[cite]Posted By: Iced Tea[/cite]The OS should be reduced to two pages.
Page 1 : A photo of the Valley with address and postcode so people know where it is
Page 2 : When the next match and who the opposition is.
We need bums on seats not a super cool website ................................
That assumes the site is a net cost at present, which it isn't. There is income from the betting partner and from Player, there is direct revenue from additional retail and ticket transactions and exposure on the site is written into various commercial contracts, plus you'd be bonkers to choose not to market the full range of your own goods and services to 150,000 unique visitors a month.
An intangible part of the FLi calculation is that it restricts the club's ability to promote its own products to that audience.
Ideally we'd have an independant website, but obviously that's not the best option financially, and our position we've got to try and save money and cut costs wherever we can.
I already pay for CAFC Player mainly for the commentary for games I can't get to. I think that's enough and wouldn't want to pay more just to get access to the OS.
Saw it suggested but might have missed the reply, does the OS need to be updated and redesigned? What would that cost in comparison to the other options?
This thread's funny. I guess the opinions of most people weren't correct.
If a group of Charlton supporting internet users from a range of backgrounds and locations aren't typical users of Charlton's internet site, then I'm not sure who is.
For what it's worth (nothing, I'm guessing) I like our site and hate those crappy generic ones, but given that it might save somebody's job to move to the new format, it would seem a no-brainer. In fact even considering it, while throwing people onto the dole isn't good form IMHO.
[cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]This thread's funny. I guess the opinions of most people weren't correct.
If a group of Charlton supporting internet users from a range of backgrounds and locations aren't typical users of Charlton's internet site, then I'm not sure who is.
For what it's worth (nothing, I'm guessing) I like our site and hate those crappy generic ones, but given that it might save somebody's job to move to the new format, it would seem a no-brainer. In fact even considering it, while throwing people onto the dole isn't good form IMHO.
There are no "correct" opinions, there are just "opinions".
Perhaps they're typical, perhaps they're not. What we do know is that most Charlton supporters aren't active users of this site, so it's sensible to be cautious.
We asked for people's views so that we could take them into account in making a decision. Unless I've missed it, nobody has said they would prefer an FLi site. They've mostly either said they don't care or they'd prefer we had our own site but understand that finances or employment considerations may dictate otherwise.
The club agrees with the latter position. We would prefer our own site, but not at the expense of significant income or people's jobs.
Therefore if it is possible to put together a package that preserves the site's independence, brings in the the same income and employment, doesn't raise costs and doesn't put anything that is currently free behind a paywall, then presumably nobody will be unhappy?
It may be possible. More likely it isn't. I think it would be a shame not to have tried. But how that's interpreted as disregarding what people have said because it doesn't suit us, I have no idea.
it would be unfair to lay people off because of a website, there is news 24-7 out there you type into google and find what you want. an independant website offers nothing more or less imo than the next option, 50k per annum could keep more than 2 vpeople in work at charlton imo and keep families in a safe haven during difficult finacial times, that is what makes us a family club imo doing your best for the local community and therefore the answer to me is obvious, save the money sacrifice the independant aspect and keep people in work.
[cite]Posted By: Airman Brown[/cite]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.
If the club did something like this and it was easily obtainable and downloadable I'd subscribe. Personally I'd like it to be an iTunes audiobook (so you can charge for it), so that the next update is automatically downloaded and synced when I charge my phone. On iTunes you can also automatically subscribe or buy individual episodes. You'd have to do a couple at cost, but once listener numbers are known, I imagine ads could be sold on that which would make it pretty much cost neutral. Make it 59p or so per show, the club could even use interviews it already has to keep costs down (i.e. record Parky's post match comments on the OS and put them on it but keep a little extra juicy details for the show).
I guess though, that this could be considered whether with or without the website being independent. Definitely something to consider though
I posted on here ten days ago about boris in south africa. Only now on the os, it may not mean a lot to some but a story like that should be up straight away, any potential buyer or agent doing some reaserch on us would be impressed by that. If we do end up paying for it it has to be up to date and a decent service.
I am surpised at the number of people who have suggested we improve the current service, make interviews better, improve quality or as above get stories on the OS quicker.
You do all know the club is in financial trouble don't you? You do realise that over the past two years loads of people have been made redundant?
What do you think happens when you try to run the same service with a lot less staff and a lot less money.
[cite]Posted By: Mortimerician[/cite]This thread's funny. I guess the opinions of most people weren't correct.
If a group of Charlton supporting internet users from a range of backgrounds and locations aren't typical users of Charlton's internet site, then I'm not sure who is.
For what it's worth (nothing, I'm guessing) I like our site and hate those crappy generic ones, but given that it might save somebody's job to move to the new format, it would seem a no-brainer. In fact even considering it, while throwing people onto the dole isn't good form IMHO.
There are no "correct" opinions, there are just "opinions".
Perhaps they're typical, perhaps they're not. What we do know is that most Charlton supporters aren't active users of this site, so it's sensible to be cautious.
We asked for people's views so that we could take them into account in making a decision. Unless I've missed it, nobody has said they would prefer an FLi site. They've mostly either said they don't care or they'd prefer we had our own site but understand that finances or employment considerations may dictate otherwise.
The club agrees with the latter position. We would prefer our own site, but not at the expense of significant income or people's jobs.
Therefore if it is possible to put together a package that preserves the site's independence, brings in the the same income and employment, doesn't raise costs and doesn't put anything that is currently free behind a paywall, then presumably nobody will be unhappy?
It may be possible. More likely it isn't. I think it would be a shame not to have tried. But how that's interpreted as disregarding what people have said because it doesn't suit us, I have no idea.
Sorry Airman the majority haven't said that they don't care or that it should stay. The majority have said that they'd prefer the site to stay but that the cost saving from the generic option is attractive. If there's a magic wand that can be waved that would make the existing site cost neutral you'd have a 100% approval rating here. The proposition that you put out (as I understood it) was the existing site against a generic site which would save £50k. I'm not sure if I'm reading a different thread but most people (other than those that bizarrely seemed to be suggesting we should spend more magic cash on the existing site) said that while they preferred our independent site, saw the benefit of the generic option in the circumstances.
I read the OP as asking if there would be interests from fans in paying in some form of package for an indepedent OS.
the club, as I read it, wanted to gauge the potential interest in charging per month as an alternative to the fli which could generate the same income and protect jobs.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]I read the OP as asking if there would be interests from fans in paying in some form of package for an indepedent OS.
the club, as I read it, wanted to gauge the potential interest in charging per month as an alternative to the fli which could generate the same income and protect jobs.
That's how I understand it and those suggesting potential improvements are expressing an opinion on what sort of service they'd like to see if they're being asked to pay for it.
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.
Haven't had time to read all this in detail - but my usage is as follows I do visit the official website pretty often 3-4 times per week, as an overseas fan - the commentaries are an absolute godsend & I watch all the highlights.
Seems a real shame that we are being forced down this route, maybe it's time to resurrect Voice of the Valley - even if it's in a web based form. I would pay to subscribe to that!
[cite]Posted By: Oakster[/cite]Seems a real shame that we are being forced down this route, maybe it's time to resurrect Voice of the Valley - even if it's in a web based form. I would pay to subscribe to that!
I quite like the OS as it is and have not been impressed with other clubs sites when I have used them, but the only bit I would really miss is Your Views - the home page is so slow to report news I've usually already heard it by the time they post it. I also agree we need to protect as many jobs as possible and I can't afford to pay for the site being out of work myself so I suppose we have to make the best of it.
Sorry if thisis too late - I have only just caught up with this thread.
My view: the moment Charlton announce a long-term plan to secure the OS as an on-going, independent, premium site under its own control, is the moment I sign up for the £4-5 a month.
Charlton is a special club. It's different. Everything that preserves the little differences should be applauded, cherished and supported.
[cite]Posted By: Choice[/cite]Can the club not subscribe to to the FLI site to get the money but continue to run the existing site?
I doubt it and I think Airman explains this above.
Apart from being a breach of contract the advertising income is partially based on the amount of traffic on each clubs FLi site so diverting users away to another site would lose the Club income.
[cite]Posted By: Choice[/cite]Can the club not subscribe to to the FLI site to get the money but continue to run the existing site?
I doubt it and I think Airman explains this above.
Apart from being a breach of contract the advertising income is partially based on the amount of traffic on each clubs FLi site so diverting users away to another site would lose the Club income.
Comments
thanks for consulting us here!
COYR
Take the money.....
Page 1 : A photo of the Valley with address and postcode so people know where it is
Page 2 : When the next match and who the opposition is.
We need bums on seats not a super cool website ................................
That assumes the site is a net cost at present, which it isn't. There is income from the betting partner and from Player, there is direct revenue from additional retail and ticket transactions and exposure on the site is written into various commercial contracts, plus you'd be bonkers to choose not to market the full range of your own goods and services to 150,000 unique visitors a month.
An intangible part of the FLi calculation is that it restricts the club's ability to promote its own products to that audience.
Ideally we'd have an independant website, but obviously that's not the best option financially, and our position we've got to try and save money and cut costs wherever we can.
I already pay for CAFC Player mainly for the commentary for games I can't get to. I think that's enough and wouldn't want to pay more just to get access to the OS.
Saw it suggested but might have missed the reply, does the OS need to be updated and redesigned? What would that cost in comparison to the other options?
If a group of Charlton supporting internet users from a range of backgrounds and locations aren't typical users of Charlton's internet site, then I'm not sure who is.
For what it's worth (nothing, I'm guessing) I like our site and hate those crappy generic ones, but given that it might save somebody's job to move to the new format, it would seem a no-brainer. In fact even considering it, while throwing people onto the dole isn't good form IMHO.
There are no "correct" opinions, there are just "opinions".
Perhaps they're typical, perhaps they're not. What we do know is that most Charlton supporters aren't active users of this site, so it's sensible to be cautious.
We asked for people's views so that we could take them into account in making a decision. Unless I've missed it, nobody has said they would prefer an FLi site. They've mostly either said they don't care or they'd prefer we had our own site but understand that finances or employment considerations may dictate otherwise.
The club agrees with the latter position. We would prefer our own site, but not at the expense of significant income or people's jobs.
Therefore if it is possible to put together a package that preserves the site's independence, brings in the the same income and employment, doesn't raise costs and doesn't put anything that is currently free behind a paywall, then presumably nobody will be unhappy?
It may be possible. More likely it isn't. I think it would be a shame not to have tried. But how that's interpreted as disregarding what people have said because it doesn't suit us, I have no idea.
Because Sunderland's a bit far and out of signal from SE7
If the club did something like this and it was easily obtainable and downloadable I'd subscribe. Personally I'd like it to be an iTunes audiobook (so you can charge for it), so that the next update is automatically downloaded and synced when I charge my phone. On iTunes you can also automatically subscribe or buy individual episodes. You'd have to do a couple at cost, but once listener numbers are known, I imagine ads could be sold on that which would make it pretty much cost neutral. Make it 59p or so per show, the club could even use interviews it already has to keep costs down (i.e. record Parky's post match comments on the OS and put them on it but keep a little extra juicy details for the show).
I guess though, that this could be considered whether with or without the website being independent. Definitely something to consider though
Sums it up for me
You do all know the club is in financial trouble don't you? You do realise that over the past two years loads of people have been made redundant?
What do you think happens when you try to run the same service with a lot less staff and a lot less money.
Time to cut them some slack??
the club, as I read it, wanted to gauge the potential interest in charging per month as an alternative to the fli which could generate the same income and protect jobs.
That's how I understand it and those suggesting potential improvements are expressing an opinion on what sort of service they'd like to see if they're being asked to pay for it.
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.
Very much agree with this statement.
It's not that we can even sign up for 1 year for the generic FLi site .... and see how it goes - and if we don't like it, the club don't renew.
If we sign up, we sign up for 6 years.......!!!
Seems a real shame that we are being forced down this route, maybe it's time to resurrect Voice of the Valley - even if it's in a web based form. I would pay to subscribe to that!
So would I.
Yep ...... if it's a 6-year contract, then we're stuck with a generic commercial advertising site for 6 long years.
Remember, any football content would be secondary to 'non-Charlton related' advertising.
My view: the moment Charlton announce a long-term plan to secure the OS as an on-going, independent, premium site under its own control, is the moment I sign up for the £4-5 a month.
Charlton is a special club. It's different. Everything that preserves the little differences should be applauded, cherished and supported.
I doubt it and I think Airman explains this above.
Apart from being a breach of contract the advertising income is partially based on the amount of traffic on each clubs FLi site so diverting users away to another site would lose the Club income.
Oh come on Eileen!