Haymon and PBC in trouble?

He couldn't get advertiser's to pay top dollar last year because there was absolutely no base line to determine how much anyone should be charging.

He was on channels with wildly different numbers of viewers. Boxing hadn't been on network television for A GENERATION. They needed a baseline for each network, because they'd have to charge different amounts on each.

You'll see advertisers coming in this year. Count the advertisers in the March broadcast with Thurman and Porter.

 

Doesn't attract viewers?

A year and a half ago, before the PBC, Friday Night Fights averaged 300,000 viewers. And that was UP over previous years.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...-up-2015-season-to-include-return-of-boxcino/

What were those compared to Dateline Friday, Barchman?

Yes, those 2 million to 3 million in viewers sucks. Let's get back to that core 300,000.

Stop.

 

Nice "cherry pick"-are you related to Garcia by any chance?Look at the OVERALL ratings for this fiasco and you would realize that ratings are in the toilet.
So tell me,how much do the advertisers(when PBC actually has some) pay for this garbage?

 

You couldn't be more wrong. Particularly in sports. The advertisers want to reach their audience.

If 5 million people watch one show, and 2 million watch another, and only 1 million people in your target audience is watching the show with 5 million viewers, and 1.5 million of your target audience is watching the show with 2 million viewers ... you want to advertise on the show with 2 million viewers.

In fact, the show with 2 million viewers can charge more for advertising than the show with 5 million viewers, because they are reaching more of the advertiser's target audience.

The show with 5 million viewers can get more of a mix of advertisers, but if their audience is broad, they can't charge certain advertisers more like the smaller audience can with more of a core viewership.

And certain advertisers want in on certain programs. (Cadillacs and golf clubs aren't advertised during women's figure skating ... they're advertising during the major golf tournaments ... because old white men like golf clubs and Cadillacs) ... and female products are the focus of advertising during women's figure skating.

You kept harping that women's figure skating beat boxing last Saturday ... but it was a totally different audience. The PBC's target audience isn't middle-aged women. If no middle-aged watched, they wouldn't care. It's counter programming.

 

NBC Saturday night advertising for Dateline runs at $90k/minute of advertising.

Boxing is probably a two-hour broadcast with 36-40 minutes of ads. That's somewhere between $3.24m-$3.6m in advertising revenue.

 

A cherry pick. It's the average of the entire YEAR of boxing on ESPN.

atsch

Boxing viewership on ESPN since PBC took it over increased 400%.

The Santa Cruz telecast and the Thruman telecast were both in the 1.2 million range.

ESPN was ecstatic.

Their average viewership before that was 300,000.

I guess you and Barchman have different opinions on what a train wreck looks like compared to TV executives.

A 400% audience increase in a target audience doesn't get anyone fired. Quite the opposite. It's usually followed by popping bottles of champagne.

 

More than half? Don't talk absolute nonsense. And no, it doesn't. PBC owns that air-time. In normal circumstances, where PBC is being paid for the broadcast, the network and its affiliates gets the advertising income, but not under the PBC time-buy deal.

They won;t be charging that on BET or Spike, of course not, but they also don't have fights with large undercards or higher purses on those networks.

It doesn't have to cover the entire cost. That's why tickets are sold, that's why you have in-event advertising. You also seem to forget that this is its first year of operation too. UFC lost money 10 years in a row. That's what building a brand is - it doesn't happen overnight.

If this was not on a time-buy deal it likely wouldn't have happened - that doesn't mean it isn't or won't succeed.

 

They didn't have a baseline to sell advertising. How many freaking times do I have to repeat that. There was no push to sell advertising last year. They wanted to roll this out. See what the viewership was on every channel.

Since it didn't exist on the networks forever, if they'd come up with some random number, and it didn't meet it, they advertisers would complain. And if it was higher, they'd be stuck with advertisers who were underpaying.

You'll see more advertisers rolling out this year, because they know what their viewership is against all sorts of programming.

For instance, on ESPN, if the advertisers like Corona (which was a primary advertiser on FNF) wanted back in, they couldn't get advertising for the same rates they had for FNF. The vierweiship is 400% greater NOW than they were on FNF.

If they were buying adds for $7,500 each (which might even be high considering how dismal the ratings were), they'll have to bump that up to maybe $30,000 each, depending on the number they buy and when it's aired in the show and other factors.

And, with a million-plus viewers on ESPN compared to 300,000, you'll draw in more advertisers who don't even bother advertising if their target audience isn't above a million.

The total budget for purses for that FOX show (the first on FOX) last Saturday was less than 3 million in purses. You can fit two 30 second-commercials between each round. You can fit six to eight 30-second commercials between fights. You can easily fit around 70 to 80 30-second commercials in a three-hour broadcast.

If you charged $40K to $45K a commercial, you more than cover the close to $3 million in fighter purses.

That's just a "for instance." Not a recommendation.:hi:

 

Boxing can fit in more than 40 minutes of ads in a two-hour window.

There is a one-minute break every three minutes during a fight. There is a several minute break before every decision is announced. There is a good five to 10-minute break between fights.

Let's put it this way, if a fight goes 12 rounds, you can easily fit in thirty, 30-second ads ... 22 between rounds, a combined eight 30-second ads before and after the fight. And a 12-round fight doesn't take a whole 60 minutes. And if it ends early, you don't have to come back after one minute, you can talk for three minutes, and then show six 30-second ads before returning.

 

Not to mention that promotional costs and management costs will tie-in to that $3m too.

Actual payout to fighters probably closer to $2.1m by the time Haymon took his 20% management fee and his friendly face promoters took their 10% to pay for event costs.

 

Oh, I know - I was just working off guaranteed figures. Every hour of TV on networks have 18-20 mins of advertising. Boxing probably ends up with more.

 

In March ... which is when the second year kicks off.

And be sure to count the viewership numbers for that Thurman-Porter show ... I'm sure they'll do better than the 300,000 viewers they pulled in Friday Night Fights year after year.

 

And now you're just making stuff up. Lol.

Your contention here is that Al Haymon is buying time on local networks but doesn't actually get the time he buys?

 

THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ACTIVELY SELLING IT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BASELINE TO SET AD RATES.

Jesus Christ.