Webcasting domestic championship games has been one of USA Rugby's best innovations, and one hopes this spring we will see more and better-quality productions.
All around are commercial sports that are making good use of 'narrowcast' and the Web. Of late, the NHL rolled out an expansive broadband service to counter its lack of TV coverage, while CBS piled up impressive totals during the NCAA basketball championship, extending the marquee product's reach and inventory. Perhaps most interesting is MLB's season-opening announcement that it will webcast in China.
When it comes to the pros, baseball is seen as the saaviest, most effective online operator. One reason is MLB.com has understood that promotional value sometimes trumps revenue potential, which is what immature or local markets will bear, not the established price. Put another way, MLB gets that China is not Japan.
European rugby has traditionally tried to do business as normal in the US, while Southern hemisphere countries have been more practical in first trying to acquire audience, before pricing as if the market were proven. (The irony here is that the Northerns can better afford to discount.) In recent years the European-minded IRB has aggressively added webcasting and other online content -- but save for the quadrennial World Cup, the games that fans want to see are not IRB properties.
The urge to monetize as soon as possible, generally through subscriptions or pay-per-view, is ever present. But while premium products such the World Cup may yield hopeful results, America's competitions probably will not. Better to build an audience base, and of course the caliber of the events themselves: jamboree-style events don't present well.
Talk about trying to find a silver lining in a webcast. Who do you think is watching these webcasts? The same people that are standing in the park watching their son, husband, boyfriend, neighbor, etc play. Do you really think that some high value to sponsor demographic is finding rugby broadcasts online? Get real it is a virtual public park with the same eyeballs.
Posted by: Who Do You Think? | 12 April 2008 at 01:00
I disagree. Film has educational value not just entertainment.
If we want to compete on the world stage we need to learn to better analyze and break down opponents games on film and that starts at the HS level. That will start to improve decision making.
USAR can't put a coach in every LAU, but they can put analyzed game film on youtube for public consumption. Cost= nil.
Posted by: Mike | 12 April 2008 at 04:09
I agree with Mike. Take a look at the Old Blue website, they have three matches up there to stream, and the pictures are excellent, and could be very useful from a coaching standpoint and a scouting standpoint.
To be honest the only thing they really need to address with the Old Blue videos is to be consistent on the audio. The first two have referee mic, the third one has home team commentary. A combo of both would be great, and is what people expect from Rugby coverage. This is what USA Rugby had in place for their coverage of recent events, with John Broker leading the commentary, and the referee wearing an open mic.
I totally disagree that the only people tuning are people who already have a vested interest in the match.
Posted by: Nick | 13 April 2008 at 12:31
Are you guys retarded? Do you not get my point that more webcasts of matches does not mean that viewership increases, but that the same people hat watch rugby have access? Do all people that read gainline.us have opposing thumbs?
Posted by: Who Do You Think? | 13 April 2008 at 23:30
Oh good, insults. That should help the discussion tick along in a nice, constructive manner.
Posted by: Nick | 14 April 2008 at 04:17
More web cast, much much less John Broker as the voice commentator. I hate when he puts on his fake radio voice. Also dislike the simple fact that he knows almost nothing about rugby. Bring back Dave Sitton and Brian Vizard, they aren't great, but they are 1000% better than Broker.
Posted by: Jonathon | 14 April 2008 at 08:17
I love being able to watch these games in any way possible. For the budget required, it's awfully hard to beat a webcast. I wish every collegiate sweet 16 game were webcast, even if it was a simple 1 camera shot set up on a scaffold with no commentators. I don't see many downsides to more access to rugby.
Posted by: Doug Porter | 14 April 2008 at 09:19
USAR claims 'insufficient bandwidth' to post streamed matches to an archive. An on-demand feature though a partner possibly, would help to grow the audience for this type of medium. I personally missed most of the matches this past weekend, along with the U-19 matches played in December against Canada that were also streamed.
Posted by: rugby contrarian | 22 April 2008 at 17:42