ATDHE.net domain seized by Homeland Security

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

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?

No one is suddenly going to be an NHL fan, but availability and exposure of the game certainly won't hurt the number of viewers/new fans.

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.

It only costs $40k because NHL's market is a lot smaller than other sports. Look at the Superbowl, the price to advertise there is really expensive, and the reason they can charge high ad rate is because of the number of viewers watching the program.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

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.

I wouldn't know, I've only got a 40". But if I'm saving $200 a year maybe I'll be upgrading

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Let me ask you something, is NetFlix free?

NetFlix isn't but definitely a step above subscribing to cable.

If you're a big fan of TV shows, pay for Netflix or Hulu.
Don't feel like paying for TV shows? Go watched the limited Hulu.

If you're a big fan of watching NHL games, pay for GC Plus.
Don't feel like paying for NHL hockey? Watch the limited GC.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

No one is suddenly going to be an NHL fan, but availability and exposure of the game certainly won't hurt the number of viewers/new fans.

Answer this question for once then, why isn't the currently widely available free content obtaining the same results? What makes you think that this new format will result in such a great influx of viewers that ad rates can be boosted to a level that offsets the large scale loss of subscriber revenues.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

NetFlix isn't but definitely a step above subscribing to cable.

If you're a big fan of TV shows, pay for Netflix or Hulu.
Don't feel like paying for TV shows? Go watched the limited Hulu.

If you're a big fan of watching NHL games, pay for GC Plus.
Don't feel like paying for NHL hockey? Watch the limited GC.

Again, another question that you simply won't answer. Why would anyone pay for GC plus when your entire plan is to offer every game for free via the basic GC?

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Answer this question for once then, why isn't the currently widely available free content obtaining the same results? What makes you think that this new format will result in such a great influx of viewers that ad rates can be boosted to a level that offsets the large scale loss of subscriber revenues.

Because people are still watching the pirated streams. The goal is to get those viewers back on to legit streaming.

Keep in mind that the site that provides the pirated streams are getting advertisement revenue, wouldn't you agree that revenue (whatever the cost may be) is better off if its going to NHL instead?

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Again, another question that you simply won't answer. Why would anyone pay for GC plus when your entire plan is to offer every game for free via the basic GC?

The same reason why people sign up for Hulu Plus.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Because people are still watching the pirated streams. The goal is to get those viewers back on to legit streaming.

Keep in mind that the site that provides the pirated streams are getting advertisement revenue, wouldn't you agree that revenue (whatever the cost may be) is better off if its going to NHL instead?

Huh? I asked you why the current availability of free programming isn't bringing new fans to the game as you claim that the free online everything idea will. This does not answer that question in the least.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

The same reason why people sign up for Hulu Plus.

Which is?

This is the part where you show your work.

Reminder: We're not talking about typical television programming, we're talking about sports programming, the issues at play are different.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Huh? I asked you why the current availability of free programming isn't bringing new fans to the game as you claim that the free online everything idea will. This does not answer that question in the least.

I was hoping you could figure that one out on your own.
Which of the following scenario do you think will lead to more fans?

1. Availability and exposure through free but limited streaming
2. Exclusive, subscription based streaming

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Which is?

This is the part where you show your work.

Reminder: We're not talking about typical television programming, we're talking about sports programming, the issues at play are different.

Doesn't matter what work I show you.
You keep picking on very small differences. Unless there is another hockey league that is exactly the same as NHL and offers the idea that was proposed, you're not going to accept any merits of the idea.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

I was hoping you could figure that one out on your own.
Which of the following scenario do you think will lead to more fans?

1. Availability and exposure through free but limited streaming
2. Exclusive, subscription based streaming

Wow, you really don't grasp simple questions well do you?

Here's the question I asked you:

Answer this question for once then, why isn't the currently widely available free content obtaining the same results? What makes you think that this new format will result in such a great influx of viewers that ad rates can be boosted to a level that offsets the large scale loss of subscriber revenues.

Your responses do not even come close to answering that question. They don't even address it. Please, try again.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Doesn't matter what work I show you.
You keep picking on very small differences. Unless there is another hockey league that is exactly the same as NHL and offers the idea that was proposed, you're not going to accept any merits of the idea.

You haven't shown once how the NHL can recoup their costs of lost revenue besides banner ads and crossing their fingers for new fans. Do you honestly believe that banner clicks would amount to the same dollar figures?

Don't you have to ask yourself if this was such a good idea why none of the big 4 have bothered to even try it? There is a reason why it wouldn't work and I'd guess money would be the biggest reason.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Doesn't matter what work I show you.
You keep picking on very small differences. Unless there is another hockey league that is exactly the same as NHL and offers the idea that was proposed, you're not going to accept any merits of the idea.

No I guess it doesn't matter, but you see that's the part where you support your position. If you don't want to support your position then carry on not answering questions and not providing reasoned arguments. If you want people to actually think you have a legitimate idea then maybe you'd consider actually adding in the why and how parts to your argument. Notice that the people who have provided support for their arguments are getting very different responses than you are. Heck, me and Ark were on completely different pages but because he provided reasoning we actually came to agree on a number of issues.

Otherwise you might get dismissed as some dimwitted kid who brags about how much he's paying for his Devry education.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Huh? I asked you why the current availability of free programming isn't bringing new fans to the game as you claim that the free online everything idea will. This does not answer that question in the least.

Couple of things:

1) when it comes to illegal streaming, we have no idea if they are bringing in new fans to the game.

2) for that matter, we don't know if legal free streaming is bringing in any new fans, but I would argue that if it isn't, it has a lot to do with the bugs that GC has.

3) The NHL does not market/advertise illegal streams. It wouldn't surprise me if most people have never even heard of something like ATDHE.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Couple of things:

1) when it comes to illegal streaming, we have no idea if they are bringing in new fans to the game.

2) for that matter, we don't know if legal free streaming is bringing in any new fans, but I would argue that if it isn't, it has a lot to do with the bugs that GC has.

3) The NHL does not market/advertise illegal streams. It wouldn't surprise me if most people have never even heard of something like ATDHE.

I'm not talking about illegal streams, I'm talking about all of the legal free to air options that are available. The vast majority of the US and Canadian market gets multiple free games every week via national and local broadcasters, why isn't all of this exposure drawing in new fans but going to an every game for free online model will?

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by HOOT

You haven't shown once how the NHL can recoup their costs of lost revenue besides banner ads and crossing their fingers for new fans. Do you honestly believe that banner clicks would amount to the same dollar figures?

Don't you have to ask yourself if this was such a good idea why none of the big 4 have bothered to even try it? There is a reason why it wouldn't work and I'd guess money would be the biggest reason.

Obviously, if only the GC subscribers will be watching the NHL streams then ads won't come close to their current profit.

The question comes down to how many illegal stream users are there for ever subscribers. By getting their traffic on to a legit stream, would it be enough to off set the cost lost by some subscribers going from Game Center Plus to the free version Lite (Like I said, I do like the PVR ability, HD quality and being able to watch older games so I would still subscribe to Plus. But I do wish they have more advertising on it to subsidize the subscription cost).

Big 4 haven't tried it because its always hard to try something new, because of the chance of failure.

I don't think the music industry would be what it is now if it wasn't for piracy forcing the industry to adapt. We no longer have to get ripped off when buying music since we're not forced to buy the entire CD and now we have the convenience to download music with a single click. Although most users are still opting to pay, there are legit options to listen to music on the web for free, and the sites that offer these services pay for the rights to do so from the revenue they generate from ads.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not talking about illegal streams, I'm talking about all of the legal free to air options that are available. The vast majority of the US and Canadian market gets multiple free games every week via national and local broadcasters, why isn't all of this exposure drawing in new fans but going to an every game for free online model will?

Okay let me use myself as an example.
My parents weren't big hockey fans so I wasn't a fan when I was a kid.
I obviously didn't have much interest in hockey then but after watching couple games on CBC/TSN (I didn't have Sportsnet then) I got interested in the game. Try following any team from CBC or TSN, you'll be lucky to watch your team once every two weeks or so (unless your team is the Leafs).
After I found out about online streaming, which was later down the road, I used it to follow every single Flames game that was available on it and became a bigger fan. Constant availability and exposure can draw new fans. If I was living in the States, I doubt I would've been a fan due to lack of national coverage there.

Same with the soccer example I gave you few posts ago. I wouldn't have gotten into world cup if it wasn't for CBC streaming them online.

[GFG4Life]

Don't know if someone posted this already but I was just sent this link.

*****

Don't know if it works, i didn't try it, or how long it will last for that matter.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

I'm not talking about illegal streams, I'm talking about all of the legal free to air options that are available. The vast majority of the US and Canadian market gets multiple free games every week via national and local broadcasters, why isn't all of this exposure drawing in new fans but going to an every game for free online model will?

Because we aren't talking about FTA necessarily. We are talking about an increasing consumer base that prefers to watch their programing online. Eventually, everyone is going to have to address the issue of streaming, not just the NHL.

My mom and dad might think that subscribing to HBO and Showtime is worth the money, but why would someone like me ever do that? I can watch any show I want, online, for free, at great quality, whenever I want. Sure, call me a freeloader and just focus on servicing your paying subscribers. Fine. But those paying subscribers won't be around forever and when they are gone, you won't be in any position to service the consumers that you previously chose to ignore. Simply saying "we are making money right now with this format, so there is no reason to innovate our product and position it better for the future," is a recipe for disaster.