FTX Crypto Cup 23 to 31 May 2021

[JustinHorton]

Makes a change to chess sponsorship from the likes of Gazprom

Anyway

[Chris Goodall]

Makes a change to chess sponsorship from the likes of Gazprom

Anyway

Furthermore,

(Most of you will have heard my thoughts on so-called professional chess. The only organisations that would put money into a game with an average of zero spectators are mafias, banana republics and pyramid schemes.)

[IM Jack Rudd]

Sufficently big events can sometimes get genuine sponsorship from town councils and the like.

(Also, we don't have a spectator problem as much as a spectator income problem.)

[Ian Thompson]

The only organisations that would put money into a game with an average of zero spectators

There are some actual viewing figures at Esports Charts. Not huge numbers, but they say major events are getting average viewer numbers in the tens of thousands.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Perhaps "spectators" was meant above in the "real" - as opposed to online - sense.

[Chris Goodall]

Spectators who you can put a sponsor logo in front of, that they can't escape. Poker has the advantage that the "visuals" are as important as the cards, and the only place you can get the visuals is the official broadcaster. Online chess spectators hate it when the organisers try to monopolise the coverage.

[Roger de Coverly]

Online chess spectators hate it when the organisers try to monopolise the coverage.

For example
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=8219&hilit=murray+watson+candidates
and
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=8186&p=175298#p175298

[Chris Goodall]

Yes, I was thinking of Agon. Fair play to them, they tried something new, it got a heartfelt raspberry from the chess community, and now we know online spectators are not a good revenue stream.

[Roger de Coverly]

and now we know online spectators are not a good revenue stream.

Those making money at chess.com out of streaming would presumably differ.

I don't think Agon were doing anything that hadn't been seen before, rather they were trying to barge into an already developing market with an inferior product based upon a total fantasy about the level of interest in top level chess and how the interest that did exist preferred to access it.

[Chris Goodall]

We may be talking about three different things:

• In-person spectators of in-person events. Average of zero.
• Online spectators of in-person events. Chess nerds who resist being monetised. Rivals can steal your audience share even if you've got your name on the event.
• Online spectators of online "streamers". A thriving subculture but the product is very, very different - how many of us would be comfortable broadcasting every thought to our legion of fans during a complex endgame?