What's the Deal With UFC Primetime Running on ESPN2?
by Nate Wilcox on Apr 23, 2011 2:00 PM EDT
in UFC Analysis
Email
Print
We've reported extensively on the UFC's poor ratings on Spike TV. I even irresponsibly speculated on the possibility that Spike was deliberately "spike-ing" the UFC's programming to give them more leverage in the final year of the UFC's current contract.
The recent appearance of the UFC 129 Primetime special featuring Georges St. Pierre and Jake Shields on ESPN2, especially in the aftermath of the series' worst-ever ratings on Spike is more significant than it might appear at first. MMA Mania reports
In news that flew way under the radar, the second episode of UFC Primetime, featuring Georges St. Pierre and Jake Shields, aired on ESPN2 on Wednesday, April 20, 2011, at 11 p.m. ET.
That's a full hour before it aired on Spike TV.
When asked to comment on why the show was shown on ESPN2, Dana White told MMAFighting.com he put it on ESPN for more eyeballs and more distribution. And while there is no broadcast deal in place with "The Worldwide Leader," the final episode of Primetime will also air on "The Deuce" next Wednesday at 11 and 11:30 p.m. ET.
...Is a ratings war (and potential bidding war) brewing between ESPN and Spike, facilitated by UFC?
Zach Arnold commented:
There are two schools of thought about the reason this move was done. The first school of thought (by Robert Joyner) is that ESPN2 needed some filler programming and decided to air the broadcast. Given what has happened with the indictments last Friday with the major online poker operations and the television programs those companies sponsored, ESPN has found itself in a position where they are airing some poker programming and not airing other poker programming. For a last-minute emergency program, you could do a lot worse than airing a UFC infomercial. Robert also thinks that it could be a sign of ESPN/Disney warming up to UFC. The counter-argument to that is that if they were warming up and becoming buddy-buddy, you would think they would give a lot more advance warning in terms of airing this Primetime series.
The second school of thought (from yours truly and most other MMA writers) is that this was either a barter deal or a time-buy. If that is the case, what would be the motive? The first thought that comes to mind is that this was a tactical strike against Spike TV for what they perceive right now the network is doing in terms of promoting their television shows. Remember, we've seen this song-and-dance before when UFC decided to do a time-buy with ION to air PPV preliminary fights. It wasn't a big success but it wasn't a big failure, either. ESPN2/Disney is certainly a step up from ION in that regards. Call it brinkmanship, I suppose. If it is another flare between UFC & Spike TV, it certainly ups the ante in regards to what the relationship is like between the two parties.
The other part of the second school of thought is that this was a time-buy done out of precaution for the upcoming UFC 129 PPV. There are going to be over 50,000 fans at the Sky Dome/Rogers Centre in Toronto for this event. It is going to be a Wrestlemania-type atmosphere and historic. And, yet, as Geno Mrosko points out, something feels... strange... about the enthusiasm level heading into this event as far as buying it on PPV is concerned. There shouldn't be, given that GSP is the #2 PPV draw in the UFC (only behind Brock Lesnar). The card also features what appears to be Randy Couture's retirement fight (against Lyoto Machida). It features a solid bout between Mark Hominick and Jose Aldo. So, the PPV numbers should be good, right? I can't imagine that the internal estimates for Zuffa heading into this PPV are low, but maybe they know something we don't on that front? UFC announced on Wednesday night that all UFC 129 prelims will be streamed on their Facebook page.)
MMA Payout added:
The internet was a-twitter last night when UFC Primetime appeared on the "Deuce" without prior notice. It seems strange that there was no lead-up seeing as the UFC's intent was to produce more viewers to the show. Is this the equivalent of a product "soft launch"? Doesn't the same night airing of its series cannibalize ratings on Spike TV? Ratings will be interesting to compare the first two weeks on Spike TV versus next week's airing on ESPN2.
It's all way above my pay grade, but it certainly appears that something is going on with the UFC relationship with Spike TV. The UFC has enormous latitude to promote their PPV events on channels outside of Spike TV so maybe they'd be doing this anyway even if their contract wasn't up for renewal.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
.
"Every time I talk on the phone with someone who doesn’t know me, they call me "ma’am"." - Scott C. Broussard
by Earl Montclair on Apr 23, 2011 2:17 PM EDT reply actions 7 recs
It also might be worth noting
That many viewers of TUF did not watch it on Spike or Spike HD, but rather different sports networks like SportsNet West.
I’m not entirely sure if these other networks were tallied into the ratings we’ve seen over the past few weeks.
Luke Thomas: If Pro Wrestling had a dick, you'd be the balls!
Kid Nate: ...
It’s going to be very interesting to see how things work out. poker on tv is in trouble and ESPN bailed on the hockey deal when it hit 200 million, so they have some money to spend and hours to fill; and when the new NHL deal was announced, they said that Vs. is going to be rebranded within 90 days, so NBC/Vs. is also a major possibility (even though thy just did the big NHL deal).
As much as I hate ESPN
any UFC on the network will bring in more eyes and be best for the sport. So let’s hope it works out.
by The Burning Scheyer Jersey on Apr 23, 2011 2:32 PM EDT reply actions
Why the hate for ESPN?
"Every time I talk on the phone with someone who doesn’t know me, they call me "ma’am"." - Scott C. Broussard
by Earl Montclair on Apr 23, 2011 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh plenty of reasons
Mostly they are a tunnel-vision news organization, interested in re-hashing and shoving only a couple of topics down a viewer’s throat (Brett Favre, Lebron James), rather than doing work and actually providing a varying and wider range of stories, and using some of the worst “analysts” you can find (looking at you, Kiper). Brett Favre pulling out of his driveway in an Escalade is not “Breaking News” to anyone but ESPN.
Plus “The Decision” proved to me that their a hack outlet that doesn’t have an ounce of journalistic integrity.
by The Burning Scheyer Jersey on Apr 23, 2011 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
So you pretty much hate every channel then right because the stuff you are describing is in no way exclusive to ESPN
"Every time I talk on the phone with someone who doesn’t know me, they call me "ma’am"." - Scott C. Broussard
by Earl Montclair on Apr 23, 2011 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
not exclusive
but I find it more insufferably done in ESPN, perhaps because of the wide-reach they have.
by The Burning Scheyer Jersey on Apr 23, 2011 3:37 PM EDT up reply actions
ESPN radio does a lot of unique interesting stories…
And ESPN themselves have good recap shows. The events they show live tend to cater to the east coast and bandwagon fans but whatever. Friday night fights is sweet too.
by hexbreaker on Apr 23, 2011 4:01 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I know you didn't ask me...
But I hate them because they promote their own content under the guise of sports reporting. If ESPN doesn’t have a deal with a league, there’s almost no way that an event from that sport will end up within the first 30 minutes of Sportscenter. They’re just self-promoting on a vomitous level.
by John Danaher's Hair on Apr 23, 2011 3:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I used to watch espn like nobodys business
But since they dont cover mma that much, I pretty much have boycotted them.
Very interesting development. Time buy or no time buy if the rating is OK or better this could lead to bigger partnership. The ufc avg what 250 mill to 300 mill a year in ppv rev.(please correct me if I’m wrong) if they could do a ABC ESPn deal for the same money or more. Mma could really be in the top for sports leagues
by Elstriko on Apr 23, 2011 2:33 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
There's also the credibility factor
In the UK, we’re coming up to 2 years of having UFC live events (PPV numbered cards as well as the UFN type shows) on ESPN UK. Unlike the USA, the ESPN network of channels is a premium subscription service in the UK taking over from where Setanta Sports left off. I remember an interview with Marshall Zelaznik about the move from the channel Bravo (very similar to Spike TV in programming) to Setanta / ESPN and it was a very conscious choice to move away from an entertainment network to a sports network.
Of course it helped Setanta / ESPN were willing to pay a licensing fee for live content and the aforementioned Bravo would only pay for next night tape delay, but still a shift from Entertainment to Sport for credibility is still likely on some level true.
I watched Primetime on ESPN over Spike
it was on early and it meant i didn’t have to see the crappy advertising that Spike puts on It would be weird if the UFC got in bed with ESPN/ABC since atm ABC dosen’t really need programming but meh what do i know
Twitter @MaZZM
http://mazznettt.blogspot.com/
something is going on with the UFC relationship with Spike TV.
Viacom has been airing streaming image spots for bellator on saturdays on spike TV. Streaming text that essentially says flip the channel from spike to mtv2…. what the fuck do you think the relationship is like?
This is essentially the North American TV landscape for a UFC type product:
Viacom (spike)
Comcast (versus, USA network, NBC)
Time Warner (HBO, TNT, TBS)
News corp: (FX, Fox)
Disney: (ESPN, ABC)
CBS corp: (showtime, CBS sports, CBS)
To ascertain who the real players are and who’s currently setting the price you only need ask and answer 2 questions:
1) Who needs the programming most?
2) And who can make most of said programming?
If you only ask the first question the asnwer would be viacom as the UFC is the entire life force of one of their properties. However their leverage dies beyond spike.
Once you realize comcast is second most in need of the programming and that they just inked a 10 year 2 billion dollar deal with the NHL indicating they are going to pushing NBC sports (versus). You’ll also realize with the distribution comcast controls (USA, Versus/NBC sports, and NBC major) it can also leverage the UFC product more than viacom can.
Comcast has decided it wants the UFC and is currently the one setting the price for it. I do not believe Viacom will be able to match it.
The most likely scenario for Zuffa to stay with Viacom is if another piece of the puzzle is included or down the road like a showtime, CBS deal which compliments spike.
HBO/TNT have the capabilities to match the offer but they dont need the programming. TNT has basketball and HBO invests heavily in boxing.
FX/Fox can use the programming but I dont think their need will ever exceed comcasts or even CBS as fox is already doing very well with the target demos.
espn/abc has little need for the programming. Zuffa has a very good relationship with espn because of the UK deal but other than ESPN’s motivation for jacking the price up for comcast there is no dire need.
Zuffa will either be with Comcast or Viacom/CBS corp.
CBS corp does not have the properties for Zuffa. Showtime has a ceiling on viewership and tuf does not fit on cbs sports or CBS. without spike being included I dont see it happening…. Conversely, unless CBS corp gets involved I dont see Viacom being able to afford to keep the UFC.
by mmalogic on Apr 23, 2011 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
I think
Rogers has already locked it up.
TSN is Canada’s ESPN, Rogers Sportsnet is a horrible, horrible competitor.
by gavingavinkindgavin on Apr 24, 2011 10:40 AM EDT up reply actions
ESPN
May be in need of some extra programming in the long term (i.e. more than a time buy). This is because of the Online Poker collapse, which should eliminate at least some of their multitude of Poker programs. Also, there are looming lockouts in almost every major sport, but that is not an issue with the UFC. So if ESPN wants to be airing live relevant sports content, then UFC will be one of their best avenues to do so.
If the UFC ends up in a partnership with ESPN/ABC...
the sport will jump to a new level. ESPN has become less a sports reporting channel and more of a self-promoting monster over the last 12 years or so. NASCAR used to get nary a mention on the channel, then they enter into a content deal with ESPN, boom- NASCAR’s leading SportsCenter. ESPN is like the commercial radio of sports- if you end up having a consistent presence on that channel, you’re going to enter into the public consciousness. It would be a beautiful thing.
by John Danaher's Hair on Apr 23, 2011 3:28 PM EDT reply actions
So what were the ratings on ESPN versus Spike?
I mean, this is the next step in the analysis, right? What are the trends with ESPN vs Spike, total numbers versus timeslot, demographic breakout, etc.
Go Orange(men)!
Surprised thus thread did not generate more discussion. With all the flak Dana and the brother’s get from ppl about wanting to see the sport stay at a manageable level. It seems some of the better b.e citizens also wish mma stays our lil niche sport
by Elstriko on Apr 23, 2011 5:30 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
Disclaimer about the post. I was referring to the ppl not posting. Not the ones who did
by Elstriko on Apr 23, 2011 5:32 PM EDT via mobile reply actions
“maybe they know something we don’t on that front?”
is there anything mma bloggers know about the inner workings of the UFC that isn’t speculation? We don’t know anything other than what Dana tells us.
I don’t know about other bloggers. I know I talk to MMA decision makers about what they are doing and why all the time.
by Jonathan Snowden on Apr 24, 2011 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions
The second school of thought seems to make more sense
But one thing is for sure: Dana’s trying to get a strangle hold on someone…
"Good People drink good beer." -Hunter S. Thompson
With the media push
this thing will be getting this week, you can bet on a big PPV.
Sportsnet and Sportsnet Radio (one of Toronto’s two sports media networks, and owned by Rogers, ie. of the Rogers Centre where the fights are happening) have already declared this as “UFC Week”, and there will be countless hours of programming devoted to the sport, the brand and all of the players involved. This is going to drive up the number of casual buyers in GTA/Ontario, and there are a lot of people here.
Rogers also owns the Bluejays, and this is what Saturday’s broadcast schedule looks like:
Jays vs. Yankees on Sportsnet, with a huge UFC push throughout that broadcast.
UFC Connected following the game.
UFC Prelims after that.
A ton of casuals in Ontario are going to scroll up a few channels and hit “Buy” for UFC 129 after the advance bombings that will go on all week.
by gavingavinkindgavin on Apr 24, 2011 10:19 AM EDT reply actions
I ended up
Watching it on Fuel. It certainly feels strange seeing it all over. If not on Spike where will be a good home for TUF? Since the show is housed over at Spike it will be need to be pushed really hard for everyone to know about any switch. It’s like a sitcom changing a network it’s on.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bloody Elbow
Related FanShots on Bloody Elbow
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
MMA Rankings
