So in addition to watching NASCAR before the Gold Cup, I'm listening to the Hotlanta Falcons v Naw'lins Saints game right now via an audio webcast on NFL.com. Why can't WUSA do something similar? Does it cost too much to do? Do PAX and the RSN's have exclusive broadcast rights? Is there some legal issue that hinders this? What???
It can't cost all that much. There are Division III schools that do it for men's and women's soccer. The audience for that can't be very large. I've listened to several games. I suppose, once you have the equipment, you might as well use it. If I'm not mistaken Major League Baseball does it. I think you can get any game you want. If you miss the start, you can start it from the beginning. At least you could a couple of years ago. I haven't checked lately. WUSA may think no one is interested. They also probably don't have the technology. I question whether there's enough of an audience to make it worthwhile.
No numbers...only thoughts Areas of prospective (and realistic?) listener interest... * "Center of the country" folks- those not on a coast, within driving distance to a WUSA team * International supporters of the Internationals... granted, with the time diff, it may be a bit painful. * Those who do not have cable TV (ahem! I'm not alone in this) and would prefer something MORE than online pbp (I do THANK YOU ALL IMMENSELY for providing this though! ) I think the internationals may be a larger audience than is realized... certainly a bigger forum of marketing (of some sort) would be beneficial for them/to them...
Division II and III schools have student bodies who do things like major in journalism or speech communications. The labor is free/cheap, and the other expenses are likely not picked up by the team. WUSA/MLS teams would have to pay for the equipment, the connection, the on-air talent, etc... Another factor is bandwidth. A Division III school probably doesn't have to worry about how many simultaneous sessions are going to be active, but MLS/WUSA teams would have to pay for bandwidth for 100s-1000s of connections.
I know that online streaming is extremely expensive- I listen to a lot of public radio online and many stations have had to cut back due to price.
Most of the expense of online streaming comes from: 1. Royalties to copyright holders of the material being streamed. This can make it prohibitively expensive to stream music, but the WUSA probably won't charge itself royalties. 2. Royalties and licensing fees related to the encoding technology itself. For example, MP3 incorporates technology patented by some German company and you're supposed to pay them whenever you encode something into that format. Similarly, though I don't know the exact licensing terms for either Real or Windows Media, it seems unlikely that the encoding and streaming tools and/or the licensing terms for either would be free. (WMA is also not cross-platform.) 3. Hardware and bandwidth to support streaming the content to multiple users. I have no idea how many people would listen to a typical streamed WUSA game (10? 100? 1000?), but I doubt it would be a huge number. In short, if the WUSA were smart and used open-source software (free) to encode and stream their own content in an open (i.e. royalty-free) format like Ogg Vorbis, and they did all this on Linux (free), thir biggest expense would be the hardware and bandwidth. Assuming there aren't too many listeners per game, this price for that shouldn't be too expensive. Of course, it isn't my money, so maybe I shouldn't talk.
ive always maitained that radio deals especally for streaming media was a good idea...even if a small fee would be charged i think this would increase exposure...WNBA does this and its quite succesful...and would be much better than game tracker...i think this would be worth the costs especally if they can get a sponsor for it.
For the record... McDonald's sponsored the 1st Washington vs Carolina (at Carolina) game of the 2002 season on a webcast that was based on the WUSA's web site. The commentary was quality- not boosterism for either team, and there was an interview with Tony DiCiccio I believe and/or the Pres/GM of the Courage. Both interviews were well done, informative, and beneficial to the listener. The broadcast wasn't terribly energetic though.. that was my one downside to the cast... Still..overall.. it was very professional and well done. Here's to more webcasts in the future.