|
I am a bit different in that while I am a fan, I am also at an event to shoot. Other than the Indy 500, I don't know of a race, local or otherwise, that I have attended just to watch in over 14 years. I also am not a real big fan of watching racing on TV, and I avoided getting Flo until this year. Some know that I am a huge rugby fan, and I used to subscribe to a web streaming service that provided rugby coverage. It was purchased by Flo a few years back, and I didn't renew the subscription because there was very little content. Well, this year, Flo stepped up their rugby game, and I get both rugby and racing for the same dollar. Great deal, to be honest. This year, I also have found out who is involved with Flo racing, and they are folks that I have known for some time, even from the production level, and overall, I am pretty happy with the coverage. For me, the benchmark will always be the ESPN "Thunder" shows of the 90s, and I don't know if that standard will ever be reached. That said, from what I have been watching on Flo for the past few months has more than proven to be worth the money, and that is both for rugby (they stream Sky Sports and other broadcast feeds, and not their own) and racing. One point that was brought up by the original post, and I have not seen addressed in any comments is SPONSOR EXPOSURE. We can argue all day long about how streaming might have an effect on attendance, but I feel that there is little argument that for a series and race car sponsor, getting exposure via the stream is invaluable.
|