Nationals Webcast

[lpskier]

The webcast for Nationals is in doubt. AWSA has a $12,000 budget and we are not going to exceed it. Each region contributes $500, but are now being asked to pony up $2500 more each. Doubtful that will happen. The bid for the broadcast is $30,000.

 

Is a webcast for Nationals worth it?

 

Anyone have REAL suggestions on where to raise $15,000 to support the webcast?

 

Anyone willing to make REAL donations or buy advertising? 30 businesses at $500 each buying an ad broadcast during the webcast would do the trick and would be a business advertising deduction on your tax return.

 

If we want a webcast, we have to support it.

[Horton]

30k ÷ 800 skiers (a guess) is $37.50 each. seems hard to justify

[klindy]

@lpskier I brought several ideas to the table. First understand that the quality of the TWBC webcast is fantastic because of a lot of things including high quality video, multiple camera locations, and camera operators that understand skiing. It seems each broadcast has gotten better and better as time goes on.

 

Obviously, that isn’t cheap or easy to accomplish.

 

Part of the issue is it’s hard to define value by the primary players that put on the Nationals. The webcast is largely a promotional piece viewed by those already involved in waterskiing or closely aligned. So there’s little incentive to attract advertisers, it does little to attract new members, it’s another major task to setup and execute (both for the site and camera/broadcast folks) and little value to the participants. That said there is a LOT of very high quality video available to use to find value.

 

I proposed 4 possible “products” that can add value and increase exposure for the sport. None of the current players have the bandwidth or motivation to make them happen. So it would likely require a “third party” to coordinate. And there are many important details to work thru. (Note there is interest to make it work).

 

1) Provide and sell individual camera feeds and the broadcast video of an individual skier set. Similar to a replay, a file would be available to buy which would include shore, boat, broadcast, whatever captured from dock to dock. What is that worth to people, would it sell?

 

2) Enhance the above by connecting pros willing to offer “GiveGo” style coaching of your set. Only one set so limited value but some formatted coaching may be worthwhile to some. Again, would it sell and for how much? (Assume a revenue split with the coach).

 

3) Provide still images similar to the past sports photographers captured from the HD video. The quality can be quite high and the skier could “pick the frame” to base the shot. Do people still desire still shots? Can be printed or just a digital image or both. Is this an impulse buy on-site or could it be sold after the tournament?

 

4) Edit and produce a 30 and/or 60 minute broadcast quality video of the America’s Cup/US Open meant to be broadcast on major sports channels and other consolidators to show in sports bars etc. Advertising revenue would be the primary target.

 

Any/all these ideas are potential ways to generate revenue to help make this sustainable every year. Again there are lots of details but those are some real suggestions. Perhaps it gets to a point where these ideas make the cost and effort to setup valuable enough to defray all costs.

[ALPJr]

All good ideas there. Makes sense to me for the participants/families to cover the bulk of the costs, and perhaps have a minimal fee for others - webcast spectators only.

[bigtex2011]

how many vendors are going to be there. maybe broadcast can do a few live commercials to help defer cost

[ETskier]

Broadcasting every event, every division in boring. Most of those interested are already there. TWBC is first rate and should only be contracted for the marquis events. Those would include a Big Dawg type finals, open division competition which leads to US Open Qualifying, non US skier qualifying and the OPEN. Heck, make it a pro tour event to bring in sponsors and prize money. Maybe it's not all that easy, but this should be the direction.

 

[klindy]

@ETskier went down that path and the cost to show up and set up is a big fixed cost. So The price to broadcast 3 days (Jrs and Open/a America’s Cup) wasn’t a lot different from the whole week.

[buechsr]

ET, no offense, but no one is required to watch every event in every division. Personally, while I enjoy watching the upper echelon events you describe, there's what, 10ish open or pro events webcast each season? Nationals is the only tournament of the relative masses that is webcast. Scanning youtube a moment ago, it seems the average feed from last year was viewed 5-7,000 times, that's each lake, each day. That's more than 100,000 views, way more than any other event that gets broadcast by TWBC. True, its really 14 ski days, but the interest is there from my view. It's fine for the aspiration to be that the continually rising production quality helps interest of the top levels, but I think interest in the rest of the competition would be undervalued if it gave way to merely the open/pro divisions. I can say unequivocally, 2 of my kids skied their first nationals last year as a DIRECT result of watching the webcast (live and replay) from 2020. In my view, THAT drives more interest in the REST of the webcasted tournaments than just broadcasting open/pro.

 

I like a lot of Keith's ideas, especially the givego component/potential.

 

It would appear @horton 's math is flawed. Keith says $15,000 more needed. That's less than $20 a skier. To have nationals covered sun up to sunset for $20 seems well-worth it in the scheme of things.

 

But even assuming that were too much on top of an already expensive ski-season for skiers, and while I know that MC, BU, and CC give a lot, is an additional $5,000 a piece that much to ask? I don't know what Doug Meeker ponied up last year but liquid edge seemed to get a lot of coverage. If 15 people got their dealer to sponsor for $1,000, that covers it.

 

Keith, how about a rebate on entry fees if you secure sponsorship, even if its not dollar for dollar? ie, someone finds a $500 sponsor, they get $100 credit on entry. Could be complicated, but by using a rebate system, gives staff time to work through the numbers post-nationals when things calm down in the fall.

 

EDIT: what about premium parking (cars and RVs)? Premium RV spot costs, say, $200, cars, $50. Thats 30 RVs and 180 cars = $15,000. Or mix that math up. Whatever. Hell, if there were salvation army trays last year I'd a thrown in. Wasn't there a go fund me set up for last year? Didn't that work out well? What about sponsors for each event? 90 events/15,000 = less than $200 an event. Seems more than doable. If sponsors flock to mens 3 slalom, throw the names from less popular events in a hat, and draw names for who has to pony up $200, or split it amongst them. Even if you got "unlucky", that's what, 10% of the likely budget to even go? Heck, tell the winners of each division they're responsible for it. Are there really that many national-winners that would not find $166 in value reminiscing of their title 6 months or 5 years later? We're talking about the price of a wetsuit.

[Luv2Ski]

I LOVE having a nationals webcast. For those of us with friends and family in the sport, it's a great way to follow those who are competing when we can't be there live and in person!! I did donate to the cause last year and will continue to do so. There was a "go fund me" or something of the sort set up last year and I think that needs to be done again. If someone can really promote the ways to donate across various platforms, I think we could easily raise the funds needed. These days there are a lot of waterski podcasts going on so if each of those hosts could mention how people can donate, that would be a big help.

[Broussard]

@buechsr I don't think he is suggesting that anyone is forced to watch the entire event, simply pointing out that it is hard to justify the significant expenditure required to webcast the tournament. While I think it is nice for families and friends to be able to watch their skier compete, I have a hard time seeing this as a worthwhile investment for an organization that is already strapped for cash.

[buechsr]

@Broussard

I realize he's not saying anyone is "forced" to watch the entire event, but he did say "most of us interested are already there" and "every event, every division is boring". 100,000 views says otherwise, particularly the suggestion that "most of us interested are already there". In fact, it's demonstrably the exact opposite. That's not conjecture, the numbers don't lie.

Virtually everyone physically at tournaments are competitors or parents, and we have evidence that nationals was watched by way, way, way more people than that. I'd respectfully submit that the people watching the events ET suggests take priority (open and pro) are the ones watched only by existing skiers. Nationals webcast "casts" to a much wider audience, and makes it a tremendously "worthwhile investment" . Read: "growing the sport". In my view, it's some of the best money spent to specifically advance USAWS's mission statement.

 

I dare anyone to bring a non-skier friend over and watch an hour of pro slalom and gauge their interest after. They'll respect the show but get bored out of their minds in 10 minutes. Then put on Girls 5 slalom or mens 4 jump and they will be way more engaged and intrigued. That's just my personal experience but it holds true over and over. Do we collectively think a 12 year old who has never skied wants to learn to ski more as a result of the coverage last weekend (which was awesome by the way) or watching Boys 2? I couldn't peel my parents off of watching Mens 8. Pro slalom tourney? I can't even get them to turn the TV on.

Does that mean it's not worthwhile or no one cares, of course not, but webcasting nationals is a beautifully unique way to outreach to non-skiers. And even if $15,000 proves hard to come by (which I find hard to fathom it is considering an average charity golf scramble can raise that with relative ease), I'm liking my idea of asking/making nationals champs sponsor their "event". I can't believe that skiers who win nationals, given what they've financially committed to get to that point, wouldn't gladly pay another $150 to support the webcast. Of course, I'm shocked at the number of grown adults who so vociferously bark about safesport, but that's another topic.

 

 

[lpskier]

@buechsr Remember, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics!

 

You make very good points. AWSA and the regions see real value in the webcast, but simply can’t afford to foot the whole bill. If we want a webcast, someone needs to raise more money from somewhere.

[Broussard]

@buechsr If you or someone else wants to raise the capital required to fund the webcast of AWSA Nationals - cool, I'm all for it. However, your idea of taxing the national champions may just be the most ludicrous suggestion posed in this thread.

 

If as many people as you purport see value in the webcast, it should be extremely easy to raiser the funds necessary to cover the cost.

[buechsr]

@Broussard

It's not a tax. Taxes are unavoidable. If you're a national competitor with a legit shot of winning, partaking in an event that takes hundreds of man hours and travel by countless people to run and make relevant, and you're opposed to contributing 150 bucks if you win, easy, don't go. If a grown adult cares so little about his/her dying sport's exposure that they're not willing to pay a decent greens fee or average daily lift ticket to support TWBC as national champion, that's ridiculous. Do you think that if every national champion last year were asked to either find a $150 sponsor or pay $150 that they'd scoff at that? Most people are paying more than that in baggage fees to get equipment there, and only a fraction will actually win. Sorry you find that so "ludicrous". I'm not saying it's preferable, but it's a solution. With all due respect for which you earned as a respected skier, industry professional, and AWSA board member (I think ?) what solutions can you offer other than supporting someone else offering to do the fundraising?

 

So many threads on here with the same general "problem". Boat manufacturer 3 event interest, promo boat program problems, membership, fundraising, tournament expenses, etc. and now there's a hidden gem of exposure in the form of what have been 2 great years of nationals webcasting, and despite 100,000 views last year, only 2 people in this thread have offered a single idea to raise 15k to continue it. Keith offered 4, I offered 4. And rather than continued conversation on those, as is typical, ideas outside the box get told (as I have before in other threads) why it won't work, can't work, or in this case, is ludicrous. Ludicrous for someone who on average probably spends more a month on boat insurance to help support the webcast as national champion?

 

I don't buy it.

 

I just left my Rotary club meeting. 2 months ago a club with 30 members raised $45,000 at our annual event. I'm not saying it will happen without effort or potential shortcomings, but raising $15,000 for an event that draws, what, 900 skiers, and 100,000 views, most of which have significant disposable income, should not be that difficult.

 

LP, can I make a suggestion that's hopefully not also "ludicrous"? If you have a role in finding a solution or funding or sponsorships, are you at liberty to explain what TWBC can accommodate? ie, $500 gets someone what, exactly? What about $1,000 or $5,000? Are you involved on behalf of the Southern region (aren't you at LSP?) or AWSA as a whole?

[Broussard]

@buechsr As Keith mentioned in the second post the webcast is problematic:

There’s little incentive to attract advertisers, it does little to attract new members, it’s another major task to setup and execute (both for the site and camera/broadcast folks) and little value to the participants.

The only viable options I see are crowdfunding the webcast or trying to sell sponsorship to non-endemic companies.

Keith, how about a rebate on entry fees if you secure sponsorship, even if its not dollar for dollar? ie, someone finds a $500 sponsor, they get $100 credit on entry. Could be complicated, but by using a rebate system, gives staff time to work through the numbers post-nationals when things calm down in the fall.

This would be even more complicated than meets the eye as the entry fee revenue is split between the LOC, AWSA, and USA-WSWS. AWSA has decided to webcast the event and is therefore responsible for the cost of doing so.

what about premium parking (cars and RVs)? Premium RV spot costs, say, $200, cars, $50. Thats 30 RVs and 180 cars = $15,000.

Parking is the responsibility of the LOC and any revenue generated from parking is retained by the LOC. Again, AWSA is the entity behind the webcast.

If you're a national competitor with a legit shot of winning, and you're opposed to contributing 150 bucks if you win, easy, don't go.

Okay, this one is just ridiculous. This individual has paid their entry fee and has every right to compete in the event and therefore is able to win the event. AWSA has no right to then send that individual an invoice for the webcast.

 

Some individuals or families or stretching to afford to attend nationals between travel expenses, lodging, and entry fees. Others could stroke a $5k check and never notice it missing from their account.

 

Oh and as a 12 year old skiing behind an outboard bay boat I rathered watching Wade Cox and Marcus Brown than some kid fumbling through a pass.

 

[buechsr]

@broussard

The difference between you and I in this context, is that your posts suggest you're in search of problems with every idea, and I see opportunities for solutions, and by extension, optimism, until they've been fully explored. You may well be right about every single opportunity for a solution. But respectfully, just because it's never been done before, doesn't mean it won't today, because this funding issue for this purpose has only existed a handful of times, and each year was able to be solved (to my knowledge).

 

Here's a few examples:

Fee rebate: I freely acknowledged in my own post that it "could be complicated". But that doesn't mean it won't/can't work. It's math and time. Plenty of time to work it out in the fall so its not overwhelming in August, hence the distinction between a fee offset and a rebate. Fine, you're distinguishing between AWSA and USAWS, a fair distinction. Doesn't mean the framework isn't there to allow people to submit webcast sponsorship money with their entries and for AWSA to share that which its members secured for its benefit.

 

Parking: I never said AWSA was responsible for parking. What I did offer was a parking premium could be used for webcast expense. If that means Mystic Lakes needs to charge more than what they were planning for premium parking to share with AWSA, so be it. Do you know if this has been broached with Mystic Lakes for this purpose, for which their site will get 100 hours of exposure in perpetuity? It's one thing to say that idea has been explored and can't work, but another to say it won't work because parking is the responsibility of the site. I don't know anyone at Mystic, but I'd hazard a guess that most involved there were really looking forward to their site's exposure through the webcast, if for nothing other than pride, and would be amenable to at least talking to AWSA. Perhaps you're right, sharing parking fees between the LOC and AWSA is not something previously explored, or even shot down at other sites in the past. But 2022 is a new year, with its own unique challenges.

 

National winners paying: Not true. AWSA imposes barriers to nationals entry through costs, scores, and regional participation already. They have just as much right to advise skiers if they win their event they'll be asked for $150 as they do setting any other standard for entry. I get it, you think that idea is "ludicrous". I'd bet that even if it were voluntary there'd be 100% contribution rate. We differ. So be it.

 

That's cool that when you were 12 you wanted to watch pros. I did too. Most people on here did and do. But that misses the point at bar. The exposure isn't for the 12 year olds who already ski and have the bug and access to the water, the exposure is for people (of all ages) who have HAD NO EXPOSURE. It's about relatability. A new era brings new challenges to expose people to skiing. There is not an easier way to do so in 2022 than a webcast of amateur skiers and I hope AWSA/USAWS understands its importance in today's day and age. Public lakes are not full of skiers like the 70s. Heck they're not even full of wakeboarders like the 2000s. Growth potential is directly related to exposure and desire. Catering solely to open divisions does not help that cause.

 

Lastly, this not directed at you personally Andre, just your responses to the ideas. you have helped me out in the past and I know you're a respected contributor to the water-ski world. I think we both share the same interests.

 

[Broussard]

@buechsr What we call “AWSA Nationals” is technically the U.S. Water Ski National Championships, an event which USA-WSWS owns the rights to. By this time in the year an event agreement or contact has been executed by the LOC (Mystic Lakes), AWSA, and USA-WSWS.

 

The fact is that AWSA does not actually own the event and receives a small portion of the entry fee from the event, but would like to webcast the event. If they choose to do so it is their responsibility to find a way to fund the webcast and no additional burden should be placed on the skiers or LOC. Putting on the National Championships is a big enough job as is.

 

[Fastguy888]

@lpskier I think it important to define a live webcast vs. a recorded live - post event video. I think for this event "live" may actually have less viewers than a post event video; considering most all participants could more easily and may prefer to watch once they were home. I have a degree in video production and work in video professionally; I would think a live recorded but post production would be less than half a live webcast and nearly the same value for the participants, fans and sponsors. It is probably important to try and capture nearly every pass in at least good enough definition and camera position that skiers could recognize themselves; most will probably just scroll to see themselves or the skiers they have a affinity to watch.

[lpskier]

@Fastguy888 My understanding is that the majority of the expense is travel, equipment rental, set up/break down and videoing. The “extra expense” for Tony and the other commentators is small by comparison and some of that “savings” would be consumed by post production work. If I’m wrong, please explain why as you may be on to something.

[Fastguy888]

@lpskier their are likely many more capable production companies and individuals with the ability to capture the event as a post production than live webcast. Potentially one of these companies, organizations or groups is closer to the site and travel cost would be reduced. I would encourage you to contact a local college that offers video production as well. I would guess their are many smaller and/or more local video production service that could work well within your budget?

[lpskier]

@Fastguy888 contacting a college: excellent suggestion.

[buechsr]

lp, can you answer my question from earlier? thx:

If you have a role in finding a solution or funding or sponsorships, are you at liberty to explain what TWBC can accommodate? ie, $500 gets someone what, exactly? What about $1,000 or $5,000? Are you involved on behalf of the Southern region (aren't you at LSP?) or AWSA as a whole?

 

 

[unksskis]

@buechsr the suggestion of having National Champions pay extra is crazy. That would likely become a major deterrent to attendance.

[lpskier]

@buechsr Sorry, I missed your question.

 

I am on the AWSA board and we were asked to contribute additional funds for the webcast. We declined. The regions were then asked to contribute more and they are in the process of deciding.

 

The LOC is in charge of the webcast. We (AWSA and the regions) just make a contribution to the cost. So I’m not trying to solve the problem, I’m fishing for ideas that can help the LOC. I play no role personally in the process other than enjoying the webcast like everyone else and hoping to flip good ideas to the LOC.

 

Also, as you probably know @LLUSA is AWSA President and @klindy in Chairman of the AWSA board, notwithstanding his Triple Panda. They follow this discussion.

[VONMAN]

I like the idea of filming the events but not live to keep the cost down and then post later on the inner-web. (U-Tube) It still gives the skier's a chance to review and relive. To keep cost's down you would 1 or 2 camera's per lake. One on shore and one in the boat. Going to the local colleges would be a great idea. When watching a TWBC live feed they can and have assisted in quick scoring issues, bonus. And because they are part of AWSA they can film in the boat.

Here's where the problem of great coverage will hit a snag. Anyone who isn't a member of AWSA can't sit in the boat and film. Believe me I tried. I'm retired and no longer compete or a member. I go to the Master Craft fun tournament in Florida to film it and post in up on U-Tube, it's on my dime and a way to give back. Last year I was told I could film from the boat only to be told when I got there "if your not a Member you can't go in the boat". Is there such a thing as a day waver pass? If so It wasn't offered.

The good news is that I was able to hack the system. One of the skier's I was filming had a bad first set and was going to leave. He was mad as hell with his self. I talked him down and gave him quick study of my camera setup. With on a spotter and a driver in the boat he became the third and got some great footage and inspired Him to ski the next round. A day latter and 10 hour's of editing it was up on U-Tube. You could keep cost down with only one camera in the boat, where the action is. But Bureaucracy, Lawyers and Money will always be lurking in the background wanting more for less. Love to be part of the solution not part of the problem.

[buechsr]

@unksskis

Seriously, you think someone who wins nationals would balk at contributing $150 to the webcast? This isn't a shuffleboard tournament. I'm not saying that's the best option, but I don't share your pessimism that that would have any effect on nationals' attendance. Many skiers have to budget 10 times that to even go.

 

@lpskier and @Broussard

Y'all realize that (it appears) @lpskier is saying LOC is responsible for webcast and @Broussard is saying AWSA is. @broussard said: "The fact is that AWSA does not actually own the event and receives a small portion of the entry fee from the event, but would like to webcast the event. If they choose to do so it is their responsibility to find a way to fund the webcast and no additional burden should be placed on the skiers or LOC. "

 

With all due respect, both of y'all are in leadership roles, yet (it seems) to have differing perspectives as to who is responsible for what.

 

Clearly I'm in favor of the webcast by whatever means necessary, and do not think it would be hard to raise $15,000, in numerous different ways. @lpskier it sounds like AWSA is kicking funding responsibility to each region? That's what, $3,000 a region? Does anyone actually think that $3,000 couldn't be raised at each regional tournament for nationals webcast? If each region qualifies 150 skiers for nationals, that's a $20 contribution per qualified skier (a nominal ask). There's plenty of additional people who would throw in $100 or more if needed. Just look at the go fund me from last year. Anonymous people, many (most?) of whom didn't even go to nationals, helped pay for the webcast. Break it down even further, if needed. Tell each State Federation President their state needs to come up with $500. Does anyone actually think that $500 couldn't get raised with 10 phone calls in each state, or merely at each State Championship? If that delegation of responsibility works for the Councils, great, Scot Ellis, PM me. I'll raise $500 for this and you don't have to lift a finger. Surely there's another 30 benevolent people around the country who could raise the same (30 x 500 = $15,000). However, given the trends in this thread, someone is going to say that it'd be impossible to find sufficient skiers in Alaska or North Dakota to do so. Whatever. Y'all get the point. It's really not difficult to find myriad solutions to this but its hard to solve problems if its not defined who's responsible for solving them, and within what parameters they have to do so. That's not directed at anyone, but I'm wondering why it is that as a FHOH I'm first hearing about this on BOS, and not by way of any other communication to source the funds or funding solution by the regions if that's to whom the funding responsibility is being delegated? LP, don't take that the wrong way. I'm glad you brought it up here. Myself and many other people would have no idea there was a funding problem. Likewise, I hope people in charge can see there's a lot of people who can help with their needs, they just require communication.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[buechsr]

@vonman pay USAWS a typical dinner tab in The Villages to rejoin and solve all our problems B)

[auskier]

It comes down to what is considered an acceptable level by the organisers and AWSA.

Last month I webcasted the Australian nationals each day, simply streaming the boat feeds, mostly for slalom but some trick as well, and a handy-cam at the tower for jump. It was extremely rudimentary and I just overlaid the commentary to the video. It probably cost me $100 for a video encoder and bits to do it. As I was the TC for the event I didn't have a lot of time to put into it. It just ran itself all day. Obviously what I did was a LOOONG way from TWBC, but it allowed friends and family to tune in and watch something. So it certainly can be done on the cheap, fairly easily.

[swbca]

To produce TWBC quality live coverage of the Nationals it would be necessary to concentrate the top skiers from all divisions into contiguous time frame for live broadcast. Essentially creating a prelim and final, for all divisions. Realistically, only friends and family pay attention to the low seed skiers and they represent 80% of activity at the Nationals. It would be hard to sell advertising when 80% of the event could not draw an audience outside of friends and family.

 

Separating the prelims from the finals

Not suggesting this is an easy way to run a tournament but this is what it would take to concentrate the good skiers from all divisions into contiguous time frame for live broadcast.

At one time AWSA rules split slalom event into two or more segments, in affect creating a prelim and a finals. For example, the first running of Men3 would end after the 28off pass. The finals (for the broadcast) would happen on a different day for the skiers that had completed 28 off. With careful calibration of the end point of the prelims, the finals could end being the top skiers from each division back to back for the broadcast with color commentary.

 

It would not be affective to separate the prelim and finals based on advance seeding because occasionally a 15th seed skier gets a medal.

 

With the already tight schedules at the Nationals this type of prelim/final will never happen . . . but without separating low seed from top seed skiers, high quality wall to wall coverage will never happen.

[buechsr]

@swbca What does that solve? Solves little in terms of cost, and does nothing for the reasons so many people have watched nationals. There were about 100,000 views of last year's nationals. I cannot be convinced that each skier was responsible for 125 views by their friends and family as you suggest. The vast majority of that footage was, as you noted, NOT of people who had a realistic shot to win. There are repeated opinions expressed in this thread about catering to the upper echelon of contenders. That is not, in my view, the point of nationals being webcast/produced for perpetuity, in fact it misses the point. Compare, for example, worlds coverage compared to nationals. Ain't no non-skier watching that. IS the coverage excellent for people who care about the results, sure. Nationals got the views it did because non-skiers around the country have something to relate to. It's off the mark to cater the webcast ONLY to the highest echelon AT THAT TOURNAMENT because nationals has the very unique opportunity for exposure and outreach to non-skiers or those who view going to nationals as an attainable feather in their cap (which drives membership, supports local tournaments, drives more officials, etc.). In other words: USAWS's mission statement. Again, I dare anyone this afternoon to have a non-skiing friend over and watch last year's open slalom and see how quick they get put to sleep. Then put on mens/womens/boys/girls whatever, and I assure you they'll be way more engaged and more interested in going out on the boat with you. This is a GOLDEN opportunity for reaching people, driving interest, and membership. I surely hope its not squandered over an obtainable funding goal, or because of the belief that people are watching nationals in order to watch another pro slalom tournament...which they're not.

 

We can all love watching TWBC coverage of every event. I know I do. But webcasting nationals is important for other reasons, outreach being the top of the list.

[ISP6ball]

@buechsr Are you asking the highest of water ski professionals, that get paid pennies on the dollar for their talent, to take more out of their paychecks? Or did I misread your suggestion farther up the page?

[swbca]

@buechsr First it wouldn't be like watching another pro tournament because all divisions would be represented.

 

It would cut production cost because the "finals" could be possibly be done in 2 days.

When you mentioned there were more than 100,000 views for 2021 Nationals, you are talking about views after the event, not the live event. I have sat through many boring 3-4 hour National slalom events while on site. Advertisers would not want a random placement in the middle of that event or in the post event viewing. I would bet than not many viewers would sit though a 3 hour slalom event watching mostly intermediate level skiers on their TV. Post event they would be inclined to search for their friend or family member, or fast forward to the highlights at the end of each divisions event.

 

Also, I wasn't actually advocating breaking into a preliminary / finals format. There are so many practical barriers in doing this I doubt it will ever happen. I was only saying its not possible to get TWBC quality coverage as we know it, covering several days at the US Nationals. If you want TWBC quality, you have to provide more interesting activity on the water for the commentators to cover. If it was feasible, having 2 days for a "finals" round for all events would do that.

[LeonL]

As for me, if not live, I would be unlikely to watch much if at all. It's kinds like watching a ball game the week after it's played. You already know the results, the anticipation of a surprise finish is part of the allure.

[buechsr]

Everyone can have and express their own opinion on the value of nationals being webcast and produced for perpetuity. In my personal opinion, the paradigms expressed in this thread, wherein there is a lot of the use of "I", "what I'd watch", "what I'd like", etc. is the fundamental difference of our perspectives. I view all divisions of nationals being produced as an essential part of exposure and growth for tournament interest, and therefore, membership. That's not because "I" want to watch 100 hours of coverage (condensed or otherwise), I want the coverage because it has had tangible effect on tournament interest in my own house and sphere of non-skiing friends. I recognize that my perspective is no more special than anyone else's, but 100,000 views of an amateur event speaks for itself. We can't keep catering to "ourselves" and then wonder why we have membership and industry issues. I'm not saying we sacrifice anything in exchange for that by the way, but recognizing that for USAWS to thrive, it needs more exposure for people who can find skiing engaging.

[buechsr]

@swbca You may want to re-read what lp has said about TWBC expenses. Length (days) of broadcast/recording isn't the issue. It's travel and set up which would have to be done regardless of the length of the tournament that is the apparent lion's share of expense. Furthermore, I disagree with your assessment as to what viewers want to watch. You may well be correct for yourself, but that's your paradigm. A finals with 10 mens 3 skiers all getting 5 @38 to 5@ 39 is no more compelling to a non-skier than a pro event, (which they don't/won't watch). You show the full field of womens 5, some who miss openers, some of whom ski great is far more interesting to the non-skiing viewer...and there's a lot more non-skier viewers than nationals-level competitors and their families.

[buechsr]

@ISP6ball You misread, it wouldn't be borne just by open/pro, although the winner would be asked for $150. (One) of my several funding ideas was that the national champion of each division/event contribute $150. I just don't share everyone else's skepticism that national champs wouldn't find value and/or sufficient egalitarian motivation to do so. That's the price of monthly boat insurance or a wetsuit.

 

One of my first ideas was an entry fee offset by sponsorship secured for the webcast. Predictably, that was shot down too as too difficult. I asked what can be offered to sponsors. No response yet.

 

So many in search of problems with every solution and so few in search of solutions to the problem.

[unksskis]

@buechsr Have you been a National champion? This logic that it’s just another $150, skip the Starbucks mentality is turning people away already. Can’t keep expecting the same people to continue supporting things just because. Is my judging, and providing my boat for local tournaments, (no promo boats here this year) not enough? So the suggested $150 fee is per event. Overall too? Win 2 events and overall and one is expected to graciously pay $450 for accomplishing an amateur backyard hobby championship? I have and will continue to donate what I deem appropriate amounts for the webcast because I support its efforts, and promote others to do so as well. Good luck to all the National champions explaining the additional cost to their significant others, on top of the travel, registration, hotel, PTO, equipment, etc. It’s really hard to understand you not getting why this proposal is ridiculous.

[lpskier]

Would you still watch if it were pay per view?

[Killer]

If cost is the concern, and there are alternatives, it should be out to some form of RFP. TWBC is clearly the leader in this space but most organizations, especially NFP use the RFP process for procurement. Just a thought!

[swbca]

Bring Color to the Nationals WebCast to draw viewers and advertisers

 

When I compare the monotony of sitting on shore watching a National's slalom event with 40+ contestants to the experience of watching a WTBC webcast of a pro tournament, the biggest difference is the color commentary by the WTBC on-camera crew, their expert guest commentators plus the multi camera replays. A pro tournament with no commentary and no multi-camera replays could be a dull as an amateur event with an announcer who knows nothing about the contestants.

 

If WTBC commentators had something to work with, they could make the Nationals webcast more interesting to watch. The contestants should be required to provide a multi-point bio with the highlights of the their life and their water skiing life.

 

[Where they ski, who they ski with, parents, siblings or children also in the sport, ski schools, ski teams, coaches, Best experiences as a skier in each of the three events they may compete in, most dramatic experiences as skier, off season activities of interest, heroes, mentors, etc and more]

 

Advertising would be easier to sell if there was a commitment and then later a proven history of optimizing the entertainment value of the Nationals webcast giving it the color of the pro tournament webcasts.

[buechsr]

@unksskis Nope. And I hear you. We just differ in our opinions. I don't share your skepticism that spouses would react that poorly to another $150 for a webcast in perpetuity to show said spouses win. After a $10,000 ski year, seems a particularly good value, frankly. I'm getting ready to send in $600 in entries for one tournament in a few weeks. Personally, I would gladly pay the same contribution for nationals if I had any national champions. Of course, you're picking one idea for funding out and not addressing the rest of my ideas, one of course was for every national qualified skier to, at regionals pay $20. I think that'd be tolerable for everyone, and I think there'd be plenty of people to pay $100. See my thought about each state raising $500? That solved it too. That would take 30 minutes of effort. You opposed to that too?