By Bob Lowe, Sports Information Director
Greensboro College
Streaming media options for the sports information director have evolved exponentially over the past few years. Numerous third-party streaming companies are available to serve SIDs. That competition has seen prices reduce. Also, more institutions are self-hosting live broadcasts.
SURVEY SAYS: MORE THAN HALF ARE STREAMING
In preparation of this report, I conducted (see survey results in side-bar) a survey of the nation’s sports information directors. Overall more than half of the nation’s SIDs (68-percent) are doing some sort of webcast.
Not surprisingly, college and university division institutions have different streaming habits.
Ninety-one percent of university SIDs (Division I and IAA) are netcasting. College division athletic communicators (Division II, III, NAIA and Canadian schools) reported 45-percent that are currently webcasting.
UNIVERSITY DIVISION: FEW CHOOSE NOT TO WEBCAST
Why are 90-percent of larger universities steaming? There are a number of reasons.
In addition to having larger budgets, bigger schools have more fans and alumni to serve. Such institutions have also been partnering with third-party firms—Yahoo and College Sports Online, for example—that have morphed into the streaming business.
Also, nearly all universities have a radio presence. If a school is radio broadcasting a game, announcers are already in place. To add a webcast, a university just needs to supply the audio to a streaming server. In some cases, radio partners or web hosts stream the broadcasts.
COLLEGE DIVISION HAS EMBRACED INTERNET BROADCASTING
Forty-five percent of colleges are webcasting, but that statistic tells only part of the story. Fewer smaller schools have radio contracts, which makes the shift to streaming more complicated.
Yet many colleges are choosing the Internet as their “online radio station.” Twenty five percent of colleges SIDs who are doing only “made-for-the-Internet” broadcasts. It’s likely these schools would not be doing any broadcasting without netcasts.
WHO PAYS? THAT IS THE QUESTION
Universities are the only respondents to charge for computer users for webcast access. Some schools offer a monthly pass and charge from $4 to $10 dollar per month through Yahoo or College Sports Online.
These end-user fees can subsidize some of the cost of the technology. Expect mid-major institutions to break even or make a tidy profit. High profile schools from the major conferences, however, can reap extensive rewards with this model.
Yet many listeners are likely unhappy about paying to hear the State-Tech game that was offered free last year.
Smaller schools pass on costs to the end-user when using telephone broadcasts, but that’s not the case with Internet webcasts. None of the college division schools charged for access.
“By using the radio and Internet we can reach fans both near and far,” said Kelly Bird, sports information director at NCAA Division III Linfield College. “We also use Teamline, which makes our broadcast available over the phone.”
HYBRIDS AND NET-TO-NET LEAD ENCODING CHOICES
There are numerous ways to produce audio content for streaming. Not surprisingly, a traditional radio configuration is the most popular form for audio creation.
Fifty-five percent of those surveyed use hybrid mixers and a telephone connection to produce play-by-play. Since 75-percent of netcasters are also creating radio transmissions, these numbers are no surprise.
The second-most popular encoding option is Net-to-Net webcasting. Twenty percent of streamers use this option. In short, the audio is being recorded on a computer and then sent over the Internet to another machine: the streaming server.
For more details on creation of netcasts—and other configurations—see the attached “Wecbast Creation Flow Chart.”
WHAT’S BETTER: HYBRIDS OR NET?
Hybrids are great for off-campus venues where you have access to a telephone. Remember that long distance charges apply and most webcasts last at least two hours.
Net-to-net is great for wired gymnasiums or stadiums. Expect this application to become more popular, especially since wireless technology (wi-fi) increasing on campuses and elsewhere. (For more details on wireless, please see Armstrong Atlantic’s Chad Jackson table topic.)
Is coupler or net-to-net better? The best answer is to utilize both.
We bought a wireless connector for my laptop last year. I tested wi-fi at Greensboro College and it worked great. I checked with the home SID for one of our away basketball games. We had all the right settings, but could not get the computer to talk with university’s network.
Luckily I brought my hybrid mixer and we were able to connect via coupler technology.
SERVER SOLUTIONS: SELF HOSTING
The streaming server is the computer where the end-users actually access a webcast. More campuses are hosting Internet broadcasts (39-percent) compared to third-party streamers (35-percent).
The self-host moniker can be a bit misleading. Even though we host our PrideNet webcasts at Greensboro College, we do so through licenses with Real.
Real is one of the dominant streaming platforms. QuickTime and Windows Media are the other major players in the field with WinAmp being a distant fourth in the race. In most cases, your customers need the same media player as the platform you are using to create the webcast.
As a self-host with Real, you can webcast for free with up to 25 listener licenses available for each broadcast. The server licenses are annual and you can upgrade from that entry level. We also purchased the Real Producer (now Helix) creation software. The software was about $200, and also allows editing of clips for archiving.
Self-hosts need active participation from your campus information technology department. A number of respondents complained of server failures during games. This can be a big problem if your IT person is not on-hand or you can’t re-boot the computer.
SUBSIDIZING YOUR STREAMING
Many campuses host webcasts on their “.edu” domain sites. There’s much debate about whether self-host can charge for traditional advertising on .edu’s. Some webcasters reported doing sponsor recognition, similar to public radio. Other institutions have opened commercial websites, GoTigers.com, for example, that can present traditional advertisements or audio spots.
Administrators likely see more benefit to offering a free service to parents, alumni and boosters. A single webcast can cost as little as $15. More departments are seeking sponsorship and advertising dollars to defray costs.
Of the 25-percent who only do webcasts (no radio), 33-percent were looking at sponsorship to recoup costs.
SERVER SOLUTIONS: THIRD-PARTY STREAMING PARTNER
Third party streaming options are many. They can be inexpensive to downright pricey. SportsJuice offers a rate of $15 for each hour broadcast. Other universities have reported spending from up to $9,000 last year on streaming.
Why the difference in cost? It’s all about bandwidth. More end-users accessing a stream clogs a computer’s bandwidth.
There are companies that can meet just about any demand. Some streamers may require your talent to plug the streaming company while broadcasting. Some charge for the amount of bandwidth used, while others offer a flat rate for one year of streaming.
Institutions need to research which application is best for their specific needs. For more details, see side-bar “Third Party Streaming Companies.”
FORMER SID SEES AND SEIZES OPPORTUNITY
Ryan Ermeling is bullish on the future of streaming. He spent the past eight years as a sports information director and is now devoting his time to Stretch Internet.
A former SID at California State University Fullerton—and Fullerton College prior to that—Ermeling is one of many third-party streaming options. Two years ago, he devised a web broadcast solution for Titan athletics. “The application was so smooth and automated, I decided to make a small business out of it,” said Ermeling.
Stretch set up a booth at the 2003 CoSIDA Workshop expecting to secure five or six schools. He currently has 17 college and universities on board, and is looking to expand.
“There are a lot of options out there for athletic departments,” Ermeling said. “We try to serve the small to mid-size schools and get as many games as possible on the web.”
A WORD ON VIDEO STREAMING
Net-to-Net broadcasters can easily produce video webcasts of your athletic teams on the web. Seventeen percent of streamers are doing some form of video broadcasting on the net. Yet picture quality of videocasts, or lack thereof, has always been an issue for broadcasters.
At Greensboro College, we hosted a handful of streaming video basketball and volleyball games. The setup was easy. We just added a video camera to our laptop and employed a camera operator. The video quality was nothing great, but the option of creating highlight clip archives was well worth the effort.
Additionally, if your campus server operator limits your archiving of audio files, you can bet full-game video archives will not be saved to your web site!
MORE WORDS ON VIDEO STREAMING
Lincoln University is one of the few institutions to regularly produce video webcasts. Most schools utitlize one camera, but Darren Smith takes production one step further. His Lubluetigers.net opts for two camera operators, and uses a switch box to alternate between his two Canon digital cameras. LU’s football press box added Internet connections and Smith and company plan to add a sideline reporter for games this Fall.
A number of survey respondents asked if video was worth doing?
The technology is there. LU’s videocasts are better than the choppy and grainy netcasts of a few years ago. Understandably, they are not as crisp as ESPN’s Live motion.
THE FINAL WORDS ON VIDEO STREAMING: COST
Other issues of video netcasts include money and bandwidth—which are grouped together for a reason! Streaming video eats an enormous amount of bandwidth. Video needs about five times more bandwidth than a traditional audio broadcast. That’s likely why a high number of college division schools are trying video. The user demand and server limitations make video a reasonable option.
For institutions like the University of Wisconsin, however, a live webcast can overload a larger server. UW moved away from its current streaming platform because it was maxing out its 300 licenses.
“We’d love to remain a free streaming site, but the costs are great,” said Tam Flarup, University of Wisconsin sports information director. “We’re might offer Badger football and men’s basketball via subscription, and keep our other sports and our news conferences free.”
THE WINNERS: LOWER PROFILE SPORTS
One could argue that Olympic sports have been the biggest beneficiary of live streaming of collegiate games.
Radio has traditionally covered football, baseball and basketball games. But how many institutions have a contract with a commercial station for broadcast of soccer, lacrosse or softball games?
These sports are now seen and head all over the world. Internet webcasts serve a niche by delivering college sporting events to keenly interested parents, fans and alumni.
A FORUM FOR YOUR MESSAGE
Even though Internet broadcasting is growing at a substantial rate, many institutions currently are not using the application to its fullest. Some SIDs have thought outside the box, however, and presented coach’s shows, athlete interviews, and news conferences.
“The press conference is crucial to us because they provide an unfiltered message to our fans,” said Wisconsin’s Flarup.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
If you do not have support of your administration, your IT people or requests from parents and fans for webcasting, please put this piece in a handy file for when circumstances change. And, if you can’t get a reliable shot clock operator to show up, now might not be the right time to stream you athletic teams.
Remember, however, more than 80-percent of survey respondents welcome student help on broadcasts. Student involvement builds good public relations on campus and can be an ideal labor source for a streaming institution. Schools with journalism, communications and broadcasting courses—and internships—are ideal campuses to recruit on-air talent.
It’s a great time to start streaming. Use the resources available in this story to prepare for your broadcasts. Start with a limited schedule and don’t even promote your first event.
And let me finish with the three most important things when you become a webcaster: Test, test and re-test!
Third Party
Streaming Companies
Future Media Inc.
Virginia-based streamer has a number of college division schools as clients. Boasts FM-quality sound, archiving, technical support, and just a audio over a telephone line for streaming.
www.futuremediaworld.com
Telephone: (757) 766-0300
SportsJuice
Low-cost streamer sports extensive client list of colleges and mid-major schools. Expect pop-up ads.
www.sportsjuice.com
Telephone: 732-345-8139
Stretch Internet
Former SID’s company delivers affordable option for institutions looking to webcast numerous games.
www.stretchinternet.com
(866) 847-9809
Teamline
The Granddaddy of alternate broadcasters expanding service in Internet webcasting. Ohio-based company best known for pioneering telephone-based broadcasts.
www.teamline.cc
Telephone: 800-846-4700
Yahoo Sports
Major player with major universities. Can offer video and many streams.
www.yaho.com
Webcasting
Survey Results
Respondents: 123
1. Does your institution webcast athletic events?
-NCAA Univ. Div.: 90% Yes
-NCAA College Div.: 45% Yes
2. Who hosts the webcasts?
-Campus server/self: 38%
-Third-party: 35%
-Radio station: 18%
3. What type of webcast creation technology do you use?
-Hybrid mixer/telephone: 55%
-Computer with headsets: 20%
-Radio: 13%
-Other/don’t know: 12%
4. What streaming platform do you use?
-Windows Media: 47%
-Real/Helix: 25%
-Quick Time: 11%
-WinAmp: 4%
-Other/Don’t Know: 13%
5. Webcasts are created:
-For radio and the Internet: 75%
-Just for the Internet: 25%
6. How many webcasts do you produce each year?
-Zero-10: 9%
-Eleven to 20: 18%
-Twenty one to 50: 46%
-Fifty one or more: 27%
7. Do you archive webcasts?
-Yes: 56%
-No: 44%
8. Do you sell advertising on you netcasts?
–Yes: 47%
-No: 53%
9. Do you produce video webcasts?
-Yes: 17
-No: 83%
10. Do you charge fee(s) to you listeners/viewers?
-Yes: 4%
-No: 96%
11. Are broadcasting opportunities available provided to your students in the creation of your broadcasts?
-Yes: 81%
-No: 19%
12. What is the maximum number of listeners/viewers for your broadcasts?
-Zero to 25: 5%
-Twenty five to 50: 12%
-Fifty one to 99: 7%
-One hundred to 199: 10%
-Unlimited: 68%
END OF SURVEY