New Year - New Answers Needed ..but What?
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Fair questions. I'll try and answer without writing an essay...
Mixed groups of punters and own gunners is certainly a quicker way to capture the attention of those individuals you might want to take up paintballing as a hobby. It results in more awareness of the various types of paintballing activities available, so conversion rates are naturally going to be higher.
The flip side of mixed groups is the overall damage it causes to the grassroots of paintball - newcomers from the general public who are trying out paintball for the first time. Many "punters" will already be quite nervous about participating in their first paintball game, having heard stories about how much it hurts and possibly some worrying reports of badly run paintball venues.
These guys and gals go to their first paintball day and get mixed in with intimidating own gunners. Immediately their experience is compromised before they even start playing. Apprehension builds and many individuals will already begin to convince themselves that they are in for a bad experience. Then the games start and they are greeted with high rates of hire, experienced players who run rings around them, a reduced element of fun, an increased sense of seriousness, and an increase in number of hits they take.
The majority of people are not going to enjoy this experience.
The best form of marketing is word of mouth. It only takes one bad report to damage a businesses, or an activity's reputation. In the states, many new paintball sites have opened up on small areas of land, with their playing fields consisting of Sup'Air or "concept" arenas. Paint is sold comparitively cheap and mixed groups are common place. Suddenly, we have a large pool of people having poor first experiences at paintball venues. At best, they simply wont try paintballing again for several years. At worst, they will tell all their friends and familly about the crappy time they had playing paintball.
A better approach, in my opinion, is to provide a quality product at all levels. Ensure each individual has a fun, exciting, quality experience when they first try paintballing. Then educate those who show an interest in the game's various formats and local opportunities to get more involved. The conversion rate may be lower, but the pool of people who have had a great time paintballing and will visit a venue again within the next six-twelve months is higher. So is that pool of people discussing positive things about the game.
To sum up, catering to the newcomer to ensure newcomers have a good experience is a recipe for success. Focussing the public paintball product to own-gunners is a sure fire way to damage the industry. Activities should be seperate, but education about the various forms of paintballing should be encouraged.
Paintball had ideas above its station in trying to become a mass-appeal spectator sport, which I can't see ever happening as the game is boring as hell to watch.
Growth is also contrained by the cost, limited playing appeal (lots of people don't consider welts to be fun) and militaristic associations that will always persist, no matter how much we dress up like Coco the clown.
I won't shed too many tears to see the big tournament series fail and teams lose sponsorship deals - the normalisation needs to happen to allow the game to focus on its core business, which is rental/recball. Those with the money and desire will continue to play at a 'higher' level. The situation where pro players paid the least money, but got the most from the industry was always a weird one. It can work in football, where people will pay to see the best players play, but not in paintball.
I think we need to accept that there will be a significant contraction in the tournament scene, with less events and those that are staged having fewer teams, higher costs and none of the glitz of the last decade.
The companies that do survive will be those that start ditching unsustainable sponsorship deals with tournament teams and market their products to the masses.
Overall player numbers are going to drop as the public has less disposable income, but new blood will still filter into the non-rental market, although not fast enough to replace the exodus of players unable to pay their way.
I don't think the industry can do much apart from ride it out. At some point things will bottom out, we'll end up with a smaller sport, with fewer companies, fewer events, fewer participants (and I'd imagine the average age of players will rise again, as there will be fewer teenagers being bankrolled by their parents).
In short, we're going to be timewarping back to the mid-90s and will have to start growing again - although this time hopefully without the main focus being TV.
I feel very sorry for anyone whose livelihood will be impacted by the changes, but don't necessarily see this all as a bad thing, more or a rebirth.
That was a bit of a brainfart ramble, sorry!
Growth is also contrained by the cost, limited playing appeal (lots of people don't consider welts to be fun) and militaristic associations that will always persist, no matter how much we dress up like Coco the clown.
I won't shed too many tears to see the big tournament series fail and teams lose sponsorship deals - the normalisation needs to happen to allow the game to focus on its core business, which is rental/recball. Those with the money and desire will continue to play at a 'higher' level. The situation where pro players paid the least money, but got the most from the industry was always a weird one. It can work in football, where people will pay to see the best players play, but not in paintball.
I think we need to accept that there will be a significant contraction in the tournament scene, with less events and those that are staged having fewer teams, higher costs and none of the glitz of the last decade.
The companies that do survive will be those that start ditching unsustainable sponsorship deals with tournament teams and market their products to the masses.
Overall player numbers are going to drop as the public has less disposable income, but new blood will still filter into the non-rental market, although not fast enough to replace the exodus of players unable to pay their way.
I don't think the industry can do much apart from ride it out. At some point things will bottom out, we'll end up with a smaller sport, with fewer companies, fewer events, fewer participants (and I'd imagine the average age of players will rise again, as there will be fewer teenagers being bankrolled by their parents).
In short, we're going to be timewarping back to the mid-90s and will have to start growing again - although this time hopefully without the main focus being TV.
I feel very sorry for anyone whose livelihood will be impacted by the changes, but don't necessarily see this all as a bad thing, more or a rebirth.
That was a bit of a brainfart ramble, sorry!
But Having quality at every level will cost site Owners more money, and 95% of field owers are in paintball for the moola, not the growth of the sport.
No. Delivering a quality product generates more business and, therefore, money. Deliver crap and watch your business go to ruin.
Regardless of how it may help them, site owners seem to be reluctant to make any sort of change if it costs a bit of money to get it running 
lol your experience with one siteRegardless of how it may help them, site owners seem to be reluctant to make any sort of change if it costs a bit of money to get it running
but tbh sam if you had just spoken to someone who owns one you would see that some, not all, are often under pressure just to make money in summer so they can get through the winter when trade is bad
not all changes can lead to an increase in profit
seeing as you dont always get the money back on your investmestments thats why they are reluctant 
Unfortunately all this is easier said then done.
I agree it's best to keep punters and own-gunners apart on different fields.
The site I used to play at most has several fields, ranging from some real cool scenario fields, to full blown Sup'Air tournament set ups.
There used to be specific dates on which the own-gunners could come and play. On these days there would always be punters as well, but all these groups would be separated on the fields. So no mixing...
But the own-gunners and punters did share the safe area and this is where many people got drawn in. They saw the own-gunners strutting around, some of them looking like power rangers, others looking like army rangers. There was always a lot of interaction and positive promotion of the game. This led to a healthy growth in the number of people buying their own gear and starting to play paintball.
Now all that is fine and dandy if you have a site large enough to have several playing fields, but what if you have a site that is only large enough to accommodate one field? Do you turn away the own-gunners and miss out on their money? Or do you organise specific dates on which they can come and play and you turn away the punters and miss out on their money? Or do you allow them both to play and take double the money, but you might miss out on the long dollar?
The problem is that punters on avarage per head bring in more money than the own-gunners, so if you had to decide, why would you accommodate the own-gunners if you have only one field? In fact, it could well be counterproductive for you to even let people be aware that such a thing as your own paintball gear exists!
Hmmm, quite a dillemma.
I totally agree and I can't see a huge shift in the way these types of site's operate. Most of the venues who offer cheap paintballs are going to struggle to see that raising their prices and seperating out their groups is going to be beneficial to them.
I suppose any "new answer" or new thinking is going to be hard to implement and probably nothing more than wishful thinking.
I suppose any "new answer" or new thinking is going to be hard to implement and probably nothing more than wishful thinking.