New king of the hill?

[Lucky.One]

Your right, the question is whether your one company, the gun should limit your other, the promotion company.

Doesn't matter what we want depends on their drive and goals for PP and PSP as companies. I am in the opinion its PP game to win or loose, they just have to answer or gain xball as a format. I just think as an idustry we have a lot to gain if there is a king of the hill and xspl etc feed that league in a natural progression.

 

[Robbo]

This struggle is best understood by appreciating it's not a clash of formats going on here, rather a clash of promoters.
Richmond's ideal is to have his creation on mainstream TV and become the world standard for paintball both in terms of excellence and format.
Contractually he is at present tied in with Dick Clark, Billy and Adam of Smart Parts along with other members of the PSP in the form of the of the NXL.
At the moment, there aren't too many places XBall can go outside of the NXL and the NXL is tied in with DC.

XBall may well be the panacea for all paintball's needs as far as gettin it onto US TV but ironically PP have done it without so it beggars the question, 'why fix it if it ain't broke'?
I mean, why bother changing the existing 7 man format PP have already found so successful in promoting?

I believe that to sustain spectator interest (whether TV or at events) PP have to modify the format along XBall lines and this will enhance the chances of paintball being a long term success.

 

[Gyroscope]

Originally posted by Baca Loco
...it's Thunderdome, two leagues enter, one league leaves.

I disagree. Perhaps everyone is losing all kinds of money, in which case I am wrong. I think the best thing for players is for two leagues to exist, for animousity to prevent unification, and for both leagues to have the somewhat opposing (in the short term, at least) goals of mainstream televising paintball and giving the most players the best event that they can.

I am not saying that TV is bad for players, but it would be an upheaval if successful, and player interests would be compromised in pursuit of big money for the parties who are responsible for making it happen.

Originally posted by Robbo
I believe that to sustain spectator interest (whether TV or at events) PP have to modify the format along XBall lines and this will enhance the chances of paintball being a long term success.

This, on the other hand, I agree with. At Huntington, I spoke with a lot of uninitiated spectators, and one of the biggest obstacles for them was having a team that they identified with and rooted for. In short, fast, exciting games, there is not much time to form attachments. Xball seems like it might be a lot better for that.

Also, it is fun to play, what little exposure I have had.

 

[Matski]

Originally posted by Robbo
AOld wounds run deep Aaron and an even deeper wound has been inflicted and continues to be inflicted (SP lawsuit) so I can't really see PP being too receptive when it comes to piggybacking anything on the NPPL and end up helping who they might perceive as mortal enemies.

Come bonfire night, I wouldn't be too surprised to see 2 Guy Fawks dolls on the bonfire, if you catch my drift... Pete couldn't be more accurate.

....All is fair in love n war, but no doubt when the potential gains greatly outweigh costs already realised, things may move....wouldn't give it a snowballs chance in hell at the mo though!

 

[Baca Loco]

Originally posted by gyroscope
1--I disagree. Perhaps everyone is losing all kinds of money, in which case I am wrong.

2--I think the best thing for players is for two leagues to exist, for animousity to prevent unification, and for both leagues to have the somewhat opposing (in the short term, at least) goals of mainstream televising paintball and giving the most players the best event that they can.

3--I am not saying that TV is bad for players, but it would be an upheaval if successful, and player interests would be compromised in pursuit of big money for the parties who are responsible for making it happen.

1--it wasn't an opinion about what's good or bad for PB, per se, Gyro, it was a statement regarding the present state of affairs.
2--absolutely
3--Ok, I'll say it. TV is bad for the great majority of current players. How's that?

 

[Baca Loco]

Nick

I was mostly responding to Gyro's hedge but--

There are very likely repurcussions to TV success the average player might consider "bad." As Gyro alluded to any serious TV success will shake up the status quo further than it's been shaken in recent years and none of those changes will, in my estimation, improve the lot of the average player at all.
For starters does TV change the order of things? Do novice teams still pay for their entries and paint, etc? I expect they will--if they are even part of the same "events" in a TV future. I have long harbored the suspicion that any league that successfully breaks through the TV barrier in such a way that regular money-making appearances are the result will have no real need for any portion of the pre-exisiting league except for the Pro division. Certainly not at the present standard, if, in fact, they are operating in the red (as is the routine rumor promulgated.)

Certainly players are right to be pleased with the current state of events in comparison to the past but even there they have no guarantee that big time success won't alter what they are perfectly happy with today. I'm not really suggesting TV is undesireable, I'm saying what Joe Average desires may not be what he gets. And, at a minimum, serious TV exposure for PB isn't going to be the Joe Average PB Show front and center on a Saturday afternoon. At best it's likely to simply make the game he plays more well known, draw a larger pool of players, make a sharper distinction between levels of ability and further neutralise his/her skill level as more peeps get involved.

All just my opinion, of course, and I am, alas, cynical and suspicious by nature.

 

[Gyroscope]

Originally posted by Baca Loco

3--Ok, I'll say it. TV is bad for the great majority of current players. How's that?

Cool, you take the flak, I am too delicate a flower to deal with it.

 

[Baca Loco]

Hmmm

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
There are 3 possible scenarios as I see it:

1) Paintball does not get much further in terms of TV coverage than today, in which event status quo will be the outcome.

2) Paintball gets moderate coverage, like what is seen in other fringe sports, in which event promoters will still have to count on the "lesser teams" for a great deal of their revenue - not to mention the tv producers needing the "lesser players" for audience and ambience - to make the productions moderately interesting to viewers.

3) Paintball makes a major breakthrough on tv, in which case "lesser teams" will not benefit directly at the covered events (they will probably not be allowed to play them) - but instead benefit from vastly different market conditions, which translates into a general drop in prices on paintball equipment and paintballs across the board, as well as finding it increasingly easy to find minor sponsors outside the sport, and getting local media to cover minor events.

Nick

1-- is an irrelevant option since we're talking about TV success being bad, doh! However, if the leagues are losing money and TV doesn't appear then the status quo is in danger as well, yes?
2--ambience and audience? Yeah, sure. Sorry, but traditional tourney form is TV death and by watching current NPPL/FSN TV shows you wouldn't know there are any other divisions of teams present (or how the Pro teams presented managed to get to the semis or finals). Further, marginal TV coverage is usually predicated on advertising time sold and if the industry is gonna "buy" the time they can put PB on TV any time they want.
You seem to think PB will stay the same only be better by being on TV. If it gets on TV it won't stay the same.
3--a drop in prices? You are a hopeful fella, aren't ya, Nick?
Minor sponsors for minor teams? Maybe, but in most other sports the ties are local so there is a value in sponsoring. If, in fact, the teams are playing outside the sphere of their minor sponsors markets but not even getting a sniff of TV it strikes me as problematic at best.

If those are your best case scenarios I feel pretty comfortable with my views.

Gyro--no problem, my man. Part of the job description.

 

[Gyroscope]

Existing lesser teams will have it worse, potentially, because the focus of attention will shift to exclusive attention on the top pro teams, leaving no place for the lesser teams to share the stage. Right now, everyone is equally visible at tournaments. Even if lesser teams continue to compete in the same league, they will be so sidelined that there will be much less value in sponsoring them. With a few million people watching Dynasty and Infamous, why bother sponsoring Mox Nix and Diesel?

The motivation for keeping the lesser teams in the same league is there: who will the pro players of next year be? Who will replace the players who drop from current pro ranks? The motivation for supporting them is less clear, though. Unless there is some sort of live spectator market developed, there will not be enough money put into lower divisions to cultivate replacement players working their way up.

It seems to me like maybe racing toward TV without having generated interest and accomodating live spectators is putting the cart before the horse in any case.

Any increase in awareness due to TV coverage requires non-playing people to watch the show. That seems most likely to come only if the television coverage is promoted like mad, or if there is a lot of word of mouth.

A drop in prices could come, but only if a lot more people start playing and buying paint, gear, etc. An amusing scenario could develope where paintball companies can't afford to advertise on paintbal TV programs.

Costs for promoters wouldn't in all likelihood drop, though they might get a lot more assistance from outside companies. I don't see why major outside companies would sponsor this team or that. They would benefit as much or more, without the risk of associating themselves with a team that has an iffy chance of representing them well, if they just sponsored the event as a whole.

It is possible that the market for paintball products would expand so much that more money would be available to paintball companies, but they have a long way to go before anti-trust becomes an issue.

 

[Baca Loco]

Well.....

Originally posted by Nick Brockdorff
1) - Agreed.... but that is a different discussion than whether tv is bad for the majority of the teams.

2) I fail to see how that is "bad" for the majority of the teams..... they are no worse off than they are now, so what's the problem ?

3) Marketing 101..... if there is no audience for it, paintball will not make a major breakthrough on tv (which is the whole basis for scenario 3), so in this scenario, a broad tv audience is a given. - If there is a broad tv audience, there will as a natural consequence also be a much broader market for paintball goods than today (the two go hand in hand). If the market is much broader, prices WILL drop, because that's how markets work - in ANY business - unless people want to violate anti-trust laws and go to jail for years and years.

Nick

1--hey, you're the one who introduced an irrelevant side issue. I just tried to drag it back into the realm of the specific discussion. I am willing to concede that "bad" is perhaps too pejorative so how 'bout we meet in the middle and agree that a TV future may not result in the universal Golden Age of PB.
Btw, it seems you are hanging your hat on an increasingly slender hook.
2--they are considerably worse off if a) the leagues can't sustain the current level of events on offer, or b) the TV successful league no longer places any particular value on offering widely inclusive pay to play events, or c) the demands of crafting a successful TV product alter exisiting tourney format; ie: traditional tourney ball is dead in the water.
3--I will grant you the economies of scale MAY affect paint prices at some point but you are leaving lots of other factors out of your equation. How many years is it going to take to show a significant impact? How many of today's players will benefit? All the latest trends are tiered product lines with rising prices as producers find ways in a growing market to milk cash regardless and hold baseline prices on their generic offerings.


There is also the expectations game. All the competitive ranks have been primed with the notion that with the drive to TV they are helping usher in the Golden Age of PB and when, at best, the result doesn't alter their experience in any appreciable way I expect a goodly number of them to consider it, if not bad, disillusioning.