Hate, hate, hate the generic sites used by other clubs, and would happily pay a couple of quid a month to subscribe to an independent site (excluding the video, commentary etc, which would be more expensive). I like Ken's idea of making the programmes available as PDFs a day or so after the game, but obviously it'd need to be restricted to subscribers else the club would be worried about programme sales dropping off.
Rick, how much flexibility do we have in terms of the highlights that the website shows? I don't currently subscribe to the Player content, but would do if it was possible to tailor the highlights to what we as fans want to see. I mean how many times have we come out of games saying "Was that really a handball? I'm sure so and so was offside. I'd really like to see that again in the highlights", but then all we get are the goals. I appreciate that we wouldn't get the commentary, but I think giving subscribers the option to suggest what snippets of action they would like to see would provide added incentive to pay up as it's stuff we wouldn't see on the tv.
Have the techies identified what the issue is with Macs being unable to access the highlights? If you're redesigning the site it'd make sense to ensure the widest section of the fanbase possible can access the content you want them to pay for, or else you're cutting off potential revenue.
[cite]Posted By: RedZed333[/cite]
I would say that 99% of the content on it could be found on many hundreds of other websites for free and a lot of stories break long before they appear on the OS anyway...
A lot of content might be available on other sites, but isn't that perhaps because they've lifted it from the official site in the first place...?
Personally I think the Comms team do a decent job with the site, with what now will be old technology and the odd 'lassoo error' excepted.
From what I've seen, the content and quality of writing is a lot better than on the generic sites.
I signed up for the trial of the Player when it launched, which for some reason was then cancelled and I didn't renew it.
Haven't signed up again since, but will consider it for next season given how much harder it is getting to pick up away commentaries elsewhere.
[cite]Posted By: LoOkOuT[/cite]If you are referring to last seasons Player, then the highlights were Mac compatible (they weren't in years previous)
Yep. Not being a Mac user I wasn't sure whether it was still an issue, and some people may have given up due to the previous problems and not realised they'd been resolved.
[cite]Posted By: aliwibble[/cite]Rick, how much flexibility do we have in terms of the highlights that the website shows? I don't currently subscribe to the Player content, but would do if it was possible to tailor the highlights to what we as fans want to see. I mean how many times have we come out of games saying "Was that really a handball? I'm sure so and so was offside. I'd really like to see that again in the highlights", but then all we get are the goals. I appreciate that we wouldn't get the commentary, but I think giving subscribers the option to suggest what snippets of action they would like to see would provide added incentive to pay up as it's stuff we wouldn't see on the tv.
The basic highlights packages are produced by FLi. This is good in that we don't have the Sunday resources to get them up and running when the hold-back expires, but bad because they are being edited by people who don't necessarily understand the pictures. They won't, for example, necessarily know whether it has been a good or bad game or what the key incldents were that didn't end in goal. The size of the FLi operation means they are less sensitive to local circumstances.
The extended highlights that often appear later rely on our communications team getting access to a version of the pictures and producing a more extensive version based on that knowledge, although availability of away games for this purpose is a bit hit and miss.
[quote][cite]Posted By: ChicagoAddick[/cite]Can I also say that the new Bulletin service is rubbish. I understand the need to drive revenue but the look and information contained in it is very poor.
This has actually made me revert to checking the OS more than I used to when we had the daily text bulletin.[/quote]
I agree with this comment. I suppose the links are useful but the format is very poor and hard to read. More often than not I bin it before reading
I live in Australia and would pay 5GBP a month. I think its important to stay unique rather than generic, but obviously unique comes at a cost. As Tel said elsewhere, there are a lot of overseas supporters who rely on it for highlights and content.
Rick why not set up a 'table' and get a list of people who would subscribe and see whether its viable. If you do this you probably need to discount it by about 20%, similar to charity telethons where people who pledge don't always front up with the loot.
The Football league websites are absolutely awful, the same dreary sameness wherever you look. I think that the Charlton website is fantastic compared to them tbh, it may not be perfect but it is better than them that's for sure. I use the OS quite often but not nearly as often as Charlton Life. In order to stump up any kind of cash I would want a decent service (decent commentary and more besides) and tbh the Catv offering is not worth it.
I have subscribed for sometime and will continue to do so as I regularly listen to away commentary and like to see the highlights. I also regularly visit the os often nore than once a day.
It would be great to keep a free independent website, and the club should look at how it could generate income, but how can you justify keeping expensive independence when the club is having to make employees redundant, if 1 persons job can be saved when times are as hard as they appear to be then it would be an appropriate sacrifice.
Airman Brown, it seem that many subscribers to the CAFCtv on here aren't very happy with the service, are we just a bunch of moaning gits or do our opinions reflect the majority of subscribers...?
Does anyone know how people actually subscribe to it...?
Has there ever been a survey carried out to find out fans opinions...?
Are there any plans to find out what the fans think...?
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]
We are not going to "lose" £50k and sacrifice jobs - we are trying to put together an alternative model that preserves our identity. If that's not possible then at least we tried.
Airman says "We are not going to "lose" £50k and sacrifice jobs....."....... which I assume means we just wouldn't get the £50k a year income that a FLi generic site would bring in?
£50k a year is a handy sum, but I guess over the course of a season hardly touches the sides of general club expenditure.
There is a recession, so many companies are being careful over their advertising costs - but if a way could be found to also introduce some advertising/secondary sponsorship with the OS as an independent, that might go someway towards covering website costs and indeed make a small profit.
Is their a possibilty that supporters could have an option to sponsor individual pages of the OS - or even as a group., like a Valley Gold?
Would Charlton Life members/businesses be interested individually - or even CL itself, in the same way we sponsored Jonjo's shirt, for example?
The FLi generic sites are dreadful - and as Airman has already said, are driven by purely advertising revenue income, with actual club football content coming in as a poor second. We can click on the other club sites,and see for ourselves.
The other point is that any contract with FLi ties us in to 2017. That's 6 seasons with no proper control over our own official site.
Currently, my Dad subscribes to CAFCPlayer and I piggy back on his account to listen to match commentaries. I would happily subscribe myself in order to maintain the OS's independance but have to admit, at current I only usually listen to commentaries. I'd be more interested in other content (and more likely to subscribe) if:
1) the sound quality of interviews was improved - sometimes it's very difficult to hear what the interviewee is saying - particularly when Parky is mumbling his way through a press conference.
2) the highlights were proper extended highlights i.e. 10 or 15mins+; at current, my experience is, you get little more than you do for free on the BBC.
3) if the club could put out a Sunday evening phone in show that could then be 'listened again' too or even better downloaded as a podcast, so I could listen in the car or at work, that would be very good imo.
4) Perhaps there could be a weekly 'player profile' with inteviews and a bit of background to one of our players - both senior and youth and some behind the scenes stuff like a day following the Physio, Richard Murray, Phil Chapple on a scouting mission, the stadium manager on a match day. Perhaps a weekly interview with the club captain as well and maybe a monthly question and answers session with Parky where fans can email questions in and Matt Wright or whoever can put some of the best one's to Parky.
5) It would also be great if Charlton were able to source and supply their own commentary of the matches rather than rely on some of the sub-standard stuff the BBC have be known supply, although I accept this may not be that easy to achieve.
6) Maybe Tim Breaker or someone could do a regular blog?
I realise there will be additional costs attached to these, particularly filming and editting video footage and some if it might detract from other 'for sale content' like matchday programmes but I'm really just throwing some ideas out there - I'll let Airman and co run with them if they like any of them. Personally I'd be willing to pay more than £5 p/m if I thought I was getting a real service for my money. At current the CAFCPlayer can feel a bit like a mottly collection of bits and bobs that were found lying about the office and bunged up to fill some space, rather than something that has really been thought through - altough I don't doubt a lot of work goes into it.
Maybe the club could charge £10 a month but offer a reduction to Season Ticket Holders and Valley Gold members?
Thanks to everyone for the feedback, which has been very useful. My reading of it is that people on Charlton Life value the OS less than we perhaps assumed - but this community may not be typical - and that partly because of that they would generally accept a switch to FLi on financial grounds in the club's current circumstances. There is no signifcant appetite for paying more than the existing Charlton Player service in order to preserve the current arrangements.
Comments about the current content of Player and the design of the OS at present are of interest but don't really relate to the issue at hand, since we would update design of the OS either way, the commentary arrangements are not affected and the basic match highlights are outside our control. We would look to improve the other content under either arrangement.
It's not my decision where we go next. I would always opt for independence, and I think that whether or not the fans care about the website the club should. I suspect that in most cases the FLi club sites have been written off for their proper purpose and are just seen as cash machines, which is disappointing if understandable. It reflects a particular view of the relationship between clubs and fans that I don't very much like.
Having said that, if the choice was between £50k or nothing then it would be no decision. In fact, it's between £50k and what we can earn by adopting a different model. I'd still like to think we could get close enough to make that a difficult decision.
One option we haven't explored is a regular video or audio podcast in the old Clubcall format, but with a flat rate cost of say 50p. Instead of a subscription you'd pay if and when you wanted it. Of course we would prefer to offer that free, but under FLi we may not be allowed to do that and outside FLi we need to raise the cash. It would then be up to us to make the content attractive enough to get people to buy it.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]Thanks to everyone for the feedback, which has been very useful. My reading of it is that people on Charlton Life value the OS less than we perhaps assumed - but this community may not be typical - and that partly because of that they would generally accept a switch to FLi on financial grounds in the club's current circumstances. There is no signifcant appetite for paying more than the existing Charlton Player service in order to preserve the current arrangements.
Comments about the current content of Player and the design of the OS at present are of interest but don't really relate to the issue at hand, since we would update design of the OS either way, the commentary arrangements are not affected and the basic match highlights are outside our control. We would look to improve the other content under either arrangement.
It's not my decision where we go next. I would always opt for independence, and I think that whether or not the fans care about the website the club should. I suspect that in most cases the FLi club sites have been written off for their proper purpose and are just seen as cash machines, which is disappointing if understandable. It reflects a particular view of the relationship between clubs and fans that I don't very much like.
Having said that, if the choice was between £50k or nothing then it would be no decision. In fact, it's between £50k and what we can earn by adopting a different model. I'd still like to think we could get close enough to make that a difficult decision.
One option we haven't explored is a regular video or audio podcast in the old Clubcall format, but with a flat rate cost of say 50p. Instead of a subscription you'd pay if and when you wanted it. Of course we would prefer to offer that free, but under FLi we may not be allowed to do that and outside FLi we need to raise the cash. It would then be up to us to make the content attractive enough to get people to buy it.
I think we're being realistic on here - I don't detect any big thumbs-up for a move to the FLi model, but we realise there are hard choices to be made and the website in that context is probably not the priority.
I like the idea of a non-subscription option, allowing us to pay only for the things we wish to watch - I may have used that last season had it been available.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]Thanks to everyone for the feedback, which has been very useful. My reading of it is that people on Charlton Life value the OS less than we perhaps assumed - but this community may not be typical - and that partly because of that they would generally accept a switch to FLi on financial grounds in the club's current circumstances. There is no signifcant appetite for paying more than the existing Charlton Player service in order to preserve the current arrangements.
Comments about the current content of Player and the design of the OS at present are of interest but don't really relate to the issue at hand, since we would update design of the OS either way, the commentary arrangements are not affected and the basic match highlights are outside our control. We would look to improve the other content under either arrangement.
It's not my decision where we go next. I would always opt for independence, and I think that whether or not the fans care about the website the club should. I suspect that in most cases the FLi club sites have been written off for their proper purpose and are just seen as cash machines, which is disappointing if understandable. It reflects a particular view of the relationship between clubs and fans that I don't very much like.
Having said that, if the choice was between £50k or nothing then it would be no decision. In fact, it's between £50k and what we can earn by adopting a different model. I'd still like to think we could get close enough to make that a difficult decision.
One option we haven't explored is a regular video or audio podcast in the old Clubcall format, but with a flat rate cost of say 50p. Instead of a subscription you'd pay if and when you wanted it. Of course we would prefer to offer that free, but under FLi we may not be allowed to do that and outside FLi we need to raise the cash. It would then be up to us to make the content attractive enough to get people to buy it.[/quote]
I suspect this wont be a popular opinion but when I read this I was overwhelmed by a sense of "You lot didn't give me the feedback I wanted to hear and therefore it will be disregarded".
In any case on the beauties of Charlton Life is that other people, including at the club, can read it so it's not as if Airman can hide it away and pretend it never happened even if he wanted to.
I subscribe to the Player to listen to the commentaries and log on to the OS for ticket info. I am willing to pay a subscription for commentaries and whilst I would like the OS to stay independent I could not condone it's independence if the price is staff redundancies, if that is the case then I would put up with the FL version knowing that it has saved jobs.
Here on CL, we've got a decent little community and quickly post news and info, etc
But we're by no means the entire Charlton support base - and may not even be totally representative of it.
Many on here say they don't really visit the OS, and certainly not on a regular basis - but Airman says that the number of unique vistors and total hits is more or less similar to Prem days, more than 3 years ago.
So the OS appears to be still valued by most supporters.
I say, go with the extra £50k a year and surrender independence.
I use the PA for my facts and don't wait for the OS to brief me a sanitised version.
I would not pay for commentaries or highlights - would rather phone a pal at the game every 10 minutes and wait for the BBC highlights if I couldn't make a game.
If we can save 2 decent employess with this 50 grand it will make a difference to the overall service we receive from the club in some fashion.
We aren't going back to the big-time before 2017 - I think we can all see it will take 2 or 3 years to get out of L1 and then another 5 or 6 to get in/near the PL.
So it's bread and butter today, rather than wait for jam tomorrow.
I have no problem with paying a subscription for the OS but if it turns out half as bad as charlton player( which is scandalously bad) i would not bother.
For me the OS has always been something that the club should be proud of. Even when we were in the Premier League it was one of the best sites there, and it is without a doubt the best in the Football League. Whoever came up with the idea for a unified web service for professional teams in England deserves to be shot. They are monotonous and boring (and - as a web designed I feel I can say this - look sh!t).
Personally I don't think we should just throw it away.
Having just checked my Credit Card statements I now realise that I am paying twice for CAFC player. I have a monthly subscription and an annual one. Am I allowed two opinions? Keep the OS independent BUT improve CAFC player so that 1. the commentaries are always streamed from the beginning of the match. 2. they are of a professional quality. 3. In house video content is properly miked up. Too often we get mumbled answers from Parky to questions we haven't heard at all. 4. Better, longer video highlights of matches. I also like the podcast idea. I would be willing to pay, but probably not twice!
The generic sites are without doubt absolute shite and our current OS is a million miles ahead of them as a resource for fans, regardless of how dated it is.
My initial reaction was to complain bitterly but in reality my visits to the os are very limited, the only part of it I visit reguarly is the post match parky audio interview. Other than that I only really visit it for transfer confirmations and ticket news.
As a london based fan I either go to the games, listen on local radio, catch up with them here or make do without so am unlikely to subscribe to anything.
If the site does go down the monopoly route i'd be disapointed but in reality I'm never likey to contribute anything other than the odd unique visit stat to the site and if the additional revenue allows us to pay someones wage for a year I'd have no complaints
Comments
Rick, how much flexibility do we have in terms of the highlights that the website shows? I don't currently subscribe to the Player content, but would do if it was possible to tailor the highlights to what we as fans want to see. I mean how many times have we come out of games saying "Was that really a handball? I'm sure so and so was offside. I'd really like to see that again in the highlights", but then all we get are the goals. I appreciate that we wouldn't get the commentary, but I think giving subscribers the option to suggest what snippets of action they would like to see would provide added incentive to pay up as it's stuff we wouldn't see on the tv.
Have the techies identified what the issue is with Macs being unable to access the highlights? If you're redesigning the site it'd make sense to ensure the widest section of the fanbase possible can access the content you want them to pay for, or else you're cutting off potential revenue.
A lot of content might be available on other sites, but isn't that perhaps because they've lifted it from the official site in the first place...?
Personally I think the Comms team do a decent job with the site, with what now will be old technology and the odd 'lassoo error' excepted.
From what I've seen, the content and quality of writing is a lot better than on the generic sites.
I signed up for the trial of the Player when it launched, which for some reason was then cancelled and I didn't renew it.
Haven't signed up again since, but will consider it for next season given how much harder it is getting to pick up away commentaries elsewhere.
The basic highlights packages are produced by FLi. This is good in that we don't have the Sunday resources to get them up and running when the hold-back expires, but bad because they are being edited by people who don't necessarily understand the pictures. They won't, for example, necessarily know whether it has been a good or bad game or what the key incldents were that didn't end in goal. The size of the FLi operation means they are less sensitive to local circumstances.
The extended highlights that often appear later rely on our communications team getting access to a version of the pictures and producing a more extensive version based on that knowledge, although availability of away games for this purpose is a bit hit and miss.
Agree with the above. Money is key.
Everything else, what Chicago Addick said.
Good luck in making the right call, Rick, it's a tricky one.
This has actually made me revert to checking the OS more than I used to when we had the daily text bulletin.[/quote]
I agree with this comment. I suppose the links are useful but the format is very poor and hard to read. More often than not I bin it before reading
Rick why not set up a 'table' and get a list of people who would subscribe and see whether its viable. If you do this you probably need to discount it by about 20%, similar to charity telethons where people who pledge don't always front up with the loot.
It would be great to keep a free independent website, and the club should look at how it could generate income, but how can you justify keeping expensive independence when the club is having to make employees redundant, if 1 persons job can be saved when times are as hard as they appear to be then it would be an appropriate sacrifice.
Does anyone know how people actually subscribe to it...?
Has there ever been a survey carried out to find out fans opinions...?
Are there any plans to find out what the fans think...?
Airman says "We are not going to "lose" £50k and sacrifice jobs....."....... which I assume means we just wouldn't get the £50k a year income that a FLi generic site would bring in?
£50k a year is a handy sum, but I guess over the course of a season hardly touches the sides of general club expenditure.
There is a recession, so many companies are being careful over their advertising costs - but if a way could be found to also introduce some advertising/secondary sponsorship with the OS as an independent, that might go someway towards covering website costs and indeed make a small profit.
Is their a possibilty that supporters could have an option to sponsor individual pages of the OS - or even as a group., like a Valley Gold?
Would Charlton Life members/businesses be interested individually - or even CL itself, in the same way we sponsored Jonjo's shirt, for example?
The FLi generic sites are dreadful - and as Airman has already said, are driven by purely advertising revenue income, with actual club football content coming in as a poor second. We can click on the other club sites,and see for ourselves.
The other point is that any contract with FLi ties us in to 2017.
That's 6 seasons with no proper control over our own official site.
That's just too long!
1) the sound quality of interviews was improved - sometimes it's very difficult to hear what the interviewee is saying - particularly when Parky is mumbling his way through a press conference.
2) the highlights were proper extended highlights i.e. 10 or 15mins+; at current, my experience is, you get little more than you do for free on the BBC.
3) if the club could put out a Sunday evening phone in show that could then be 'listened again' too or even better downloaded as a podcast, so I could listen in the car or at work, that would be very good imo.
4) Perhaps there could be a weekly 'player profile' with inteviews and a bit of background to one of our players - both senior and youth and some behind the scenes stuff like a day following the Physio, Richard Murray, Phil Chapple on a scouting mission, the stadium manager on a match day. Perhaps a weekly interview with the club captain as well and maybe a monthly question and answers session with Parky where fans can email questions in and Matt Wright or whoever can put some of the best one's to Parky.
5) It would also be great if Charlton were able to source and supply their own commentary of the matches rather than rely on some of the sub-standard stuff the BBC have be known supply, although I accept this may not be that easy to achieve.
6) Maybe Tim Breaker or someone could do a regular blog?
I realise there will be additional costs attached to these, particularly filming and editting video footage and some if it might detract from other 'for sale content' like matchday programmes but I'm really just throwing some ideas out there - I'll let Airman and co run with them if they like any of them. Personally I'd be willing to pay more than £5 p/m if I thought I was getting a real service for my money. At current the CAFCPlayer can feel a bit like a mottly collection of bits and bobs that were found lying about the office and bunged up to fill some space, rather than something that has really been thought through - altough I don't doubt a lot of work goes into it.
Maybe the club could charge £10 a month but offer a reduction to Season Ticket Holders and Valley Gold members?
Matt was in the loo.
;o)
Comments about the current content of Player and the design of the OS at present are of interest but don't really relate to the issue at hand, since we would update design of the OS either way, the commentary arrangements are not affected and the basic match highlights are outside our control. We would look to improve the other content under either arrangement.
It's not my decision where we go next. I would always opt for independence, and I think that whether or not the fans care about the website the club should. I suspect that in most cases the FLi club sites have been written off for their proper purpose and are just seen as cash machines, which is disappointing if understandable. It reflects a particular view of the relationship between clubs and fans that I don't very much like.
Having said that, if the choice was between £50k or nothing then it would be no decision. In fact, it's between £50k and what we can earn by adopting a different model. I'd still like to think we could get close enough to make that a difficult decision.
One option we haven't explored is a regular video or audio podcast in the old Clubcall format, but with a flat rate cost of say 50p. Instead of a subscription you'd pay if and when you wanted it. Of course we would prefer to offer that free, but under FLi we may not be allowed to do that and outside FLi we need to raise the cash. It would then be up to us to make the content attractive enough to get people to buy it.
I think we're being realistic on here - I don't detect any big thumbs-up for a move to the FLi model, but we realise there are hard choices to be made and the website in that context is probably not the priority.
I like the idea of a non-subscription option, allowing us to pay only for the things we wish to watch - I may have used that last season had it been available.
Comments about the current content of Player and the design of the OS at present are of interest but don't really relate to the issue at hand, since we would update design of the OS either way, the commentary arrangements are not affected and the basic match highlights are outside our control. We would look to improve the other content under either arrangement.
It's not my decision where we go next. I would always opt for independence, and I think that whether or not the fans care about the website the club should. I suspect that in most cases the FLi club sites have been written off for their proper purpose and are just seen as cash machines, which is disappointing if understandable. It reflects a particular view of the relationship between clubs and fans that I don't very much like.
Having said that, if the choice was between £50k or nothing then it would be no decision. In fact, it's between £50k and what we can earn by adopting a different model. I'd still like to think we could get close enough to make that a difficult decision.
One option we haven't explored is a regular video or audio podcast in the old Clubcall format, but with a flat rate cost of say 50p. Instead of a subscription you'd pay if and when you wanted it. Of course we would prefer to offer that free, but under FLi we may not be allowed to do that and outside FLi we need to raise the cash. It would then be up to us to make the content attractive enough to get people to buy it.[/quote]
I suspect this wont be a popular opinion but when I read this I was overwhelmed by a sense of "You lot didn't give me the feedback I wanted to hear and therefore it will be disregarded".
In any case on the beauties of Charlton Life is that other people, including at the club, can read it so it's not as if Airman can hide it away and pretend it never happened even if he wanted to.
But we're by no means the entire Charlton support base - and may not even be totally representative of it.
Many on here say they don't really visit the OS, and certainly not on a regular basis - but Airman says that the number of unique vistors and total hits is more or less similar to Prem days, more than 3 years ago.
So the OS appears to be still valued by most supporters.
I use the PA for my facts and don't wait for the OS to brief me a sanitised version.
I would not pay for commentaries or highlights - would rather phone a pal at the game every 10 minutes and wait for the BBC highlights if I couldn't make a game.
If we can save 2 decent employess with this 50 grand it will make a difference to the overall service we receive from the club in some fashion.
We aren't going back to the big-time before 2017 - I think we can all see it will take 2 or 3 years to get out of L1 and then another 5 or 6 to get in/near the PL.
So it's bread and butter today, rather than wait for jam tomorrow.
Personally I don't think we should just throw it away.
Their concept was to have a generic advertising site....... obviously to attract high paying advertisers.
That brings in maximum revenue.
Any football content is apparently deemed secondary - just enough to get hits from enough fans to attract those high paying advertisers.
It's a sell out.
If our indepedent OS is lost, then know that our club website will be just another commercial internet advertising site.
Until 2017.
My initial reaction was to complain bitterly but in reality my visits to the os are very limited, the only part of it I visit reguarly is the post match parky audio interview. Other than that I only really visit it for transfer confirmations and ticket news.
As a london based fan I either go to the games, listen on local radio, catch up with them here or make do without so am unlikely to subscribe to anything.
If the site does go down the monopoly route i'd be disapointed but in reality I'm never likey to contribute anything other than the odd unique visit stat to the site and if the additional revenue allows us to pay someones wage for a year I'd have no complaints