Quote:
Originally Posted by TWK
Whether a few individuals are anorak enough to hang around a forum and type tomes about the ALMS like the idea of - and will watch - streaming video has absolutely nothing to do with whether sponsors will agree that such exposure has value. Whether those few anoraks will watch such coverage is completely irrelevant to the "business of racing."
The streaming ALMS coverage of Laguna Seca drew will under 10,000. One tenth of at Nielsen rating point is approximately 100,000 television sets. So the equivalent rating was less than .01. How much to do suppose an advertiser will pay for that. If you own a racing teams, how do you present that to the sponsor you need to contribute $1,000,000 or more for the upcoming season?
Perhaps worse, since this is all speculation, how do you feel about answering "I don't know," when asked by that sponsor how much mass media exposure he can expect in the 2011 season?
|
Right TWK -
Streaming is the future, the question becomes do you want to get in front of that train or get ran over?
Less than 10,000 watched the stream and that could be for many reasons. One I can surely think of is 98% of the TV's in America are NOT connected to the internet. People still separate TV Watching from Streaming Content when I actually see no difference other than how you access it. Of course it doesn't help when the networks and some streaming services blow Google TV devices because the networks want some type of payment.
Some facts from the World Cup earlier this year -
Quote:
ESPN is estimating 99.2 million people have "consumed" 2010 FIFA World Cup content across all ESPN platforms during the first 10 days of the tournament.
The data, compiled by ESPN research, working with data from Knowledge Networks and Nielsen, shows that of those who have consumed content on ESPN and ABC, 97 percent have watched on TV, 27 percent have used the Internet, 11 percent have listened to radio, 6 percent have used mobile and 4 percent have read ESPN: The Magazine.
Breaking the data down further, on an average day, 64 percent of ESPN/ABC's audience watched only on television; 27 percent were exposed on TV and some other platform; and 9 percent consumed the World Cup solely on another platform other than TV.
|
The "other platform" is assuming the stream (ESPN3). In America its available anywhere you can get on broadband internet and supports Flash content. That is increasingly becoming cell phones and other mobile devices as well (net tablets, Ipad, cellphones with large displays, etc)
But almost 30% of viewers combined sources to watch the World Cup.
If the rumors are close to true, putting the biggest race of the year on ESPN3 if you can not get a reasonable deal elsewhere is good and has wide access.
As for the other races, putting Petit on the web and having a tape delayed show a week later just doesn't sound good.
The sprint races on Versus makes sense and we should support that regardless. For those that get it, watch it, order it. For those that don't start emailing Versus the minute its announced.