further reply from player (very fast) (6:40am UK time)
> Hi Siv, > > Thank you for your email. > > Could you please describe the issue you are experiencing, so that we can assist you further. > > Best regards > Vijeena > Customer Services
---------------------------------
not really sure what to say..... I thought I was pretty clear about the issue
I went with this:
---------------------------------
Hi Vijeena,
I and other subscribers would like to provide regular feedback to the player service on the quality of commentary we receive when listening to the games of Charlton Athletic FC.
The segment describing our goal broadcast by Charlton Live yesterday was surely snipped from the real time commentary wasn't it? It certainly sounded it to me. Is there a suggestion that there may have been a second take after the match to get it right?
Can I ask why it is that a CAFC employee should deal with this, rather than a perform group employee?
An answer to this question will perhaps better help me understand the service that I am paying for and who is responsible for which aspects of the service.
My name is Siv. I am writing about the CAFC player service. I was directed to write to you by a customer services employee with the perform group. I wrote to perform asking who I (and other subscribers of the service) could write to with regular feedback on the commentary provided by the CAFC player.
The reason I did this was due to the frequent comments made on various threads on Charlton Life. I am aware that you are also a member of that forum. The most recent thread has been this one: http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/51278/cafc-player-poor-quality-of-commentary#latest I'm not sure if you have seen it, but many people have voiced their frustrations with various aspects of the service. The most frequent of these complaints seems to be commentator(s) straying from a description of the on the field action. The thread also contains some positive feedback on the efforts of Peter Finch, in particular, to try to keep the commentary focused.
The main point that I have been thinking about is as to who feedback (both positive and negative) on the commentary could be sent. I wonder if a system of regular, sustained, systematic feedback could be set up whereby consumers of the service may be able to influence those providing it. I feel this could only benefit both the consumers and the provider due to happy punters and increased descriptions.
I wonder if you can give me some advice on this. Are you really the right person for me/us to be addressing this issue with?
I should point out that I am delighted to be able to receive this service as an overseas addick. As a kid growing up on the south coast of England my Charlton news was mostly restricted to Sunday morning match reports and a monthly Voice of the Valley. I am aware of the big picture we are talking about.
Good work Siv. I have complained to the Beeb that my original complaint did not get a response. I've received the standard yawn yawn automated response. 'Your views are important to us............................ please continue to fill in pointless complaint forms and we will endeavour to continue to ignore you', or something like that anyway.
Thanks for the message Siv. I have read the thread you mention and I hope the following helps to explain matters.
First, some background. The CAFC Player service is run by Football League interactive (FLi) on behalf of the club.
FLi sub-contracts Perform to deal with all the technical (the functionality of the system etc) and financial (collecting payments/dealing with customers) issues, while the club is responsible for providing the content (the video/audio articles etc). The Press Association provides the stats for both the O/S and CAFC Player, in case that’s of interest.
The only main exception to the above is the audio commentaries of league and cup games, for which we use our official radio partner, BBC LONDON.
As part of our deal with BBC LONDON (and by association, BBC Kent), which is worth a significant sum of money to the club, the club gets commentaries of games broadcast on BBC LONDON and BBC Kent’s array of frequencies/stations (FM/MW/satellite/digital etc).
BBC LONDON therefore sends its trained commentators and pundits around the country to cover the club for whatever frequency/station that is broadcasting the game. Who is sent will depend on the nature or importance of the game, what other games involving London clubs are taking place at the same time, and other lesser factors such as the location of the game.
For example, if we’re at home and the only match involving a London game on a midweek night, Phil Parry will probably present the sports show from The Valley on their main 94.9 FM frequency and we’ll have two commentators and a pundit, such as Steve Brown or Bradley Allen. If we’re away in the North West on a midweek night when Chelsea and Arsenal are both in Champions League action, we’ll simply get allocated a commentator and, maybe, a pundit, and the commentary could only be available on digital radio, or just on CAFC Player. Obviously, more often than not we fall somewhere in the middle of those examples, but as a Championship club, the former is fairly rare.
Over the past few years, it became clear that some fans were, understandably, dissatisfied with the commentary that they were hearing largely because it didn’t have enough ‘Charlton bias’.
At this juncture, although not directly connected to commentary issues, it’s worth noting that during the same timeframe, the club was approached by fans behind the Charlton Live radio show who were looking for some way to broadcast their show. We ultimately joined forces to broadcast that show on CAFC Player, with the kind help of BBC LONDON, who loaned us a key piece of (expensive) equipment.
As things progressed, given our desire to introduce more ‘Charlton bias’, we spoke to BBC LONDON and then approached Pete Finch to see if he would be happy to accompany their assigned commentator in a bid to provide this greater Charlton bias and knowledge, because Peter watches almost every home and away game.
Both the club and BBC LONDON are content with this arrangement.
As many people have pointed out on the latest message thread, and previous ones, views on commentary are subjective. Some people want blow by blow accounts, others want occasional colour – in my opinion, the best do both and report the action when something is happening and provide entertainment/opinion/views when it isn’t.
The club could buy the required equipment and employ its own commentary team to travel up and down the country, but this would be at significant cost, so I have to consider whether any potential improvement would be worth the extra expense.
At present, therefore, we piggyback on the coverage provided by BBC LONDON, and, while we do our utmost to make it the best coverage possible both by liaising closely with the station and providing our own pundit on the majority of occasions, the slight downside is that we have to appreciate that BBC LONDON are fulfilling their own remit to provide commentary for whatever station upon which they are broadcasting, which includes mentioning other London scores and might mean brief diversions from the Charlton action.
This dichotomy may not be ideal, but we’re operating the best solution that we’ve found working within the resources available.
I should add that the vast majority of clubs at our level operate exactly the same links with their local BBC station, the only difference being that as a station based in the capital, BBC LONDON obviously has more clubs to cover.
We’re always keen to hear feedback about all of the club’s services, and of course we want to provide the best possible service not only for existing subscribers but to attract new subscribers. Every summer, we consider our plans for the following season and weigh up the pros and cons, and thus far, this is the most effective solution we have found.
Finally, I would like to add that I listen to the commentary on CAFC Player and opposition Player sites on a regular basis (mainly because it’s my job to urgently get the commentary working again when there are problems!), and, speaking merely as a Charlton supporter, it’s very rare that I believe that opposition commentators are doing a better job.
Of course, that’s only my opinion, but as everyone else has given theirs, I thought I was entitled...
I hope the above helps to explain matters.
Kind regards, Matt Wright CAFC head of communications
Given that the 'home' commentary is usually an option for our away games, it does make the subscription to Player viable, even if only on a least-worst basis. I was travelling during the Burnley match, so 'followed' it on Twitter, which was adequate if somewhat nail-biting (particularly around the missed pen!)
A detailed response from Matt for which many thanks. So basically it's an on the cheap service which doesn't even have to pay Peter Finch his expenses and he along with us subscribers can like it or lump it. I agree with Hartleypete and unfortunately think that we will also have to cancel. If the club is responsive only to sales figures then it doesn't leave us with other options. Bah humbug 'n' all that.
To be honest - what made me think about cancelling was some technical issues I experienced at the start of the season. Even if the commentary could be better - I think it is worth the money to me overall.
Thanks to Matt for the detailed explanation. Matt said "the best do both and report the action when something is happening and provide entertainment/opinion/views when it isn’t." I don't think there would be too many complaints if this was actually the case when Jamie Reid commentates. Unfortunately he carries on with the entertainment/opinion/views whilst action is occurring on the pitch and we are missing important elements of the game. Missing vital action should be a cardinal sin for a match commentator, a bit like a camera man on TV missing a goal. In other words he is failing to fulfill his professional obligation and he should be made aware of that fact either by CAFC or his superior at the BBC.
I think that is a very detailed reply from Matt and I thank him for it. There are one or two issues that arise out of it though. It seems to me that club could probably provide commentaries independently, to quote Matt:
'The club could buy the required equipment and employ its own commentary team to travel up and down the country, but this would be at significant cost, so I have to consider whether any potential improvement would be worth the extra expense.'
It comes down to the money, which is fair enought possibly. From what I can gather we get some kind of money from the BBC as broadcast rights. To quote Matt:
'As part of our deal with BBC LONDON (and by association, BBC Kent), which is worth a significant sum of money to the club, the club gets commentaries of games broadcast on BBC LONDON and BBC Kent’s array of frequencies/stations (FM/MW/satellite/digital etc).'
We also get the money from individuals direct subscriptions to player, which I think we'd all agree are driven by the desire to get commentary.
So two lots of money coming in. If we went it alone then we would lose the BBC London dosh, and have to spend money on equipment and expenses/fees to those like Peter Finch who are at present out of pocket providing the service.
So to go it alone would mean a reduced income for the club in the short term (maybe an increased income in the long term as the commentaries become a good selling point), plus more costs, or a decision to increase the subscription to compensate for those costs and losing the BBC.
Of course there may be a blanket contract regarding wireless broadcasting rights of league football in general which complicates matters.
So the club make the call, probably not because it is concerned with the quality of the service, but more with maximising income. We are left with the service we're obliged to take, or we don't subscribe.
Or we pay more, and the club improve the player service.
I wonder what the figures are. How much do we get from BBC London, and how much an in house service would cost to set up and run?
What if the difference was £100,000 (which I think is very much a high guess), and we had 20,000 player subscribers (which is a very high guess!). Then we would have to pay an extra £5 per year each for a decent service.
Personally I would pay that to be free of Emma, Phil Parry, Jamie Reed and company, but my figures may be wrong, and others think the present price is high enough.
Seems the camp could be split between those who occasionally use Player for commentaries but still get to see us live more often than not & therefore the issue of shoddy commentary is pretty minor & those like me who rely on the commentary every week, week in week out & become acquainted & frustrated with it's failings.
To be honest I only use Player for commentaries, the match footage is so poor that it's pretty much unwatchable & the news/interviews etc I am not bothered with - I get all my Charlton news & more on here.
Would love to have a decent commentator week in week out, but at least the option to switch to the away team exists & for the past two away games at least they have been by far the better option if you want commentary over chat/banter.
I wonder what the figures are. How much do we get from BBC London, and how much an in house service would cost to set up and run?
What if the difference was £100,000 (which I think is very much a high guess), and we had 20,000 player subscribers (which is a very high guess!). Then we would have to pay an extra £5 per year each for a decent service.
Personally I would pay that to be free of Emma, Phil Parry, Jamie Reed and company, but my figures may be wrong, and others think the present price is high enough.
20,000 player subscribers??? I'd be amazed if it was even a quarter of that right now (although stand to be corrected)
Also got to factor in that us being covered on BBC London (especially on 94.9) gets us out to a much wider football audience which may tempt a few down to The Valley in future weeks if things are going well/big games etc.
This whole debate is about to lead nowhere I fear.
There are people who think the present state of affairs with regard to commentaries is OK. It does not matter if those people are in the majority, because if they are in a minority of even one their voice will prevail. The received wisdom is that it is a matter of taste and opinion, colour in commentary is good, 'balance' for a wider audience, leave it to the 'experts', there is no problem really it is just a few CAMRA like purists who are anal enough to want the action described.
To me it is a crying shame that the people who do the commentaries simply don't want to describe the action, simply don't want to.
queensland_addick makes a brilliant analogy. The camera operator is not that worried about missing something! Mind you whenever the camera misses a goal on the telly, there is usually a statement of regret, because someone somewhere knows how fundamental seeing the goal is. There is no similar regret about the standard of our commentaries from anybody who might be able to make a difference. While we're stuck with the present situation then we should continue to highlight the problem, as well as highlight any improvement.
I think someone might mentioned this before but why not start the broadcast at 14:45? That way whoever fancies telling the world what they had for lunch can do 15 minutes prior to kick off and not during key moments of the game.
I remember the good old days when you paid someone for a service and if it was crap they apologised to their customers and made improvements or the customer ceased their patronage and went elsewhere.
Now it seems everyone and his dog from Radio London and the club PR department to Billy Smart's Circus and the blokes in the burger van outside the superstore is involved in creating the nonsense that is Player but no-one is responsible for its quality.
Seeing as it's the BBC who are responsible for providing the commentary (ably assisted by Pete I must add) I think it's them that has to be approached regarding suggested improvements to the presentation. I think that's clear from Matt Wright's response. So, who at the BBC?
Comments
Thank you for your email.
We can confirm that a customer services representative will respond to your email as quickly as possible.
If you are experiencing technical issues please refer to the FAQ/Help pages available on the website.
Best regards
Customer Services
> Hi Siv,
>
> Thank you for your email.
>
> Could you please describe the issue you are experiencing, so that we can assist you further.
>
> Best regards
> Vijeena
> Customer Services
---------------------------------
not really sure what to say..... I thought I was pretty clear about the issue
I went with this:
---------------------------------
Hi Vijeena,
I and other subscribers would like to provide regular feedback to the player service on the quality of commentary we receive when listening to the games of Charlton Athletic FC.
Many thanks,
Siv Sears
But a change In Reid's style of commentating is very much needed.
Thanks Siv, fingers crossed for positive outcome.
----
Hi Siv,
Thank you for your email. You can send your feedback to 'customerservices@performgroup.com' address.
Please feel free to contact us, if we can be of any further assistance.
Best regards
Vijeena
Customer Services
---------------------------
Hi Vijeena,
We are really hoping to find an individual within perform group who we can engage in an ongoing dialogue about quality of commentary.
I hope you will be able to provide this in your next mail.
Many thanks,
SS
-------------------------
It certainly sounded it to me.
Is there a suggestion that there may have been a second take after the match to get it right?
I retract any suggestion of a "second take to get it right "
I can see now how the knives can be sharpened when somebody takes action instead of just complaining in vain.
Just want to point out that my main agenda in writing to BBC and player is to establish a feedback mechanism, not to make a complaint.
I have been moved to act by the number of fellow subscribers /paying customers who make regular complaints on here.
-----------------------------------------
Hi Siv,
Thank you for your email.
You can contact the below email address for any feedback.
matt.wright@cafc.co.uk
Please feel free to contact us, if we can be of any further assistance.
Best regards
Vijeena
Customer Services
-------------------------------------------
So....they have passed this ball over to the club
I guess this ties in with what Airman tried to tell us long ago
Matt Wright is already on here, right....?
Will write to him and bring his attention to this thread
Meanwhile will write back to 'player' and ask for clarification on why they have passed me over to CAFC.
Thanks for your reply.
I will indeed write to Matt Wright about this.
Can I ask why it is that a CAFC employee should deal with this, rather than a perform group employee?
An answer to this question will perhaps better help me understand the service that I am paying for and who is responsible for which aspects of the service.
Many thanks,
SS
My name is Siv. I am writing about the CAFC player service. I was directed to write to you by a customer services employee with the perform group.
I wrote to perform asking who I (and other subscribers of the service) could write to with regular feedback on the commentary provided by the CAFC player.
The reason I did this was due to the frequent comments made on various threads on Charlton Life. I am aware that you are also a member of that forum.
The most recent thread has been this one: http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/51278/cafc-player-poor-quality-of-commentary#latest
I'm not sure if you have seen it, but many people have voiced their frustrations with various aspects of the service. The most frequent of these complaints seems to be commentator(s) straying from a description of the on the field action. The thread also contains some positive feedback on the efforts of Peter Finch, in particular, to try to keep the commentary focused.
The main point that I have been thinking about is as to who feedback (both positive and negative) on the commentary could be sent.
I wonder if a system of regular, sustained, systematic feedback could be set up whereby consumers of the service may be able to influence those providing it.
I feel this could only benefit both the consumers and the provider due to happy punters and increased descriptions.
I wonder if you can give me some advice on this. Are you really the right person for me/us to be addressing this issue with?
I should point out that I am delighted to be able to receive this service as an overseas addick. As a kid growing up on the south coast of England my Charlton news was mostly restricted to Sunday morning match reports and a monthly Voice of the Valley. I am aware of the big picture we are talking about.
Many thanks for your attention to this matter.
Best wishes,
SS
----------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the message Siv. I have read the thread you mention and I hope the following helps to explain matters.
First, some background. The CAFC Player service is run by Football League interactive (FLi) on behalf of the club.
FLi sub-contracts Perform to deal with all the technical (the functionality of the system etc) and financial (collecting payments/dealing with customers) issues, while the club is responsible for providing the content (the video/audio articles etc). The Press Association provides the stats for both the O/S and CAFC Player, in case that’s of interest.
The only main exception to the above is the audio commentaries of league and cup games, for which we use our official radio partner, BBC LONDON.
As part of our deal with BBC LONDON (and by association, BBC Kent), which is worth a significant sum of money to the club, the club gets commentaries of games broadcast on BBC LONDON and BBC Kent’s array of frequencies/stations (FM/MW/satellite/digital etc).
BBC LONDON therefore sends its trained commentators and pundits around the country to cover the club for whatever frequency/station that is broadcasting the game. Who is sent will depend on the nature or importance of the game, what other games involving London clubs are taking place at the same time, and other lesser factors such as the location of the game.
For example, if we’re at home and the only match involving a London game on a midweek night, Phil Parry will probably present the sports show from The Valley on their main 94.9 FM frequency and we’ll have two commentators and a pundit, such as Steve Brown or Bradley Allen. If we’re away in the North West on a midweek night when Chelsea and Arsenal are both in Champions League action, we’ll simply get allocated a commentator and, maybe, a pundit, and the commentary could only be available on digital radio, or just on CAFC Player. Obviously, more often than not we fall somewhere in the middle of those examples, but as a Championship club, the former is fairly rare.
Over the past few years, it became clear that some fans were, understandably, dissatisfied with the commentary that they were hearing largely because it didn’t have enough ‘Charlton bias’.
At this juncture, although not directly connected to commentary issues, it’s worth noting that during the same timeframe, the club was approached by fans behind the Charlton Live radio show who were looking for some way to broadcast their show. We ultimately joined forces to broadcast that show on CAFC Player, with the kind help of BBC LONDON, who loaned us a key piece of (expensive) equipment.
As things progressed, given our desire to introduce more ‘Charlton bias’, we spoke to BBC LONDON and then approached Pete Finch to see if he would be happy to accompany their assigned commentator in a bid to provide this greater Charlton bias and knowledge, because Peter watches almost every home and away game.
Both the club and BBC LONDON are content with this arrangement.
As many people have pointed out on the latest message thread, and previous ones, views on commentary are subjective. Some people want blow by blow accounts, others want occasional colour – in my opinion, the best do both and report the action when something is happening and provide entertainment/opinion/views when it isn’t.
The club could buy the required equipment and employ its own commentary team to travel up and down the country, but this would be at significant cost, so I have to consider whether any potential improvement would be worth the extra expense.
At present, therefore, we piggyback on the coverage provided by BBC LONDON, and, while we do our utmost to make it the best coverage possible both by liaising closely with the station and providing our own pundit on the majority of occasions, the slight downside is that we have to appreciate that BBC LONDON are fulfilling their own remit to provide commentary for whatever station upon which they are broadcasting, which includes mentioning other London scores and might mean brief diversions from the Charlton action.
This dichotomy may not be ideal, but we’re operating the best solution that we’ve found working within the resources available.
I should add that the vast majority of clubs at our level operate exactly the same links with their local BBC station, the only difference being that as a station based in the capital, BBC LONDON obviously has more clubs to cover.
We’re always keen to hear feedback about all of the club’s services, and of course we want to provide the best possible service not only for existing subscribers but to attract new subscribers. Every summer, we consider our plans for the following season and weigh up the pros and cons, and thus far, this is the most effective solution we have found.
Finally, I would like to add that I listen to the commentary on CAFC Player and opposition Player sites on a regular basis (mainly because it’s my job to urgently get the commentary working again when there are problems!), and, speaking merely as a Charlton supporter, it’s very rare that I believe that opposition commentators are doing a better job.
Of course, that’s only my opinion, but as everyone else has given theirs, I thought I was entitled...
I hope the above helps to explain matters.
Kind regards, Matt Wright
CAFC head of communications
www.cafc.co.uk
e: matt.wright@cafc.co.uk
I'll do what others do and rely on the Match Thread text commentary instead.
Matt said "the best do both and report the action when something is happening and provide entertainment/opinion/views when it isn’t."
I don't think there would be too many complaints if this was actually the case when Jamie Reid commentates. Unfortunately he carries on with the entertainment/opinion/views whilst action is occurring on the pitch and we are missing important elements of the game. Missing vital action should be a cardinal sin for a match commentator, a bit like a camera man on TV missing a goal. In other words he is failing to fulfill his professional obligation and he should be made aware of that fact either by CAFC or his superior at the BBC.
It seems to me that club could probably provide commentaries independently, to quote Matt:
'The club could buy the required equipment and employ its own commentary team to travel up and down the country, but this would be at significant cost, so I have to consider whether any potential improvement would be worth the extra expense.'
It comes down to the money, which is fair enought possibly. From what I can gather we get some kind of money from the BBC as broadcast rights. To quote Matt:
'As part of our deal with BBC LONDON (and by association, BBC Kent), which is worth a significant sum of money to the club, the club gets commentaries of games broadcast on BBC LONDON and BBC Kent’s array of frequencies/stations (FM/MW/satellite/digital etc).'
We also get the money from individuals direct subscriptions to player, which I think we'd all agree are driven by the desire to get commentary.
So two lots of money coming in. If we went it alone then we would lose the BBC London dosh, and have to spend money on equipment and expenses/fees to those like Peter Finch who are at present out of pocket providing the service.
So to go it alone would mean a reduced income for the club in the short term (maybe an increased income in the long term as the commentaries become a good selling point), plus more costs, or a decision to increase the subscription to compensate for those costs and losing the BBC.
Of course there may be a blanket contract regarding wireless broadcasting rights of league football in general which complicates matters.
So the club make the call, probably not because it is concerned with the quality of the service, but more with maximising income. We are left with the service we're obliged to take, or we don't subscribe.
Or we pay more, and the club improve the player service.
I wonder what the figures are. How much do we get from BBC London, and how much an in house service would cost to set up and run?
What if the difference was £100,000 (which I think is very much a high guess), and we had 20,000 player subscribers (which is a very high guess!). Then we would have to pay an extra £5 per year each for a decent service.
Personally I would pay that to be free of Emma, Phil Parry, Jamie Reed and company, but my figures may be wrong, and others think the present price is high enough.
To be honest I only use Player for commentaries, the match footage is so poor that it's pretty much unwatchable & the news/interviews etc I am not bothered with - I get all my Charlton news & more on here.
Would love to have a decent commentator week in week out, but at least the option to switch to the away team exists & for the past two away games at least they have been by far the better option if you want commentary over chat/banter.
+++
I still think there is room for a feedback mechanism to be established
Also got to factor in that us being covered on BBC London (especially on 94.9) gets us out to a much wider football audience which may tempt a few down to The Valley in future weeks if things are going well/big games etc.
There are people who think the present state of affairs with regard to commentaries is OK. It does not matter if those people are in the majority, because if they are in a minority of even one their voice will prevail. The received wisdom is that it is a matter of taste and opinion, colour in commentary is good, 'balance' for a wider audience, leave it to the 'experts', there is no problem really it is just a few CAMRA like purists who are anal enough to want the action described.
To me it is a crying shame that the people who do the commentaries simply don't want to describe the action, simply don't want to.
queensland_addick makes a brilliant analogy. The camera operator is not that worried about missing something!
Mind you whenever the camera misses a goal on the telly, there is usually a statement of regret, because someone somewhere knows how fundamental seeing the goal is.
There is no similar regret about the standard of our commentaries from anybody who might be able to make a difference.
While we're stuck with the present situation then we should continue to highlight the problem, as well as highlight any improvement.
That way whoever fancies telling the world what they had for lunch can do 15 minutes prior to kick off and not during key moments of the game.
Win win for everyone.
I am confident that voices can be heard... if there is a desire to have them heard
I don't have a strong enough opinion on this to shout it... but I do have a will do assist the voices of other paying subscribers
I remember the good old days when you paid someone for a service and if it was crap they apologised to their customers and made improvements or the customer ceased their patronage and went elsewhere.
Now it seems everyone and his dog from Radio London and the club PR department to Billy Smart's Circus and the blokes in the burger van outside the superstore is involved in creating the nonsense that is Player but no-one is responsible for its quality.
Come the revolution...
Have written to them too and am awaiting a response (see above )