Haye v Fury on PPV -

The mistake you make is in ignoring the financial side of the sport. TV ratings are great and hugely important but if that doesn't translate into financial gain, they're irrelevant. Fury was watched seen by 3 million people when he fought Chisora and yet several fights later, he was boxing in Somerset because those TV ratings didn't translate into long term financial gain. Compare that to Froch tonight; he might be seen by, say, 200,000 people but because of the ticket prices, PPV money, international rights and advertising rights, Froch being watched by far fewer people is better for boxing in the long term than the Fury fight was.

I think you need a balance of free shows with the occasional PPV. Too many PPVs are a bad thing but there is definitely a place for it in the sport. The more PPVs there are, the more exposure the sport gets in the mainstream and thats why PPV is beneficial. The fact that Froch/Kessler II is all over the news is great for the sport at that high level, all the way down to small hall shows.

Like I said last night, if you could get the same level of exposure without PPV then that'd be brilliant but Sky aren't going to fund a massive promotion of an event if they don't stand to make a profit from it. It'd be nice but it's childish optimism. If boxing can be profitable for Sky, like the Hatton/Mayweather fight was, then they're obviously going to promote it as much as they can and that's what boxing needs.

The greatest move by any promoter in history was to put on PPV shows. It limited the audience, which you think is a bad move, and yet it was the turning point between success and going out of business.

 

You asserted that Haye 'never has been an exciting fighter, especially at heavyweight'. I responded by listing four fights which could reasonably be described as 'exciting'.

You never said anything about the quality of the opposition. Furthermore, Barrett and Ruiz were perfectably reasonable opponents for his 2nd & 3rd fights at the weight.

 

If lots of people pay good money to see a PPV fight it means they are interested.
It doesn't matter how 'well-marketed' a product is, unless there's a demand/interest in the product no one will buy it.

I don't know what you mean by people 'picking up the sport' ... or the method of your survey.
I do know Calzaghe-Lacy was a great showing, whereas Haye-Valuev was pathetic.

Making money is the bottom line. Packing stadiums, selling PPV, or selling to commercial TV broadcasters ... it all figures the same.
PPV has survived because there are enough fans - hardcore or casual - willing to pay to watch big fights. There are popular fighters who attract the money

 

PPV, as part of a long-term strategy, would be fine. But it should only be used for once in a lifetime events. So, Hatton-Mayweather, Hatton-Pacquiao, Lewis-Holyfield, etc.

There were big, meaningful fights with massive public names. The reason people got so pissed off with PPV was because it was so clearly designed to line the pockets of the few, rather than put on an event that was worthy of it.

Certainly, a massive PPV points to the health of the industry. But PPVs themselves, especially when it's a major fight, are not a good thing for the growth of the sport. They restrict the amount of people that could be converted into fans through exciting, competitive, well-promoted matches.

You keep making this point and it's complete garbage, Jack. In no objective world can having more restricted view events increase the popularity of an event. It's a contradiction in terms. Awareness counts for nothing if you aren't converting it into sales.

Even if this fight does, say 300,000 views, what will it have done for the sport? Nothing in terms of growing the sport's audience. That's fine when a fighter is at a stage where they transcend the sport, as with Hatton and Haye, but not for a B-list celebrity like Froch. You can keep repeating the same nonsensical point if you like, but it doesn't make it any more true.

Anyone can make a short-term profit fleecing their customers for extras, etc. But they will get tired and they will move on.

 

If you continue to sell to smaller and smaller audiences, you are not growing the sport, even if you're making a profit.

You grow a business by attracting more customers, not exploiting the ones you have to pay more.

 

Interesting points.
Also, some of the greatest championship fights in boxing history were measured simply by the 'live gate'. Before television (or with a TV black out), and the cinema reels were just an aside.
No one will say boxing wasn't in a healthy state in the 1920s and 1930s, but most fans didn't even get to see the big fights because it was limited to live gate.

PPV tends to bridge the gulf between pure live gate and TV broadcast saturation.

 

But who's saying the PPV providers continue to sell to smaller and smaller audiences ?
Haye v Fury could probably be the biggest PPV audience for a all-Brit affair in a very long time.
But then, if it sells huge numbers, you fall back on the line. 'proves nothing, it was just well-marketed' .

Obviously, on free broadcast TV more people will watch the fight. But you could just as easily say, 'proves nothing, they only watched because it's free' ... I mean, people watching boxing on ITV or CH5 on a Saturday night, they aren't really 'customers' at all.

 

Should never be PPV, not even a title fight. One is a former champ coming out of retirement who already missed one fight cause of injury, the other is barely European level.

 

the only rreason that this is PPV is because they have over inflated purses and we must be taxed for that very reason.

If nobody paid the SKY wouldnt run it and it would be on the free channel.

So stop buying them is the best advice.

 

I apply a simple rule. True PPV fights sell themselves. But, what Jack contends runs counter to every proven model out there. HBO dropped the number of PPVs it ran because it was returning lower and lower returns. And, by and large, it has tried to only build PPVs around stars that are established, where they drive interest regardless of the platform.

Your customer point is stretching it. It might be free to access, but you are paying for it by watching ads. If the product is of no interest to you, you won't watch and advertisers fall off.

You can't deny that less people watch boxing when it's on Sky. The numbers prove it.

I have never known a single mainstream industry that has prospered long-term by selling to a smaller potential audience.

 

You shouldn't have to advise people to stop buying.
The only people who buy boxing PPV are the people who want to buy boxing PPV.
People who are willing to pay, pay.
People who are unwilling to pay, don't pay.
That's how it works.

In fact, PPV probably gets LESS people than are willing to pay for it, because many people don't have even the basic satellite package (over £20 a month) to access the PPV packages.

The 'inflated purses' followed the PPV, it's not the other way round.
Boxers receives what the market forces provide.

 

Good post.

Explained your case very well and makes sense. Unfortunately PPV's is the only time nowadays where SKY really give publicity to boxing whether it's through their television division or their affiliated media empire like The Scum newspaper.

 

Well, of course, I'm not arguing that ALL boxing should be PPV.
And generally I think most aspiring boxers expect to fight their way up to PPV level.

The market forces will work this all out.
If the cinema industry and football are surviving and thriving, then I'd say boxing's doing okay.

 

Haye - Fury

 

Haye's hand injury is about as real as the one on his back vs Wlad.