March 9th Wembley card only does 63,000 viwers

Fair comment not terrestrial friendly though was it

 

Think this weekend will have done well, a lot of casuals I've spoke to watched it. All naturally dislike Bellew after it but most thought he won (sky's commentary probs)

 

#1. Is a general problem, for both terrestial TV & subscription channel.
#2. Isnt a deal breaker, can always show highlights of an undercard fight, or more studio punditry etc.
#3. Not sure what you mean by 'cost per viewer'. Channel Five ratings for Fury were from 3million to 1 million. Benn, Eubank, Watson was probably treble that numbers.
#4. True. Again, in the days of Eubank, Benn et al, they obviously got enough revenue from somewhere to put these fights on terrestial TV, i.e. overseas rights etc.
#5. Agree. I think domestic TV needs a great domestic rivalry, a mix of big characters, TV friendly action style and name recognition (i.e. Olympics).

I would add two more issues:

#6. Boxing has been given that many 'black eyes' down the years with awful decisions, mismatches, big fights not happening & has the baggage of being known as 'red light sport' that some TV executives simply do not have the stomach for boxing, or inclination to open an ear to a convincing proposal.

7. PPV, boxers purses & loyalty of star fighters (built up on terrestial TV). Problem is that in the era of PPV, when these fighters get to a certain level, they are looking for PPV purses. It wasnt a problem in the era of Benn, Eubank et al, as it wasnt available, how damaging was the launch of PPV boxing in the UK to the longevity of boxing on terrestial TV? How do you bring over a big fighter from the States etc to fight the British guy for a world title and afford to show it on terrestial TV? Is it possible? And if not, what is the niche in the boxing market (these days) for terrestial TV?

 

Agree.

A lot of risk involved for a terrestrial channel.

 

No, just provoking discussion. Most of the challenges of televising boxing are shared by terrestial and subscription channels. I think if the quality of the product (TV friendly fighters, matchmaking etc) is there, then terrestial TV is onto a winner with boxing (and vice versa).

But, what happens when say, you want to show Groves-Degale 2 on terrestial TV - is the money there to do it? Apparently the money wasnt there to put it on Sky Sports 1 and they 'had to' put it on PPV to show it. These are the kind of fights that should be on terrestial TV, but is there enough money (assuming everything else is agreeable with a TV exec) available to put them on i.e. sponsorship, advertising, overseas rights etc. I think (I could be niave in saying this), if they could put these type of fights on during the Benn, Eubank era, why couldnt we see a fight like Groves-Degale 2 on terrestial TV today?

 

It's actually pretty straightforward - ITV have a single terrestrial channel and if they go large on boxing that's effectively their entire Saturday night prime time viewing sewn up. If the planned fight/card isn't as advertised come fight night or it turns out to be a stinker of Harrison v Williams proportions then that's it until next Saturday. Same thing happens on Sky and they have 5 other sports channels showing something that the disappointed boxing audience is potentially going to switch over to. A multi channel subscription driven sports network is able to accommodate the nonsense associated with boxing far easier than an advertising revenue based provider of a single terrestrial channel.

 

Very interesting and from the perspective of a TV executive it must be a very sore loss if there is a stinker or last minute withdrawal on Saturday night primetime. Plus, as you allude to the advertisers that are drawn for this will not be happy either, especially if viewing figures fall. Still there are lessons to be learned from the past, no more golden handcuffs contracts to amateur stars who have just turned pro and are building a padded record on terrestial TV (i.e. Harrison), or building up prospects on light touch opponents (i.e. Bruno - BBC). Terrestial TV needs ready made fighters who are ready for intriguing fights, that have personality, a domestic rival etc.... And, if they are selecting three or four potential fights, we are talking about the likes of ITV dipping their toes in top class boxing three or four times per year, so the other 48 or 49 Saturday's are untouched.

Still, I am drawing on the Benn, Eubank era, surely that was a big success for ITV.

Could Groves and Degale not fight twice on terrestial TV, and a year later the likes of Eubank Jr joins the mix. There are plenty of ingredients to help market this to a big terrestial TV audience. The Eubank name, Degale gold medal, Groves = Degale's big rival, Degale & Eubank have beef etc - it is an intriguing mix. Seemingly opportunities are there to exploit, I dont think Groves is tied down to a long term contract, Degale is in limbo with C5, as is Eubank Jr. Then if you look at Fury and David Price, they both seem to be available and that is a potential big heavyweight fight that could be subcontracted to terrestial TV. Outside of Frampton-Quigg, these are some of the biggest boxing matches that can be made and there are not huge barriers in terms of accessing these fighters to make the match ups.

Get these guys onto the talk shows on terrestial TV, the same way that Benn & Eubank etc, to build up the fights. If this is a success in terms of the fights get made, they are good fights, great viewing figures etc, is it sustainable to become a platform for world title fights and defences? Assuming an executive is willing to take a punt on this, is there a business model on terrestial TV (in this era) to make this happen?

 

I dont understand why there would be more money PPV. (People say it like its garuanteed).. What happens if nobody buys the ****ing thing?

Surly there is a risk to reward here?

 

I think the Froch-Kessler PPV will do very low numbers. Froch did very low numbers on Primetime. He has not had the same amount of exposure as the likes of Haye or Khan and will not cross over to the casual fan.

Terrestial TV and Sky could help each other out a lot by incentivised collaboration.

The Groves, Degale, Eubank Jr fights that could happen over the next 12 - 18 months could lead to a mega fight with Froch on PPV on Sky. Why could Sky not work with someone like ITV, to show the Groves, Degale fights on ITV and use this platform to promote their Froch PPVs, with the ultimate plan that one of the fighters takes on Froch in a PPV. At first glance this sounds ridiculous for Sky to use their expertise to run a handful of shows on ITV, but they could promote their subscription channel and other events on terrestial TV during Saturday night primetime TV audiences and build terrestial TV cross over stars that will be moved to PPV when the time is right. Sky could professionalise and lessen some of the risk for an ITV executive and in return put money (viewers) in the bank for follow on PPVs. There could be an agreed revenue split once the PPV goes over xx buys. And at the same time, Sky also have an outlet for these fights, that are not PPV, but are beyond their normal Sky Sport 1 budget.

If Sky don't do something like this, I expect Boxnation to try something similar, particularly with the arrival of BT Sport. Sky should adopt a defensive strategy like this before BT Sport has a chance to put their teeth into the boxing market. The one promoter monopoly and watch and see approach from Sky seems a bit reactionary, a savvy competitor could come in and exploit these opportunities, leaving Sky with one promoter will a large stable of largely unknown prospects.

They are not going to build Froch into a big PPV star with piddly audiences of 60-100k on their subscription channel. And who is next onto the PPV conveyor belt after Froch? No one.

 

Fuk all these long posts why is no one mentioning ant and decs saturday nights take away is finishing