Like millions of people around the world, Mark Zohar spent Saturday night watching the so-called “Fight of the Century” between aging welterweights Floyd Mayweather and Manny Pacquiao.
Unlike those who paid $100 for the live pay-per-view feed or $20 to watch at a bar, however, the Toronto-based CEO and co-founder of TrendSpottr watched all 12 rounds on his iPhone – relying on Twitter’s new live-streaming app Periscope and the “generosity” (quotes ours) of strangers.
These live streams proved as elusive as Mayweather, abruptly disappearing or being taken down by Twitter after accumulating too many “hearts” (the Periscope equivalent of a Facebook like). They came from everywhere: Living rooms, a police department in Africa, even one from ringside seats inside the MGM Grand, where the fight was taking place.
According to a story on Mashable.com, one Spanish-language stream had more than 10,000 users at its peak. According to CNN Money, the fight’s rights owners – including HBO, Showtime and promoter Top Rank – sent Twitter 66 takedown requests on Saturday; the social media company reportedly complied with 30, with other streams ending before Twitter could take action.
But Twitter wasn’t apologizing. In fact, at 12:50 a.m. on Sunday, CEO Dick Costolo brazenly took a jab at TV networks with a tweet reading: “And the winner is…@periscopeco.”
Zohar ended up watching most of the fight via a live-stream originating in Houston, where a Periscope user filmed the fight as it played on his TV and relayed it directly to the internet.
By eschewing the traditional pay-per-view stream of the fight, Zohar and his fellow Periscopers opted to sacrifice a high-definition picture and sound for convenience and cost.
“I was watching it on my iPhone within three inches of my face,” said Zohar. “As long as the connection was good and he filmed it fairly well, it was extremely watchable. It’s not the same as seeing it in high-def, but it was very acceptable.
“Given the cost, I can’t complain too much as an end-user.”
“MayPac” is already being labelled as the first instance of “global crowdcasting,” with some referring to it as yet another landmark moment in the constantly shifting dynamic between old and new media.
When Zohar asked people why they were live-streaming the fight, most people said they just wanted to share what wasn’t technically theirs. In nearly every case, however, there was an underlying effort to obtain that 21st century barometer of cultural cache: Followers.
“They’d say ‘Make sure you follow me just as a small token of your appreciation,” said Zohar. “They’re trying to build up their social profile.”
Zohar wasn’t surprised people used Periscope to watch the fight, but told Marketing he was shocked by Costolo’s tweet. “It seemed an incredibly naïve tweet, because, to use a boxing metaphor, he kind of led with his chin there,” said Zohar.
His suspicions were confirmed on Monday, when the bout’s co-promoter, Top Rank, indicated that it plans to pursue legal action against Twitter for enabling widespread piracy of the fight.
The use of Periscope to distribute and view copyrighted material creates something of a conundrum for Twitter, which has worked hard to forge alliances with content producers and distributors in recent years. Ironically, Periscope was being used that same night to broadcast a sponsored live stream from inside Pacquiao’s dressing room.
The advent of live-streaming tools represents yet another potential headache for TV networks at a time when they’re already facing financial pressure. Kaan Yigit, president of Toronto-based Solutions Research Group, says while live-streaming tools aren’t new, Periscope is helping make the concept mainstream, possibly further eroding TV’s power.
“To me the biggest implication is [that it represents] one more point of fragmentation overall – something else that will draw eyeballs away from the traditional screen,” says Yigit. “It’s not so much that [Periscope] may be used as a tool for piracy. That too will happen, but I think it’s a secondary point.”
With the likes of Netflix and on-demand options already undermining traditional TV, Zohar says Periscope – and its counterpart Meerkat – could represent a potential threat to two of the industry’s sturdiest content pillars: Live sports and exclusive premium content such as HBO’s Game of Thrones (itself a source of controversy when Periscope users live-streamed the recent season premiere).
“Periscope is going after the two crown jewels of today’s media,” he says.“If [traditional] media loses control of those two things, I think the whole thing starts to tumble.”
While stressing that it currently remains “small potatoes,” Zohar says widespread use of live-streaming tools could have serious ramifications for companies like Rogers, which is nearing the end of the first year of a massive 12-year $5.2 billion rights deal with the National Hockey League.
Periscope is just the latest in a series of new technologies threatening to disrupt established models. Last year, the English Premier League (EPL) warned fans against posting unofficial videos of goals to Vine, with director of communications Dan Johnson telling the BBC it had to protect its intellectual property.
UK media outlets including SkySports, BT, The Sun and Times have all paid vast sums for the right to distribute EPL content via their various platforms, and their consternation about people distributing it for free – bypassing established systems – is understandable.
Zohar says broadcasters might one day face a serious decision about Periscope: Take legal action and risk the enmity of consumers, or attempt to incorporate it into their existing content strategy.
On the flipside, he says it’s also possible that Periscope is destined for the same fate as the music download site Napster, which was destroyed by its complete inability to curb piracy (presumably, using Periscope to live-stream a Metallica concert would be strictly forbidden).
Perhaps one of the few pieces of good news for broadcasters is that it’s theoretically possible for Periscope streams to count toward their ratings.
Tom Jenks, director of communications for the ratings service Numeris, says the company’s PPM measurement devices could pick up encoded signals in the original feed, though it would depend on a variety of factors such as audio quality, the volume of the original source, the type of compression the signal would go through in the Periscope app, and the audio quality/volume coming from the device watching the stream.
“As far as I know it’s not something that’s been tested, but I would say, yes, it is possible,” says Jenks.
For now Periscope remains nothing more a fringe player, with Costolo telling analysts during a recent earnings call the app had garnered 1 million downloads in its first 10 days – a long way from Twitter’s 302 million monthly users.
For their part, punch-weary broadcasters appear to be taking a wait-and-see approach. “We’re keeping an eye on it like we do all emerging technology,” says Scott Henderson, vice-president of communications for Bell Media, which operates the sports specialty service TSN and HBO Canada.
Adds Henderson: “Similarly, we do expect technology companies to protect copyright owners from mass infringement, and that they strictly enforce their rules in doing so.”
CBC/Radio-Canada, which owns the rights for several marquee sports properties, including the 2016, 2018 and 20120 Olympics and this summer’s Pan Am Games, declined to comment.
It’s also worth noting that “MayPac” still made a lot of money for old-school media companies. According to Deadline.com, the fight was a “goldmine” for HBO/Showtime, reportedly earning US$400 million in pay-per-view revenues. You don’t need a periscope to see a rematch – and pirates – in the distance.
