Video Ads? Not a focus on the pitch

Online advertising’s trend away from banners to video seems to be the opposite direction the World Cup is taking to reach the masses.

I have been privileged enough to attend matches at three different stadiums here in South Africa and each only has one maybe two Jumbotrons...if you can even call them that--not very jumbo.

Green Point Stadium here in Cape Town is one of the newest, most state of the art soccer stadiums in the World. Primary form of advertising? The sideline banner.

While this is true, the banners aren't your standard, old school, wooden signs of the past. It's basically one long monitor that has the ability to completely change as the game's being played.

Watching these signs change was pretty impressive from a marketing standpoint.

While paying attention to the screens, it seemed to me that a company can go ahead and buy any specific minute of the game that they want to control, determine which section of the screen they want for that period, and display their ad. It even allowed for advertisers to perform complete, full field takeovers.

This subconscious advertising is very interesting and can say a lot about what times the fans are paying the most attention, which side of the field may see more action, and which games may be more profitable for different advertisers based on the viewers.

This type of advertising also trumps the old style by being able to change creative relatively quickly. If a company wants to rebrand their name, they should be able to do it hours before or even on the fly since its merely a video image opposed to a pre-printed sign. It can also allow for many more advertisers than the traditional method as it can change all the time.

I like to see this type of innovation that is easy on the eyes and actually makes way for an uninterrupted flow of game by simply branding the action. As long as there are no TV timeouts and interruptions in play, I like seeing these field length monitors.

How Can I Watch Soccer Without that ANNOYING Horn?

The skillfully produced and highly technological hollow piece of plastic called the Vuvuzela is now the buzz heard ‘round the world. Here in South Africa, there is little debate as to whether it should be here--but my friends back home have even said "you aren't one of those people with that annoying horn are you?"(I am)

While the Vuvu creates energy and entertainment for the fans in attendance, I guess it can be a little annoying for fans to hear this beehive every time they want to watch a match on TV.

Because of this, I have to tell you of a possible solution: the anti-vuvuzela mp3. This counters the sound with an inverted phase to the standard vuvuzela sound creating interference.

For just 3 Euros, it can be yours! http://antivuvuzelafilter.com/ Enjoy!

UH-OH! Refs made another TWO blunders in the World Cup. Time for Replays?

Before this Cup, and before 2006, there was a lot of talk about the implementation of goal-line technology to negate any mistakes caused by the human eye. Since goals in soccer can be few and far between, one missed goal could change the entire complexion of the Cup.

The two main technological breakthroughs talked about in the soccer community are the Adidas Micro-chip and the Hawk-Eye 3D photo system. Adidas' innovation comes from inserting a microchip into the ball that can instantly relay the message of a goal being scored to the center referee. It is an interesting concept that claims to be extremely accurate. The Hawk-Eye technology is comprised of multiple camera angles that generate a 3D image in which a main computer analyzes and relays the message of goal or no goal to the ref.

The other obvious video element would be to include the standard instant replay.

FIFA, the officiating body of the World Cup, ruled out any replay or goal detection for this Cup in order to preserve the human element in decision making. FIFA explains that they want to make sure that the traditional elements are in place and that the game on TV is the same as the game in the park. With such goal-line technology, there is the fear that unnecessary stoppage and technical difficulties may kill the flow of the sport, which is a critical element.

The human eye has already been tested twice in the first knockout phase of the FIFA 2010 World Cup. England could have tied the match between Germany 2-2 but instead were neglected an obvious(after watching the replay) goal by Frank Lampard. Instead of tying the match, Germany held the lead and knocked in two more as the demoralized English squad could not fight back into the game

Argentina was able to benefit from a missed off-side call to put themselves up 2-1 against the Mexicans in their first round game. This was an easy call for the replay, but the speed of the game made it difficult for the human eye to see it in real time. Argentina scored one more to seal the deal, 3-1.

Argentina is known to have benefitted from such mistakes by the referee in the past. The infamous ‘Hand of God’ put them up against England in the 1986 world cup when Argentina coach, then player, Diego Maradona controversially scored using his hand to punch the ball past the English Goalkeeper. This put them ahead 2-1 and they won that Quarterfinal match and eventually the entire World Cup--still a sore subject for most British soccer fans.

After huge mistakes by the referrees assistant in two knockout matches in this World Cup, FIFA will yet again have to make replay a key agenda item as many fans are infuriated by the lack of accuracy. FIFA released a statement that the replay should not have been shown at Soccer City stadium following the Argentina goal in case it incited any sort of riot.

My friends and I debated that if the ref was just allowed to look up at the screen he would have seen the blunder with his own eye and could have quickly made the correct call--so what do we do? Side with replay and new technology, or continue to call the game with the human eye and maintain tradition?

Slowing down the continuous flow of soccer would be detrimental to the sport, but something may have to be done about the lack of accuracy in the most watched sport in the world. If the Hawk-Eye Technology is as accurate and fast as claimed, i don't see a real reason not to use it. While I am a traditionalist in most sports, seeing a team get cheated out of advancing to the next round is unfair to the fans, the players and the sport. I hope FIFA reconsiders their decision for 2014.

A Worthy Sacrifice: Cameras in the line of fire

After attending a six games of the world cup, its hard not to notice the cameras set up all over this place. In even the first match we went to, at least one camera was completely shattered by 100 mile/hour strike of the ball. It makes me wonder if its best to leave these $50,000 soldiers unguarded in case of future attacks.

I'm not sure if the Premier Leagues have that kind of arsenal at their disposal but it does make me think about how much getting the perfect shot is woth to the media companies.

While watching the Camaroon vs. Netherlands first round match in Cape Town, we saw a man sitting directly in front of us with extremely good camera equipment escorted out of the stadium. We figured that if Fifa didnt give their permission for professional media to be there, you cannot be there--even if you're just a fan who wants to get the best quality photos from the stands.

Another thing hard to miss is the Eye in the Sky. They are now using the great technology that has been seen in American Football these last few years to broadcast soccer. These dangling cameras have cables stretching from one end of the 90,000 person stadiums to the exact opposite side. This combined with 3D tech at least makes me think they really are trying to get every angle and every shot for the people watching across the globe.

This is only the beginning of the money that people will be paying for the most realistic world cup experience/shots possible. Yeah, yeah, I've heard about this whole 3D thing, but the folks in Japan are claiming that if they get the World Cup bid for 2022, they will be able to provide simulated holograms to stadiums around the world!

So, you can essentially see a replicated version of USA vs. Brazil being played in Tokyo, at Giant's Stadium overlooking McCovey Cove.

So, now that I think about it--a $50,000 may be chump change when we talk about getting every angle just 3 World Cups from now.

Cape Town

This place is awesome. Gotta say, so far so good for the World Cup in Africa. They really have made it a vibrant atmosphere and everywhere we've been is completely accommodating. We've been staying in Muizenberg just outside of Cape Town and will be visiting the Southernmost tip of Africa as well as the penguins just south of here tomorrow.

As for the games, every pub is completely crazed. The England US game was ridiculously fun. Some Arabic TV station interviewed us Americans and we just had a grand ol time. "We got a point" became the chant of the night after scoring a lucky equalizer against the Brits.

Somehow we ended up at a Mexican Bar ordering burritos, singing Cielito Lindo, and chugging Tequila shots with the room full of Mexicans, when none of us needed any more. Come halfway across the world to hang out with Mexicans!

GREAT times so far--South Africa is doing an Amazing job

Tickets sold out...and so many empty seats

As feared by my experience talking with Americans destined for South Africa, many tickets are not being used due to the difficulty of selling tickets bought in advance. This does not bode well for FIFA organizers and is not good for the fans who spent at least 80 bucks a pop.

Even with South Africa spending 30 billion Rand ($3.9 billion US) on transportation, telecommunication, and stadiums to prepare for the influx of tourists, the experts say that the lack of infrastructure has something to do with the low attendance. When asked, a FIFA spokesman gave an obviously generic answer stating, “ It looked like a lot of people didn’t show up to the stadium. We are investigating this.”

Not just “a lot of people”--it was up to a third of the seats left vacant for at least one of the first 5 matches. The highly anticipated Algeria/Slovenia match only pulled in around 28,000 people to a 42,000 capacity stadium. Prior to the game, FIFA reported only 700 tickets unsold.

Many reporters say that transportation is probably the main factor while ticket distribution could also be an issue.

I know that when I was searching for tickets on FIFA’s website--the only place to legitimately buy tickets--it was not easy. I would click to purchase and run into error after error reading “no tickets available” even when previous pages showed availability.

Another main factor was the fact that the pre-sale tickets, bought by many over a year ago, were to completely random games. It’d be like getting a ticket for a game in LA, then realize you also won the lottery for a game in Chicago for the next day and then have to make the trek to Houston 2 days later, pretty much impossible for most.

On this rainy day in Cape Town, I think I’ll venture over to the stadium for tonight’s “sold out” Italy vs. Paraguay match and I will see if FIFA starts releasing more of these unused tickets at the door. I’m guessing that I should be able to find a pair, especially in this torrential downpour.

While the tournament so far has gone off without a hitch, and I’m sure empty seats are not the biggest concern for tournament organizers, it is something that won’t go unnoticed. So tonight I’m going to do my part--grab my stars and stripes vuvuzela, throw on my poncho, and fill one of those empty seats dammit, for FIFA’s sake! Look for me in the stands.

WiFi? not in Dubai!

So Slow! They have waterfalls in the airport, the world’s tallest structure, the largest gold plated building, man made islands with multimillion dollar condos, hotels with rates of $30,000/night, but the wireless? Forget about it! They were right, money can’t buy everything--but you would think that it could at least buy a decent internet connection.

It seems disheartening that if you’re in the UAE for business and need to shoot out a quick email before catching your flight home, its really not going to happen.

Emirates Air sets you up with a hotel room specifically for flights with long layovers with “internet accessible rooms.” i tried accessing their wireless from my room, no dice.

I thought, okay, no problem, I’ll just log on at the airport. Upon walking through security I see that Dubai International Airport has a FREE internet connection! I was thrilled...come to find out, it was so slow I couldn’t even log into my gmail account in the hour prior to takeoff. This was a complete let down since I had a couple of things to wrap up before getting onto my next 9 hour flight--and I wanted to tell Mama her little boy was OK.

On a similar note: Why does Virgin America, a”budget” provider in the States, have a great WiFi system, but the classy Emirates Air doesn’t even offer it to its patrons setting off on a 15 hour journey? A bit baffling for my internet addicted self. I could have been watching the opening match of the FIFA World Cup on ESPN360 live from my MacBook, instead I was watching highlights of the 1986 world cup to take care of my soccer itch.

While internet connectivity can be satisfied almost anywhere in the states, this journey to a far off land has left me grateful for the country we live in, at least as far as internet accessibility goes. USA! USA!

Sorry, the US vs. England game is on in a few hours, can’t hold back my patriotism.

Josh Levine, reporting live from Cape Town, South Africa