PDA

View Full Version : Under NFL Rule, Media Web Sites Are Given Just 45 Seconds to Score


Wolf
07-02-2007, 03:20 PM
Thanks to a new NFL policy, something will soon be in short supply on news-media Web sites: video of almost anything related to the NFL or its players.

In a move designed to protect the Internet operations of its 32 teams, the pro football league has told news organizations that it will no longer permit them to carry unlimited online video clips of players, coaches or other officials, including video that the news organizations gather themselves on a team's premises. News organizations can post no more than 45 seconds per day of video shot at a team's facilities, including news conferences, interviews and practice-field reports

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902187.html?nav=rss_print/style

I take this as a way to promote getting the NFL network?
wow

Wolf
07-02-2007, 03:50 PM
come to think of it, I guess some of the videos will come from the clubs official website, and I imagine when that becomes popular, teams will charge a subscription

ledzeppelin229
07-02-2007, 05:37 PM
NFL is turning into an evil organization. They are trying to create a monopoly on every aspect related to the game.

Texan_Bill
07-02-2007, 05:44 PM
*in best Russian accent - from Soviet Union days*

I think very good move for NFL and Comrade Goodell. This keep free media out of business and keep quiet. I think it better move if KGB run NFL security.

TEXANS84
07-02-2007, 05:44 PM
No
Fun
Leauge

Porky
07-02-2007, 05:52 PM
Funny, I thought we were about to celebrate Independence Day not May Day.

My Bad. :devilpig:

Double Barrel
07-02-2007, 06:04 PM
'eh, it's the same thing Disney does with their products. The NFL is a multi-billion dollar business at the end of the day, and they are in business for one purpose: profit.

They might lose a few fans with some of these greed tactics, but with their plans of global expansion, I doubt that they are too concerned about it.

ledzeppelin229
07-02-2007, 06:59 PM
Gotta spend the rep before....

Excellent, Bill. Very funny. The guy saying the line is the Russian actor from Armageddon.

AJ: Have you ever heard of Evil Kineval? (sp?)
Russian: No, I never saw Star Wars.


I think Goddell is going to end up breaking the NFL's back with fans. This is turning into a Godfather movie.

American, Russian....*kicks the machinary* all made in TAIWAN!

Blazing Arrow
07-02-2007, 07:19 PM
LMAO! I almost edited and added that. I just watched that last weekend again for the millionth time. I got an extended director's cut from Wal*Mart.

The baby wouldn't go to sleep and I was trying to find something to get his attention. He didn't watch much of the movie. I played the Areosmith video and told him Steve was Liv's daddy. He watched in silence and fell asleep before the song was over.

Possibly because you child realized how scientifically inaccurate that movie was. I mean come on launching two shuttles from basically the same platform? Why would NASA put machine guns on a space rover? Assuming they had already discovered that gun powder will not explode in a zero O2 vacuum.

Ok I'll just let it go ... it was a great movie .....

Texan_Bill
07-03-2007, 11:21 AM
Possibly because you child realized how scientifically inaccurate that movie was. I mean come on launching two shuttles from basically the same platform? Why would NASA put machine guns on a space rover? Assuming they had already discovered that gun powder will not explode in a zero O2 vacuum.

Ok I'll just let it go ... it was a great movie .....

C'mon BA.... Being from Cali, you sure lack imagination!!

Since Bugs Bunny retired, we have no one to fight the martian and his "X-14 spave mod-u-la-tor.....

http://www.alexross.com/82742-big.jpg

Thus NASA outfitting the rovers with machine guns.

Wolf
07-03-2007, 10:31 PM
id say space cowboys lame

esp after the space shuttle decentagrated and in the move the space shuttle took a beating and clint was able to fly it in without computer guidance

but IT IS CLINT , if anyone could do it it would be HIM

Texans_Chick
07-04-2007, 09:30 AM
The FanHouse folks asked me to write about this some more:

Dear Roger Goodell, Re: Absurd 45 Second Rule (http://sports.aol.com/fanhouse/2007/07/04/dear-roger-goodell-re-absurd-45-second-video-rule/)

Please please please, leave a comment over there if you want this policy to change. The NFL and media folks are talking about this stuff so if you want the policy changed, leaving a comment over there might help. They put that on the frontpage of FanHouse so its likely someone with the NFL will see it.

I am a big believer in the power of an individual working with others to try to get positive change. Naive, I suppose, but you never know unless you try.

This is of particular interest to Texans fans. One newspaper town and very little national media interest in the team. John McClain claims he could give you more FOOTBALL content if the rule was changed.

rickyb
07-04-2007, 11:17 AM
Why is this policy absurd? One could simply make a case that the NFL is setting about to protect its property rights. Now, I have no statistics, but I imagine that advertising income to the league is not chump change. So, this move could simply be to protect that revenue stream.

Besides financial, there is also the control aspect. The NFL wants to exercise control over the presentation of their product, specifically where it is presented. The NFL wants eyeballs to come to THEIR websites for extended video content. This ties back to the financial. More eyeballs equals better online ad rates. It also makes for-fee online streaming game content feasable. I think that is reasonable to expect, and I would not mind paying, either a per-game or season subscription fee. (For example, I live in Austin, and I am typically saddled with VY-nation or Cowgirls games. I want to watch my Texans, dammit! This is Texas, after all, not TN.)

Limiting online distribution of video, where technology is rapidly evolving to enable mass market distribution of same, is an important aspect of managing the NFL brand. I could go on, but somehow I suspect the swords are being sharpened already, so I will patiently await responses. I keep an open mind, and welcome contrasting opinion and continued discussion.

All the best,
Rick

rickyb
07-04-2007, 11:18 AM
Why is this policy absurd? One could simply make a case that the NFL is setting about to protect its property rights. Now, I have no statistics, but I imagine that advertising income to the league is not chump change. So, this move could simply be to protect that revenue stream.

Besides financial, there is also the control aspect. The NFL wants to exercise control over the presentation of their product, specifically where it is presented. The NFL wants eyeballs to come to THEIR websites for extended video content. This ties back to the financial. More eyeballs equals better online ad rates. It also makes for-fee online streaming game content feasable. I think that is reasonable to expect, and I would not mind paying, either a per-game or season subscription fee. (For example, I live in Austin, and I am typically saddled with VY-nation or Cowgirls games. I want to watch my Texans, dammit! This is Texas, after all, not TN.)

Limiting online distribution of video, where technology is rapidly evolving to enable mass market distribution of same, is an important aspect of managing the NFL brand. I could go on, but somehow I suspect the swords are being sharpened already, so I will patiently await responses. I keep an open mind, and welcome contrasting opinion and continued discussion.

All the best,
Rick


I would also like to add that in an online world, 45 seconds is a LIFETIME.

Texans_Chick
07-04-2007, 12:23 PM
Why is this policy absurd? One could simply make a case that the NFL is setting about to protect its property rights. Now, I have no statistics, but I imagine that advertising income to the league is not chump change. So, this move could simply be to protect that revenue stream.

Besides financial, there is also the control aspect. The NFL wants to exercise control over the presentation of their product, specifically where it is presented. The NFL wants eyeballs to come to THEIR websites for extended video content. This ties back to the financial. More eyeballs equals better online ad rates. It also makes for-fee online streaming game content feasable. I think that is reasonable to expect, and I would not mind paying, either a per-game or season subscription fee. (For example, I live in Austin, and I am typically saddled with VY-nation or Cowgirls games. I want to watch my Texans, dammit! This is Texas, after all, not TN.)

Limiting online distribution of video, where technology is rapidly evolving to enable mass market distribution of same, is an important aspect of managing the NFL brand. I could go on, but somehow I suspect the swords are being sharpened already, so I will patiently await responses. I keep an open mind, and welcome contrasting opinion and continued discussion.

All the best,
Rick


Did you actually look at the video? And that the NFL wants news organizations to only have those videos up for 24 hours????? That's hardly any time at all.

If the Houston Chronicle has video of ND Kalu, it doesn't mean that fans can't go to the Texans website as well. In fact, I would say that getting fans more vested in the team with news makes it more likely people will go to team websites. News and information is not a finite thing. To suggest that Houston Chronicle video will divert page looks from NFL.com and HoustonTexans.com is absurd and shortsided and doesn't reflect how the internet really works.

This is a slippery slope. Without clearly admitting it, the NFL is wanting to create the people's republic of the NFL where the only information we get is what they choose to give us. Last year, they tried to restrict local news outlets from providing sideline video. At the end of the season, after working with the news outlets they got rid of that horrible rule.

Now, they have this 45 second video policy that applies to offseason video--horrible--it is this time of year that true fans need more video and news. If the NFL gets away with this, without the fans and the media raising a fuss, what will they do next?

My point is--yes, NFL properties are something to be protected--but if you are saying that fan happiness is the #1 way you measure the strength of the league, well then, limiting information that fans want isn't the way to do it. Significantly limiting what non-NFL media sources can report via video, it blatantly anti-fan and anti-media. It's like saying that the newspaper can write about the team, along as they keep their columns under 500 words.

rickyb
07-04-2007, 02:06 PM
Did you actually look at the video? And that the NFL wants news organizations to only have those videos up for 24 hours????? That's hardly any time at all.

If the Houston Chronicle has video of ND Kalu, it doesn't mean that fans can't go to the Texans website as well. In fact, I would say that getting fans more vested in the team with news makes it more likely people will go to team websites. News and information is not a finite thing. To suggest that Houston Chronicle video will divert page looks from NFL.com and HoustonTexans.com is absurd and shortsided and doesn't reflect how the internet really works.

This is a slippery slope. Without clearly admitting it, the NFL is wanting to create the people's republic of the NFL where the only information we get is what they choose to give us. Last year, they tried to restrict local news outlets from providing sideline video. At the end of the season, after working with the news outlets they got rid of that horrible rule.

Now, they have this 45 second video policy that applies to offseason video--horrible--it is this time of year that true fans need more video and news. If the NFL gets away with this, without the fans and the media raising a fuss, what will they do next?

My point is--yes, NFL properties are something to be protected--but if you are saying that fan happiness is the #1 way you measure the strength of the league, well then, limiting information that fans want isn't the way to do it. Significantly limiting what non-NFL media sources can report via video, it blatantly anti-fan and anti-media. It's like saying that the newspaper can write about the team, along as they keep their columns under 500 words.

Regarding the absurdity or not of diverting page looks, you and I will agree to disagree on that. Video content has value. Controlling distribution and placement has value.

The policy will take something away from the media-at-large that said media is already accustomed to having. Naturally, I would expect that to go over like a lead balloon.

And, consistent with the point I've already made about controlling distribution of product, I do not really have a problem with a 24 hr limit either. After that time, it ceases to be "news", does it not? And, if you wanted to access such video content, I assume it would still be on the league or team sites.

The "People's Republic of the NFL"? A bit over the top, IMHO. But I can appreciate that you feel very fervently on this topic.

Best,
Rick

Texans_Chick
07-04-2007, 05:51 PM
Rick-

Well, then, they shouldn't pretend to have the fan's interest at heart. If the NFL believes fan happiness is of #1 importance, then why do this? It is absurd.

Restricting content to only approved sources gives me the willies--not just on what that policy is, but also trying to figure out what other donkey things they are going to do next.

carter08
07-04-2007, 06:01 PM
NFL is turning into an evil organization. They are trying to create a monopoly on every aspect related to the game.

their stupid
the government breaks monopolies apart.
bye bye nfl

Specnatz
07-06-2007, 12:38 AM
their stupid
the government breaks monopolies apart.
bye bye nfl

actually most sports are exempt from monoply laws. At least I know for a fact baseball is.