Spike TV and "Live" Television
by Mike Fagan on Oct 19, 2008 3:40 AM EDT
in News
33 comments
It wasn't nearly as bad as the TBS/Steve Harvey Show gaffe for Game 6 of the MLB playoffs. Still, Spike TV plugged tonight's UFC 89 as "live" from Birmingham, England. There's only one problem...it wasn't.
In fact, those of us on the West Coast had to wait an additional 3 hours before getting our fight fix. It's hard enough trying not to get spoiled for a fight in England, it's harder still when one half of the country gets the feed 3 hours before you do.
There's a couple things that I take issue with. First, what's the value added by misrepresenting the viewing audience? Is Spike TV really worried about casual fans checking out internet results and skipping the show? Does adding the "live" clause in TV ads really prevent people from doing that anyway? I really don't understand the intent, and feel a little upset that Spike insults my intelligence.
Second, and more pressing...why isn't the show being shown live in the first place? I know reruns of shows like Manswers and Pros vs. Joes draw big numbers, but I think the network can put those on hold once every few months. On the West Coast, guess what we had airing from 6 PM up 'til the "live" card? OLD UFC CONTENT. I understand Spike wants the show on in prime time, but why not just air it back-to-back? Or live at 3 PM local time and then again at 9 in prime time?
Even if you escape the looming spectre of spoildom (and unfortunately, I did not, though I was spoiled in a very subtle way in a MLB playoff thread on a poker message board), any hardcore sports fan will vouch for a very different feeling while watching an event on tape delay. MMA has cemented itself as a legitimate sport AND, in the opinion of this writer, is the biggest cash cow for Spike. So, Spike, just give me my fights live and don't try and sell it to me otherwise.
0 recs |
33 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I think you’ve got a point. I’m not sure why Spike wouldn’t just put the event on in the middle of the day. It’s understandable that a major network wouldn’t want to preempt their other programming or put a sport like MMA on early in the day. Spike has nothing else of consequence on and it’s a cable network, so there’s not as much sensitivity about violence during the day.
I also agree about presenting the show as “live.” That really doesn’t bother me that much, because I don’t generally trust much of what TV execs do and/or say. That’s why I believe a TV network intertwined with a sports promotion or league as a part owner isn’t a good situation at all, but I digress.
by Cannon Jacques on Oct 19, 2008 8:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
it's not about what else did they have to show...
….it’s about what was on every other channel. NCAA football.
Say they put it on 3pm, it gets KILLED in the ratings against NCAA football and then everyone runs with the headline about the poor ratings. Why split the ratings when they can get it’s best chance at a high ratings at night.
And it’s really not that hard to avoid spoilers. I can go an afternoon without some net surfing.
by RipeTide on Oct 19, 2008 9:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Because it's a sport, damn it!
Dana better make sure he picks his position… is it a sport or is it just entertainment ala WWE?
by cyph on Oct 19, 2008 10:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well...
at the same time the big game of the week is usually on ABC at 8pm ET so you’re going head to head with a big game regardless (last night that would be Mizzu/Texas)
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Oct 19, 2008 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah but...
The competition was tougher at 9pm than it was at 3pm. There were two NCAA games(Missouri-Texas and LSU-South Carolina), the Red Sox-Rays game, and the Hopkins-Pavlik fight starting later in the night. That’s a lot to go up against, especially for a card which isn’t necessarily huge on drawing power. I don’t think the ratings would have been any worse if they had broadcast the card in the afternoon.
by Andy R on Oct 19, 2008 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dana White has gone on the record since the Okami vs. Franklin fight that aired at 3pm that it’s too confusing for people to have the show in the afternoon sometimes and in the evening others. It’s a matter of debate, but the UFC is trying to remain partly consistent.
by Luke Thomas on Oct 19, 2008 10:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They may be Dana White’s reasoning, but I think it’s dumb. I think they could do both, people wouldn’t get too confused. I have faith that the general public can, largely, adapt to the fact that it’s happening in the dark in the UK while the sun is still out in the US.
by Cannon Jacques on Oct 19, 2008 11:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was FREE
I always chuckle when people get twisted up over free things.
The show was worth my time and happy that it was free. Boom.
by dohfil on Oct 19, 2008 12:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Not really free, but whatever. I don’t see why it’s so laughable that someone would have criticisms about a product, whether one pays for it or not.
by Mike Fagan on Oct 19, 2008 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ad sponsored, not free
I’d rather have paid to see it live and ad free. But that’s just me.
by Kid Nate on Oct 19, 2008 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The ones we pay for aren’t ad free either.
by Richard Wade on Oct 19, 2008 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I don’t think this is a good point at all. First, it’s not free. It’s just not $45 extra dollars out of pocket to watch. Second, is the MMA public so starved for cards that we should accept anything that’s free? That’s always an argument for the promotion that’s currently on CBS. Granted, their last two cards have improved tremendously in terms of the fighting. This UFC card was certainly worth watching. However, the day I stop pointing out things that I don’t like about a show is the day I stop caring enough to watch.
by Cannon Jacques on Oct 19, 2008 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
All I can say is, the broadcast really dragged. Now let’s not debate the obvious here. yes it is free, yippee. yes they need the advertising to bay the bills, fine. That does not change the idea, that the fights were pretty entertaining, yet the momentum and excitement was held down by the ridiculous amount of video game ads, etc. I don’t know how they can avoid that, but it is a problem, imo. As we were watching, it was just hard to keep being “into” the fights. And damn, as someone who has played a lot of games, I’m thinking people need to get off their asses a little, lol.
If you look at a highly successful league like the NFL, you find the games at the same times on the same channels every week. This is why the time of the broadcast was fine with me, UFC is Saturday Night. It would have been fine to broadcast it in the afternoon AND at night, imo, but you don’t want to make people search for your product.
As for it being “free”, I spend a lot of money on mma and the UFC, so if I want to criticize it, that is my choice. While I don;t have any problems with the show, it certainly could have been better in some aspects.
http://eliotmarshall.com/
by BJJDenver on Oct 19, 2008 12:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If they were trying to be consistent, why did they have it on at nine and not seven?
by Richard Wade on Oct 19, 2008 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was on at seven where I am. They must have staggered it in different parts of the country.
http://eliotmarshall.com/
by BJJDenver on Oct 19, 2008 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was on at 6 in HD and at 9 in SD here.
by Richard Wade on Oct 19, 2008 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The show WAS live...
It just happened to be on a 6 hour tape delay.
by nitro on Oct 19, 2008 1:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
"In fact, those of us on the West Coast had to wait an additional 3 hours before getting our fight fix. "
Those of us on the West Coast who got to watch on Spike in HD got to see it at 6pm.
by Richard Wade on Oct 19, 2008 3:15 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
For whatever reason Cox Cable in Vegas doesn’t offer Spike in HD.
by Mike Fagan on Oct 19, 2008 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you can only get it with DirecTV? I have Time Warner and can’t get it either.
by Chris Nelson on Oct 19, 2008 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not on dish.
http://eliotmarshall.com/
by BJJDenver on Oct 19, 2008 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It depends where you live. I’m in Maine now with Time Warner, and I have a lot less HD channels than my mom does in NYC.
by Phildo on Oct 19, 2008 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We (here in San Diego) only started getting it in HD this week I think.
by Richard Wade on Oct 19, 2008 6:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The odd thing was, it didn’t even air live in Canada at 3PM. They started by buffering it with about 10 minutes of commercials, then began airing on delay. And they continued to stop the feed to show ads throughout, so by the end, it was like 20 minutes behind the live feed. The only place that actually showed it LIVE was Setanta Sports.
by smoogy on Oct 19, 2008 3:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
In regards to the pace of the card, I don’t see why they can’t follow soccer’s lead and show an ad next to the clock throughout the fight, and then not cut to commercials in between rounds. Show a commercial in between fights still.
by Mike Fagan on Oct 19, 2008 4:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Mostly...
because “major advertisers” want to see their ads get the full screen and get the viewer’s full attention. Not that people pay 100% attention to the ads when they come on. But whatever
Contributing Editor - BloodyElbow.com - SBNation's mixed martial arts headquarters.
by Brent Brookhouse on Oct 19, 2008 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I honestly don’t get the big deal. I’m sure their view on the matter is that they’re showing it live on a tape delay, albeit a significant one. Sure they’re stretching things to fit their ads, but eh, what company doesn’t? My laptop was advertised as having a 120GB drive, but only 116GB is usable. And when was the last time you bought a big mac that looks the way it does in the ads? Do some of you peeps walk around all day angry at companies for constantly lying to you? I doubt it.
As far as it being free, come on, for all intents and purposes, it costs chump change. If you have basic cable, you have Spike (in Canuckistan at any rate). So you have all those channels available to you 24/7, so what’s the cost for three hours? 0.8 cents?
I also don’t see a problem with airing at 9(10 for me). Me and most people I know aren’t going to sit around for three hours on a Saturday afternoon to watch it. They want to be consistent with when they air their product.
Someone mentioned somewhere about the pacing of the show. They could definitely do better in that department. I did find that there was too many commercials and it seemed to distract people and get them off watching the fights.
by LiuLang on Oct 19, 2008 4:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, It’s not that I mind the commercials so much, but just how they are placed and what it does to the pace of teh fights. the only thing I really dislike about free cards, are the commercials during the round breaks. I like to see what is going on in the corners and get an idea of where the fighter is at.
http://eliotmarshall.com/
by BJJDenver on Oct 19, 2008 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
