Did Over 16 Million Americans Really Watch UFC 100?
by Michael Rome on Apr 2, 2010 4:00 PM EDT
in MMA News
Email
Print
In this week's Wrestling Observer Newsletter (subscription only), Dave Meltzer reports on a very interesting internal survey commissioned by the UFC:
UFC has done extensive studying regarding its PPV buyers and there were some interesting things that it showed. The average number of viewers per household at a UFC PPV show is ten…The research showed that it varies based on the event. The stronger the event, the higher the average…For UFC, a live show on Spike, the number is closer to 1.5 per household.
The feeling is there are about 200,000 UFC hardcore PPV fans who will watch the show. The rest are going to buy if friends want them to buy, which is why the numbers vary so much. Most of the audience variance are people who are not MMA fans, but fans looking to watch entertainment that people are talking about. It has more of an entertainment lure than a sports lure to the general public.
The feeling is well over 16 million people saw UFC 100 on television, which is as big as the biggest sporting events on network television except NFL playoffs, World Series and NCAA finals.
There's a lot to unpack here. I'd really love to see the actual study, just to get an idea of how big the sample was and where it was drawn from. It certainly does not include the number of people who stream the show illegally, but at the same time that number only adds to the total number of viewers watching the show, so it doesn't hurt the study.
I'd be interested to know if the sample includes those that pay for the Yahoo stream. In my personal experience, if I order a show I am far more likely to have people over to watch it than if I just watch it on the Yahoo stream. I've always questioned the "10 people per event" number the UFC throws out, but I've been to a fair share of event parties with 10-20 people at the show, half of whom see a couple events a year, if that. It would be also interesting to know if this study includes events at sports bars, which often have upwards of 200+ people.
The fact that 10 people show up to watch PPV events on average is very significant, if true, especially when you consider the 1.5 multiplier for Spike shows. Some writers, including yours truly, have floated a theory that it's better to compete against the UFC on PPV nights because even their biggest number is still smaller than their average number on Spike TV. This new data suggests that competing against the UFC on PPV dates would be a flawed strategy.
Many have argued that the UFC is stunting its long term growth by sticking to a PPV model. According to proponents of this theory, the UFC should be willing to take a short term revenue loss in order to get a broadcast teleivision deal, which would help expose the product to the masses. But if this internal survey data is correct, going on free television is unlikely to increase the total number of people that see the fights. If these numbers are correct, over 16 million Americans watched UFC 100 on PPV. Does anyone think they'd have done much higher than that on broadcast television? It seems like people find a way to see these shows regardless of whether they're free.
The survey's conclusion that most fans that watch are not hardcore MMA fans is not a huge surprise. This is why companies like the IFL fail while PPV's like Ortiz-Shamrock 2 draw huge numbers. However, it would be a mistake to assume that entertainment and sports are entirely distinct from one another. The fact that Machida-Shogun drew a bigger number than Griffin-Ortiz suggests that even those fans that watch for entertainment purposes are largely influenced by sports considerations.
Update: I got an email from Dave Meltzer saying that the survey does not include bars.
79 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
10 per household purchase seems high to me. I’ve bought and watched UFC events alone and have had parties when 10+ people showed up. Of the 10 how many watched the fights? Probably half or so.
When you buy fights what’s your average viewing party size? Mine is 6.
The 200 people at your local BWW’s or Hooters evens it out.
by ufc4 on Apr 2, 2010 4:09 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I go to a bar outside of DC that probably does well over 500 for a good UFC ppv. I’d like to see a study of the bars the regulary show the ppv. Just using a percentage of the fire marshall limit would be a start.
by KING FEDOR on Apr 2, 2010 5:45 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
6 to 8 people seems a bit closer. As much as I’d like more people to watch the sport I find 16 million a bit far fetched
by KING FEDOR on Apr 2, 2010 5:27 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I do about
10-15 per event ..
That’s an average too.. Sometimes more if it’s a bigger event. A few occasion’s we’ll go to a Hooters or bar which is always packed on fight nights. It’s more common to go out to watch a UFC PPV than it is to hit the clubs anymore for many of my friends.
8-29-09
Keith Jardine is now known as "The Dean of Antihistamine" because he is always sleeping early in fights..
I only have four or five over for most ppv shows and there are only two of us watching Spike shows.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
I've been to parties with over 30 people and multiple TV's going. My normal is 8 - 12 though.
10 on average sounds about right for me.
approximately 10. And everyone was watching, even the girlfriends and wives.
I don't want to lick any butt. - GSP
how old do the kids have to be to be counted?
cuz some of the kids are into it! bigtime!
Interesting
I know my ufc gatherings are usualy 4-6 people. Either at my house or my friends.
I’m the only hardcore fan of the bunch.
I also think hardcore fans are outliers, so the people who are commenting here and reading websites like this are among the 200k hardcore fans that buy every time. There’s no doubt that those hardcore fans are probably having smaller groups over than the casual fans who watch.
I’ve been to two viewing parties, both of which were packed with casual fans. One had 10 people, the other 15. From what I could tell, I was the only “hardcore” at the second party. Those guys buy every PPV, which would normally push them into the hardcore category, but they couldn’t even remember the weight classes and knew only the most recognizable fighters. It seemed to be an opportunity to party more than a sports-viewing event.
Must be rough to see he's moved on already
by Disco1Stu on Apr 2, 2010 5:38 PM EDT up reply actions 12 recs
These were good ‘ole boy types in subrural Ohio. I don’t think I’d have gone to party packed with duck-faced Affliction boys, even if it included free food, beer and shots.
Yeah, most of the parties I've been to have been mostly casual fans.
That said, I do have a group of 8 to 10 that are hardcores or close to it. If I am not with them on fight night, they are watching somewhere else…
It should be noted that the 10 per event number is claimed by household. IE not including bars. That seems exorbitantly high, but even if true, is obviously capable of fluctuation based on the card.
What’s not noted here is the part of the survey that explictly confirms that fans prefer entertainment aspects to the sporting ones (one would assume this means freakshows, celebrities, etc.) Meltzer then uses that as the base to point out the failings of the IFL.
16 million is possible
when you consider the Spike counter programming replays. 16 million watching the event live? Doubt it.
And to get into bit of a semantical argument… what defines a person “watching” the show? It seems like being in a building that has ordered the PPV is good enough, but that means nothing for anybody but “ultimate fighting” brand building.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
If you only have to be in the house to qualify as watching you can up my 4-5 number to over 10.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
10 seems like a high number
I have been a fan of MMA since UFC1. My fight night parties are between 3 and 5 hardcore fans and 2- 3 casual fans. Then the number of children varies. It would be a great statement for the UFC if this number is true.
If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, Do you think Greece would help?
So in other words the audience is mostly madeup of people who want entertainment rather than watch straight fights.
I guess the UFC should listen to its audience then, if they are smart. They should try and match their production to the entertainment value that the fights give. At the moment their product gives nearly all the attention to just the fights whilst offering little outside of it, no big entrances, no big openings, no ceremonies, no light shows, no different formats of events (i.e. tournaments, come on just learn from Pride, Bellator, Dream, K1, people like tournaments), etc. Each event dirrectly mirrors the last, only the fights change.
If people look for entertainment more than they do fights, then the UFC should step up and give what its audience wants. I think the japanese have the right emphasis and philosophy when it comes to the way they produce their shows, and the product they give (save the freakshows).
the thing you're missing here
is that the UFC reserves the tournament format for the TUF show. Dana White may say he hates tournaments, but he knows it’s the best way to build new fighters and that’s exactly why TUF is a tourny.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
I know, i always hear him say that tournaments don’t work. But how does he square that with the fact that it works perfectly fine in TUF and is essentially the basis for that entire format.
In my view the UFC may have to step up and bring more entertainment to their shows otherwise they will never truely break away from these numbers and grow. If they don’t do it then their competitors certainly will, giving them a real chance to gain a bigger market share.
he doesn't square anything
he says one thing and does another.
he’s a very shrewd promoter who knows the fight game. he knows what he’s doing and he knows what he says he is doing.
Follow me on Twitter @KidNate
The TUF style tournament works a lot differently than a one night tournament or a tournament where each round is on a separate ppv.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
because they work perfectly for TUF, but they probably wouldn’t work that well with PPVs.
Why have a tournament to see who gets to fight for the belt when you can just pick the fight that will sell the most ppvs?
by Phildo on Apr 2, 2010 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Well TUF happens over a 6 week period and is pre-recorded so if there is a injury or a problem they can work that into the entertainment aspect of it but a PPV tournament on the same night (or even on multiple PPVs) is something entirely different. Hell almost every reality show is a tournament to get a winner that’s how reality shows work and TUF is as much reality show as it is anything else.
There’s a big difference in the number of people that “watched it” and the number of people that had eyes on it.
The VP of my eating club (re: “frat”) is Brian Stann’s cousin so the TV room with this big ass projector and a ton of seats had UFC 109 on in case they showed his fight. It was a Saturday night and we were on tap, so a shit ton of people were at the club. In addition to the dancefloor, taproom and wherever else, there were like 40 people in the TV room, probably 10-15 of whom were actually “watching” the fight.
We're just a million little gods causin' rain storms, turning every good thing to rust.
I don’t buy this 10x number for a second. How many people have houses that have a room that will allow them to get 10 people into them comfortably? If you look at the surveys for why people haven’t stepped up and bought an HDTV one of the biggest reasons is people don’t have a room big enough. I had a home theater that took up half of my basement with a 120" horizontal front projection wide screen and even in there a dozen people was starting to push max density if people wanted to be comfortable.
Now for every place that has fewer than 10 people you would need to have even more people per event to make up for it. Unless they are having these parties in community centers I have to call BS.
I have a 1 bedroom apt and we had 9 people comfortable watching the last PPV
Confucius says:
"Baseball is wrong: man with four balls cannot walk."
its pretty big, its a double.
"My only hope is that the Big Lebowski kills me before the Germans cut my dick off."
by Earl Montclair on Apr 2, 2010 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
nope, just watched a few fights.
"My only hope is that the Big Lebowski kills me before the Germans cut my dick off."
by Earl Montclair on Apr 3, 2010 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions
I've noticed that everyone is saying that 10 is high but,
did any of you notice in the article that it said the average per household depends on how big the event is. I am willing to bet that the 10 per household is only applying to UFC 100 so far. It noted that spike events are only 1.5 people per household.
I know 10 seems high, but not for 100 IMO. Everything just needs to be kept in perspective.
I don’t think this number holds up to scrutiny. For the UFC to average 10 viewers per ppv buy, and that is what the study Meltzer is citing is claiming, that would mean more people watched UFC 61 (7.75 viewers at 775,000 buys) than watched the free Ortiz vs Shamrock fight on Spike (5.7 mil for the fight) 3 months later, or that UFC 74 on ppv drew the same audience as UFC 75 on Spike (and both of those Spike cards where made to gauge the fan interest on tv). Or that 100 had twice the viewing audience as a Kimbo Elite XC fight on CBS. I’m sure UFC 100 had a lot of viewers – maybe even the most to watch an mma event in the US (8 or 9 million?) – but I don’t see how 16 million is feasible.
In case you didn't notice...
It says in the article that the average is not the same for every event. It says that the bigger the event, the higher the average. I believe that UFC 100 is the only one they are referring to. Here’s what it says in the article:
“The average number of viewers per household at a UFC PPV show is ten…The research showed that it varies based on the event. The stronger the event, the higher the average…For UFC, a live show on Spike, the number is closer to 1.5 per household.”
by logic_101 on Apr 2, 2010 6:37 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Rec’d for reading comprehension.
Bolts from the Blue // "He looks like a catfish" - Nick Hardwick on Brandon Siler
Bloody Elbow // " looks like your comment violated rule #4. and it’s a heck of a rule, rule #4" - Kid Nate
I don't get it...
Everyone thinks this is for every single event. I wouldn’t have believed it either if it was for everyone. It is very feasible for UFC 100 and that’s it IMO.
The average number of viewers per household at a UFC PPV show is ten…The research showed that it varies based on the event. The stronger the event, the higher the average…
I guess my reading comprehension sucks, because that sentence indicates that 10 is the average per event. Which means if UFC 55 and 56 averaged 5, then 57 and 58 would have to do 15 to average 10. So UFC 61 could possibly have average 5 viewers (or 3.875 mil) but since that was a strong show it could have possible done more, maybe 15 ( wow! 11.125 mil viewers).? And no show was stronger than UFC 100, so 20-25 million can’t be out the question. Wow! 10 times as many people watch a ppv card then a free show on Spike or the Ulimate Fighter. Even more impressive, as many people are watching a ppv event as American Idol.
It's what the article says...
and maybe it wasn’t worded the best. It still doesn’t mean that all of the old events had a very high number. Even if the average for every single UFC event is 10 per household it doesn’t mean that every event has that average. It specifically says it varies by event. I think it is dumb of them to lump every PPV together because it doesn’t show the real picture.
You don’t have to be an ass about it.
Yeah, I apologize about the ass part
I was going for a friendly, giving you shit banter and it definitely didn’t come across.
OK, throw out the average for every event except for 100. For 100 to do even 16 million means it would have done a better Nielsen than any NBA game since 2002. So it would have beaten a sport on free network tv with a much broader demographic appeal. In addition, if it drew the usual percentage of 18-34 males as it does on Spike, then 8 million men 18-34 watched UFC 100. Or, in other words, 1 out of every 5 18-34 male was watching the ppv broadcast of UFC 100. It don’t think that sounds realistic at all.
No problems, that's why I quit commenting at mmajunkie...
and after reading my own posts I realized that I wasn’t perfectly clear. I made an assumption that everyone knows a little bit of Statistics. I have recently taken Statistics classes and came to realize that an average is only useful if there is little or no variation. I was more ignoring the average and looking at variance. 10 seemed high and that’s why I think that UFC 100 is the only event that could have lived up to the average.
About your NBA numbers. I would be willing to bet that they have multiple viewers per household just like the UFC. The PPV buys would equate to the Nielsen rating so that is still the best comparison. I think that this article is trying to bring it into perspective. The small description they gave made me believe that the model they used for this study didn’t really tell us anything special. If they can get rid of variance (which is impossible in this case) then it would be useful to use an average.
It is still an interesting way to look at things. And imagine if UFC PPV’s get this many actual viewers then how many the traditional sports actually get beyond the Nielsen rating. Just some food for thought.
Welcome to BE
The numbers for the NBA finals are the actual estimated number of viewers. Nielsens now attempt to breakdowns their samples and actually calculate the number of heads watching a given program. The Nielsen ratings for the finals usually run in 5.0-10.0. So for UFC 100 to do 16 million means it would have a rating of around 7 – 9 on Network TV. Pretty impressive for a ppv show. Especially one that draws a very desired by limited demographic. I can’t see it.
Fair enough...
I didn’t know exactly how the Nielsen rating system worked, but it would be interesting to see the actual study. It seems feasible to me because I look at it this way. Casuals don’t tend to buy PPV’s on their own. They tend to go as a group to a hardcore’s house who is ordering it. Some will have parties with 20 people and some only have 5 to 10.
Personally, I watch every PPV with atleast 5 other people. On the bigger ones we have had up to 15 people before. UFC is a sport for parties, and it makes it a lot cheaper.
Forgot to mention...
Thanks for the welcome! I’ve always read the comments section, but never took the time to register for no apparent reason. I only commented every once in a while on mmajunkie, but damn, people are complete idiots on that site. It seemed like 4/5 people were trolls or complete idiots.
The alternate possibility is that the fans who are attending viewing parties don’t otherwise watch MMA at all. Sounds plausible to me, tbh. Also explains why a network would have zero interest in paying the UFC PPV money to televise their fights.
by VirtualBalboa on Apr 2, 2010 11:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Also...
The average isn’t of every single household that purchased it, it is rather a sample so they are guessing based on the average of a smaller sample. It may have been less than 16 million, but it could have also been more.
true that, and ther is an update to the story, bars were no included in the survey .
So the number defiantly could be higher!
16 million is just US homes plus....
PPV revenue is bars, streams, homes, international tv, closed circuit.
by snakecharmer1340 on Apr 2, 2010 9:00 PM EDT reply actions
If this was true
They’d release both the survey and its methodology to UFC advertisers/sponsers. You think Harley-Davidson doesn’t want to know how many people see it’s logo? The companies that do product placement for Paramount, Universal etc… don’t give two shits who Dana White is. They care about viewers per dollar spent. If you walk in to a meeting with a major advertising firm and tell them you average 10 viewers per PPCV buy, you better have something real to back that up. Releasing that number to the public doesn’t mean a damn thing, not without the actual survey.
How do you know they didn’t give that information too their advertisers last summer? Heck maybe that’s how Meltzer came across it all these months later? The UFC didn’t release this information to the public at all, Dave Meltzer just dug it up. We have no clue as to where he came across it at(although he does have plenty of sources) or how the UFC actually used this information.
by who me on Apr 2, 2010 9:42 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I will say most PPV parties we have do end up having about 8-15 people at them. And a lot of the time we go to bars or hooters and at UFC100 the hooters had never been so packed. Every chair was filled and people were standing where there was space to watch.
"A champion is someone who gets up when he can't." - Jack Dempsey
Got no problem with the numbers, of course when your using average(which normally equates to arithmetic mean) it’s easy to get a skewed statistical result so 10 doesn’t surprise me at all. Here lets work it with a small group of numbers:
(2, 2, 3, 4, 39). 2+2+3+4+39 = 50/5= a mean average of 10. One very large number completly throws the average way higher than 4 of the 5 actual numbers. So for everyone here that says that their parties are much smaller it only takes one guy throwing a huge bash to push the average way up. For comparison the median value of that sample set would be 3, that is the true middle point where half are above and half are below. If you said that half the UFC PPV parties had 3 or more people it would be a lot more believable than saying the average was ten but if their statistical sample resembled the number set above both could very well be correct. Got to love statistics.
Go on, it only took two-odd years of lurking and six months of being joined to post. I’m Irish, I moved to Toronto in September. While I’m displeased that ten euro a month won’t get me every single UFC event on ESPN UK anymore, I’ll gladly pay fifty bucks a month for UFC events at a reasonable time, and I’m happy Rogers Sportsnet gives me everything I need without having to get “Manswers” Spike. Generally it’s myself and my girlfriend watching, rarely we get some randomers to go watch in a bar as well. I’d just like to point out that I was still living in Dublin for UFC 100, and due to the massive fail that was Setanta Sports at the time, everyone in the country got it for free. Also, everybody I knew or talked to watched it. I’m pretty sure it worked out the same in the UK. So there’s far more than just 16 million Americans watching. But then, Verizon can’t sell to us so we don’t matter, no?
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.
