Finally, someone who understands... Not saying extra cameras will magically fix everything, but it's an important initial step. Exposure is so important, but also the content (stories, culture etc)
Wait Jun no one ever said fixing fcking cameras would magically fix everything, I only said it is actually a problem cuz there was a Korean TV segment on this directly comparing European camerawork vs korean camerawork... no one's disagreeing with you except amoeba
In the end, TV is visual consumption.... How many non-diehard soccer fans are going to watch soccer for the sentiment?
Obviously every thing is a factor up to a different degree. But employing more and better broadcasting equipment is just financially unfeasible. You have to think about what can ACTUALLY be done, how much of an impact that action would have. Marketing is a lot cheaper in that aspect. Using social media more proactively, getting local organisations and businesses on board require much less effort and manpower. The latter two are crucial because K-League clubs lack their identity unlike most European clubs, in that many of the clubs historically represent people from a certain area/a certain profession/or even a political position which they can draw their support from. This approach have worked wonders for KBO, especially the Lotte Giants for example. They managed to ingrained themselves very well into local communities by appealing to blue-collar workers as means to relieve stress, etc... and now when people mention Busan, one of the first things you think off are the Lotte Giants.
Most. All you have to look at is the viewer ratings in Korea for the Olympics football matches compared to Premier League matches. The latter has better quality of football and employ better broadcasting technologies, but the former attracted far more viewers. Why? Because most of the casual fans don't know or care about the quality of football, they just need something to rally behind, and in this case, the strong pull-factor is the national pride and the sentiment that we must support our NT. So no, identity is very important.
Forget camera specs or anything like that, the league could simply change their direction style and create a more exciting game for people to watch online or on TV. I regularly get contacted from folks across the world trying to watch the league (admittedly most are for betting reasons... c'est la vie), and when they finally find the stream, the single static camera makes the game look woefully boring. Even the smallest games (which are most of my beloved Jeonnam Dragons games) have three cameras on the grounds, but the broadcast directors rarely use the ground cameras and under utilize instant replay. I don't think any more money needs to be spent on upgrading equipment, but changing how the league's presented IS important. As has been said, it's not the end all be all fix for the league, but it'd be a start. The Naver feeds I regularly watch often have 8,000-10,000 people watching the live stream, and if what they were watching something presented in a more exciting way, more of them might be inclined to actually go to the games. A better directed game would also highlight individual player skills and show that there is indeed quality in this league. Passing off presentation as a non-factor is ignoring one of the biggest issues facing K-League: perceived lack of quality. If the only way to watch looks like shit, then why would people believe the on field quality's any better? However, this is spot on: Went on at length about these in my marketing and supporters articles about thing K-League can learn from MLS, but this is a good summary. K-League MUST do a better job not only of promoting itself, but also actually connecting with the community it represents. One of the best things about football is the connection between a city and its team, and that's sorely lacking in K-League because there's a huge disconnect between ownership and the fanbase. Fans don't feel as much a part of the club as they do simply an occasionally paying customer. As many leagues around the world have proven, if you make the community feel involved they'll be BOTH a part of the club and paying customer.
On the note of supporters and truly connecting with the community, I'd be remiss not to mention Detroit City FC. A 4th division team in the US that didn't exist 5 years ago is now drawing 7,000-8,000 people for home games and already outgrew their first stadium. This growth has 100% been through the supporters and the club's commitment to involving the community. K-League could learn A LOT from this amateur side. FIFA just did a video on them that'll give a bit more info: In 4th tier in the USA, @DetroitCityFC & their remarkable fans are making some noise🎥 https://t.co/bWWlU1GOFj pic.twitter.com/6oq2BQQI3T— FIFA (@FIFAcom) August 29, 2016
I thought about something like this before. For Ulsan, it's an Hyundai city and they are probably the biggest employer in that city. Many of my family members work for Hyundai and one of my cousin was able to go to Ulsan University for free because my uncle works for them. This got me thinking, why not create a culture in the workforce where going to a football game every once a week is the norm. I think this is better than going out drinking with your coworkers and getting totally wasted then coming home late without seeing your children. Instead, coworkers can go to Munsu stadium every week to release some steam, and they can bring their family with them as well. I think this is a lot better "lifestyle" and it also means that fathers can spend more quality time with their families. The best part: you only dedicate one day a week on the weekend. They can make that weekend a special weekend, something to anticipate about. Doing this will create an identity/culture. Ulsan Hyundai can be a football club for working class blue collar people.
I seem to recall some company teams in Korea shipping in employees to fill empty seats. And yeah, Ulsan and Hyundai are pretty closely tied together. As are Suwon and Samsung.
Lol must be cool go to Munsu stadium to watch long ball after long ball to Mendy or to Kova and then pray God.
That's my point, double digit man. So what happened? So the EPL's popularity is attributable to it's camera? So if I got 2 camera's does attendance go up exponentially? There was no coverage in the media because of some lack of camera? I do wonder what camera EPL using. Sony? You might want to tweet JTBC to give them a heads up.
It's a nice to have. But not essential. La Liga's camerawork aint that much better than K-League. LOL. Also, if we're talking EPL-style camera work, we've got to understand that the only league in the world that has EPL-style camerawork is the E to the motha fcking PL.
I mean, so my point is this: To assume that media exposure will automatically lead to increase in sales is naive. As a matter of fact, additional exposure when there is negative perception only makes the situation worse. I still haven't received a rebuttal.
Hey man. For a league with an average attendance rate of less than 10,000 and a stadium utilization rate of say, 8% - if you're asking me to invest in some more cameras, I'd probably fire you on the spot.
Define improving. Incorrect. You can measure viewership ratings, regardless of how the content is provided - through public channels or through Naver. And that's all that it matters and how you can quantify the popularity of the league. It is also the only leverage the KFA has got when selling TV deals. Camerawork isn't marketing. Marketing is a branding strategy and advertisement is merely a component of it. Camerawork helps but again, there is no evidence. What stats can you bring me where you can quantify higher attendance, viewership and more meaningfully, TV/sponsorship deals based on camerwork? Again, visual effects are nice to have. But per my post above, there is a cost element (cameras are expensive) but there is no revenue element. If it's not going to bring in thousands or more fans, what is the point? The difference between the EPL and the K-League is that broadcasting stations can afford to have sexy camera angles. Why would Korean broadcasting stations buy sexy cameras when nobody is going to watch it? Is there a benefit in having a quarter of a percentage point increase (if even that, as you point out) ?
You see, this is where the KBO got it wrong and I don't think they're maximizing profits. They appeal to the blue-collar group. But do Koreans like blue-collar shite?
You guys are thinking about this too hard. This is how it works for Koreans: 1. Get some alcohol 2. Get some music 3. Get some half naked women 4. And get them to dance People will come.
Yea, I am in full disagreement. If we want to be technical, I can't say that Korean camerawork is any better or worse than La Liga, Serie-A, J-League or the MLS. As a matter of fact, in terms of shite presentation, the MLS has the worse presentation out of all leagues. I mean, they got Pirlo passing to David Villa in a baseball stadium. But people still watch. Why is this? Why do we assume that K-League camerawork is shittier than the leagues mentioned above? The onus is one the person that first brought up the topic for me to be convinced. What angle, setting, distance, etc is attributable for having "better" camerawork? From what I'm hearing, nobody can answer this question. The way I see the issue is that people are displeased at the presentation of the league. It seems boring so people start thinking about why and the answer is camerawork and wants some expensive toys as an excuse to something they don't know the answer to. Substance for form, fellas. One thing at a time.