Like it or not, we need Yank teams over here

[Missy-Q]

Chicago,

I don't think anyone really has to believe that I know what I am talking about in order to agree/disagree with what's being said here. You actually make one of the points I was going to bring up (and have in the past) in your last post. The industry spikes that companies like JT, Tippmann and Kingman (and wallmart) see during every show would, in my opinion, classify each and every televised Paintball event a 'success' in many peoples eyes. If they earn money for the industry, and if as you say, that same industry is the one that supports the events themselves, then a measure of success has been acheived already, and that measure alone would make it impossible for them to be deemed 'failures', definitively or otherwise.

I wasn't knocking your college acheivements. I admire them and feel its an extremely valuable contribution to paintball as a whole. Like I said. It isn't personal, but I don't have to know you at all to form an opinion on how interesting it is to watch. It's boring. I'm sorry but it is. I have seen 2 shows, both recorded for me because I have no idea where to find it, what time it airs, or even if it is aired nationally and if I can get it in my area (Not a great promotional job in my opinion). In fact, ask around and see if anyone knows and watches these shows of yours. I think its great that they are on TV, but are they to be classed as a success, and if so, how are you defining success, as that would seem to be the pertinent question regarding both your posts, Petes, and my own. I am sure we all define it differently and are able to muster valid arguments as to why we are correct.

I think (or rather 'it appears') you have a very clear idea on what you think everyone else needs to do to in order to have a successful show that brings money flooding into the sport, and because of that you see everyone elses efforts as misguided. You clearly believe so much in your own design that you are prepared to accept that everyone but you is doing it wrong.
You're assessment goes so far as to presume that companies such as SP, PP, NPPL, PSP etc are so driven to 'get a show on TV' that they lose all thier combined intellect overnight, do no market research whatsoever, take no professional advice, and blindly throw thier hard-earned cash away while dropping thier collective panties at the first sign of a TV camera. I personally would never make this assumption.
As the self-proclaimed true holder of the 'TV secret', and as the guy who surely believes he has it all worked out, aren't you positioned to make it all happen? I am sure the industy would consider hiring you to be the guy that finally makes the magic happen. It could be very lucrative and you would finally be able to show people that you are not just a nay-saying second-guessing, hind-sight-hugging Sir Talkalot, and that you, in fact, actually know what YOU'RE talking about when it comes to showcasing the talent that exists in the Pro Leagues of the sport. And yes, it does matter that these are the people/players that are showcased, as that is thier due.

 

[Missy-Q]

Pete, we are all skirting a fundamental fact here.

The NPPL got free airtime and a deal with ESPN. They would have kept that deal last season, and who knows, maybe this season too. The reason the free airtime was withdrawn was that SP coughed up a ton of money and ESPN did not want 2 shows. They made the same business decision anyone would have made, and took the bread.

If we forget this, then Chi's argument makes more sense. if we remember it, not so much...

 

[Missy-Q]

One more thing, there were over 50,000 people watching the NPPL webcast in HB. Over 40,000 in Boston. Factor that little Gem in and things are more positive, I see it as being the way of proving an audience and a great step forward for Paintball.
Note: On the original webcast 12 months prior, there were 200 people watching online.

 

[Missy-Q]

Guys, I am not sure if I have read the signs right or not but I have been speaking to a lot of the big hitters of late and this is what I think (please correct me If I am wrong Missy or Chi), the original brief or goal for paintball with regard to TV was to get the networks to fund a series that had as its premise, a league based structure, much like NBA or American football.
Basically, we paid for paintball to go on TV at first and then hopefully it would create a level of interest and that interest would then be noted by the networks thus having them (Networks) commission a series based upon a league type format, presumably XBall if the NXL had been successful or 7 man event type presentation had the NPPL been successful.

The SP production was a joke, it fell over at the first hurdle in not even realizing the games needed a backdrop of a crowd to catalyze proceedings and give it some form of spectator context, it was embarrassing.

The NPPL shows were better because at least it had a context whereby people, a lot of people, were already hooked on paintball and were seen to be enjoying it..this production at least got over the first fence but failed to finish the race because at the moment, we have yet to portray tourney paintball in a format which hooks non ballers to the silver screen, or even a major percentage of ballers whose numbers allegdly nudge 5 million.

Now, we are in a financial lull, companies are hurting bad because of a drop off in front end sales, the only silver lining to this cloud was a recent upsurge in sales that corresponded to paintball being aired on TV and so, I believe the emphasis has now changed from trying to promote paintball into the mainstream via league presentation over toward a more fundamental consideration of keeping the industry alive.

And to this end, i believe the industry now has to fund these TV endeavours to promote sales as against trying to create league presentations for the mainstream .. there is a significant difference here.

I might be wrong but this is how I see it....

Certainly it is a fact that the Industry have seen foirst hand what effect the shows have on sales, and they definiely noticed when they were not there this spring. The companies funding the newest show are finally the companies that benefit from it. What has therefore been acheived is the acknowledgement by the major industry players that TV shows are necessary, especially in a slow market. I see this as positive, as it should assure those who are working to expose Paintball to a TV audience of backing and support from those who know they will benefit. This is a relatively new development as the industry was unable to see the sales the shows generated until they were gone this year.

Sorry, just saw I have the last 4 posts. Didn't mean to bore anyone.

 

[Chicago]

Only if you include the rental type players. Otherwise the demographics are still sh!t. But I do concede that the company bigwigs probably include those people as well (and why shouldn't they?).

Think about this:

Companies pay money to sponsor sporting events to reach people who play that sport ZERO times per year. This is true for big broadcast sports like Football and Baseball, but also true for sports like snowboarding and BMX. When Mt. Dew does a commercial featuring snowboarders, they're trying to reach more than just actual snow boarders.

 

[Chicago]

Well Missy...

I think the shows were failures in the sense that the people who paid for them were not the people who benefited from them. I think that they were failures, and possibly damaging to the sport, because we piqued people's interest in paintball, but did not have a program in place to really welcome them into the sport. You see paintball on TV, you want to play, what do you do? You pick the nearest paintball field in the phone book, and unfortunately, the odds are just too high that you end up at a place that is not equipped to handle that new player. And I think they were failures in the sense that they failed to get any out-of-industry interest. And I think they are failures in the sense that the same money and effort spent on something else would have been a lot more beneficial to the sport.

They did get some sales. So I'm not saying they are a COMPLETE failure. But I don't think the goal of the programs was a brief surge in sales, and as long as that wasn't the goal, then the programs did not succeed.


As for the television secret, I don't have the secret to getting paintball on television. The secret is to STOP TRYING TO FORCE THE ISSUE! If you are thinking about putting a paintball show on television, and you can't find any sponsors to pay for it, then that means you should take a step back, figure out why you can't pick up the sponsors, and then fix THAT problem. There has been way too


As for the college shows, I am entirely aware that they are on niche TV networks and our promotional effort has been less than stellar (ok, it sucks). Part of it is that the paintball media does not pay the college league nearly the same attention as the pro leagues by default (not saying they should, but I don't get the same free attention the pro leagues do) and because we do things differently - I don't commit to doing a television show until I have someone else's money to pay for it. It takes some time to work that out, and then to work out a deal with the network, and the past three years we haven't finalized those deals until the weeks before the event - already past the lead time for the print paintball media. This year we inked a 3-year deal, so I know now that we'll be on Fox next year, so the word should get out a lot earlier and louder. But, my short-term goal is not to put paintball on ESPN or ABC Sports. My short-term goal is to finance the league, and one of the ways we do that is television. My long term goal is to finance the league even more, but we're not going to do that with more television until we take care of some other things first.


NO ONE is going to make a fortune putting paintball on television right now. That's not where the value of the sport is.

 

[Buddha 3]

Think about this:

Companies pay money to sponsor sporting events to reach people who play that sport ZERO times per year. This is true for big broadcast sports like Football and Baseball, but also true for sports like snowboarding and BMX. When Mt. Dew does a commercial featuring snowboarders, they're trying to reach more than just actual snow boarders.

Gee, thanks for explaining that. I have zero experience with advertising.

Sarcasm aside, a good example of what you are saying was that Budweiser Superbowl commercial a few years back.
But that was Budweiser using paintball to sell beer to everybody. None of the money paid for that commercial went into paintball, though there may have well been an increase in paintball sales as a result.
However, sponsoring paintballers will still not be interesting in the above scenario, as the commercial centered around a group of friends playing rec or rental.

I think we will sooner see more of the above than a commercial for something not paintball related featuring tournament paintball. It's still too alien for many people. Although I was pleasantly surprised to see Sup'Air ball in that crap film with Matthew McWhatever his name is and that hag from Sex and the City who's face looks like a foot.

Although all that is not what we're discussing, is it? We're not talking paintball imagery being used, but rather about direct investment in paintball from the outside.

 

[Missy-Q]

Well Missy...

I think the shows were failures in the sense that the people who paid for them were not the people who benefited from them. I think that they were failures, and possibly damaging to the sport, because we piqued people's interest in paintball, but did not have a program in place to really welcome them into the sport. You see paintball on TV, you want to play, what do you do? You pick the nearest paintball field in the phone book, and unfortunately, the odds are just too high that you end up at a place that is not equipped to handle that new player. And I think they were failures in the sense that they failed to get any out-of-industry interest. And I think they are failures in the sense that the same money and effort spent on something else would have been a lot more beneficial to the sport.

I agree that the companies would have been financially better off keeping thier money, but I am also grateful that they didn't, and believe that if they had, then we would not have reached the stage where companies within the industry realise that it pays to advertise and promote within these shows as as a proven route to increasing sales. It that respect the shows were and are a success .Without those companies' initial endeavors we would not have reached that stage, a stage which in my opinion is a healthy one, as it means the bigger industry is prepared to continue to finance paintballs exposure, without which the sports profile suffers.

They did get some sales. So I'm not saying they are a COMPLETE failure. .

OK good, because I thought that was what you were saying.

As for the television secret, I don't have the secret to getting paintball on television. The secret is to STOP TRYING TO FORCE THE ISSUE! If you are thinking about putting a paintball show on television, and you can't find any sponsors to pay for it, then that means you should take a step back, figure out why you can't pick up the sponsors, and then fix THAT problem. .

See above, it seems there ARE sponsors that DO wish to pay for it, except those sponsors are not the Fabled Coke, etc, they are K2 etc. Is that a bad thing? I don't see why. also note that these sponsors that now wish to find the exposure only realised they needed it due to the previous "failure' shows that aired.

As for the college shows, I am entirely aware that they are on niche TV networks and our promotional effort has been less than stellar (ok, it sucks). Part of it is that the paintball media does not pay the college league nearly the same attention as the pro leagues by default (not saying they should, but I don't get the same free attention the pro leagues do) and because we do things differently - I don't commit to doing a television show until I have someone else's money to pay for it. It takes some time to work that out, and then to work out a deal with the network, and the past three years we haven't finalized those deals until the weeks before the event - already past the lead time for the print paintball media. This year we inked a 3-year deal, so I know now that we'll be on Fox next year, so the word should get out a lot earlier and louder. But, my short-term goal is not to put paintball on ESPN or ABC Sports. My short-term goal is to finance the league, and one of the ways we do that is television. My long term goal is to finance the league even more, but we're not going to do that with more television until we take care of some other things first..

All this is great news. My only point on the college thing is that it is not entertaining. You claim the shows that have previously aired could be damaging to paintball - I disagree, and if I didn't, I would lump your college shows in with them and claim that they too are harmful to paintball due to reasons of extreme boredom. I don't agree though, and think that all the exposure is both positive and necessary. Not only that, I applaud your own efforts and acheivements, I simply do not think that buys you the right to any particular high ground on this topic, or blesses you with any divine insight into what works and what doesn't, and what the best format/program for Paintball on Television is. I don't think it's yours, and I don't think you do either.
The NPPL are trying something different this time, and I hope they pull it off. I will certainly be rooting for them all the way and will remain positive about the outcome. It would be a pleasant change of style if you managed to do the same.

NO ONE is going to make a fortune putting paintball on television right now. That's not where the value of the sport is.

I am positive that none of the people currenltly trying to put paintball on TV are doing it because they think they will make a fortune out of it. Thats a very American assumption (if you can forgive the generalism). I believe they are investing in Paintballs future growth, and should be thanked and not berated for that. If you knew all the answers and it was simply a case of people not listening to you, then I would well understand your impatience, posturing and negativity. but you don't, and you never know, you might learn something when the NPPL show airs. Thats the least I am hoping for (to clarify: that I learn something, not you. I have no real hopes concerning you at this time)

 

[Nick Brockdorff]

Gee, thanks for explaining that. I have zero experience with advertising.

Sarcasm aside, a good example of what you are saying was that Budweiser Superbowl commercial a few years back.
But that was Budweiser using paintball to sell beer to everybody. None of the money paid for that commercial went into paintball, though there may have well been an increase in paintball sales as a result.
However, sponsoring paintballers will still not be interesting in the above scenario, as the commercial centered around a group of friends playing rec or rental.

I think we will sooner see more of the above than a commercial for something not paintball related featuring tournament paintball. It's still too alien for many people. Although I was pleasantly surprised to see Sup'Air ball in that crap film with Matthew McWhatever his name is and that hag from Sex and the City who's face looks like a foot.

Although all that is not what we're discussing, is it? We're not talking paintball imagery being used, but rather about direct investment in paintball from the outside.

But Jay, generally speaking, the more narrow a demographic is, the higher the value of each contact

So, in that sence, broadening it is not a value in itself - unless you get a significant increase in the number of contacts at the same time.

However - this debate is now about two different things - and we have to be carefull not mixing them up, because they are vastly different:

- The value of paintball to advertisers outside the sport
- The value of wide media coverage to paintball companies

In the first case, I do not believe tv is really that important.... it is only important in the sense that it will increase the overall value of advertising.... but in terms of price per contact, tv will decrease the value, because the demographic is widened.

In the second case, tv IS very important, because the paintball companies are the ones that stand to get a substantial increase in revenues, if paintball makes it to tv in a major way.

The main problem we are facing there, is that the companies view eachother as competitors in that sense... which they shouldn't.

The best thing the paintball industry could do, was to pool their resources, have a show produced promoting paintball generally - and then keep the infighting limited to the paintball market.

Any person watching a spot or a show on paintball, do not think "Smart Parts" or "WDP" - or whatever..... they think "paintball" - and their first act is to go online and check where the nearest site is.... they are not buying a Shocker or an Angel anytime soon.... and to think the spikes in sales following a paintball show comes from beginners, seems a bit naive I think.

The paintball industry should focus on getting more people out playing - at any field - THEN educate their customer sites on how to turn those people into players that want to buy their own equipment - and THEN start to fight over their money.

Nick

 

[Buddha 3]

But Jay, generally speaking, the more narrow a demographic is, the higher the value of each contact

Only partially true.
The narrow demographics are only interesting of you wish to target that demographic specifically, i.e. a niche market. Clothing brands do it all the time, advertising in certain magazines because they know those mags are read by those that wear their type of clothes. With cars it's the same thing.

However, when it's a more generic item, like for instance a brand of soft drink that's already well established, they'll go for the big demographics. Carpet bombing the world with safe ads that appeal to all and offend nobody.
Even the new Coke Zero does that. It's supposedly aimed at the "young men", but it's very generic really.
On the other hand, let's say you have a new type of soft drink, like an energy drink, targeting narrow demographics may well be the first step. After all, it's usually cheaper to do so and you get your stuff in the hands of, if your research has been done correctly, the trendsetters.

Just look at how Red Bull did things. Started off with very specifically targeted demographics and is now just pouring out blanket advertising. Even them sponsoring motor, car and air racing is actually quite non-risqué.

and to think the spikes in sales following a paintball show comes from beginners, seems a bit naive I think.

I'm interested in that too. Anybody on the inside know if this spike in sales was mostly created by selling more high end gear, or was mostly entry level gear?