Rokfin - Will we have to pay extra now to watch any actual wrestling?

[flyingcement]

I'm not as big of a consumer of the related content - I am more of someone that just wants to watch the live wrestling matches.  So I subscribe to Rokfin for $9.99 a month, but now each event has been formed into a tournament of sorts in which you have to pay another ten or fifteen bucks to watch.  Seems like a bad place to put live wrestling, because of the need to subscribe to the platform in the first place to even have access to the PPV.  I dont' know of any alternative though, so I'm basically just bitching.  

 

[flyingcement]

And yes, I did just pay $15 for Wranglemania, out of Liberty High School (a place I've wrestled) even after finding out that ASU is sending a half squad.  

[MPhillips]

1 minute ago, flyingcement said:

I'm not as big of a consumer of the related content - I am more of someone that just wants to watch the live wrestling matches.  So I subscribe to Rokfin for $9.99 a month, but now each event has been formed into a tournament of sorts in which you have to pay another ten or fifteen bucks to watch.  Seems like a bad place to put live wrestling, because of the need to subscribe to the platform in the first place to even have access to the PPV.  I dont' know of any alternative though, so I'm basically just bitching.  

 

Are all of the wrestling events extra? Or just the ones we want to watch? I use ROKFIN daily, so I get my money's worth. But still a bit disappointing.

Double paywalled.

[flyingcement]

2 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

Are all of the wrestling events extra? Or just the ones we want to watch? I use ROKFIN daily, so I get my money's worth. But still a bit disappointing.

Double paywalled.

I'm not sure if maybe some of the events later in the season may be included in the actual subscription.  Hopefully so.  This is another case of wrestling not getting out of its own way.  Floreani behind the business model for Flo and Rokfin - no surprise lol.  That mentality is bad for growing a sport.  

[MPhillips]

They obviously believe only us expert wrestling dummies will pay, so why even give 'Joe wrestling fan' a chance. 

Double Paywall/Double Secret Probation...it all seems sneaky.

[ionel]

5 minutes ago, MPhillips said:

They obviously believe only us expert wrestling dummies will pay, so why even give 'Joe wrestling fan' a chance. 

Double Paywall/Double Secret Probation...it all seems sneaky.

[Mike Parrish]

My favorite is being on a monthly paid service with Flo and still getting force fed ads during every stream.

[Husker_Du]

It's the individual channels/creators that roundly requested the ppv option.

i won't try to convince y'all that it makes sense b/c you probably made up your mind. but it makes all the sense in the world.

and at the end of the day, if you don't subscribe normally, just consider it a $25ppv.

of course you can decide if that's too steep for ya or not. 

i would also suggest maybe considering the P&L of the events these promoters put on.

(keep in mind, i don't do ppv events so this is not me trying to defend myself)

[Wrestleknownothing]

3 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

It's the individual channels/creators that roundly requested the ppv option.

i won't try to convince y'all that it makes sense b/c you probably made up your mind. but it makes all the sense in the world.

and at the end of the day, if you don't subscribe normally, just consider it a $25ppv.

of course you can decide if that's too steep for ya or not. 

i would also suggest maybe considering the P&L of the events these promoters put on.

(keep in mind, i don't do ppv events so this is not me trying to defend myself)

That sounds to me like the initial estimated economics from the platform did not work as well as hoped (it happens with projections), so individual channels requested the PPV option?

[Husker_Du]

it works better for both daily content creators (like me) and individual event promoters (like Frank Pop) that both are in play. 

i wouldn't say the single/initial plan didn't work. i think it worked quite will. but that this (from a creator's pov) was more equitable.

of course, it's up to the event promoter to use the ppv or not. that's not determined by the platform. 

 

[Iowa]

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

My favorite is being on a monthly paid service with Flo and still getting force fed ads during every stream.

You pay the 'monthly' tax? Or do you really mean 'yearly'?

[flyingcement]

18 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

it works better for both daily content creators (like me) and individual event promoters (like Frank Pop) that both are in play. 

i wouldn't say the single/initial plan didn't work. i think it worked quite will. but that this (from a creator's pov) was more equitable.

of course, it's up to the event promoter to use the ppv or not. that's not determined by the platform. 

 

I don't doubt it may seem to make sense for other aspects of the business.  But for the consumers themselves, it's an awkward way to access the content.  You could say, well the consumers should be resilient and figure it out, and that's fine and fair.  But a business approach that considers the consumer, especially for anyone who would claim to care about growing wrestling, is one that is going to win in the long run.  It strikes me a bit of pennywise and pound-foolish to optimize one's own economics at the expense of being unreasonable to consumers (who would have awarded you with greater scale and increased economics over time).  

[MNRodent]

3 hours ago, MPhillips said:

Are all of the wrestling events extra? Or just the ones we want to watch? I use ROKFIN daily, so I get my money's worth. But still a bit disappointing.

Double paywalled.

I just watched "Who's the big cheese?", a mostly Wisconsin preseason all-star dual, for free.

 

[MPhillips]

3 minutes ago, MNRodent said:

I just watched "Who's the big cheese?", a mostly Wisconsin preseason all-star dual, for free.

 

Understood. 

[Mike Parrish]

35 minutes ago, Iowa said:

You pay the 'monthly' tax? Or do you really mean 'yearly'?

Used to be monthly. I misspoke.

[Mike Parrish]

27 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

I don't doubt it may seem to make sense for other aspects of the business.  But for the consumers themselves, it's an awkward way to access the content.  You could say, well the consumers should be resilient and figure it out, and that's fine and fair.  But a business approach that considers the consumer, especially for anyone who would claim to care about growing wrestling, is one that is going to win in the long run.  It strikes me a bit of pennywise and pound-foolish to optimize one's own economics at the expense of being unreasonable to consumers (who would have awarded you with greater scale and increased economics over time).  

It's also a barrier to entry.

How many people would have paid a higher base monthly bill and watched more wrestling?
How many people pay the base but balk at paying the PPV for events?

If they had a smart model, there would be a revenue sharing agreement that the consumer was blind to.
With this stuff, the consumer sees everything and may decide not to purchase.

Fewer events make money this way.

[ionel]

5 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Used to be monthly. I misspoke.

When?

[Mike Parrish]

5 minutes ago, ionel said:

When?

I don't remember.
I think it's been a while.

Not having Flo isn't really an option, given my connection.

[MPhillips]

3 hours ago, MPhillips said:

They obviously believe only us expert wrestling dummies will pay, so why even give 'Joe wrestling fan' a chance. 

Who said it more succinct?

15 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

It's also a barrier to entry.

Mike all the way. 

[Husker_Du]

1 hour ago, flyingcement said:

  It strikes me a bit of pennywise and pound-foolish to optimize one's own economics at the expense of being unreasonable to consumers (who would have awarded you with greater scale and increased economics over time).  

wrestling people always say this and it's always not accurate.

there's a reason flo makes it painful/impossible to do monthly. it's called data.

and your assumption that a different model would result in more customers is just that...an assumption.

[flyingcement]

4 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

wrestling people always say this and it's always not accurate.

there's a reason flo makes it painful/impossible to do monthly. it's called data.

and your assumption that a different model would result in more customers is just that...an assumption.

are you using flo as an example of something sensible to compare to?  data is powerful, but you have to know how to use it.  

[Husker_Du]

46 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

It's also a barrier to entry.

How many people would have paid a higher base monthly bill and watched more wrestling? What's the answer to this question?
How many people pay the base but balk at paying the PPV for events? What's the answer to this question?

If they had a smart model, there would be a revenue sharing agreement that the consumer was blind to. I'm open to hearing some sort of 'smart model' proposal.
With this stuff, the consumer sees everything and may decide not to purchase. Is that not the case with literally everything? You either pay the price or you won't. What's the difference between a PPV for $25 vs a $10/mo + $15 ppv other than them arbitrary perspective?

Fewer events make money this way. Evidence?

at the end of the day the current system is better for the creators in a world where every other platform is terrible for creators.

if you guys think this is terrible for consumers, and that it limits viewership, then the market will bear that out and the creators will have to reconsider ppv.

otherwise, you're just scoffing at semantics and/or a unique funnel. 

[nhs67]

1 minute ago, flyingcement said:

are you using flo as an example of something sensible to compare to?  data is powerful, but you have to know how to use it.  

That is actually one of my worries that Flo will start charging to watch each tournament too.

[Husker_Du]

2 minutes ago, flyingcement said:

are you using flo as an example of something sensible to compare to?  data is powerful, but you have to know how to use it.  

are you using any data at all? 

seems to me you're making assumptions based out of thin air.

[nhs67]

Just now, Husker_Du said:

at the end of the day the current system is better for the creators in a world where every other platform is terrible for creators.

if you guys think this is terrible for consumers, and that it limits viewership, then the market will bear that out and the creators will have to reconsider ppv.

otherwise, you're just scoffing at semantics and/or a unique funnel. 

Honestly, if my interest is in a specific tournament and it is behind a PPV wall as well, then I am going to pay.  It makes sense.