Why Smash Summit succeeds
Ever since Smash Summit 5 raised an unprecedented amount of money, every other event that needs fundraising is met with comments like “how can we raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for Summit, but not for X cause?” I get it — after months (if not years) of hearing “Smashers don’t have money, that’s why we can’t raise venue fee/get more subcribers/etc.,” it’s jarring to see ridiculous amounts of money come out just to *possibly* get a player into a closed event.
But is it really that surprising? Smashers tend to market to people by trying to appeal to everything *but* what people want. “Support me because I need it for X/Y/Z,” “It’s a good cause,” or my personal favorite “this will be good for the community.” These tactics usually get *some* support or money, but they don’t always reach the goals they need to.
So why does Smash Summit meet its goals where other fundraisers fall short? I had the opportunity to chat with Ken “Hot_Bid” Chen — the producer of Smash Summit — and get his perspective on why Smash Summit succeeds at fundraising where others don’t.
Smash Summit doesn’t market to the same audience as a supermajor
The first and biggest difference Chen shared with me was simple: Smash Summit doesn’t market to the same audience as tournaments do. A tournament wants to get people to attend in some fashion, to register. Even tournaments with compendiums typically offer rewards that most benefit the people who will be going to the event, like 24 hour venues.
Comparatively, Smash Summit relies on stream viewers. As a result, every part of the experience has to be interesting for the people watching the stream. Even the voting process is an interesting experience with immediate return for Summit viewers. They buy something from the shop that is interesting to them (or they donate directly) in exchange for votes they can use right away.
The thing is, attending a tournament is typically more expensive than buying votes. Not only do you have to pay for the tournament itself, but you need to pay for a hotel, flight, and food — not to mention finding the time to attend the average 3 day tournament. “Time investment is the largest factor for a lot of people,” Chen says. He adds that the same people who have the time and money to go to a tournament aren’t necessarily the same people who will spend a lot of money on gear.
It’s no wonder that catering to stream viewers has been so successful for the Summit team. They’re a larger audience (>10,000 viewers regularly compared to < 3,000 entrants for the biggest non-EVO tournaments ever), with more disposable income that they don’t need to use for other things. Instead of 2,000 entrants paying hundreds of dollars for trip-related costs (most of which don’t go to the tournament itself), you have tens of thousands who only pay for the things they want, from the comfort of their own homes.
Summit has to keep people invested for the whole weekend
The average major tournament follow a traditional schedule. On day one, you have the first waves of pools. On day two, you have bracket up until top 16 or top 8. Finally, on day three, you have the finale of the tournament. Viewership continues to rise up until Grand Finals, where you get the highest viewership numbers… depending on who is in the tournament, of course.
Typically, people are very concerned with peak viewership — but this isn’t the right approach. “Most supermajors are only attractive for the top 8,” Chen says. “You want 52,000 viewers for 5 days versus a 2 hour window that has 75,000.” This, he says, is easier to sell to sponsors.
Smash Summit’s schedule is well catered to high concurrent views, with interesting events for viewers to enjoy every day of the event. Chen notes that supermajors — especially newer ones — should try doing something different on the first day. He acknowledges that while it isn’t an easy task, it’s worth trying.
It’s my opinion that people typically use reasons for low attendance at majors to explain lower viewership. But the reason people choose not to attend majors is completely different than the reason people aren’t watching majors as they used to. Bluntly — they get the same viewing experience every time, with slightly different finishes. Tournaments are almost exclusively reliant on legacy to get entrants and player performance to get viewership — viewership that doesn’t even translate into money. Which brings me to my final point:
Smash Summit knows how to sell to sponsors
Most tournaments don’t have enough salespeople, Chen tells me. This is important because most people who are running tournaments don’t have the time or the necessary skillset to get sponsors on board. Many people don’t want/have the money, but as Chen says — “Even a part-time salesperson would pay for themselves pretty quickly… if you have the right person.”
Even without entrants, without stream viewers, majors wouldn’t bleed as much money if they had a structured sales process. They have one of the most important demographics for companies today — tech-savvy millenials. Smash Summit is one of the few events that leverages our scene’s power — not just by providing a high-quality viewership experience, but by knowing how to do it sustainably.
Smash Summit succeeds where other tournaments don’t because the team understands how to give everyone — from Smashers to sponsors — what they’re looking for. If Smash Summit didn’t exist, the money they raise wouldn’t go to any other cause — because they’re tapping into sources no one else is.
