[gwnn]

There are lots of people who would never pay 10$ a year because either:

-they do not have/they do not know they have a credit card that can be used for these transactions (and don't care so much to ask their bank)
-they have an inner inhibition against paying something inherently virtual
-they are not sure how much vugraph they'd watch in that year so arent sure of the gains
-some other reason

I'd say the % of people who wouldn't pay the fee is about 30-50%.

[se12sam]

In my humble opinion, charging should be aimed at the right people. I think BBO should charge the ORGANIZER for projecting their Vugraph; and not to the spectators to watch.

* When viewers see an event from (say) Pula being broadcast and see some top players on Vugraph, we wonder about the place. After a bit of googling, some of the viewers may choose to go there next year. Even if only a small fraction do, it will still benefit both the local economy and the bridge tournament.
* The same applies for events like Schapiro Spring Foursomes, Gold Coast, Weekend in place X etc. Every broadcast increases interest, attendance and eventually benefits the organizers.
* WBF Regional tournaments (PABF qualifiers, BFAME qualifiers) broadcasts could be driven by other considerations -- e.g. prestige / to show-off that their Zone is good etc.
* Finally, events like Bermuda Bowl could find alternative reasons. They can prove to their sponsors that tens of thousands of people around the world watch; plus they can AND should create and sell merchandise commemorating every event. Some of us BBO viewers will buy booklets, mugs, DVDs etc.

My key points are:
1. Keep it free -- like TV is largely free. In my opinion, BBO is not competing against pay-per-view boxing, or specialized sports network.
2. Negotiate charges with each organizer. You may wish to charge lesser to Bermuda Bowl, USBF, Spingold etc and higher to specialized/holiday bridge events.

Best wishes, and thank you for a great product

[helene_t]

I can't feel strongly about this.

BBO has an interest in keeping its revenues high. Charging spectators for vugraph will generate revenue but will reduce the number of spectators and therefore reduce income from advertisement and attract less potential customers for the pay products offered by BridgeBase.

I would expect BBO to make whatever decision they believe maximizes their long-term profits. Or maybe they have other aims as well. Anyway, I would be happy to pay a modest amount for watching vugraph. Obviously I am also happy not to pay anything.

Two random thoughts:
- VuGraph is probably a major vehicle for attracting new people to BBO. I believe this partly because it is relatively easy to view vugraph compared to so many other things you can do with the software, partly because for a newbee without BBO friends, playing with random partners can be frustrating, partly because bridge magazines and non-BridgeBase sites often refer to the BBO vugraph, while other BBO features get less free adverts. I think this suggests that it's a good idea to keep vugraph free. Accept that the vugraph itself loses money, but helps recruiting users that may buy robots, pay tournaments, books, software.
- Pay-per-day might be psychologically less of an obstacle to viewers than a pay-per-year scheme.

[paulg]

I know many people, from beginners to world-class players, who have never played a hand on BBO but are avid vugraph watchers.

They regard vugraph as part of the basic package.

p

[uday]

One of the many things that FG & UI agree upon is that we don't want to ever be charging for basic access to the site, nor for access to vugraph.

Yeah, the ideal situation would probably be that we have a source of revenue from ads during vugraph, one that is big enough to interest the organizer ( currently, online ads being what they are, there is an itsy bitsy amt of ad revenue but it isnt enough to interest anyone ).

I don't see this happening anytime soon. If someone has sponsorship ideas, I'm all ears.

We ( all of us ) have an interest in making Vugraph more and more accessible to anyone who might care. Something that Fred, Sheri and Uday have always believed in is that access & vugraph should be free. Good for the game. Good for BBO.

My closing thought for this post: we are not planning to change anything about the way Vugraph is priced. We're just chatting in this thread. I'm far more likely to grow a tail than be convinced that we should start charging people for access to vugraph.

U

[hrothgar]

From my own perspective, I differentiate between:

1. The raw Vugraph feed which shows a progression of bids and cards played over time
2. Commentary which is related to said facts

I would personally favor a system in which

1. The raw Vugraph feed is made available for free
2. Individuals (or groups) have the ability to create subscription based chat channels in which they provide commentary. Viewers should have the option to subscribe to whatever set of channels they feel best meets their unique requirements.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with some set of high skilled commentators setting up a fee based service. I suspect that I would probably even pay for such a service. (Mind you'd I'd pay even more to be able to mute some of the commentators we have currently)

Of course, all of this requires a real chat system.

[qwery_hi]

hrothgar, on Jul 3 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

From my own perspective, I differentiate between:

1. The raw Vugraph feed which shows a progression of bids and cards played over time
2. Commentary which is related to said facts

I would personally favor a system in which

1. The raw Vugraph feed is made available for free
2. Individuals (or groups) have the ability to create subscription based chat channels in which they provide commentary. Viewers should have the option to subscribe to whatever set of channels they feel best meets their unique requirements.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with some set of high skilled commentators setting up a fee based service. I suspect that I would probably even pay for such a service. (Mind you'd I'd pay even more to be able to mute some of the commentators we have currently)

Of course, all of this requires a real chat system.

The raw vugraph feed is property of the ACBL or the organization hosting the tournament.

[hrothgar]

qwery_hi, on Jul 5 2009, 10:34 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 3 2009, 08:08 AM, said:

From my own perspective, I differentiate between:

1. The raw Vugraph feed which shows a progression of bids and cards played over time
2. Commentary which is related to said facts

I would personally favor a system in which

1. The raw Vugraph feed is made available for free
2. Individuals (or groups) have the ability to create subscription based chat channels in which they provide commentary.  Viewers should have the option to subscribe to whatever set of channels they feel best meets their unique requirements.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with some set of high skilled commentators setting up a fee based service.  I suspect that I would probably even pay for such a service.  (Mind you'd I'd pay even more to be able to mute some of the commentators we have currently)

Of course, all of this requires a real chat system.

The raw vugraph feed is property of the ACBL or the organization hosting the tournament.

Tricky subject:

The ACBL / USBF are most definitely in a position to block anyone from transmitting any kind of VuGraph feed. However, I don't think that this is equivalent to property rights.

I know that certain sports organizations like Major League Baseball have attempted to claim copyright over factual information such as scores. In a similar vein, some folks in the world of chess have made an attempt to claim copyright over individual games. As I understand matters, the courts have rules that raw information about the game can not be copyrighted, however, the surrounding commentary can be.

Part of the reason that I like the dual feed implementation is that this is deliberately designed to be consistent with (my understanding) of copyright law.

[NickRW]

hrothgar, on Jul 5 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

Tricky subject:...

IANAL, but I think your understanding is correct and true for at least most countries.

Nick