Let's talk about Media Dividends



  • Hi guys

    We have a new short survey relating to Media Dividends, this is an opportunity have your say on the coming changes/updates to Media Dividends.

    Link: https://bit.ly/2SRRrJb

    Thanks



  • @FI_Mark Small piece of feedback. The opening page says "we have 4 questions". There are actually 6!



  • @janner73 Thanks for the heads up



  • @FI_Mark in relation to the grey are which is eligibility and morality would a solution to this be to make all stories eligible but when it comes to things like media relating to racial abuse only allow payouts on shares that where bought before the incident took place that way all shares that were bought under controversy wont be paid out meaning bets placed on racism and other crimes wont count but shares bought beforehand would still be paid out.

    After all whats in the media is in the media and should all count the problem lies with bets being placed and paid out on controversial matters

    Also another thing i would like to see is all names relating to players being picked up and not just the full name if this is possible as a lot of players are generally referred to by a surname alone in the media



  • Here's the questions:-

    0_1582115249156_Screenshot_20200219-120959.png

    I put I'd like to see The Sun added (England's biggest selling red-top newspaper) Bild, Le Equipe, Gazzeta Dello Sport & Marca

    0_1582115354976_Screenshot_20200219-121007.png

    Yes

    0_1582115391059_Screenshot_20200219-121029.png

    I put hat-trick, brace, screamer

    0_1582115511276_Screenshot_20200219-121222.png

    Yes

    0_1582115522534_Screenshot_20200219-121232.png

    I put story removed



  • Good to be involved.

    I suggested a lot of new words- mainly words from football skills/game play- especially defensive words.

    I don't mind more papers being involved or foreign papers being involved.

    Clicked 'Other' for the removing stories question- said all media should be logged from all sources used, then scored by the points system. NO FIDDLING! NO REMOVING! We need a system where we are not wondering which stories or incidents will have a chance of MB divs.

    I did suggest the dividends need a significant rise due to the dilution since there are so many players going for the MB now.



  • @Ericali for the words id like added i put

    Hattrick
    Assist
    Disallowed
    Bruno Fernandes 😂😂



  • @Westy said in Let's talk about Media Dividends:

    Good to be involved.

    I suggested a lot of new words- mainly words from football skills/game play- especially defensive words.

    I don't mind more papers being involved or foreign papers being involved.

    Clicked 'Other' for the removing stories question- said all media should be logged from all sources used, then scored by the points system. NO FIDDLING! NO REMOVING! We need a system where we are not wondering which stories or incidents will have a chance of MB divs.

    I did suggest the dividends need a significant rise due to the dilution since there are so many players going for the MB now.

    You have a similar view as myself i also said a small increase was needed or they need to consider paying out 3 places daily



  • Don't worry guys, pretty sure I've fixed the MB problem ...

    0_1582116002806_Screenshot_20200219-123114_Samsung Internet.jpg



  • I've submitted the survey but just want to emphasise what I think about negative media stories, which is they should be included as it gives value to controversial players who don't have much of a chance scoring divs through PB. These stories tend to last for a few days as well. Someone like Balotelli would gain added value, it's another profit opportunity for us investors !



  • I really like this new "Choose Your Own Bet" initiative. FI clearly have had trouble for some time working out what we've actually put our bets on. I'm sure this will sort it all out perfectly.



  • @FairlyNewUser wouldn't people just buy black players who transfer to Italy or Russia? 🤔

    All racial abuse stories should just be removed. Nobody should profit from racism.



  • @Ericali We have no control over what does / doesn't happen.

    Unfortunately that is exactly what the media does.



  • The irony of talking about morality on a gambling site!



  • @Ericali theres too many grey areas to just remove stories. We will never be 100% sure what is going to count and what isnt. For example if a player is involved a campaign against racism, that shouldnt be removed so why would they sensor stories of a player who has been the victim of racial abuse. The media highlighting the issues helps fight it, FI censoring it carries its own controversy. As a gambling company FI has to do what it can to stay morally correct. Censoring or accepting bets on it is morally wrong so they have to find the middle moral ground



    1. I put to add as many outlets as possible... Removes the power any one writer or outlet can have... And gives the truest reflection of who the world media are talking about.

    2 & 3) no... On basis I don't think articles should be scored. Its so subjective... And language/ context changes or easy to miss words which just bumps the confusion and arguments down the road. An article is an article and should just be a counter (accept this could lead to a lot more draws?)

    1. yes... As per answer 1...foreign outlets give better representation of media stars vs some random event in a game most of the world doesn't care about

    2. other - keep all stories. Removes need for manual intervention and uncertainty I. E. Wil it be removed or not, when will it be removed? Payout on a story that wasn't removed in time then pay goodwill to the player who would have won? It's all subjective and will cause arguments. Just allowing all stories removes all those arguments and just a slight moral grey area over profiting from rare examples where a footballer has committed a crime. Easier to manage tho and the rule is black and white not grey



  • My thoughts
    If MB is going to remain, you need to do something to stop a couple of news outlets essentially determining who wins most days. It is all well and good including more credible publications like the Independent or the BBC, but the Star or the Express, more often than not determines who wins. For example, there was one day early January (well before the Bruno Fernandes deal happened) where those two publications managed to rack up 60 articles between them. Yet an in-depth article from the BBC will rack up about 5% of those points despite have credible journalism behind them.

    Those two publications business model is effectively clickbait. They generate revenue through ads and so it is in their interest to create sensationalist headlines that more people will click on. Even if completely fabricated. I believe we should be rewarding credible journalism, or at very least ensure that different outlets can genuinely contribute to whether a player wins or not. Either cap the amount they can produce, or have a depreciating value e.g. first article is worth 20 points, next one 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 etc.



  • @Dr-Jan-Itor yeah, I put limit the number of articles but now I regret it. In essence you then have 3 articles for the BBC against 3 articles for the express. 'Brighton up to 15th with a late winner from Mr footballer' will not win over 'SHITTING HELL! NEYMAR MBAPPE AND PELE PICTURED BUMMING A GOAL. CHAMPIONS CHAMPIONS CHAMPIONS!!!!



  • Limit number of articles from one publication to 3 daily for same story. The Express - Bruno Fernandes media was a farce. Same news different headline.
    Open up to least bias publication in Italy, Spain, Germany and France.



  • Negative points for negative media. Negative media to be defined clearly. I.E. act of racism etc. Clears up grey area once and for all.


Log in to reply