ATDHE.net domain seized by Homeland Security

[MacFlame]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Considering the NHL has seen it's revenues continuously rise even during a economic slowdown I don't think they're going to be forced into offering their product online for free any time soon.

I'm not saying it will be free. Stop equating streaming with FREE. One does not necessarily equal the other.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

Because the additional people seeing those ads don't matter to them, but the people in their market who are watching free games in another market do.

Why wouldn't those additional viewers matter to them? They can see how many people are watching online, which gives them an argument to increase the rate for advertising fees. Companies looking to advertise see that viewer ship numbers have increased, and see the value in paying larger fees due to the fact that they reach a larger audience. Sure, this might not interest the local used car dealership, but it could very well attract a larger company interested in reaching a more national audience. Your argument against this doesn't make any sense.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Also, even though the music industry is still going after illegal uploads of their music on YouTube, I think this could still be beneficial to them. I've discovered and bought songs that I would've never bought it the first place thanks to the illegal uploads on YouTube. If those uploads weren't there, I would've never heard some of the bands I listen to now.

Yep, and the NHL does this already.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

I'm not saying it will be free. Stop equating streaming with FREE. One does not necessarily equal the other.

You're not, but that was the idea floated initially and it seems that a couple of people are still clinging to it.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by MacFlame

I'm not saying it will be free. Stop equating streaming with FREE. One does not necessarily equal the other.

Well the NHL is already streaming games so how are they going to be forced to change?

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Huh? You're not talking about a choice of platform, you're talking about enabling people in a market that currently would have one choice for free games being able to access every game. that draws eyes away from the local broadcast, thereby reducing the desirability of advertising on the telecast, which in turn pulls down ad rates. Is that so hard to grasp?

What on earth are you talking about? Ad rate would go up due to increased number of viewers. Is that so hard to grasp?

Edit: Beaten by Ark2. Exactly what he said.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Why wouldn't those additional viewers matter to them? They can see how many people are watching online, which gives them an argument to increase the rate for advertising fees. Companies looking to advertise see that viewer ship numbers have increased, and see the value in paying larger fees due to the fact that they reach a larger audience. Sure, this might not interest the local used car dealership, but it could very well attract a larger company interested in reaching a more national audience. Your argument against this doesn't make any sense.

Really? You don't see how an advertiser in Detroit doesn't give a fata about people in Minnesota or Miami seeing their ad? You're joking right? I can see that conversation going really well. 'You see there are 200 people in Miami and 300 in Phoenix and 75 in Seattle watching our games online so we're going to bump ad rates up because of all this additional exposure to markets you don't care about.' Can you guess the response?

You think that the bits and pieces of viewers scattered across the country are going to make Ford go 'hey, we should shell out for a national campaign'? Do you watch NHL games? Tell me, how many national ads do you see on a local broadcast? There's a reason that there are only a few national games a week, the market simply doesn't exist to turn every single game into a national broadcast.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're not, but that was the idea floated initially and it seems that a couple of people are still clinging to it.

No one here is clinging to the idea of free stream as in NHL getting no revenue stream.
Just because the stream is free for the audience doesn't mean that NHL earn nothing out of it.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

What on earth are you talking about? Ad rate would go up due to increased number of viewers. Is that so hard to grasp?

And you're giving consumers one more reason to move away from subscribing to sports channels. The fewer subscribers they have, the less money they'll pay NHL franchises for broadcasting deals.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

What on earth are you talking about? Ad rate would go up due to increased number of viewers. Is that so hard to grasp?

Edit: Beaten by Ark2. Exactly what he said.

Hahahahahaha, yep those additional viewers in markets that the advertisers have no presence in are sure desirable.

That expensive school you go to is Devry isn't it? University of Phoenix maybe?

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Really? You don't see how an advertiser in Detroit doesn't give a fata about people in Minnesota or Miami seeing their ad? You're joking right? I can see that conversation going really well. 'You see there are 200 people in Miami and 300 in Phoenix and 75 in Seattle watching our games online so we're going to bump ad rates up because of all this additional exposure to markets you don't care about.' Can you guess the response?

You think that the bits and pieces of viewers scattered across the country are going to make Ford go 'hey, we should shell out for a national campaign'? Do you watch NHL games? Tell me, how many national ads do you see on a local broadcast? There's a reason that there are only a few national games a week, the market simply doesn't exist to turn every single game into a national broadcast.

How many commercials do you see on Sportsnet during the Flames game that are only relevant to Calgarians?

Sportsnet: Yeah we have 5 times the amount of viewers we had before.
Telus: Sorry people watching the broadcast from Toronto doesn't count.

Yeah okay.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Hahahahahaha, yep those additional viewers in markets that the advertisers have no presence in are sure desirable.

That expensive school you go to is Devry isn't it? University of Phoenix maybe?

I'm sure that companies like Telus, Bell, Rogers will only care about Calgarians when they're looking to advertise.

Why does it matter where I go to school? The fact is I don't live at home and I don't rely on my parents to pay for education so I have to pay for cost of living which doubles or triples the cost of what a typical student would pay when living with their family.

Edit: The whole point was brought up since Yeah_Baby assumed that every student has the luxury to deck out $200 on whatever they wanted.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

What on earth are you talking about? Ad rate would go up due to increased number of viewers. Is that so hard to grasp?

I think you have to be careful. As previously mentioned, a Ford dealership in Detroit does not give a damn if someone in Seattle watches the advertisement. The Detroit Ford dealership cares about the viewers in Detroit.

Since most broadcasts for the NHL are regional, it is likely if viewers became spread out over a country over a small area, advertising revenue from the local advertisers would definately decrease.

It's really quite simple because people respond to incentives.

That's why a dumbed down limited free version of Game Centre would not decrease the subscribers to Game Centre. The people who are willing to pay at $200 a year would continue to do so as they percieve they get good value.

The people that watch the poor illegal streams would likely switch over to the suggested limited poor quality free version which the NHL could obtain some minor revenue from without reducing revenue the NHL or NHL teams generate through other means.

The sites with the illegal streams would likely realize a reduction in revenue.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

How many commercials do you see on Sportsnet during the Flames game that are only relevant to Calgarians?

Sportsnet: Yeah we have 5 times the amount of viewers we had before.
Telus: Sorry people watching the broadcast from Toronto doesn't count.

Yeah okay.

I think Bell dominates Ontario and Telus isn't really anywhere to be found. As we drove through last summer, all the payphones were branded Bell.

I think Telus Mobility is around in Ontario, though.

Your example doesn't do you justice.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

How many commercials do you see on Sportsnet during the Flames game that are only relevant to Calgarians?

Sportsnet: Yeah we have 5 times the amount of viewers we had before.
Telus: Sorry people watching the broadcast from Toronto doesn't count.

Yeah okay.

Yeah all of those tractor and seed advertisers will be pumped that they're hitting the Toronto market. Maybe someone in Oakville will buy a combine.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Believing that people will continue to pay for something that is available for free is moronic.

Well, you've been given several examples where this is applied. Not only that, but the service is currently offered for free and there are still those that will pay for it. I'm sure that you will cling to the fact that this free alternative is illegal as the main dividing factor, but this line of thinking really gives away your age. Like it or not, illegal streaming is something that people are seeing as less and less immoral.

Keep defending your idiotic thoughts behind no one knowing specific numbers. People have pointed out the issues it would cause Gamecenter and the league's lucrative regional broadcast deals.

How is that idiotic? Saying that because we don't know the numbers, it is entirely plausible that a viable business model where free online streaming is provided could be achieved. Sure, if it just so happens that GC is making a ton of money and any sort of NHL sponsored alternative would inversely affect the profitability of the league, then this isn't something that you would pursue.

But now you think if Gamecenter is losing money it's better to replace it with a product that is free? Yes, that is a moronic idea.

Again, how is that moronic? Let's assume that the vast majority of people that watch hockey online watch via illegal feeds as opposed to GC. Bringing in these viewers could very well be profitable as it would allow for increases in advertising revenue.

[FlamesPuck12]

Local companies might not give a damn about the broadcast being available in other cities but larger corporations do care, and typically, these companies can deck out more money for an advertisement than a local Ford dealership can.

Ford "dealership" might not be able to afford the higher ad rate but actual manufacturer Ford can and they do care about the number of viewers who might potentially watch the advertisement.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Deegee

I think you have to be careful. As previously mentioned, a Ford dealership in Detroit does not give a damn if someone in Seattle watches the advertisement. The Detroit Ford dealership cares about the viewers in Detroit.

Since most broadcasts for the NHL are regional, it is likely if viewers became spread out over a country over a small area, advertising revenue from the local advertisers would definately decrease.

It's really quite simple because people respond to incentives.

That's why a dumbed down limited free version of Game Centre would not decrease the subscribers to Game Centre. The people who are willing to pay at $200 a year would continue to do so as they percieve they get good value.

The people that watch the poor illegal streams would likely switch over to the suggested limited poor quality free version which the NHL could obtain some minor revenue from without reducing revenue the NHL or NHL teams generate through other means.

The sites with the illegal streams would likely realize a reduction in revenue.

Yep, agree completely with that. A dumbed down limited version could certainly work, giving away the whole deal for free would be suicide. The hard part would be drawing the line so as not to detract from GC/CI to a degree that isn't overcome by the limited version. A simple break even wouldn't be sufficient, if you're goign to sink costs into a new product it better enhance your revenue streams, not just relocate them.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by Deegee

I think Bell dominates Ontario and Telus isn't really anywhere to be found. As we drove through last summer, all the payphones were branded Bell.

I think Telus Mobility is around in Ontario, though.

Your example doesn't do you justice.

Last time I checked, Bell, Rogers, Telus all operate nationally.
Bell and Telus signed an agreement to share cell towers so they could try and grab more market in the West and East respectively.
Just because West is dominated by Telus doesn't mean Bell wants to stay from it.

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by valo403

Yeah all of those tractor and seed advertisers will be pumped that they're hitting the Toronto market. Maybe someone in Oakville will buy a combine.

What's your point?
Increase in viewers = higher ad rate = number of tractor and seed advertisement decreases = number of advertisements from national corporations increases.

Obviously, the commercials will get replaced but that does not mean decrease in advertisement revenue.