Sohail Sahi Commentary Technique

[sign of the chimes]

You see, it's this sort of thinking that is very village fete. It costs money to improve your product and grow your business. I wasn't part of the thought process but from the outside I can guess that the people in charge at Argyle believe in the power of branding and have invested the time and capital to take them up a level.

Look at their site and their offering: https://www.pafc.co.uk/argyle-tv ...they've invested properly in their website, their front of house.

Argyle obviously understand that to get ahead, rather than keep pace - is to embrace streaming etc, brand it as their own and look to engage people (kids in particular) who are looking at a screen for a lot of their day. City understand that too and the videos Scott and team produce punch massively above their weight but this is next level stuff in terms of how it's distributed and presented. I can tell you now from experience that the engagement on their website will be far higher in terms of time spent looking around than ours.

I think there's an interesting discussion (for those interested) here. FWIW the social media stuff that your fellas Palfrey and Bratt (and any other team they have around them), is as good as I've seen in L1/2, certainly better than what my lot produce in that respect.

I think (but happy to be corrected) that much of Argyle's social media content is behind a paywall?

Genuinely interested as someone, I think, some years (but not massively) older than you; as to whether you think there's a viable market for the non iFollow (or equivalent) stuff on subscription at L1/2 level; and whether it's better for clubs to make stuff free but lose potential revenue, in the interest of a wider audience - perhaps the nature of the club comes in to iut?

One of those things I've no fixed opinion on - but interested to hear yours as it seems like the sort of thing you'd know a bit about.

 

[Rosencrantz]

I think there's an interesting discussion (for those interested) here. FWIW the social media stuff that your fellas Palfrey and Bratt (and any other team they have around them), is as good as I've seen in L1/2, certainly better than what my lot produce in that respect.

I think (but happy to be corrected) that much of Argyle's social media content is behind a paywall?

Genuinely interested as someone, I think, some years (but not massively) older than you; as to whether you think there's a viable market for the non iFollow (or equivalent) stuff on subscription at L1/2 level; and whether it's better for clubs to make stuff free but lose potential revenue, in the interest of a wider audience - perhaps the nature of the club comes in to iut?

One of those things I've no fixed opinion on - but interested to hear yours as it seems like the sort of thing you'd know a bit about.

We definitely get a load of great content from Scott, Craig and the team for free. It's something we should not take for granted when looking at other clubs content which is either behind a paywall or not up to much.

 

[BigBanker]

He must be well regarded at the BBC as he often acts as a match summariser on 5 Live for PL games.

 

[Colesman Ballz]

He must be well regarded at the BBC as he often acts as a match summariser on 5 Live for PL games.

Perhaps he should concentrate on that, if that is where his talents lie, as unfortunately giving match commentaries on the radio is definitely not his forte !

 

[Grecian Max]

I think there's an interesting discussion (for those interested) here. FWIW the social media stuff that your fellas Palfrey and Bratt (and any other team they have around them), is as good as I've seen in L1/2, certainly better than what my lot produce in that respect.

I think (but happy to be corrected) that much of Argyle's social media content is behind a paywall?

Genuinely interested as someone, I think, some years (but not massively) older than you; as to whether you think there's a viable market for the non iFollow (or equivalent) stuff on subscription at L1/2 level; and whether it's better for clubs to make stuff free but lose potential revenue, in the interest of a wider audience - perhaps the nature of the club comes in to iut?

One of those things I've no fixed opinion on - but interested to hear yours as it seems like the sort of thing you'd know a bit about.

Looking at our viewing figures on for the more long-from stuff youtube may suggest we don't have the numbers to make it worth putting behind a paywall (the Bolton Park Life has 716 views as an example). The bigger figures are always for post match interview, highlights and the 360s which should remain free IMO. However if you start to build up boxsets of long form interviews etc (the Diabate one being a great example), then access to those for a price would build in value, at least for me.

What Argyle are doing well is packaging it all together, along with the podcasts, archives of lots of previous seasons and that in stadium presentation in order to presumably build a brand outside of these shores. That's something we might struggle to do given what we are, but even so the professionalism of it all pains me a bit. They're following a template that has trickled down from Prem.

Argyle's premium offering for £45 a year, not including streaming is:

With our Argyle TV annual pass, you will be able to gain exclusive access to Argyle TV, the club's premium online video service, for 12 months, including Live Audio commentary of matches, the Argyle Archives, exclusive behind the scenes content, full match replays and much more.

I've long thought the quality of our video output should be backed up by a proper online presence; the website and online shop belongs in 2010. The longer you keep someone on the site, the longer they have to make decisions to go elsewhere and follow the upsells to quality items in stock... none of this journey is being covered currently, from the engaging site and content to the products themselves.

 

[sign of the chimes]

Looking at our viewing figures on for the more long-from stuff youtube may suggest we don't have the numbers to make it worth putting behind a paywall (the Bolton Park Life has 716 views as an example). The bigger figures are always for post match interview, highlights and the 360s which should remain free IMO. However if you start to build up boxsets of long form interviews etc (the Diabate one being a great example), then access to those for a price would build in value, at least for me.

What Argyle are doing well is packaging it all together, along with the podcasts, archives of lots of previous seasons and that in stadium presentation in order to presumably build a brand outside of these shores. That's something we might struggle to do given what we are, but even so the professionalism of it all pains me a bit. They're following a template that has trickled down from Prem.

Argyle's premium offering for £45 a year, not including streaming is:

With our Argyle TV annual pass, you will be able to gain exclusive access to Argyle TV, the club's premium online video service, for 12 months, including Live Audio commentary of matches, the Argyle Archives, exclusive behind the scenes content, full match replays and much more.

I've long thought the quality of our video output should be backed up by a proper online presence; the website and online shop belongs in 2010. The longer you keep someone on the site, the longer they have to make decisions to go elsewhere and follow the upsells to quality items in stock... none of this journey is being covered currently, from the engaging site and content to the products themselves.

Thanks, I appreciate the considered response. I guess it's an interesting balance between what I presume is a relatively painless link-up with the standard EFL website and iFollow platform being used by much of the league, and the cost/benefit of overseeing it in house.
I agree with you that the EFL template websites are rotten - they feel like an afterthought, grudgingly provided - without any sense of how they can be used to engage supporters, especially those at a distance; and both the tangible and intangible benefits of doing so. Similar with iFollow, I get that it's probably a club-to-club decision and understand that the cost/benefit of taking things in house would differ - but, again, I think in some cases it's a result of a lack of imagination/innovation. The existing platform means that even where clubs (as mine did) try and incorporate their own presentation/build up/ the iFollow scheduled/branded ads are so intrusive as to render it worthless.

I'd not looked at the Argyle TV service till a while ago. It appears (annoyingly) to be an exemplar of what clubs at this level could, and in many cases, should be doing.

 

[Squeezebox]

He must be well regarded at the BBC as he often acts as a match summariser on 5 Live for PL games.

No problem with him summarising at all, it's the commentary bit that upsets us!!

 

[Trapdoor]

We seem to have a lot of poor play-by-play radio commentators, Sohail takes the biscuit though. Sometimes it's like listening to Chris Kamara... "there's been a goal..."

 

[Antony Moxey]

You see, it's this sort of thinking that is very village fete. It costs money to improve your product and grow your business. I wasn't part of the thought process but from the outside I can guess that the people in charge at Argyle believe in the power of branding and have invested the time and capital to take them up a level.

Look at their site and their offering: https://www.pafc.co.uk/argyle-tv ...they've invested properly in their website, their front of house.

Argyle obviously understand that to get ahead, rather than keep pace - is to embrace streaming etc, brand it as their own and look to engage people (kids in particular) who are looking at a screen for a lot of their day. City understand that too and the videos Scott and team produce punch massively above their weight but this is next level stuff in terms of how it's distributed and presented. I can tell you now from experience that the engagement on their website will be far higher in terms of time spent looking around than ours.

Bang on Max. Same with my 'Merchandise' thread - we're delivering the product on the field, it's long since been time we capitalised on that by supplying the product off it too.

 

[Grecian Max]

Bang on Max. Same with my 'Merchandise' thread - we're delivering the product on the field, it's long since been time we capitalised on that by supplying the product off it too.

The merchandise issue still perplexes me as it's not a difficult proposition with a loyal audience.