On Sun, 11/15/09, at 7:20:03PM,
Marcello <Marcello at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote:

You also missed the point, since you want the UFC to pay more for
fighters
but want them to charge less at the same time.


You're an idiot. Did you ever pay to watch Leno or Letterman?

"James L. Hankins" <jhankins5 at (no spam) cox.net> wrote in message
news:MOjMm.34325$Xf2.10933 at (no spam) newsfe12.iad...

"yugffuts" <tomcariello at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9f40311c-38e1-495e-881a-f4408d8b7ef3 at (no spam) p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...



Invalid is comparing the UFC to Jay Leno, so I'll stick with
that...Google shows that Jay earns anywhere from $15 to $30M per
year. We'll assume that's for his TV show alone, and I'll stick with
the highest figure.


No, he's comparing PPV vs. free television. What Jay Leno or any other
individual entertainer or on-air talent makes is not relevant to
anything.



$30M per year. His show is on 5 days a week. There are 260 weekdays
in a year (give or take - subtract for days off as you see fit). That
means he makes $115K per episode. Each episode is 1 hour, and can
sell 15 minutes of advertising. That's 65 hours or advertising time
over the course of the year. Or, $4K per 30 second spot to pay Jay's
salary. Granted, that doesn't pay the other talent, producers,
cameramen, etc...but I also used the high end estimate of salary, so I
would think it evens out.
Now lets look at UFC 104. Disclosed FIGHTER payroll is $922,000.
Again, that's before promotion, on air talent (rogan/Goldberg), camera
men, etc. Just fighters. And is before bonuses are awarded.
http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=9873&zoneid=4
You really want to apply that model to the UFC? An entity that runs
maybe 2-3 shows a months, 3 hours each. Roughly 45 minutes of
advertisements per 3 hour event, and as a live sporting event, that
time isn't guaranteed. Assuming the 104 salary, and 3 events per
month, that would be a Fighter payout of $33M over the course of a
year. That would be 27 hours of advertising over the course of the
year. Or, $10K per 30 second spot.

You see how that doesn't work?


Doesn't work for who? The network or for Dana White and the UFC?

The Invalid's point (and I can be corrected on this) is that
advertiser-based television might be an alternative to PPV. I don't
think it's out of the question.


And UFC 104 (Shogun-Machida) isn't even a particularly high payout for an
event. For example, UFC 102
had a payout over 1.5M.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/245795-punchouts-and-payouts-ufc-102-salary-info-released
No problem, though. We'll just sell our ads for more money, right?
And we'll figure out a way to increase the fighter salary at the same
time.


Does it work for the NFL? The poster before asked why isn't the
Superbowl on PPV. That's an interesting question.

NFL surely reaches a huge audience, thus attracts lots of advertising etc.
I would suggest as a sport MMA still has an underground "fight club" image
and has nowhere near the same audience and ability to attact advertisers
in comparison.
PPV is usually because its the better source of revenue.

The Invalid's point (and I can be corrected on this) is that
advertiser-based television might be an alternative to PPV. I don't think
it's out of the question.

"James L. Hankins" <jhankins5 at (no spam) cox.net> wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009:
The "business philosophy" is which one makes the most money for the
person/entity in charge;

Of course, of course. But I was asking what factors make some sporting
events more profitable on PPV, while others are more profitable on (free)
broadcast TV.

It ain't rocket science.

Oh, but you haven't yet figured out why most (but not all!) UFC events
are PPV events. Especially the biggest ones. Yes, surely it makes them
more money. But why is that? Why wouldn't the Superbowl make more
money as a PPV?

But what's your point? Just asking a bunch of rhetorical questions like
you're giving a lecture doesn't address or undermine the point The
Invalid
made in response to the previous poster.

The original (inane) point was that the UFC "should" both pay their
fighters more, and also put their shows on for free (to the viewer).
Not because this was good business; apparently instead out of some
notion that the UFC must be a kind of charity, putting on MMA shows for
the good of the world.

I was just pointing out that asking a business to both reduce revenue
and also increase costs, as a choice, is kind of stupid.

It's also worth noting that there have been a whole bunch of other
organizations that have tried to put on MMA shows in the US (Extreme
Fighting, MARS, EliteXC, etc.) and pretty much -- aside from the UFC --
they've all quickly gone bankrupt. And it's not just a first-mover
thing; the UFC wasn't all that important either, until Dana White took
over. Whatever you might think of the man, he's clearly MUCH better at
making business decisions than anybody else in the business.

Anyway, the answer to the PPV vs. free TV thing has to do with the
audience. Ad-supported TV works for events that have broad-based appeal
in the public. You need a whole lot of people who want to watch. They
don't have to care too much individually, but just enough to tune in.
Then you sell their attention to advertisers. That works for Seinfeld
and the Superbowl.

Events like MMA have only a tiny audience ... but one that cares very
much. MMA is a long, long way from broad-based public appeal. But for
those few who are interested, they're _so_ interested that they're
willing to pay for it. Hence, a PPV model is viable. Ad-supported
shows (TUF, Fight Nights) can work, but only if you cut salaries WAY
down. Given MMA audiences, you'll never get the $100K+ fighter salaries
without PPV. It's simply the case that not enough people choose to
watch these things, as everybody who tries it finds out.

That's why the OP was stupid to demand both higher fighter salaries and
also free TV. That's the path to corporate bankruptcy, as a bunch of
organizations have already discovered.

You guys are making it way too complicated. The UFC earns predominantly
via PPV because it has not yet reached a capacity attractive enough for
any network to offer it a deal to match those earnings. CBS is paying
Strikeforce a lot less than they would have to pay the UFC. There will be
a point where the UFC can generate so big an audience to make it
worthwhile for a network to offer more money than the UFC is currently
earning in PPV dollars, but as of yet, that has not happened. If the UFC
keeps on growing, there is no reason to think it won't, and that will be a
great day for everyone, fighters, fans, the Network, and the UFC (maybe
not for invalid though who is clearly too emotionally wrapped up in his
unfounded hatred towards the UFC.

"Marcello" <Marcello at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote in message
news:HpoMm.12219$Sw5.9714 at (no spam) newsfe16.iad...

You guys are making it way too complicated. The UFC earns predominantly
via PPV because it has not yet reached a capacity attractive enough for
any network to offer it a deal to match those earnings. CBS is paying
Strikeforce a lot less than they would have to pay the UFC. There will
be a point where the UFC can generate so big an audience to make it
worthwhile for a network to offer more money than the UFC is currently
earning in PPV dollars, but as of yet, that has not happened. If the UFC
keeps on growing, there is no reason to think it won't, and that will be
a great day for everyone, fighters, fans, the Network, and the UFC (maybe
not for invalid though who is clearly too emotionally wrapped up in his
unfounded hatred towards the UFC.


That's exactly right. But the criticism by Geddis was that such a notion
is ludicrous for the UFC, which I think doesn't give White enough credit.
He's getting there.

"Marcello" <Marcello at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote in message
news:HpoMm.12219$Sw5.9714 at (no spam) newsfe16.iad...
The UFC earns predominantly via PPV because it has not yet reached a
capacity attractive enough for any network to offer it a deal to
match those earnings.

There will be a point where the UFC can generate so big an audience
to make it worthwhile for a network to offer more money than the UFC
is currently earning in PPV dollars, but as of yet, that has not
happened.

If the UFC keeps on growing, there is no reason to think it won't,
and that will be a great day for everyone, fighters, fans, the
Network, and the UFC (maybe not for invalid though who is clearly too
emotionally wrapped up in his unfounded hatred towards the UFC.

That's exactly right. But the criticism by Geddis was that such a notion is
ludicrous for the UFC, which I think doesn't give White enough credit. He's
getting there.

On Mon, 11/16/09, at 2:48:48PM,

yugffuts <tomcarie... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
No problem, though. We'll just sell our ads for more money, right?
And we'll figure out a way to increase the fighter salary at the same
time.

Does the "gate" include the pay-per-view earnings, or is that
just from those who attend the event? For example, UFC 66 had a
$5,397,300 gate. UFC 100 had $5.1 million. Throw in T-shirt and
other sales, etc.

"James L. Hankins" <jhankins5 at (no spam) cox.net> wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009:
"Marcello" <Marcello at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote in message
news:HpoMm.12219$Sw5.9714 at (no spam) newsfe16.iad...
The UFC earns predominantly via PPV because it has not yet reached a
capacity attractive enough for any network to offer it a deal to
match those earnings.

Right. That's what I said too.

There will be a point where the UFC can generate so big an audience
to make it worthwhile for a network to offer more money than the UFC
is currently earning in PPV dollars, but as of yet, that has not
happened.

Exactly. The audience (today) is too small for network TV, but yet is
passionate enough to make a PPV business model lucrative.

If the UFC keeps on growing, there is no reason to think it won't,
and that will be a great day for everyone, fighters, fans, the
Network, and the UFC (maybe not for invalid though who is clearly too
emotionally wrapped up in his unfounded hatred towards the UFC.

Sure. Lots of things might happen in the future.

That's exactly right. But the criticism by Geddis was that such a notion
is
ludicrous for the UFC, which I think doesn't give White enough credit.
He's
getting there.

You didn't read (or didn't understand) what I wrote.

You didn't read (or didn't understand) what I wrote.

I was explaining why the UFC switching from PPV to network TV would be a
stupid idea today.

What might happen in the future is a whole different discussion. But
we're not there yet.

"Marcello" <Marcello at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote in message
news:J8rMm.35219$de6.23203 at (no spam) newsfe21.iad...


Geddis lacks an understanding of history. There was a time when boxing
was not PPV and was on free. MMA has all the potential to reach the
heights of boxing's heyday. My feeling is that the UFC can model its
events after the manner in which the PGA is operated. The PGA affords a
lot more money to its athletes than the UFC does to its, so there is a
lot of room in-between. The UFC is able to reach about 1 million in PPV
buys, and I bet it would reach at least 10 times that regularity if it
was free, and that is by today's standards. The sport is growing
steadily, who knows how big it will be in 10 years.



Boxing is an excellent analogy in this case, and I agree fully. TUF and
the other MMA shows on free television are laying the groundwork even as
we speak.

"Mhoram" <SRD at (no spam) WGW.NET> wrote in message
news:he2b96$55q$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
"James L. Hankins" <jhankins5 at (no spam) cox.net> wrote in message
news:qezMm.17670$cd7.17295 at (no spam) newsfe04.iad...

"Marcello" <Marcello at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote in message
news:J8rMm.35219$de6.23203 at (no spam) newsfe21.iad...


Geddis lacks an understanding of history. There was a time when boxing
was not PPV and was on free. MMA has all the potential to reach the
heights of boxing's heyday. My feeling is that the UFC can model its
events after the manner in which the PGA is operated. The PGA affords
a lot more money to its athletes than the UFC does to its, so there is
a lot of room in-between. The UFC is able to reach about 1 million in
PPV buys, and I bet it would reach at least 10 times that regularity if
it was free, and that is by today's standards. The sport is growing
steadily, who knows how big it will be in 10 years.



Boxing is an excellent analogy in this case, and I agree fully. TUF and
the other MMA shows on free television are laying the groundwork even as
we speak.



I think the easiest explanation is that Dana White wants to be Vince
McMahon no matter how much he denounces wrestling. Free TV shows with a
PPV almost every month. That plus squashing unions, being obnoxious, a
reality show, and having two fighters posture in the ring after a fight
for their upcoming match among others... And you know damn well we're
only a few PPV's away from Yamasaki getting accidentally knocked out so
one of the fighters can cheat for the win.

and tell me there is any difference whatsoever between Goldberg and Cole
announcing.
gee you know.. you could be right...

OR... almost everything you just said (bar the ref being ko'd) are good
sales tactics for the product.... gee I just can't work it out....

"rollman" <rollinsh at (no spam) hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b050555$1 at (no spam) dnews.tpgi.com.au...

"Mhoram" <SRD at (no spam) WGW.NET> wrote in message
news:he2b96$55q$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
"James L. Hankins" <jhankins5 at (no spam) cox.net> wrote in message
news:qezMm.17670$cd7.17295 at (no spam) newsfe04.iad...

"Marcello" <Marcello at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote in message
news:J8rMm.35219$de6.23203 at (no spam) newsfe21.iad...


Geddis lacks an understanding of history. There was a time when
boxing was not PPV and was on free. MMA has all the potential to
reach the heights of boxing's heyday. My feeling is that the UFC can
model its events after the manner in which the PGA is operated. The
PGA affords a lot more money to its athletes than the UFC does to its,
so there is a lot of room in-between. The UFC is able to reach about 1
million in PPV buys, and I bet it would reach at least 10 times that
regularity if it was free, and that is by today's standards. The
sport is growing steadily, who knows how big it will be in 10 years.



Boxing is an excellent analogy in this case, and I agree fully. TUF
and the other MMA shows on free television are laying the groundwork
even as we speak.



I think the easiest explanation is that Dana White wants to be Vince
McMahon no matter how much he denounces wrestling. Free TV shows with a
PPV almost every month. That plus squashing unions, being obnoxious, a
reality show, and having two fighters posture in the ring after a fight
for their upcoming match among others... And you know damn well we're
only a few PPV's away from Yamasaki getting accidentally knocked out so
one of the fighters can cheat for the win.

and tell me there is any difference whatsoever between Goldberg and Cole
announcing.
gee you know.. you could be right...

OR... almost everything you just said (bar the ref being ko'd) are good
sales tactics for the product.... gee I just can't work it out....









I don't want to live in a world that considers Goldberg's announcing to be
a good sales tactic.