Broadcasters

[NY Pony]

Failing to see how it's higher revenue

Flight, hotel, per diem...

A lot of announcers are paid per game. I bet it's cheaper to put them on staff, have them do 2 or 3 games a day and pay them an annual salary. It's kind of contrary to the way most of the working world is turning more and more to freelancers but...

[mrydel]

Plus 2 can do multiple games the same day if so desired.

[NY Pony]

Plus 2 can do multiple games the same day if so desired.

Didn't know you were into that kinda thing, mrydel

[CalallenStang]

Failing to see how it's higher revenue

Flight, hotel, per diem...

those are all costs but costs do not affect revenue

[lwjr]

[quote="PonyPride"]Confirmed: the game was called by announcers in Bristol. Apparently they have done about 50 games (estimate) from Bristol this year, the theory being that they could have one crew call two or maybe even three games in a single day. All about saving money, it seems.

Midcourt seats, where announcers normally sit, were occupied by Secret Service.

The problem that I've seen is that the "remote announcers" miss things because they're not actually there. Part of the job of a TV announcer is to give the audience a feel for what's going on in the arena... kind of hard to do that if you're not actually in the arena.

I'm afraid this is the wave of the future for broadcast games that do not have a national appeal. Cheaper to produce means higher revenue

Failing to see how it's higher revenue
I was going to give you some examples but others have done so already. I do not like this trend, but with what seems like every game being broadcast I guess it is the natural progression



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]

[CalallenStang]

But none of those examples had anything at all to do with revenue. Cost, sure, and by association, perhaps profits. But revenues are what the network makes by selling the ads. And I don't think they can sell ads for more money simply by not sending commentators to the game.

[lwjr]

Failing to see how it's higher revenue

Flight, hotel, per diem...

those are all costs but costs do not affect revenue

If it was costing .50 cents out of every revenue dollar for game production, now you can lower those cost by having the game broadcasted from one central location. It is now costing .40 cents of each revenue dollar. As Mrydel mentioned, now the same broadcasters could announce two games in one day, further lowering your cost to broadcast.

[lwjr]

But none of those examples had anything at all to do with revenue. Cost, sure, and by association, perhaps profits. But revenues are what the network makes by selling the ads. And I don't think they can sell ads for more money simply by not sending commentators to the game.

They probably can not sell ads for more money but they can cut the production cost and therefore profits increase

[Grant Carter]

[quote="CalallenStang"]Failing to see how it's higher revenue

Flight, hotel, per diem...

those are all costs but costs do not affect revenue

If it was costing .50 cents out of every revenue dollar for game production, now you can lower those cost by having the game broadcasted from one central location. It is now costing .40 cents of each revenue dollar. As Mrydel mentioned, now the same broadcasters could announce two games in one day, further lowering your cost to broadcast.[/quote]
Please tell me you have caught on and now realize you were wrong to say this approach leads to higher revenue.

[DanFreibergerForHeisman]

OK with your businessy talk.

There is no argument it makes it less expensive overall.

[CalallenStang]

What it also does is give them a bargaining chip in contract negotiations with conferences. "You can take $X Million from us and we will send crews to each event or you can take $Y Million instead - which is less than $X Million - and 25%-35% of your games we will do remotely"

[NY Pony]

What it also does is give them a bargaining chip in contract negotiations with conferences. "You can take $X Million from us and we will send crews to each event or you can take $Y Million instead - which is less than $X Million - and 25%-35% of your games we will do remotely"

I actually think it could be good for smaller conferences. Lower production costs and efficient use of resources means 1) ESPN has more $$ to spend on rights and 2) with ESPN's large expansion of broadcast bandwidth (1,2, News, U, Classic, SEC and ESPN 3) they are starved for live content.

This is a play to be able to broadcast even more games. It's good for everybody and the networks love it since live sports are where the ad $$ are now. Just get used to seeing games at strange times as they try to fill out their days.

[okcponyfan]

first thing I thought of when I walked in was that here were no announcers, not even Stephen Howard who does all the ESPN3 broadcasts at the beginning of the year.

Something I thought was interesting was that ESPN had Bobby Knight doing the UCF vs Tulsa game. Thought he might be doing that game in Tulsa then drive to Stillwater for OU vs OSU, but no, he didn't announce that one. He has fallen pretty low on the totem pole.