[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.
Personally rarely go onto the official site.
What is on there that I cannot source from here?
I never watch clips/interviews/radio coverage.
Dont read match reports.
Get enough opinions on here, not to be bothered about YourViews
I dont really care about womens team etc.
I would never order merchandise without seeing it in the flesh/trying it on.
And to my probable shame am not really interested in the community side of things.
Take the money and run I say,and save a couple of jobs.
But then again as someone who doesnt really use the facility, I think my opinion is probably not worth as much as
the people who do use it - has this question been asked on the official site or email bulletins?
I'd agree with those sentiments too. I think most people have, although it'd be a shame to see the likes of the press conference audios go, for example. Not sure whether there's a space on the generic sites for that kind of stuff. I'm sure it could be accomodated though - surely all the provider wants is page impressions, so the advertising is "viewed".
I think Airman wanted to test the water to see what kind of interest there might in an paid for, independent, alternative to the Fli site
If there seems to be enough interest to generate similar income to the FLi site then it would be worth putting together a firm proposal and asking people to vote on that.
hard choice between relatively easy to predict Fli income stream but crap site V hard to predict level of take up from fans and so income levels but own site.
Would one way around it be to have an "Official" section of this site or equivalent obviously subject to Adam and Danny's approval of course?
That way the Club would have an independent outlet and perhaps Adam and Danny would be able to cover some of their costs too via shared advertising, subscriptions etc.
The only downside I can see is a perception that Charlton Life has compromised independence but, if the "OS" is a completely separate, designated section of the Charlton Life site, like Galleries or Blog for example, where is the problem?
I'm a technophobe so probably talking Charlie rap about the feasibility.
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]I'd agree with those sentiments too. I think most people have, although it'd be a shame to see the likes of the press conference audios go, for example. Not sure whether there's a space on the generic sites for that kind of stuff. I'm sure it could be accomodated though - surely all the provider wants is page impressions, so the advertising is "viewed".
Why not just do a poll? Or is that too clear?
I don't think a poll would help, because as I've tried to get across it is not a straightforward choice. The revenues are very complicated, but largely you get paid as an FLi site according to the number of Player subscriptions you get, including on income streams that don't directly relate to Player. For example, we get a payment at present for the internet highlights on the BBC site, but for FLi sites it is based on the number of Player subscriptions you have. Although we have a Player arrangement with FLi they don't pay us on that basis; our fee is instead calculated on a flat-rate basis as a League One club. This is much less than it would be in the Championship at a flat rate and less than it would be inside Player with our current number of subscriptions (1,200).
If we go into FLi we get more syndication money so there is a financial incentive to build up Player content, both additional content and material that we would otherwise have made generally available, in order to drive subscriptions.
It is not a choice between £0k with the status quo and £50k with FLi. We get a small amount of revenue from Player at present (four figures). If we set up our own Player service at the current rates we would probably generate CAFC income of, say, £25k, even allowing for the league taking a cut for doing nothing much, but we would still be on the flat rate for syndication and missing out on the ad revenue. The challenge is to put together a model that closes this gap.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Would one way around it be to have an "Official" section of this site or equivalent obviously subject to Adam and Danny's approval of course?
That way the Club would have an independent outlet and perhaps Adam and Danny would be able to cover some of their costs too via shared advertising, subscriptions etc.
The only downside I can see is a perception that Charlton Life has compromised independence but, if the "OS" is a completely separate, designated section of the Charlton Life site, like Galleries or Blog for example, where is the problem?
I'm a technophobe so probably talking Charlie rap about the feasibility.
If we have an FLi site they only things the club can get involved in are transaction sites like the Superstore and ticketing.
[cite]Posted By: LenGlover[/cite]Would one way around it be to have an "Official" section of this site or equivalent obviously subject to Adam and Danny's approval of course?
That way the Club would have an independent outlet and perhaps Adam and Danny would be able to cover some of their costs too via shared advertising, subscriptions etc.
The only downside I can see is a perception that Charlton Life has compromised independence but, if the "OS" is a completely separate, designated section of the Charlton Life site, like Galleries or Blog for example, where is the problem?
I'm a technophobe so probably talking Charlie rap about the feasibility.
If we have an FLi site they only things the club can get involved in are transaction sites like the Superstore and ticketing.
I've probably not expressed it very well but I've tried to suggest an alternative to the FLi route.
[cite]Posted By: McLovin[/cite]I'd agree with those sentiments too. I think most people have, although it'd be a shame to see the likes of the press conference audios go, for example. Not sure whether there's a space on the generic sites for that kind of stuff. I'm sure it could be accomodated though - surely all the provider wants is page impressions, so the advertising is "viewed".
Why not just do a poll? Or is that too clear?
I don't think a poll would help, because as I've tried to get across it is not a straightforward choice. The revenues are very complicated, but largely you get paid as an FLi site according to the number of Player subscriptions you get, including on income streams that don't directly relate to Player. For example, we get a payment at present for the internet highlights on the BBC site, but for FLi sites it is based on the number of Player subscriptions you have. Although we have a Player arrangement with FLi they don't pay us on that basis; our fee is instead calculated on a flat-rate basis as a League One club. This is much less than it would be in the Championship at a flat rate and less than it would be inside Player with our current number of subscriptions (1,200).
If we go into FLi we get more syndication money so there is a financial incentive to build up Player content, both additional content and material that we would otherwise have made generally available, in order to drive subscriptions.
It is not a choice between £0k with the status quo and £50k with FLi. We get a small amount of revenue from Player at present (four figures). If we set up our own Player service at the current rates we would probably generate CAFC income of, say, £25k, even allowing for the league taking a cut for doing nothing much, but we would still be on the flat rate for syndication and missing out on the ad revenue. The challenge is to put together a model that closes this gap.
But as it is you are effectivley asking us a question we can't possibly make a judgment on. If you want serious, properly compiled stas or opinions on what people want then you have to give straight-forward like-for-like options.
You wont tell us how much an independant site would cost, only what an FLi site might generate. You wont tell us what we facilities will lose if we don't sign up to FLi only that we have agree to a long term contract and you wont tell us what you actually think might, wont or will work.
How can you possibly gauge enough interest for or against to present to the board if you haven't thought through the options to present here?
No offense but this whole process seems completely flawed.
That's why the original question was framed as, how much is the independence of the official site worth to you? The answers has varied between nothing and something, but in most cases not enough to get people to pay more than at present of itself.
That's helpful, because for example it tells us the answer probably isn't a single £5 a month premium content service.
The idea has been to use this feedback to put together a realistic alternative pacakage rather than offer something that won't get the required support. At that point, if we get to it, you make your choice by buying into it or not.
Apologies for coming to this late Airman as have been away / busy. Thanks for throwing it open to people for feedback.
From the opening post, the statement ‘strong and consensus view within the club is that we want to maintain an independent site’ is significant, and out of clarity is that from the people who would be most involved on the development / maintenance side, or the board / decision makers, or both ?
If it is a unanimous and desired belief and approach, then the only clear thing that matters is if through a revamp and changed advertising to the platform site, and improved premium features in terms of quality, volume and variety of output leading to an improved subscription push, could this:
a. be feasibly be married with no increase (and potential risks of a fall) in resources ?
b. Lead to a projected upturn in revenues that at minimum, matches the more accurate predictions from the FLi tie up ?
This appears to me to be a resource issue as much as a financial one.
You mention the website strongly in terms of the Clubs’ ‘identity’, but I’m not fully sold on that point. Identity to me breaks down to two aspects, static core club aspects (club colours, ground, badge, history, values) and other aspects that are more periphery, sometimes club-originated, sometimes not.
At various instances of our modern past, VoTV (and to a lesser extent other long-running fanzines such as GBH), the RTM / Sunday night radio show / match commentaries, the Valley Party, the strong Supporters Club etc were all important parts of our ‘supporter / club’ identity at the time and I would align a website more in that camp than the former, despite it fully being a club vehicle.
The current website is largely well received by supporters, despite its dated design and occassional instability.
Why is that so ?
I personally don’t think it is due to the features on offer, or the site design and layout, but the volume and quality content of the published material. And there is no reason why that should change if it become part of the FLi network, should it ? All that will change is the platform, and the annoyance of increased advertising surrounding the articles.
I’ve floated the question of feedback on their own clubs’ FLi website with fans of other clubs, and the initial responses are not as negative as you might expect. On the upside, it seems that after a while fans simply get used to the layout of the platform, and makes it easier when navigating other clubs websites, on the downside they look too busy, the vast amount of advertising makes it difficult to highlight things that should be highlighted, and the adverts appear to have become more intrusive over the years (breaking up articles into 2 or 3 chunks with ads stuck in), and on the technical side when uploading items the template is not particularly user-friendly.
But ultimately, the key things seem to be determined on how well managed it is by the individual club; If the content is attractive, and the structure of the site is kept in order and as simple as possible, then it is not so much of the issue.
I too see independence as strongly preferable, not though through an identity angle but mainly because no one knows technology wise what may be around the corner and 7 years is a particularly ridiculous contract to be tied into.
But IMO the continued independence route can only be pursued if the comms team are confident within their resource they can deliver something independently that is going to deliver both the quality required and growth in revenue. That growth in revenue will only come from the wider fanbase if it delivers quality on the niche aspects that the club can tap into which can’t be found elsewhere (access to players, video highlights, consistent and appreciated commentary etc).
I have not subscribed to CATV / Player, but its clear from the posts on here over time that it hasn’t been at the quality needed to pick up the subscriptions of people other than those out of necessity (overseas needing match commentary for example). That would need to be strongly addressed, however I’m relatively confident that although our crowds may be falling, the loyalty and intrigue of our core fanbase has the potential to buy into something such as this in greater volumes than at present if the product was better received than it currently is.
So to me its got to be an all or nothing approach. Either the club feels it can deidicate the resource to having a real push at professionally delivering Premium subscription content, or take the easy option and take the guaranteed stable platform and revenues.
As a slight aside, I would offer a word of caution on putting too much importance towards betting partners as a way of deriving income. It’s been a huge aspect of the growth of the internet, and I fully understand the need for all websites to tie in with this (its something we may have to do on here at some point so I’m not being fully hypocritical). But I do think it is something which a professional body with strong community values, the club just needs to be careful that it doesn’t get to the stage where its official outlets don’t ‘over do it’ with its encouragement to people to gamble. I don’t think it has so far, but I do feel its something that it has to keep a cautious eye on.
[cite]Posted By: AFKABartram[/cite]
The current website is largely well received by supporters, despite its dated design and occassional instability.
Why is that so ?
I personally don’t think it is due to the features on offer, or the site design and layout, but the volume and quality content of the published material. And there is no reason why that should change if it become part of the FLi network, should it ? All that will change is the platform, and the annoyance of increased advertising surrounding the articles.
Putting it simpler, Charlton fans go to the official Charlton website because that's where the 'official' Charlton information is based...
If the the club were to 'big up' the FLi as a brand new initiative to bring the fans a better service then they'd just go along with it, there'd be no 'Oh dear, if I subscribe to the new site someone might be at risk of losing their job, still, the £50 grand will come in handy' conundrum...
The fans will accept and adapt, all the other clubs have, why would we be any different...?
Thanks for the lengthy and considered post. I won't respond in detail, but on the question about the view within the club it's shared by Matt Wright, Steve Kavanagh and myself, was Peter Varney's view, and the board have supported us. I'm not aware of anyone at the club who has a contrary view, although others may have no view. Steve, Matt and I have been the people working on this. It surfaces as a budgetary issue rather than a communications one.
I don't want to say too much about FLi in the circumstances, but we have been open with them about the fact that we don't like their designs and we have concerns about the level of service they provide to clubs and supporters from our experience with Player.
Whatever route the club takes there will have to be investment in premium video content, in particular, to drive revenue. It's not a case of handing the service over to FLi, as they only provide the basic match highlights and I think the consensus would be that they don't do that well in terms of what is available as an alternative free.
Personally, I think the design of the FLi sites of itself undermines the quality and depth of the editorial content, but given the financial circumstances we are bound to end up diverting existing staff resources into premium content to drive subscriptions. The more the model is based on subscriptions, the more this is likely to be true.
I'm very much in favour of keeping an independent site - presumably there are no plans to ditch the ecommerce sites so providing we co-host these sites there is no saving to be made from going over to FL1 only the carrot of £50,000 advertising revenue?
I think the big problem regarding hosting our own site is maintaining sufficient bandwith at busy times to keep the site usable. People get the hump quickly enough when the main site is down now, and they'll get even more irate if they can't access stuff they've paid for.
Airman I would happily do the commentary for free!!! Whisper me if you want to take me up, even if we had a fanszone kind of thing ever game would make it a lot more exciting.. And it's free..
In regards to keeping the OS I honestly believe with increased advertising space and more publicity about the website e.g in match programmes the OS could increase it's traffic, its a great source of information, I personally visit the OS twice a day at the least. The trouble with moving it, is the fact we loose control over what content goes on to it.
I agree 100% with Mr One Lung. I very rarely visit the OS, I wouldn't be bothered if there were changes but I would not be prepared to subscribe. As I see it there are already too many things to subscribe to.
Can I make a suggestion that you do what I've just done.
Pick a few clubs that don't offend you - look at their websites. They show what FLi sites look like. The standard advertising is there. It's not offensive and you can ignore it.
If you want highlights and post match interviews they are on the BBC sport page. Hard luck if you're overseas.
We can all promise to sign up to a subscription service but the take-up will not match up.
CAFC is a bit special but it is still a business. It's about 50 years since my Mum took me to my first game. I want the club to be there for many years to come.
Comments
Stick it up your Bohemian Rhapsody!
What is on there that I cannot source from here?
I never watch clips/interviews/radio coverage.
Dont read match reports.
Get enough opinions on here, not to be bothered about YourViews
I dont really care about womens team etc.
I would never order merchandise without seeing it in the flesh/trying it on.
And to my probable shame am not really interested in the community side of things.
Take the money and run I say,and save a couple of jobs.
But then again as someone who doesnt really use the facility, I think my opinion is probably not worth as much as
the people who do use it - has this question been asked on the official site or email bulletins?
Spot on, say this saves a couple of jobs at the club. Total no brainer imo.
Why not just do a poll? Or is that too clear?
If there seems to be enough interest to generate similar income to the FLi site then it would be worth putting together a firm proposal and asking people to vote on that.
hard choice between relatively easy to predict Fli income stream but crap site V hard to predict level of take up from fans and so income levels but own site.
That way the Club would have an independent outlet and perhaps Adam and Danny would be able to cover some of their costs too via shared advertising, subscriptions etc.
The only downside I can see is a perception that Charlton Life has compromised independence but, if the "OS" is a completely separate, designated section of the Charlton Life site, like Galleries or Blog for example, where is the problem?
I'm a technophobe so probably talking Charlie rap about the feasibility.
I don't think a poll would help, because as I've tried to get across it is not a straightforward choice. The revenues are very complicated, but largely you get paid as an FLi site according to the number of Player subscriptions you get, including on income streams that don't directly relate to Player. For example, we get a payment at present for the internet highlights on the BBC site, but for FLi sites it is based on the number of Player subscriptions you have. Although we have a Player arrangement with FLi they don't pay us on that basis; our fee is instead calculated on a flat-rate basis as a League One club. This is much less than it would be in the Championship at a flat rate and less than it would be inside Player with our current number of subscriptions (1,200).
If we go into FLi we get more syndication money so there is a financial incentive to build up Player content, both additional content and material that we would otherwise have made generally available, in order to drive subscriptions.
It is not a choice between £0k with the status quo and £50k with FLi. We get a small amount of revenue from Player at present (four figures). If we set up our own Player service at the current rates we would probably generate CAFC income of, say, £25k, even allowing for the league taking a cut for doing nothing much, but we would still be on the flat rate for syndication and missing out on the ad revenue. The challenge is to put together a model that closes this gap.
If we have an FLi site they only things the club can get involved in are transaction sites like the Superstore and ticketing.
I've probably not expressed it very well but I've tried to suggest an alternative to the FLi route.
But as it is you are effectivley asking us a question we can't possibly make a judgment on. If you want serious, properly compiled stas or opinions on what people want then you have to give straight-forward like-for-like options.
You wont tell us how much an independant site would cost, only what an FLi site might generate. You wont tell us what we facilities will lose if we don't sign up to FLi only that we have agree to a long term contract and you wont tell us what you actually think might, wont or will work.
How can you possibly gauge enough interest for or against to present to the board if you haven't thought through the options to present here?
No offense but this whole process seems completely flawed.
That's helpful, because for example it tells us the answer probably isn't a single £5 a month premium content service.
The idea has been to use this feedback to put together a realistic alternative pacakage rather than offer something that won't get the required support. At that point, if we get to it, you make your choice by buying into it or not.
From the opening post, the statement ‘strong and consensus view within the club is that we want to maintain an independent site’ is significant, and out of clarity is that from the people who would be most involved on the development / maintenance side, or the board / decision makers, or both ?
If it is a unanimous and desired belief and approach, then the only clear thing that matters is if through a revamp and changed advertising to the platform site, and improved premium features in terms of quality, volume and variety of output leading to an improved subscription push, could this:
a. be feasibly be married with no increase (and potential risks of a fall) in resources ?
b. Lead to a projected upturn in revenues that at minimum, matches the more accurate predictions from the FLi tie up ?
This appears to me to be a resource issue as much as a financial one.
You mention the website strongly in terms of the Clubs’ ‘identity’, but I’m not fully sold on that point. Identity to me breaks down to two aspects, static core club aspects (club colours, ground, badge, history, values) and other aspects that are more periphery, sometimes club-originated, sometimes not.
At various instances of our modern past, VoTV (and to a lesser extent other long-running fanzines such as GBH), the RTM / Sunday night radio show / match commentaries, the Valley Party, the strong Supporters Club etc were all important parts of our ‘supporter / club’ identity at the time and I would align a website more in that camp than the former, despite it fully being a club vehicle.
The current website is largely well received by supporters, despite its dated design and occassional instability.
Why is that so ?
I personally don’t think it is due to the features on offer, or the site design and layout, but the volume and quality content of the published material. And there is no reason why that should change if it become part of the FLi network, should it ? All that will change is the platform, and the annoyance of increased advertising surrounding the articles.
I’ve floated the question of feedback on their own clubs’ FLi website with fans of other clubs, and the initial responses are not as negative as you might expect. On the upside, it seems that after a while fans simply get used to the layout of the platform, and makes it easier when navigating other clubs websites, on the downside they look too busy, the vast amount of advertising makes it difficult to highlight things that should be highlighted, and the adverts appear to have become more intrusive over the years (breaking up articles into 2 or 3 chunks with ads stuck in), and on the technical side when uploading items the template is not particularly user-friendly.
But ultimately, the key things seem to be determined on how well managed it is by the individual club; If the content is attractive, and the structure of the site is kept in order and as simple as possible, then it is not so much of the issue.
I too see independence as strongly preferable, not though through an identity angle but mainly because no one knows technology wise what may be around the corner and 7 years is a particularly ridiculous contract to be tied into.
But IMO the continued independence route can only be pursued if the comms team are confident within their resource they can deliver something independently that is going to deliver both the quality required and growth in revenue. That growth in revenue will only come from the wider fanbase if it delivers quality on the niche aspects that the club can tap into which can’t be found elsewhere (access to players, video highlights, consistent and appreciated commentary etc).
I have not subscribed to CATV / Player, but its clear from the posts on here over time that it hasn’t been at the quality needed to pick up the subscriptions of people other than those out of necessity (overseas needing match commentary for example). That would need to be strongly addressed, however I’m relatively confident that although our crowds may be falling, the loyalty and intrigue of our core fanbase has the potential to buy into something such as this in greater volumes than at present if the product was better received than it currently is.
So to me its got to be an all or nothing approach. Either the club feels it can deidicate the resource to having a real push at professionally delivering Premium subscription content, or take the easy option and take the guaranteed stable platform and revenues.
As a slight aside, I would offer a word of caution on putting too much importance towards betting partners as a way of deriving income. It’s been a huge aspect of the growth of the internet, and I fully understand the need for all websites to tie in with this (its something we may have to do on here at some point so I’m not being fully hypocritical). But I do think it is something which a professional body with strong community values, the club just needs to be careful that it doesn’t get to the stage where its official outlets don’t ‘over do it’ with its encouragement to people to gamble. I don’t think it has so far, but I do feel its something that it has to keep a cautious eye on.
Hope that helps, apologies a bit long.
If the the club were to 'big up' the FLi as a brand new initiative to bring the fans a better service then they'd just go along with it, there'd be no 'Oh dear, if I subscribe to the new site someone might be at risk of losing their job, still, the £50 grand will come in handy' conundrum...
The fans will accept and adapt, all the other clubs have, why would we be any different...?
Thanks for the lengthy and considered post. I won't respond in detail, but on the question about the view within the club it's shared by Matt Wright, Steve Kavanagh and myself, was Peter Varney's view, and the board have supported us. I'm not aware of anyone at the club who has a contrary view, although others may have no view. Steve, Matt and I have been the people working on this. It surfaces as a budgetary issue rather than a communications one.
I don't want to say too much about FLi in the circumstances, but we have been open with them about the fact that we don't like their designs and we have concerns about the level of service they provide to clubs and supporters from our experience with Player.
Whatever route the club takes there will have to be investment in premium video content, in particular, to drive revenue. It's not a case of handing the service over to FLi, as they only provide the basic match highlights and I think the consensus would be that they don't do that well in terms of what is available as an alternative free.
Personally, I think the design of the FLi sites of itself undermines the quality and depth of the editorial content, but given the financial circumstances we are bound to end up diverting existing staff resources into premium content to drive subscriptions. The more the model is based on subscriptions, the more this is likely to be true.
In regards to keeping the OS I honestly believe with increased advertising space and more publicity about the website e.g in match programmes the OS could increase it's traffic, its a great source of information, I personally visit the OS twice a day at the least. The trouble with moving it, is the fact we loose control over what content goes on to it.
Pick a few clubs that don't offend you - look at their websites. They show what FLi sites look like. The standard advertising is there. It's not offensive and you can ignore it.
If you want highlights and post match interviews they are on the BBC sport page. Hard luck if you're overseas.
We can all promise to sign up to a subscription service but the take-up will not match up.
CAFC is a bit special but it is still a business. It's about 50 years since my Mum took me to my first game. I want the club to be there for many years to come.
My comments about the OS have been published...