UFC in the UK (the truth)
Picture via bleacherreport.com
So you are an American fighting TV show, You want to expand into new business territories, The UK is a good place to start? The British speak English, they like fighting!
The majority of the uninitiated masses see Cage fighting as an underground (illegal) sport too brutal for most British sensibilities, the press hate it, Few have heard of it, those who have...hate it! Yes it has followers, but is it so popular that they will pay for it?
In the UK, the television landscape is very different from most other countries. Unlike the rest of the world you need a license to own a television, and until the early 1990s there was basically only four terrestrial television channels in the United kingdom (Two of which are essentially government run). Fortunately the United Kingdom now has digital and satellite television, for which you pay extra, on top of the existing license fee. The British public can potentially have access to hundreds of channels, but take a guess at the most frequently watched channels...you guessed it those original four! In 1997 an extra channel, imaginatively named channel 5 was added to the terrestrial channels. Everything else you needed to pay extra for, and in order of popularity you have freeview, Sky television, cable television and BT vision. The last three offer more channels at extra cost, sport and movies...cost extra (the most popular being sky sport and sky movies).
Now getting back to the UFC, you have an unpopular sport, which is far too brutal for most of the sensitive British public, So no chance of getting on those first four channels, not even that extra fifth one, never on the most popular channels, on those extra services. One channel thinks the UFC is right up there street. Bravo, for men in their 20s, nude girls, drinking, partying and fighting. The best bit is, the channel is not too obscure. Good place for the UFC? Well for a few years yes, but by the time UFC 70 takes place, The brains at UFC headquarters decide they have it all figured out "we are really popular in the U.K." so they broadcast all British held events on Setanta, A new, very obscure, irish run sports channel, so new is this channel, few British people can pronounce the name, infact few have ever heard of it! Will they pay for this channel on top of PPV? Remember, the British can only handle four channels!
In 2003 UFC 38 came to the UK, financially its a disaster, five years down the line back to the U.K. for UFC 70. This time round it is bound to be a success, loads more fans, plenty of advertising, Michael Bisping is a British Fighter famous throughout the UK, it will be great right? Wrong!
In reality no-one except UFC fans have ever heard of Michael Bisping, that advertising that is supposedly plastered everywhere is non existent. Television ads are only seen on this new sports channel airing the UFC (during UFC ad breaks), not on any of the more popular channels! Print ads are in martial arts magazines, not in the national press. Billboards are largely only put up in Manchester (the city holding the event). If you only advertise to existing fans, where does the growth come from?
Well, this series of advertising blunders replicates itself for all the British held events, the UFC are scratching their heads, asking themselves "Why aren't these events making as much money as we thought!", "We are the fastest growing sport, why aren't we more popular in the UK?" apart from the poor fight match-ups, mainly due to non European fighters having trouble getting work permits, the majority of fans don't want to pay for a TV channel they have never heard of!
What will the UFC do next? The European shows will certainly expand, Growth is slower than originally thought, they bring in moderate amounts of cash, although nowhere near what was expected. Bringing in new fans looks increasingly unlikely, merely from a complete lack of judgement, regarding the perception of Cage fighting within the United Kingdom.
Remember the old saying "Britain and America are two countries separated by a common language".
Dana White...don't assume you know your business within the United Kingdom!
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
17 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The UFC has hired BRITISH guys to handle the business in BRITAIN. I doubt you run a multi-billion dollar business, or have consultants you pay to get an insight to the people you are selling the product to. And I don’t think you know a damn thing what the UFC is thinking. (the truth)
by Kaleb Kelchner on Jan 25, 2009 10:40 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Interesting take. Considering the hit they take on PPV numbers for the UK events, I wonder how long they will continue doing 20-25 percent of their numbered events there.
My understanding is that the events are profitable, which means they’ll keep doing it or even increase the number. They’ll get more profitable as they expand the European market, and keeping them over in Britain is a good way to moderate where PPV spending goes in the US.
by Michaelthebox on Jan 26, 2009 4:26 AM EST up reply actions
this is one of the most uninformed pieces i have ever read. First of all, you say the British can only ‘handle’ 4 channels, 2 of which are government run and seem to have no knowledge as to how broadcasting regulation was legalised in the UK in response to the commercial mayhem that happened in the 30’s in America. Secondly, Setanta Sports is not an obscure station in the slightest. As you may know, soccer is far and above the biggest sport in England and half of the premiership games are broadcast on Setanta giving it huge viewer ratings. Thirdly, when you pay for the subscription to digital sports channels, Setanta is included and UFC programming is included much like programming on Spike. There is no added pay per view costs to watch ufc events. With every single event the UFC puts on in Britain and Ireland, the attendance and fan reactions have gotten significantly better from event to event without having the incessant boo’ing that dogs the fighters in America. Pointless post….making this a pointless response but your inaccuracies humored me.
by flayes1 on Jan 25, 2009 11:23 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I find it funny that you cite the source of the completely irrelevant picture and do not cite a source for ANYTHING else you say.
I think he is his own source for the rest of it.
Bolts from the Blue // "Game over." - Jamal Williams
Bloody Elbow // "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken
by Richard Wade on Jan 26, 2009 12:12 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Setanta, A new, very obscure, irish run sports channel
That happens to also host the biggest sport in the world, football (soccer to the Americans.)
People know what Setanta is!
by banter on Jan 25, 2009 11:37 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Post that label themselves as “the truth” yet source no facts, figures or information at all and only include vague personal opinions and stereotypes are always fun to read.
by who me on Jan 26, 2009 1:22 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
and don’t the brits allow nudity on network tv. sex and violence seem to go together and the brits have always seemed a little more opened minded than the u.s. with what they show on tv and in newspapers. all that aside, the ufc could do a little better with the matchmaking overseas, but since it comes with the sentanta and usually sells out the arenas (although smaller ones at cheaper prices) i would tend to think the ufc is starting to do very well. iv’e noticed alot more uk bloggers and wonder how many new subscribers sentanta has gotten since the ufc deal.
I've never read such bollocks in all my life
From paragraph #1: your point about having to pay for extra channels is moot since the same applies in the U.S. – without paying for a cable or satellite subscription service, there few free-to-air channels (either analog or digital). To get PPV events or even the “free” shows on Spike require that you have a subscription with a content provider.
From paragraph #2: Let’s ignore Bravo for a moment – I’ll come back to them in a while. Setanta, as a sports content network, has been around since 1990. Along with Sky Sports and the BBC, they’re one of the premier sports content providers in the UK. I could go on at length about how well established they are but, really, you can check out their wikipedia entry instead.
Having the UFC on Setanta was a brilliant move: first, it opened up the sport to more casual observers whom were already subscribers and second, it made all UFC content available for what is probably the lowest cost to subscribers anywhere in the world.
Coming back onto Bravo: they’re a bit like the UK equivalent of Spike TV – which made them the logical choice for the same UFC programming that Spike handled, even before the UFC had a presence in the UK.
Event wise, UFC 70, 72, 75 and 80 were all PPV events in the UK and were handled by Sky Sports, costing (I believe) £14.99 per show. It was only at UFC 85 that Setanta took over the broadcast rights to marquee shows – a decision that was shaped and guided by the UFC’s own UK staff
As for Bisping, well – through both established newspapers such as the Telegraph, Mirror, Sun and more, he is fast becoming a household name. Add in his exposure in “lads” magazines such as Nuts, Loaded, Esquire, GQ and others and he’s readily identifiable. Even womens magazines in the UK have featured him in articles, referencing his family life the lighter side of his persona. Whilst he doesn’t enjoy (or suffer) the trappings of more mainstream celebrity, he is still well known on these shores.
Each UFC event that’s been put on overseas has been successful. Let’s review
UFC 93: 9,369 attended for $1.3 Million gate
UFC 89: 9,500 attended for $1.5 Million gate
UFC 85: 15.327 attended for $2.92 Million gate
UFC 80: 8,412 attended for $1.25 Million gate
UFC 75: 16,235 attended for $2.7 Million gate
UFC 72: 7,850 attended for $1.2 Million gate
UFC 70: 15,115 attended for $2.6 Million gate
They’re hardly small-time figures.. nearly $13.5 million revenue from just over 81,000 people whom have seen a live show – or $166 per person. Let’s look at a few recent US held outside Las Vegas for comparison.
UFC 90: 15.359 attend for $2.85 Million gate
UFC 88: 14.736 attend for $2.6 Million gate
UFC 87: 15.087 attend for $2.25 Million gate
UFC 82: 16,431 attend for $2.2 Million gate
UFC 81: 10,583 attend for $2.4 Million gate
UFC 78: 14,071 attend for $2.1 Million gate
UFC 77: 16,054 attend for $2.5 Million gate
So: from seven shows outside of Vegas (excluding Montreal for statistical reasons), you get expenditure of $165 per head – exactly the same as for UK shows (102,321 attendees for $16.9 Million)
How anyone can argue that overseas UFC events aren’t profitable for the company – or unpopular – is beyond me.
Oh and lastly: the UFC has their own staff in the UK to help plan and execute international expansion.
by VikingPhotography on Jan 26, 2009 10:38 AM EST reply actions 7 recs
With a bullet.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito on Belfort at Affliction:DOR
by Rundownloser on Jan 26, 2009 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
I aim to please :)
And for anyone wondering: I omitted Montreal (83) since – in terms of venue size and gate takings – it was more like a Vegas show.
by VikingPhotography on Jan 26, 2009 4:19 PM EST up reply actions
I think I can safely use the word ‘pwned’
by Derek Suboticki on Jan 26, 2009 5:22 PM EST up reply actions

by 















