Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="DS3, post: 5892608, member: 407846"] Whilst in theory I agree with you to a degree, PokerGo was set up to make a profit, not to promote poker (this is why I note that Catz has a history of predatory business practices with student loan companies). Saying they had no choice in the matter is odd. They had a choice as to whether to enter the business in the first place and chose to do so because they could establish a de facto monopoly. The WSOP made all the original content and understood providing global access to that content would promote the game. Anyone with common sense understands that providing free content - say for example of professionals engaged in a sport/activity - will draw amateurs to the sport or pastime/hobby. But for the most popular sport (football/ soccer) most endeavors understand they need to promote and providing free content to markets - be it yachting, golf, tennis, motor racing etc. Marketing their sport is an inherent cost to driving views and participation. I can understand how the WSOP thought it a good deal - they know thousands will show up regardless for the WSOP each year because it is what it is- Mecca for poker players. But all it does is make poker more insular. Likewise PokerGo. I do not disagree, $10 a month is not an excessive amount to pay if you play poker seriously. But that is not what The ANMATOR or myself are talking about. It could well be a profitable business scenario for PokerGo as essentially much content with appeal to poker players is now behind their paywall. However, how is this growing the game? When the WSOP content was streamed on You Tube, tens of thousands watched the content live and ultimately the posts received millions upon millions of views over time. I have no objection whatsoever if any individual/company wants to produce and provide their own content behind a paywall. Its the bagging of the WSOP material (present and historical) which I find so short sighted. That said, I am not entirely sure that the subscription model for PokerGo is paying off in quite the manner they thought. It has been noticeable that they have started to release shows which they have produced such as Friday Night Poker onto You Tube. I take that (rightly or wrongly) as a sign the financial model is not as strong as they thought and they have now conceded they have to release content free to air to draw more viewers. Nevertheless - I believe damage has already been done in terms of the profile of poker and its growth so I am happy to see any dialogue on the matter. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us