Help Required for NEW BCFC website

[exAtyeoMax]

http://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/help-shape-the-future-of-citys-website-3315540.aspx

[Fiale]

Thank god, our current website is a embarrassment - even the Bristol Jets (Badminton team) have a better website.

[exAtyeoMax]

We need pop-ups to tell us when tickets are available (like Villa). One of the first things you see…

[Fiale]

Some of the best

 

Good all round site -  http://www.mancity.com/

 

Nice menu buttons easy to find clean and clear    http://uk.puma.com/uk/en/home?locale=en_GB&mktID=PL:Brand Marketing:Puma.com-CatchAllPage:United Kingdom-en&plinkID=Brand

 

 

Crisp easy to nabigate site    http://www.prgolfonline.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bristol Rob]

It needs to have videos of cats doing funny things.

And maybe it could open with that hamster dance. Or the Crazy Frog.

[Robbored]

A "loan watch" feature would be useful.

[Bristol Rob]

1 minute ago, Robbored said:

A "loan watch" feature would be useful.

Maybe they could get one on tick.

[exAtyeoMax]

1 hour ago, Bristol Rob said:

It needs to have videos of cats doing funny things.

And maybe it could open with that hamster dance. Or the Crazy Frog.

I like the one where the black cat jumps off the fridge

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Robbored said:

A "loan watch" feature would be useful.

Ideas like this defiantly worth sharing on this thread as sure Adam and Co will read it.

 

[Bristol Rob]

10 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

I like the one where the black cat jumps off the fridge

Have you seen the one where the Cat falls off the telly?

Lolz

[exAtyeoMax]

1 minute ago, Bristol Rob said:

Have you seen the one where the Cat falls off the telly?

Lolz

Not sure. I remember the first time I saw that cat fall off the radiator on You've Been Framed, years ago when it used to be funny…

[View from the Dolman]

14 minutes ago, Robbored said:

A "loan watch" feature would be useful.

They've been doing this recently...

http://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/loan-watch-as-garita-bags-pilgrims-derby-goal-3315925.aspx

Could be easily improved if they used other club's Youtube videos, particularly in the case of Garita's goal and assist...

[JamesBCFC]

1 hour ago, Tomarse said:

Ideas like this defiantly worth sharing on this thread as sure Adam and Co will read it.

 

In the international break I tweeted Adam about this and since then there has been update on the loanees.

[Reigate Red]

A link for a downloadable pdf fixture list.

Cue - someone will now show me that it already exists !

[AdamB]

6 hours ago, Tomarse said:

Ideas like this defiantly worth sharing on this thread as sure Adam and Co will read it.

 

Yes please do keep the ideas flowing. Everything will go into the pot...we have no FLi handcuffs now!

[AdamB]

2 hours ago, Reigate Red said:

A link for a downloadable pdf fixture list.

Cue - someone will now show me that it already exists !

I have one we use for internal use but I'll get it added to the site somewhere. Will update you when it's up. 

Adam

[AdamB]

6 hours ago, View from the Dolman said:

They've been doing this recently...

http://www.bcfc.co.uk/news/article/2016-17/loan-watch-as-garita-bags-pilgrims-derby-goal-3315925.aspx

Could be easily improved if they used other club's Youtube videos, particularly in the case of Garita's goal and assist...

'Tis a good point and a great idea which we'll implement. Thank you.

Adam

[Milo]

15 years ago was not long after the birth of Friends Reunited. I know that many City fans enjoy City Player and see it as value for money. And I know that the revenue is pretty reasonable (I think there’s over 1,000 subscribers so £60K+ a year matters). But maybe there’s something in the fact that Friends Reunited’s £7.50 a year ultimately led to its demise earlier this year while free-to-use Facebook is worth £283bn.

If we want to build a community around our football club, and particularly around the other Clubs in the BS stable, the teams have to be accessible. Everyone has to feel welcome and involved. If you’ve got a great interview or a few minutes of match highlights, let everyone see it. Make the free to view content so good that the vaguely interested supporters can dip in, research and get enthusiastic. If you “tease” potential supporters with a 60 second clip of something and follow up with a subscribe link you’ll make that viewer feel on the outside and not part of the Club. Do not compromise the quality of the website content because you want subscribers, make it outstanding; excite and engage potential new as well as existing supporters.

Give it a trial season of everything free with great HD content and see if the interest it generates creates greater financial revenues through ticket sales and advertising than you could ever hope to from subscribers.

[Mad Cyril]

16 hours ago, Fiale said:

Thank god, our current website is a embarrassment - even the Bristol Jets (Badminton team) have a better website.

To be honest, that website would be even better if they got the sport right.

[Clarky89]

Manchester City's website should form the base of most inspiration!! Sleek, stylish and easy to navigate. 

Naturally a different choice of colour scheme!! 

Also personally, would like to see a different look than the Bristol Sport site, whilst a great site, it's got a more business feel rather than football!

Mobile friendly option too, please. The current one from the FL hurts me. 

[AdamB]

6 hours ago, Milo said:

15 years ago was not long after the birth of Friends Reunited. I know that many City fans enjoy City Player and see it as value for money. And I know that the revenue is pretty reasonable (I think there’s over 1,000 subscribers so £60K+ a year matters). But maybe there’s something in the fact that Friends Reunited’s £7.50 a year ultimately led to its demise earlier this year while free-to-use Facebook is worth £283bn.

 

If we want to build a community around our football club, and particularly around the other Clubs in the BS stable, the teams have to be accessible. Everyone has to feel welcome and involved. If you’ve got a great interview or a few minutes of match highlights, let everyone see it. Make the free to view content so good that the vaguely interested supporters can dip in, research and get enthusiastic. If you “tease” potential supporters with a 60 second clip of something and follow up with a subscribe link you’ll make that viewer feel on the outside and not part of the Club. Do not compromise the quality of the website content because you want subscribers, make it outstanding; excite and engage potential new as well as existing supporters.

 

Give it a trial season of everything free with great HD content and see if the interest it generates creates greater financial revenues through ticket sales and advertising than you could ever hope to from subscribers.

 

We're still awaiting some clarity from the EFL but there is likely to be some elements that FLi retain the rights to and which they will dictate how we, as a non-FLi club, utilise this content. Eg commentary being one area where under our rights agreement with FLi to still broadcast this, we must place it behind a paywall. 

Aston Villa utilise the same audio/visual company as we use currently, StreamAMG, and offer the 60-second option you speak of, which I like. 

Another year on and there will be the option for clubs to offer pay-per-view games to fans outside of the UK and Ireland. This again must be paywalled. There are also some exceptions to this (can't be a Sky game or main highlights match on C5).

It's a good debate to be had, as Player HD provides one of our largest revenue streams (mainly because it is also linked to online clip rights for Sky) but it's the only option we have in the FLi deal; we don't have an option to say make videos all free and bring in advertising revenue on clips instead.

Adam

 

[Fiale]

42 minutes ago, AdamB said:

We're still awaiting some clarity from the EFL but there is likely to be some elements that FLi retain the rights to and which they will dictate how we, as a non-FLi club, utilise this content. Eg commentary being one area where under our rights agreement with FLi to still broadcast this, we must place it behind a paywall. 

Aston Villa utilise the same audio/visual company as we use currently, StreamAMG, and offer the 60-second option you speak of, which I like. 

Another year on and there will be the option for clubs to offer pay-per-view games to fans outside of the UK and Ireland. This again must be paywalled. There are also some exceptions to this (can't be a Sky game or main highlights match on C5).

It's a good debate to be had, as Player HD provides one of our largest revenue streams (mainly because it is also linked to online clip rights for Sky) but it's the only option we have in the FLi deal; we don't have an option to say make videos all free and bring in advertising revenue on clips instead.

Adam

 

 

Hi Adam, thanks for this. I was wondering about the youth and U23's / U21 games - are these under the same rules/restrictions or can they be put onto the site in their entirety ? It would be nice to see how our youngsters and academy are progressing.

[Milo]

42 minutes ago, AdamB said:

We're still awaiting some clarity from the EFL but there is likely to be some elements that FLi retain the rights to and which they will dictate how we, as a non-FLi club, utilise this content. Eg commentary being one area where under our rights agreement with FLi to still broadcast this, we must place it behind a paywall. 

Aston Villa utilise the same audio/visual company as we use currently, StreamAMG, and offer the 60-second option you speak of, which I like. 

Another year on and there will be the option for clubs to offer pay-per-view games to fans outside of the UK and Ireland. This again must be paywalled. There are also some exceptions to this (can't be a Sky game or main highlights match on C5).

It's a good debate to be had, as Player HD provides one of our largest revenue streams (mainly because it is also linked to online clip rights for Sky) but it's the only option we have in the FLi deal; we don't have an option to say make videos all free and bring in advertising revenue on clips instead.

Adam

 

Thanks for the background Adam. Will you have control over pricing? If so, I think £54 per year is not an inclusive and accessible price. It's a price that in my opinion attracts a mix of the hardcore, those with high disposable income and the desperate expats. By contrast, Bayern Munich charge £31 per year and Barcelona charge £28 (£21 to members) per year to watch the cream of footballing talent in domestic and European matches. An argument that if you halve the cost you might double the subscribers would be fatuous; my view is simply that if we want a Club that's the sporting heartbeat of Bristol and the community it has to grow its fan base, and to that end the sales and promotion of its core product (the match day experience) should be a greater priority than selling expensive exclusive content to the already-hooked. 

[exAtyeoMax]

5 minutes ago, Milo said:

Thanks for the background Adam. Will you have control over pricing? If so, I think £54 per year is not an inclusive and accessible price. It's a price that in my opinion attracts a mix of the hardcore, those with high disposable income and the desperate expats. By contrast, Bayern Munich charge £31 per year and Barcelona charge £28 (£21 to members) per year to watch the cream of footballing talent in domestic and European matches. An argument that if you halve the cost you might double the subscribers would be fatuous; my view is simply that if we want a Club that's the sporting heartbeat of Bristol and the community it has to grow its fan base, and to that end the sales and promotion of its core product (the match day experience) should be a greater priority than selling expensive exclusive content to the already-hooked. 

It's just over a £1 per week, over 12 months (I know the season doesn't last that long but the payment is over 12 months). I don't think it's prohibitive. I'm a student and don't have disposable income, and I think it is good value for the amount of content you get, plus I listen to commentary on the player because I don't live in the Radio Bristol area.

[Milo]

3 hours ago, exAtyeoMax said:

It's just over a £1 per week, over 12 months (I know the season doesn't last that long but the payment is over 12 months). I don't think it's prohibitive. I'm a student and don't have disposable income, and I think it is good value for the amount of content you get, plus I listen to commentary on the player because I don't live in the Radio Bristol area.

Hi Max, you fit into the category I've loosely described as "desperate expats" and I stated earlier that I know that some people see it as value for money. But if there are 1000 subscribers, there are another 15000+ regular match goers and another 30000+ who are interested enough to go to Wembley who, at the price, have self-selected themselves out of the service. The weight of numbers in the non-subscribers column indicate that the price, for the vast majority, makes the service prohibitive, and consequently the majority are excluded (through choice) from that particularly inner-circle. They don't see the content that might get them and keep them hooked for more.

If we have to have a paywall for content, why not add an optional £10 per year to Season Tickets and Forever Bristol Membership with Player as an affordable option and see if it gets more than the 6,000 subscribers needed to replace the current income stream and make it more widely available to all? When we're playing in the Premier League and then Europe we can think again about pricing, but meanwhile let's grow the fan base.

[exAtyeoMax]

7 minutes ago, Milo said:

Hi Max, you fit into the category I've loosely described as "desperate expats" and I stated earlier that I know that some people see it as value for money. But if there are 1000 subscribers, there are another 15000+ regular match goers and another 30000+ who are interested enough to go to Wembley who, at the price, have self-selected themselves out of the service. The weight of numbers in the non-subscribers column indicate that the price, for the vast majority, makes the service prohibitive, and consequently the majority are excluded (through choice) from that particularly inner-circle. They don't see the content that might get them and keep them hooked for more.

If we have to have a paywall for content, why not add an optional £10 per year to Season Tickets and Forever Bristol Membership with Player as an affordable option and see if it gets more than the 6,000 subscribers needed to replace the current income stream and make it more widely available to all? When we're playing in the Premier League and then Europe we can think again about pricing, but meanwhile let's grow the fan base.

I understand what you are saying and there is free content on YouTube. I guess those who will go for a day out to Wembley aren't actually interested in what the academy are doing, or the opinions of LJ. To some, any price is prohibitive, and think that have paid out enough with £30 approx POTD (if they aren't STHs or Members). I think that the fan base should grow through ticket sales (because that is how to get people interested initially) and adding more to the price of tickets/memberships is more likely to put people off. If you add £10 per ST, how much would the price for player, lower by?

There has been quite a few technical issues with player. For one, the digital quality of the content has to improve, it has been shocking, but there are longer match highlights now, which is good.

[Milo]

55 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

If you add £10 per ST, how much would the price for player, lower by?

The tentative proposal I was floating was an option to add an extra £10 to STH and Members for those who wanted content behind a paywall. So if you didn't want it, you wouldn't select that option. And if you did want it, it would only cost £10 for the season plus the cost of your STH or Forever Bristol membership. You could use the £45 you save to watch a couple of extra matches on your student income. I'm not proposing a way the Club can maximise revenue from its website, I'm proposing the Club should do whatever it can to engage, involve and include supporters via it.

I choose not to have Player because I don't see the value. I do have a season ticket and I am interested in the academy, what LJ thinks, what decision makers are doing, players' personalities, and in seeing highlights of games. There are times when I read about interviews available on Player that make me want to watch more than a teaser. On those occasions I am  reminded of a negative about my Club; that it wants me to keep parting with my cash. So I'm rarely tempted to subscribe, just left feeling outside the loop and wishing my football club involved its supporters more. The fact there's a deal that stops Radio Bristol putting its commentaries on the PC just so that Clubs and FLi can force desperate expats to cough up for content that's free to all licence payers locally feels morally questionable.

The internet provides an unrivalled opportunity to promote a business's product and until such time as that's no longer required (because we've  got Premier League saturation exposure) we should use it to reach out, grow the business and monetise the web content through community-friendly advertising and the increased income that comes from an increased fan base. 

[exAtyeoMax]

4 minutes ago, Milo said:

The tentative proposal I was floating was an option to add an extra £10 to STH and Members for those who wanted content behind a paywall. So if you didn't want it, you wouldn't select that option. And if you did want it, it would only cost £10 for the season plus the cost of your STH or Forever Bristol membership. You could use the £45 you save to watch a couple of extra matches on your student income. I'm not proposing a way the Club can maximise revenue from its website, I'm proposing the Club should do whatever it can to engage, involve and include supporters via it.

I choose not to have Player because I don't see the value. I do have a season ticket and I am interested in the academy, what LJ thinks, what decision makers are doing, players' personalities, and in seeing highlights of games. There are times when I read about interviews available on Player that make me want to watch more than a teaser. On those occasions I am  reminded of a negative about my Club; that it wants me to keep parting with my cash. So I'm rarely tempted to subscribe, just left feeling outside the loop and wishing my football club involved its supporters more. The fact there's a deal that stops Radio Bristol putting its commentaries on the PC just so that Clubs and FLi can force desperate expats to cough up for content that's free to all licence payers locally feels morally questionable.

The internet provides an unrivalled opportunity to promote a business's product and until such time as that's no longer required (because we've  got Premier League saturation exposure) we should use it to reach out, grow the business and monetise the web content through community-friendly advertising and the increased income that comes from an increased fan base. 

is player part of the web deal? I was just wondering if the cost of maintaining it would change when the existing deal expires? I don't know how much it costs to provide these kinds of web services, so if there was a drop in subscriptions due to it being added to STHs etc at a lower cost, would there be enough to cover it?

 

[Unan]

9 minutes ago, exAtyeoMax said:

is player part of the web deal? I was just wondering if the cost of maintaining it would change when the existing deal expires? I don't know how much it costs to provide these kinds of web services, so if there was a drop in subscriptions due to it being added to STHs etc at a lower cost, would there be enough to cover it?

 

A one off payment to create the service would be considerable but to maintain the service, not a lot at all. I'd imagine the rights for content we don't own are hefty, but I could run a site similar to player from my bedroom with a tight budget easily.

[exAtyeoMax]

6 minutes ago, Griffin said:

To maintain the service, not a lot at all. I'd imagine the rights for content we don't own is considerable, but I could run a site similar to player from my bedroom with a tight budget easily.

so, it's paying for the rights that makes it expensive? When BCFC leave the FLi network, will it make anything cheaper?