Lessons Learned From the Olympics: How and Why the WNBA Should Webcast More Games

. Thursday, August 21, 2008
  • Agregar a Technorati
  • Agregar a Del.icio.us
  • Agregar a DiggIt!
  • Agregar a Yahoo!
  • Agregar a Google
  • Agregar a Meneame
  • Agregar a Furl
  • Agregar a Reddit
  • Agregar a Magnolia
  • Agregar a Blinklist
  • Agregar a Blogmarks

During my e-conversation about Darnellia Russell with Lakehead University’s sports information director Mike Aylward, we ended up having an extended discussion about the use of new media technologies to broadcast sporting events.

I was particularly interested in the use of the web for broadcasting WNBA games and Aylward was a great resource for that. Since no television networks will come to the small city of Thunder Bay, Ontario to broadcast games, Aylward set up a system for video and audio casting Lakehead games via the web. Although his effort to independently broadcast Lakehead University’s games is of a much smaller scale than that of the WNBA, I found his insight useful in framing the range of possibilities for web broadcasting.

I return to the subject now after reading an article about NBC’s web casting of the Olympics by Saul Hansell of the New York Times “Bits” blog. In that article, and a previous one from August 13, Hansell challenges the dominant perception that webcasting reduces television ratings and thus hurts advertising revenue by consulting executives from Major League Baseball and CBS, which webcast the men's NCAA tournament this year.

“We’ve learned that wherever you are, you watch on the biggest screen you can,” (Robert A. Bowman of Major League Baseball Advanced Media) said.

To be sure, CBS came to this conclusion slowly. In past years, the network Webcast the early games of the NCAA basketball tournament, but you had to tune into television to see the semifinals and final game.

This year’s Web simulcast of the final games “only added to revenues and therefore profit,” he said. A “low single digit” percentage of the total audience for those games was online, and consisted most likely of people who were not able to get to a television.

(Jason Kint of CBSsports.com) suggested that NBC would have done well to follow the same model, at least for the live events, with the Olympics.

“The way we program March Madness on Demand, making it available on any platform live, is the ideal way to handle it” he said.
To summarize, web casting is not only a means to make sports events more accessible, but it may also increase profit as people generate a buzz about the games they watch.

Furthermore, webcasting a live event that is not televised could also provide accessibility without threatening advertisers, affiliate stations, or cable systems – it only “fuels interest” by allowing people to discuss the “dramas of the day” more easily. From the August 13th article:
“We know without question people want to see the best viewing experience,” (Alan Wurtzel of NBC) said. “If you watched the Olympics in high definition on a big screen, you are not going to watch it online. So that is why there isn’t going to be a cannibalization.”
What this seems to mean for the WNBA is that they are currently under-utilizing the web for broadcast purposes, despite touting an impressive 90+ live webcasts for free this season. The problem seems similar to the dilemma NBC is struggling with regarding the Olympics – the WNBA only makes games available for webcast when they are also televised by a local network (not national networks, like ABC/ESPN).

It’s unclear whether the WNBA limits webcasting because it has given exclusive broadcasting rights to local/national networks. But if we believe Hansell’s article, it’s to the WNBA’s benefit to find a way to independently webcast games that are not televised. And that’s where Aylward’s insight is helpful.

Webcasting is not very difficult or costly

The first insight gained from Aylward -- and something that could probably be discerned just by watching events on the web -- is that webcasting is not that difficult to do. Webcasting does not require a television broadcast to work, although the WNBA’s current broadcast strategy may lead you to believe that.

Really, all you need to webcast a sporting event is a computer connected to the Internet and a camera, preferably equipped with a FireWire port. A very simple example of a webcasting system is available at Ustream.TV. Obviously, the quality of the webcast would depend on the quality of the camera and the Internet connection. I’m sure that a league like the WNBA could find a way to do this simply and cheaply.

In fact, Aylward suggested that WNBA teams could probably pull something like this off independently using a simple two camera system. It is my understanding that WNBA teams already hire interns to work for them and others looking for summer broadcasting experience would probably work for free. So why not put them to work doing something substantive?

A team would probably need to find 5 or 6 interns to set up and operate the cameras. They could assign 2-3 per camera, with one operating the computer, one operating the camera, and possibly a third who can serve as a runner to help troubleshoot any problems that occur during games. An extra 1 or 2 interns (or perhaps one of those monitoring the computer) could be responsible for doing the commentary.

For interns interested in broadcast journalism, it’s great experience. For fans, it’s increased accessibility to the game.

It’s definitely possible that these simplified broadcasts would not have the same television-level production with graphic overlays and such. But the key thing is that it makes more games available to fans thus making it easier for fans to build a connection with the league. The league doesn’t lose anything by broadcasting additional games.

Given the problems the league had simulcasting games earlier in the season, it’s likely that it would take some time to work out the bugs in this system. But there’s no reason not to try, especially for teams that don’t have good local broadcasting agreements.

To charge or not to charge

The next major concern is whether to charge in order to cover the expenses for these games. Part of that depends on the system they use to broadcast the games.

For a league as big as the WNBA, it would probably make sense to just use league servers and broadcast games through the league’s website, similar to what they do now. But Major League Soccer – a similar league in size and age – uses the organization that runs Major League Baseball’s web services to webcast their games. And there are many other services that provide sports leagues with webcasting services.

Aylward sent me a variety of sites that do everything from small events to small leagues to professional teams. A brief overview: Aylward uses News-Cast.com for Lakehead University and reports that while they are small, they provide good customer service.

B2TV provides season passes for a number of hockey leagues and collegiate programs, including USA Hockey and the US Hockey League. The one disadvantage that I notice about that service is that it appears to have technical limitations that the others don’t.

INSINC works with bigger leagues, including the Canadian Football League and Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment which owns the Maple Leafs, the Toronto Raptors, and the MLS’s Toronto FC. What I notice off the bat is that this service seems to have a more professional presentation than some of the others.

With more webcasting, why not add more interactivity?

Another feature of webcasting mentioned by INSINC that I haven’t seen elsewhere is the use of “enhanced interactive services” that allow fans to connect with one another as they watch games. The vision was described in a case study of Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment.
Leafs TV was able to demonstrate a market for enhanced interactive services, that included four additional camera angles, chat server and in game voting contests ($3.95/game) adding new revenue streams in the process.
This is a perfect example of how webcasting could in fact enhance rather than detract from the experience of watching games, especially for games that are not otherwise televised.

Enhancing the fan experience

I write this post partially out of frustration that I’m assuming other WNBA fans share – some of the most exciting moments thus far this season have gone completely un-broadcast because of the league’s current broadcast strategy. My goal here was only to find out if there are options…and from what I can tell not only are there options, but they’re feasible and smaller leagues are making it work.

Jason Kint of CBSsports.com, which webcast the entire NCAA mens basketball tournament this year (did they do women’s as well?), makes a point in reference to the Olympics tape delaying games, which I hope the WNBA has already paid attention to.
“What makes sports so special is the live moment and not knowing what would happen.”
The joy of watching sports is not just knowing the outcome, but watching people compete to determine the outcome as it unfolds.

I would have loved to be able to see Candace Parker’s first dunk live. Or her 40 point, 16 rebound, and 6 assist performance against the Comets on July 9th. Or the Dream’s overtime thriller against the Sun on June 27th that they almost won in regulation…or so it seemed from the radio feed.

The bottom line for the WNBA is that the fan experience would be much better if they broadcast more games and we live in an age in which that can be done cheaply and efficiently for all parties involved.

I certainly commend the league for providing us with 90+ free games, but it seems like an attainable goal to webcast every game independent of television contracts. If the problem is the cost of providing more than 90, then webcast 90 for free and then charge for the rest.

But it seems like the next step in the league’s growth is to make sure that the average fan can see all the games.

Related Links:

WNBA 2.0: Can Web 2.0 Tools Help the WNBA Build Its Fanbase?
http://rethinkbball.blogspot.com/2008/06/wnba-20-can-wnba-build-fan-base-with.html

Comments (15)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Part of the problem is that league owners and managers see attendance as a zero-sum game, clumping overall attendance and viewership into one group and splitting that group into pieces - walk in attendance, TV viewers, radio listeners, etc. When another form of media is development, all owners can see is the group being split up into further slices rather than growing in size. When radio was developed, baseball was slow to catch on - there was a fear that if fans could listen to radio, they would not attend games. On the contrary, having games available by radio merely whetted the whistles of potential fans that much more eager to see a game in person.

I'm sure that if the WNBA could broadcast by web (after, of course, some broadcast-based advertising was imbedde in the webcast), the whistles could be whetted (figurately speaking) for all of those fans unfortunate enough to live in a place whether the nearest WNBA team might be hundreds of miles away. I've written before that it's in the NBA's best interest to have the WNBA as a testing ground for new technological innovations. Live webcasting is an idea whose time has come.
1 reply · active 854 weeks ago
Good point about the NBA using the WNBA as a testing ground.

There was a great quote from the NY Times article regarding baseball too:

“People said if we don’t get baseball off of cable, it will be the death of the game,” Mr. Bowman said. Before that “there was a discussion that if we put games on TV at all, people wouldn’t go to the ballpark.”
I heartily agree with the points brought up in this blog. It baffles me that the WNBA isn't more innovative in the area. I wonder whether these decisions are totally up to the League, or whether some of the more forward-thinking individual owners could initiate something like this? On the one hand, I'm sure the W would want to control branding, and put everyone on the same system. On the other, would there necessarily be obstacles to teams taking the initiative? Would the League come down on them hard? Interesting blog, anyway. Donna, are you reading?
On a related topic, I can not understand why the WNBA blacks out all local games out of the local market and only shows them on NBATV. Many of us have the DirecTV Sportspak and similar services to get these games. One can understand that the WNBA doesn't want us to watch a game on one of the Fox Sports local channels if they are showing it on NBATV at the same time. However they even black out games NBATV does not show and rebroadcasts and MSG's Liberty in 60. Some people get out of market Fox sports channels but not NBATV. At this stage in its growth, isn't it to the WNBA's advantage to get as many people as possible to watch the league? That is one of their surest ways of picking up new fans.
Trust me - some of us at certain newer teams are pushing hard on this issue. We will do it next year whether the league does it or not. Easiest thing to do is to use the game film center court feed combined with the radio broadcast - voila, instant live TV that is far better than just listening online to the radio guy.....
2 replies · active 854 weeks ago
Thanks for the comments, Hoop1, tazdevil and norwester.

Hoop1 -- I'm wondering if you can provide us with any insight related to the issues tazdevil and norwester brought up: 1) what are the obstacles that prevent the WNBA from making more games available for fans? and 2) are there contractual obligations that limit the number of games the league can webcast?
Let me pip in here...

The WNBA PAYS TV to broadcast their games. The recent ESPN contract is the first that has television paying the WNBA. Local teams have to pay local stations to broadcast their games.

I seriously doubt anyone thought about webcast rights or limits when creating the new contracts.

Blackouts are part of the local broadcast contract. NBATv broadcasts a game only if it is being broadcast locally. They get the local feed.

You do not need interns or special crews to web cast the games as all games are recorded by local teams for a broad set of reasons. Just tap into the feed. Over lay it with the radio broadcast and you have instant webcast.

The obstacles are simple... changing the mind set of the marketing staff. Innovation is difficult when you think of your current job as one that is taking you away from your NBA job or your current job is just an audition for a real NBA job.
Kevin Pelton's avatar

Kevin Pelton · 854 weeks ago

With regards to out-of-market blackouts, I would imagine the biggest reason would be the WNBA doesn't want to set a precedent that these national rights are part of local deals for when and if the league becomes popular enough that there is a WNBA League Pass (again).

On webcasts, while I think it makes sense to do the sideline camera + radio broadcast combo, it's worth keeping in mind that quality is an issue too. For better or worse, that sort of thing is very no-frills, and there is an extra technological challenge. Look at all the complaints on RebKell about the existing implementation of local broadcast webcasts. So I don't think it's a no-brainer or obvious to do it.
1 reply · active 854 weeks ago
Thanks for the insight, Kevin.

It would be interesting to pilot a few different strategies and see responses from folks on Rebkell.

The optimist in me has a difficult time believing that dedicated fans would prefer not to see a game than to see a no-frills broadcast online.
Kevin Pelton's avatar

Kevin Pelton · 854 weeks ago

Never underestimate the diehards' ability to complain. :)
Not sure if you saw the Sports Biz Journal article on NBA working on webcasting (geocoded to allow local watchers only) for all NBA games this season. I really do think our push on this helped, along with the Olympics. It is messier for NBA due to some teams having online rights in their tv rights deals, but for WNBA I doubt anyone has the issue except maybe a few co-owned teams who might have just rolled over their NBA deal with the same regional network. There really are no contractual issues in the way outside of ESPN/ABC games of course that might be exempted. Remember the NBA already does this for the D-League so this is something they have limited experience with using an outside vendor already....
Rebkell complaints have been more about the inability to get the feeds to work well more than the quality of the actual broadcast (right now they are simply webcasting local TV broadcasts as if you watched on TV). This will be an issue whether presenting an Emmy worthy feed or a really bad feed! I have seen the halfcourt camera only mixed with radio feed (a few teams do this for their game films) and it really does work well. Sure it is not a professional broadcast with instant replays, but it is not that different than what you watched for Olympic hoops except for that they did not even have a "radio feed" of any kind....now they did have some replays, but again the majority of it was simply the halfcourt view.

Like I said, we are going to get this done one way or the other because I believe it will help boost interest in our team and encourage grassroots fan support (and encourage our hardcore fans by helping them follow us on the road - at home they will likely be in the stands anyway).
Well these types of things are common to be happening when you are playing on the professional. All I want to say that we should be giving a chance to every player that want to prove him.

Post a new comment

Comments by