ATDHE.net domain seized by Homeland Security

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Well it works for search engine business platform, must mean it works for the NHL.

Should tell the NFL they need to move the Super Bowl off of broadcast tv and put it online so that they can get those huge numbers from online ads!

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Should tell the NFL they need to move the Super Bowl off of broadcast tv and put it online so that they can get those huge numbers from online ads!

No, I think it would be better if they charged subscription fee for watching that game.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

What am I lying about. I rephrase what I was trying to communicate to you and your sitting here picking apart present tense past tense. If you have nothing to add to my last post, then you don't have to respond at all.



There's two main reasons why people use illegal streams, convenience and the cost. If it's just as convenient as the cost is the same, it's going to come down to the quality. It's not going to be hard for NHL beat them in terms of quality.


Only reason you think it's a terrible idea is that we're both working through different assumptions. My assumption is that advertisements can bring in enough revenue to offset the cost where as you don't think it's possible. Obviously it all comes down to that. It's no doubt a bad idea I'd NHL is losing more money but its a good idea if they can increase their revenue.

So why the tiered offering then? Why would anyone outside of a small market segment pay to watch something that's available for free in a high quality version?

And I think your idea is terrible because your assumption is moronic. Do you have any idea what kind of ad revenue you'd need to derive to make your plan work? How many total CI/GC subscribers do you think there are now? I'd say at a minimum there are 2mil at $200 each, that's $400,000,000 in income. Add in the damage that would be done to local TV contracts and you have another income gap to cover. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think the NHL can manufacture sufficient page views to pull in half a billion dollars in advertising revenue? Seriously?

And yes, please keep referencing Google, that's a totally relevant comparison. It's not like one is a niche market sport and the other is visited by literally half of the people who use the internet.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Okay I admit I made a mistake in phrasing it that way, but like I said, that was not the message I was trying to communicate.

Are you happy now? Do you often miss the point of the message and analyze the grammar instead?

He just prefers to nit pick the phrasing of counter arguments and call anyone who disagrees with him a moron. He hasn't added one iota of substance (cue the "neither have you, moron" response) to this discuss, so you are basically wasting your time with him. Credit to Valo though. Obviously we are on separate sides on this thing, but at least adding to the actual discussion with points that actually contain merit.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Think of the buzz that this would garner for the NHL too. Any game you want can be streamed online at NHL.com with decent quality. This is something that would set it apart from other major sports in North America. We've seen this sort of thing done with the music industry and I honestly don't think it will be that long before professional sports take a stab at it as well. Subscription fees will either become a thing of the past, or the business models that are based upon them will ultimately collapse.

Buzz is all well and good, but buzz doesn't pay your bills. There's a long list of dot coms that generated immense amounts of buzz and ceased to exist shortly thereafter.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

There's two main reasons why people use illegal streams, convenience and the cost. If it's just as convenient as the cost is the same, it's going to come down to the quality. It's not going to be hard for NHL beat them in terms of quality.

Convenience?

The links on atdhe.net were very hit and miss. I'd say they worked about 75% of the time. After that, you only get to watch on a 320x240 screen at low FPS. If I had NHL CI, I can easily browse to any game I want, and it would work 100% of the time. I could sit on my couch or lie down to watch it rather than be constrained to my computer chair. I have to know beforehand what games are on that evening and whether or not I'm interested (READ: A casual fan won't know this) prior to actively searching for the stream. Online streaming is basically the complete opposite of convenient at the moment - especially for live games. Stuff like hulu, you can watch that any time you want, which is an added convenience factor that a live game will not have.

The only benefit of online streaming at the moment is cost. Can't beat free.

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Only reason you think it's a terrible idea is that we're both working through different assumptions. My assumption is that advertisements can bring in enough revenue to offset the cost where as you don't think it's possible. Obviously it all comes down to that. It's no doubt a bad idea I'd NHL is losing more money but its a good idea if they can increase their revenue.

The question is "Who are you advertising to?" What markets are we tapping that we are not already tapping?

You keep mentioning "casual" fans. I have a question, did the presence of online streams hook you to other sports? For example, atdhe.net had a huge variety of sports. Did you ever click on a tennis/basketball/soccer/football/table tennis link? Did the fact that all those streams were free entice you to buy products from those leagues?

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Well it works for search engine business platform, must mean it works for the NHL.

Why doesn't itunes give away all their products for free and just advertise a bunch? Why doesn't the music industry make their CDs free at the store level and just load the insert with ads?

Again...how many NHLCI/GC subscribers do you think there are in the world?

iTune is the result of industry adapting to piracy. You no longer have to pay $15 to buy the entire CD when you only want to listen to 1 song off that album.
Its convenient and cost effective which NHL GC is not.

If a casual fan only wants to watch a game a week, should they be forced to pay $200 for entire season.

Online music streaming is free and the sites that offer such functionality earn revenue through ads, and they get those ads because of the traffic on that website. Obviously sites like Pandora aren't available in Canada because they have issues with rights, but they figured it out in the States. Obviously NHL would have to work to find an agreement with the teams/broadcasters for the rights.


Edit: I dunno how many people have CI/GC, but then again how many of the subscriber willingly paid $200 for it. I know some people had the package thrown in their Shaw deal for free. Not to mention, many CI users get free code to subscribe to GC.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

So why the tiered offering then? Why would anyone outside of a small market segment pay to watch something that's available for free in a high quality version?

And I think your idea is terrible because your assumption is moronic. Do you have any idea what kind of ad revenue you'd need to derive to make your plan work? How many total CI/GC subscribers do you think there are now? I'd say at a minimum there are 2mil at $200 each, that's $400,000,000 in income. Add in the damage that would be done to local TV contracts and you have another income gap to cover. Are you seriously trying to tell me that you think the NHL can manufacture sufficient page views to pull in half a billion dollars in advertising revenue? Seriously?

And yes, please keep referencing Google, that's a totally relevant comparison. It's not like one is a niche market sport and the other is visited by literally half of the people who use the internet.

Because I have neither CI or GC, could you clarify for me if they are a package, or if they are separate? If you subscribe to CI, do you automatically have full access to GC online? The reason I ask is because, if they don't, I can't see how people who prefer to watch games in HD with PVR ability on their televisions would switch to watching live streams with reduced quality on their computer monitors. Frankly, I can't see how this would cannibalize their CI services.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Buzz is all well and good, but buzz doesn't pay your bills. There's a long list of dot coms that generated immense amounts of buzz and ceased to exist shortly thereafter.

It could attract new fans, increasing viewership, and ultimately strengthening the league. This would translate into paying bills.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Convenience?

The links on atdhe.net were very hit and miss. I'd say they worked about 75% of the time. After that, you only get to watch on a 320x240 screen at low FPS. If I had NHL CI, I can easily browse to any game I want, and it would work 100% of the time. I could sit on my couch or lie down to watch it rather than be constrained to my computer chair. I have to know beforehand what games are on that evening and whether or not I'm interested (READ: A casual fan won't know this) prior to actively searching for the stream. Online streaming is basically the complete opposite of convenient at the moment - especially for live games. Stuff like hulu, you can watch that any time you want, which is an added convenience factor that a live game will not have.

The only benefit of online streaming at the moment is cost. Can't beat free.

Links on atdhe were hit and miss, and the quality was crap, but it was always better than nothing.

In order to get NHLCI working, you need to have cable and an HD TV, I have neither since I don't watch TV other than hockey and I rather spend my money elsewhere than buying an HD TV just for NHLCI.

I don't want to sit on the couch or lie down, I'm usually on the computer when I'm watching the game so for me its more convenient for watch it directly from the monitor.

You can watch any game you want at any time if you have GC.

The question is "Who are you advertising to?" What markets are we tapping that we are not already tapping?

You keep mentioning "casual" fans. I have a question, did the presence of online streams hook you to other sports? For example, atdhe.net had a huge variety of sports. Did you ever click on a tennis/basketball/soccer/football/table tennis link? Did the fact that all those streams were free entice you to buy products from those leagues?

To answer your question, the presence of online streaming did hook me into other sports. I'm not a huge soccer fan but I did enjoy watching the world cup thanks to CBC online streaming, and for sure I'll be watching the next world cup as well because I enjoyed it this year. If the world cup was being held in the US or in Canada, I would definitely buy tickets to go watch a live game and I wouldn't have if I didn't get hooked into it this summer.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

If a casual fan only wants to watch a game a week, should they be forced to pay $200 for entire season.

And they won't have to. Just Hockey Night in Canada is 2 games, TSN usually has 1-2 games over the week, and usually 1 game on NBC on sunday.

A game a week is well within the reach of the casual fan without having to fork over $200.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Regorium

You keep mentioning "casual" fans. I have a question, did the presence of online streams hook you to other sports? For example, atdhe.net had a huge variety of sports. Did you ever click on a tennis/basketball/soccer/football/table tennis link? Did the fact that all those streams were free entice you to buy products from those leagues?

Yupp. I'm not really into basketball, but when the Raptors were trying to make the playoffs last season, I found myself watching basketball online. I've got a bunch of friends that aren't into soccer, but because it was streamed online I was able to get them into watching the World Cup. Some of them got pretty into it too.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Regorium

And they won't have to. Just Hockey Night in Canada is 2 games, TSN usually has 1-2 games over the week, and usually 1 game on NBC on sunday.

A game a week is well within the reach of the casual fan without having to fork over $200.

If you are watching it on a television. We're talking about the person that prefers to watch programming on their computer. This really has nothing to do with CI. People that enjoy that product aren't suddenly going to scrap it because they can watch it live on their computers.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Because I have neither CI or GC, could you clarify for me if they are a package, or if they are separate? If you subscribe to CI, do you automatically have full access to GC online? The reason I ask is because, if they don't, I can't see how people who prefer to watch games in HD with PVR ability on their televisions would switch to watching live streams with reduced quality on their computer monitors. Frankly, I can't see how this would cannibalize their CI services.

I don't believe they're a package, at least not in my area.

It wouldn't necesarilly canibalize CI, but it kills GC 100%. CI would be hit hard though, I for one wouldn't be paying for CI, and I know none of my friends who have it would be either. It's pretty easy to run a computer into a TV and the quality isn't so diminished that I'd rather drop $200/year.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

It could attract new fans, increasing viewership, and ultimately strengthening the league. This would translate into paying bills.

Why doesn't all the currently free viewing options do this? IS your argument that the inability to watch every single game for free, as opposed to 4 or 5 a week, is the difference between the NHL's current level of popularity and explosive growth?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

If you are watching it on a television. We're talking about the person that prefers to watch programming on their computer. This really has nothing to do with CI. People that enjoy that product aren't suddenly going to scrap it because they can watch it live on their computers.

I will, in a heartbeat. You seriously think the majority of people are going to choose to spend $200 rather than run a cable from their computer to their TV?

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Ark2

It could attract new fans, increasing viewership, and ultimately strengthening the league. This would translate into paying bills.

But you don't know that. How is it increasing viewership? Will people all of a sudden be NHL fans because they can watch online for free?

You may get the casual fan who stops by once a week but those aren't the people paying the bills. There is just no way that the NHL can make up lost revenue from NHLCI/GC by having banners on their site. It's ridiculous to say that unless there were only a handful of people who wanted the product, but I'd guess millions.

Why doesn't Shaw offer free internet with a pop-up feature and then allow people to pay a monthly fee with no advertising? Why does television cost money if there is so much advertising on it? Why do we have to pay for hockey and concert tickets with all the advertising around the arenas?

When it cost only $40k to advertise during the Stanley Cup Finals for a 30 second commercial, I'm not sure what you would expect advertisers to pay to make up that difference of lost subscribers.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

I will, in a heartbeat. You seriously think the majority of people are going to choose to spend $200 rather than run a cable from their computer to their TV?

Thats why TV industry is adapting to the current technologies.
Not many people want to spend so much money getting cable when alternatives like Netflix is offering cheaper pricing, and much more convenient method.

That's why telco in Canada tried to get UBB so that less people will use the cheaper and convenient Netflix.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Thats why TV industry is adapting to the current technologies.
Not many people want to spend so much money getting cable when alternatives like Netflix is offering cheaper pricing, and much more convenient method.

That's why telco in Canada tried to get UBB so that less people will use the cheaper and convenient Netflix.

Let me ask you something, is NetFlix free?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

I don't believe they're a package, at least not in my area.

It wouldn't necesarilly canibalize CI, but it kills GC 100%. CI would be hit hard though, I for one wouldn't be paying for CI, and I know none of my friends who have it would be either. It's pretty easy to run a computer into a TV and the quality isn't so diminished that I'd rather drop $200/year.

Yeah, I was just going to comment about the quality. I never run my computer through the TV when streaming online because it would look terrible. Not sure what this hypothetical online feed would look like on a 60 inch flat screen.