Will a Network Deal Force the UFC to Give Away Its Best Fights for Free?
by Michael Rome on Sep 1, 2009 7:35 PM EDT
in MMA News
Email
Print
The UFC appears to be on the verge of a television deal that would add a number of shows to their calendar. Dana White has indicated that they will soon be bringing over top 135 and 145 pound talent to the UFC to fill in slots on those shows, and all of the UFC signings of late also appear to be motivated by the need to fill up 2-3 shows per month. As a fan I’m thrilled by all this news of Strikeforce and the UFC doing more shows. Between the two fight fans will get a major show of some kind almost every week, if not more.
The danger for the UFC is the need to deliver big main events for network television on a regular basis. Dana strongly suggested that BJ Penn vs. Diego Sanchez could headline a network event in November. That sounds great, but at the same time, one wonders if they even have a title match for the New Year’s show if they go that route. It’s one thing to add shows on Spike that don’t need big fight main events, it’s another to have to give away big fights to please the network television ratings gods.
Nobody really knows how the UFC will do on network television. Their best number ever on cable was a 3.1 in 2007 for Rampage Jackson vs. Dan Henderson. Where is the ceiling? I suspect a fight like BJ Penn vs. Diego Sanchez will do about a 4.0 on a network, which is more than good enough to survive, but probably not enough to justify anywhere near what the UFC will want come renewal time. Realistically speaking, these networks are going to want Brock Lesnar fights. If ratings slide, the UFC will probably have no choice but to give away big fights to hit the right numbers, and at that point you start giving away the keys to the castle.
At first, the benefits of a network deal are huge. Millions of people will see the fights and become interested in paying to see their favorites fight on PPV. It will grow the PPV base. But over time there are diminishing returns; they won’t be getting any brand new fans on network shows by the third time they run one, and by the fifth or sixth network show they may even incentivize fans that used to pay for shows to just watch the great ones they get on free TV.
The ideal network deal for the UFC will last only a few years and commit them to a small number of major shows. The key is to give the public at large a taste of what a big UFC event feels like, whet their appetite, and then pull back and make them start paying to get that feeling again.
62 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It is really hard to give much of an opinion without knowing the network. The type of product on HBO could be vastly different than if it is ABC and even more different if it is Fox Sports, etc…
The thing about the UFC, is they tell you what a good fight is. They could make a fight between 2 lower level guys, seem kind of huge.
Also, absorb the WEC, add a weight class or 2 in addition to those, and you have many more belts to fight for and plenty of room to showcase a lot of fighters.
www.knees2thehead.com
Check it out!!
I don’t want a show every single week. Oversaturation much? A show every other week is good for me. One on free TV and then the PPV, alternating the free show between Spike and Fox/HBO/whoever it is. I couldnt imagine telling my wife “guess what, theres a fight EVERY week now.” lol Not even counting Strikeforce and HDNet stuff.
Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, When Matt and his brother Mark Hughes were growing up, they would pound each other behind the barn."
by xFenixKnightx on Sep 1, 2009 7:42 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
If I was single though
Weekly fights would be my dream come true! =]
Mike Goldberg: "You know Joe, When Matt and his brother Mark Hughes were growing up, they would pound each other behind the barn."
by xFenixKnightx on Sep 1, 2009 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions
How is this different than Sunday Football
Granted Football is only likea ~20 week stretch, but for lots of households that is off limits.
“The key is to give the public at large a taste of what a big UFC event feels like, whet their appetite, and then pull back and make them start paying to get that feeling again.”
Sounds like a drug dealer I once knew
by swells2048 on Sep 1, 2009 7:43 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
So, you would rather pay for Arlovski/Sylvia or Arlovski/Buentello, than Torres/Bowles or Faber/Brown?
www.knees2thehead.com
Check it out!!
How large of an audience does the UFC require to run all their programming on network and cable television and support it through ad revenues (i.e. when the ad revenues would be more profitable than the PPV revenues)?
Assuming such a threshold is possible, how long until it gets there?
Myself, I’m skeptical as to the likelihood of this possibility, but always hopeful.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
That is a very important question. Networks sell ads based on an expected demographic and an expected rating….
by AlwaysRelaxing on Sep 1, 2009 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions
It won’t happen. Network television is not going to pay 10-20 million for an event. A UFC ppv that does 500k (pretty common these days) brings them ten million. Bigger ones bring them 20 million.
A network deal will likely end up getting them 2-4 million at the most.
It won't happen now--but that's not exactly what I'm contemplating here
NBC apparently paid the NFL something in the region of 600 million dollars for each year from 2006 through 2011 to air 16 Sunday night football games each season. That’s 37.5 million per game. Network TV will pay a tremendous amount of money for specific numbers of 3 hour events, if the advertising revenue is there.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
And again, I’m somewhat skeptical of the potential for MMA to achieve the levels of cultural diffusion and popularity to support the business model of the popular stick-and-ball sports. That being said, it’s worth contemplating, if for no other reason than because you can bet your ass that Zuffa is.
It ends in an armbar or a strangle regardless.
It’s not really up to the networks… It’s more so up to the sponsors. NFL can ask for way more money because of the line of sponsors they command.
UFC would have to do American Idol numbers to drive them all on board. Or at least survive on Network TV successfully for a bunch of years first.
The biggest holes now are sponsors getting on board… UFC regularly beats baseball, basketball and sometimes football but the net sponsorship contributions for UFC programming and those other sports are worlds apart.
Once that hole closes up then things could get interesting.
7 Weight Divisions. Assume 3 of the champions defend 3 times in a year, the rest only 2. That is 17 Title Fights in 2010. That is enough for PPV & 4 Networ TV Shows. And it doesn’t even include non-champions like Kimbo, Ortiz, Couture, and others.
Also, giving away UFC 70 or 75 did not hurt them. If anything, it made them have more fans. I don’t see this being a problem in the long run. As long as the biggest of the big MMA fights are on PPV, they will still have demand.
As for Strikeforce, I don’t believe they will be doing 20 shows next year. They already decreased the number of expected shows this year….
This also gives the UFC motivation to eventually get 125 lbs working again…. It will give them another weight class to sell to fight fans.
With 8 fully functioning weight classes, there will be an endless supply of championship fights, up & coming stars, and former champions with serious name value.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Sep 1, 2009 7:54 PM EDT up reply actions
It is my believe, suggest by their comments concerning co-promotion with Dream, that the plan is that several of their shows next year will just be Dream cards packaged as Strikeforce co-promotions. Can they do this, with Dream being broadcast on HDNet? I don’t know.
That still doesn’t work. I enjoy DREAm and Sengoku cards. The regular person will see the telecast and think there is something wrong with the television. It just doesn’t correlate to American Culture.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Sep 1, 2009 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions
It will help if Dream starts using a cage, which they are rumored to be planning on introducing. So when you turn on the showtime card, you will see a couple of Strikeforce fighters and a cage. Will it be enough, I don’t know, but I think that may be a cheap way for Strikeforce’s to add 6 events to their Showtime schedule. We’ll see if the ratings follow.
If DREAM uses the cage, they kill their audience in Japan. If Strikeforce uses a ring, they kill their audience in America.
Pick your poison….
by AlwaysRelaxing on Sep 1, 2009 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Zuffa probably won’t have to give away its best fights, but some of its better fights. I don’t much about the television business, but I would assume network execs would want fights with sufficient popular appeal to guarantee solid ratings.
The UFC is smart enough not to give too much away and put on quality enough cards to make it worth network television’s time. I don’t see it being much of a problem.
If they get a 4.0 on a Saturday (and with BJ Penn/Diego Sanchez type main events I don’t think that’s unreasonable), they’ll do just fine. Considering how young and male the UFC skews, they’ll be able to command higher ad-rates than an average show with the same rating. I’m sure they can get decent money for their network shows.
Not PPV money, but they’re doing this partly for the exposure so that they build their audience.
Are we forgetting Zuffa will get paid by the network to air events? Quite frankly I don’t think we need to worry about Zuffa maximizing their monetary gain or loss from going the network TV route. Suffice it to say the potential gain from the exposure is huge. While a couple of years on network TV would do wonders, continuing such a deal would continue to reap rewards. New potential fans are being born every day, to think the UFC can get a bunch of new fans and then not worry about attracting new ones is foolhardy and reeks of complacency.
Oversaturation shouldn’t be a concern until the ratings of individual UFC events start to decline. If you can’t watch a free event you can certainly tape it. The more the better as far as I am concerned. MLB is on TV practically every day for 8 straight months and I don’t hear anyone complaining that there is too much baseball on tv.
Look at boxing. They have primarily stuck to HBO and PPV. That has really hurt them in the long run. Over time, they are less and less in the public eye.
The UFC’s goal is likely just to break even with these Network TV shows. Even operating at a slight loss isn’t a big deal.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Sep 1, 2009 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions
The UFC is a lot closer to the WWE model than the Boxing model and it doesn’t seem to hurt the WWE to put on two shows every week and a PPV every month.
But a WWE "performer" can perform more than once a week
UFC fighters, at most, can fight every 6 weeks?
Jim Palmer: "I said to Nolan, 'Why do you run every ball out like that?' and he said, 'Why wouldn’t you?' "
by duck on Sep 2, 2009 11:05 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
MLB is on TV practically every day for 8 straight months and I don’t hear anyone complaining that there is too much baseball on tv.
That’s because most people don’t care until October.
Not where I live. It’s baseball talk year round….. It just intensifies during April, September, & October….
by AlwaysRelaxing on Sep 1, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Move to Boston. If you get here on Christmas, you’ll be sick of hearing about the Sox by New Years.
by thekiltedwonder on Sep 1, 2009 9:05 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s because the Nationals aren’t really a baseball team.
Walla walla walla I'm an idiot.
by ufc4 on Sep 1, 2009 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
1) I’m absolutely not forgetting that the UFC would get paid a rights fee for airing UFC programming on network television. Doing some sloppy math, they’d be lucky to get more than a third of what they’d get from a typical PPV though.
2) Major League Baseball and team sports in general are a very different beast, since you have a “home” team to route for. If every card was made up of 40-50% of a casual fan’s very favorite fighters then I don’t think he or she would get burnt out by weekly fights. That isn’t the case though. Also, team sports have off seasons to give people a break. Baseball still has 4-5 months during the year between the World Series and the regular season.
When it comes to Marketing, MMA == WWE
For years in Pro Wrestling they put the big shows on PPV and give the fans a weekly or bi-weekly taste to keep things moving along.
With MMA the same model will work great. They don’t HAVE to give out HW title fights every big network card but they would be wise to do so at 1st.
Wrestling has proven that fans will pay for big events over and over and not EXPECT the best content 100% of the time.
The difference is that pro wrestling runs basically a soap opera with the same characters appearing weekly to build up for their big ppv events. Since UFC fighters fight 2 or 3 time a year could you keep enough interest without the better known fighters appearing? How many fighters would be recognized as name talent by the audience? How many fighters can carry a card? 10? 20? 50? The answer to this will tell us how big weekly shows could be.
I personally believe 1 monthy ppv, with a network show with a slightly lesser card in the interim to wet the audience appetite. The Spike card could then be for up and coming fighters (basically undercard) for the hard core fans.
Baseball plays everyday for 7 Months. Football (along with Fantasy Football) is constant for about 5 months. Basketball and Hockey are on for even longer…. Golf, NASCAR, & Tennis have year round events….
I don’t see the issue with the UFC increasing the number of cards they have. It is in line with every other major sport.
Boxing use to have USA Tuesday Night Fights….. and it was great for fight fans….. It can be done.
by AlwaysRelaxing on Sep 1, 2009 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions
I am agreeing with you. My point was two fold:
1) It can’t be compared to pro-westling
2) The level of main card fighters would probably limit it to a once a month broadcast on network tv, since you would still want to preserve your bread and butter PPV broadcasts.
3) The additional shows would be on cable (Spike) and be more geared towards the hard core fans.
Your football analogy is probably the best example. When I worked with the NFL network, one of the reasons football was described as so popular was because it was so convenient to watch. One day (for NFL) a week for 16 (excluding byes and play-offs) weeks. Add byes and playoffs and you got 20 weeks. You knew when it was, and it didn’t take up all your time (one of the problems with the NBA). That corresponds nicely with 12 PPV events and 12 network events spaced over the year.
I just want to see a Machida/Silva – GSP/Lesnar tag team fall anywhere rules match!
by Screwface on Sep 1, 2009 10:19 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I don’t think that the network TV thing will be a short time thing in order to get a lot of exposure.
I think the end game for them will be to eventually get a TV deal structured so they can make as much money (if not more) by running a show on network TV as they do on PPV.
When you look at the TV contracts for other sports, the money is there, they just have to hit the ratings and get the advertisers to buy in.
As far as not drawing new fans after a few shows, I don’t know if that is the case. Plenty of products build a fan base over time.
Will the UFC have to give up some big bouts? Sure, but I don’t think we will see any massive ones. Penn/Sanchez sounds good, but would many of us buy a ppv based on it? But it has a lot going for it. Penn’s last two ppvs did huge business. Now I think it was not so much Penn as other guys (GSP, Forrest) but he is seen as a big name and titles are always a draw.
I think we will see some big non-title bouts and some title bouts with guys that are not massive ppv draws. Lesnar on network? Not likely. Penn, Franklin or Silva? I can see that.
The main reason a deal has not yet happened is numbers. The UFC knows it is not going to get ppv money for television. That won’ t happen no matter what. But they are looking for an amount that will make sense to give up some mid-level ppv bouts.
I think we will see one big bout with some solid Spike level bouts underneath it. We won’t get a stacked ppv level card on network television.
I guess the bottom line is; if the UFC wants to be viable on network TV for a long time, they are going to have to get PPV money from being on network TV.
Now the question is, how do you do this?
You could start by asking for 5million per network event and charging your ring sponsors more for the space. You could also attempt to bring in the big sports advertisers. You go after Adidas, Nike, Gatorade, Buffalo Wild Wings, Hooters, Nissan, Yamaha, Suzuki, Taco Bell, Frito Lay, Pepsi, things that people in their target demo are interested in. If this ever happens we could eventually see the abolition of the PPV card, and the UFC would be just as viable as ever.
Also (not to be long-winded, I know that boat sailed a while ago) you could potentially put TUF on network TV and get the general public interested in the fighters themselves. Give ESPN unlimited access to the fighters for interviews. Ask ESPN to put MMA Live on the network and build buzz that way. There are so many little things that could make the sport huge with the general public, it’s just a matter of getting all of those things to line up.
by Screwface on Sep 1, 2009 10:45 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
If it’s one thing we’ve learned after all this time is that nobody forces the UFC to do anything it doesn’t want to do. a network deal that gives them 4 to 6 events a year would work just fine with the way things are going and would benefit everyone involved. Dana would never give a Brock fight away for free that idea is a non-starter the mega fights will all still take place on ppv. But the UFC will throw in legends and up coming stars along with #1 contender bouts for these network shows so there is a hook for the audience.
In the end Dana has proven that the UFC will never take a bad deal just so they can get on network tv not when they are making money over fist on ppv. Networks are going to have to come to them and make them a good offer before the UFC is ever on network tv becase the Zuffa machine has continually proven they only do things their way or not at all.
by Raker on Sep 1, 2009 11:52 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
My 2¢
All the guys & gals I knew who watched wrestling before and after the boom didn’t like the WWE/cocktease model and got bored with the lack of payoff. And that was when the payoff can be scripted.
If 101 was seen by as many people as I think did, then all those people saw a commercial for not paying 50 bucks again.
And the international expansion will be tough to sustain beyond infancy if you’re only giving the international world B/C-level events.
Add-in the recession and the need for a TV deal before this burns out as a fad with the meathead set becomes clearer. But the WWE model will keep this sport at the niche level its enjoying now and inhibit full-scale growth.
If the same people saw 102 then they will be ponying up with their hard earned for the rest of their lives.
'He built his whole reputation as a waffle house chef. They’ve been serving him up ham and eggs with a side of canned tomatoes' - Don Frye on Fedor Emelianenko
by Well Read Idiot on Sep 2, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions
Holy Grail
Everyone knows the Holy Grail for DW is getting a deal with ESPN both on Cable and ABC. At the moment only the ABC deal is possible, but in the long run that is the best situation.
Basically a few huge fights go on ABC to build the brand, then there will be normal programming on ESPN, ESPN2 etc. At the same time ESPN hypes MMA like crazy (maybe even gets a small part of the ppv revenue), This is the same thing that happened with college football and to a lesser extent NASCAR. Once ESPN gets their hands on a property they hype it like crazy through Sportscenter, espn radio, ESPN.com. Its really the only way to grow the sport in the way DW has expressed.
If Kimbo does well on TUF then they have a proven network ratings draw, who’s probably nowhere near the title picture but can be used to drive interest in network TV shows in “feature bouts” while leaving main and co-main events to the real title contenders (i.e. marketed properly and not like he was in EXC).
I am the bastard love child of Junie Browning and Diamond Dave Kaplan.
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 © 2012 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.
