SlotForum banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

5,404 Posts
I think there is a fair bit of chicken and egg syndrome at work with most of these things.

TV exposure can inject interest into whatever the TV people decide to expose their audience to. Once interest is aroused, there is a fair chance that live attendance will increase as some of the newly aroused TV audience become curious enough to taste a live sample. As live attendance grows, then so can the TV audience increase and, as these things occur, so the event organizers/owners see the chance to maximise their income by increasing ticket prices AND TV fees.
Eventually their greed bursts the bubble and TV pulls out. Without the TV exposure and the hype that usually accompanies it, the particular event/sport will probably also lose live attendance and gradually sink back to the minority interest it once was.

Who should pay whom for what is a minefield of spurious 'logic' and opinion.
For instance, in one sense, it makes perfect sense for the TV people to ask the competititors/organizers for fees in exchange for the publicity and exposure that they have created by broadcasting on TV! It's rather like the old arguments about whether a full size car manufacturer should extract licence fees from model manufacturers or whether the model manufacturers should demand free licences or even be paid by the manufacturers for the publicity that their models create
for them and which would have cost large amounts of money to have obtained by advertising on TV or other media.
Both sides of the argument hold water - it's just a pity that vast amounts of money hinge upon what is, in the end, personal opinions, as there is no universal, absolute 'right' or 'wrong'.
1 - 1 of 1 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.