PPV prices

[The Moonster]

Dumbarton charging £12 for tonights match with Dunfermline. 

[G_H]

Airdrie doing £10 for game tomorrow vs Alloa. Seems to be the going rate reading through this thread.

[Brummo]

Stumped up for £180 season pass rather than PPV at £12 per pop. Taking a gamble if things grind to a halt but the PPV seems inflated to avoid undercutting season ticket prices. Had to laugh when during the first pen, pixelot reads the players gathered around the centre circle waiting as the main action and ignores the penalty taking.

AI also never expected Dillo's speculative attempt to lob the goalie and missed it.

Someone needs to get working on that algorithm pronto.

[resk]

Cove - 10 quid per game or 99 for the season pass if you buy before end of October.

[Sons Fan]

Unless I am missing something if you want to watch your team away from home you have to create an account for the the away team.

So realistically we are going to be playing behind close doors to at least Christmas, probably more which means you will need to create at least 10 accounts to watch your team. Considering the backend is all hosted by the same company, it seems crazy that’s the way to do it. 

[Brummo]

11 hours ago, Sons Fan said:

Unless I am missing something if you want to watch your team away from home you have to create an account for the the away team.

So realistically we are going to be playing behind close doors to at least Christmas, probably more which means you will need to create at least 10 accounts to watch your team. Considering the backend is all hosted by the same company, it seems crazy that’s the way to do it. 

While from a fans perspective it would make sense to have a league 1 package with Pixelot, how would the income be split?

Presumably, along the lines of a percentage of the fans identifying themselves with a particular club.

I do not think smaller clubs would sign up to this, as they would lose the advantage of "bigger" teams' fans paying for streaming away games.

It might also be tricky integrating such a package with existing season ticket arrangements.

Having said that, when things get back to normal, surely having sensibly priced live streaming as an option for fans, who for whatever reason can't travel to away games or even home ones, could be a useful source of additional income.

Living abroad, as I do,  live streaming is a fantastic development as it allows me to watch my team like fans of far bigger, richer clubs have been able to do for decades. Okay, it isn't as high tech as Sky Sports or whatever but other than East Fife TV, (kudos) and the televised visits of Sevco, several years back, I had zero experience of watching my team play in the fifteen years I have been here. To be fair, over much of that time, not being able to watch, has not been much of a deprivation.

After decades of not being able to do what EPL and even SPL fans have done, I am just delighted at the prospect of sitting with my family at 10pm on a Saturday in our living room, cheering on my team.

As those of you old enough to remember Steve Austin (a man barely alive) might recall:

"We have the technology: we can rebuild it*" 

(*Scottish football)

 

 

[Gordon EF]

34 minutes ago, Brummo said:

While from a fans perspective it would make sense to have a league 1 package with Pixelot, how would the income be split?

I think it's more why not have one Pixellot account and then choose to buy a stream from a central site, rather than go on to the Montrose site, create a login for that, then next time create a login for Dumbarton, Clyde, etc.

In hindsight, I'm guessing Pixellot would have done that but I'm sure they could never have imagined the uptake they've had over the past7 months.

Also, not everyone is using Pixellot. East Fife aren't and I assume Falkirk aren't either.

[BallochSonsFan]

I'm used to streaming UK hockey games. I regularly buy webcasts when the Clan play at Manchester, Sheffield, Coventry, Cardiff or Belfast. Prices range from £10 to £15. There was an initial moan when teams first increased prices above £10 but people pay because it's the only way to watch if you're not travelling to the game.

Should League 1 be any different? Should we expect streams to cost peanuts? Clubs still have wages to pay and still need to meet running costs. The notion that you can charge significantly less and get a load more people through the gates just doesnt play out so why would it be different for a stream? You could cut the costs from £10 to £5 and you wouldn't get double the number of people paying for the stream. The sad truth is that clubs need to charge a decent amount because cutting prices doesnt attract more people to pay. It'll cost what it costs because thats the amount clubs need to bring in to stay viable.

The issue I have isnt with cost but rather convenience. If the majority of clubs are using the Pixellot platform then it shouldn't be beyond Pixellot's ability for fans to use a single account to buy home and away matches. Our cup game with Clyde tomorrow is via Pixellot but it would require a registration with Clyde's Pixellot service before I can buy the stream. Thats a massive pain in the arse. There should be a way for Pixellot to make games available for purchase to all registered users. The money for pay per view buyers could be diverted to the home side by Pixellot. Having to register for 6 or 8 different Pixellot accounts is something that would really discourage me from buying away game streams. I've bought my Sons season ticket and I'll stream our home games but I doubt I'll be getting away streams and that's pretty much because I don't want to have 7 or 8 different Pixellot accounts.

[Sons Fan]

6 hours ago, Brummo said:

While from a fans perspective it would make sense to have a league 1 package with Pixelot, how would the income be split?

Presumably, along the lines of a percentage of the fans identifying themselves with a particular club.

I do not think smaller clubs would sign up to this, as they would lose the advantage of "bigger" teams' fans paying for streaming away games.

It might also be tricky integrating such a package with existing season ticket arrangements.

Having said that, when things get back to normal, surely having sensibly priced live streaming as an option for fans, who for whatever reason can't travel to away games or even home ones, could be a useful source of additional income.

Living abroad, as I do,  live streaming is a fantastic development as it allows me to watch my team like fans of far bigger, richer clubs have been able to do for decades. Okay, it isn't as high tech as Sky Sports or whatever but other than East Fife TV, (kudos) and the televised visits of Sevco, several years back, I had zero experience of watching my team play in the fifteen years I have been here. To be fair, over much of that time, not being able to watch, has not been much of a deprivation.

After decades of not being able to do what EPL and even SPL fans have done, I am just delighted at the prospect of sitting with my family at 10pm on a Saturday in our living room, cheering on my team.

As those of you old enough to remember Steve Austin (a man barely alive) might recall:

"We have the technology: we can rebuild it*" 

(*Scottish football)

 

 

As others have already said. You have one account and pay per match. I would also hope that they are able to identify the amount of streams per match. Which they could then use to work out payments to clubs. If they can’t then it doesn’t fill me full of confidence in their ability.
 

Multiple accounts is just bad data management from pixelot. 
 

Maybe everything will be fine but red flags are popping up for me.

 

[microdave]

Ideally it would be just one account needed but when I registered with Dumbarton, it took about a minute. Doing another nine registrations is going to take me about nine minutes and I won't be doing them all at the same time. I wouldn't call it inconvenient in the slightest but each to their own.

[jaggyness]

Just for a bit of perspective, sky and bt are going to be broadcasting some non standard televised games at £14.95. That's the English premier league. Yes I know sky and bt are huge multi nationals but suddenly £14 to watch Falkirk vs montrose seems like a lot of money

[Gaz FFC]

Montrose are £12.50.

Anyone else got prices yet?

[costa]

Had a reply from Thistle today saying they haven’t confirmed individual PPV prices yet.....

[Mr November]

12 hours ago, Gaz FFC said:

Montrose are £12.50.

Anyone else got prices yet?

£12 for Airdrie. 

[BallochSonsFan]

On 09/10/2020 at 19:59, jaggyness said:

Just for a bit of perspective, sky and bt are going to be broadcasting some non standard televised games at £14.95. That's the English premier league. Yes I know sky and bt are huge multi nationals but suddenly £14 to watch Falkirk vs montrose seems like a lot of money

If several thousand were going to pay for the stream then it may well be expensive.

Unfortunately Falkirk need to charge an amount that'll cover their costs. If they halved the price to £7.50, they wouldn't double the number of viewers.

[Gordon EF]

If several thousand were going to pay for the stream then it may well be expensive.
Unfortunately Falkirk need to charge an amount that'll cover their costs. If they halved the price to £7.50, they wouldn't double the number of viewers.

But customers (which is what fans are) are under no obligation to subsidise Falkirk's higher costs.

Not having a go at Falkirk. Just making the point that you can't just justify ever increasing prices with "cost covering".

[The Moonster]

No EPL team will die over this though. They could charge peanuts and still see every club through it. Our clubs are in a much more dangerous position as we don't have a national broadcaster pumping a billion quid into the system, so I'm quite happy for them to charge what they like here.

[BallochSonsFan]

1 hour ago, Gordon EF said:

But customers (which is what fans are) are under no obligation to subsidise Falkirk's higher costs.

Not having a go at Falkirk. Just making the point that you can't just justify ever increasing prices with "cost covering".

Obligation? Of course not.

But Falkirk will charge the price they need to in order to cover their wages.

I'm under no obligation to pay the asking price for anything. Equally producers are under no obligation to give their products away at a loss. If we're reducing it to a purely financial argument then if it costs the producer £2.50 to make a bottle of beer then they're not going to sell it to me for £2.00 - they're going to ask me to pay £3.00.

Fans need to be realistic in their expectation. If you were turning up to watch the game as an away fan then would you expect Falkirk to charge home fans a home price and away fans the amount that the visiting team would normally charge? Or a discount just for the travelling support?

[jaggyness]

Obligation? Of course not.
But Falkirk will charge the price they need to in order to cover their wages.
I'm under no obligation to pay the asking price for anything. Equally producers are under no obligation to give their products away at a loss. If we're reducing it to a purely financial argument then if it costs the producer £2.50 to make a bottle of beer then they're not going to sell it to me for £2.00 - they're going to ask me to pay £3.00.
Fans need to be realistic in their expectation. If you were turning up to watch the game as an away fan then would you expect Falkirk to charge home fans a home price and away fans the amount that the visiting team would normally charge? Or a discount just for the travelling support?

Couple of things here. Let's say nobody pays £14 to Falkirk, are they better with say 100 people paying £10 or none paying £14? The answer is obvious

[Gordon EF]

32 minutes ago, BallochSonsFan said:

Obligation? Of course not.

But Falkirk will charge the price they need to in order to cover their wages.

I'm under no obligation to pay the asking price for anything. Equally producers are under no obligation to give their products away at a loss. If we're reducing it to a purely financial argument then if it costs the producer £2.50 to make a bottle of beer then they're not going to sell it to me for £2.00 - they're going to ask me to pay £3.00.

Fans need to be realistic in their expectation. If you were turning up to watch the game as an away fan then would you expect Falkirk to charge home fans a home price and away fans the amount that the visiting team would normally charge? Or a discount just for the travelling support?

Virtual tickets and bottles of beer are fundamentally different because there's no unit cost associated with virtual tickets aside from possibly some marginal scaling in the web hosting.

Of course clubs won't sell double as many tickets at £7.50 as they would at £15 but there's obviously some degree of elasticity between price and demand. Clubs obviously have to decide amongst themselves what they want to charge and what the optimum price is. 

Obviously I'm not suggesting home clubs should have two tiered pricing for home and away fans. I'm suggesting that if clubs charge too much, some fans won't pay for it. I don't really understand why Dumbarton fans in particular seem to have such a problem with this.