UKC

Hi All,

IFSC have signed a 3 year deal with FloClimbing for the rights to exclusively stream the events via their pay to watch system.http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/news/item/909-ifsc-and-flosports-sig...$150 per year for an annual subscription ($12.50 billed per month).

The introduction of the controversial 4min rule and this now will impact views this season. Going from a completely free to pay to watch system will never be easy, what are your thoughts.

Like if you are happy with this, dislike if you are unhappy!

I cant register my own OP so that's a major dislike from me!

Petition here: https://www.change.org/p/cancel-the-ifsc-live-streaming-subscription-fees

In reply to alx:

I guess I’ll just have to go and climb instead of watching it

But on a serious note, it is rather disappointing really. I and am sure many others do enjoy watching it, however, I can’t say I would pay $12.50 to watch it being streamed. I would imagine this will have an effect on the number of people who view it this round (and maybe for the next few years).

In reply to alx:

Who on earth will pay to watch it, can't imagine the climbers sponsors will be terribly pleased with this turn of events.

That'll be viewer numbers falling by 10000% overnight then and we'll all have to go back to watching cats freak out at the sight of cucumbers instead.

http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/about-ifsc/what-is-the-ifsc/values

IFSC activity is inspired and guided from the following values:

-Accessible
...
-Low cost
...
- Sport for All

Quite at odds with this deal

In reply to alx:

What's to stop a few anarchic individuals turning up and live streaming from their phones? Not that I would condone anything of the sort...

In reply to alx:

That's a real shame. I was looking forward to watching this weekend too. Seems pretty short-sighted IMO as I doubt they will have enough subscribers to make the income greater than they could have achieved by advertising to a free-to-air audience; this isn't premier league football (even if it is more interesting!)

In reply to alx:


It will be interesting to see how many folks actually sign up and how many viewers they now get compared to when it was free...

In reply to alx:

Do you think there will be any freely available footage after the fact? I could live with watching it a couple of days later for free (or at least a decent highlights show) but I'm not going to pay twice the cost of Netflix for one sporting event, it's a real shame.

In reply to alx:

Wow, talk about running before they can walk. Don't you have to have a popular format 1st before you sell the product. From what I experienced last year the viewing was difficult at best. It was more akin to the suggestion above for someone to live stream from their phone. Maybe if they upped their game this year and gave a product worthy of payment then next year they can try to sell it.

I was going to be watching with my daughter for this 1st round but I think I will give it a miss. Real shame

In reply to alx:

How strange. Seems a bit RockyRoads.

In reply to Thelittlesthobo:


They appear to have achieved the sale.....

In reply to climbEdclimb:

It's actually $20 if you go for the pay monthly option which you can cancel at anytime.

Annoyingly you need to give FloClimbing some details to find that much out but any old rubbish for your username/email/password will suffice.

You only get the $12.50 per month deal if you commit to full a year of payments.

It seems like a rather backwards move by the IFSC to me.

In reply to alx:

I've no problem in principle with the events making money if some of it goes to the athletes, but

(a) it's expensive - I'd pay say 5 bucks to watch an event - semis, finals and some *decent* highlights from qualis, but not 150 per year when it's only really the bouldering world cup I'm interested in

(b) the streaming then has to be high quality and actually work, which so far has not been the case for rounds in China because of Chinese government restrictions which I suspect FloSports is no more able to circumvent than anybody else

(c) and, it occurs to me now that I think about it, if they're not pursuing the broadcast TV route then the four minute rule makes even less sense

In reply to alx:

A stupid decision as I think we can all agree on.

So much wrong with this:
- Announcing it two days before the first competition
- Going into three-year deal, when it's an un-tested idea
- Charging more than most subscription services (Netflix, Amazon Prime...), where others are free (Redbull TV)
- Going with an unproven supplier who has yet to show they can offer a service people will pay for. I could be in the minority, but I've never heard of FloSports. They're either going to be using previous production teams, but just managing the stream, in which case I don't see what my money is getting as the consistency of broadcasts last year was ropey (though sometimes great I hasten to add!), or they've got their own production team, who I've yet to see any events by - so again, don't trust with my money

Sponsors must be pissed. We must be looking at a MASSIVE drop in viewing figures.

In the IFSC press release they used the phrase "This will allow the IFSC to reach a broader audience."
How?!

In reply to alx:

The more money there is in a sport the more it gets messed up in my experience. Shame really.

I suppose this also means the YouTube channels that show highlights are kaput. Climbing daily will probably have to stop as well.

In reply to timjones:

Yeah they've sold the rights. Any idea how much for? My bet is a cut of the takings which isn't really a sale at all if they have no viewers.

As I said, they should have had a popular format 1st before selling it. With the 4minute rule coming in and the doubts about quality, I cant see many investing time and money into it yet.

In reply to Durbs:


Without searching for info on my tediously slow connection, I assume they're related to FloGrappling. FG do similar PPV streaming for BJJ. Quite a similar situation I suppose - niche sport with a hardcore of fans who will pay but little chance of going mainstream. The product's not bad but overpriced. I just wait for things to surface elsewhere- the good stuff always does. The live stream just gets you a lot more of the prelims, which is OK if you know people competing. Otherwise...

In reply to alx:

A Motion of No Confidence in the governance of the IFSC would seem to be called for.

In reply to Fiona Reid:

Don't expect viewing figures to go down. They have +100,000 paid subscribers already, all of whom can tune into climbing. What would be interesting is to see the number of NEW subscribers.

In reply to Fiona Reid:

Don't expect viewing figures to go down. They have +100,000 paid subscribers already, all of whom can tune into climbing. What would be interesting is to see the number of NEW subscribers.

In reply to Durbs:

I totally agree with all of what you have said.

However, when they say "This will allow the IFSC to reach a broader audience." technically they are right. FloSports have +100,000 paying subscribers and they will all now be able to watch climbing as part of their deal. However, if you look at the other sports (Cheerleading is included) then I feel that type of crossover is unlikely.

In reply to liamlonsdale:


You'll have to help me with how reducing the number of people able to access a live stream from 'unlimited' down to 100,000 non-climbers, can be interpreted as reaching a broader audience. Does it mean an audience that doesn't give a toss about watching climbing and so won't tune in?

In reply to alx:
Gutted. Very disappointed. I was looking forward to the free live streams. Way over priced at $12.50/$20 a month. Currently, I'm paying £20 a YEAR for Eurosport player and more cycling coverage than I have time to watch...

EDIT: Well at least the Mrs will be glad she isn't going sit through hours of tedious climbing.

In reply to alx:
I realise these events need money to expand but ffs, it's not exactly boxing. Surely major sponsors can't be onboard with this as it seems likely to reduce ad revenue.

In reply to john arran:

If th information is correct FloClimbing have exclusivity for 3 years...

To be frank this cock up almost eclipses the unmitigatable nightmare that is the IFSC website. Products of a warped mind.

In reply to alx:
What does our Ifsc man... Graham Alderson think about this?

In reply to becauseitsthere:

I work for the IFSC so my only comment is 'No Comment'.

I am in Meiringen for the 1st BWC and I am sure I will be saying no comment a lot.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

thanks for not commenting. Enjoy the comp. We won't

In reply to alx:

I guess I'll have to catch up with MasterChef instead.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

>"I am in Meiringen for the 1st BWC"

Do you have a phone with a video camera?

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

What does this mean for Climbers Against Cancer charity , IFSC was their main distribution platform?

In reply to liamlonsdale:


And how many subscribers does Youtube have? Not to mention the fact that you don't even have to sign up to Youtube to watch the videos.

I've always thought the live streams were essential in keeping the climbing community connected to the competition world. Most people don't get to go to live events, and even if there's one where you live it will still just be one per year.

The prices are outrageous for just a few events and it sounds like there will be a massive drop off in viewing and presumably interest in IFSC events generally.

Only hope is if someone choose to share the footage after the events.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Out of interest how many people will have been involved in making this decision? Seems like this is going affect a lot people, all the competitors and their teams, sponsors and many more.

In reply to alx:

Unless there's a lot more to this than is apparent, it does rather make Bob Pettigrew's actions look like a beacon of reason and responsibility by comparison.

In reply to stp:
In reply to stp:

Add to the equation that a live stream from China is next to impossible that reduces 8 to 6 events.

The Austrian Climbing Federation has posted a response condemning this decision.

How long until red bull, kailas, flat hold and lapis realise they sponsor people no one sees?

In reply to john arran:

I suspect there is a lot more to it than is apparent. Given the very short notice, the obvious and predictable unpopularity of the decision, and the three year contract it seems to me like an act of desperation.

My guess is the IFSC has probably completely screwed up it's finances and this deal with Flosports is probably a last ditch effort for it remain solvent. Their contract probably doesn't even allow them to admit this because if they did it wouldn't exactly do much to encourage the potential new audience.

They've issued a press release but it's basically just vacuous BS that explains nothing. As you suggest I'm sure there's something behind the scenes that we're not being told.

In reply to john arran:
Bob & Co should be delighted. Their deep cover mole Marco Scolaris has just destroyed competition climbing as a nascent spectator sport.

I wonder if there's a Piolet d'Or in it for him?

In reply to stp:


That was my first thought, although it's also possible that the IFSC lacks the technical expertise to make climbing presentable on TV, it's done a rough job thus far. So in order to present the best possible entertainment to the IOC they either had to buy in that expertise or sell the rights so someone else can develop it. The latter being the cheapest obviously.

It does mean though that much of that expertise will sit with Flo, including, possibly, things like camera work, commentating, as only people employed by Flo will have the experience at that level.

In reply to winhill:

Possibly though that doesn't explain the extremely short notice of the announcement or the long 3 year contract. I'd have thought if it wasn't out of desperation they'd have trialed the idea with one event first or at most just one season and planned ahead a lot more. After all the US Dark Horse event is a single comp and that was streamed on Flosport. Presumably they're getting a more lucrative contract by committing to 3 years.

Personally I quite like the presentation of the IFSC events. The main problem is getting a good commentator. They had an excellent one a few years back but unfortunately they sacked him and there's never been anyone as good since. You need to be pretty knowledgeable about the sport to commentate well. If Flosport provide their own commentator the commentary will be probably be shite. But if the audience is mostly non climbers maybe no one will notice or care?

In reply to winhill:

Interesting quote on 8a by the IFSC 3 weeks ago....

"We expect to convince IOC, but not only, that hopefully before 2020 that we deserve some help, because the sport is growing to fast and we do not have the resources to manage the sport. If it goes on in this way and our income does not increase and therefore we are not able to hire additional human resources. We will become victim of our success."

In reply to alx:

There's a petition to sign at Change.org...

https://www.change.org/p/cancel-the-ifsc-live-streaming-subscription-fees

In reply to stp:

An interesting solution to their problem... tank it all so it doesn't keep growing.

In reply to alx:

I'd guess that like most climbers in Britain, I've never watched it. In fact, without Goggling I didn't even know what the IFSC was. So I can't honestly say that losing the ability to watch it for free will affect me personally.

That said, pay-per-view does seem a strange model to me in this instance, and one that is unlikely to generate enough viewers to be viable. If being free simply wasn't working, then gaining more sponsorship, allowing more advertising, partnering with EpicTV or similar, or even possible becoming part of a paid-for TV package would have seemed more sensible options.

D.

In reply to DannyC:
I'm still seething about this, I can only hope as mentioned above this was born out of necessity/desperation rather than greed or poor planning.

It's not even pay-per-view - you pay per month, so April has 3 events (arguably fair price), May has 1 (unarguably poor price). June has two, July none, August one...
Though looking at a lot of the FloSport reviews, a lot of people didn't know this at time of sign up and have been stung with monthly charges when they thought they were buying one event.

Much as the intention behind the petition is fine - It's not going to happen if there's a three year contract in place. There'd be huge penalties around an early break which would possibly lead to no comps, not just no coverage.
Edit: Equally I don't think they'll reduce the price as it's my understanding that a subscription to one FloSports channel (e.g. FloClimbing) gives you access to all, so they couldn't offer a discounted rate. Perhaps this is only the case with the "FloPro"annual package.

Both Austria and Russian climbing teams expressing upset at this, nothing overt from Shauna (except a retweet of Liam's and a very factual post), Jorg Verhoeven is annoyed, Megos, Matt Seigal...
Just insane.



My current solution is to buy a Euromillions ticket, and if I win*, I promise I'll fund an entire new climbing competition scene.

* The jackpot. I don't think a tenner will cover it.

In reply to Durbs:

Sound points. License fee contracts usually include a section that if the buyer is not effectively commercialising the product enough to generate satisfactory funds for the seller (I'm assuming that IFSC get a % of the fees based on viewing numbers..) then the license can be cancelled.

Ultimately pressure to change needs to come from a boycott of the IFSC, raising the issue with the athletes sponsors and event sponsors.

In reply to alx:

I wouldn't pay to watch it.
I do, however, watch things for free - Climbing Works and Boulder WC events, for example.

Shame

I agree with those who think it will have a negative effect upon the popularity of the sport.

In reply to stp:


You could try filing a Motion of No Confidence?

In reply to alx:

I'd love to see a competitors protest. Maybe that would change Ifsc's mind.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


Down With This Sort Of Thing!

In reply to alx:

So compared the 100,000 Flosport subscribers the IFSC Youtube channel currently has 61,971 subscribers. Unlike the Flosport crowd though ALL of these will have an interest in climbing.

Many people aren't subscribed to Youtube (me included). Some will view comps via the IFSC website (or any other sites that embed the comps) or get info on comps via a myriad of other sources.

In reply to stp:

The sums don't add up which. So only increases suspicions that some other driver is at play.

In reply to Durbs:


You can add Adam Ondra to that list...

"20$ per month for watching IFSC livestreams is the most ridiculous decision ever made by IFSC. Sad, very sad indeed. Where is our sport going? Bad news for fans, athletes and sponsors."


I'm sure there are many more. Stefano Ghisolfi, Jakob Schubert, Katharina Saurwein, Gareth Parry and 448 negative comments on the IFSC Facebook page ....

This has created a massive sh*tstorm and pissed off just about everyone. Be interesting to see where it goes.

In reply to stp:


Just when Marco Scolaris was so popular hereabout too.

In reply to alx:

Are climbers even contracted to the IFSC? Do they have to turn up? I can't imagine they are paid much if at all. If so then FloSports have made a very odd decision ...

In reply to stp:
Add to that Manu Cornu...

In reply to beefy_legacy:

No - but they will have been training at least half a year in the build up to them, which is quite something to walk away from.

In reply to Durbs:

Potentially if your funding support is from sponsorship and your profile is at risk sacking off the circuit and getting some significant repeats of hard boulder problems on Vimeo/YouTube/instagram #pleasedontdropme could be next.

In reply to Durbs:
This year maybe, but this is a 3 year deal. It seems a dangerous route to go down. Unless as alx says there are no alternatives to fulfil sponsor commitments.

In reply to beefy_legacy:
Slightly more ominous news. Eddie Fowke aka Circuit Magazine was off today to speak to the IFSC on the new development.

His response was to highlight that climbers stand to lose out when sponsors don't get the coverage they want.
He also posted that he was incredibly grateful for his sponsors and if anyone needs any photography work they could contact him via his details...

See link to the post

https://www.facebook.com/TheCircuitClimbing/posts/812154085602698:0

Really is this how it ends? Such a stupid decision by the IFSC.

In reply to Durbs:


Additionally they may already have booked flights and accommodation. However as a group they perhaps have the most power to change this. If they collectively refuse to turn up to events then they could get the contract reversed.

Perhaps it's more likely the comps go ahead but the streams are made available - either by the IFSC or if not someone else. It is the internet after all and information likes to be free.

In reply to stp:
So the good news is that it doesn't seem like the IFSC are bankrupt, they are having discussions about the FloClimbing deal.

The bad news is that they must actually be incompetent, given that it sounds like an unforced move.

Below is the update from change.org petition.

So what's happened in the last 24 hours? Has this petition been a lot of hot air or have we actually seen some progress? I'm proud to announce that the wheels are indeed turning. Climbers competiting at the Meiringen World Cup have taken to the stage and protested with red cards before IFSC officials (an amazing photo by The Circuit Climbing is shown above). It is my understanding that conversations are taking place behind the scenes aimed at rethinking this issue. Nothing is set in stone, but this definitely represents a big step in the right direction.

In reply to alx:

Interesting post from Jorg on his instagram:

"Amidst all the anger and confusion the IFSC's decision (moving from a free livestream to a payview channel) caused, I wanted to ask you all for understanding that a climbing boycott is not the way forward. The event organizer and its support are hit the hardest by this change, and taking down their event would be unjust. Also, we are still just climbers that are keen to compete! This doesn't mean that we're just gonna sit there and do nothing about it. Time to let some people know this is NOT the way forward! Some ideas are underway..."

In reply to alx:

GOOD NEWS (for now...)

http://www.ifsc-climbing.org/index.php/news/item/910-meiringen-world-cup-fr...

In reply to climbEdclimb:

Yep the first ones free.

The broader issue is keeping up the pressure for climbing comp coverage to be free or not cost prohibitive otherwise it will be the death of our sport.

In reply to alx:


And massively disrespectful to press ahead full steam, at very short notice, for 3 years, without consulting, or even informing all the other players involved in these huge events. I wonder how long this was planned for? If it's related to the 4 min rule change then at least several weeks (end of 4+ rule goes back at least as far as the CWIF).

Great that the first comp is free to view and there's some progress on this already.

In reply to stp:

License deals take a while to work out, it's get more complex when your start working with different economic regions i.e. European with US as they work differently, 6-12months from initial discussions to putting pen to paper? Potentially FloClimbing or IFSC may have just agreed straight away to the other parties Ts&Cs which could expedite it but the subsequent infrastructure and resource then needed to be ready if indeed we are lead to believe that Flo can deliver a superior service would take some time. Again Flo could just import a proven model from the other sports they cover but having the discussions and putting in place the secondary contracts with local venues and support all takes time.

To be frank I bet Flo were engaged before the 2016 season which was their proof of concept this would float. The timing of the announcement was most likely to ensure that athletes and sponsors wouldn't bail and do other things or get organised with a protest. It's at least 6 months preparation by the athletes for the circuit and sponsorship contract renewal most likely occurs at the end of a financial year or most likely at the end of a performance phase to judge if the athletes exposure matched the expense and perceived return on investment to the sponsor. All of these things needed to be completed well ahead of the first competition.

Ultimately IFSC and Flo waited to everyone was absolutely committed to ensure people would show up.

If you want the sport to remain free or very low cost to watch then I disagree with Jorg's view that a boycott is out of the question.


Withdrawing support is about saying the triple Olympic format, the removal of the 4+ min rule and now having to pay extortionate prices to watch a format no one wants is not acceptable.

For what it's worth - I think all the bouldering World Cups could be watched through Flosports for $60 rather than $150

The monthly fee is $20, and is not charged per calendar month, but rather for each month from the date payment, so for example if you pay on 15th April your monthly subscription will run until the 14th May.

So looking at the schedule it breaks down as follows:

1. Meiringen - 8th April - apparently being allowed as a free trial, so presumably you can sign up for the trial and then cancel before a payment is made, though I haven't yet seen details of how to get the free trial.

Then buy a monthly subscription on the 22nd which gives you:
2. Chongqing - 23rd April
3. Nanjing - 30th April
4. Tokyo - 7th May
Then cancel monthly renewal after Tokyo's event.

Then renew monthly subscription for:
5. Vail - 10th June
6. Mumbai - 25th June
Then cancel renewal again.

Then renew again for:
7. Munich - 19th August

Whether or not each of the particular months are worth paying for is up to you, especially as in the past streaming has been unreliable from China, but $60 total is at least a price worth considering if you're into the bouldering.

In reply to Sweet Thing:

You may find that the channel has small print preventing the constant cancellation and renewal of contract. Most USA pay channels do to prevent just this kind of thing. I may be wrong.

In reply to johncook:
From looking at the terms & conditions as far as I can see you can cancel at any time, and then I doubt they are going to have a problem with renewing at a later date and giving them more money.

Also in reply to the people saying that FloSports has 100,000 subscribers - as far as I can make out (I haven't seen it stated explicitly either way) each sport is treated as a separate site eg "FloClimbing" and a subscription to this does NOT give you access to other sports, and therefore the 100,000 other FloSports subscribers do not have access to the climbing.

It's worded vaguely enough that somebody could assume they would have access to other sports coverage (that is, it doesn't specifically state that you are only signing up for this sport and no others), but rather you are on the FloClimbing website and it says you have access to "all FloPRO content on the website you enrolled on".

In reply to Sweet Thing:
Hi Sweet,

Even if you could do this, it is a ball ache vs non-committal freeview. It also fundamentally sends the wrong message on the direction things are going.

Would you limit time on a boxing or a tennis match?
Would watching Usain Bolt run a marathon be enjoyable?
Would watching Mo Farah in an MMA fight be fun?

You also need to be mindful that climbers don't need the comp circuit, sponsors will still give them big money to post Beanie-clad topless videos of themselves dry humping a piece of granite in Zimbabwe, and people will pay the $4 for the 25min HD, footage dripping in panoramic shots of beautiful places.

If you change the dynamics of the relationship so that people are unhappy they will eventually talk with their feet.

In reply to Sweet Thing:

Lol, what a bunch of jokers. It really is amateur hour.

In reply to alx:

Hi Alx, just so we're on the same page - I'm unhappy with the change, and I'm not endorsing it at all, and I won't be signing up. I think there's a lot wrong with it, but the only reason for my post was to talk about the actual price for anyone who wanted to subscribe.

There seem to be two main problems that people have - one is the paid model itself rather than being freeview (which I made no comment on), and the other is how steep the price is. The high price is an important factor, as if the asking price was something cheap like $15 for the whole season there would probably be a lot of people saying "well we can't expect everything for free, that's a reasonable price".

I was merely giving a fairly simple description of how to reduce the price by 60%, for the people out there (because surely there are some) who will be paying for it. I made no recommendation that they do so, I just pointed out the option to save them money if they wanted to pay.

Sure you can call it a ball ache to cancel and then renew a couple of times, but if I could save $90 from my electric bill or my rent by clicking a button a few times a year, I would gladly do it, ball ache and all.

---
I'm afraid I have no idea what point you were trying to make with your examples of other sports, but boxing matches generally are timed, and yes, watching Mo Farah in an MMA fight sounds like fantastic fun!

In reply to Sweet Thing:

Not sure mo would agree............

In reply to Sweet Thing:
Hi Sweet, thanks for replying sorry if my OP was terse and you are right it is a way to drop the fees. I have sat in too many product development meetings this week and I am a bit cabbaged by all capturing end user requirements.

My thoughts are the two models are:

The original model of free view with the +4min rule which was popular.
The new model of 20$.pm/150$.pa with 4min rule which is unpopular.

What I understand is the 4min rule was introduced to fit to a TV schedule. That's taken from what the athletes discussed at the CWIF.

Unless the first model is unsustainable or cannot be scaled to meet the higher demands by large audiences then the second model, albeit a better thought out product needs to be worked out.

I am not adverse to paying if that's the way forwards, but no where near the price that Flo wants, and if I am going to pay I would want a product I like, that means bringing back the +4min rule.

---
Poor Mo!

In reply to alx:

As a price comparison, www.motogp.com run live streams of motorbike racing; €199 per year gets you full coverage of every session of every race meeting in HD, access to all sorts of past history, features etc etc. I'm into bike racing, but am not around to watch all the coverage (and am too tight to pay €200 for even something i like), but have seen some of the coverage, and it is top notch.
To want to charge what Flo want to for only part of the climbing comps is ridiculous, as many have said. I would be happy to pay the ifsc a few euro if it helps provide a service that covers costs (webcasting aint particularly cheap), but $150 a year.......

In reply to alx:

From their terrible, untransparent website, I think if you pay the Annual $150, you get all channels. If you pay monthly, you only get the channel you subscribe to.
That they hide their prices is a pretty poor show in the first place. That it's still not clear what you do/don't get is likewise awful.
Access to non-live streams is also dependent on having an account.

I haven't looked too in-depth, but the majority of their other channels are purely US-based I think... (Also, who watches competitive Marching?!), so not sure how much experience they have of both international streaming, but also international customers and customer service. Anyone outside of the US is going to be hit by currency conversions and/or non-"sterling" transaction fees, pushing the price up even further.

The other sports also seem to have significantly more events than climbing per year. Wrestling is huge in the US, with almost weekly comps, so the price-per-event is reduced.
They don't either don't know (or care) about the climbing market, but given most people only tend to watch bouldering OR lead OR (about 17 people) speed - the price per event goes even higher.

They seem to have a few (4) US-comps on their site, again probably of little interest to most except the most ardent US supporter.
Crucially however, they don't have the US national comps (they're free to view), and on the IFSC circuit, the US don't have a huge presence on the podiums - although admittedly better chances this year.


Just seems like the wrong platform for this, but must be a good coup for FloSports getting such a huge international season on their books. Although it's backfired horribly.

In reply to alx:

Flosports Statement:

Since the IFSC announced our partnership to live stream their World Cup events on FloClimbing.com, we've seen concern from members of the climbing community about paying to watch the live coverage.

We hear you, and we're offering a 7-day free trial for FloPRO subscribers on FloClimbing.com starting later today and lasting for the rest of this month. In addition, the archives for our April events will be available on-demand, without a subscription, three days after each event.

To be clear, our mission is to grow the events, the athletes, the fans, and the sports that we cover. To achieve this, we've hired more than 240 full-time employees, thousands of freelance writers, producers and artists, and invested millions of dollars into our partnerships with event rights holders like the IFSC.

There's more.. http://www.floclimbing.com/article/54380-response-to-the-climbing-community...

Personally I don't know what they mean about 'growing' the events. I think they're fine the way they are (or were - that is before the 4m+ change). I agree with others. I'm not going to pay these grossly inflated prices to watch something that was fine free. Maybe the lighting not as powerful as will it be. But as I climber I appreciate the fact that the last thing climbers want is the searing heat of powerful flood lights. If the comps are only viewed by geeky climbers, as they no doubt have been for most of their existence, that's fine too. I really like the fact they're part of the climbing community, put together by keen climbers, not professional media people.

I thought the $20 gave you access to all their channels? If that's not the case then it's an even bigger rip off. Not that I'd want to watch them anyway. However I suppose the upshot is if no one subscribes then it work out to be a giant flop for them, and they won't want to continue.

In reply to stp:


If we all work together we can make that happen.

In reply to john arran:

Well the angry reaction from the climbing communtiy has no doubt been quite a surprise to them and they've had to react.

In reply to alx:

Flosports update:

UPDATE: Due to circumstances beyond our control, we will no longer be able to provide live coverage of the IFSC World Cup event in Meiringen on April 8. We apologize for the inconvenience. Visit the IFSC website for details on the event.

Beginning of the end? Let's hope so.

In reply to stp:

Long may it continue

In reply to alx:
Don't care as I have no interest in watching climbing or any other sport competitions.

In reply to alx:


Yes.

In reply to alx:

Patxi wrote a whole blog post on this..

http://pucseries.com/en/the-cost-of-competition-free-today-gone-tomorrow/

In reply to alx:

The Project Magazine...

https://www.theprojectmagazine.com/features/2017/4/6/opinion-the-pain-of-pa...

In reply to alx:
There's an interesting breakdown of the Youtube stats on the Circuit. Even if only 2% of current viewers subscribe Flosports could still make $1m. "Even these numbers are probably optimistic considering the current negative sentiment we have witnessed across all social media the last day or two."

http://thecircuitclimbing.com/m/EhAKBU1pdGVtEICAgLy4y58K/so-does-anyone-eve...

In reply to alx:

Storm in a tiny little teacup.

There are currently fewer than 5000 people watching the semis online. That's globally!

The Paris finals have garnered just a million views in the 6 months they've been up.

For context, a bloke with a mic who stands outside the Arsenal games and interviews random fans post-match gets several million views every week.

How a sport with such a poor following became 'Olympic' is hard to fathom.

The IFSC, BMC, sponsors et al are failing in a manner that renders this most recent blunder insignificant.

In reply to Stanhope:
Yes but this is our teacup, and I was happy the way the teacup was until someone made it smaller and wanted to then charge me a lot for it.

Regarding the olympics, the host nation has a lot to do with the selection and I believe bouldering has a big following in Japan, but your right in that following is not proportional to other sports. With regards to your comparison you wrongly assumed people who follow IFSC really give a toss about football, after all isn't whatever floats your boat is important to you?

In reply to alx:
Isn't the point that it is very clearly NOT your teacup.

The IFSC runs and defines the 'sport'. It does both very poorly.

Your points about football rely on something that was neither explicitly or implicitly said. The context provided was to help illustrate just how unpopular sport climbing is. As for the Olympics, I'm aware of how sports are selected and trialled. I suspect that if the x-games couldn't find an audience, neither will the IOC and IFSC.

Amazing athletes. A hugely popular and growing passtime/form of fitness. And just 4200 people are currently watching the bouldering finals of a World Cup event.

Something is very wrong with sport climbing if even those who are active or involved in climbing show no interest in it.

In reply to Stanhope:

So you're clearly of the school of thought that we should be attempting to make climbing more popular. Why is that? Personally I don't get why that is important. More money? Better coverage? Personally I think the main problems with coverage could be fixed without any extra money.

I'm pretty sure most people don't take up climbing based on it's popularity rating. People take it up because they love the activity, regardless of what other people think about it.

Secondly you mention the the Paris finals having only been watched by a million people. How many do you think would have watched if it was behind a pay wall like Flosport? Obviously the number would drop, probably by more than 90%. If you want the figures to grow surely this issue is not just a storm in a teacup?

In reply to alx:

If tonight's coverage is indicative of what flosport are capable of, I'll give it a miss. Only managing to see one bloc at a time is rubbish. The guys are cleaning holds and you can hear the crowd cheering for a top. Also the commentary is boring too.

In reply to Scott K:

I don't mind Charlie Boscoe too much, though he could do a bit more homework. But that other commentator was just awful in every way. When Shauna won the event by topping P3 he didn't even notice until about 5 minutes later. Can't fathom why they brought him in. They had a really good commentator a few years back who they decided to sack. Eddie Fowke, who was interviewed a couple of times, is extremely knowledgeable because he spends a lot of time with the competitors. I suspect he might be good too - though he's the photographer so he couldn't do both.

The other issue seems to be a complete disconnect between the film crew and the commentators. The commentators are talking about one thing and film crew just switches over mid sentence to something unconnected. That's surely an easy fix by just bringing them together.

In reply to alx:

There's a very good article on this complete with short interviews with WC climbers and others by Liam Lonsdale...

http://www.liamlonsdale.com/journal/ifsc-flosportpt-ii

In reply to stp:

However the article contains at least one serious inaccuracy.

In reply to stp:
Sounds like Flo had the deal long time ago and the IFSC is in financial trouble...

If the IFSC had said we need x per year to keep the live stream going I'm sure the spectator community would have forked out through a kickstarter or just giving account.

I would even be happy for them to slap on some adverts telling me how the latest Prana clothing was gluten free and had never even been seen by an animal dead or alive, or that Arcteryx was actually made with the tears of the last know unicorn colony and stitched by Jerry Moffats own fair hands.This last sentence is tongue in cheek and does not truly represent the manufacturers or Jerrys hands.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Which is it Graeme?

In reply to stp:


I think you are overly harsh on him, but the timing of the commentators realising when something important is about to, or just has happened, is often poor. They could generate much tension and excitement for the viewer if they improved this. Maybe they need a helper to keep them fully updated on the scoring situation etc so they can do this whilst having been 100% focused on commenting 'in the moment ' up to that point. I'm sure it's hard.

>The other issue seems to be a complete disconnect between the film crew and the commentators. The commentators are talking about one thing and film crew just switches over mid sentence to something unconnected. That's surely an easy fix by just bringing them together.

100% agree with this. It's the thing I think they need to fix most.

In reply to alx:

I'm assuming the error is:

"Being sympathetic to the IFSC for a moment, I can see they need to generate commercial revenue from the sport, because only with increased capital will they be able to invest in new events, prize money and create an improved experience for its fans."

As I understand it it's the individual event organizer that puts up the cash for events not the IFSC. That's the reason we have so few events in the UK. No one wants to cough up or perhaps more accurately find the sponsors.

In reply to stp:

"Improved experience for its fans" - this I really don't get (or like), why the hell do people want climbing to become a spectator sport, the idea of climbers having "fans" is a combination of weird and depressing to me. And I don't see how anyone can be surprised about this pay per view thing, did you think the Olympics (and hangers on) were all doing it for the love of sport? Haha, what a joke!

In reply to Si dH:


Well he might be a great guy, top routesetter and is obviously a very talented climber. But that doesn't make him a good communicator. None of those skills are that relevant in my opinion. The best commentator from a few year's back was Daniel Finn. I was amazed to find out he wasn't even a climber. He had a great voice, was eloquent, passionate about the sport and really knew what he was talking about. I can only assume he must have put quite a bit of time into research. His commentary was not just a load of ad libbed, cliche ridden twaddle. The new guy wasn't even getting basic pronunciation right half the time. The repetitive use of the cliche, 'It wasn't meant to be', every time some failed really irritated after a while. I don't mean to slate him personally but I just think he's the wrong person for that particular job, and it's a job that can make a big difference to the enjoyment of the event.

The other commentary I've enjoyed is with some of co-commentators. Adam Pustelnik was really good. It wasn't just that he had lots to say. It was really insightful, so really added something to the event.

In reply to Stanhope:

"Amazing athletes. A hugely popular and growing passtime/form of fitness. And just 4200 people are currently watching the bouldering finals of a World Cup event."

Nice weather on a Saturday would certainly have caused the loss of a few UK fans. I know I only watched after I got back from climbing. The replay on YouTube currently sits at 41,000 views.

In reply to stp:

So the format is similar to tennis in that the grand slam event organisers hope that through advertising, sales of tickets and license fees to media they can make a profit.

It would be interesting to know if Flo offers a similarly crap pricing deal to the organisers as it did to is customers. In that if the IFSC has signed over exclusivity rights to Flo then as an organiser unless you are willing to put up with the rates you can't host an event.

If true then the events stand to fail as well if Flo can't get people to sign up, they are sure to pass on the coverage costs on to the organisers somewhat.

In reply to alx:

What seems to me to be generally missing here is any thought about the economics of producing a decent quality live stream. In general, hosting events is expensive, and that's commonly cited as the major reason why there are so few events in Europe and so many in China. I have not even the vaguest idea of what a decent quality film crew for a day costs, nor bandwidth & hosting for this sort of thing, but I imagine it's not cheap.

Perhaps somebody on here knows something about such things? Or has some idea of whether continuing to run something like this on sponsorship & advertising is even vaguely realistic?

I'm appalled by what I've heard in the last few days about FloSports' reputation and (like pretty much everybody else apparently) I think their pricing is completely unrealistic, but I have no problem at all in principle with paying for a few hours entertainment.

In reply to stp:

I have to disagree with your opinion of Daniel Finn, he certainly brought a lot of enthusiasm and had a great rapport with the athletes, so he managed to get good interviews. However, his lack of knowledge about the sport and its terminology grated and his continual mis-use of the English language was frequently excruciating. Still, I'm sure it is not an easy job to do live, and we all have our opinion. I certainly appreciate the input of route-setters and eliminated competitors as co-commentators.

In reply to JLS:

I'd agree if it were the UK or GB championships. It's a global event . My friends in Japan have no interest because they think the format is dull. That's with half a dozen compatriots in the finals.

The live viewer numbers were not significantly different for previous events...even on rainy days... in the centre of the universe. Also, my understanding is that the replays were not going to be behind a paywall (if they were, they wouldn't remain there for long).

It's obviously a poor decision to limit access to the live event. But I feel the larger and more pertinent debate should centre on why the sport, in its current format, is so unpopular with spectators (be they active climbers or otherwise).

In reply to Stanhope:


Why is that an issue? Maybe it's just me but a sport is something you do rather than something you watch. Once the watching becomes more important than the doing it's just an entertainment, little different from ballet or stand-up-comedy.

In reply to Stanhope:

Well, I suppose throw in a few water obstacles and call it Ninja Warriors, perhaps it could attract a bigger audience.
As a climber, I'm entertained by the format as it is (4 min rule aside). How would you like to see the format change?

In reply to Marek:



Please let's not conflate climbing with sport climbing.
But I do wonder how you were introduced to climbing, Marek? I wonder how you learn, develop technique, gain inspiration?

Elite athletes in any sport do not shy away from acknowledging the education and inspiration they receive from peers and 'idols'. Watching, learning from and appreciating others is integral to any sport....but maybe it's just me.

In reply to JLS:

I think the inclusion of tennis-playing monkeys would be a start...

In reply to Stanhope:

Actually, I have watched some events, but precisely to learn rather than for entertainment. I typically don't care who's there or who wins, I just want to see good climbing. The rest for me is just fluff that I fast-forward past, if I can.

In reply to Stanhope:

Update from Peter on the situation for those whom have not signed th petition or read the emails today.

https://www.change.org/p/cancel-the-ifsc-live-streaming-subscription-fees/u...

Peter seems to think Flo have won based on the latest info.

In reply to Stanhope:

>"I think the inclusion of tennis-playing monkeys would be a start..."

'Might be a start for you but I'm thinking it might be a good ways towards the end for me.

In reply to alx:


Strange take-away from your linked write-up. When I read that what I took away was that IFSC had been notably lacking in consultation and again in transparency when making this decision. There were so few facts confirmed it was pretty impossible to determine any winners or losers, other than to deduce that almost all competitors would be losers, by virtue of their sponsors having much reduced exposure, as would almost all spectators wanting to watch online.

In reply to alx:

The number of people watching live isn't that important to some extent - time-zones will be a huge factor in who is watching live. I'm a huge fan of the competitions, but I'm not going to be up at 5am or 2am to watch them, and I'm sure the same could be said for most people.
Even on Sunday, I watched it about 2 hours later, because "life" happens.

I do wonder if FloSports have considered this, given they're very US-centric so usually only have to consider +/- an hour or two. Also the US don't have that strong a reputation on the bouldering scene (without Pooch). Thought this season might be different, MM had a shocker, Daniel Woods got spanked... SBC beat Akiyo though!
Point being, their key market is very international - so their prices for many will be way out of reach.

In reply to Durbs:

I thought all the archived comps, from when Flosports start, will also be covered by the subscription fee. So whether people view live or later is irrelevant, as it is now.

I think US have pretty good boulderers: Pooch, Ashima (I thought was starting this year), MM, Margo Hayes, Daniel Woods, Jimmy Webb, Tyler (sort of US), Nathanial Coleman. They just don't seem as committed to the whole circuit, probably to do with funding. Not sure how popular comps are with the US climbing community. The Nationals always look big, well organized and popular. Probably somewhat split like here.



Good point. And I'd add their key market is climbers not generally known for their high spending.

In reply to stp:

It will be interesting to see what comes from the Wednesday meeting with Flo.

I hate to say it but boycotting Flo would cost you quite literally nothing....

In reply to AlanLittle:

I don't know about the cost of Livestreams. At the bottom end Liam Lonsdale filmed, narrated and streamed the British Bouldering Championships from his mobile phone using a free online streaming service. Not the highest quality but it did the job.

Admittedly the cost of high quality will push the price up a fair amount. But I'm sure that still small compared to the overall cost of the event and that cost is covered by the event organizer, not the IFSC.

But the other thing I'm unsure about is how much the Federations put into the IFSC anyway. Someone on UKB mentioned £250,000. If we're already putting in that kind of money then surely we're entitled to expect something back in return.

In reply to stp:

Stop posting that £250k, people WILL genuinely believe it!

In reply to stp:

Just think, that could be an extra £250k a week for the NHS.

In reply to stp:

We pay the IFSC as follows;

Membership = €2,000 per annum
Athlete licenses = €60 per athlete per year
Event entry = €60 per athlete per event.

To host an event costs (very) approx €14k in IFSC fees, which includes webcasting / setting / IFSC officials etc. It cost approx £5k (€6k) to webcast the BBC's last year. Obviously there are othe costs on top, but not paid to the IFSC.

In reply to stp:


Oh I agree - it was in relation to one of the earlier comments that only ~5000 people were watching the live stream.

Shauna's blogged about the paywall - obviously not in favour and also makes mention of her sponsors not likely to take to kindly to it either.

As I think I mentioned - that this wasn't even a subject at the Plenary Assembly, but had been in talks for "a year", reeks of a done-deal (backhander?).

In reply to Ian W:

Thanks Ian. That's really interesting. I didn't realize the event organizer paid so much to the IFSC. That's a lot (9k) more than just the web casting costs then. There are obviously IFSC officials to pay for, their travel, accommodation etc. which I suppose quickly adds up. Do the IFSC include their routesetters in that fee or is that a separate cost paid by the host?

In reply to Durbs:

Good effort Shauna. I'm sure it carries a bit more weight from someone at the top of the sport, even though it shouldn't do. Great to see top climbers speaking out for something when they could more easily remain silent and not risk any backlash.

In case anyone didn't see...
http://www.shaunacoxsey.co.uk/2017/04/the-paywall/


I wonder who did know about it then? Did the 10 person executive board even know? Sean McColl is the athletes rep on there, so if he knew I'd have thought he'd have said something.

In reply to stp:
Setting is all included. Its almost a "package cost" to run an IFSC comp.