The growth of streaming and media rights deals have ballooned in recent years as departments and conferences to search for new revenue. While departments and sports communication staffs continue to be stretched, the opportunity for added resources is a valued tradeoff to move behind a paywall, as others value the exposure and potential for sponsorship revenue when making a move. We have asked two DII commissioners and a trio of DIII commissioners to share their perspectives on streaming, paywalls, how they have evaluated deals, FloSports' investment in this space and more.
|
|
|
How has your league evaluated its streaming options to date? To what level have you entertained moving behind a paywall? What was the process your conference used to make the decision you did?
Reid Amos (Mountain East) - The Mountain East Conference has had terrific success over our first five-plus years since the creation of Mountain East TV and our OTT app through Hudl/Blueframe. Reach and engagement are extremely important to members of the Mountain East Conference, particularly for enrollment-driven institutions. The bottom line is that if you go behind a paywall, you have to be willing to accept that your reach and engagement are very likely to be reduced, sometimes significantly. We value being able to be engaged with donors, potential student-athletes, potential general students, alumni, and community members without the barrier of a paywall. When you go behind a paywall, most of the viewership you maintain is among people that you’ve already captured and are significantly invested in your program.
For smaller colleges like ours, our streaming platform is an important piece of our collective engagement strategies. We have maintained a sponsor-driven model that allows our content to be free to view to prioritize the engagement opportunities. If we lose one student per cohort per member institution because we missed engagement opportunities because our content is behind a paywall, the collective cost of that is significant. Is there a price for our rights where moving behind a paywall begins to make sense? There probably is, but we haven’t been presented with a financial package that has caused us to seriously consider moving away from a sponsor-driven, free-to-view model.
Jessica Harbison Weaver (PacWest) - We started the process this past fall to review our streaming services and to all move to the same platform. In January, our Advisory Board voted to approve going on the Hudl/Blueframe platform and it was finalized this spring to all move behind a paywall for our contests. We reviewed several services at the conference office and presented the option that we felt met the needs of our conference at this time.
Katie Boldvich (Landmark) - The Landmark Conference was fortunate to be the first Division III partner with FloSports. Monetizing our webstreams was never a goal of the conference. Some of our institutions had worked with individual partners that would specifically sponsor elements of a webstream (such as the scoreboard, lower third, first-half statistics, commercials, etc.) - but the conference had never considered the value our product carried.
After our initial conversation with FloSports, additional discussions were had with various conference constituents regarding the decision to move behind the paywall. I remain adamant that even though our webstreams were free for individuals to watch, these streams were not $0 to operate. Our institutions have hard costs associated with streaming all of our contests and expectations from our community grow annually regarding the level of product received. Webstream quality has changed incredibly over the past three to five years - funding is needed to keep up with these demands and continue to offer a quality product.
The deal with FloSports allowed the Landmark to provide these departments with direct funding to support a variety of enhancements. Ask any Athletic Director in Division III, which department is the most overlooked when it comes to budget increases. The vast majority will say it’s their Athletic Communications office. It’s difficult for our institutions to consistently fundraise and sell advertisements for webstreams. With this partnership, our schools are now guaranteed funding for the next five years to enhance their storytelling ability with each institution deciding how best to utilize these funds.
New Cameras? Sure. Additional student workers? You bet. Hiring professional play-by-play announcers? Go for it!
Ultimately, our league Presidents and Athletic Directors discussed the pros and cons of the decision to move behind a paywall for conference contests while considering input from various constituents on campus before arriving at their decision to shift our network to the FloSports platform.
Dick Kaiser (SLIAC) - The SLIAC conference has had several discussions as it relates to streaming. We currently have a good partnership with a local St. Louis Company that streams most of our quarterfinal contests and all of our semi-final and final championships within the team sports and wrestling. Typically this group has two individuals that are on site that do the production and the play-by-play. The cost is very affordable and we use our Strategic Grant money to assist with the payment. It annually costs us about $7000 for both men’s and women’s soccer, women’s volleyball, both men’s and women’s basketball, men’s and women’s wrestling and baseball plus softball. These types of discussions are held annually with the Administrative Council and then affirmed with the President’s Council. The Administrative Council has been adamant about keeping the cost free to the patrons that view our contests. We average just under 1000 viewers per broadcast for our contests (25). The cost per broadcast is about $285/broadcast.
Keri Alexander Luchowski (NCAC) - There’s no question that streaming contests has become the required standard at all levels of college athletics. And expectations for the quality of the streams have risen considerably in recent years. So, the question for us is not how do we stream, but how do we meet the increased demands for things beyond the old stationery camera on a tripod? As we evaluate our streaming efforts as a conference, we are considering quality issues, as well logistics, such as access at more remote facilities, and coverage of larger events such as track & field. How do we phase in minimum standards for a broadcast that all our members can meet? How do we provide the necessary technology? How do we staff the streams? As others before me have said, streaming has never been free, regardless of the cost to a viewer. So where are the funds, resources, and most importantly, the people to help us elevate our standards? We want to meet the minimum expectations of our viewers, however, in an ideal world we would greatly exceed those expectations. One way is to elevate our own internal standards for streams, through best practices, and where necessary, policies and procedures. That review is currently underway.
Another way is to monetize our streams. Our contests are the greatest content that we have. So of course we have had, and are continuing to have, extensive conversations about moving behind a paywall. We are involving our athletic communications professionals, as well as our athletic administrators, faculty athletic representatives and presidents, but also consulting with others outside of our conference governance structure, such as admissions and alumni relations. This is where our industry, and sport at any level is moving, so we need to make sure we position ourselves to make choices that serve us, instead of just being pushed along by the chaos of progress. The best type of partner will enhance what we are already doing and give us the greater capabilities of exceeding expectations.
|
What has been the response from constituents (presidents, institutions, partners, fans) to your current streaming offering and potential changes?
Amos (Mountain East) - We consistently receive a very positive response to the quality of production that we provide, without cost to the viewer, from the 19 MEC Championship events where we provide video streaming coverage. We work with a pair of contractors that provide us with high-quality productions utilizing the newest digital technologies, which allows us to have reasonable costs associated with our productions.
There is a range of quality from sport to sport and from campus to campus for institutionally produced events. But, if minimum standards are met, including score and time graphics, camera work of acceptable quality, and at least natural sound, (though we prefer play-by-play), viewership seems to be minorly impacted at our level. Anecdotally, we’ve found that our engagement and attendance have gone up at our conference championships events since the formation of our streaming platform. Harbison Weaver (PacWest) - We were all on the same page as institutions in that we needed to be available on one platform that could be easily accessed on a multitude of devices. I am very encouraged by the level of excitement at the Presidential level and can’t wait to see the fan reception when we launch for this fall’s schedule.
Boldvich (Landmark) - The first few weeks of the 2023-24 season were challenging for fans and families. We also received some of our greatest criticism from bloggers that traditionally cover Division III sports. The conference and our member institutions were intentional in our communication and outreach efforts. We created informational email blasts and FAQ sections on our websites so individuals could easily understand how to sign up for an account and also provide greater context as to why we arrived at our decision to go behind a paywall.
As an outsider, it is easy to criticize an organization for increasing fees or charging for something in the past that has been free. However, I would argue our product was never free, those working to make that product happen were not previously supported financially, and now they will be.
As the 2023-24 academic calendar progressed, our relationship with FloSports continued to grow. Our league truly looks at FloSports as our partner in this space and they have proven their commitment to provide a high level of coverage of our student-athletes and programs.
Our Presidents, Athletic Directors, and Athletic Communicators are happy with this partnership after our first year. They have exceeded our expectations as a partner and continue to be flexible with our conference as we learn this new space and aim to continue to hit expected standards while improving our overall product.
FloSports provided some extra content creation in the way of unique press releases, specialized graphics, and social media posts. Their team can create content and follow specific storylines about our programs throughout the year. They also attended several of our events in person to create additional content for us. Their presence and ability to interview our coaches and student-athletes before and after contests provided an extra layer of professionalism for our events. Kaiser (SLIAC) - Everyone seems to like our current process. The production has been good, the announcers have been solid as will as the view the camera provides. Everyone especially likes that fact that the conference has kept the play-offs free to the viewers.
Alexander Luchowski (NCAC) - The response has been mixed, candidly. There is an understanding of the environment we are operating in, but also a concern that not everyone has the same mindset about where the technology is right now and where it is going. Internally, we all know that the expectations from viewers and from our own students and campus communities are growing. Our questions aren’t “do we need to change and grow?”, they’re more like “how do we manage this change and growth?” What partners will be able to deliver the flexibility to meet the changing demands? How do we make sure we are producing a quality product and how do we pay for that production?
The idea of a paywall is a new addition to the conversation that has been happening around streaming within our conference since the early 2000s. Some embrace the new challenges, some are quite used to paywalls from their own experiences with youth sports, and some remain skeptical. Most understand the changing dynamic in how information, content and entertainment are consumed and shared; we all have subscriptions for something that used to be free or bundled. Most of the concerns are either philosophical (How or why would we even consider charging for our streams?) or practical (Can we produce a stream that is high quality enough to pay for?).
|
What external factors may change the math when deciding to move games behind a paywall change?
Amos (Mountain East) - The digital era has created opportunities where Division II content has value and viewers are willing to pay for access to the content, and certain companies, like Flo, have expressed a clear willingness to provide a rights fee to make content pay to view. We assess all opportunities as cost vs. benefit opportunities. If we feel that we can effectively utilize our free-to-view sponsor-driven platform, as part of successful marketing plans at our institutions and those plans lead to enrollment opportunities, engagement, donor giving, and other revenue-generating strategies, then the revenue from a rights fee would need to clearly outpace the revenues that we feel we might lose from a reduction in engagement as a result of moving content behind a paywall.
It is exciting to see companies like FloSports to announce plans to invest more than $50 million in its platform targeting Division II and other small colleges. In a pre-digital world, it would have been hard for us in D-II to comprehend such an investment. Today, it is indicative of the opportunities that we have in small college athletics. While the fan bases are smaller overall than major universities, it doesn’t mean that they are any less passionate. Investments like Flo’s acknowledge that there are significant opportunities within Division II, just on a smaller scale.
Harbison Weaver (PacWest) - I think for the PacWest Conference we had several schools that were still providing a free broadcast and through moving to a paywall they realized they could monetize their exceptional product to a wider audience. This also gives our PacWest institutions an opportunity to use the additional funds to enhance our broadcasts where there may not have been funding in the past. Boldvich (Landmark) - Ultimately, the answer to this question will vary by each conference and more specifically, each institution. Every department likely has a dollar figure that would make the transition to a paywall ‘worthwhile’ for their department.
There are certainly hurdles to consider when deliberating this move ‘will we isolate fans/alumni/families’, ‘could reduced viewership impact any of our other partnerships’, ‘how do our athletic communicators feel about this decision’, ‘are we comfortable with any increases to our production value based on funding we will receive’.
If the answers to these and other questions make sense after the valuation for the product is received and the benefits provided to your internal Athletics Communications staff outweigh those concerns - that is why a school or conference would want to move behind a paywall.
Kaiser (SLIAC) - I am very sure the conference will get a lot of kick-back. In talking to other conferences that have gone behind the paywall – viewership is down 40-60%.We are not a wealthy conference with wealthy schools in the conference make-up, therefore any additional fees for parents, fans and other students would be met rather harshly. Besides, the cost for all the schools to get on the same page and have all the necessary personnel to properly operate the streaming system would be enormous.
Alexander Luchowski (NCAC) - The external factors that could sway a decision may differ from campus to campus, which is the hard part of making a conference-wide decision. For some, it will be acquiring the hardware or software to elevate their streams; this can be cameras, production software, cabling, facility challenges, internet access, etc. How do we train the individuals who will produce the games? What happens when the internet fails, or a camera gets knocked down by an errant volleyball? For others, it’s the availability of staff; who will run the cameras, who will set-up the production, who runs the software? Money is always a consideration; however, staff is a giant hurdle on many campuses.
|
Do you believe your division would be best served by having its championships that are not already with ESPN (football, basketball, volleyball) be streamed behind a paywall?
Amos (Mountain East) - I think it depends on the paywall and the other content that could be accessed behind that paywall. Viewership of all Division II championships that went behind a paywall last year dropped considerably. What’s more important, revenue generation or engagement and reach? I think the answer to that is always a sliding scale.
If Division II Championships are sometimes on linear channels ESPN, ESPN2, or ESPNU and earlier rounds were, say on ESPN+, that’s very different than our Championships being behind a paywall like FloSports or Hudl. ESPN has continued to grow its stable of content on ESPN+ and as a result, Division II content could actually see an increase in reach and viewership on that platform, but that doesn’t necessarily mean an increase in revenue generation. If we placed Division II content behind a paywall controlled by the NCAA, viewership would likely go down, but we would control all or nearly all of the revenue associated with a Division II-owned and operated streaming platform for its championship events. There are a number of different opportunities and platforms that could be considered for Division II Championships content and all of them will have certain pros and certain cons. So, my answer to that specific question is that it depends on the quality of opportunities that are cultivated.
Harbison Weaver (PacWest) - I believe that Division II has an extremely high level of competition and that it only helps to grow our division to have Championships broadcast on a wide range of platforms. The way the industry is going it makes financial sense to get on board the streaming bandwagon and charge for these events. I think it also gives fans a better experience and emphasizes the premium nature of a championship event.
Boldvich (Landmark) - The answer to that question is truly dependent on the additional value and funding it would bring to Division III membership and/or our host institutions. Before the NCAA Championships shift to a paywall model, I believe the Championships Committee would need to come up with a baseline expectation for streaming minimums and also provide a recommendation for how those funds would be shared. Some questions to consider would be ‘will host institutions be provided an additional stipend to provide a better product?’ ‘would any funding be split between participating schools/programs?’ ‘ would this funding shift to the general Division III budget and help enhance other areas of the Division?’
Until those questions are answered I think it’s difficult to answer if that shift would be beneficial. The last thing you want to see as a fan, family, or alumni is to think the money you’re paying to watch your team is going into a big black hole somewhere. If there are reassurances and initiatives you can point to where that spending is positively impacting our programs and member institutions, that could be a win.
Kaiser (SLIAC) - I believe the NCAA D-III can basically afford to pay for the per game streaming services if they use local streamers and have production minimums. I don’t believe that D-III streaming behind a paywall will be an overall success for the entire make-up of the D-III membership. I would definitely like to have the opportunity to view additional play-off contests, but I am not sure I would pay to see those contests. And if a commissioner is hesitant about that issue, then I can only imagine what regular viewers would do.
Alexander Luchowski (NCAC) - Personally, I do believe that Division III championships would benefit from being behind a paywall. Others will argue about simple exposure, but the Division needs to look at producing revenue and our championships are the highest level of competition we have. Our championships have value; we should recognize that. We should look to monetize them if we can. The right partnership will elevate the Division III brand by letting viewers outside of the immediate Division III community see the high-level competition we have to offer.
|
Do you believe that this new streaming venture will have long-term benefits for the division at large?
Amos (Mountain East) - If companies like FloSports, Hudl, ESPN, and the NCAA itself continue to invest in platforms that provide opportunities for NCAA Division II members, then I certainly believe that there are significant long-term benefits for D-II institutions and conferences, including ones that will be easy to quantify, such as revenue and viewership, but we will need to be mindful of impacts that will be more difficult to quantify, such as reach, engagement, and long-term positioning of NCAA Division II.
Harbison Weaver (PacWest) - I touched on this a little earlier, but I do think it will have long term benefits for our Division, especially if fans can find Division II athletics easier across a wide spectrum of devices. Having those championship events at our fingertips allows a greater audience to understand what a Division II experience provides for the student-athletes.
Boldvich (Landmark) - The greatest benefit this stream venture can provide to Division III and our member institutions is a new line of revenue opportunities. Our schools are consistently being asked to do more with less funding. It is also becoming more common for fundraising and securing sponsorship revenue to be a job expectation for senior leadership positions at institutions and conference offices. That tells me there is a direct correlation between needing additional funding to meet budgetary needs and doing everything you want to do as a department or conference.
Leaving untapped revenue on the table by way of webstreams is ultimately doing a disservice to your programs and support staff if that funding can go directly towards enhancing a product or providing new opportunities for your student-athletes.
Why is it acceptable for our counterparts at Division I and II, NAIA, NJCAA, and even high schools to monetize their webstreams, but Division III is expected to operate under a different set of rules? Are our athletes as valuable and entertaining as those other entities? We say yes.
Our athletic departments are consistently challenged to think outside the box when it comes to fundraising. Our student-athletes in Division III have the same expectations of being a collegiate athlete as their compatriots participating in Division I and Division II. Our teams fundraise for foreign tours and spring trips, team stores are opened each summer for players and families to stock up on branded gear, and many of our schools and conferences charge admission to watch contests in person. Why is paying a subscription fee for webstreams the line we have drawn in the sand?
Every school, every conference in Division III is constantly looking at opportunities for outside revenues. I’d encourage everyone not to hold back just because something hasn’t been done before. There is value in all we do, and oftentimes in places where others will tell you it does not exist.
Kaiser (SLIAC) - Most events are already streamed… so I don’t see a major change in this area. I believe the viewership will diminish significantly if the streaming goes behind the paywall. If the streaming is done locally and free to the viewers --- this will significantly enhance the D-III championship experience.
Alexander Luchowski (NCAC) - Definitely. Anything that elevates the Division III brand, and that of the institutions within the Division, is worth pursuing. There is too little recognition of the terrific experiences that Division III students are having. Showcasing the Division and our emphasis on the entire student academic and athletic experience should be one of our highest goals in this space. We should foster the opportunity to have our institutions, conferences, and the Division become more visible to the public. We are the heart of college athletics with more institutions than any other Division and the more we can shine a light on the valuable experiences we offer, the better. Additionally, anything we can do to generate revenue for our continued operations is important to our future.
|
|
|
|
