YouTube Highlights

[observer1]

Just a general question about the 2 minute highlight packages - why are they so poor? This week's doesn't even include the 2nd penalty:



And yet Forest Green for example have much longer free highlights (over 9 minutes) with commentary as well.



How come a club like Forest Green can get it right but we can't? Sort it out.

[bwills]

I wonder if it has something to do with the tie in with ifollow

[guest3086]

Forest Green oversee their website themselves and don't use the standard tossers most league teams use.

[observer1]

Thanks. I rather wish we would go the same way in that case.

I can obviously see the benefits of the uniformality that comes with iFollow, but essentially it means our website looks and feels basically the same as a whole bunch of other clubs in the league and lacks individuality rather than reflecting the values of NTFC. Then when you factor in the standard of some of the video content falling short of what you'd expect, it's not a great advert for the club.

Also as someone who recently used iFollow to pay to watch a live game (Stevenage), I would say it was expensive, didn't feel overly secure when giving my payment details etc and then watching the match it took a ludicrously long period of time for them to update the score graphic and timestamp the goal so that I could navigate back to that part of the video. Overall, definitely not worth a tenner but at least felt like I was supporting the club in some way without physically attending the game.

[everbrite]

Thanks. ....................................... Overall, definitely not worth a tenner but at least felt like I was supporting the club in some way without physically attending the game.

You could have at least voted in the MOM Poll for both Stevenage and Crawley?

[1971cobbler]

And yet Forest Green for example have much longer free
[/quote]

9 minutes of "highlights" for a nil nil draw?