mrdct, on Oct 1 2007, 03:28 AM, said:
fred, on Sep 30 2007, 10:49 AM, said:
... almost all of our vugraph commentators have enough common sense and good taste to understand that it would be inappropriate to use BBO as a vehicle for advertising companies that compete with BBO.
...trying to publicly embarass BBO with sarcastic uninformed posts on BBO's own Forums site is not a good way to make friends with the people who set the policies that you apparently object to.
It all sounds a tad petty to me.
The name of the provider of the real-time scoring service is plastered all over the WBF website, the Daily Bulletins and the EcatsBridge (WBF Secretariat) website. Of course for its extensive and valuable contribution to the online coverage of the event, BBO's name is also well publicised in those same places.
Does a commentator providing a link to a webpage with real-time comparisons of what all other tables have done on the board in play really pose such a risk to BBO's market-share? I seriously doubt it. The quality of the BBO product is without parallel and a casual wander over to the "competitor" website quickly confirms this with very small player and spectator numbers and a really difficult to follow interface. But I don't think anybody would question the fact that this "competitor" does online presentation of real-time scores really well.
I'm sure most, if not all, BBO commentators are regularly looking at the real-time scores of other matches to either add flavour to their commentary or simply to satisfy their interest in how things are going in other matches.
I'm fully aware that there is quite a lot of background to this issue to do with access to data feeds and deals which may or may not have been done with certain bridge bodies, but my only concern is to optimise the viewing experience for the spectators; whose experience is surely enhanced by having access to real-time scores.
I wasn't trying to publicly embarass BBO, which is obviously free to set its own policies and make its own decisions about how it conducts its business. I was merely trying to be helpful to a forum member (ironically called "goose") who was seeking to get access to real-time scores, but as I was aware of the policy of not mentioning that provider by name I did so via an indirect link from ecatsbridge. I acknowledge that there was a hint of sarcasm in the way I expressed myself for which I apologise.
I hope the BBO Forum remains a place where bridge fans can freely discuss developments in the online presentation of bridge events without fear of being hammered if they say anything non-complimentary about BBO or its products and policies.
David,
You are still missing the point.
Do you see advertisements for BBO vugraph on Swan's running scores pages?
Do you think that vugraph commentators on Swan provide the valuable service to their vugraph audience members by telling them "you should really go to BBO instead if you want to watch vugraph"?
How about ads for ACBL tournaments on BBO? Those are our bread and better, but Swan runs ACBL tournaments also and they include advertisements for these tournaments on their running scores pages. I suppose you think we shouldn't care if some of our ACBL regulars see one of these ads through a link we provide and decide to start playing on Swan instead of BBO?
Do I think Swan should be advertising for BBO? No, of course not, even though doing so would clearly help "optimize the viewing experience for the spectators" (your words).
Yes, there is also some history involved here too (I will not discuss the details publicly) that makes me even less eager than I would normally be to allow Swan ads in BBO. But the bottom line is that BBO and Swan are competitors. It doesn't matter that, at this point in time, BBO has a dominant position in the market. I don't care if Swan's vugraph audiences or ACBL games are much smaller than ours or if you think their software is inferior. It doesn't matter how much damage you (or I) think might result if we started sending our viewers to web pages with ads that are specifically designed to take our paying customers away.
What matters is that businesses that compete with one another do not advertise for one another. End of story.
Hopefully I don't have to convince you that we care a lot about promoting bridge and providing a high-quality free service to vugraph fans from all over the world. But I refuse to commit suicide in order to achieve this goal or to get involved in trying to speculate as to the extent to which I might cripple myself with a failed suicide attempt.
Finally, BBO Forums will remain a place where you can freely discuss issues even if your posts are critical of BBO. If such posts make a valid point in a constructive manner, you may even get a response from me like "you are right there is a lot of room for improvement here". But if such posts are rude, sarcastic, intended embarass to BBO, or simply nonsense, you deserve to get hammered.
I am unlikely to start such an exchange, but if I think someone else has then I will defend myself.
Thanks for your apology re sarcasm. Consider it accepted. I believe you that you were not trying to embarass BBO. I apologize for suggesting that you had.
Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com