surfthehurf wrote:Seems like YouTube is the likely route.
This is good for British boxing. YouTube obviously has a number of algorithms to show targeted content to every user, and I would bloody love it if there were an official YouTube Boxing channel. And if they want to appeal to a few million more? Extend the algo to anyone who watches sport videos in general. The logo can turn into a red glove and a black glove, curious users click on it to see a promo video.
Remember, Premier Boxing Champions (PBC) has existed for less than a year and look how well that has taken off. Anyone with an internet connection could watch a YT fight, without the need for an expensive satellite sports package. No need to use streaming boxes because even premium content would cost a tiny amount rather than the stripy-vested satellite PPV model. So the consumer won't feel like they've been exploited. YT could appeal to 3m users at £2.50 a time rather than 200,000 begrudgingly paying £17
Great post. The world has changed, yet the promotion of boxing has remained relatively the same. In an age when certain people can get paid $200,000+ for posting a picture on Instagram, in the age of 'clicks are currency' and in the age where marketing has changed completely, the next big boxing promoter in this country will be the one who embraces all of these things and runs with them.
surfthehurf wrote:Seems like YouTube is the likely route.
This is good for British boxing. YouTube obviously has a number of algorithms to show targeted content to every user, and I would bloody love it if there were an official YouTube Boxing channel. And if they want to appeal to a few million more? Extend the algo to anyone who watches sport videos in general. The logo can turn into a red glove and a black glove, curious users click on it to see a promo video.
Remember, Premier Boxing Champions (PBC) has existed for less than a year and look how well that has taken off. Anyone with an internet connection could watch a YT fight, without the need for an expensive satellite sports package. No need to use streaming boxes because even premium content would cost a tiny amount rather than the stripy-vested satellite PPV model. So the consumer won't feel like they've been exploited. YT could appeal to 3m users at £2.50 a time rather than 200,000 begrudgingly paying £17
What is the YouTube best definition though? I mean I assume definition will not be as good as normal (not even HD) Tv? I know you can hook up your PC to your TV but I'm fairly sure the majority either can't be bothered or don't know how.
I do think this may well be the future of audio vision, certainly for more niche offerings... But the timings has to be right.
Funnily enough, many years ago, before broadband, I believe Frank/Kellie Maloney did the first (at least Uk) internet boxing broadcast of one of his shows... But it didn't work as too few were knowledgeable about the web and everyone had dial up at that stage and it wasn't fast enough. Like boo.com, the fashion store disaster that was 'ahead of its time' technologically but the customer base wasn't there at the time due to lower internet usage and low technology offering at the customer end.
Definition can be pretty amazing on live events. I remember the Maloney thing and it was a shame it didn't really work too well. The Who did a Vegas gig, which was supposed to be streamed out all over the world, but technical problems meant it was only seen by the people there and later came out on DVD, despite Roger forgetting the words.
I think we're getting nearer the time when this sort of thing becomes viable and worth doing. Typical of a chancer like Haye to launch his comeback fight + crap undercard by going down some 'funky' new, untried route. If they price it quite cheaply I can see it doing ok, if it was £2.50 and there's nowt else on then I'll watch it.
Guys, the media industry is being revolutionized by technology and you're right that most promoters are stuck in the dark ages when it comes to embracing the opportunities presented by such rapid change.
However, in this particular case I don't see any evidence of a coherent strategy aimed at leveraging YouTube effectively. Any business model still has to be revenue-driven and if you're either stonewalled or turning down the offers of established networks, you need to have a pretty damn strong alternative.
Brands like Red Bull are superb at leveraging social channels for marketing - the ultimate being the live YouTube streaming of Felix's jump from space - but that's with the ultimate aim of shifting cans on shelves. You can't compare Haye's situation to this - Haye's own channel only has 7k subscribers and the recent uploads have views not even getting out of the hundreds. I can't see any paid strategy in place to boost any of the content around the event either on YouTube on other social channels etc.
The only tactic of note to date seems to be influencer endorsement via celebs, but their ability to generate sufficient momentum among their followers into cold, hard ticket sales is highly questionable - it's not a like-for-like comparison, but look how utterly negligible Russell Brand's influence was when it came to securing votes for Labour.
Time will tell, but that's running out at the moment and I'm not seeing anything that convinces me there's a proper digital strategy in place.
Deserter wrote:Guys, the media industry is being revolutionized by technology and you're right that most promoters are stuck in the dark ages when it comes to embracing the opportunities presented by such rapid change.
However, in this particular case I don't see any evidence of a coherent strategy aimed at leveraging YouTube effectively. Any business model still has to be revenue-driven and if you're either stonewalled or turning down the offers of established networks, you need to have a pretty damn strong alternative.
Brands like Red Bull are superb at leveraging social channels for marketing - the ultimate being the live YouTube streaming of Felix's jump from space - but that's with the ultimate aim of shifting cans on shelves. You can't compare Haye's situation to this - Haye's own channel only has 7k subscribers and the recent uploads have views not even getting out of the hundreds. I can't see any paid strategy in place to boost any of the content around the event either on YouTube on other social channels etc.
The only tactic of note to date seems to be influencer endorsement via celebs, but their ability to generate sufficient momentum among their followers into cold, hard ticket sales is highly questionable - it's not a like-for-like comparison, but look how utterly negligible Russell Brand's influence was when it came to securing votes for Labour.
Time will tell, but that's running out at the moment and I'm not seeing anything that convinces me there's a proper digital strategy in place.
reggaereggae wrote:
What is the YouTube best definition though? I mean I assume definition will not be as good as normal (not even HD) Tv? I know you can hook up your PC to your TV but I'm fairly sure the majority either can't be bothered or don't know how.
If someone only would be smart enough to invent a TV that was hooked up to the internet and had a YouTube channel on it and then someone could invent some kind of faster or superfaster internet speed to sort those problems out. Oh well, maybe one day
Last edited by tobyh5 on 03 Jan 2016, 15:33, edited 1 time in total.
Ive got a YT channel on my Tivo box which is handy for watching old fights,funny vids or if ive had a few beers some classic songs from years ago but i wonder if i'll be able to watch this fight on that live?
reggaereggae wrote:
What is the YouTube best definition though? I mean I assume definition will not be as good as normal (not even HD) Tv? I know you can hook up your PC to your TV but I'm fairly sure the majority either can't be bothered or don't know how.
If only would be smart enough to invent a TV that was hooked up to the internet and had a YouTube channel on it and then someone could invent some kind of faster or superfaster internet speed to sort those problems out. Oh well, maybe one day
We did live YouTube broadcasts as Hatton TV in 2010 to 2012 and it was largely a waste of resources because you have to get millions of views to make any real money and boxing shows do not attract that kind of audience.
We still do some delayed one camera stuff, but it's not something we invest thousands of pounds into any more because it's not worth it.
Wake up call wrote:We did live YouTube broadcasts as Hatton TV in 2010 to 2012 and it was largely a waste of resources because you have to get millions of views to make any real money and boxing shows do not attract that kind of audience.
We still do some delayed one camera stuff, but it's not something we invest thousands of pounds into any more because it's not worth it.
On most levels boxing is still a minority sport, so it's only ever gonna attract a minority audience. Big names with crossover appeal are small in numbers.
Thairath showed Amnat Ruenroeng Vs Myung Ho Lee on youtube in HD as a simulacast of a TV broadcast, I thought that was pretty neat idea for fans unable to get the channel
reggaereggae wrote:
What is the YouTube best definition though? I mean I assume definition will not be as good as normal (not even HD) Tv? I know you can hook up your PC to your TV but I'm fairly sure the majority either can't be bothered or don't know how.
If someone only would be smart enough to invent a TV that was hooked up to the internet and had a YouTube channel on it and then someone could invent some kind of faster or superfaster internet speed to sort those problems out. Oh well, maybe one day
IF someone was smart enough what would they call such a television.
Its a shame someone cant invent a little box that only costs £8.99 NOW
Boxing Prospect wrote:Thairath showed Amnat Ruenroeng Vs Myung Ho Lee on youtube in HD as a simulacast of a TV broadcast, I thought that was pretty neat idea for fans unable to get the channel
I'm sure I watched Usyk v Muller on YouTube live as well
reggaereggae wrote:
What is the YouTube best definition though? I mean I assume definition will not be as good as normal (not even HD) Tv? I know you can hook up your PC to your TV but I'm fairly sure the majority either can't be bothered or don't know how.
If someone only would be smart enough to invent a TV that was hooked up to the internet and had a YouTube channel on it and then someone could invent some kind of faster or superfaster internet speed to sort those problems out. Oh well, maybe one day
IF someone was smart enough what would they call such a television.
Its a shame someone cant invent a little box that only costs £8.99 NOW
reggaereggae wrote:
What is the YouTube best definition though? I mean I assume definition will not be as good as normal (not even HD) Tv? I know you can hook up your PC to your TV but I'm fairly sure the majority either can't be bothered or don't know how.
If someone only would be smart enough to invent a TV that was hooked up to the internet and had a YouTube channel on it and then someone could invent some kind of faster or superfaster internet speed to sort those problems out. Oh well, maybe one day
i got a tv with android built in and youtube is in full HD you can even get ulta HD 4K on it .......thanks to GOmez's advice
a good choice, I know it isn't going to be a great programme but it will be free to watch as dave is part of freeview. I have just cancelled sky sports so will just do the usual from now on and get the fights the next day on youtube.
The world has changed, yet the promotion of boxing has remained relatively the same. In an age when certain people can get paid $200,000+ for posting a picture on Instagram, in the age of 'clicks are currency' and in the age where marketing has changed completely, the next big boxing promoter in this country will be the one who embraces all of these things and runs with them.
