Ayr United v Alloa Athletic

[North British]

2 hours ago, HeathrowAUFC said:

I can’t be arsed doing the research, but I dare say a nominal monthly fee for extra content is not uncommon in this division.

I’ll gladly contribute £6 a month to the club and if I’m the only one, the club will be £72 better off each year. In the same way, when the Hub is operational, I’ll be spending all my beer money in there rather than the bowling club & the Wallace, pre & post match.

These are only two revenue streams that will be vital for the sustainability of the club going forward, of which a few of our rivals, who we’re expected to compete with, already have in place. My season ticket doesn’t represent great value this season but it’s essential that as many of us that were able to tried to boost the coffers. I don’t contribute to the AU500 but that’s a magnificent effort from all involved. I don’t play the Ayr United lotto but that works for the club too.

We all have a vested interest in the well being of Ayr United and it’s up to us individually to judge what type of commitment we’re happy to make. It’s a collective, it’s a community club and it needs as much help as it can get to make it as successful as we all want it to be.

That all said, I totally understand that some people will be loathe to spend their £6 a month on content they currently get for free, that’s okay. I just don’t buy into the “disconnect with the fans” argument. Supporting Ayr United isn’t an optional extra, it’s through thick & thin.

 Best post of the season . 

[callum-ayr]

3 hours ago, Trogdor said:

Ultimately, we need more fans through the gate, this season excepted. There's only so much revenue you can extract from a 1500/2000 core.

Personally, I think its a strange gambit as I'm not convinced it will bring in more than the opportunity lost if we don't produce a lesser product for free (like brief highlights or manager interview) that engages lapsed fans and locals.

Finally, whether something breaks the bank or not is totally relative. £6 a month may not break your bank or mine but it won't be an option for some people. 

I’m not suggesting everyone has to do everything. I’ve not got a ST, haven’t for about 10 years due to work, but I do have the lottery, and pay week to week. Signed up to the AU500 and now signed up to B&W TV. Point I’m making is people usually want something for what they are paying for (a reason many say they won’t pay into the AU500), so we now have a service where you’re getting a lot of content (yes it was free before, but to no real benefit of the club) for the price of less than 2 pints of beer. 

[Trogdor]

1 hour ago, callum-ayr said:

I’m not suggesting everyone has to do everything. I’ve not got a ST, haven’t for about 10 years due to work, but I do have the lottery, and pay week to week. Signed up to the AU500 and now signed up to B&W TV. Point I’m making is people usually want something for what they are paying for (a reason many say they won’t pay into the AU500), so we now have a service where you’re getting a lot of content (yes it was free before, but to no real benefit of the club) for the price of less than 2 pints of beer. 

I wasn't suggesting everyone had to have everything either. We all make different judgements and have different circumstances. 

I just don't see B&W TV increasing revenues significantly. The Somerset Hub is a totally different kettle of fish and has the potential to be a valuable income stream. As mentioned by Heathrow.

I also think there should be a free output available for engaging those who have a passing interest and for those who can't afford it. I don't really think that should be difficult tbh. I expect that is what the club will do once they actually start charging for B&W TV so this is all a bit academic.

[Hazbart]

As I said I am more than happy to pay for the service if it works and the quality is good.

Im not in the U.K. so going to game’s isn’t an option and the time difference makes watching streams painful. If I knew I could definitely watch the match the next morning or watch the highlights I would be happy Tom pay.

So far all I’ve have is lag and videos that won’t play at all. I dont think it’s too much to ask them To ensure the system is working fully before taking my money. I have zero issues with any other streaming service or website.

I do think that some of the fan base will choose not to pay and will drift away at a time when they are not able to go to games and watching YouTube highlights was their only way of connecting.

 

 

 

[LeodhasXD]

 

[itzdrk]

2 hours ago, Trogdor said:

I wasn't suggesting everyone had to have everything either. We all make different judgements and have different circumstances. 

I just don't see B&W TV increasing revenues significantly. The Somerset Hub is a totally different kettle of fish and has the potential to be a valuable income stream. As mentioned by Heathrow.

I also think there should be a free output available for engaging those who have a passing interest and for those who can't afford it. I don't really think that should be difficult tbh. I expect that is what the club will do once they actually start charging for B&W TV so this is all a bit academic.

200 sign ups and it's most of a player's wage. 

[Trogdor]

11 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

200 sign ups and it's most of a player's wage. 

There's no doubt you can make money if we get uptake. Whether its significant or not is the question. 

I'm not trying to belittle it but there's other relatively cost free earners I would have gone for first. Like a virtual 50/50 draw - £1 an entry. That seems like a no brainer to me. Dunno why we're not doing it to be honest.

[eez-eh]

16 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

There's no doubt you can make money if we get uptake. Whether its significant or not is the question. 

I'm not trying to belittle it but there's other relatively cost free earners I would have gone for first. Like a virtual 50/50 draw - £1 an entry. That seems like a no brainer to me. Dunno why we're not doing it to be honest.

This and virtual programmes seem like opportunities missed.

[Hazbart]

19 minutes ago, eez-eh said:

This and virtual programmes seem like opportunities missed.

100%.

I’d happily buy a 50/50 and a programme every fortnight if the opportunity was there.

[rb123!]

How come the highlights package coverage is 10x better quality than the livestream picture?

[wuffster]

How come the highlights package coverage is 10x better quality than the livestream picture?

Highlights are done from the camera’s internal recording. The bitrate is 35 Mbps. The stream bitrate is probably about 4 Mbps (I’m not involved with that).

[Hazbart]

4 hours ago, LeodhasXD said:

 

Great package. I do prefer our highlights with the cameras closer to the pitch but at least your version played without any buffering and the commentary was good 

[HMIP]

Don’t get the criticism of black and white TV.  Appreciate there may be technical issues, but the service is 100% free at the moment while these are being ironed out.  Takes about 8 seconds to sign up as well.

 You think back to the old days when people payed for mstchday programmes (haven’t bought one in years) and even the good old Ayr United hotline (think it was about 49p a minute or something) and you realise it’s unreasonable to expect content and coverage for free, especially when our rivals are already charging for it.  Think back to the old days to the non existent coverage of Ayr games (30 second match reports on west sound radio, goal flashes on teletext) and you realise how far we’ve travelled.  As I say, maybe we’ve just been spoiled a bit by the au media guys with folk now believing they’re entitled to something for nothing.

[honestly united]

10 hours ago, Trogdor said:

There's no doubt you can make money if we get uptake. Whether its significant or not is the question. 

I'm not trying to belittle it but there's other relatively cost free earners I would have gone for first. Like a virtual 50/50 draw - £1 an entry. That seems like a no brainer to me. Dunno why we're not doing it to be honest.

I think there will be a decent market for it - probably more so with the exiles like myself. I normally dont get to many games just due to the distance (wrexham has been the closest game for me in quite a while), however Wuffsters highlights have been a much watch every week, and would have been paying £6 a month for those if the club had been charging for them all this time.

 I think its a good move, as there is an untapped audience / support and any additional money into the club is surely a good thing

[callum-ayr]

The biggest reason some will oppose it is because of the change, people just don’t like change. Had we always had to pay £6 for B&W tv and this was the normal it would be fine. However because it has always been a free service and only now they are looking to use it  as way of bringing in much needed cash, fans will grumble about it. 

[Hawk89]

16 minutes ago, callum-ayr said:

The biggest reason some will oppose it is because of the change, people just don’t like change. Had we always had to pay £6 for B&W tv and this was the normal it would be fine. However because it has always been a free service and only now they are looking to use it  as way of bringing in much needed cash, fans will grumble about it. 

We also now live in a world where enormous corporations are throwing their weight at similar services (Arsenal TV for example), so I think people will need to readjust their expectations as well as to what the club can offer with limited resource in terms of people and money. I'll have no issue paying £6 a month for it once it is up and running. There is also potentially scope for fans to get involved in this and offer assistance to the club if staying locally. We already have fans producing their own content so there is certainly appetite for people to hear more and engage more with the club. 

I'm already a subscriber to the NFL network which to me is an absolute gold standard with what they produce and in terms of layout making it really easy to find what you want, it is a little surprising that the SPFL hasn't tried to setup something similar on a smaller scale (other than letting you watch pixelot streams) which has left a decent gap in the market for clubs to move into.  Ideally what do we need - Pre match build up (Mick's midweek) / Live game / Rerun of game - highlights / Post match interview. Anything over and above is a nice bonus and I'd hope there is scope for people to get involved if they want to help it grow. 

[Rodders1910]

The biggest reason some will oppose it is because of the change, people just don’t like change. Had we always had to pay £6 for B&W tv and this was the normal it would be fine. However because it has always been a free service and only now they are looking to use it  as way of bringing in much needed cash, fans will grumble about it. 

Think a lot of the grumbling has a lot do to with the current situation tbf, certainly for me personally anyway. Unemployed due to the pandemic and currently paying for a stream every second week, an extra 6 pound a month to see the highlights and post match interviews may not seem like much but it really does all add up when your skint. That's where my grumble comes from but there's also no doubt that if I was earning a decent wage each month I'd be more than happy to pay. I'm just glad the club have kept it free for another month

[Trogdor]

2 hours ago, callum-ayr said:

The biggest reason some will oppose it is because of the change, people just don’t like change. Had we always had to pay £6 for B&W tv and this was the normal it would be fine. However because it has always been a free service and only now they are looking to use it  as way of bringing in much needed cash, fans will grumble about it. 

I wouldn't say I'm opposed to it, its more nuanced than that. In fact the club should be applauded for seeking to increase revenue.

My point is that there should be content freely available and content behind the paywall. I don't really understand why anyone opposes that. It seems like common sense to me, you still engage with those casual fans and especially those who can't afford £6 per month (these people do exist!)

[LeodhasXD]

18 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

I wouldn't say I'm opposed to it, its more nuanced than that. In fact the club should be applauded for seeking to increase revenue.

My point is that there should be content freely available and content behind the paywall. I don't really understand why anyone opposes that. It seems like common sense to me, you still engage with those casual fans and especially those who can't afford £6 per month (these people do exist!)

Just to illustrate that point - Alan Trouten's goal has already been watched 30,000 times.

[callum-ayr]

2 minutes ago, LeodhasXD said:

Just to illustrate that point - Alan Trouten's goal has already been watched 30,000 times.

It’s good it’s been viewed that many times and getting exposure is good, but has getting 30,000 views gained Alloa any extra revenue or will it in the future? That’s where I think providing a service like B&W TV will help our club.