Vugraph

[qwery_hi]

Should ACBL charge for live vugraphs to offset the costs of OCR/clocks/other tech stuff (to prevent cheating perhaps).

[inquiry]

Should ACBL charge for live vugraphs to offset the costs of OCR/clocks/other tech stuff (to prevent cheating perhaps).

You are kidding, right?

 

First, the ACBL is only a small percentage of all broadcast.

 

Second, what makes the broadcast work, is the vugraph operator and teh commentators. These (generally 4 people) are all volunteer. If there is any charge, I would expect the money to at least go towards these people.

 

Third, the BBO is heavily involved as well. Did you know that at least in the past when large vugraphs occurred, the number of tournaments being played had to be limited. This is probably been fixed now, but their resources are being heavily used.

 

Fourth, how much would you suggest charging? The ACBL, the BBO, and other bridge organizations should encourage as many people to watch as possible. Bridge needs stars, and vugraph is the best way to encourage people to experience real-life, top level bridge live. Charging seems backwards to me.

[JanM]

I'm not sure where I fall in this discussion, but I do want to correct one implication - that Vugraph is free for the tournament organizers who put it on. In fact, my budget for USBF Vugraph for a year is over $5000. And that's for all of 3 events, and ignores some of the costs. For instance, we're lucky enough to have had laptops donated, so we didn't have to buy them. But we still have to ship them from tournament to tournament and store them in between, which doesn't get counted as a Vugraph expense. I happen to have a personal broadband card that I use for Vugraph and other USBF members have generously donated theirs so we don't pay for internet access. But we still had to purchase a router so that one broadband card could be used for all the Vugraph computers, and that also needs to be shipped and stored.

 

The main cost of Vugraph is operators. Some are generous enough to volunteer their time. Others ask that we pay them something - not much, but something (currently ACBL and USBF pay the princely amount of $40 per session (there are two sessions per day)). When we are in places where there aren't enough local operators, we also have to pay travel and hotel expenses for them.

 

For ACBL events, since that was the original question, it's virtually impossible to find operators without paying them something - after all, we're usually asking them to give up playing at an NABC to be a Vugraph operator for a session or two. They paid a lot of money to be at the NABC and it's unreasonable to ask them to contribute their time without some recompense. Even now that ACBL has started to pay operators at NABCs, it's hard to find them and I often find myself begging a few generous souls to do it. Maybe if we paid something more realistic it would be easier, maybe not. But it isn't free.

 

So although I know that I don't think the organizers should make money from Vugraph, I'm not so sure that the Vugraph audience shouldn't bear some of the costs of putting it on. After all, when you go to a movie or play in a club game, you pay for the entertainment. When you watch TV, you pay indirectly by watching commercials. So far, we've been able to present Vugraph free, but there are complaints about the amount it costs, suggestions that we reduce the coverage to save money. So let me ask a different question, would you rather see coverage of the Spingold from the Round of 32 on, with two matches covered in the Quarterfinals and Semifinals, if it cost a modest amount of money, or see only the finals for free? Ditto for the USBC (aka Team Trials)?

[qwery_hi]

Should ACBL charge for live vugraphs to offset the costs of OCR/clocks/other tech stuff (to prevent cheating perhaps).

You are kidding, right?

 

First, the ACBL is only a small percentage of all broadcast.

 

Second, what makes the broadcast work, is the vugraph operator and teh commentators. These (generally 4 people) are all volunteer. If there is any charge, I would expect the money to at least go towards these people.

 

Third, the BBO is heavily involved as well. Did you know that at least in the past when large vugraphs occurred, the number of tournaments being played had to be limited. This is probably been fixed now, but their resources are being heavily used.

 

Fourth, how much would you suggest charging? The ACBL, the BBO, and other bridge organizations should encourage as many people to watch as possible. Bridge needs stars, and vugraph is the best way to encourage people to experience real-life, top level bridge live. Charging seems backwards to me.

I don't know how the NFL makes money off broadcasts, but it seems like they give the rights to some tv companies, who then charge end users. The tv companies are the ones which hire commentators. I think the ACBL could do something similar with BBO or any other people who'd want to relay "live".

[JanM]

[quote name=qwery_hi' date='Jul 1 2009,

I don't know how the NFL makes money off broadcasts, but it seems like they give the rights to some tv companies, who then charge end users. The tv companies are the ones which hire commentators. I think the ACBL could do something similar with BBO or any other people who'd want to relay "live". [/quote]

Well, the NFL makes money off football games because sponsors pay to advertise on football telecasts, so the TV stations pay a big fee to be able to put them on. Although BBO has started having some commercial sponsors, I don't think that the payment is in the same ballpark as that for televised football.

[bigmax]

Rather than charge for something that used to be free, would it be possible to charge for "premium vugraph" (expirinced operators, quality video streaming, audio from our best commentators etc.), while keeping basic vugraph free.

 

While I expect significant technical difficulties, it may be possible to organize it at some smaller, well sponsored event (is there Buffet cup this year?) or even at specially organized BBO chalenge matches.

 

If this takes off, certain percent going to tournament organizers might stimulate them to put on "premium vugraph shows"

[qwery_hi]

[quote name=qwery_hi' date='Jul 1 2009,

I don't know how the NFL makes money off broadcasts, but it seems like they give the rights to some tv companies, who then charge end users. The tv companies are the ones which hire commentators. I think the ACBL could do something similar with BBO or any other people who'd want to relay "live". [/quote]

Well, the NFL makes money off football games because sponsors pay to advertise on football telecasts, so the TV stations pay a big fee to be able to put them on. Although BBO has started having some commercial sponsors, I don't think that the payment is in the same ballpark as that for televised football.

And it is never going to be (as popular). Instead of waiting for the day when Bridge will be as popular as football before charging for it, we might as well ask the Vugraph audience to pay .

[TimG]

Should ACBL charge for live vugraphs to offset the costs of OCR/clocks/other tech stuff (to prevent cheating perhaps).

It seems reasonable to me to seek out vugraph sponsors or advertisers. BBO already displays advertising during vugraph broadcasts so this is being done (though I would be very surprised to find that the revenues amount to anything). But, there ought to be a way that the organizers can find their own advertisers and generate their own revenues from the broadcasts. Something besides the vugraph operators copying commercial messages into chat periodically.

 

One solution to this is that BBO would charge a fee to broadcast a vugraph show and the organizers would own the broadcast, including advertising income.

 

People, myself included, hate to pay for things they once received for free. But, after some initial grumbling, I imagine the bridge watching public would pony up a subscription fee to have access to vugraph presentations. I'm sure many people would pay a buck out of their BBO account for 30 days of vugraph access or for the duration of an event. When I was a kid, the TV signals came into the house for free, now just about everybody is paying a cable or dish company for those signals. At least here in the US. Lots of people pay a subscription fee to access radio stations, something that seems rather absurd to me.

[csdenmark]

Discussing fees you need to bear in mind that near to half of BBO users are from Europe. To New York time difference is: London(5 hours), Paris-Rome-Berlin(6 hours), Istanbul-Warsaw-Sofia(7 hours).

 

This means time for events not held on USA East coast is very inconvenient. You cannot expect people to pay much for sleeping in front of their computer.

 

Normally you see daily traffic on BBO diminish dramatically by european midnight.

[fred]

Online vugraph broadcasts, like butterflies, were meant to be free (and live).

 

The chances of our charging the audience to watch are basically zero. I suppose it is possible that one day we will offer some kind of "premium vugraph service" for which people would have to pay, but we currently have no plans to do that. If it ever happens, it won't happen anytime soon.

 

As I have said before, I believe in the concept of tournament organizers leveraging the promotional possibilities that vugraph offers to help attract corporate sponsors for the events they run.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[qwery_hi]

Online vugraph broadcasts, like butterflies, were meant to be free (and live).

 

The chances of our charging the audience to watch are basically zero. I suppose it is possible that one day we will offer some kind of "premium vugraph service" for which people would have to pay, but we currently have no plans to do that. If it ever happens, it won't happen anytime soon.

 

As I have said before, I believe in the concept of tournament organizers leveraging the promotional possibilities that vugraph offers to help attract corporate sponsors for the events they run.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

The primary concern of ACBL shouldn't be whether BBO should charge its audience or not, but rather whether it should charge BBO or any other site which wants live access to the vugraph stream for broadcasting.

 

AFAIK there are no corporate sponsors. Is this because the ACBL is not trying hard enough or because the corporate sponsors don't find this lucrative?

 

Has online vugraph resulted in a higher rate of growth of ACBL membership than before? If yes, then ACBL is getting something out of it, if not, ACBL might as well charge for it.

[TimG]

The primary concern of ACBL shouldn't be whether BBO should charge its audience or not, but rather whether it should charge BBO or any other site which wants live access to the vugraph stream for broadcasting.

I think the issue becomes one of whether ACBL can more readily obtain sponsorship for events if they are being broadcast in vugraph as opposed to selling advertising during a vugraph.

 

I would think that it would be very different from a company's perspective whether there were signs, CC, mention in Daily Bulletins, etc. at the physical site as opposed to a logo being automatically displayed at the vugraph table and/or linked advertising always displayed during a vugraph presentation.

 

And, it would seem to me to be easier from an organizer's point of view if they could present a complete package to a potential sponsor rather than telling them that they'd have to talk to BBO separately regarding any logo placement/advertising during the vugraph presentation.

[fred]

Has online vugraph resulted in a higher rate of growth of ACBL membership than before? If yes, then ACBL is getting something out of it, if not, ACBL might as well charge for it.

Disagree.

 

ACBL gets something out of it regardless - their existing members appreciate the service. Besides that vugraph is obviously "good for bridge" and I believe that it is part of ACBL's mandate to care about such things. Vugraph also makes it easy for journalists to follow major ACBL events. This results in more (free) publicity for ACBL in newspaper columns for example.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[cherdanno]

I strongly believe vugraph should remain free. Even a small fee creates a barrier over which many potential viewers would never jump, to the detriment of the event.

OTOH I am willing to pay a little for well-run vugraph coverage. In fact I did just that via the USBF website.

[Echognome]

Well said Fred.

[nickf]

Down here, all costs associated with the National VuGraph Unit are billed as marketing expenses, not operational costs.

 

The reality is, once you build up a kit of VuGraph bits and pieces (laptops, cables when needed, router, power cables etc - and I think I spent about $5000 a few years ago), our only running costs are wages ($2 per board for the operators, a little bit of bandwith, occasional hardware to build a lectern, etc). It's not a lot each event.

 

nickf

sydney

[Walddk]

Online vugraph broadcasts, like butterflies, were meant to be free (and live).

 

The chances of our charging the audience to watch are basically zero. I suppose it is possible that one day we will offer some kind of "premium vugraph service" for which people would have to pay, but we currently have no plans to do that. If it ever happens, it won't happen anytime soon.

Dear Fred,

 

"Man har et standpunkt til man tager et nyt".

"You have a conviction until you change it".

(Jens Otto Krag, Danish Prime Minister 1962-1968 and 1971-1972).

 

You will change that view, Fred, perhaps later rather than sooner, but change it you will. It's a noble thought that everything at BBO should be free, and it was for a few years. Then pay tourneys were introduced. Excellent.

 

When you created this site, you did not foresee that vugraph presentations would escalate the way they have. It won't be long till we have vugraph every single day of the year. We are pretty close now as you well know. You could not foresee this because no-one could, not even in their wildest dreams. Also excellent.

 

There comes a day when vugraph spectators will be charged some X amount of money, perhaps monthly, perhaps annually, and rightly so. Where else in the world can one be entertained for hours and hours for free? Nowhere!

 

No-one expects that and no-one should expect it. One can't render all kinds of services constantly without charge, at least some kind of symbolic charge. Just as an example, how many spectators do you think you will lose if you charge say $10 a year for a vugraph subscription?

 

My guess is very few.

 

In recent months three new tournament organisers have asked me how much we charge for providing expert commentary. When they saw the reply "nothing", they were flabbergasted. "You mean, not only can we use the software for free, but you are not going to charge for commentary either??"

 

"No", I replied. "It is clearly stated in our vugraph guidelines."

 

This is another aspect of "free vugraph", but I sincerely hope that we, some day, will be able to re-write those guidelines. Three or four people wrote those guidelines initially (you and I were two of those). I will be happy to send you a draft for a revised vugraph concept.

 

Roland

[fred]

Online vugraph broadcasts, like butterflies, were meant to be free (and live).

 

The chances of our charging the audience to watch are basically zero. I suppose it is possible that one day we will offer some kind of "premium vugraph service" for which people would have to pay, but we currently have no plans to do that. If it ever happens, it won't happen anytime soon.

Dear Fred,

 

"Man har et standpunkt til man tager et nyt".

"You have a conviction until you change it".

(Jens Otto Krag, Danish Prime Minister 1962-1968 and 1971-1972).

 

You will change that view, Fred, perhaps later rather than sooner, but change it you will. It's a noble thought that everything at BBO should be free, and it was for a few years. Then pay tourneys were introduced. Excellent.

 

When you created this site, you did not foresee that vugraph presentations would escalate the way they have. It won't be long till we have vugraph every single day of the year. We are pretty close now as you well know. You could not foresee this because no-one could, not even in their wildest dreams. Also excellent.

 

There comes a day when vugraph spectators will be charged some X amount of money, perhaps monthly, perhaps annually, and rightly so. Where else in the world can one be entertained for hours and hours for free? Nowhere!

 

No-one expects that and no-one should expect it. One can't render all kinds of services constantly without charge, at least some kind of symbolic charge. Just as an example, how many spectators do you think you will lose if you charge say $10 a year for a vugraph subscription?

 

My guess is very few.

 

In recent months three new tournament organisers have asked me how much we charge for providing expert commentary. When they saw the reply "nothing", they were flabbergasted. "You mean, not only can we use the software for free, but you are not going to charge for commentary either??"

 

"No", I replied. "It is clearly stated in our vugraph guidelines."

 

This is another aspect of "free vugraph", but I sincerely hope that we, some day, will be able to re-write those guidelines. Three or four people wrote those guidelines initially (you and I were two of those). I will be happy to send you a draft for a revised vugraph concept.

 

Roland

Hi Roland,

 

I would be interested in seeing your draft proposal, but with all due respect to you and Mr. Krag, I very much doubt that this particular conviction is going to change.

 

What I have been saying forever is something along the lines of "basic access to BBO will remain free for as long as we can afford to keep it free". IMO vugraph is very much a part of "basic access".

 

Changing a conviction is one thing, but breaking a promise that has repeatedly and publicly been made is an entirely different matter. Despite being a politician, I expect Mr. Krag would agree :)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[barmar]

Where else in the world can one be entertained for hours and hours for free? Nowhere!

Television

 

Hulu and YouTube

 

And most professional sports leagues now provide free online viewing (e.g. mlb.com for baseball)

[Walddk]

What I have been saying forever is something along the lines of "basic access to BBO will remain free for as long as we can afford to keep it free". IMO vugraph is very much a part of "basic access".

Here is where we disagree. I know your opinion is worth more than mine because you are the owner and therefore have every right to make the decisions, but I think "basic access" should be restricted to play in the MBC and all other public clubs. Then add Partnership Bidding, Chat room and tourneys organised by volunteers. A few more "basics" could well be added as well.

 

In my opinion, vugraph should not be part of that package, as is the case regarding "play with the robots" and certain tournaments.

 

In this context it might be interesting to know what the members expect. A survey if you like. There is no law against trying.

 

Roland

[gwnn]

There are lots of people who would never pay 10$ a year because either:

 

-they do not have/they do not know they have a credit card that can be used for these transactions (and don't care so much to ask their bank)

-they have an inner inhibition against paying something inherently virtual

-they are not sure how much vugraph they'd watch in that year so arent sure of the gains

-some other reason

 

I'd say the % of people who wouldn't pay the fee is about 30-50%.

[se12sam]

In my humble opinion, charging should be aimed at the right people. I think BBO should charge the ORGANIZER for projecting their Vugraph; and not to the spectators to watch.

 

* When viewers see an event from (say) Pula being broadcast and see some top players on Vugraph, we wonder about the place. After a bit of googling, some of the viewers may choose to go there next year. Even if only a small fraction do, it will still benefit both the local economy and the bridge tournament.

* The same applies for events like Schapiro Spring Foursomes, Gold Coast, Weekend in place X etc. Every broadcast increases interest, attendance and eventually benefits the organizers.

* WBF Regional tournaments (PABF qualifiers, BFAME qualifiers) broadcasts could be driven by other considerations -- e.g. prestige / to show-off that their Zone is good etc.

* Finally, events like Bermuda Bowl could find alternative reasons. They can prove to their sponsors that tens of thousands of people around the world watch; plus they can AND should create and sell merchandise commemorating every event. Some of us BBO viewers will buy booklets, mugs, DVDs etc.

 

My key points are:

1. Keep it free -- like TV is largely free. In my opinion, BBO is not competing against pay-per-view boxing, or specialized sports network.

2. Negotiate charges with each organizer. You may wish to charge lesser to Bermuda Bowl, USBF, Spingold etc and higher to specialized/holiday bridge events.

 

Best wishes, and thank you for a great product

[helene_t]

I can't feel strongly about this.

 

BBO has an interest in keeping its revenues high. Charging spectators for vugraph will generate revenue but will reduce the number of spectators and therefore reduce income from advertisement and attract less potential customers for the pay products offered by BridgeBase.

 

I would expect BBO to make whatever decision they believe maximizes their long-term profits. Or maybe they have other aims as well. Anyway, I would be happy to pay a modest amount for watching vugraph. Obviously I am also happy not to pay anything.

 

Two random thoughts:

- VuGraph is probably a major vehicle for attracting new people to BBO. I believe this partly because it is relatively easy to view vugraph compared to so many other things you can do with the software, partly because for a newbee without BBO friends, playing with random partners can be frustrating, partly because bridge magazines and non-BridgeBase sites often refer to the BBO vugraph, while other BBO features get less free adverts. I think this suggests that it's a good idea to keep vugraph free. Accept that the vugraph itself loses money, but helps recruiting users that may buy robots, pay tournaments, books, software.

- Pay-per-day might be psychologically less of an obstacle to viewers than a pay-per-year scheme.

[paulg]

I know many people, from beginners to world-class players, who have never played a hand on BBO but are avid vugraph watchers.

 

They regard vugraph as part of the basic package.

 

p

[uday]

One of the many things that FG & UI agree upon is that we don't want to ever be charging for basic access to the site, nor for access to vugraph.

 

Yeah, the ideal situation would probably be that we have a source of revenue from ads during vugraph, one that is big enough to interest the organizer ( currently, online ads being what they are, there is an itsy bitsy amt of ad revenue but it isnt enough to interest anyone ).

 

I don't see this happening anytime soon. If someone has sponsorship ideas, I'm all ears.

 

We ( all of us ) have an interest in making Vugraph more and more accessible to anyone who might care. Something that Fred, Sheri and Uday have always believed in is that access & vugraph should be free. Good for the game. Good for BBO.

 

My closing thought for this post: we are not planning to change anything about the way Vugraph is priced. We're just chatting in this thread. I'm far more likely to grow a tail than be convinced that we should start charging people for access to vugraph.

 

U