Pbnation bans NPPL
- Thread starter Angus41
- Start date
Ahhh but you copied yours from Taylor. So even then you're copying someone else so it wasn't yours for me to steal anywaysRemember........hair
Clearly there are not just two possible deals.
But, if the network is financing a show, you can bet that they are going to have an exclusivity period where nobody else can show it. And you can also bet that if the network is producing the program, they won't let anyone else film it, and if the league is producing the program, they won't let anyone else film it either.
And if you're doing an air time buy, the network might STILL demand exclusivity (ESPN certainly does), but, it does not make sense that you would have that exclusivity AND be able to broadcast live on the internet, and if you did work yourself out an exemption to broadcast live on the internet, it seems strange that you would claim you couldn't get an exception to exclusivity for the paintball DVD companies when you yourself already got yourself an exception.
I'm speaking to Ed, the owner of PBNation and maybe things ain't as set in stone as they seemed......
I think it may have been a premature move and perhaps when Ed is made aware of a few things, not least of which is what Bruce Freidman, head of the NPPL is all about, the situation may lighten..we shall see.
I think it may have been a premature move and perhaps when Ed is made aware of a few things, not least of which is what Bruce Freidman, head of the NPPL is all about, the situation may lighten..we shall see.
Bruce's goal is to get a return on his investment, no more, no less. Fortunately, he seems to understand that this is better accomplished when looking at the long-term big picture, and I think the industry would be better off if others in leadership roles in the past had adopted a similar approach.
But goals aside, Pacific Paintball's execution has left a little to be desired. They nearly lost a platinum sponsor this summer who had been with them since the split. The actual event operations have been falling behind in several areas - declining referee quality, teams getting scheduled with 9 minutes between their games, played games are getting replayed, 4-hour ID lines, poor communication like the current situation with the DVD companies, and continuing to engage in 'rosy press releases'. Like having a press conference going into Boston talking about record attendance, when the 'record' is record low.
I am also disappointed to see that the first out-of-industry sponsor NPPL has picked up is the Marines. We've spent 20 years trying to shed the 'paintball is playing war' image. I understand that it isn't, but there is a significant percentage of the population who will make that association, and it seems counterproductive to me that one of the two American pro leagues is essentially endorsed by the military.
Yes, the military may be willing to give paintball money right now when other out-of-industry sponsors are being more cautious. But by accepting that military money now, we're only reinforcing the very concerns the rest of the out-of-industry sponsors have about our sport. A paintball sponsorship, for many reasons, is a tough sell. A paintball sponsorship when the other big-name featured sponsor is the Marines is an even tougher sell.
I'm not saying the Marines shouldn't have a booth at events or shouldn't have commercials during TV programs - they do that for pretty much any sport, and support on-par with other sports is great. Sports teach kids qualities that the military desires and it's only natural that the marines look to sports for desirable recruits, and desirable recruits are something our country needs.
But what we don't want is to send the message that the Marines think paintball is EXTRA SPECIALLY good at training kids to be Marines. Although WE know that's not true, many members of the general public, when deciding whether paintball is just teaching kids to play war, may be inclined to believe that if the Marines think paintball is good at teaching kids to play war, it probably is. And given the opportunity to take money to essentially be endorsed by the Marines, our long-term interest is better served by politely saying no.
What really pains me is a league that is NOT controlled by the manufacturers is exactly what this sport needs, but over and over, NPPL seems to miss opportunities that should be easy to take advantage of, or seem to cause themselves unnecessary collateral damage taking advantage of opportunities, and the subject of this thread is just another example of that.
When this whole DVD company/pbnation thing first came to light, I immediately emailed Ed at pbnation and encouraged him to reconsider his action - broadcasting on television, as a matter of course, requires restricting access to the material you are going to broadcast at a minimum until you broadcast it.
But it appears my email may have been premature. Regardless of this reality of television broadcast, there's still a right way and a wrong way to inform the people that's going to affect. There is, for example, no good reason that if you have to restrict access to filming on a field, that you don't tell the people who expect to be able to film there about the change until the day they board their planes to come to the event. That's just a matter of courtesy to the people who support you, and is not the first example this year of NPPL being entirely not courteous to their supporters, from 'lowly' DVD companies all the way on up to their biggest, most reliable platinum sponsors.
But goals aside, Pacific Paintball's execution has left a little to be desired. They nearly lost a platinum sponsor this summer who had been with them since the split. The actual event operations have been falling behind in several areas - declining referee quality, teams getting scheduled with 9 minutes between their games, played games are getting replayed, 4-hour ID lines, poor communication like the current situation with the DVD companies, and continuing to engage in 'rosy press releases'. Like having a press conference going into Boston talking about record attendance, when the 'record' is record low.
I am also disappointed to see that the first out-of-industry sponsor NPPL has picked up is the Marines. We've spent 20 years trying to shed the 'paintball is playing war' image. I understand that it isn't, but there is a significant percentage of the population who will make that association, and it seems counterproductive to me that one of the two American pro leagues is essentially endorsed by the military.
Yes, the military may be willing to give paintball money right now when other out-of-industry sponsors are being more cautious. But by accepting that military money now, we're only reinforcing the very concerns the rest of the out-of-industry sponsors have about our sport. A paintball sponsorship, for many reasons, is a tough sell. A paintball sponsorship when the other big-name featured sponsor is the Marines is an even tougher sell.
I'm not saying the Marines shouldn't have a booth at events or shouldn't have commercials during TV programs - they do that for pretty much any sport, and support on-par with other sports is great. Sports teach kids qualities that the military desires and it's only natural that the marines look to sports for desirable recruits, and desirable recruits are something our country needs.
But what we don't want is to send the message that the Marines think paintball is EXTRA SPECIALLY good at training kids to be Marines. Although WE know that's not true, many members of the general public, when deciding whether paintball is just teaching kids to play war, may be inclined to believe that if the Marines think paintball is good at teaching kids to play war, it probably is. And given the opportunity to take money to essentially be endorsed by the Marines, our long-term interest is better served by politely saying no.
What really pains me is a league that is NOT controlled by the manufacturers is exactly what this sport needs, but over and over, NPPL seems to miss opportunities that should be easy to take advantage of, or seem to cause themselves unnecessary collateral damage taking advantage of opportunities, and the subject of this thread is just another example of that.
When this whole DVD company/pbnation thing first came to light, I immediately emailed Ed at pbnation and encouraged him to reconsider his action - broadcasting on television, as a matter of course, requires restricting access to the material you are going to broadcast at a minimum until you broadcast it.
But it appears my email may have been premature. Regardless of this reality of television broadcast, there's still a right way and a wrong way to inform the people that's going to affect. There is, for example, no good reason that if you have to restrict access to filming on a field, that you don't tell the people who expect to be able to film there about the change until the day they board their planes to come to the event. That's just a matter of courtesy to the people who support you, and is not the first example this year of NPPL being entirely not courteous to their supporters, from 'lowly' DVD companies all the way on up to their biggest, most reliable platinum sponsors.
I found out last night that the photographers from media partners were restricted to one side of the field all weekend to avoid "getting in the shot"
While understandable to a point, again some notice would have been appreciated.
They also had to sign a new media agreement for the event, without advance warning.
While understandable to a point, again some notice would have been appreciated.
They also had to sign a new media agreement for the event, without advance warning.
New as in one that replaced another one that was already in place, or new as in there wasn't one already in place to begin with?
If it's the former, shame on NPPL, if it's the latter, shame on the media outlets.
