iFollow Thread

[J*B]

Just now, JoeH said:

I’d much prefer ONE Ewood Park based vision mixer with full creative control than a team or mixers away from the stadium who are responsible for multiple games each and need to time advert breaks to suit EFL needs.

Out of interest do you have any experience in live television/outside broadcasting?

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, J*B said:

Out of interest do you have any experience in live television/outside broadcasting?

Yes. I worked on the trucks for Sky’s Rugby League Production in an internship role for a while and was part of a student team for BBC Sports Handball World Cup coverage. 

Edited May 28, 2021 by JoeH

[J*B]

1 minute ago, JoeH said:

Yes. I worked on the trucks for Sky’s Rugby League Production in an internship role for a while and was part of a student team for BBC Sports Handball World Cup coverage. 

Was any of it hands on/in a technical capacity or where you a student/work experience/runner? I’m not having a go here, but there’s very little positives to an (assumed) very small in-house team running something like this compared to IMG. There’s a reason only the top PL teams run operations like this eg MUTV or LFC. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, J*B said:

Was any of it hands on/in a technical capacity or where you a student/work experience/runner? I’m not having a go here, but there’s very little positives to an (assumed) very small in-house team running something like this compared to IMG. There’s a reason only the top PL teams run operations like this eg MUTV or LFC. 

I think there’s plenty of benefits. iFollow’s coverage is extremely basic and it’s off site. We need to wait and see what Rovers do with it - but it seems incredibly feasible to me for this to be better than it has been. 

Creative control, advert breaks that don’t cut off conversation randomly, price control, broadcast open/end time control. 

Just look at the terrible replays we get currently with the off-site provider. Either you don’t get one at all or you get 7 of a simple tackle and miss live action.

Edited May 28, 2021 by JoeH

[J*B]

Just now, JoeH said:

I think there’s plenty of benefits. iFollow’s coverage is extremely basic and it’s off site. We need to wait and see what Rovers do with it - but it seems incredibly feasible to me for this to be better than it has been. 

Creative control, advert breaks that don’t cut off conversation randomly, price control, broadcast open/end time control. 

No doubt it’s feasible - but it’s a huge (estimated 500K) investment to do it properly. A reliable product isn’t anywhere near as simple as a couple of camera operators, a vision mixer and then streaming it to fans. It worries me that you would think it’s so simple and I hope whoever is behind it has more experience in the field.

Ultimately we’ll see what they do and that’s how it will be judged. If they do it cheap we’ll be in a worse position than iFollow. If they suitably invest in it we’ll have a great product that will eventually turn a profit - unless we get promoted. 

[HowieFive0]

6 hours ago, only2garners said:

 

6 hours ago, only2garners said:

Apologies for having the temerity for going away for a few days after writing the minutes.

And anyway anything mentioned in confidence won’t be in the minutes will they?

 

Wrong end of the stick there O2G ..i was implying that usually the lack of info out of "Anything Rovers" usually doesnt bode well...although now thinking about it  ten days and counting in this day and age of technology does seem a long time to get information out to the fans you represent.

As for not being able to mention anything said in confidence maybe you should stick to that policy even when news breaks that you knew about but was told in confidence. May save you a little flak if in future  its bad news and you admit you  knew but didnt convey it!

[rigger]

The only thing that will give this any chance of success, is for a massive improvement on the pitch. 

[Hoochie Bloochie Mama]

20 minutes ago, J*B said:

Was any of it hands on/in a technical capacity or where you a student/work experience/runner? I’m not having a go here, but there’s very little positives to an (assumed) very small in-house team running something like this compared to IMG. There’s a reason only the top PL teams run operations like this eg MUTV or LFC. 

Plymouth Argyle were the latest EFL club to move away from iFollow and the EFL’s digital platform in favour of creating their own website in unison with Other Media and StreamAMG.

Blackburn Rovers to launch new club website and streaming service with iFollow replaced - LancsLive

I suppose it depends who Rovers are 'in unison' with.

[roversfan99]

2 hours ago, JoeH said:

iFollow was centrally run and even live mixed away from Ewood Park. Pre-game adverts would cut off chat between the commentators at random. Amongst a host of other issues I thought iFollow was tosh.

This definitely was amateurish to be fair I agree and something that didnt initially spring to mind. There were also occasions whereby replays were shown when the game was ongoing but they tended to be fairly rare. In regards to the matchday experience though, I think the biggest step could be simply to get in a better duo of commentators, the current 2 dont seem popular at all, I dont like them, none of my friends do and indeed everything I see on here on social media suggests that we are not alone. They are biased to the point of being beyond merely impartial, transfixed with referees, pretty boring and indeed I appreciate that they have to somewhat toe the line but they go well beyond that.

I do wonder how feasible financially the new proposal could possibly be. If fans are allowed, will they still be allowed to stream every game in this country?

[bringdunnback]

4 hours ago, J*B said:

No doubt it’s feasible - but it’s a huge (estimated 500K) investment to do it properly. A reliable product isn’t anywhere near as simple as a couple of camera operators, a vision mixer and then streaming it to fans. It worries me that you would think it’s so simple and I hope whoever is behind it has more experience in the field.

Ultimately we’ll see what they do and that’s how it will be judged. If they do it cheap we’ll be in a worse position than iFollow. If they suitably invest in it we’ll have a great product that will eventually turn a profit - unless we get promoted. 

Technology is A LOT more advanced than 10 years ago. Yes it requires an experienced team, but the simplicity of streaming to fans has never been easier in what is a streaming-led digital world.

I work in broadcasting.

And I don't have any say in this operation, just a bystander who is intrigued to see what they produce.

Edited May 28, 2021 by bringdunnback

[J*B]

1 hour ago, bringdunnback said:

Technology is A LOT more advanced than 10 years ago. Yes it requires an experienced team, but the simplicity of streaming to fans has never been easier in what is a streaming-led digital world.

I work in broadcasting.

And I don't have any say in this operation, just a bystander who is intrigued to see what they produce.

I totally understand simple streaming is easy to do. My issue is the infrastructure. Who’s bringing the stream back up when the internet dies mid match? Are they hiring a team of engineers to be monitoring the stream during the game? Will there be a back up server? Are the people running the stream full time or freelance? If they’re freelance, what happens when one pulls out on the day of a match? Who’s trained these freelancers? Who’s providing the kit? 

Long story short - I don’t think a simple streaming solution is acceptable to paying fans especially in sport which is full of emotion. And if it’s simple I suspect it will be a downgrade on iFollow. 

Unless of course what they’re actually doing is going through a new external partner. In which case I do at least expect it to work. 

[Mattyblue]

Are the Yardley’s CREATV not going to be simply handed the gig?

[Stuart]

12 hours ago, HowieFive0 said:

Wrong end of the stick there O2G ..i was implying that usually the lack of info out of "Anything Rovers" usually doesnt bode well...although now thinking about it  ten days and counting in this day and age of technology does seem a long time to get information out to the fans you represent.

As for not being able to mention anything said in confidence maybe you should stick to that policy even when news breaks that you knew about but was told in confidence. May save you a little flak if in future  its bad news and you admit you  knew but didnt convey it!

Schoolboy error mate. The FF members don’t represent the fans, they only represent themselves. Something to do with not being elected or not wanting to be asked to hold the club to account for anything, I can’t remember which.

In fairness, their remit is things like the Riverside bogs having cold enough hand washing water and the concessions having hot enough pies so I wouldn’t expect any hard-hitting exposé.

Particularly in the current climate, where there is little trust and not much in there was of communication from the club, I would have expected that the minutes would have been out by this point but it will only end in disappointment and acrimony anyway so I wouldn’t worry too much.

[jw_]

I've been using Ifollow since it's inception but I could'nt be bothered watching the last few games out of sheer frustration with Mowbray. I'd already made up my mind to cancel my subscription to ifollow for next season and no matter what the club comes up with if Mowbray is still here they can shove it.

I started watching Rovers in the early 1950's and the miserable combination of Mowbray and his cronies plus the unmentionable stupid owners have have crushed my enthusiasm.

I must admit though if Mowbray was to go that would change everything. 

[bringdunnback]

8 hours ago, J*B said:

I totally understand simple streaming is easy to do. My issue is the infrastructure. Who’s bringing the stream back up when the internet dies mid match? Are they hiring a team of engineers to be monitoring the stream during the game? Will there be a back up server? Are the people running the stream full time or freelance? If they’re freelance, what happens when one pulls out on the day of a match? Who’s trained these freelancers? Who’s providing the kit? 

Long story short - I don’t think a simple streaming solution is acceptable to paying fans especially in sport which is full of emotion. And if it’s simple I suspect it will be a downgrade on iFollow. 

Unless of course what they’re actually doing is going through a new external partner. In which case I do at least expect it to work. 

All valid questions absolutely. I remember the first game streamed on iFollow in September last year, think it was Bristol City. They simply couldn't handle the amount of traffic and it all went down for 10/15 minutes. I hope they are going to be prepared for every risk.

And you're right about us paying for a downgrade, if this is that they will learn very quickly how the social media audience can trash a platform.

[OldEwoodBlue]

This makes some sense if you are Waggott with potentially no income again.

He doesn't know if there will be 4000 fans or no fans allowed in Ewood so this way he gets their money either way.

He can tier the game charges depending on opposition.

He suspects many stay aways will watch thereby increasing "gates" by stealth.

He can sell advert space.

There will no doubt be additional piracy measures in place. Most people are streaming ifollow for free.

Costs will be kept to a bare minimum using mostly technology instead of people. Otherwise why bother. They stopped Radio Rovers due the costs (no income). This is all about the income and zero to do with fans.

 

[JPTSwindon]

As it stands presume it’s back to just midweek games for RoversTV / iFollow?

[perthblue02]

6 hours ago, JPTSwindon said:

As it stands presume it’s back to just midweek games for RoversTV / iFollow?

If Rovers TV is tied to the same rules as ifollow it seems so for the UK, this from the Huddersfield site

https://www.htafc.com/news/2021/july/watch-town-on-ifollow-this-season/

Edited August 2, 2021 by perthblue02

[Oldgregg86]

Can we pay to watch away games on a game to game basis like I follow this season

[lraC]

The full season form 166 euro (around £140) sound reasonable and I will probably go for that, if we do the same.

[Bigdoggsteel]

Have they said what the story is with IFollow or whatever the new incarnation is this season? How many games are on it? 

 

[roversfan99]

I mentioned in another thread but surely with full capacity stadiums allowed, the option to stream games from the UK will be discontinued otherwise attendances across the country will never return to normal?

[JPTSwindon]

18 hours ago, perthblue02 said:

If Rovers TV is tied to the same rules as ifollow it seems so for the UK, this from the Huddersfield site

https://www.htafc.com/news/2021/july/watch-town-on-ifollow-this-season/

So back to normal… 

[superniko]

Can any of our Irish supporters shed any light as to whether iFollow is available over there as part of the overseas package? I assume so, and maybe just excludes sky sports matches

[TheRoversReturn]

The International Video Pass is £170.

https://www.rovers.co.uk/videos