Vugraph coordinator in Estoril

[Walddk]

Another aspect I forgot to mention is the need to negotiate with the organizers in order to get the matches that will suit the BBO viewers best. For obvious reasons you can't do that from the distance. Only a BBO co-ordinator on site is in a position to handle this on BBO's behalf.

 

Fred will be there, sure, but it's not his job to do a thing like that. He will and should be busy concentrating on playing bridge and get the best result possible for USA2.

 

Roland

[mrdct]

I've caught this thread a bit late, but having done the on-site coordination for the World Youth this year and also provided remote support/coordination for the PABF championships and some other events - I have a few thoughts:

 

For the World Youth, the vugraph coordinators were appointed about 12 months before the event and several coverage scenarios were developed based on the extent of operator availabity. Detailed planning and rostering was finalised about 4 months prior to the event. As with many things, if you invest in thorough planning and preparation, good results will follow.

 

The structure that I like for major events is having an experienced operator with the ability to trouble-shoot technical problems and fairly good IT skills overseeing the coverage and perhaps a few sessions into the event doing some operating also.

 

We were fortunate in Sydney to have a convenor supportive of vugraph who was willing to provide food and accomodation to operators which was a nice lure to offer out-of-towners (some of whom came from the other side of the planet).

 

For the PABF championships earlier this year, we had a relatively inexperienced local coordinator onsite (who is now a complete guru) and an experienced operator (me) in another country (but similar timezone) available for telephone support. Around four or five issues arose during the course of the event that were all able to be resolved over the phone.

 

I'm not sure what the coverage plan is for Estoril, but I know Herve knows his stuff and will put on a good show. Let's just hope we get a more reliable internet connection than what we had in Istanbul!

[Booze]

Hi

 

I have been at BBO since day one, seen it grow over the years and in my humble opinion BBO have not been what it is today without the excellent Vugraphs we have made.

 

Both Roland and I have worked volunteerly with this, sometimes not even my expences paid as Vugraph operator and we never count what we could have earned if we had worked instead.

 

 

I hope we will someday find a solution for this or do we have to accept Vugraphs of lower quality, maybe its wrong to have this high quality Vugraphs , I don`t know?

 

 

PO Sundelin had an idea once, each team should send their own operator to the major events so they could get their matches broadcasted , a good idea if a lot of teams did. But that still doesn`t solve the coordinator problem.

 

In Malmö we faced a lot of problems, not operator related or technical, it was a reliefe for me having Roland at Venue, taking care of them. I realy appreciated his presence.

 

 

Broadcasting from Bermuda is just like showing any other major sportevent, the form is different tho (thru internet), sadly its payed by a few, BBO with their software, operators and coordinators by their hard job and all fantastic commentators from all over the world, but enjoyed by a lot of spectators. As commentator you can sit at home doing it, leave when you have to, not assign to times that doesn`t suit you.

 

Big winners in this are all users that can enjoy the Vugraphs for free. BBO is a small winner if they sell more software because of this, I realy hope you all buy some of the excellent software!!! Commentators are mostly pros or journalists, its their job watching bridge. And BBO has made life easier for a lot of bridge journalists. All of this is great, I wish BBO could sell more tho.

 

I know Roland never asks for any compensation for his time spent on BBO, but I dont think it`s fair that he or someone else should pay for doing a voluntarily job.

 

I started this topic because I think it is a problem , not for BBO Owners they do more than enough to support this, it`s a problem for all of us thats loves bridge and love to watch good bridge.

 

High quality Vugraphs are realy good entertainment, so let`s find some ideas how to solve this !!

 

 

Bo

[hrothgar]

I've been watching this thread with a fair amount of interest.

 

I'm playing around with a couple idea for start ups. One of the most promising ideas focuses on funding “digital media”. Just so everyone understands, the critical word being used is digital. I'm interested in content that has a high fixed cost to produce, but can be distributed at zero (or near zero) marginal cost. Music, videos, computer programs, and yes - Vugraph broadcasts - all fall into this category.

 

The traditional models that evolved over the last 100 have been based on economies of scale. The “talent” creates a work and hands it over to a publisher. The publisher makes large numbers of copies. In doing so, the publisher creates a cost advantage. The publisher sell copies of the work and remits royalties to the talent. This model is collapsing. New distribution mechanisms like BitTorrent have destroyed publishers cost advantage. Accordingly, piracy runs rampant. (Please note: I'm firmly in favor of piracy)

 

From my perspective, the most reasonable response is to decouple the creative act from the distribution system. Creativity has not been disrupted, only value chain associated with distribution. I favor a model based on what I call “distributed patronage”. The model is fairly simple:

 

1. The talent conceives of a work that they wish to create

2. The talent determines their reservation price. What is the minimum amount of money that they need to be paid to undertake the act in question

3. The talent posts a description of their work on a web site, along with their reservation price.

4. Individuals decide whether they are interested in funding the work. Anyone who is interested is able to pledge funds.

5. If/when sufficient funds have been pledged, individuals are billed and the money placed in escrow.

6. The talent creates the work and publishes it under a Creative Commons license that permits free distribution.

7. Funds are released from escrow to the talent

 

Please note: Once a work has been created ANYONE can consume it, regardless of whether they decided to contribute money to fund it.

 

To chose a more specific example: Consider Vugraph... I can see two logical models for funding Vugraph.

 

Treat Vugraphs as a “public good”. National organizations tax their members. A portion of this money is used to sponsoring Vugraph presentation. Some “enlightened” national organizations have already made this decision. Case in point: The reason that BBO had such extensive coverage of the recent World Juniors event was due to the generosity of the Australian Bridge Federation. The ABF provided excellent logistical and financial support.

 

Use something similar to “Distributed Patronage”. Roland (or some competing VuGraph operator) needs to determine his reservation price; how much money is required to provide food and lodging for the Vugraph operators, rent equipment, provide a reasonable rate of return etc? For the moment, Roland has decided that his reservation price is zero. However, if, at some future point in time people decide that they require compensation than we'll need some mechanism to raise money... In theory, BBO could decide to subsidize the production as a promotional expense. However, if it were my company, I sure wouldn't. Pushing the expenses back on the consumers seems like the right way to go...

[Walddk]

In theory, BBO could decide to subsidize the production as a promotional expense.  However, if it were my company, I sure wouldn't.  Pushing the expenses back on the consumers seems like the right way to go...

I agree with Richard, but it's not the BBO policy. Personally, I can't understand why it is ok to charge money for playing in certain tourneys and with GIBs (being introduced in a few days), whereas it is completely free to:

 

1. Use the BBO software for vugraph purposes.

 

2. Watch hundreds of hours of vugraph broadcasts every year as a spectator.

 

It makes little sense to me. If vugraph really is the success we all believe it is, then surely no one can expect to get this for nothing until the end of time. Just a thought: Vugraph viewers subscribe for a year at say $10. Then one can come and go as much as one wants.

 

It takes little imagination to comprehend that the revenue for BBO will be enormous. I don't believe that Fred and Uday have never considered the matter. I promise to be the first one to pay the $10, although I will be working with getting the broadcasts together.

 

I predict that thousands of members will be lining up to pay the $10 for watching just the Bermuda Bowl final!

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

It makes little sense to me. If vugraph really is the success we all believe it is, then surely no one can expect to get this for nothing until the end of time. Just a thought: Vugraph viewers subscribe for a year at say $10. Then one can come and go as much as one wants.

This pricing scheme runs into an all to familar problem: What would stop me (or anyone else) from pirating BBO's Vugraph broadcast and reselling it? In theory, you could try to build in some kind of DRM (Digital Right Management). In practice, its a lot cheaper to crack DRM scheme that build them.

 

If I wanted to design a business model arround Vugraph broadcasts, I'd base it arround a per event event licensing model with two tiers of service.

 

Tier 1 = "Vanilla" Vugraph. Vanilla vugraph is a real time broadcast of every bid made and every card played a set of tables

 

Tier 2 = one or more channels of commentary describe the bidding / play at a table in question

 

I prefer a per event based funding model because it incents providers to maintain a "reputation" for providing high quality service. I would insist on the tiered service model because I believe that the commentary should provide value separate and distinct from the hand records.

 

As I've noted many times in the past, migrating the playing environments from pasteboard to computers would improve Vugraphs by an order of magnitude...

[card_judge]

What a novel idea moving from pasteboard to computers!! :P

 

That would also solve Luis' problem of pulling a stack or single bidding cards, no revokes, no playing out of turn. What will they think of next?

[uday]

It is good for the game that vugraphs are plentiful and accessible to everyone. This means everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.

 

We have no intention of "charging for vugraphs". This is not on our radar screen as a revenue source.

 

Maybe we'll someday allow some commentators to charge for their chat as we allow pay tourneys to charge for their services. If we go down this road, I'm sure we'll have free equivalents to these "channels". Tourneys have taught us that there will be more than enough people who will offer free commentary to compete w/the superstars and entertainers who will choose to charge for their services.

[roghog]

I give up some of my time to commentate on vugraph because I think the BBO vugraph is generally a good thing and should be encouraged. If I thought other people were being paid to do vugraph jobs, or that people were paying to watch, I might not be so keen. I imagine other commentators & operators feel similarly.

Au contraire. I certainly haven't been paid for the organising and operating that I've done. But it wouldn't worry me at all if someone like Roland was paid.

I'm glad there's no plan to charge spectators, though. Vugraph is a wonderful advertisement for the game. Shame to do anything that would reduce its compass.

[Guest Jlall]

It is good for the game that vugraphs are plentiful and accessible to everyone. This means everyone, regardless of their ability to pay.

Totally. I'm glad you're not considering charging for vugraph, though I'd pay I think it would be a step backwards.

[fred]

Charging the audience an admission fee for vugraph is not going to happen. There are 3 reasons:

 

1) Several times during the past 4 years I have publicly promised that certain aspects of BBO (including vugraph) will remain free. Not only do I try to keep the promises I make, but I think it would result in a lot of bad publicity for BBO (and for me personally) if I broke this particular promise.

 

2) I think that free vugraph (and free online bridge in general) is important to the future of bridge. Yes, we are a business, but if bridge was not our primary interest in all of this, BELIEVE ME - Uday and I find could much easier ways to make a lot more money than we are making from BBO.

 

3) In my opinion it is a near certainly that other ways will be found to fund these things. This might take time and some of our broadcasts may suffer in terms of quality in the mean time, but it will happen. Here are some positive trends:

 

- More and more tournament organizers are seeing the value in these broadcasts are have been willing to spend what it takes (which is not very much in the grand scheme of things) to ensure a professional vugraph presentation of the events they run.

 

- We are starting to receive money from advertisers and in all cases so far it has been the advertisers who have approached us. This suggests to me that there is true value in vugraph advertising for corporations. If we ever get our act together and proactively go after potential corporate sponsors, I suspect that will be "real money" in this.

 

- Corporate sponsorship is also important for major tournaments and one of the most valuable things that tournament organizers can promise potential sponsors is publicity on BBO. This means more money for both the tournaments themselves and for our company is available to spend on vugraph.

 

- I am hopeful that BBO will become a very profitable business one day. If we start making millions of dollars every year, it is a near certainty that our policy of not spending money on vugraph will change.

 

- There are a lot of very wealthy individuals who play bridge and it is not rare for us to receive offers from these people to fund our vugraph broadcasts. In the past I have been reluctant to accept money from these people (and unwilling to actively ask these people for money). In the future I might feel differently about this.

 

As Roland correctly pointed out, the Malmo broadcasts were fantastic. This was one of the few vugraph productions that BBO did pay for. The bill was $7000 and this was despite the fact that our staff at the playing site was trying to spend as little money as possible. This came at a time when BBO was generating little if any revenue.

 

I am not complaining about spending this money. We knew what we were getting into and, at the time, we saw this expenditure more as a "personal donation in the interest of promoting bridge" (from Uday, Sheri, and myself) than an intelligent way for our business to spend money that we didn't have.

 

The Malmo broadcast was great and, in the end, we were happy that we decided to spend this money. Unfortunately, we came very close to setting a bad precident. Malmo was 2 years ago, but to this day when I discuss vugraph funding with tournament organizers I still get comments like "you paid for Malmo - why won't you pay for this tournament too?". The people who own BBO are all fortunate to be fairly comfortable from a financial point of view, but making a habit of writing $7000 checks is currently not within our means.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[nikos59]

I am afraid Roland's suggestion to ask for people to pay 10€ per year

for Vugraph will open a huge can of worms. For instance,

* are we sure that commentators (most of them accomplished bridge

experts) will still be willing to offer their time for free when Vugraph

will not be free? Obviously, the income from Vugraph is not sufficient

to even start thinking paying for commentators.

* are we sure the sponsoring organizations

will not start asking for money to let BBO broadcast if BBO

makes "all this money" from Vugraph?

* can we guarantee a minimum level of coverage in quantity and

quality? If I pay you and you fail to broadcast the Greek Teams

Trials, do I get my money back? Or, this year's coverage

of USBC was deficient. In a paying scheme, would users be

entitled to ask for a refund?

* if BBO asks for money for Vugraph, will non-paying members

have access to the lin files afterwards? If yes, then this is

a dis-incentive against paying. If no, it is a huge dis-service

against bridge.

* I have a website with Vugraph data. Will I be allowed to publish

those data?

* the website is costing me a little money to maintain and a lot of

time; should I start asking my visitors (dozens or hundreds per

day) for a (much smaller) fee?

* there are a few Vugraph fans who are sending me lin files

to post at my site; should they start asking me a (yet smaller) fee?

 

and so on...

[Brandal]

I am afraid Roland's suggestion to ask for people to pay 10€ per year

for Vugraph will open a huge can of worms. For instance,

* are we sure that commentators (most of them accomplished bridge

experts) will still be willing to offer their time for free when Vugraph

will not be free? Obviously, the income from Vugraph is not sufficient

to even start thinking paying for commentators.

* are we sure the sponsoring organizations

will not start asking for money to let BBO broadcast if BBO

makes "all this money" from Vugraph?

* can we guarantee a minimum level of coverage in quantity and

quality? If I pay you and you fail to broadcast the Greek Teams

Trials, do I get my money back? Or, this year's coverage

of USBC was deficient. In a paying scheme, would users be

entitled to ask for a refund?

* if BBO asks for money for Vugraph, will non-paying members

have access to the lin files afterwards? If yes, then this is

a dis-incentive against paying. If no, it is a huge dis-service

against bridge.

* I have a website with Vugraph data. Will I be allowed to publish

those data?

* the website is costing me a little money to maintain and a lot of

time; should I start asking my visitors (dozens or hundreds per

day) for a (much smaller) fee?

* there are a few Vugraph fans who are sending me lin files

to post at my site; should they start asking me a (yet smaller) fee?

 

and so on...

Very good post,you sure you're a creme brulee? :P

[cherdano]

Personally, I can't understand why it is ok to charge money for playing in certain tourneys and with GIBs (being introduced in a few days), whereas it is completely free to:

 

1. Use the BBO software for vugraph purposes.

 

2. Watch hundreds of hours of vugraph broadcasts every year as aspectator.

 

It makes little sense to me. If vugraph really is the success we all believe it is, then surely no one can expect to get this for nothing until the end of time. Just a thought: Vugraph viewers subscribe for a year at say $10. Then one can come and go as much as one wants.

Roland, I strongly agree, and I strongly disagree. Of course I would pay $10 or $20 per year for the BBO vuegraph broadcasts, they are worth way more than that. So I agree. But I disagree, because I think free vuegraphs are the most fantastic thing that has happened to bridge in recent years. Would I pay for vuegraphs now? Yes, of course. Would I have started watching vuegraphs in the first place if I had to pay $10 for subscribing beforehand? Most likely not.

 

While the money would certainly be useful for vuegraph organization, I think charging money from vuegraph spectators would do a disservice to the great work by all the volunteers involved (operators, commentators, and of course yourself) in promoting bridge.

 

Arend

[Walddk]

While the money would certainly be useful for vuegraph organization, I think charging money from vuegraph spectators would do a disservice to the great work by all the volunteers involved (operators, commentators, and of course yourself) in promoting bridge.

 

Arend

Point taken Arend, but how much longer will the commentators we have now donate all their time for free? I can't answer that question myself, but I can tell you and others that several have already aired the view that it's about time that they get a little something for all the hard work.

 

Next question is: Would it be unreasonable if they did? And if they did, should we then just discard them as commentators we don't want and perhaps lose some of the very best?

 

If we do, it will be another example of compromising with quality, would it not?

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

Point taken Arend, but how much longer will the commentators we have now donate all their time for free? I can't answer that question myself, but I can tell you and others that several have already aired the view that it's about time that they get a little something for all the hard work.

Personally, I would be more than happy to contribute money to hear commentary from qualified individuals. I'd pay even MORE to be able to shut up some current commentators...

 

I'm an economist at heart. I believe that markets are one of the best way to organize scare resources. (I'm also a leftist, so I also have a healthy appreciation of the limitation of markets).

 

In all honesty, I think that commercializing these services will dramatically increase quality. However, whatever commercial model gets adopted needs to reflect the fact that these Vugraphs feature very high fixed costs and negible variable costs.

[cherdano]

In all honesty, I think that commercializing these services will dramatically increase quality.

If you compare the quality of the commercially driven vuegraph services with the community driven one on BBO, I think it is pretty clear which one was more successful and provided better quality. (Yes I know, the quality in terms of reliability of the connection, competence of the operator on BBO varies quite a bit depending on the local organization, but still I would never swap for this other vuegraph broadcast.) So at least I have doubts on your view.

 

Arend

[hrothgar]

If you compare the quality of the commercially driven vuegraph services with the community driven one on BBO, I think it is pretty clear which one was more successful and provided better quality. So at least have doubt on your view.

I'm not sure whether this is necessarily an apt comparison...

 

Historically, the online bridge market was very fragmented. There were a variety of commercial sites including OKBridge, Swan, ACBL Online (anyone remember Telebridge!). There were also a number of free sites. BBO is obviously the most obvious example of a Free site, but theres also Floater. OKB was originally a free site, though it migrated into the commercial camp. The point is, there are a LOT of different services out there.

 

Equally significant: The way things currently work, tournament organizers can only partner with a limited number of Vugraph providers. "Live" Vugraph works by having kibitzers sitting at the tables, desperately trying to copy biddng and play into a laptap. if you're lucky, said kibbitzers have a stool and can actually see most of what's going on. Regardless, its important to recognize that you really can't support more than one Vugraph at a time. [The obvious exception is if you are piggybacking off the "live" Vugraph at the event site where you don't have this artifical limitation]

 

More recently, the market seems to be contracting, with BBO establishing a dominant position in the market. I think that the event organizers are making an "obvious" decision to partner with the site with the largest audience. Initially this was OKB. More recently its BBO.

 

I do agree that the quality of Vugraph has steadily improved over time. I recall working with Matt and Wirt to provide Vugraph long long ago in Reno (Henry Sun and I almost never made it through the Donner Pass). However, with all due respect to Roland and the stellar job that he is doing, I think that this may be an example of learning by doing... A lot of a quality improvement is a function of additional experience with the medium rather than the bill model bring used.

[Walddk]

Maybe we were too naive in our attempt to strive for perfection (read "high quality"). Maybe one won't realise what quality is until it drops dramatically, if it does. I don't want it to drop; I want it to get even better, but it's a fact that you can't do it with no money.

 

If I understand Uday correctly, he wouldn't mind much if we lost some of the commentators if they decide to charge for their service. There will always be others to take over. I am sure there will, but does that also mean that you keep the quality? Does that not concern you, Uday?

 

I for one think that you should worry about it. There is no substitute for class, and you usually don't get class for nothing. You get what you pay for, and that is perfectly acceptable in all aspects of life.

 

Why would that be any different with vugraph presentations?

 

Roland

[hrothgar]

If I understand Uday correctly, he wouldn't mind much if we lost some of the commentators if they decide to charge for their service. There will always be others to take over. I am sure there will, but does that also mean that you keep the quality? Does that not concern you, Uday?

 

I for one think that you should worry about it. There is no substitute for class, and you usually don't get class for nothing. You get what you pay for, and that is perfectly acceptable in all aspects of life.

With all due respect, I'm not going to worry about it.

 

Don't get me wrong. I REALLY like live Vugraph. But if Kokish or whomever decide that they require a slice of the pie in order to contribute to Vugraph, I'm not gonna lose much sleep.

 

If enough people value the service, commentator XYZ will get paid somehow.

If people don't value the service, the commentators won't.

 

In all honesty, my biggest worry is that the ACBL or the WBF will mess things up by demands large fees for the "right" to broadcast the event. I see an explict linkage between fee structures and commentary as a mechanism to prevent this eventuality.

[fred]

If I understand Uday correctly, he wouldn't mind much if we lost some of the commentators if they decide to charge for their service. There will always be others to take over. I am sure there will, but does that also mean that you keep the quality? Does that not concern you, Uday?

I agree with Uday - this does not concern me either.

 

Those that we lose are in this for the wrong reasons. I don't have anywhere near as much contact with the commentators that Roland does, but my impression is that the vast majority of them are in this for the right reasons.

 

Those commentators that I am in frequent contact with tend to be friends who hang out in the same bridge circles as me. These circles contain most of the world's elite players and, not coincidentally, these people also tend to be the best and most popular commentators.

 

We are not going to lose people like Larry Cohen, Michael Rosenberg, and Sabine Auken. They commentate because they (correctly!) think their involvement is good for bridge. Besides that, if it was money they were after, they are smart enough to understand that value of the good PR that results from their involvement (in terms of its potential impact on their careers as professional bridge players) far outweighs any reasonable salary they might receive for doing online vugraph commentary.

 

It is true that some of the top professional players are mercenaries, but most are not.

 

Of course the best commentators are primarily interested in the best tournaments. For the vast majority of tournaments we cover, most of the commentators are not superstars. Of course they are fine players and of course some of the best commentators are not the best players.

 

I don't have as much contact with these people, but I find it hard to believe that large numbers of them are in this for the money. Furthermore, I suspect there are a lot of good players out there who have never commentated before and would be willing to give it a try if they knew that we needed new people. No doubt some of these people have the potential to be excellent commentators.

 

This is not meant to take anything away from the skills of the fine people who provide commentary on our site, but BBO probably has 1000s of members whose bridge and communications skills are strong enough for them to be potentially effective as commentators.

 

Uday himself is one of these people. Maybe that's why he isn't worried. I'm not worried either.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Guest Jlall]

Furthermore, I suspect there are a lot of good players out there who have never commentated before and would be willing to give it a try if they knew that we needed new people. No doubt some of these people have the potential to be excellent commenators.

I agree with Fred here. There will never be a shortage of people that can both communicate reasonably and understand bridge reasonably well that are willing to do their part to help out the game of bridge.

 

What I find so special about BBO is they are really trying to help the game we love. That is what seperates it from the other sites. I'm sure Fred is aware how much money he/uday and co. could make of of vugraph. Not only is the BBO management willing to sacrifice some things in order to help bridge, but a lot of excellent commentators do the same.

 

Roland, I respectfully disagree with you that vugraph cannot go on not paying commentators and that failure to do so will cause the best ones to leave. Most of them love the game and are willing to help promote it for free. As both a pro and a young player with many playing years ahead of me (hopefully) I can only be thankful of this.

[Al_U_Card]

What a novel idea moving from pasteboard to computers!! :rolleyes:

 

That would also solve Luis' problem of pulling a stack or single bidding cards, no revokes, no playing out of turn. What will they think of next?

And you have the addition of a timer that makes your call in tempo and if you go over the limit it counts the additional time between pop-up and click (ignoring latency issues). That way no one could argue that they took a typical amount of time when they were only over the time on that particular bid and by 17 seconds....

[reisig]

I can only speak for myself...I do vugraphs (commentary) because I love the idea of allowing 1,000's of players of all levels see some of the finest players in action. It only helps the game in the long run. The idea of charging never entered my mind...I know..you're saying - we wouldn't miss you, anyway! I believe that 90+% of the commentators do it for the same reasons that I do ..to help promote OUR game. I applaud the concept or free access to these shows.

[Al_U_Card]

Anyone recall the bridge TV program from the 60's with Charles Goren and Alex Drier? (Play Bridge! I think....) They pretty much trivialized the game to try and render it a "show". Banal repartee between the commentators and "inside info" on the players.

 

I have only occasionally watched a vugraph but think that just seeing the play is, of itself, sufficient. Selling commercials on the screen (like "You don't know Jack" etc.) would be distracting but acceptable if required to keep the presentation free for all the right reasons.