No Sky Speedway = A New Opportunity

[Steve Shovlar]

OK so it's looking like Sky are either playing hardball, or more likely, going to end its association with British Speedway. If it is the latter, what are the options? Forget about TV and just get on with it? Or is there a better option which could generate funds for all clubs?

 

With a fast broadband connection now covering most of the country and certainly in the towns and cities, it 's not prohibitively expensive for the BSPA ( or go Speed for that matter) to continue bringing live speedway to a living room near you in 2014.

 

Whilst the quality of the production would certainly be nowhere near a Sky TV production, it could certainly be "good enough for most fans who are interested in the racing action" and cost a tiny fraction of what a broadcaster pays out.

 

A live speedway meeting could be broadcast with two or three cameras, one in the pits and two covering the track or even leave the pits out and settle for two cams at first. Two commentators to bounce off each other. All cameras go into a suitcased sized mixing desk with engineer and then onto a live streaming service which charges a subscription fee to the viewer. Of course this is simplified but not far off. Clearly there has to be a website set up but the software to use and do all this is an off the shelf package and can be purchased for just a few thousand pounds.

 

Fans could pay, say for example, £20 a month and in return receive 2 or 3 meetings a week. As long as there's fast broadband at the stadium this is achievable. On demand would mean the meetings would be available to watch at anytime afterwards. There might not be much money in it at first but as a season progressed it should make money. I would be happy to pay to watch a meeting on a live stream if I couldn't make it to the meeting in person.

 

I believe Sweden have a similar system where fans can watch meetings online.

 

Thoughts? Would you be prepared to pay 15-20 Pounds a month for live EL and PL meetings via your phone/ipad/laptop/smartTV ?

Edited October 17, 2013 by Steve Shovlar

[SimonB]

Probably I would yes if the quality of the provision was good enough. It is perhaps something the promoters can offer alongside a TV deal though as I doubt it would bring in enough money to replace the current Sky deal.

[Soul Crew]

Good idea, but I believe broadband connections not great at most tracks, but Radio WM showed what can be achieved with "cheap" production costs this season.

[pvm]

I think it's a brilliant idea, but one thing I learnt about speedway over the years, promoters are reluctant to pay upfront costs that don't come will a guaranteed return on those cost's.

 

The most obvious excuse would be that it would reduce crowds because people would just watch from home, I'm not sure that would be true, but that would be the argument.

[Vince]

For me it would be perfect as I work while the majority of Speedway meetings are running. The opportunity to watch selected meetings at my convenience would be spot on and I suspect I could select meetings better than Sky sometimes do! However a setup cost of a 'few thousand pounds' will rule most promoters out I suspect, not because they have no vision but because they have no money to spare.

[John Leslie]

I can't see how the figures would stack up.

 

Let's look at the EL. Say 150 people at each of the 10 tracks signed up to pay £15 a month over a 7 month season.... That's £157,500 .... or £131,250 net of VAT

 

Then we've got to pay 2 or 3 cameramen, a commentator, whoever's going to mix it together, and all the associated running costs and software, websites hosting etc....are we going to get any change out of £50k or £60k for that?

 

So that takes us down to £70k or £80k.....divided up between the 10 tracks is £7k or £8k each.

 

From that £7k or £8k annual windfall you've got to deduct the amount of lost turnstile revenue from any people who might stay at home to watch the webcast rather than go to the match. (and I haven't even allowed for the capital outlay of buying cameras and equipment, nor Terry the Tan's 20% kickback).

Edited October 17, 2013 by John Leslie

[arthur cross]

Logistically, it's certainly possible to carry out Steve's thread-opening plan ... like John Leslie, I've quickly crunched some figures which anyone's welcome to discuss or improve upon ...

 

For the sake of not much extra cost, using a 3rd camera instead of just 2 will make the coverage look much better as that should nearly always give the director the rotation of having one camera that's currently "on air", another camera ready for whenever it needs to be put "on air" and the 3rd camera operator setting up its next duty ... just using 2 cameras heavily increases the risk of disjointed cuts from one camera to the other, especially during fast-moving action.

 

I'd estimate a minimum wage/expenses bill of about £2,000 per meeting ... you'll struggle to attract any talented staff until you're offering at least £150 wages (plus basic expenses) per person and even this simple a live production ideally needs 3 cameras, 2 commentators, 1 engineer, 1 producer and 1 director so that's a minimum of 8 staff before adding in the relative luxury of a pits-interviewer or a 2nd-engineer (thus giving you both a broadcast-engineer and an online-engineer).

 

Once you're charging the public to watch live streaming, it's probably worth investing in backup website/software if at all possible ... don't forget from a PR point of view, if anything goes wrong, your customers are online already because that's how they're receiving your service so it's even quicker and easier than usual for them to slag off your service elsewhere online !!

 

But by far the biggest stumbling block in all of this is working out the right price to charge to acheive the maximum total revenue.

 

At the moment,. it's reckoned each Elite League club has been getting about £90,000 guaranteed Sky money each season (total £900,000 across the 10 teams) ... clearly a broadband subscription service wouldn't be expected to generate a similar amount so let's try a smaller total target of £200,000 in subscription profits.

 

Meanwhile, that wages/expenses bill of £2,000 per meeting needs to be added to any start-up costs, admin costs and publicity budget ... Steve suggests covering 2 or 3 meetings a week so that's about 70-to-80 a season ... that would mean overall total costs of at least £200,000 to provide a season's coverage and therefore you need to sell £400,000 of subscriptions to hit the £200,000 profit target for the clubs to share.

 

Steve suggests £20/month ... based on a 6-month season, that's £120/season ... hence you need to sell 3,333 season-long subscriptions to bring in the £400,000 you need if you're going to send £200,000 back to the clubs.

 

Personally, i doubt there are enough speedway fans willing to add £20/month to their existing spend on television/online services to achieve those figures ... yes (as some on this forum have already said they're doing), there will be a few people cancelling Sky in anticipation of no further speedway (and so they'll be able to switch that expenditure over to this project) but I suspect most speedway fans also like other things they watch on Sky so won't cancel just for the sake of this particular sport ... you might have more chance aiming for around 7,000 subscribers at £10/month to achieve the same profits.

 

To put it into context with other single-sport subscriptions, Racing UK charges just over £20/month but that's for an average of 2 British horse-race meetings every day of the week (plus the main French meeting most Sundays) as well as cut-price admission offers to several race meetings a month for their subscribers.

 

From a little bit of experience a few years ago helping with attempts to stream British ice-hockey online, it was an eye-opener to see how far the customer base shrank when the initial free-of-charge service (for a few games while we experimented with the coverage) was turned into a modest £3-per-game ... even that small a charge wiped 90% off the customer usage !!

 

Maybe "ballinger" on this forum will be able to comment a lot better on the up-to-date financial viability of live streaming given his long-time involvement in both speedway and ice-hockey videos/DVDs.

 

Overall, it's certainly worth exploring whether a system like this could work ... but at least in its early stages, it's going to take a while to generate any worthwhile profits for the clubs ... more importantly, where's the money going to come from to get such a project up-&-running because neither the clubs themselves nor the BSPA appear to have such money available ? !!

Edited October 17, 2013 by arthur cross

[Crump99]

or to put it another way: No Sky Speedway = A Wasted Opportunity, what next?

[Steve Shovlar]

I can't see how the figures would stack up.

 

Let's look at the EL. Say 150 people at each of the 10 tracks signed up to pay £15 a month over a 7 month season.... That's £157,500 .... or £131,250 net of VAT

 

Then we've got to pay 2 or 3 cameramen, a commentator, whoever's going to mix it together, and all the associated running costs and software, websites hosting etc....are we going to get any change out of £50k or £60k for that?

 

So that takes us down to £70k or £80k.....divided up between the 10 tracks is £7k or £8k each.

 

From that £7k or £8k annual windfall you've got to deduct the amount of lost turnstile revenue from any people who might stay at home to watch the webcast rather than go to the match. (and I haven't even allowed for the capital outlay of buying cameras and equipment, nor Terry the Tan's 20% kickback).

 

The customer base is worldwide, not just from UK tracks. A Polish version of the site would surely attract customers. Cameras needed would not be that expensive and the cameramen used may have one anyway which is usable. Certainly Pete Ballinger, who films at Coventry, would have suitable gear as do Rerun. The expense would be on the mixing deck and these are no longer expensive. A trip to BVE (Broadcast video Expo) at Earls Court in February will reveal many different companies offering low cost live internet streaming setups and quite amazing prices. A server with relevant software to push out a live stream is extremely cheap. My server with unlimited bandwidth costs me 88 pounds a month. A website would cost no more than a few hundred pounds.

 

Wages for the three/four crew would need to be paid. I think if pushed correctly all clubs could benefit quite well.

 

Logistically, it's certainly possible to carry out Steve's thread-opening plan ... like John Leslie, I've quickly crunched some figures which anyone's welcome to discuss or improve upon ...

 

For the sake of not much extra cost, using a 3rd camera instead of just 2 will make the coverage look much better as that should nearly always give the director the rotation of having one camera that's currently "on air", another camera ready for whenever it needs to be put "on air" and the 3rd camera operator setting up its next duty ... just using 2 cameras heavily increases the risk of disjointed cuts from one camera to the other, especially during fast-moving action.

 

I'd estimate a minimum wage/expenses bill of about £2,000 per meeting ... you'll struggle to attract any talented staff until you're offering at least £150 wages (plus basic expenses) per person and even this simple a live production ideally needs 3 cameras, 2 commentators, 1 engineer, 1 producer and 1 director so that's a minimum of 8 staff before adding in the relative luxury of a pits-interviewer or a 2nd-engineer (thus giving you both a broadcast-engineer and an online-engineer).

 

Once you're charging the public to watch live streaming, it's probably worth investing in backup website/software if at all possible ... don't forget from a PR point of view, if anything goes wrong, your customers are online already because that's how they're receiving your service so it's even quicker and easier than usual for them to slag off your service elsewhere online !!

 

But by far the biggest stumbling block in all of this is working out the right price to charge to acheive the maximum total revenue.

 

At the moment,. it's reckoned each Elite League club has been getting about £90,000 guaranteed Sky money each season (total £900,000 across the 10 teams) ... clearly a broadband subscription service wouldn't be expected to generate a similar amount so let's try a smaller total target of £200,000 in subscription profits.

 

Meanwhile, that wages/expenses bill of £2,000 per meeting needs to be added to any start-up costs, admin costs and publicity budget ... Steve suggests covering 2 or 3 meetings a week so that's about 70-to-80 a season ... that would mean overall total costs of at least £200,000 to provide a season's coverage and therefore you need to sell £400,000 of subscriptions to hit the £200,000 profit target for the clubs to share.

 

Steve suggests £20/month ... based on a 6-month season, that's £120/season ... hence you need to sell 3,333 season-long subscriptions to bring in the £400,000 you need if you're going to send £200,000 back to the clubs.

 

Personally, i doubt there are enough speedway fans willing to add £20/month to their existing spend on television/online services to achieve those figures ... yes (as some on this forum have already said they're doing), there will be a few people cancelling Sky in anticipation of no further speedway (and so they'll be able to switch that expenditure over to this project) but I suspect most speedway fans also like other things they watch on Sky so won't cancel just for the sake of this particular sport ... you might have more chance aiming for around 7,000 subscribers at £10/month to achieve the same profits.

 

To put it into context with other single-sport subscriptions, Racing UK charges just over £20/month but that's for an average of 2 British horse-race meetings every day of the week (plus the main French meeting most Sundays) as well as cut-price admission offers to several race meetings a month for their subscribers.

 

From a little bit of experience a few years ago helping with attempts to stream British ice-hockey online, it was an eye-opener to see how far the customer base shrank when the initial free-of-charge service (for a few games while we experimented with the coverage) was turned into a modest £3-per-game ... even that small a charge wiped 90% off the customer usage !!

 

Maybe "ballinger" on this forum will be able to comment a lot better on the up-to-date financial viability of live streaming given his long-time involvement in both speedway and ice-hockey videos/DVDs.

 

Overall, it's certainly worth exploring whether a system like this could work ... but at least in its early stages, it's going to take a while to generate any worthwhile profits for the clubs ... more importantly, where's the money going to come from to get such a project up-&-running because neither the clubs themselves nor the BSPA appear to have such money available ? !!

 

A very good post but I think you are over-egging the pudding by saying 8 staff would be required. Three cameramen, engineer/director in charge of the mixing desk, plus 2 commentators. It would have to be a "we all get our hands dirty" production with cable laying etc.

 

Don't forget Go Speed have the rights to Polish league Speedway and already have experience with online streaming ( albeit with a HD feed coming into London)

 

EL and Polish speedway in one monthly subscription sounds very exciting.

[John Leslie]

The customer base is worldwide, not just from UK tracks. A Polish version of the site would surely attract customers. Cameras needed would not be that expensive and the cameramen used may have one anyway which is usable. Certainly Pete Ballinger, who films at Coventry, would have suitable gear as do Rerun. The expense would be on the mixing deck and these are no longer expensive. A trip to BVE (Broadcast video Expo) at Earls Court in February will reveal many different companies offering low cost live internet streaming setups and quite amazing prices. A server with relevant software to push out a live stream is extremely cheap. My server with unlimited bandwidth costs me 88 pounds a month. A website would cost no more than a few hundred pounds.

 

Wages for the three/four crew would need to be paid. I think if pushed correctly all clubs could benefit quite well.

Give us some numbers then.

Let's assume the mixing deck, cameras, equipment and other capital outlay are within reasonable financial reach (or can be provided by the cameramen themselves).

 

What would you estimate the running costs at for hiring cameramen, engineer, producer, director etc, plus unlimited bandwidth fees for a server, and any other expenses. Either on a per match basis, or a per week basis (assuming 2 matches per week over a 28 week season)

[Steve Shovlar]

Give us some numbers then.

Let's assume the mixing deck, cameras, equipment and other capital outlay are within reasonable financial reach (or can be provided by the cameramen themselves).

 

What would you estimate the running costs at for hiring cameramen, engineer, producer, director etc, plus unlimited bandwidth fees for a server, and any other expenses. Either on a per match basis, or a per week basis (assuming 2 matches per week over a 28 week season)

 

 

I couldn't do it without some research. I could certainly find out the running costs of equipment etc by attending BVE in February. A few minutes talk to the relevant people would have the price pinned down exactly.

 

Cameramen are not expensive. Rob at Poole charges about 40 quid to film the meeting, plus expenses when travelling to away meetings. It can be done on a shoestring budget and still look good enough. I say good enough because it could never look as good as a TV Broadcast. The most important issue is making sure the races are covered and that there is decent commentary. It would have to be acceptable quality to warrant a subscription.

[Blazeaway]

I couldn't do it without some research. I could certainly find out the running costs of equipment etc by attending BVE in February. A few minutes talk to the relevant people would have the price pinned down exactly.

 

Cameramen are not expensive. Rob at Poole charges about 40 quid to film the meeting, plus expenses when travelling to away meetings. It can be done on a shoestring budget and still look good enough. I say good enough because it could never look as good as a TV Broadcast. The most important issue is making sure the races are covered and that there is decent commentary. It would have to be acceptable quality to warrant a subscription.

 

Would you be willing to invest your own money into it?

[BWitcher]

Guys this can EASILY be done and I doubt the costs would be anywhere near as high as you would be expecting.

 

For some time now I have been a follower and backer of a musical/comedy group based in Chicago called Starkid. They made a Harry Potter parody musical whilst at college, put it on youtube for family/friends to view and it went viral garnering them fans around the world. Since then they've gone on to make many more shows, hardly making a penny along the way as due to the copyright issues etc they couldn't 'sell' the product.

 

Now however, having produced some original stuff of their own they this past weekend for the first time broadcast one of their shows live. There were 3 cameras, all controlled by the director who could switch angles, zoom in, zoom out where appropriate. It was broadcast on www.gigity.tv. They essentially install permanent HD cameras into music venues. Fans paid $7 to watch the show and it was available to view for 3 days afterwards.

 

The picture and sound quality was fine.

 

Now, that exact method wouldn't be a perfect fit for Speedway but as Steve says the technology is there, there will certainly be companies about to provide the technology also.

 

The point is, if a small group like Starkid can do it, then surely the BSPA can.

 

Edited to add.. actually it was the 2nd show they did live, the first one was via www.stageit.com but it was a one camera production.

Edited October 17, 2013 by BWitcher

[Humphrey Appleby]

Don't forget Go Speed have the rights to Polish league Speedway and already have experience with online streaming

 

Go-Speed are in liquidation, although the rights may be with Go-Speed International which still appear to be trading. The liquidator's recommendations may affect that though...

[ford]

Last year I watched a meeting from Swindon on my pc, forget what it was but any way 1 camera and could just about hear what the track commentator was saying.

 

Better than nothing

[John Leslie]

Guys this can EASILY be done and I doubt the costs would be anywhere near as high as you would be expecting.

 

For some time now I have been a follower and backer of a musical/comedy group based in Chicago called Starkid.

 

I think there's a world of difference between filming in an indoor theatre and covering people moving about a small stage with its own lighting, to mounting an outside broadcast on a dull evening covering something the size of a speedway track and pits with bikes moving at 60mph, and then having to move on to another track at the other end of the country for the next broadcast.

 

I'm not saying its impossible, and I agree that the costs of doing such things are cheaper than ever nowadays, but there still are costs involved, and I doubt that subscription uptake could ever be enough to cover the costs and return a decent profit

 

 

Last year I watched a meeting from Swindon on my pc, forget what it was but any way 1 camera and could just about hear what the track commentator was saying.

 

Better than nothing

ELRC at Swindon

Edited October 17, 2013 by John Leslie

[Steve Shovlar]

Would you be willing to invest your own money into it?

Yes if it was done correctly.

 

Took me a few minutes to find this, one of many solutions.

 

http://www.telestream.net/wirecast/overview.htm

 

Live streaming, multi camera, no need for a mixing deck as all done through laptop or Mac. price? US$995. Simple to use.

 

The cost of such software have plummeted in the last few years.

[arthur cross]

The customer base is worldwide, not just from UK tracks. A Polish version of the site would surely attract customers. Cameras needed would not be that expensive and the cameramen used may have one anyway which is usable. Certainly Pete Ballinger, who films at Coventry, would have suitable gear as do Rerun. The expense would be on the mixing deck and these are no longer expensive. A trip to BVE (Broadcast video Expo) at Earls Court in February will reveal many different companies offering low cost live internet streaming setups and quite amazing prices. A server with relevant software to push out a live stream is extremely cheap. My server with unlimited bandwidth costs me 88 pounds a month. A website would cost no more than a few hundred pounds.

 

Wages for the three/four crew would need to be paid. I think if pushed correctly all clubs could benefit quite well.

 

 

 

A very good post but I think you are over-egging the pudding by saying 8 staff would be required. Three cameramen, engineer/director in charge of the mixing desk, plus 2 commentators. It would have to be a "we all get our hands dirty" production with cable laying etc.

 

Don't forget Go Speed have the rights to Polish league Speedway and already have experience with online streaming ( albeit with a HD feed coming into London)

 

EL and Polish speedway in one monthly subscription sounds very exciting.

 

I like your enthusiasm for a project like this but I think you need to be a lot more realistic alongside that enthusiasm.

 

Undoubtedly, the technical costs (and size of kit required) are rapidly falling to encourage projects like this and I've no problem about imagining any commentators helping to set up the kit, but I still don't see how you can rely on just one engineer/director for an outside-broadcast live streaming ... if anything's going slightly wrong (and there are plenty of ways it can happen), I wouldn't expect that engineer/director to be able to simultaneously solve the problem and continue directing the coverage (too often, I fear the coverage would have to stop while the problem's fixed).

 

Elite League and Polish League combined into one subscription does sound exciting in theory ... but if you're going to show an HD-feed of "tv-quality" action from Torun on a Sunday, don't be surprised if you suffer plenty of criticism for then showing from Wolverhampton on Monday or King's Lynn on Wednesday what looks rather thrown-together as a production in comparison to that Polish coverage.

 

Clearly, you're very technically-minded yourself and you'll understand the different circumstances surrounding the Torun and Wolves productions, ... but I fear you'll be surprised how many of your customers won't stop for long to consider those differences and instead simply say "well that stuff cobbled together from Monmore looked a bit crap, didn't it?"

 

However many people tell you in any research that they'll subscribe to an online service like this, it's likely well under half will actually go ahead to sign up and pay for it (especially when there are so many other forms of entertainment they can access off their same computer, smartphone, etc, free of charge) ... yes, there are potential viewers and their money out there but it's a heck of a job getting them to part with enough of that money to generate profits for our clubs.

 

And the biggest hurdle of all could be this ... as I'm sure you're aware from your other business interests, it's not just a case of what you're providing, but also a case of competing against anything similar that's being provided nearby ... next year, without any extra cost to their general satellite/cable tv-expenditure, everyone's still able to watch a production similar to Sky's traditional standard at least once a fortnight thanks to Eurosport's GP-coverage plus their World Cup and European Championship meetings ... regrettably for the Elite League's accountants, that'll still be enough of an armchair speedway-fix for plenty of your potential customers without any extra need for them to dig a bank card out of their pocket or wallet.

Edited October 17, 2013 by arthur cross

[BWitcher]

Last year I watched a meeting from Swindon on my pc, forget what it was but any way 1 camera and could just about hear what the track commentator was saying.

 

Better than nothing

 

ELRC I think it was.

 

It was fine.

 

 

 

I think there's a world of difference between filming in an indoor theatre and covering people moving about a small stage with its own lighting, to mounting an outside broadcast on a dull evening covering something the size of a speedway track and pits with bikes moving at 60mph, and then having to move on to another track at the other end of the country for the next broadcast.

 

 

 

 

Even a one camera production could be done fine. For years Wolves matches were filmed from next to the referees box. One camera and to be honest, you got a better view of the racing than on ANY sky meeting from Monmore.

[arthur cross]

Guys this can EASILY be done and I doubt the costs would be anywhere near as high as you would be expecting.

 

For some time now I have been a follower and backer of a musical/comedy group based in Chicago called Starkid. They made a Harry Potter parody musical whilst at college, put it on youtube for family/friends to view and it went viral garnering them fans around the world.

 

Now however, having produced some original stuff of their own they this past weekend for the first time broadcast one of their shows live. They essentially install permanent HD cameras into music venues. Fans paid $7 to watch the show and it was available to view for 3 days afterwards.

 

The point is, if a small group like Starkid can do it, then surely the BSPA can.

 

Good to hear how Starkid are using the technology to help them and i appreciate you've been enjoying their work while living several thousand miles away and therefore may not have much background info on the group.

 

However, if you're able to do so, could you answer the following ...

 

1) How much of the $7 (about £4.50) subscription actually reaches the performers after any online production costs have been covered ? (is a lump sum deducted for those costs or a percentage of each $7 coming in ?)

 

2) How many performers receive a share of any online profits from these shows ? ... while Starkid almost certainly have a smaller (but cleverly developing) fanbase than the total fanbase of the 10 Elite League clubs, I suspect they also have far fewer people awaiting any profits compared to 10 businesses all dealing with annual turnovers of several hundred thousand pounds !!

Edited October 17, 2013 by arthur cross