How would you re-invent Sky Box Office PPV

That's fair, the only problem is that even when Sky rid themselves of PPV some unscrupulous *******s (Primetime) will crop up and fill the void left, but with the production values of an 80's gameshow, and for the same price Sky charged, pushing the sport even further away from the public eye. At least with a Sky PPV they promote the **** out of it on SSN. My mates didn't even know Khan had a fight coming up when he was on Primetime.


EDIT: Multiple errors, read it back and it made zero sense.

 

Some good answers in here already, and I agree with Oli here about this fight.

If it has to be on ppv, first of all the price should be a tenner or less. Secondly the fight should be massive. Huge. Froch and Kessler on PPV? **** off. Most of the Pacquiao fights, Marquez fights, and even Mayweather fights are on Sky 1. Froch and Kessler on ppv is a joke. This isn't Tyson Lewis, or Mayweather Pacquiao FFS. Most people in this country don't know who Kessler is. Froch is not exactly a superstar either. Under card better be good also.

The presentation also has to be a lot better. If they're gonna put a fight on PPV, they better have a good build up show, good music, lighting, highlights, footage from the dressing rooms of each fighter, a good amount of post fight analysis, no ad breaks between rounds- keep quite and let us hear what the trainers are saying, and for ****s sake, stop apologizing for the language, you ****s. Sky can't compete with the budget of HBO so we're unlikely to get a slick, classy experience with good pundits. Instead we'll have to put up with an atmosphere that resembles a glorified sports hall and those clowns Nelson, Piper, Smith and McCrory.

 

What a salesman... Not a one of those is ppv and suggesting otherwise is taking the fans for mugs. This is new age promoting apparently, which is alarmingly like old age promoting!

 

They should of bought Mayweathers next fight on May 4th.
Then put Froch/Kessler 2 on May 4th and the heavyweight prizefighter with Audley on May 4th and do an amazing night long marathon of boxing.

I would buy that ****. Theres just not enough quality to pay 15 pound for when its Froch/Kessler and a few decent undercard fights

 

I wonder how many casuals will be thinking "Froch/Kessler TWO?!" during the build up. The first fight went completely under the radar.

Ero's post is spot on but I can't see them dropping the price purely because the gain in viewers won't probably make up for the loss in revenue due to the lower PPV fee. For example, 300k sales at £10 makes £3m gross. However, they just need to make 200k sales at £15 to make the same amount.

That is unless there is market research suggesting a £5 drop in price results in a massively increased number of sales.

 

Not necessarily.

When Matchroom decided to try and make darts into a bigger sport, I'm sure they lost money at first. The venues would have been more expensive, there wasn't a huge fanbase like there is now, they had to cover the costs for lighting, music and things like that. Everything was on a much bigger scale and it's hard to imagine they made a profit on those shows all the time. However, it was an investment. If they lost money for 6 months, what does that matter if you make money for the next 6 years?

Neither Brook or Froch are big stars who can sell 700k on PPV like Haye can. However, that's not to say they can't become that big. They just need to be promoted well to get there and if that takes a while to do but it pays off eventually, then it's the right business model.

 

Hearn has said it's a necessity for the fight to be PPV. So we may well see Box Office back in British Boxing..

 

I can't see it happening tbh. They can be promoted as well as possible, but if the fighter's themselves haven't got that star quality, then no amount of promoting can do the job. David Haye, whther you love him or hate him is a good talker. Articulate, outgoing and he's a heavyweight with very good power. That always sells. I don't think Brook or Froch have anything that is gonna make the average guy take notice of them.

 

No, it means I don't work in broadcasting and, unlike you, don't try to pretend I have the answers to things I only have a superficial knowledge of.

However, my point is basic economic sense if you aren't a complete ******.

*FYI, these figures are fabricated, just to follow in the spirit of Rob's usual posts*

If Kessler fights in Denmark, between ticket sales and TV money, Kessler can make £2m. Froch will get £1m because he isn't the draw, but he'll also get his cut of the Sky licence fee.

Sauerland will sell the fight on Danish PPV and to their German broadcaster, netting a tidy profit for themselves and additional money for Kessler.

That is good business.

If Kessler fights in the UK, he is guaranteed £2m because he is giving up the income he'd generate without Froch and home advantage. He'll also be keeping his Danish PPV I'd expect. Froch wants the same guarantee as Kessler, because his ego demands it. Yet he can't drive the ticket sales or TV money needed to cover his and Kessler's demands. So they stick it on PPV, where Froch has never sold much, and will hope to sell enough to cover costs and maybe make a small profit.

Froch doesn't bring the revenue streams that would make this a sensible economic option and isn't a viable star to drive PPV.

That is bad business.

So I don't need to offer much beyond this, because it's ****ing simple. PPV is bad value for the consumer when it is used to shore up the losses of a fight that the promoter can't afford. It was wrong when Frank did it for Khan, and it's wrong now.

If Froch was a big star and this was a big, meaningful fight - then ok. He's not and this isn't.

 

Not being funny but there is a pretty obvious comeback to this.

Also with regards to PPV, obviously I would rather watch Froch-Kessler 2 on PPV than it not be on at all (if that is the choice), but there seems to be a big disparity between the money fighters are demanding for big fights and the value and popularity of the fights/fighters themselves. Until that balance is addressed (which probably won't be anytime soon), PPV might be a necessary evil.

 

Not really, it was a joke and actually had nothing to do with you as hard as that may be for you to handle.

The fact that you really do choose to follow and support a backward institution which is openly homophobic obviously touched a nerve.
When you are proud to be part of an organisation which does that while also actively discriminating against women, has protected pedophiles from within its ranks, and supports slavery within its teachings you really need to have a thicker skin.

Do I think I'm really clever? Nope but I'm smart enough to not want to have anything to do with an organisation which refused to take action against any of the above when it had the power to make a difference.

Now as my initial offhand reply was aimed at another poster entirely, would your ego allow us to get back OT?

 

op