right now so may the best tournaments survive.
This will inject more money into esports for sure which is a good thing. But when you see the false information in the press release i am not sure where such an ad monopoly will take us. This was not the way ESPORTS was grown.
It's important for players to get their fair share of advertising dollars, since without them eSports can't exist. I hope the bigger names band together and unionize in a sense. Seek legal advice. It may seem trivial now, but in another few years when these tournaments are televised and networks are making millions, players and broadcasters need to be sitting at the same table.
On June 01 2012 05:59 Blunt_Dr wrote: How are people about to complain about people coming into esports for the money? would you rather it stay in the underground and never gain any attention at all? come on now people smarten up...this NEEDS to happen. Big thanks to CBSi for giving eSports a chance.
a lot of people like things the way they are now, including me.
edit: not to say that I have any problems with this deal, It's just advertising as far as we know.
The scene cannot stay the way it is. Most of the leagues are losing money and need to get access to more profitable ads deals, like this one. But CBSi doesn't want to change things to much. They only have to sell the ads, not make the content.
like I said there's nothing bad about this, my comment was just towards the bolded part. I don't want starcraft 2 to be " mainstream " and the scene obviously can continue the way it is, if that means some tournaments collapse then so be it. over- saturation of sc2 content is an issue right now so may the best tournaments survive.
SC2 and Esports will likely remain a niche product for years. Underground and mainstream are really overused words, nearly meaningless words anyways. We want Esports to be successful and reach a lot of people who enjoy it. There is enough out there where their can be something for everyone.
I'm really having a nice chuckle at all the conspiracy theorists in here too.
I hope CBSi is able to pitch big live events as the "Super Bowls" of eSports so that those tournaments can get much higher CPM on the ads they run, resulting in league growth.
On June 01 2012 06:40 LittleAtari wrote: how does this effect sponsorships of these individual leagues? Or is it just if they run an advertisement using twitch's system that CBSi takes that?
That's basically all it is. CBSi is paying to have their ads run on twitch etc. in addition to (presumably) the ads you would see at MLG etc
This isn't even necessarily going to make them money I'm pretty sure twitch and own3d et all have a hard time filling ads because we never buy the shit we see
I'm really having a nice chuckle at all the conspiracy theorists in here too.
I hope CBSi is able to pitch big live events as the "Super Bowls" of eSports so that those tournaments can get much higher CPM on the ads they run, resulting in league growth.
You are right, it's a conspiracy theory that without competition a product will become worse and more expensive. I don't know how it would apply here, but for sure it would have been better if 2 corporations would have bought "it".
Oh and by the way, KeSPA has a nice history you can read on and see what conspiracy theory monopoly did in bw.
I'm really having a nice chuckle at all the conspiracy theorists in here too.
I hope CBSi is able to pitch big live events as the "Super Bowls" of eSports so that those tournaments can get much higher CPM on the ads they run, resulting in league growth.
You are right, it's a conspiracy theory that without competition a product will become worse and more expensive. I don't know how it would apply here, but for sure it would have been better if 2 corporations would have bought "it".
Oh and by the way, KeSPA has a nice history you can read on and see what conspiracy theory monopoly did in bw.
You claiming that a "product" will become more "expensive" as a result of this just shows that you lack an understanding of what the deal is about. You probably couldn't even explain the role CBSi is filling here so maybe hold off on the sweeping conclusions.
As long as it doesn't make everything a lot more expensive, and there are still free mid quality streams for other things. (I pay for GSL, MLG, MASL) then i'm sure it's going to be great!
I'm really having a nice chuckle at all the conspiracy theorists in here too.
I hope CBSi is able to pitch big live events as the "Super Bowls" of eSports so that those tournaments can get much higher CPM on the ads they run, resulting in league growth.
You are right, it's a conspiracy theory that without competition a product will become worse and more expensive. I don't know how it would apply here, but for sure it would have been better if 2 corporations would have bought "it".
Oh and by the way, KeSPA has a nice history you can read on and see what conspiracy theory monopoly did in bw.
You claiming that a "product" will become more "expensive" as a result of this just shows that you lack an understanding of what the deal is about. You probably couldn't even explain the role CBSi is filling here so maybe hold off on the sweeping conclusions.
Dude, I'm almost sure that this helps the scene a lot. I'm just saying that overtime ( presuming the scene would grow by itself even more ) it won't possibly be the best thing for esports. I don't say I'm sure of it, I'm just seeing in my country how lack of good competition brings us below horrible products.
Being partnered with a company for a time is not eternal, contracts end and change. They don't have anything near a monopoly, and even if they did, the NFL has a monopoly on football, the NBA has one on basketball, etc. It's part of organized sports. And hell, monopolies exist everywhere and are not exclusively bad. Fire Departments are monopolies. There were parts of the country that in fact at various points had competing fire departments, and the competition led to arson, brawling, and not very much helping people.
More money in the scene is only a good thing. It is very much needed for the scene to grow and thrive.
this means that pretty soon, there is going to be a serious change on how we watch tournaments and everything. I wouldnt be surprised if they made you pay for EVERYTHING now.
On June 01 2012 07:24 AeroEffect wrote: this means that pretty soon, there is going to be a serious change on how we watch tournaments and everything. I wouldnt be surprised if they made you pay for EVERYTHING now.
...Why? The entire point of advertising is that you don't pay.
this means that pretty soon, there is going to be a serious change on how we watch tournaments and everything. I wouldnt be surprised if they made you pay for EVERYTHING now.
Actually it's exactly the opposite. We're more likely to receive more content, better quality, and have to actually pay for less because of the increased advertising revenue. Advertising is what pays for our "free" content.
People talking about "lack of competition" have no idea what they're talking about.
One of the major failings of esports up to this point has been that they have an attractive demographic, but events are either too fragmented or too small or don't have the know-how to sell advertising to the degree that they could.
If you pool all of the ad inventory of esports suddenly the numbers are much bigger and therefore much more attractive to advertisers. Likewise, they have the know-how and relationships with advertisers to sell the inventory correctly and get the most out of it (no more MLG's with the same Dr. Pepper ad over and over). This was one of the reasons why IGN getting into esports was exciting because they have similar advertising experience.
With respect to the question of a "monopoly" there's no such thing because the reality is that esports advertising is competing directly side-by-side with other entertainment and media ad space. If I'm Proctor and Gamble, I might have to decide to buy an ad for some esports events or a basketball game. It's way better if CBSi can offer up combined numbers for the whole scene rather than just for an individual tournament. Keep in mind that every tournament will get their cut of the revenue, so in reality everyone wins. The only loser here are other companies who could have also brokered the ad sales, but I don't think there was a long list of companies looking to do this. Frankly, CBSi is ahead of the curve here.
People talking about "lack of competition" have no idea what they're talking about.
One of the major failings of esports up to this point has been that they have an attractive demographic, but events are either too fragmented or too small or don't have the know-how to sell advertising to the degree that they could.
If you pool all of the ad inventory of esports suddenly the numbers are much bigger and therefore much more attractive to advertisers. Likewise, they have the know-how and relationships with advertisers to sell the inventory correctly and get the most out of it (no more MLG's with the same Dr. Pepper ad over and over). This was one of the reasons why IGN getting into esports was exciting because they have similar advertising experience.
With respect to the question of a "monopoly" there's no such thing because the reality is that esports advertising is competing directly side-by-side with other entertainment and media ad space. If I'm Proctor and Gamble, I might have to decide to buy an ad for some esports events or a basketball game. It's way better if CBSi can offer up combined numbers for the whole scene rather than just for an individual tournament. Keep in mind that every tournament will get their cut of the revenue, so in reality everyone wins. The only loser here are other companies who could have also brokered the ad sales, but I don't think there was a long list of companies looking to do this. Frankly, CBSi is ahead of the curve here.
BuddhaMonk is correct. The larger the pool of eSports inventory available the more attractive it is to advertisers. This has been a trend within the digital advertising world for years. The progression of inventory is as follows.
1. Individual site advertising 2. Parent sites (own a couple other URLs) 3. Networks (Own the rights to sell a portion of inventory on multiple sites that are not directly owned by them) 4. Exchanges (combination of multiple networks which offer real time bidding access to inventory) 5. DSP's (Ability to bid for inventory across multiple exchanges) 6. DMP's (Ability to bid for inventory across multiple exchanges & ad formats; digital, search, mobile, social, TV)
At each level reach increases (reach = total volume of unique users) which is more valuable to advertisers.
By allowing their inventory to be sold by a network (CBSi) they have made their inventory more accessible to advertisers and will ultimately generate more revenue.
Overall this is a good thing. If you're worried about a monopoly, those things are much less dangerous when dealing with internet businesses that have very low startup costs. It takes a huge amount of money to build a factory and distribution to compete against some widget maker and thus a monopoly of that kind is dangerous, but it only takes a server and an internet connection to compete with the biggest of internet companies. That's why a little startup like Facebook was able to crush MySpace even after it had grabbed a very large market share... and why Facebook investors should be afraid of someone else doing the same to them.
If Twitch and OwnTV go to crap for the streamers because CBSi is taking too big of a cut, those streamers can always go to uStream, LiveStream, or some other startup company. You should only be concerned about a monopoly if it includes signing players to long term contracts to only play in one league or only use one streaming service. This CBSi thing isn't anything even remotely close to that.
On June 01 2012 05:50 Plansix wrote: Here lets break it down for some folks who are having a rough time with the report:
CBSi: Hey, Esports you have a ton of viewers and we think that is great. They seem to watch your stuff for HOURS.
Esports: Thanks CBSi, we have worked really hard to get all our streaming content up and going. Its rough though , getting ads is hard when we are all running tournaments and attempting to make a living.
CBSi: Well that’s why we called. You see, your views are males between the ages of 18-34. We cannot get ads to these bastards. They are to smart and tech savy to fall for any traditional ads and mostly watch Netflix. But they love you guys and we think they would love the ads we sell.
Esports: That’s awesome, we would love to show your ads on our streams. It will be a huge help if you guys are getting the sponsors and providing us with the ads.
CBSi: Not a problem. We also have these news sites, like Giant Bomb and GameSpot that report on this sort of stuff. Could you get us some access to players and teams for interviews and such.
Esports: No problem, we can do that. Glad to have you join the scene.
This is pretty much the best sum up of this situation. +1
On June 01 2012 08:01 Cocoba wrote: One small step for CBS, a giant mouse click for eSports.
Yay! In most tournaments I see in Quebec, there are very few ads passing over and over. I'm glad they'll have more reach. The only things that worries me here is how quickly people predict vastly exaggerated things... Take it for what it is guys, no more no less. If they invest in the scene they'll want it to prosper, not destroy it.
On June 01 2012 09:56 Nonexistent wrote: It sounds like the man is getting his whory hands on our beloved scene, Expect to see it gutted for profits.....
Gutted for profits? What does that even mean?
You realize that if they do this poorly it will not be profitable for them. They have to provide something the consumer wants.
Hopefully this is another huge step into getting eSports out there and into the mainstream. I'm not sure how this will all work, but it feels like a good thing.
On June 01 2012 07:31 BuddhaMonk wrote: People talking about "lack of competition" have no idea what they're talking about.
One of the major failings of esports up to this point has been that they have an attractive demographic, but events are either too fragmented or too small or don't have the know-how to sell advertising to the degree that they could.
If you pool all of the ad inventory of esports suddenly the numbers are much bigger and therefore much more attractive to advertisers. Likewise, they have the know-how and relationships with advertisers to sell the inventory correctly and get the most out of it (no more MLG's with the same Dr. Pepper ad over and over). This was one of the reasons why IGN getting into esports was exciting because they have similar advertising experience.
With respect to the question of a "monopoly" there's no such thing because the reality is that esports advertising is competing directly side-by-side with other entertainment and media ad space. If I'm Proctor and Gamble, I might have to decide to buy an ad for some esports events or a basketball game. It's way better if CBSi can offer up combined numbers for the whole scene rather than just for an individual tournament. Keep in mind that every tournament will get their cut of the revenue, so in reality everyone wins. The only loser here are other companies who could have also brokered the ad sales, but I don't think there was a long list of companies looking to do this. Frankly, CBSi is ahead of the curve here.
^^^
What BuddhaMonk said.
There are a lot of business noobs here but that's expected because many TLers are studying for their next math exam rather than actively working/participating in the business world.
In a nutshell, this is good for the SC2 community because:
1) Esports events can be consolidated and sold to potential clients. Individual leagues will not attract the attention of Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc. But if all the e-sports events are combined together by CBSi and marketed to the big companies, Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc, will be more likely to advertise in e-sports.
2) If MLG makes enough $$$ off of advertising, they may cut or reduce their PPV model. MLG knows that PPV limits viewers, and the the higher the PPV fee, the less viewers there are. Less viewers means less advertisement money. But of course, MLG may simply use CBSi for their big live audience events and continue with the PPV model for Arena.
Having said this, if the other leagues make good $$$ from advertising, this will keep them from doing PPV. Advertising is a win-win for SC2 viewers as we don't want to pay for PPV.
3) Not only does this open the door to bigger advertisers (see point 1), but with bigger advertisers comes potential interest from bigger networks - including ESPN. If CBSi makes a killing off of this, you can expect ESPN to look into e-sports. Everybody's wet dreams about seeing SC2 on ESPN is one step closer.
4) Bigger advertisers and more money in esports means bigger cash prizes and higher salaries for pro players. This is only a good thing - especially for the pro players that don't even have a salary right now.
The most likely to get hurt are the smaller companies that work with MLG, etc. If the advertising rates go up because bigger companies are jumping into advertising with e-sports, these smaller companies may have to look elsewhere to advertise.
While there isn't a direct partnership, I think it's large companies like this which will start to bring SC2 to the mainstream, because they want MONEH for the things they invest in.
On June 01 2012 07:31 BuddhaMonk wrote: People talking about "lack of competition" have no idea what they're talking about.
One of the major failings of esports up to this point has been that they have an attractive demographic, but events are either too fragmented or too small or don't have the know-how to sell advertising to the degree that they could.
If you pool all of the ad inventory of esports suddenly the numbers are much bigger and therefore much more attractive to advertisers. Likewise, they have the know-how and relationships with advertisers to sell the inventory correctly and get the most out of it (no more MLG's with the same Dr. Pepper ad over and over). This was one of the reasons why IGN getting into esports was exciting because they have similar advertising experience.
With respect to the question of a "monopoly" there's no such thing because the reality is that esports advertising is competing directly side-by-side with other entertainment and media ad space. If I'm Proctor and Gamble, I might have to decide to buy an ad for some esports events or a basketball game. It's way better if CBSi can offer up combined numbers for the whole scene rather than just for an individual tournament. Keep in mind that every tournament will get their cut of the revenue, so in reality everyone wins. The only loser here are other companies who could have also brokered the ad sales, but I don't think there was a long list of companies looking to do this. Frankly, CBSi is ahead of the curve here.
^^^
What BuddhaMonk said.
There are a lot of business noobs here but that's expected because many TLers are studying for their next math exam rather than actively working/participating in the business world.
In a nutshell, this is good for the SC2 community because:
1) Esports events can be consolidated and sold to potential clients. Individual leagues will not attract the attention of Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc. But if all the e-sports events are combined together by CBSi and marketed to the big companies, Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc, will be more likely to advertise in e-sports.
2) If MLG makes enough $$$ off of advertising, they may cut or reduce their PPV model. MLG knows that PPV limits viewers, and the the higher the PPV fee, the less viewers there are. Less viewers means less advertisement money. But of course, MLG may simply use CBSi for their big live audience events and continue with the PPV model for Arena.
Having said this, if the other leagues make good $$$ from advertising, this will keep them from doing PPV. Advertising is a win-win for SC2 viewers as we don't want to pay for PPV.
3) Not only does this open the door to bigger advertisers (see point 1), but with bigger advertisers comes potential interest from bigger networks - including ESPN. If CBSi makes a killing off of this, you can expect ESPN to look into e-sports. Everybody's wet dreams about seeing SC2 on ESPN is one step closer.
4) Bigger advertisers and more money in esports means bigger cash prizes and higher salaries for pro players. This is only a good thing - especially for the pro players that don't even have a salary right now.
The most likely to get hurt are the smaller companies that work with MLG, etc. If the advertising rates go up because bigger companies are jumping into advertising with e-sports, these smaller companies may have to look elsewhere to advertise.
I would say the barriers to number 3 are far more than just potential revenue. The biggest barrier that it uniquely has (as opposed to say LoL or even back when Halo was on USA) is a time estimate. When you watch a football game or a baseball game those typically end within 15 minutes of the scheduled end time but in SC2 if I gave you 1.5 hours for a Bo5 that may be 1 hour too much or barely enough time to cover first 2 games+adds.
On June 01 2012 07:31 BuddhaMonk wrote: People talking about "lack of competition" have no idea what they're talking about.
One of the major failings of esports up to this point has been that they have an attractive demographic, but events are either too fragmented or too small or don't have the know-how to sell advertising to the degree that they could.
If you pool all of the ad inventory of esports suddenly the numbers are much bigger and therefore much more attractive to advertisers. Likewise, they have the know-how and relationships with advertisers to sell the inventory correctly and get the most out of it (no more MLG's with the same Dr. Pepper ad over and over). This was one of the reasons why IGN getting into esports was exciting because they have similar advertising experience.
With respect to the question of a "monopoly" there's no such thing because the reality is that esports advertising is competing directly side-by-side with other entertainment and media ad space. If I'm Proctor and Gamble, I might have to decide to buy an ad for some esports events or a basketball game. It's way better if CBSi can offer up combined numbers for the whole scene rather than just for an individual tournament. Keep in mind that every tournament will get their cut of the revenue, so in reality everyone wins. The only loser here are other companies who could have also brokered the ad sales, but I don't think there was a long list of companies looking to do this. Frankly, CBSi is ahead of the curve here.
^^^
What BuddhaMonk said.
There are a lot of business noobs here but that's expected because many TLers are studying for their next math exam rather than actively working/participating in the business world.
In a nutshell, this is good for the SC2 community because:
1) Esports events can be consolidated and sold to potential clients. Individual leagues will not attract the attention of Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc. But if all the e-sports events are combined together by CBSi and marketed to the big companies, Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc, will be more likely to advertise in e-sports.
2) If MLG makes enough $$$ off of advertising, they may cut or reduce their PPV model. MLG knows that PPV limits viewers, and the the higher the PPV fee, the less viewers there are. Less viewers means less advertisement money. But of course, MLG may simply use CBSi for their big live audience events and continue with the PPV model for Arena.
Having said this, if the other leagues make good $$$ from advertising, this will keep them from doing PPV. Advertising is a win-win for SC2 viewers as we don't want to pay for PPV.
3) Not only does this open the door to bigger advertisers (see point 1), but with bigger advertisers comes potential interest from bigger networks - including ESPN. If CBSi makes a killing off of this, you can expect ESPN to look into e-sports. Everybody's wet dreams about seeing SC2 on ESPN is one step closer.
4) Bigger advertisers and more money in esports means bigger cash prizes and higher salaries for pro players. This is only a good thing - especially for the pro players that don't even have a salary right now.
The most likely to get hurt are the smaller companies that work with MLG, etc. If the advertising rates go up because bigger companies are jumping into advertising with e-sports, these smaller companies may have to look elsewhere to advertise.
I would say the barriers to number 3 are far more than just potential revenue. The biggest barrier that it uniquely has (as opposed to say LoL or even back when Halo was on USA) is a time estimate. When you watch a football game or a baseball game those typically end within 15 minutes of the scheduled end time but in SC2 if I gave you 1.5 hours for a Bo5 that may be 1 hour too much or barely enough time to cover first 2 games+adds.
Doesn't Boxing have the same problem with time estimate. I used to watch Mike Tyson knocked some dude out in less than 1 min and I though wtf that's it?
On June 01 2012 07:31 BuddhaMonk wrote: People talking about "lack of competition" have no idea what they're talking about.
One of the major failings of esports up to this point has been that they have an attractive demographic, but events are either too fragmented or too small or don't have the know-how to sell advertising to the degree that they could.
If you pool all of the ad inventory of esports suddenly the numbers are much bigger and therefore much more attractive to advertisers. Likewise, they have the know-how and relationships with advertisers to sell the inventory correctly and get the most out of it (no more MLG's with the same Dr. Pepper ad over and over). This was one of the reasons why IGN getting into esports was exciting because they have similar advertising experience.
With respect to the question of a "monopoly" there's no such thing because the reality is that esports advertising is competing directly side-by-side with other entertainment and media ad space. If I'm Proctor and Gamble, I might have to decide to buy an ad for some esports events or a basketball game. It's way better if CBSi can offer up combined numbers for the whole scene rather than just for an individual tournament. Keep in mind that every tournament will get their cut of the revenue, so in reality everyone wins. The only loser here are other companies who could have also brokered the ad sales, but I don't think there was a long list of companies looking to do this. Frankly, CBSi is ahead of the curve here.
^^^
What BuddhaMonk said.
There are a lot of business noobs here but that's expected because many TLers are studying for their next math exam rather than actively working/participating in the business world.
In a nutshell, this is good for the SC2 community because:
1) Esports events can be consolidated and sold to potential clients. Individual leagues will not attract the attention of Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc. But if all the e-sports events are combined together by CBSi and marketed to the big companies, Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc, will be more likely to advertise in e-sports.
2) If MLG makes enough $$$ off of advertising, they may cut or reduce their PPV model. MLG knows that PPV limits viewers, and the the higher the PPV fee, the less viewers there are. Less viewers means less advertisement money. But of course, MLG may simply use CBSi for their big live audience events and continue with the PPV model for Arena.
Having said this, if the other leagues make good $$$ from advertising, this will keep them from doing PPV. Advertising is a win-win for SC2 viewers as we don't want to pay for PPV.
3) Not only does this open the door to bigger advertisers (see point 1), but with bigger advertisers comes potential interest from bigger networks - including ESPN. If CBSi makes a killing off of this, you can expect ESPN to look into e-sports. Everybody's wet dreams about seeing SC2 on ESPN is one step closer.
4) Bigger advertisers and more money in esports means bigger cash prizes and higher salaries for pro players. This is only a good thing - especially for the pro players that don't even have a salary right now.
The most likely to get hurt are the smaller companies that work with MLG, etc. If the advertising rates go up because bigger companies are jumping into advertising with e-sports, these smaller companies may have to look elsewhere to advertise.
I would say the barriers to number 3 are far more than just potential revenue. The biggest barrier that it uniquely has (as opposed to say LoL or even back when Halo was on USA) is a time estimate. When you watch a football game or a baseball game those typically end within 15 minutes of the scheduled end time but in SC2 if I gave you 1.5 hours for a Bo5 that may be 1 hour too much or barely enough time to cover first 2 games+adds.
Doesn't Boxing have the same problem with time estimate. I used to watch Mike Tyson knocked some dude out in less than 1 min and I though wtf that's it?
Boxing events function either thru a full card which evens it out a bit or a single massive fight on PPV which means you take that risk when you order something on PPV. However on free TV they cant afford to risk either going too far over or to far under.
On June 01 2012 07:31 BuddhaMonk wrote: People talking about "lack of competition" have no idea what they're talking about.
One of the major failings of esports up to this point has been that they have an attractive demographic, but events are either too fragmented or too small or don't have the know-how to sell advertising to the degree that they could.
If you pool all of the ad inventory of esports suddenly the numbers are much bigger and therefore much more attractive to advertisers. Likewise, they have the know-how and relationships with advertisers to sell the inventory correctly and get the most out of it (no more MLG's with the same Dr. Pepper ad over and over). This was one of the reasons why IGN getting into esports was exciting because they have similar advertising experience.
With respect to the question of a "monopoly" there's no such thing because the reality is that esports advertising is competing directly side-by-side with other entertainment and media ad space. If I'm Proctor and Gamble, I might have to decide to buy an ad for some esports events or a basketball game. It's way better if CBSi can offer up combined numbers for the whole scene rather than just for an individual tournament. Keep in mind that every tournament will get their cut of the revenue, so in reality everyone wins. The only loser here are other companies who could have also brokered the ad sales, but I don't think there was a long list of companies looking to do this. Frankly, CBSi is ahead of the curve here.
^^^
What BuddhaMonk said.
There are a lot of business noobs here but that's expected because many TLers are studying for their next math exam rather than actively working/participating in the business world.
In a nutshell, this is good for the SC2 community because:
1) Esports events can be consolidated and sold to potential clients. Individual leagues will not attract the attention of Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc. But if all the e-sports events are combined together by CBSi and marketed to the big companies, Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc, will be more likely to advertise in e-sports.
2) If MLG makes enough $$$ off of advertising, they may cut or reduce their PPV model. MLG knows that PPV limits viewers, and the the higher the PPV fee, the less viewers there are. Less viewers means less advertisement money. But of course, MLG may simply use CBSi for their big live audience events and continue with the PPV model for Arena.
Having said this, if the other leagues make good $$$ from advertising, this will keep them from doing PPV. Advertising is a win-win for SC2 viewers as we don't want to pay for PPV.
3) Not only does this open the door to bigger advertisers (see point 1), but with bigger advertisers comes potential interest from bigger networks - including ESPN. If CBSi makes a killing off of this, you can expect ESPN to look into e-sports. Everybody's wet dreams about seeing SC2 on ESPN is one step closer.
4) Bigger advertisers and more money in esports means bigger cash prizes and higher salaries for pro players. This is only a good thing - especially for the pro players that don't even have a salary right now.
The most likely to get hurt are the smaller companies that work with MLG, etc. If the advertising rates go up because bigger companies are jumping into advertising with e-sports, these smaller companies may have to look elsewhere to advertise.
I would say the barriers to number 3 are far more than just potential revenue. The biggest barrier that it uniquely has (as opposed to say LoL or even back when Halo was on USA) is a time estimate. When you watch a football game or a baseball game those typically end within 15 minutes of the scheduled end time but in SC2 if I gave you 1.5 hours for a Bo5 that may be 1 hour too much or barely enough time to cover first 2 games+adds.
Doesn't Boxing have the same problem with time estimate. I used to watch Mike Tyson knocked some dude out in less than 1 min and I though wtf that's it?
Boxing events function either thru a full card which evens it out a bit or a single massive fight on PPV which means you take that risk when you order something on PPV. However on free TV they cant afford to risk either going too far over or to far under.
I guess you are right but I swear that match was on free TV on my country lol.
On June 01 2012 07:31 BuddhaMonk wrote: People talking about "lack of competition" have no idea what they're talking about.
One of the major failings of esports up to this point has been that they have an attractive demographic, but events are either too fragmented or too small or don't have the know-how to sell advertising to the degree that they could.
If you pool all of the ad inventory of esports suddenly the numbers are much bigger and therefore much more attractive to advertisers. Likewise, they have the know-how and relationships with advertisers to sell the inventory correctly and get the most out of it (no more MLG's with the same Dr. Pepper ad over and over). This was one of the reasons why IGN getting into esports was exciting because they have similar advertising experience.
With respect to the question of a "monopoly" there's no such thing because the reality is that esports advertising is competing directly side-by-side with other entertainment and media ad space. If I'm Proctor and Gamble, I might have to decide to buy an ad for some esports events or a basketball game. It's way better if CBSi can offer up combined numbers for the whole scene rather than just for an individual tournament. Keep in mind that every tournament will get their cut of the revenue, so in reality everyone wins. The only loser here are other companies who could have also brokered the ad sales, but I don't think there was a long list of companies looking to do this. Frankly, CBSi is ahead of the curve here.
^^^
What BuddhaMonk said.
There are a lot of business noobs here but that's expected because many TLers are studying for their next math exam rather than actively working/participating in the business world.
In a nutshell, this is good for the SC2 community because:
1) Esports events can be consolidated and sold to potential clients. Individual leagues will not attract the attention of Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc. But if all the e-sports events are combined together by CBSi and marketed to the big companies, Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc, will be more likely to advertise in e-sports.
2) If MLG makes enough $$$ off of advertising, they may cut or reduce their PPV model. MLG knows that PPV limits viewers, and the the higher the PPV fee, the less viewers there are. Less viewers means less advertisement money. But of course, MLG may simply use CBSi for their big live audience events and continue with the PPV model for Arena.
Having said this, if the other leagues make good $$$ from advertising, this will keep them from doing PPV. Advertising is a win-win for SC2 viewers as we don't want to pay for PPV.
3) Not only does this open the door to bigger advertisers (see point 1), but with bigger advertisers comes potential interest from bigger networks - including ESPN. If CBSi makes a killing off of this, you can expect ESPN to look into e-sports. Everybody's wet dreams about seeing SC2 on ESPN is one step closer.
4) Bigger advertisers and more money in esports means bigger cash prizes and higher salaries for pro players. This is only a good thing - especially for the pro players that don't even have a salary right now.
The most likely to get hurt are the smaller companies that work with MLG, etc. If the advertising rates go up because bigger companies are jumping into advertising with e-sports, these smaller companies may have to look elsewhere to advertise.
I would say the barriers to number 3 are far more than just potential revenue. The biggest barrier that it uniquely has (as opposed to say LoL or even back when Halo was on USA) is a time estimate. When you watch a football game or a baseball game those typically end within 15 minutes of the scheduled end time but in SC2 if I gave you 1.5 hours for a Bo5 that may be 1 hour too much or barely enough time to cover first 2 games+adds.
Doesn't Boxing have the same problem with time estimate. I used to watch Mike Tyson knocked some dude out in less than 1 min and I though wtf that's it?
Boxing events function either thru a full card which evens it out a bit or a single massive fight on PPV which means you take that risk when you order something on PPV. However on free TV they cant afford to risk either going too far over or to far under.
I guess you are right but I swear that match was on free TV on my country lol.
Yeah in Thailand we have boxing, mostly Thai boxing, every weekend on free Tv like 3 channels. They put a lot of ads on during the breaks.
On June 01 2012 07:31 BuddhaMonk wrote: People talking about "lack of competition" have no idea what they're talking about.
One of the major failings of esports up to this point has been that they have an attractive demographic, but events are either too fragmented or too small or don't have the know-how to sell advertising to the degree that they could.
If you pool all of the ad inventory of esports suddenly the numbers are much bigger and therefore much more attractive to advertisers. Likewise, they have the know-how and relationships with advertisers to sell the inventory correctly and get the most out of it (no more MLG's with the same Dr. Pepper ad over and over). This was one of the reasons why IGN getting into esports was exciting because they have similar advertising experience.
With respect to the question of a "monopoly" there's no such thing because the reality is that esports advertising is competing directly side-by-side with other entertainment and media ad space. If I'm Proctor and Gamble, I might have to decide to buy an ad for some esports events or a basketball game. It's way better if CBSi can offer up combined numbers for the whole scene rather than just for an individual tournament. Keep in mind that every tournament will get their cut of the revenue, so in reality everyone wins. The only loser here are other companies who could have also brokered the ad sales, but I don't think there was a long list of companies looking to do this. Frankly, CBSi is ahead of the curve here.
^^^
What BuddhaMonk said.
There are a lot of business noobs here but that's expected because many TLers are studying for their next math exam rather than actively working/participating in the business world.
In a nutshell, this is good for the SC2 community because:
1) Esports events can be consolidated and sold to potential clients. Individual leagues will not attract the attention of Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc. But if all the e-sports events are combined together by CBSi and marketed to the big companies, Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc, will be more likely to advertise in e-sports.
2) If MLG makes enough $$$ off of advertising, they may cut or reduce their PPV model. MLG knows that PPV limits viewers, and the the higher the PPV fee, the less viewers there are. Less viewers means less advertisement money. But of course, MLG may simply use CBSi for their big live audience events and continue with the PPV model for Arena.
Having said this, if the other leagues make good $$$ from advertising, this will keep them from doing PPV. Advertising is a win-win for SC2 viewers as we don't want to pay for PPV.
3) Not only does this open the door to bigger advertisers (see point 1), but with bigger advertisers comes potential interest from bigger networks - including ESPN. If CBSi makes a killing off of this, you can expect ESPN to look into e-sports. Everybody's wet dreams about seeing SC2 on ESPN is one step closer.
4) Bigger advertisers and more money in esports means bigger cash prizes and higher salaries for pro players. This is only a good thing - especially for the pro players that don't even have a salary right now.
The most likely to get hurt are the smaller companies that work with MLG, etc. If the advertising rates go up because bigger companies are jumping into advertising with e-sports, these smaller companies may have to look elsewhere to advertise.
I would say the barriers to number 3 are far more than just potential revenue. The biggest barrier that it uniquely has (as opposed to say LoL or even back when Halo was on USA) is a time estimate. When you watch a football game or a baseball game those typically end within 15 minutes of the scheduled end time but in SC2 if I gave you 1.5 hours for a Bo5 that may be 1 hour too much or barely enough time to cover first 2 games+adds.
It is another barrier, but not an unbeatable one. Tennis suffers from many of the same issues because there isn't a guaranteed number of sets and thus some wildly fluctuating times. Yet, they still put it on ESPN and sometimes network television for big matches. Likewise (but less common) baseball can go to an infinite number of innings, and basketball has an unlimited number of overtimes.
For SC2, they'd likely overbook the timeslot by a little bit. If the first game goes really short, expect more "analysis", stock footage clips, and commercials before the second game. If the whole series is looking like a X-0 stomp, expect them to really pack in the extras and do a lot of post-match interviews. Conversely, if the first game goes long, expect them to move right into the second game after a short commercial break.
It's a hurdle, but it's one that ESPN has jumped many times in the past.
On June 01 2012 07:31 BuddhaMonk wrote: People talking about "lack of competition" have no idea what they're talking about.
One of the major failings of esports up to this point has been that they have an attractive demographic, but events are either too fragmented or too small or don't have the know-how to sell advertising to the degree that they could.
If you pool all of the ad inventory of esports suddenly the numbers are much bigger and therefore much more attractive to advertisers. Likewise, they have the know-how and relationships with advertisers to sell the inventory correctly and get the most out of it (no more MLG's with the same Dr. Pepper ad over and over). This was one of the reasons why IGN getting into esports was exciting because they have similar advertising experience.
With respect to the question of a "monopoly" there's no such thing because the reality is that esports advertising is competing directly side-by-side with other entertainment and media ad space. If I'm Proctor and Gamble, I might have to decide to buy an ad for some esports events or a basketball game. It's way better if CBSi can offer up combined numbers for the whole scene rather than just for an individual tournament. Keep in mind that every tournament will get their cut of the revenue, so in reality everyone wins. The only loser here are other companies who could have also brokered the ad sales, but I don't think there was a long list of companies looking to do this. Frankly, CBSi is ahead of the curve here.
^^^
What BuddhaMonk said.
There are a lot of business noobs here but that's expected because many TLers are studying for their next math exam rather than actively working/participating in the business world.
In a nutshell, this is good for the SC2 community because:
1) Esports events can be consolidated and sold to potential clients. Individual leagues will not attract the attention of Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc. But if all the e-sports events are combined together by CBSi and marketed to the big companies, Coke, Pepsi, Nike, etc, will be more likely to advertise in e-sports.
2) If MLG makes enough $$$ off of advertising, they may cut or reduce their PPV model. MLG knows that PPV limits viewers, and the the higher the PPV fee, the less viewers there are. Less viewers means less advertisement money. But of course, MLG may simply use CBSi for their big live audience events and continue with the PPV model for Arena.
Having said this, if the other leagues make good $$$ from advertising, this will keep them from doing PPV. Advertising is a win-win for SC2 viewers as we don't want to pay for PPV.
3) Not only does this open the door to bigger advertisers (see point 1), but with bigger advertisers comes potential interest from bigger networks - including ESPN. If CBSi makes a killing off of this, you can expect ESPN to look into e-sports. Everybody's wet dreams about seeing SC2 on ESPN is one step closer.
4) Bigger advertisers and more money in esports means bigger cash prizes and higher salaries for pro players. This is only a good thing - especially for the pro players that don't even have a salary right now.
The most likely to get hurt are the smaller companies that work with MLG, etc. If the advertising rates go up because bigger companies are jumping into advertising with e-sports, these smaller companies may have to look elsewhere to advertise.
I would say the barriers to number 3 are far more than just potential revenue. The biggest barrier that it uniquely has (as opposed to say LoL or even back when Halo was on USA) is a time estimate. When you watch a football game or a baseball game those typically end within 15 minutes of the scheduled end time but in SC2 if I gave you 1.5 hours for a Bo5 that may be 1 hour too much or barely enough time to cover first 2 games+adds.
It is another barrier, but not an unbeatable one. Tennis suffers from many of the same issues because there isn't a guaranteed number of sets and thus some wildly fluctuating times. Yet, they still put it on ESPN and sometimes network television for big matches. Likewise (but less common) baseball can go to an infinite number of innings, and basketball has an unlimited number of overtimes.
For SC2, they'd likely overbook the timeslot by a little bit. If the first game goes really short, expect more "analysis", stock footage clips, and commercials before the second game. If the whole series is looking like a X-0 stomp, expect them to really pack in the extras and do a lot of post-match interviews. Conversely, if the first game goes long, expect them to move right into the second game after a short commercial break.
It's a hurdle, but it's one that ESPN has jumped many times in the past.
In NL we have a tv channel that broadcasts F1 and what it does is make the screen where the action is going a lot smaller and without sound and then next to it the commercial with sound so that you can still follow the most important moments without it getting completely interrupted. Also there's a lot of other ways for commercials like the map name and just the names in the maps as well. You just gotta be a bit clever about it.
EPT
hopefully it will come out good though
