Meltzer: UFC 91 Does Big Numbers
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 7:51 PM EST
in News
105 comments
In the Wrestling Observer Newsletter this week, Dave Meltzer has a short report on early numbers for the UFC 91 show. He reports that it looks to have beaten UFC 61 (Ortiz v. Shamrock) and came up just below UFC 66 (Ortiz vs. Liddell) in some areas.
I've received two preliminary estimates that put it in the 800,000-850,000 range. If those numbers hold up, it will be the second biggest UFC buyrate ever. It did not do the 1.2 million that White predicted, but I never believed this show could break a million without an incredible promotional push. It didn't get that push, but still apparently did great business.
Internal estimates were in the 800-900 range, the 1.2 million was public bluster to get ESPN to cover it. The tactic worked, but I get the feeling that scam will only work once.
Before this show, Couture's highest buyrate was against Tim Sylvia for his 2007 return that did 540,000 buys.
0 recs |
105 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I hate being a smug-I-told-you-so-prick, but after I was verbally abused yesterday across Bloody Elbow and Fightlinker with my claim that if the stars aligned and Affliction cleaned their shit up they could maybe do 200,000, I feel the need to be a smug-I-told-you-so-prick.
http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2008/11/17/663903/the-1-2-million-strategy#10094551
I called 850k.
by dropkick101 on Nov 26, 2008 2:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Well, that makes you one for two. Cause Affliction ain’t ever doing 200k.
by subo on Nov 26, 2008 2:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So you’re right on the 850k. That has no correlation to Affliction doubling their previous buy rates. As a matter of fact, your logic of UFC 91 under performing in a recessionary market is sound whereas your logic of Affliction doubling their previous buy rates in a recessionary market is even more absurd in light of the 850k buys for UFC 91.
BTW, 850k buys is unbelievably good. Nobody really believe that they could do 1.2 mil, even Dana White.
by cyph on Nov 26, 2008 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I also called 850k, I called Randy’s weight as being low, and I’m the overall leader of the betting game here on BE. And you’re still out of your freakin mind with thinking there is any possible way Affliction will reach 200k buys.
by Michaelthebox on Nov 26, 2008 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I gotta be smug as long as I can, cause no way I can keep up this kind of roll!
by Michaelthebox on Nov 26, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Now that’s my kind of daily motto.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 26, 2008 4:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I said it then and I’ll say it again – BJ vs GSP will do over 1.2 million
"My job is a decision-making job, and as a result, I make a lot of decisions." --George W. Bush, The Decider, Lancaster, Pa., Oct. 3, 2007
by lovingmma25 on Nov 26, 2008 2:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Awesome numbers… given the slowing economy.
by Nick Thomas on Nov 26, 2008 2:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Indeed
I agree, those are still some pretty impressive numbers. I guessed in the 800-900k range and looks like I was right. Lesnar/Nog (sorry "Mur") should do very well since Nog comes off as a big sweetheart/fanfavorite on TUF.
by xFenixKnightx on Nov 26, 2008 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really like both Nog and Mir…but I have to root for Mir just to watch the entire sherdog forums cry.
by iiowyn on Nov 26, 2008 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You know what – I didn’t think of that aspect of it. Anything that makes those shitheads wine makes me happy.
Still though, I have to root for Nog. His ability take punishment and come back coupled with quotes like “Dat guy. Dat guy have heart. I like dat guy” makes it so I have to root for him.
by dropkick101 on Nov 26, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
He is so huggable…hope Brock doesn’t hug him too hard =(
by iiowyn on Nov 26, 2008 3:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“coupled with quotes like "Dat guy. Dat guy have heart. I like dat guy" makes it so I have to root for him.” +1
:D
by xFenixKnightx on Nov 26, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Mir can beat Nog I wonder how long it would take for Fedor’s people to call him out and start complaining about how the evil UFC won’t co-promote a big Fedor vs Mir match that the fans all want?
by who me on Nov 26, 2008 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well done, UFC – and as far as faking ESPN into covering the event like hell… that ball is rolling now and it’s not stopping. Every UFC Championship fight will now at least get an SC mention – and it is impossible to overestimate the importance of that.
by subo on Nov 26, 2008 2:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
And it is set up to roll into 92 and 94.
by Eugene Schelfaut on Nov 26, 2008 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope you’re right but I remember the same sentiments after the Chuck-Rampage fight that ESPN covered, albeit to a lesser extent, and then failed to continue the level of coverage on subsequent events.
by Day Man on Nov 26, 2008 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think HWs are different
Nothing captures the attention of the casual viewer like a heavyweight champ. The lack of a legit, decent HW division in boxing helped hasten the death (sorry, I mean dying) of boxing after Lennox Lewis retired.
I hope I’m right too :-)
by subo on Nov 26, 2008 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This is also different because Rampage/Chuck was really hyped with Chuck as the main attraction. When he lost, everyone sort of lost interest.
This fight was billed as more of a toss up, and it was a good fight. So with that, plus the MMA Live show growing, it will be easier to expect ESPN to keep up the coverage, at least for the big shows.
by Phildo on Nov 26, 2008 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Internal estimates were in the 800-900 range, the 1.2 million was public bluster to get ESPN to cover it. The tactic worked, but I get the feeling that scam will only work once.
Where did you get this information that internal estimates were 800k-900k? That would mean that the “mad scientists” were spot on.
by cyph on Nov 26, 2008 2:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ok, even if there internal mad scientist predicted 800k-900k that statement doesn’t hold water because it was just thrown out today.
On that note, I successfully predicted Brock would defeat Randy via 2nd round TKO.
by bignerd on Nov 26, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So did I, TKO at 2:45 of the second round. You don’t see me being smug about it. =P
by cyph on Nov 26, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Brock vs Nog will far less IMO. Unless Brock carried the whole buy rate himself and Randy had nothing to do with that number..
What Brock has done for the UFC in the short amount of time he has been there is amazing. Dana has to be kissing the guys feet.
by lbk on Nov 26, 2008 2:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Dana has one more year on
his ‘Kiss Liddells Feet’ contract. After that, he’s all yours Brock.
by xFenixKnightx on Nov 26, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Who knows what Nog will bring in after being on TUF. He’s turned out to be the “good guy” here and a definitive win against Mir would only boost his stock.
by cyph on Nov 26, 2008 2:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
This season of TUF is awful..
and I seriously doubt the viewership is up on this season. I really don’t think it’s going to add any more buys to the PPV. And I don’t think they are too worried about the 92 numbers. They should be huge regardless. Brock will bring in the fans for a match with Nog, I highly doubt Nog will attract fans outside of hardcore ones.
by lbk on Nov 26, 2008 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree with everything in this post
Except for the part about UFC 92.
by cyph on Nov 26, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
so you think this season is good? You are one of the few I have heard think this is a good one..
by lbk on Nov 26, 2008 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think its a good season too, much better than the last two seasons.
by Michaelthebox on Nov 26, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fight quality is way up this year, not to mention the coaches are a lot more entertaining.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Add me to the ones who are entertained by this season of TUF
by iiowyn on Nov 26, 2008 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I see. Strange. The sentiment I have gotten from many is that this season is terrible.
by lbk on Nov 26, 2008 3:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s mainly from the section of fans who have judged every season based on the first. Every season they say is terrible yet watch anyway.
The fight quality is better, the coaches personalities add to it, and the stupid house antics add some entertainment value to what has otherwise become very stagnant.
by dropkick101 on Nov 26, 2008 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The fight quality has never been so bad and they spend half the time ingesting each other’s bodily fluids. No thanks.
by smoogy on Nov 26, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Did you see the Hughes-Serra season? The fights were clearly worse that year.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’ve been the biggest critic of TUF all year and for sure the fights are at least decent this season. The problems with TUF are less fighter and fight quality this year than in years past.
by Luke Thomas on Nov 26, 2008 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I thought the fights have been pretty good this year, now the “reality” part of the show has been disgusting but I have enjoyed the fights and the coaches.
by who me on Nov 26, 2008 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fight quality has never been so bad?
We are talking about this season of TUF not Afflictions first show.
by Wookalarman on Nov 27, 2008 9:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Me too.
I think this season is as good as any season except the first 2.
by Wookalarman on Nov 27, 2008 9:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Props to Dana
I’ve been critical to Dana at times but I will never say hes not an excellent business man. He paid Brock a ton of money to come in and fight despite a lack of MMA background. That decision looks better and better every day but the risk that he took in both offering such a lucrative deal to an MMA neophyte and the backlash that an ex-pro wrestler headlining a card could have with the mainstream media seems to be forgotten.
Well done Mr. White.
by Day Man on Nov 26, 2008 2:52 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Big Risk
It was a big risk giving Brock a title shot. If Randy would have knocked him out early than 800 – 900k paid viewers would have questioned Brock’s merit’s for getting the fight.
by bignerd on Nov 26, 2008 2:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Luckily for Dana, Randy is not known for knocking people out.
by bigweeze on Nov 26, 2008 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Randy did beat Gonzaga to a TKO. You had to believe Randy’s strategy was to get Brock in unfamiliar situation and see if he could actually scramble and recover when put a defensive situation. Tim barely survived the 1st round with Randy alson.
by bignerd on Nov 26, 2008 3:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
TKO is different than a KO. Randy would have needed to drag it out pretty long to TKO Brock, and there was a near-zero chance of a KO.
Gonzaga’s nose was broken/bleeding which surely didn’t help him during that fight. All that fight proved to me is that Randy beat a fighter whose nose was broken by a headbutt and was bleeding for the majority of the fight.
by bigweeze on Nov 26, 2008 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It was no lose for them. Either create a new star or another legendary moment. The idea dana desparately wanted Randy to lose is nuts.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 3:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not saying Dana wanted Randy to lose. I was merely pointing out how Dana billed this as such a huge fight with Brock’s performance being such a wild card. This was a huge leap in competition and if Brock would have put on an embarrassing performance the backlash would have been severe.
Turns out both fighters fought a great fight and Brock landed the punch to win.
by bignerd on Nov 26, 2008 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming Nogueira wins…it will be very interesting to see how Nog-Brock does on PPV.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 2:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ithink Brock//Mir would beat it whatever that potential number is..
by lbk on Nov 26, 2008 3:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It will do well
http://mma4real.net/
by Tha Realness on Nov 26, 2008 3:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I called 625,000 buys so I guesssssss I failed miserably.
by DirtyML on Nov 26, 2008 3:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I guessed 1 hoping everyone else would overbid. It doesn’t look like I will be in the showcase showdown.
by bignerd on Nov 26, 2008 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Umm … if you think ESPN is going to stop covering UFC because it “only” did 850,000K buys, in this economy, when the boxing competition for the month did like 200K and 150K, well, wow.
by andherewego on Nov 26, 2008 3:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Umm…if that’s really what you read my post and thought it meant, well, wow.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well you wrote: I"nternal estimates were in the 800-900 range, the 1.2 million was public bluster to get ESPN to cover it. The tactic worked, but I get the feeling that scam will only work once." Which is pretty cut-and-dried, unless there’s some secret double meaning to this that is going over my head.
by andherewego on Nov 26, 2008 5:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
They won’t stop covering it because it only did 850. They just will be more skeptical of Dana numbers here on out. If Dana predicts a million, they won’t take it at face value next time. I still think they will get some coverage, but the same overestimating tactic wont be quite as successful next time.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Micheal, why is it that ESPN will only cover PPV events in which the PPV buyrate is predicted to be huge? I know you can’t directly answer that..but have you heard anything through the grapevine so to speak?
http://mma4real.net/
by Tha Realness on Nov 26, 2008 4:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Um, it’s nothing really secret. It’s just that they only cover MMA to the extent they feel like they need to because the interest is so obvious and they don’t want to seem out of touch. For example, I don’t think there’s a chance in hell they will cover UFC 93 from Dublin.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
PPV Buys = ESPN Is a Lie
Because the whole angle of ESPN only covering the PPV because it was predicted to do 1.2 million buys was just made up. ESPN covered the fight because Randy vs Brock was a compelling match up and each had name recognition.
The truth is Dana ran around telling everyone, I do mean everyone, that this fight would do 1.2 million buys and didn’t crack 1 million. This is a lie to save face. If UFC really thought the fight would do less than 1 million and trumped up the prediction to gain more coverage they would have revealed that strategy at the UFC 91 post press conference. Come on, after the numbers have been published . . . now UFC sources reveal there true prediction was 800k – 900k? I’m not gullible enough to believe that story.
I’m trying not to hate on UFC. Those PPV numbers are astronomical were they stand now and everyone in the entertainment industry is envious. They don’t even need to spin any kind of story, just stand back and gloat.
by bignerd on Nov 26, 2008 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Sigh.
You’ve outed a conspiracy! There was little reason to believe 1.2 million before the show. There was nowhere near the kind of hype Tito-Chuck had.
It was also part of a ploy to explain why it was the “biggest PPV in ufc history.” There may have been a time very early where they expected those kind of numbers, but the internal predictions were given to me a couple days before the show.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t believe the UFC actually thought the card would do 1.2 million when most of the online business-types predicted between 750k and 950k. The UFC isn’t run by idiots.
by Michaelthebox on Nov 26, 2008 4:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Getting 800k in comparison doesn’t make them out to be idiots. However, that quote accompanying the story makes ESPN out to be idiots. They need to be told the event would do 1.2 million buys before they were interested in covering it? ESPN did cover EliteXC, they did cover Chuck vs Rampage. I think they can judge the public’s interests in MMA for themselves.
No one published those internal predictions before the results came out. That information could have been published all last week without harming a fly.
by bignerd on Nov 26, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
except when you’re told “off the record” and then get told today I can post it.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ok fair enough. In your opinion, isn’t it more credible if they would have allowed you to publish this last week?
I know I am making a big deal out this. I don’t understand why it’s necessary for them to come out and state that there numbers were actually correct all along? It’s sorta a moot point.
by bignerd on Nov 26, 2008 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The UFC isn’t releasing anything official and Dana White has made it clear on numerous occasions that they don’t care about internet opinions or internet credibility. He got told something off the record weeks ago and was told today that it was ok to report it, but that doesn’t mean that this anonymous source is making some kind of official statement.
Where you are making your mistake is in believing that this has anything at all to do with credibility or that Dana White even cares about what people on the internet think about how many buys the show got or what he was saying when he was promoting the show. They don’t care if your gullible or not because they don’t care about what you think on this subject, it’s just a bit of inside information from behind the scenes at the UFC. Your creating some kind of self important conspiracy theory out of absolutely nothing here, it’s just a bit of inside information that finally got ok’d to post.
by who me on Nov 26, 2008 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If they did not care than there would be no need to get the ‘ok’ to post that tidbit of information.
by bignerd on Nov 26, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well except for the fact that said inside source might not of wanted something coming out that might cost him his job so he asked that it not be released without him saying it was ok. It’s still not some kind of official statement from them like you seem to be thinking it is it is just a bit of inside information from behind the scenes at the UFC. An off the record tidbit from someone who works there isn’t even close to the same thing as the actual company releasing a statement or any kind of information.
by who me on Nov 26, 2008 6:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“Internal estimates were in the 800-900 range, the 1.2 million was public bluster to get ESPN to cover it. The tactic worked, but I get the feeling that scam will only work once.”
The statement either reports a conspiracy in itself or is media spin. The source of information that led to this statement is claimed to have come from inside UFC. I will leave it at that.
by bignerd on Nov 26, 2008 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Um I don’t see where that statements reports either. It can’t be media spin because it wasn’t actually something the UFC released to the media and if it was some kind of conspiracy then it was the worst conspiracy ever. I think the most likely scenario was Dana White was doing the promoter act to make sure the show got mainstream attention just like he does before every show because that’s what a promoter does(to be fair to White he didn’t just say 1.2 million he said all sorts of outlandish things about the buyrate leading up to the event). There is no ‘conspiracy" in the nutty things Dana White says in public that’s just Dana White being Dana White.
You also still don’t seem to get the difference between “the UFC” and someone who works for the UFC. Just because someone who works in the building said something off the record to a website doesn’t mean that the actual company had anything to do with it, hell it normally means that they didn’t even know about it. You seem to really be digging for something here that just doesn’t seem to exist and would mean nothing at all even if it did.
by who me on Nov 26, 2008 8:00 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
They couldn’t let it out before the fight, because if it reached the ears of ESPN, that might have impacted the coverage.
As for why the ok was needed after the fight, do you know anything about journalism? It doesn’t matter at all if the information can hurt the company, if it was originally told in confidence. If told in confidence, you have to get approval.
by Michaelthebox on Nov 26, 2008 6:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
“However, that quote accompanying the story makes ESPN out to be idiots. They need to be told the event would do 1.2 million buys before they were interested in covering it?”
Well, yes. ESPN doesn’t have anywhere near the expertise in MMA to handle the sort of analysis that any of the business types here and elsewhere have, and they also approach MMA in an incredibly shallow way: regardless of how important it actually is, they simply can’t fall behind the rest of the MSM in coverage without looking foolish. The actual numbers are irrelevant, what matters is that the MSM buy the predictions that Dana crows about, and cover it accordingly.
by Michaelthebox on Nov 26, 2008 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Without a doubt ESPN has been slow getting to the scene and even now their coverage sucks in comparison. They don’t need Dana White trumping up fake figures to figure out a UFC fight is going hit mainstream. Yet …
“Internal estimates were in the 800-900 range, the 1.2 million was public bluster to get ESPN to cover it. The tactic worked, but I get the feeling that scam will only work once.”
by bignerd on Nov 26, 2008 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I always thought the 1.2m line was just posturing. I can guarantee that line made people buy the PPV – given the chance to have erased that line from his promos, Dana would still keep it in there.
There is no way that Dana would say each week coming up to the fight – 1.2, 1.1, 1.0, 900k… etc. That makes no sense as it would dampen interest.
People take what he says too literally. He tells the truth when it’s convenient, other times he has to stretch the truth to bring in more revenues.
by bigweeze on Nov 26, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Everything Dana says is in promoter mode, I wish people would view it that way so it doesnt become this huge outrage when he says Fedor sucks. Of course he says that.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The people who can see through his promoter speak are the ones who should understand it’s for the casual fans. Instead they get worked up about it.
I’m not really for misleading the fans, but you aren’t going to get people into the sport by confusing them (UFC = #1, #1 fighter not in UFC). And then going on to tell them that the #1 fighter has been spending the past few years fighting subpar competition.
by bigweeze on Nov 26, 2008 5:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I really don’t get why people get so worked up about what he says.
Would he really offer someone who is “irrelevant” more money that Randy Couture to fight him?
by Phildo on Nov 26, 2008 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
lol…i see…and agree about Dublin. UFC 92 should get some play?
http://mma4real.net/
by Tha Realness on Nov 26, 2008 4:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That will be a good test of ESPN’s future intentions. Really a lot depended on how the 91 coverage was received and how the pre and post show did. I guess we’ll see. 92 is a big show, but it is not as big as 91 or 94. I suspect they’ll be back for 94.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 4:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Today is the weekly ask Rome questions til he gets mad day.
by DirtyML on Nov 26, 2008 4:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You can make your own show called “Rome is Fuming”
by DirtyML on Nov 26, 2008 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If we're on the topic of Rome...
Can you address this MMAWeekly blog?
They claim that Liddell and Couture was never offered the fight. Couture VS Liddell IV isn’t happening.
by cyph on Nov 26, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The fight is the main plan for Couture and Liddell. Nothing has been signed, and things change all the time in UFC, but that is the most likely next fight for both guys.
Liddell has not been offered the fight, but it’s completely wrong to say he hasn’t been talked to about the idea of it. There are no fight contracts or anything yet, but yes he knows about the idea and it was the main idea.
I have two very good sources on the story, and a third involved with the planning of the Germany event in June believes this to be the case still.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
850K
looks like MMAPAYOUT.COM’S estimation of the countdown ratings correlating to the actual buy-rate is a bust. silva/cote’s countdown did 700plus thousand in the ratings, but only got 300k buys. brock/randy’s countdown got only 500k viewers and did 850k buys. looks like their ass-backwards to me.
by bdw on Nov 26, 2008 5:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
That’s too bad. It was an interesting idea, and I wondered if it actually worked.
UFC events are becoming standard, but things are still pretty volatile event to event.
by bigweeze on Nov 26, 2008 9:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
RE: from other day about stealing Dave's news
Well I asked him…
“I don’t mind the stuff in the daily updates being posted or linked. As far as stuff from the newsletter, I’m hardly thrilled with it being posted elsewhere.”
by RipeTide on Nov 26, 2008 6:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
that is a different response than what I got from him when I talked to him in person at WEC. I routinely link and promote signing up. He generally doesn’t like when people directly quote from the newsletter, but my impression from him is that there is no problem.
The thing is, it’s news. The idea that if a subscription news service broke a story on world events that others couldn’t bring it up and comment on it is silly, there are plenty of court cases on things like that. You can’t just re-print it, but the news is not something that can be held exclusively.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 6:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But to some dergee you are printing his opinion. You are summarizing what he says. Like you said, he may not mind, but that still makes it plagiarism. In the Article in question you basicly printed something Dave said and put you name on it. I am frankly suprised that you are allowed to do stuff like that. While Luke and other blogger are trying to prove that blogging is a legit form of media they stand back and let you violate journalistic ethics regularly.
by szucconi on Nov 26, 2008 8:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I printed a little of what he wrote, and added my own. If it is plagiarism, it makes every blog’s work plagiarism all across the internet. Hint: it’s not plagiarism. There are famous cases on re-printing work and crediting.
There is no printing of opinion and calling it my own. I printed what he found (where it was above and below). It’s not really worth the inane argument.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 9:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not this article, the other one. And there are cases for reprint, but that was not any of them and I don’t see a link or Meltzer’s name anywhere on the page, other then the comments.
by szucconi on Nov 26, 2008 9:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Can you link me? Everytime I’ve ever wrote about the Observer I have mentioned it, if I didn’t once it must have been a mistake. You could even do an observer search, I routinely credit all of his news.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, now I see. I quoted Meltzer last year on the story of Wanderlei Silva vs. Chuck Liddell being cancelled, though I probably should have cited it again.
And no, the opinion that endless internet marks don’t know what fans want to see is not an exclusive one.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 9:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It just so happends that you wanted to state your mirroring opinion the day after the radio show came out with the same stance? Maybe so, but its a fact that most of your stuff comes from Meltzer and this is not the first time something has come from the wrestling observer and NOT been sourced. I have also seen you take other content. Its really kind of annoying. Any it wasn’t last year, it was yesterday.
by szucconi on Nov 26, 2008 9:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Again, if Dave brings up a topic, maybe I’ll write on it because it enters my mind, but I never try to pass off his opinion as my own. There’s things I agree with him on, but similar to the way I don’t cite Hayek every time I support free markets, I don’t cite Meltzer if I talk about how much internet fans don’t get it. I don’t even have time to listen to the radio shows for the most part, I read the observer and mess around on the boards. I didn’t need Dave to be endlessly laughing at how Sherdog people screamed nobody wants to see it while clearly everyone would.
Either way…I don’t have enough energy to try to go and disprove what I know isn’t true. Have a nice holiday, and keep fighting those phantom battles.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 9:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That is absurd. When people talk about the free market or say they support it they are NOT saying that they came up with it all on there own. You are making an argument that is not your own with support that is not your own. This is not something that everyone does. Someone pointed out the fact that you do this regularly to me recently and it’s not a phantom battle. It’s plagiarism. I certainly know colleges don’t think plagiarism is a “phantom battle”.
by szucconi on Nov 26, 2008 9:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Internal estimates were in the 800-900 range, the 1.2 million was public bluster to get ESPN to cover it. The tactic worked, but I get the feeling that scam will only work once.
For a second I thought I was reading mmapayout, please leave the Zuffa conspiracies to lesser blogs it makes you sound like a typical bitter anti-UFC fanatic. Anyone that claims they have any insight into the inner workings of the UFC is usually wrong and the idea that Dana would try to con ESPN into anything is also laughable. Estimates are made all the time sometimes they are right others they are wrong but in the end the numbers for UFC 91 look good so once again Zuffa ends up winning.
by Raker on Nov 26, 2008 7:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s a tactic. There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s like when Dana lied about Quinton-Chuck doing a million and it really did 675,000. It got him coverage, and that’s all that matters.
The sooner you stop trying to morally judge business moves the sooner you’ll understand how successful businesses operate.
by Michael Rome on Nov 26, 2008 9:03 PM EST 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.
