The UFC Post-Peak: the Brock Bubble has Burst
by John Nash on Jul 12, 2011 12:19 AM EDT
Email
Print
Front paged by Kid Nate.
By any measure the UFC has seen a dramatic reversal in fortunes over the the last decade: going from a deeply indebted promotion, barely limping from event to event, to being an immensely popular self-titled "league" that is now valued at over $1 billion. The explanation for their turnaround is simple: the Ultimate Fighter. With the premiere of the ground breaking reality show they saw a meteoric rise in popularity, going from selling a measly 40,000 payperviews for UFC 50 to over 1 million for UFC 66 in only two years’ time. But ever since Liddell defended his Light Heavyweight Title against Tito Ortiz, an event that was labeled by many at the time as the UFC’s pinnacle and which they would never reach again, their growth has continued unabated. As proof one need to look no further than last year’s record setting payperview sales, which were double the amount sold in that record setting year of 2006. The conventional wisdom now is the UFC has not yet peaked and they are in fact poised for even more success as they move into the mainstream of the American collective sports conscious.
As is usual, the conventional wisdom is probably wrong.
Last week Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter released the sales estimates for UFC 132, reporting that the event, headlined by Cruz vs Faber, did 350,000 buys. The glass half-full position would be that it did better than many predicted, as the card was plagued with injuries and was lacking a major draw at the top of the card. The glass half-empty position would be that it did well below the UFC’s average and well, well below the average for cards containing a title fight. Even more worrisome, it continues the downward trend that the UFC has been experiencing all year.
Here, for comparison, are the number of payperviews offered per year, the total buys,and the per event average for the last 6 years:
Year Number of PPVS Total PPV Sales Per Event Avg
2006 10 5,270,000 527,000
2007 11 4,935,000 449,000
2008 12 6,325,000 527,000
2009 13 8,020,000 617,000
2010 15* 9,080,000 605,000
2011** 8 3,480,000 435,000
* Only UFC events, doesn’t include WEC 48
** Incomplete year
As one can see, at their current pace the UFC will sell only slightly more payperviews this year than they did in 2008 and will see the lowest payperview average in the last 6 years – the post TUF era.
What is going on? How does one explain what seems to be a nearly 25% drop in payperview sales in a year’s time? Injuries? A statistical anomaly? Insufficient data? To get a clearer picture perhaps we should look at the reasons, or should I say reason, behind the UFC’s success since Liddell vs Ortiz.
While everyone has been marveling at the massive rise in popularity the UFC has seen year in and year out, they seem to miss out on one important fact: that almost all the growth post UFC 66 can be attributed to one fighter and one fighter only - Brock Lesnar.
A few tidbits to drive this point home:
- Between the high water mark that was Liddell vs Tito at UFC 66 and Brock’s title fight against Randy Couture at UFC 91, the UFC held 21 payperviews. Amongst those 21 payperviews only four of them manage to cross the 600,000 threshold. Two of those four were headlined by the UFC’s biggest star, Chuck Liddell, and the other two had Brock on the card.
- Brock’s first match in the promotion was at UFC 81, a card headlined by a main event of Tim Sylvia vs Antonio Nogueira fighting for the Interim Heavyweight belt. Of course, they headlined in name only and thanks to his heavily promoted presence the bout sold 600,000 payperviews, more than the two previous heavyweight title bouts that featured both Randy Couture and the actual belt. To reinforce Brock’s contribution, Dave Meltzer reported that the card sold extremely well in the same markets that the WWE performs strongly in and that an amazing 300,000 of the buys came from customers who had never purchased a UFC event before.
- Brock’s second appearance in the promotion, which he once again co-headlined, UFC 87, sold 625,000 payperviews. While some of the credit most definitely goes to Georges St-Pierre, it should be noted that St-Pierre sold 100,000 less only a few months earlier for his much hyped rematch against Matt Serra.
- Brock’s title match at UFC 91, against Randy Couture, sold 1,010,000 buys. This almost matched the total for Couture’s two previous bouts against Tim Sylvia and Gabriel Gonzaga at UFC 68 and UFC 74, and was only the second time the UFC had ever crossed the 1 million mark, the previous time being UFC 66.
- Only seven UFC events have reached the 1 million sales mark. Brock Lesnar has headlined four of these events, including the three highest selling events in the promotion’s history – UFC 100, UFC 116, and UFC 121.
- The six cards that Brock has fought on for the UFC have sold a total of 6,045,000 payperviews. That is an astounding 1,007,500 average! Even more impressive, the four title fights he headlined sold a total of 4,820,000 payperviews, an average of 1,205,000!
- Purely anecdotal, but the moderators of Bloody Elbow have attested several times that no fighter drives traffic like Brock Lesnar. Not even Fedor Emelianenko or Kimbo Slice - two perennial favorites - can rival the audience he brings.
And it doesn’t stop with merely the events that Brock has participated on, but to the whole promotion. If we use UFC 91 as the dividing line, the contrast before and after that date are very stark . In the 10 events prior to Brock winning the belt the UFC sold a total of 4,315,000 payperviews. In the next 10 events, beginning with UFC 91, they sold a total of 7,725,000 payperviews. That is an increase in sales of over 75%, or 300,000 more buys per event. It is as if those 300,000 that had purchased their first UFC event to see Brock were now not only fans of his but of the promotion he was the champion of.
And to expand on the comparison between the pre-Brock Championship and Brock Championship eras further: between the peak of UFC 66 and the heavyweight title bout of UFC 91, the UFC held 21 payperviews events, selling a total of 9,250,000 payperviews and averaging 440,000 buys per event (if we remove the Brock cards during this span the average drops to 422,00 buys). Compare that to the 28 events that took place during Brock’s reign as UFC champion which sold a total of 17,825,000 payperviews, an average of 636,600 buys per event (For his part, Brock events average 1,205,000 payperviews sold during this time, while non-Brock events averaged 542,000). This is a 70% increase over the pre-Brock Championship era. One could legitimately make the claim that Brock Lesnar has been more valuable to the UFC than the whole of Canada, their most valuable foreign market and a country that is responsible for a 1/4 of all their payperview revenues.
That Brock Lesnar has had a major impact on the bottom line of the UFC is incontrovertible, but what is questionable is how much of this resulting growth is sustainable. One would imagine that the numerous new fans he has drawn would have have since migrated to being fans of the sport, but recent trends don’t seem to support this. In the last 10 events of the Brock Lesnar Championship era the UFC sold a grand total of 7,770,000 payperviews. In the first 10 events of the Post-Brock era they have sold 4,765,000 payperviews, a precipitous drop of nearly 40% and less than what they sold in their 10 events back in 2006. For whatever reason the fans that Brock brought with him do not appear to be sticking around (a scenario Rich Luker predicted).
Perhaps this sudden downturn is merely an aberration, resulting from a combination of bad luck and poor cards. Perhaps, the UFC is merely on another poor stretch, similar to the one from UFC 106 to UFC 110, the UFC’s worst 5-card drought since 2005 which took place ironically in the midst of Brock’s reign. The curious thing about that stretch, beside the rash of injuries that many blame for its poor showing, is that it happened immediately after Lesnar’s first bout with diverticulitis, when the prevailing view was that he would never fight again. Was this a preview of how the Brockheads would react to a post-Lesnar UFC?
Of course, this is only a hypothesis and may be quickly disproven with a strong Autumn. But one would assume that if the UFC had actually gained significantly in popularity over the last few years they wouldn’t see it only limited to Brock Lesnar events but to their cable television programming as well, but that hasn’t been the case. Here are the yearly Nielsen rating averages for their Spike Fight Night Cards:
Year Average Rating
2006 1.5
2007 1.43
2008 1.64
2009 1.14
2010 1.2
2011 1.4*
* Only two Fight Nights have been held so far this year.
And with the exception of the Kimbo Slice starring season 10, the Ultimate Fighter has seen its audience deteriorate as well, with last season being the lowest rated in the reality show’s history. As Jonathan Snowden pointed out recently, while "sports programming has seen a ratings increase of 21 percent over the the last five years", the UFC has oddly seen its ratings going in the opposite direction.
So are we seeing one of Kid Nate’s doomsday scenarios come to life? Should we prepare for another dark ages? Obviously no. Even if the UFC retreats back to its 2007 numbers, it will still be a highly profitable company and mixed martial arts will remain a very viable sport.
It just won't have Brock Lesnar to prop up the irrational exuberance and unrealistic expectations held by many.
All payperview numbers and Nielsen ratings were taken from MMAPAYOUT and their Blue Book.
The FanPosts are solely the subjective opinions of Bloody Elbow readers and do not necessarily reflect the views of Bloody Elbow editors or staff.
164 comments
|
24 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
You do analysis like no one else, nottheface.
One thing I wonder, if the bubble burst because Lesnar hasn’t competed regularly? Or if Brock would no longer have the same drawing power even in competition, considering the lame TUF season and how badly Cain crushed him?
Thanks. Personally, I think Brock still has the potential to draw huge – fans are going to be cheering for him and curious to see how he does post-illness again. But, when one looks at his age, his illness, and his last two performances I doubt we should expect much from him.
gzl5000 has a good point, though
One more ass whooping of Brock and he stops being a big draw, just like Kimbo (but to a lesser degree, of course). If he faced JDS, the inevitable domination would be a big blow to his drawing power.
by paythefighters on Jul 12, 2011 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions
Excellent work, dude.
Brock has done nothing but good for the sport of MMA and I hope he gets healthy again and makes another run. Maybe I will finally get that Kongo v. Lesnar fight I have been dying to see.
Sig betting against The-gentle-way is like playing Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic weapon. The only thing he knows more about than fighting is pleasing women, and my girlfriend is thankful for that.
its his schtick.
he’s a complete Buzzkill McDickintheass on the internet because he doesnt have the stones to be one in real life… or just doesnt have friends to do it to. - MMArazorback
Kongo is the perfect fight for Lesnar
He can test out how much his striking has improved, and if he starts getting beat down, then he can revert to his wrestling and cruise to a victory (whether decision or finish) without any danger.
by paythefighters on Jul 12, 2011 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions
Not only do you assume that Brock cannot and will not draw again, you fail to mention that 2009 was the most successful year that any sport has ever had on PPV.
Think about that. Boxing – the sport, not any one promotion – never sold as many PPVs in one year as the UFC did in 2009. And they then crushed that record in 2010.
350,000 is a helluva floor to have on PPV when everyone else’s ceiling (other than the one-off WEC PPV) is less than a third of that.
I understand that you’re not echoing Nate and that you acknowledge that the company will remain the dominant MMA promotion (and highly profitable) no matter what, but I think you’re being entirely too pessimistic here when you insinuate that 2009 and 2010 can’t be repeated, let alone improved upon.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 11, 2011 9:37 PM EDT reply actions
you fail to mention that 2009 was the most successful year that any sport has ever had on PPV.
This is not a legit comparison. It is like looking at box office numbers from a decade ago versus today with higher prices and 3-D and Imax premiums mixed in. Not to mention they had the most events ever in their history.
Of course the UFC is going to remain dominant in MMA but they have hit a real wall in domestic growth and need to build new, marketable stars. Lesnar’s has faded, if he ever even returns. They need to get on TV more with a network or close to it (USA, TBS, etc) and grow in that medium. They have reached their peak on PPV.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
UFC on TBS would otherwise be known as
Tyler Perry’s “I’M MAD AS HELL” Fight League. All the fighters would be black and you can see the ending a mile away. Somewhere around the start of the 3rd someone turns on the Oliver McCall tears and then everyone brohugs their way to a decision.
by SSreporters on Jul 12, 2011 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
"It is like looking at box office numbers from a decade ago versus today with higher prices and 3-D and Imax premiums mixed in."
Or like comparing box office attendance today to a decade ago when piracy and the home market alternatives were less prevalent.
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 1:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Box office attendance today is almost identical to 10 years ago but there is an almost $3B difference in total revenue.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
by memitim on Jul 12, 2011 1:55 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I would say almost identical is being a little liberal
I mean, steady ticket price inflation has just as much of an impact as 3D and Imax ticket premiums.
Let’s not forget, while a lot of the biggest tentpoles get released in 3D, they are also shown in both 2D and 3D at many locations. On top of that, it wasn’t until last year that the majority of tentpoles even started getting on board 3D…Avatar was the film that sort of brought it from a bit of a niche thing to a ‘lets make every blockbuster this way’ sort of fad.
But beyond 1/2-3/4s of the tentpoles being released in 3D and 2D…don’t forget that virtually all of the smaller films are still getting released exclusively in 2D.
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 2:07 AM EDT up reply actions
Have a look
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
2002 was the peak year for ticket sales in North America 1.575 billion tickets sold, no year since 04 has hit 1.5 billion tickets sold in a year. 2010 had the fewest tickets sold since 1996.
But while the ticket sales go up and down, take a look at the number of films produced in 2001 vs 2010. 482 vs 534…so while overall ticket sales have sort of been declining rather slowly overall since 2002…the number of films released nationwide has increased…
So we have fewer tickets being sold overall in a year and more films being released. That means if you were to average it out, that’s even fewer tickets per film.
2001 tickets per film – roughly 3 million
2010 tickets per film – roughly 2.5 million
That’s a half a million decrease in ticket sales on average per film. And for all we know, 2011 may turn out worse as far as ticket sales per film.
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 2:23 AM EDT up reply actions
And in difference in total revenue
Between 2001 and 2010(the closest year to this year since this year isn’t finished)
is $2.1 billion…hardly ‘almost 3 Billion difference in total revenue’
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 2:27 AM EDT up reply actions
Also
The rise of modern 3D which has occurred since 2008 could be attributed to the surge in average ticket prices
From $7.18 in 08 to $7.50 in 09 to $7.89 in 2010.
but this year, ticket prices are actually down 3 cents to $7.86
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 2:30 AM EDT up reply actions
In 2000 the box office revenue was $7.66b. In 2009 it was 10.56b. In 2010, which is 11 year difference, it was $10.65b. That’s almost a $3B difference.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
by memitim on Jul 12, 2011 2:32 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Fair enough
But the point stands. More movies + fewer tickets = even fewer tickets per film than 10 years ago.
Yes, 3D and Imax are helping to drive up the averaged ticket prices and by result the overall revenue.
But attendence per film is still down by quite a marked amount as well, and things like piracy and home other home market alternatives like OnDemand purchases, Netflix, Red Box, and those who just prefer to wait for the home market release instead of going to theaters….are to blame for lowered attendance per film.
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 2:39 AM EDT up reply actions
Read my post below. Attendance per film means nothing.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
by memitim on Jul 12, 2011 2:42 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
barely anyone getting recs these days!
I ain’t seen a green comment in forevers
by Pyrgz Krum on Jul 12, 2011 4:33 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
The amount of films released is irrelevant. In 1997 there were 510 films released. In 2009, more than two decades later, 520 films were released. And today we have many films being released day and date or limited to digital releases, but they are still considered released films. It has nothing to do with anything.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
by memitim on Jul 12, 2011 2:41 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yes it does
Because what good is overall attendence if there are more movies being released?
Attendance per film is what matters MOST. If you have 400 films and sell 1.5 billion tickets vs 600 films that sell 1.3 billion tickets…sure overall attendance isnt down that much…but when you take into consideration that so many more movies are being released and the number of total tickets sold is still going down…that just means that actual relative attendence is even lower…that even fewer people are going out to see the average film.
To turn it up to an extreme, if you release 4 times the amount of films, but only get 1.5 times the amount of attendance…what victory is that? Sure, a few more people went for 4 times the amount of product…and in a world with an ever increasing population, to boot.
Also, box office mojo only tracks movies that get wide releases for these annual tabulations, they don’t count limited releases, which are most commonly the releases that get day and date digital releases to go along with them.
We have more people in the world, more films being made, and fewer tickets being sold…
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 3:00 AM EDT up reply actions
They do track limited releases. Look at the chart. In 1980 and 81 they didn’t. Look at the jump once they started tracking. It went from 173 in ‘81 to 428 and just a couple of years later went to 536. The number that matters is total tickets sold not tickets per film. There are many films that don’t deserve theatrical releases but still get them for many reasons, from the rise of P&A funds to driving ancillary revenues. It’s an irrelevant stat you are using.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
by memitim on Jul 12, 2011 3:11 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Tickets per film is relevant
I don’t see how you do not see it.
If X amount of films brings in X amount of people…then to keep the same level of average attendance, more films should bring in more people.
But in recent years, more films aren’t even bringing in the same amount of people, they are bringing in LESS.
Overall attendance isn’t the important factor in your opinion because it doesnt support your ‘attendance is the same(it’s lower) and the amount of revenue is higher because of 3D’
An average film is seen by half a million people LESS in 2010 than in 2001…how is that not relevant. Overall attendance is the irrelevant thing…attendance only matter in terms of how many films are being produced. If Hollywood was generating 30 films a year, and attendance was over 1.3 billion tickets sold…that would be absolutely insane.
But hollywood is producing well over 500, and in some cases recently, 600 films a year, and the ticket sales haven’t been able to touch the heights they hit earlier in the decade. Because average attendance is down.
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 3:20 AM EDT up reply actions
You’re not getting this at all. Look at your logic. In 1984 536 films were released and $1.119B tickets were sold. In 2010 534 movies were released and $1.339B tickets were sold. And that repeats in different years over the past 30 years. Films get released for many different reasons. You’re not getting that. A studio might not care if they sell a lot of tickets for one film because they know it will drive their other revenue streams. It might be an awards film or a genre film. The number of those films will fluctuate year to year. That’s why Woody Allen still gets to make a film a year. What they count on overall is that people go to the movies, especially their tentpoles, which make up a large amount of tickets sold. The amount of tickets sold is the only number that matters to the distributors and the exhibitors. Period.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
by memitim on Jul 12, 2011 3:34 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Take the dollar signs off the number of tickets sold at the beginning of the post. Typo.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
by memitim on Jul 12, 2011 3:36 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
It's the only number that matters in terms of money
But when you are talking in terms of the industry, and the actual theory or study or whatever you want to call in, average attendance per film is DOWN in recent years. That is not good on a per film basis.
And guess what else is down in recent years? Number of tickets sold, the peak was 2002, and the industry hasn’t hit those heights since.
So, actual ticket price is down in recent years, which is my basic point about piracy and the growing popularity of the home market influencing it….and to extrapolate, in recent years average attendance per film is down as well. That was truly just a side point.
Movies have seen an overall decline since 2002 in attendance both overall and per film, nowadays everyone and their mother openly talks about downloading films illegally or just waiting for it to come to Red Box or Netflix.
Sure, a lot of people are still going…but there are more people then ever, and looking at recent years, the number of films being produced has gone up and the tickets sold, both overall and per film, is down.
Sure, revenue is up, but in terms of the industry as a whole, long term, the drop in attendance in recent years and increase in the number of films produced is not a good thing…and shit like piracy is part of the problem.
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 3:43 AM EDT up reply actions
You have to stop saying the number of films released has gone up dramatically. In ‘84 536 films were released, almost three decades later 534 were released. Since they started tracking both limited and wide releases the number of films released every year fluctuates between 400 and 600 films, and that has to do with many different factors, but it’s consistent.
Piracy has had a huge impact and so has digital streaming and improvements in home theater technology. But the amount of tickets sold per film doesn’t matter a bit.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
by memitim on Jul 12, 2011 4:01 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I never said dramatically
Stop putting words in my mouth.
Look at the last decade, just looking at the last decade or so, the number of films produced has gone up, and the number of tickets sold has gone down.
Sure, the raw numbers of revenue are up, but inflation has a lot to do with that. If less people are seeing each film, it’s a bad sign for the industry as a whole. The business end probably won’t suffer because overall revenue is going up.
But Hollywood isn’t one big group entity, it’s a slew of major studios. It is not a good thing that fewer people are going to see any given film…that means the audiance per film is shrinking….but beyond at, looking at the last decade, the number of tickets sold in general is also on the decline.
I’m done arguing a point that is clear as day.
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
I think total annual tickets sold is analogous to total annual PPV buys, is it not? If anything, the number of films released matters less than the number of PPVs offered, but…
The only way to look at revenues for either in a useful light is if it is done in constant (inflation adjusted) dollars.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
Death before dishonor, drinks before lunch.
Never send sheep to kill a wolf.
by The American Ronin on Jul 13, 2011 3:02 AM EDT up reply actions
Tickets per film
is meaningless. Profit is the only important stat.
What you’re arguing is akin to saying, although there are the same numbers of cars on the road, and the oil companies are making bigger profits than ever from higher fuel costs, they’re actually worse off because the average car gas tank is smaller. (I probably made all that up, just using it as an example.)
It doesn’t matter how many customers you have or how much product you sold, if you made more money this year than you did last year, you had a better (more successful) year.
by d.rok on Jul 12, 2011 11:59 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yeah
But if if hollywood produced more films, they also spent more money.
Sure, profit/revenue is up, but it is still not a good sign for ticket sales to be on the decline, and for ticket sales per film to be on the decline.
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 4:21 PM EDT up reply actions
That's why I said...
“Profit is the only important stat.” Profit = Revenue – Expenses You’re trying way too hard to read too much into this.
The average price of tickets between 1990 to 2000 rose $1.16, between 2001 and 2010 they went up $2.23. But, between 2001 and 2010 the amount of tickets sold was practically static. The new technologies are definitively the reason for the difference in revenues and increase in ticket prices.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
by memitim on Jul 12, 2011 2:27 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Check out my above posts and link
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 2:27 AM EDT up reply actions
So basically...
…to refocus the argument back to its correlation with MMA. If one were to take it to the furthest extremes, say in year A the UFC promotes five PPVs and it attracted 5 million PPV buys, while in year B the UFC promoted 20 PPVs and attracted 6 million PPV buys. Sure in year B the UFC attracted more viewers overall, but per event they averaged much less in year B than A. That means that their growth is diminishing, especially when you take into account the increased production costs associated with each additional PPV. Therefore, tickets sold per PPV or per movie is the relevant statistic in regards to measuring fan interest, which is what this article is about.
by Grease S. Pieces on Jul 12, 2011 4:48 AM EDT up reply actions
THANK YOU
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 4:25 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s incongruous. The correct correlation would be all MMA, not just UFC. UFC would be say Paramount, who is incredibly successful. Big budget films and big box office returns. But then there are dozens of other promotions, just like studios and small distributors. Some are releasing films on shoestring budgets. Like IFC who releases tons a films every year with little to no money to drive their revenue down the line. So just because a small movie doesn’t sell a lot of tickets doesn’t mean anything to them. They aren’t counting on theatrical to pay their bills. That’s why there are more movies in the market place. So, to look at tickets per film is ridiculous when a good amount of the films released aren’t meant to sell a lot of tickets in the first place. It’s a silly stat to use and none of them ever look at it. In Variety you see box office and how many screens the film played on. Per screen average is infinitely more important than tickets sold per film.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
Wow, what a crappy analogy.
If Paramount owned selling movies the way the UFC owns selling MMA PPVs, Hollywood would be Paramount. I’m not even adding clever prefixes or suffixes to that – they’d just name the damn town Paramount.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 12, 2011 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s not a crappy analogy. Paramount has been the king lately. Once again they raced past the $1b box office total again and they show no signs of letting up. They distribute a good amount of the Marvel franchises and have winners like Super 8 and the upcoming Cowboys and Aliens. Right now they are number one, right now UFC is number one. Of course they have more serious competitors because it’s the f’n movies, not MMA. But, there are just as many distributors, if not more, than other MMA promotions, big or small. Get it?
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
by memitim on Jul 13, 2011 4:27 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
UFC utterly dominates PPV sales though, the Paramount comparison is not valid imo.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
Death before dishonor, drinks before lunch.
Never send sheep to kill a wolf.
by The American Ronin on Jul 13, 2011 3:04 AM EDT up reply actions
Not in dominance, in terms of being #1. UFC is #1 in MMA, Paramount has been #1 in movies. Read a little deeper into the analogy.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
by memitim on Jul 13, 2011 4:33 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
^GSP gets it
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
by Chris Groves on Jul 12, 2011 4:26 PM EDT up reply actions
This is not a legit comparison. It is like looking at box office numbers from a decade ago versus today with higher prices and 3-D and Imax premiums mixed in.
Um, the UFC had more straight out PPV buys than any sport ever had in one year ever in 2009 (and again in 2010), we’re not even talking about revenue here. The fact that prices were higher makes that fact all the more impressive.
There are other factors both pro and con here, like the fact they had 15-16 events in each year (a pro), or the fact that the economy sucks (a con), or the fact that there are more tv households today (a pro), but overall its incredibly impressive. Furthermore, wrestling at its peak during the boom period, with 12 WWF PPVs, 12 WCW PPVs, and 6 ECW PPVs in a year, at lower prices. I’m pretty sure they still couldn’t match the number of buys.
Wrestlemania III, with a fraction of households available, did a buy rate of 4mm and a gate of around 90k.
Chris Groves and The American Ronin stand at the font of all MMA knowledge and I salute them.
by memitim on Jul 12, 2011 7:14 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Okay, I assume you mean it did a buyrate of 4 million, which is complete and utter bullshit. I’m pretty sure it didn’t even break a million, where did you even get that number? The total number watching may have been around 4 million (you know, including multiple people per household and in bars and close circuit locations and what not), but the buy rate wasn’t remotely close to that.
Also, the 90,000 attendance didn’t translate to anywhere near a $12 million gate. If the UFC ran the Silverdome with a super-stacked card they’d draw 90,000 people too if they price pointed things lower.
I’m also wondering which point you’re actually trying to refute. The wrestling boom period I was referring to was 1997-2000 (peaking in 1998-1999).
That's a made up number.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 12, 2011 9:57 AM EDT up reply actions
All i found on Wrestlemania 3 was that it did a buyrate of 10.2 they dont mean 10.2 million people bought that do they thats even higher than the 4MM and that seemed high
woops nope found it it means the percentage of people with PPV access.
Damn thats still pretty high
by Papercut Elbow on Jul 12, 2011 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions
wow someone else saying 4 million, Also KN in this article states only 2 million PPV access homes back in 87
Then explain it to me
you said there were 2 million ppv homes, the website we are debating about claimed the 1987 Wrestlemania pulled 4 million ppv buys (that’s what the buyrate versus conversion on the website had). So, please explain it to me then how that math is wrong?
So, if you are saying the page is wrong, find a new page to back up your claims.
Go Orange(men)!
by SUmonkey on Oct 5, 2010 5:24 AM PDT up actions
by Papercut Elbow on Jul 12, 2011 4:42 PM EDT up reply actions
The only reason I don’t mention 2009 is because it was eclipsed by 2010 which I mentioned in the opening paragraph
As proof one need to look no further than last year’s record setting payperview sales, which were double the amount sold in that record setting year of 2006.And I don’t assume that. If he does come back I imagine he would actually draw well. But lets be realistic, a 34-year-old fighter who started late, who has taken two bad beatings in his last two fights, and who – most importantly – has gone through two very serious bouts with diverticulitis and just had surgery for it. probably doesn’t have many fights if any left in him.
I don’t think, nor do I want to suggest that the UFC is going to be struggling. Even at 350,000 buys, it will be immensely profitable. A couple of million per show in profits probably. The point was that Brock really had a major impact on the popularity of the UFC. He is the closest thing we’ve seen to Jordan and Tiger woods – with regards to mass appeal at least – and the NBA still hasn’t recovered from Jordan’s retirement.
And maybe 2009 and 2010 can be repeated. Maybe another major star is ready to explode. Maybe the NFL lockout will give them a huge boost. Maybe they’ll finally get on network tv and we’ll see another huge spurt. Who knows? I can’t guess what is going to happen but I be certain that Brock really sold a lot of ppvs and it doesn’t look like he’ll be around to help sell more.
...I missed that line.
My apologies. But I still think this is a little “the sky is falling!” for my taste.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 12, 2011 5:12 PM EDT up reply actions
If nothing else, it reinforces what I’ve said a number of times: The statement that MMA is the “fastest growing sport” is not only apocryphal but probably flat out wrong. Maybe I should qualify that by saying “outside Canada” it’s probably wrong. Didn’t they show numbers a month or so ago about the geographical distribution of PPV buys and Canada had something like 5 of the top 10 markets, at least for the one event they reported on?
It would be interesting to see what the live paid attendance figures show. Outside Las Vegas, which gets a number of live UFC events each year, no other US city usually gets more than one event a year and yet both UFC and Strikeforce seem to struggle to sell out the arenas. I would think that if the sport is growing rapidly and becoming widely accepted, these events would be considered must-see by people living in the areas where they’re held, especially if they know it’s their one chance in a year to see it. I still believe it’s wrong to equate a successful, money-making business model with huge migration of fans to the sport.
.....
Agreed.
I’ve always wondered why staging events in multiple cities is even exercised by the UFC. With the majority of the fans watching on TV, what difference does it really make where it’s staged unless it’s in a city like Vegas with a consistent stream of tourists? That seems like the ideal place to hold almost all, if not all, of the UFC’s PPV events.
by Grease S. Pieces on Jul 12, 2011 4:52 AM EDT up reply actions
First off it doesn’t cost them that much more to run at other venues. A lot of fighters live in Vegas but most of them still do not. They’re still flying them in from all over the place. Secondly if you got to a UFC live event and have a great time, you’re much more likely to be a long-term fan who buys PPVs for life. Wrestling found this out a long time ago. Third they could never pull the sort of gate number they did in Toronto or several other places that they did in Vegas. $12 million gate? That’s an insanely high amount that they could never match in Vegas. The total PPV revenue (after PPV distributors got their cut) was only $25-30 million. Maybe it’s an outlier, but all the touring they do helps them properly prepare for new venues, and it’s not unique or anything in outdrawing Las Vegas (Montreal, for instance). Hell, UFC 127 in Sydney drew a $3.5 million gate with Fitch vs. Penn on top, in a card that started on Sunday afternoon at 2 p.m. locally. Yes the general influx of tourists into Las Vegas helps, but they can simply get more bang for their buck in fresh markets. Part of the reason I imagine they’d love to run MSG, besides legitimacy, is that it’s right in the heart of a metropolitan area with 17 million people in it.
Still, they are doing a greatly disproportionate number of B-cards in Las Vegas because it’s cheaper and they don’t draw big crowds anyway, even at low ticket prices. Supposedly most Strikeforce Challenger shows will air from Vegas now.
Damn fine piece, good sir.
"I see him beating Anderson Silva. I see him picking him apart. Him at a 131 years old...(trails off)." - Tito Ortiz on Vitor Belfort at Affliction:DOR
It’s an interesting argument, but at the same time the UFC also now runs Versus cards, Spike fights and all prelim fights now on Facebook, which draw in extra eyeballs. They may be taking in less money from PPV buys (and I say may, see below) but they’ve expanded into so many other areas PPV buys aren’t their only form of revenue any more. So I’m not sure any bubble has “burst” but rather the UFC is a more diversified organisation now with a bigger brand footprint.
Bear in mind also that UFC 135, 137 and 138 (Jones-Rampage, Diaz-GSP, Edgar-Maynard) should sell pretty well, and the big question is how well the Brock-Killer Cain Velasquez will draw when he defends.
i just think this further proves that ppv is incapable of building and sustaining growth in a sport
i think snowdens argument of “sports programming has seen a ratings increase of 21 percent over the the last five years”, the UFC has oddly seen its ratings going in the opposite direction." is directly related to the UFC showing their top fights and fighters in a way thats taxing on the audiences wallets.
pay per view simply cannot sustain growth in the interest of a sport, 99% of american sports fans simply will not buy a sporting show, especially for 60$ (seriously you can get 2 yankee tickets for that price), when literally every other top sport in the country is shown for free
"I have smoked weed with alot of UFC champions" - Joe Rogan
"Você ta fudido. Se vai levar muita porrada, ta ligado?" - Anderson Silva
They have no interest in promoting top UFC fights on free TV
Shields vs. Ellenberger is as high as they’ll go and that is solely because Shields is the anti-PPV watchable material.
Rampage vs. Hendo marked the end of top UFC on Spike and it’s not coming back any time soon.
Which absolutely kills me
Once everything went to a pay model, boxing stopped giving you good fights for free. As soon as that model ended your market starts to shrink when you’re only on pay-per-view.
Not afraid to nitpick
*of course
His definition of “good fights” is “contenders” who are 3 fights from a title shot because he really is a super fan of the sport.
Not afraid to nitpick
It was bound to happen
Not to mention the UFC has been throwing some pretty watered down cards at us recently.
Follow me: @IISMASHII
"Looks like I just picked a whole bouquet of oopsie-daisies"
by II SMASH II on Jul 12, 2011 12:04 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Yeah
I think the HWs always have a good amount of drawing power and not having Velasquez defending his title for so long is putting a damper on their numbers to a degree. Also the cards have been great for the rabid fans like us, but with all the injuries, the biggest stars of the UFC were commonly absent so far this year.
No doubt Brock brought a lot of attention to the sport. Hope he comes back to fight, dont think he will though.
If heavyweight isn't the toughest division in the UFC, then why doesn't someone that can kick their asses move to it? They don’t even have to cut weight!!
I know the UFC makes most of it's money in the U.S. and Canada obviously
through ppv’s, but does it make any kind of significant amount from other countries such as GB, Brazil, China, ect…? Just curious, because they always seem to be talking about expansion and “going to new places” but are they going to eventually change to a PPV system in these places, or is it just an excuse or a detraction from the poor ppv numbers? Does anyone know the numbers Zuffa gets from tv deals in those areas?
This article makes me sad…
I'm in China right now
Basically no one knows what MMA (or the UFC) is let alone watches it. Looking around on the internet, there are apparently a couple English-speaking MMA gyms but the fact that they are English-speaking means nothing for Chinese interest #1 and like I said #2 no one has even heard of it.
Martial arts seem to be pretty ingrained here so I guess there’s potential, but they won’t give two shits until there is a Chinese star in the UFC.
Not afraid to nitpick
They didn’t run a show in Great Britain this year. They’ll probably never run China. Nothing happened in Europe at all. If they could do PPVs, they would in the UK where that’s a fairly accepted way of viewing. Same in Australia. They generally do not, however, in either.
by VirtualBalboa on Jul 12, 2011 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions
UFC is on PPV in Australia. Even all of the numbered European cards that were free on Spike were sold here as PPVs until the awful 122 card from Germany.
where are u from
If u are from the UK I thought u got all of the fights for free on espn?
Rampage/Rashad
was the last non-Brock fight I can remember that seemed like a really big deal, must-watch fight. GSP-Diaz will have that for me and many others, but that’s all I can think of. Jon Jones has some of that, but he’s not yet had his big crossover moment. Fedor still has that potential if he beats up on Henderson then gets matched up with Cain or Brock. Is anybody else/ anything even on the horizon? A lightweight tournament/TV show? Megareem?
by Trust Doesn't Rust on Jul 12, 2011 1:01 AM EDT reply actions
I think Jon Jones has the best chance of anyone
My brother isn’t an MMA fan in any sense (no way he knows who Velasquez or JDS are) but is big into sports in general, and even he knows Jon Jones is awesome.
Not afraid to nitpick
on the surface it may seem that way.
but secretly you plot for their destruction.
"Many have the will to win. Few have to will to prepare to win."
" A black belt only covers 2 inches of your ass. The rest is up to you." - Royce Gracie
"Wanderlei eventually got to his feet and stalked Fujita like a Japanese octopus in an all-female prison." - Sean Baby Cracked.com
by the-gentle-way on Jul 12, 2011 1:36 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
It's not so much plot as predict/prepare for
Nate’s got this whole “Zuffa is the Roman Empire” thing going. The inevitability of collapse and whatnot. He’s either going to look like a genius when it all goes under or die insisting that it will eventually happen.
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are in a confederacy against him. - Jonathan Swift
Editor, HeadKickLegend.com
Still Subo at Fightlinker.com
by Derek Suboticki on Jul 12, 2011 1:38 AM EDT up reply actions
holy fuck........
Subo, I think your tin foil hat is cutting off the blood flow to your brain.
"Many have the will to win. Few have to will to prepare to win."
" A black belt only covers 2 inches of your ass. The rest is up to you." - Royce Gracie
"Wanderlei eventually got to his feet and stalked Fujita like a Japanese octopus in an all-female prison." - Sean Baby Cracked.com
by the-gentle-way on Jul 12, 2011 2:22 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions 3 recs
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero*
*stolen
Last of the hopeless fools
I think it’s curious to claim that the explosion in UFC’s popularity resulted from the success of the Ultimate Fighter… then got significant bumps from BrockLesner cards… so the key to their downward trend is the lack of Lesner.
The staleness of TUF and reality TV overall seems like a bigger problem than Lesner. Obviously difficulties with SpikeTV / ION TV / Versus… getting that sorted out and some kind of replacement for TUF which can bring in casual viewers again seems like a bigger priority.
Getting bent out of shape over a fight promoter lying is like getting upset that a hooker won't kiss you. It betrays a deep lack of understanding of the nature of the profession.
TUF built up the UFC and it's a huge reason they're going through this lull
Why the hell Amir Sadollah gets TV time every time he fights is beyond me.
Worth noting
is that the UFC put GSP, a natural built star who wasn’t drawing still, on two cards featuring Brock Lesnar. UFC 87 and UFC 100. Both of those dramatically upped his drawing power, giving him “the rub” if you will. GSP’s drawing ability skyrocketed after UFC 87 (feat. Brock Lesnar) to 900k+ for the Penn rematch at UFC 94, the two of them drew a record setting 1.6mil at UFC 100, and GSP has gone on to draw similar North American numbers to Pacquiao since then. 700ish against a non-contender (Clottey, Hardy) and a bit over a mil for tough but nonthreatening challengers (Koscheck, Margarito).
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
bj penn is also a superstar.
there match was bound for big numbers.
"Many have the will to win. Few have to will to prepare to win."
" A black belt only covers 2 inches of your ass. The rest is up to you." - Royce Gracie
"Wanderlei eventually got to his feet and stalked Fujita like a Japanese octopus in an all-female prison." - Sean Baby Cracked.com
by the-gentle-way on Jul 12, 2011 1:38 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
their.
"Many have the will to win. Few have to will to prepare to win."
" A black belt only covers 2 inches of your ass. The rest is up to you." - Royce Gracie
"Wanderlei eventually got to his feet and stalked Fujita like a Japanese octopus in an all-female prison." - Sean Baby Cracked.com
by the-gentle-way on Jul 12, 2011 1:43 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
The BJ Penn headlined (and totally fucking stacked) UFC 84 did 475k.
Barely over half of UFC 94 with a post-Brock GSP.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
wasnt that a
Foreign card?
My point was that fight helped propel him. That was the biggest fight in the UFC ever at the lighter weights. I think that fight did a lot for gsp.
"Many have the will to win. Few have to will to prepare to win."
" A black belt only covers 2 inches of your ass. The rest is up to you." - Royce Gracie
"Wanderlei eventually got to his feet and stalked Fujita like a Japanese octopus in an all-female prison." - Sean Baby Cracked.com
by the-gentle-way on Jul 12, 2011 2:02 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Both in Vegas.
Penn only did 225 against Stevenson before that. It was the Brock rob for GSP that let them sell UFC 94 for over 900k.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
i am sure it all helped.
Big fights make big stars was.
"Many have the will to win. Few have to will to prepare to win."
" A black belt only covers 2 inches of your ass. The rest is up to you." - Royce Gracie
"Wanderlei eventually got to his feet and stalked Fujita like a Japanese octopus in an all-female prison." - Sean Baby Cracked.com
by the-gentle-way on Jul 12, 2011 2:26 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Stevenson fight was from England though
Just FYI
"With gold thou boughtest Gýmir's daughter,
and so gavest away thy sword:
but when Muspell's sons through the dark forest ride,
thou, unhappy, wilt not have wherewith to fight."
~ Lokasenna
The absolute ass whipping he put on Jon Fitch at UFC 87 certainly didn't hurt his drawing ability
Follow Me On Twitter@KelvinHunt
UFC in Decline
There hasn’t been much mention of the recession which pretty well mirrors the UFC drop after UFC 66 with Brock putting lipstick on the pig (so to speak)
Also it would be interesting to tabulate numbers from Pride, WEC and Strikeforce considering they are all now folded into the UFC PPV’s where in the past they were pulling in incremental dollars
There hasn’t been much mention of the recession which pretty well mirrors the UFC drop after UFC 66 with Brock putting lipstick on the pig (so to speak)
I don’t think that analogy means what you think it means.
Also it would be interesting to tabulate numbers from Pride, WEC and Strikeforce considering they are all now folded into the UFC PPV’s where in the past they were pulling in incremental dollars
Pride died in 2007 before the recession kicked in hard for reasons completely unrelated to the economy (yakuza scandal → lost their tv deal → lost most of funding → folded).
WEC and Strikeforce are/were both free products with a grand total of one PPV between them. There is no trajectory to track.
Piracy is the big elephant in the room
I know for fact a that most of my friends, aged 19 to 24, have never payed for a UFC event in their life. They get the stream or just go to the bar.
I’ve only bought one, UFC 117 Silva vs Sonnen.
The UFC needs to get a TV deal and fast.
Well, that's EXACTLY the problem.
People are becoming less and less willing to pay for PPVs. I myself have probably only contributed (split among friends) to maybe three or four PPVs. I’ve NEVER paid full price. Why buy the cow when the internet/bar is giving the milk away for free? The PPVs are flat out not worth the money.
This is exactly why Bellator is poised for tremendous growth over the upcoming years and why Strikeforce grew so quickly. They deliver an exciting product for pennies on the dollar. With an easily digestible tournament format, potential dominance of WMMA should SF and the UFC eventually merge, as well as the only major MMA product providing free MMA on a consistent basis, they have all their ducks in a row, especially if they get a SPIKE deal. In other words, the UFC is leaving chips on the table.
On a side note, imagine if Bellator signs Marquardt and Falcao to their next MW tournament. Those are the type of power moves that got SF where they are today. Star Power!
by Grease S. Pieces on Jul 12, 2011 5:15 AM EDT up reply actions
The answer is fairly simple
The economic downturn is the best explanation for the decline in buys. Certainly not the only factor, but the main factor.
by MMA Fan, Ph.D on Jul 12, 2011 1:59 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
The economic downturn preceded their biggest years, so…no.
What's this war in the heart of nature? Why does nature vie with itself? The land contend with the sea? Is there an avenging power in nature? Not one power, but two?
by Kwisatz Haderach on Jul 12, 2011 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, the fact that 3 cards in a row, which are typically amongst the biggest of the year
got ‘spoiled’ so to speak.
I mean, start right off with UFC 125…originally it was going to have Aldo and Edgar defending their titles.
130 was going to have Edgar vs Maynard 3, which was quite an anticipated rematch.
131 was going to have Brock vs Dos Santos
Even 132 was initially going to have a more relevant co-main of Fitch vs Penn 2.
It will be very hard to rebound from this low point caused by the injuries and come back with the biggest year ever, but there will be a healthy rebound. UFC 133 probably won’t be a big event buyrate wise(PPVS should be exclusively headlined by title fights) but after that, the rest of the cards are quite stacked.
I mean, did you honestly expect the UFC buyrates to just keep increasing and increasing forever, there was always going to be a year of decline, eventually.
134 – Anderson Silva main event, Forrest Griffin co-main…the same combo that helped deliver a 750K buyrate for 126. Add on that it’s Silva vs Okami 2, so a bit of history, Griffin vs Shogun 2, which is a pretty big deal, and you have Nog vs Schaub on the card, which is a pretty big matchup name wise.
135 – Jon Jones vs Rampage, that’s a big main event, and Hughes vs Sanchez is a big co-main as well.
136 – Rumored at this point to have the likes of Aldo vs Florian, Edgar vs Maynard 3, Stann vs Sonnen, Guillard vs Lauzon, and Maia’s return as well. That is a HUGE card
137 – GSP vs Diaz, Condit vs Penn, enough said.
138 – Velasquez vs Dos Santos, that’s a huge fight, I’m sure the card will be rounded out nicely.
Then there will likely be a December PPV event as well…I’m sure it’ll have plenty of great fights on it.
This year will end with a ‘good’ amount of buyrates, it’s almost an impossibility for it to surpass last year…but all things considered, that doesn’t mean we are at the end of the era of success for the UFC. If anything once the 7 champions start getting into the groove and defending regularly and the big names from Strikeforce are eventually or gradually brought over…it’s only going to set up next year to be one of epic proportions.
Georges St-Pierre vs. Anderson Silva
you’ve sort-of inadvertently made the point that was brought up in the article. these are all good cards that preexisting MMA fans will be excited about, but none really have the explosive, crossover appeal promised by UFC 100. Jones/Rampage seems like the best contender, at least in terms of the quality mainstream press that both guys will get, but it won’t be anything close to any of brock’s fights.
by Trust Doesn't Rust on Jul 12, 2011 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions
I think personally all the cards you just mentioned are indeed going to be awesome, and every fight you list is one I am looking forward to. But I also recognize that I (and, I think, you fall into this category as well) am not an average casual fan. I’m not the kind of fan that boosts things up into that 1 mil category – I’m the one that makes up that 350,000 minimum. And a lot of your examples are going to only appeal to those 350 fans.
The return of Maia? Exciting, but will add no buys. Condit vs. Penn? AWESOME fight, no casual fan interest. Hughes vs. Sanchez – not sure if Hughes is a draw these days. And for 134, the comparison to 126 is somewhat valid, but I think people tend to overlook that fact that there is a contingent of casual fans out there who still care about guys like Vitor Belfort, and the Silva vs Belfort match up was much more appealing than Silva vs Okami.
What sells is big personality champions facing challengers that help drive fan interest. Strong, exciting match making is enough for me, but not to get them up to 1 mil buys. Which brings us back to the entire problem of being so PPV-centric.
Staff Writer - BloodyElbow.com
Follow me on Twitter: @FCoffeen
by Fraser Coffeen on Jul 12, 2011 6:42 AM EDT up reply actions
All of this is completely dependent on those fights actually happening. The entire summer was hit hard with the injury bug. So what happens if we have more injuries? The UFC isn’t going to cancel a PPV and run it a month later instead with the same main event because they’ll have booked the next three PPVs. Instead it will be another clusterfuck show no one cares about.
by VirtualBalboa on Jul 12, 2011 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Since the first PPV I’ve ever watched was UFC 100, I can speak as to the nature of a new fan trying to watch the UFC. Buying the PPV was kinda difficult, in the sense that I had to do a little bit of research on how it works. I had to first find my PPV channel by starting at 1 and scrolling til I found it. Thankfully on AT&T they’re in the 101-106 range. Its different from tv provider to tv provider. Then purchasing was just a tad scary, since I was paying for something that I’d never done before. I didn’t want to throw $45 out the window. It was interesting. I didn’t want to miss anything, but I wanted to make sure I was buying the right thing before. With all the options (regular, HD, en Espanol, and some package with weigh ins or a preshow or something) it wasn’t as straightforward as I’d like. These are all little things that prevents a potential new and/or casual fan from buying a PPV. I think the free TV model needs to be used, but does the UFC have incentive to leave PPV when they seem to be posting huge profits?
That and the fact that casuals don’t care about anyone not named Lesnar, GSP, or Liddell is really concerning.
"I have reached an age when, if someone tells me to wear socks, I don't have to."- Albert Einstein
I don’t think it is Brock involved in the decline, I just think the majority of people aren’t going to buy cards where the fighters are not promoted heavily.
Most casual fans have no idea who Dominick Cruz is, no idea who JDS is, maybe they know him from “that guy who beat up that fat guy”.
But the UFC really shoots itself in the foot when they put 110% into 3-5 stars and then 10% effort into everyone else.
They need to get rid of TuF and start a new show that promotes actively involved fighters.
Have a TuF like season 4, and bring a bunch of people already in the UFC onto a show and use it to explore those people, as opposed to bringing in 22 people onto a show or whatever the # is and then getting rid of 16 of them by the end of it and wasting all that effort.
It's just a world, it's just a life.
Mma has reached it's peak
Cmon, most fans are just jockin, most mma fans are American mainstream followers, I love combat sports, I never stopped watching boxing and it’s recent decline in main stream America, and Ive been watching the ufc since 1, I believe most fans dont appreciate the sport that mma and boxing are, most see it as a debate even though they are two different sports, I think the reason mma is popular right now becuz these dickheads realize that a mma fighter will beat a boxer in fight, therefore they wanna watch mma because boxing isn’t “real” fighting, well no shit the mma guy will win guys, it’s just most fans don’t know shit, they just follow anything that gets popular, I mean I talk to guys who’s first ufc they saw was in the 70s and they talk like they know everything and only watch a select few ppvs, the sport won’t grow with people watching 2 ppv a year which I believe most of the “fans” do, ask a casual fan who’s their favorite fighter and he or she will probably say the name of the current champions, I just don’t see the sport growing into what most fans want it to do, and really I don’t want it to grow anymore, most fans are posers and don’t care for the sport, they just wanna see knockouts
by antone04 on Jul 12, 2011 2:07 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
I would like to see the UFC's books
Revenue streams are: Live Gate, PPV, Merchandising, Sponsors, etc.
My guess is that the UFC is growing every year in inflation-adjusted dollar terms, even in this “Great Recession” which started at the end of 2007. My guess is that the UFC will continue to grow every year in inflation-adjusted dollar terms for at least the next decade. In short, my guess is that the UFC isn’t worried about the analysis contained in this post or any similar analyses.
The only substitute for victory is overkill.
Please break down these numbers!
i would like to see a corollary relationship between number of finishes on main card and again for main event with the decrease in ppv buys. It seams that in the hey day (the last four years) UFC events were great with main eventers going for finishes. Now it seams that main events are disappointing duds going for points where reshad holds on to someone. my group of friends (about 25 in and out over last 5 years I have watched every ppv) have pointed this out as a reason why they are sometimes not interested in watching “this months” ppv. UFC used to be able to sell the brand because everyone put on exciting fights, now one has to pick and choose which ppvs to purchase based on whether the main eventer will put on a good show or just grab and hold ALA Reshad.
And if you think these numbers are bad, wait for next ppv. Reshad vs. Blank a dude no one wants to see fight ever again vs a guy no one knows
Brock fans
Brock brought a lot of fans to the sport because he looked and acted like what people wanted an MMA fighter to look like. Big muscles, blond hair and blue eyes, trash talk, the whole nine. He fit the stereotype.
But he didn’t have the skills. He had the size/strength, but not the skills.
When Brock lost, the fans he had brought over didn’t say, “Wow, this sport is awesome! Anything can happen!” then stick around. Instead, when Brock lost, they changed the channel and moved onto the next fad.
by NoHo on Jul 12, 2011 4:02 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, I think the UFC is doing just fine…
As the article shows us, there are still a lot of casual fans that can be tapped into when they are appealed to correctly. Also, the numbers are solid for each show in the ‘shotgun’ style approach that the UFC now uses by having so many events per year. Brock definitely helped, but there’s still plenty of room to grow without him. If the TUF season with Brock showed us anything, it proved that casual fans tuning in solely for him, tuned out as soon as he wasn’t playing a cartoon character. We just need more crossover fighters & fighters who have polarizing prefight antics to get rating spikes from this subset of the viewing audience…it’s all about the proper promotion of narrative. MMA is on the rise, and the next ten years will be better than the last ten years.
"Good People drink good beer." -Hunter S. Thompson
Excellent post. sometimes, the numbers don’t lie.
I also believe the UFC is not recession proof _ which makes it all that more impressive that they were setting records in 2009 + 2010 when all other businesses were feeling the effects of the worst economic downturn since the great depression. I also believe that an ailing economy, 9.2% unemployment play some role in a down turn in the numbers. I am not saying the economy is the sole reason, I only stated that I believe it played “some” role.
Great post! I’m firmly a believer in the idea that they need to get away from the PPV model if they want to continue their growth, otherwise they will eventually decline just like boxing and pro-wrestling. It shouldn’t cost $50 a month to follow a sport.
I think their Average will be going up again.
They have a good streak coming with
134-Silva
135-Jones-Rampage
137-GSP-Diaz
138-Velazquez-JDS
But they won’t get to the level of 2009-2010.
I also think that the UFC reached it’s peak in the US,unless they’re able to get a network TV deal.
Their growing potential lies almost exclusively in foreign countries
Brock is probably going to be the biggest draw we will see in our lives. A lot of my friends said that GSP is just getting to boring and they won’t spend 50 bucks to watch him do nothing for 25 minutes. A lot of casual fans don’t know who Velazquez is. Even if you showed them what he did to Brock, people would still rather watch Brock. There’s just something about the guy that people want to watch. A lot of people I know hate Jones and don’t care to shell out 50 for his fights. And Anderson has never been a big draw by himself and never will be. If we truly want our sport to grow we need Lesnar. He draws the most eyeballs for whatever reason. And having him as champion couldn’t hurt.
by BrockLesnar Budlight on Jul 12, 2011 5:09 AM EDT reply actions
Heck, I’d still rather watch Brock, and I’m a huge MMA fan. Cain is a great fighter, but his personality is as flat as a pancake. It’s about time these start to realize they’ve got to do their part to hype up their fights. If everyone had Lesnar’s personality and Sonnen’s dedication to selling fights, every PPV would sell over one millions buys, all the fighters would be making a ton more money, the sport as a whole would grow even quicker (attracting better and better talent) and Anton would have a ton more work to do with his weekly column!
I would like to tear this apart, but there are a lot of good points in the article. I still think you’re over stating the problem though.
The injuries that have plagued the UFC have been quite bad. While the injury bug that decimated the UFC early in late 2009/early 2010 was concentrated in a short time period (UFCs 106, 108, and 109 were the only PPVs affected, with multiple main-event switches on some shows), there’ve been main events that have been canceled left and right this year throughout the calendar.
Furthermore, as has been brought up, it’s not like Brock Lesnar is never coming back. If he had the full surgery (that apparently he didn’t have earlier, since he’s only just now getting a full foot of his colon removed), then the chances of a recurrence is much lower. Can he carry the company on his back? I doubt it. But he’ll be back as a draw.
Clearly though, the UFC is having trouble converting casual fans into the hardcore fans that buy PPVs. Honestly I think the lack of high-prestige free cards that could lure in new viewers is the biggest issue here. When was the last time you saw a title defended on free television? Or a marquee match? Rampage vs. Hendo is the only one that comes to mind in fact. Obviously the UFC shouldn’t give away too many major matches for free or else they’ll be undermining their PPV offerings, but they still need to strike a balance and I think they’ve gone too far in putting all the major cards on PPV. So they have a really dedicated hardcore fanbase while the number of casual fans actually seems to be dwindling a bit. This is why I really hope wherever they end up next year that they end up being able to put programming (TUF + free cards) on a network that already draws at least the sort of viewership comparable to Spike TV. Casuals aren’t going to go out of their way to find something on a channel they may not even know exists.
I agree with you about the injuries, except it’s not like adding Penn/Fitch as co-main of UFC 132 would’ve moved the buyrate all that much, same for UFC 131 with Edgar/Maynard. Save for Penn, none of these guys have any name value. And Fitch nullifies any draw Penn would have, so yeah. So yeah, the last few PPVs have been plagued by injuries, but I still don’t think any of these cards would’ve done that well, the exception is UFC 130 in Vancouver that would have done great… with Lesnar on it!
Edgar/Maynard would have been a better selling headliner than Rampage/Hamill (and I love Hamill). Also keep in mind that Rampage was originally supposed to face Thiago Silva (which seemed like a sick match-up) and that didn’t happen either. Fitch/Penn II, after the draw, would have been good co-main. Fitch isn’t a negating factor, he just doesn’t add much on his own. Also, while it technically hasn’t happened yet, we’ve lost the 133 main with Jon Jones, which will impact that one severely. We also lost the UFC 125 co-main in Roy Nelson vs. Shane Carwin, which was a hell of a match-up at the time.
Edgar/Maynard did really bad for the new year’s show, there’s absolutely no reason to believe they would’ve done any better than Rampage/Hamill as a headliner.
Carwin has no impact on buys, we’ve seen that with UFC 130, and while UFC 133 would’ve done very well with Evans/Jones as its main, it’ll still do very good with Evans/Davis. Of these two, Evans is the bigger draw at the moment, not Jones, so losing Jones isn’t that big of a deal, really. It could easily be argued that the UFC is better off having Evans/Davis that will do well and then Jones/Rampage that will do very well too, rather than simply having Evans/Jones. Two great fights to sell is better than one great fight to sell.
Edgar/Maynard did really bad for the new year’s show, there’s absolutely no reason to believe they would’ve done any better than Rampage/Hamill as a headliner.
You mean it wouldn’t have done better than Rampage/Hamill when combined with it? Not to mention that everyone thought Maynard/Edgar II was going to suck and then it was amazing.
Carwin has no impact on buys, we’ve seen that with UFC 130
You could say he wouldn’t have had a large impact, but it’s quite silly to say he has no impact. You realize Lesnar vs. Carwin did better than Lesnar vs. Velasquez despite the latter having a much more stacked undercard, right? Then again it’s irritating to me in general when someone implies any fight has zero effect on a buyrate. Every undercard fight adds varying degrees of tipping point buys.
Of these two, Evans is the bigger draw at the moment, not Jones
This is completely nuts, sorry. Evans/Davis would have done about as well as Evans/Thiago (which did very poorly).
One of the big reasons for decline in numbers you note is the number of events we have access to per year. I was used to just one ppv/month. It was great to have one even that that I really looked forward to, There were always intriguing story lines, and there were always a couple of weeks of build-up. In short, fight night was an event. Now there’s so much, which is good, but I pass on many of them because there’s so much, I only choose the really good stories, or really intriguing matches, and not bother with the ones I knew wasn’t going to be exciting. I don’t think it’s as much Lesnar as it is competition.
my band
http://www.groggybikini.com
Good Effort but...
There are just to many variables to make an assumption like this. There have been tons of last minute injuries this year where the top drawing fighters could not compete at the event. The absorbtion of the WEC (while fights are more exciting) have resulted in a few fights on each card where not many people have heard of the fighters (making the card less appealing to casual fans). Just look how successful UFC 129 was (a card with no Brock Lesnar). The reason for the drop in PPV buys is simply because we have had fighters like Cruz, Hamill, Fitch headlining shows. People didn’t know who Dominick Cruz was, not that interested in Matt Hamill and know Fitch is a boring fighter.
So once again good job compiling all this, and congrats for putting it together so well but it just isn’t that easy.
Which top drawing fighters are you talking about? It’s not like GSP dropped out of a fight last minute recently.
I just stated how low drawing fighters were headlining (Fitch, Cruz, Hamill) and fights like Carwin coming in to fight Dos Santos, Hamill coming in to fight Rampage. Take a look at those PPV buys, they took a major hit due to this.
I suppose. But that’s also part of the premise of this whole post… save for Lesnar and maybe 2-3 guys per division, there aren’t a whole lot of great drawing guys in the UFC. My point was that losing main eventers such as Edgar/Maynard is not a huge loss for the UFC, those type of main events don’t draw a lot to start with.
Realistically they switched in Aaron Rosa (who? exactly) for Brock Lesnar. Carwin switched to JDS, Pee Wee switched to JOE and Rosa came in to fight Beltran.
Well, sure, if you put it that way… but the reality is that only the top 2-3 fights matter to sella card, and they went from having the best drawing fighter in the UFC (Lesnar) to a heavyweight that gassed out badly and half the fans don’t care about in Carwin. That show went from around a million buys to however they actually got because Lesnar was pulled out. Lesnar’s drawing power is undeniable.
It's more than just Brock
Sure, Brock Lesnar has been something of a promotional genious. He took his larger than life “Bad Guy” image and supposed superhuman physique from the WWE and brought a good many of their fans with him.
However, he is not the only reason for the downturn in PPVs:
1. The economy is lagging badly. With 9.2% UE, which probably is actually a real unemployment level of 20+%, that is a lot of people who are struggling to afford their homes and putting fuel in their cars, who must forgo their favorite sport beyond “free” events.
2. Big Headliners: Was anyone really that pumped about seeing Cruz/Faber batttle it out? Sure, they are great fighters but it wasn’t like if either one won or lost anyone would lose much sleep. The “larger than life” personalities of the UFC are somewhat lacking today—no Shamrock/Tito feud, no more “Captain America” Randy Couture, no more “Ice Man”. Big names and personalities make popular cards.
3. Undefeatable but often boring Champions. Anderson Silva comes out and clowns for the camera, rarely showing his early brilliance, yet he continues to win and who can defeat him? Nobody it seems. The same is true of GSP—a nice guy who wins and wins. They can try to say, “Fighter X has what it takes to eliminate GSP” but at this point few believe it.
Jon Jones is about the best chance the UFC has to have a new star with draw. And of course, Brock will most certainly be back, and hopefully he is the old Brock once again.
Meh, Couture was never a big draw. I agree about the Shamrock/Tito feud, and no more “Ice Man”, though. Definitely.
And your third point works for Silva as he’s still only a good draw and not a great draw, but GSP is currently the best drawing guy in the UFC (while Lesnar is sick, that is). It doesn’t matter that he appears undefeatable, that he’s a nice guy, etc, etc. He still draws, big time. One big drawback for Anderson is that he’s from Brazil and doesn’t speak very much english, that makes it hard for people to connect to him. Look at JDS, at least he’s doing interviews and promotes fights in english now, people can relate to him and appreciate him for the efforts he’s putting into it. Anderson appears as though he doesn’t care about the american/canadians fans, and that’s a problem.
Idk if its that Anderson doesnt care. I think Anderson has considered retirement for awhile now and doesn’t see the benefit of doing many English related interviews at this point. Honestly dont see Spider fighting past another 2 or 3 fights including the Okami fight. Jon Jones will be in a make or break battle with Rampage. Should he win like most of us expect he will become an instant superstar. A loss will put him on the back burner for awhile. UFC needs Evans and Jones to win to set up a huge rivalry.
by Spider_Vemon on Jul 12, 2011 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions
I didn’t say that Anderson doesn’t care, I said that it appears as though he doesn’t care. Besides, he’s been fighting in the UFC for 4-5 years now, shouldn’t he be a tad more comfortable to use his english without having to have Soares an inch from him by now? But whatever, it’s his loss really; he would’ve made a ton more money if he was more marketable and people cared more about him.
well because american fans of mma are shitty
theyre always booing, that pisses me off, none of the people booing have the balls to get in a cage or ring and fight
I also think the Ufc would be doing better numbers if the economy was not so bad
When I was collecting unemployment awhile back I could not afford to get the ppvs and Im sure I was not alone. Even now I have to watch which ones I get because I am afraid of losing my job and need to save some green.
Chael Sonnen is obviously trying his damnedest to make sure these numbers turn around upon his return.
Then again, he’ll have to work incredibly hard to try to build up some hype for his fight against mr. boring personality himself…
If anyone can do it it’s Sonnen. I can’t stand the guy but he is a promotional genius.
by Spider_Vemon on Jul 12, 2011 9:02 AM EDT up reply actions
I know it’s been said before, but I think we UFC needs formalized standings and an understandable way a fighter can move up and down in the rankings. I know we have the concensus rankings but I don’t think that’s something the most casual fan could look at and understand instantly. Why is that guy getting a title shot? I remember when I was getting into MLB and NFL when I was a little kid the first thing I looked at were the standings in the sports page and I could see instantly which teams were good, which were bad, and who would most likely be making the playoffs.
Most casual fans have no way of figuring out who the top contenders are without the UFC blantantly telling them. To a new MMA fan the way UFC decides title shots probably seems very arbitrary. Rampage defeats Hamil, who’s not even a top 10 fighter, and now he has a title shot against the number 1 guy, does that make sense? I realize comparing MMA to stick and ball sports is often like apples to oranges, but I think it’s apparent there’s a lack of structure, stats, and visibility that makes it unappealing to a lot of potential fans.
Opulence, I has it.
by Psychic Octopus on Jul 12, 2011 9:50 AM EDT reply actions
I agree with you're overall point that Brock was huge for the UFC, and they are experiencing a decline because of his illness, but i disagree with some things
First off, some of the PPV numbers i have seem to be different from the ones that you got from MMAPayout, but that’s not that big a deal.
You mentioned that if the UFC continued on the path that they were going 2011 was going to be their worst year in recent history, but i think its a little ridiculous to assume that shows like UFC 134, UFC 135, UFC 136, UFC 137 and UFC 138 won’t bump up PPV sales to about the same as the past two years.
I also disagree with the sentiment that the UFC has peaked in the US, and reached its plateau, in my opinion yes the UFC’s growth rate in the past few years won’t be replicated but that doesn’t mean that the UFC isn’t still growing. Yes the loss of brock is big, but the UFC will recover, and new stars will take his place.
Very nice analysis but
It happens in other sports from the Jordan era in basketball,Tiger Woods in Golf and others. I bet if you would analyze golf tournaments rating during the Woods reign to now you will see a sharp decline.The UFC is in also in a limbo right now with TV negotiations trying to find a new home that doesn’t help as well. I believe the UFC will bounce back from this rough stretch the sport is moving forward and will show great growth with a new TV deal.
While this was well written
It was based on almost embarrassingly weak statistical data. With an incomplete year, any bad luck the UFC had would schew the data massively.
So when a weak headliner as UFC resolution couldn’t carry a card, but delivered an epic Edgar vs Maynard battle, the UFC might not have gotten a lot of buys, but they sure will when we get their next fight, but we haven’t cashed in on that yet. An entire main event was cancelled, that drops buys. Another main event had to be switched around at the last minute to be headlined by a fighter coming off a high profile loss, that drops buys. Another main event was a weak australian card using a publicly boring fighter against a lightweight who had been embarassed by Frankie Edgar in recent memory. The 205 championship wasn’t contested with any draws, but that kind of high profile event will build Jon Jones into a more viable draw and with it more profits. Sure Faber vs Cruz was bad for a title fight, but it was also the most buys ever generated for a bantamweight title fight in history, how about that?
The only real draws that have fought so far are St Pierre, whose fight with Shields was a resounding success, and Rampage who didnt have a name opponent and was forced into the lime light late.
What about coming up in the full year? We have a stacked UFC Rio card, a massive GSP vs Diaz bout, Edgar vs Maynard 3 supported by a second title fight with the first ufc name to hit the 145 division plus Chael, a title fight with Rampage against the young destroyer, and the heavyweight championship of the world. Honestly, I expect this second half of the year to do big business, and you should as well.
You don’t have enough data to constitute a trend, never mind an era. The only viable trend I can see in all of your numbers is the one that you mentioned at the start of your article, that what you now consider a poor result is more than 5 times more the average ppv only a few years ago.
So when a weak headliner as UFC resolution couldn’t carry a card, but delivered an epic Edgar vs Maynard battle, the UFC might not have gotten a lot of buys, but they sure will when we get their next fight,
Nope.
UFC 130 had comparably low ticket sales, just like UFC 125.
The PPV buys wouldn’t have been much different with Edgar/Maynard 3 (which was advertised til 3 weeks before the Event)
You don’t have enough data to constitute a trend, never mind an era. The only viable trend I can see in all of your numbers is the one that you mentioned at the start of your article, that what you now consider a poor result is more than 5 times more the average ppv only a few years ago.
Rubbish. The 12 month moving average is clearly trending down, and even increasing at a decreasing rate would be viewed as a set back, and I can assure you it is internally.
However, as nottheface noted, the company is still in a great position as far as market dominance and profitability, it is simply the growth rate (more specifically the source of said growth) that needs addressing in a post-Brock future.
"Life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid." -John Wayne
Death before dishonor, drinks before lunch.
Never send sheep to kill a wolf.
by The American Ronin on Jul 12, 2011 5:10 PM EDT up reply actions
While the UFC clearly owns a vast majority of the pie,
they need to make the pie higher.
"Someone is WRONG on the internet. What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!"
-Randall Munroe
I've been talking a lot
especially lately about the UFC 91 bump. It’s plainly obvious 91 changed the game for a bit. I never did the research to figure out what brought the number back down, but I did suspect it was Brock related. Nice to see some data on that.
Kind of interesting to think what might have been if prime Chuck/Tito had been arounf during the Brock bump.
1. Anderson Silva is waiting for you to punch him.
2. That guy is Anderson Silva.
3. Don't fucking punch that guy.
it just went down to normal. Brock is an outlier. They could never see brock numbers again and it wouldn’t be a failure. If Brock never fights again and the UFC makes the same amount of money yearly, it was a success because they made a bunch of money. If he turned some new fans on and they can make a little more money, that’s even better.
If the average stays the same but they can have more cards, also good, because it means more money. The average number of PPV buys is a nice place to start, and of course they would like it to keep going up forever, but they aren’t going to be doing 1 million buys regularly. Of course the average is going to go down when you hit a period without a monster card.
Totally agree. That said, the more money they made with the Brock bump was pretty awesome. I’d like for them to be able to sustain something like that eventually and cash in on the US sport boom.
1. Anderson Silva is waiting for you to punch him.
2. That guy is Anderson Silva.
3. Don't fucking punch that guy.
by Chris Barton on Jul 12, 2011 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
they don’t need numbers that big to cash in on the boom. 1 million buys per event can’t and won’t happen very often. I don’t understand why it’s always an issue when the average for events that don’t involve brock is lower than a time period that does have a brock card. It’s not news or a problem, it’s common sense.
they don’t need numbers that big to cash in on the boom
Yea… I still agree here, I’m just of the philosophy that more money is always better than less money. I don’t think the UFC is in trouble in the least, they make money and are still going strong.
I just like more money.
1. Anderson Silva is waiting for you to punch him.
2. That guy is Anderson Silva.
3. Don't fucking punch that guy.
by Chris Barton on Jul 12, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Personally, I think UFC is oversaturating the market with the sheer amount of PPV's
The first PPV this year was UFC 125 on January 1 and the last PPV was UFC 132 on July 2. In that six month period, there were 8 PPV’s. That’s too many.
First and foremost, I’m not going to want to spend $440 (at $55 per event) in six months or even $880 over the course of the year. So far, there are 8 more PPV’s scheduled up until 12/10/11 and UFC is likely trying to squeeze one more PPV by the end of the year or on New Year’s again. So for 2011, that would be 17 PPV’s! I think 12 PPV’s per year should be the max.
Second, with all of the fighters pulling out of fights due to injuries, I feel like the quality of the fighters in the PPV’s has been diluted. With less PPV’s, the cards get stacked and it won’t take as much shine off a PPV when BJ and Fitch pull out of their fight to leave Cruz and Faber as the main event. UFC is stacking UFC 134 in Brazil to make it a huge event, but I feel like every PPV should be scheduled like this.
Finally, skipping PPV’s only reinforces to me that I don’t have to see most events. I can just read the recaps later, watch the highlights on MMA Live, or forget about it until they show the fight on UFC Unleashed.
Maybe Dana and the Fertitta brothers don’t care so much about the downward trend of PPV buys because the higher volume of PPV’s brings in more money at the end of the year? Or they’re having events once every three weeks because it’s another way for UFC to keep people talking about them?
I just know for me the increased number of PPV’s devalues the significance of each event and I’ve reached the tipping point where I don’t feel like I need to shell out $55 for most PPV’s.
this is exactly my position
I don’t mind buying PPVs. I buy the PPV’s, my friends bring the drinks and order pizza, I don’t have to get a babysitter, so it’s no more expensive than a normal night out for me if I have a good crew. But with more than one PPV per month, plus some free cards scattered in, a UFC is not an awaited event, it’s a relentless stream. Which is cool, except that to fill these cards, we end up with cards that have a less-than-compelling lineup. So now I can’t get my friends to come over and bring me offerings. So it would be me, by myself, shelling out $50 to watch a card by myself. Screw that. Now I gotta either go to a bar to watch it, or just catch the recaps/replays/highlights. PPV fatigue is a real issue.
To me, 1 ppv per month is probably about the max, more than that and I start skipping one or two. Ideally it’d probably be 10 ppvs, and maybe 3-4 free cards.
One thing that really struck me was ufc 66 was only in 2006. From late 1993 to late 2006, 13 years to get to #66. To double that number took less than 5 years with UFC 132 in mid 2011. At some point the frequency of PPV has to level off.
I consider myself a softcore fan.
I think me might see more of a change
When the UFC sorts out its TV deal situation. Maybe a lucrative deal on premium cable like showtime or HBO would mean a lot more free* cards and then ppvs would be scaled back.
yeah. And I don’t mind waiting around a bit for that to happen. But I think they have hit a a plateau with PPV. This is about as big as it’ll get on the PPV model. You can’t sell much more than 1 per month, even to hardcore followers of the sport. They can either keep doing what they’re doing, and try to grow by opening up other markets, or they can start migrating to free or free-ish TV.
I consider myself a softcore fan.
Never been a big Brock fan, but is impact for the UFC has been very positive.
I doubt, even if he returns, that he’ll be a force again. At a minimum, his aura is gone. At worst, he’s too ill to compete again.
@scb0212
The Machiavellian.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better. -Samuel Beckett
by Scott C. Broussard on Jul 12, 2011 1:48 PM EDT reply actions
Hey nottheface
How bout you do a FanPost that doesn’t depress me
You know what, chris81203? You confuse and infuriate me. - James Brady (Ninjames)
Most of the time I am a rather quiet fellow, who likes to read about Philosophy, Mathematics and History, but like most people I also have a deep appreciation of sex and violence... - John Danaher
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
