UnderGround Forums
 

UnderGround Forums >> The COLLAPSE of the UFC's PPV Model


1/9/14 5:57 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tomato Can
136 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 48944
Haulport - 
IAmNotImpressedbyYourStocktonSlap - 

Haulport, why do your arguments always suck?


If by "suck" you mean "attacked by shills, trolls and nincompoops" then I'd say: because of the nature of the attackers...

Your threads get "attacked" because they routinely involve strained logic and completely unsupported conclusions.
1/9/14 5:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SevenLeggedSpider
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/20/09
Posts: 20345

HP, I see what everyone else is saying.

 

For one, there are too many variables for anything to be concrete, all this is speculation.

 

That being said, even if we speculate on the numbers your'e talking about, I don't see any significance in ppv numbers either way.

 

It's not fair to compare one year with 13 events to another year with 11 events.

I imagine the year with 11 ppv events more than likely had more free show events.  

We don't know specifics but what is being discusses is nothing significant to even be discussing it imo.

 

Discuss.

1/9/14 5:58 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 19398
slamming - 
Haulport - 
slamming - 
Haulport - 
slamming - 
Haulport - 
slamming - 
RicGillespie - 
Haulport - 
RicGillespie - 2013's numbers better then 2012's or 11's and people are saying it it collapsing? Seems like it's starting to rebound from the switch from moving off of Spike to FS1.

No. 2013 edged out 2012 but were 5% lower than 2012 which were 24% lower than the avg of 2009-2010.

There were 3 less ppv events. Average buyers per event increased. Try to spin it as a negative all you want but it is an increase with the money they get from the Fox shows.

This thread is a failure, just as expected.

There was a 17% increase in PPV buys since 2011 and somehow this is considered a collapse. Way to be.

Another one who can't read charts. Total PPVs are DOWN 5% not up. The avg per event is up which is meaningless since there were less events in in 2013 than 2011.

If you people can't read a basic chart I don't even know what to say....

Sorry buddy, it's seems like you aren't even to comprehend the meaning of your own numbers.

Total PPVs are down 5% since 2011 which as you say " is meaningless since there were LESS events in in 2013 than 2011." You have said it yourself, yet that's your point of argument?

How can you compare total PPVs in 2011 to 2013 when there were 3 LESS events? That's some terrible analysis right there. AVG PPV per event is the lead indicator you need to focus on.

No it is not since we are talking about the total PPV business. The total is what matters to revenues and the avg is skewed by reducing the number of events. We are looking at PPV revenues. They are down from 2011. saying the avg is up for two years is a red herring.

Your analysis is skewed and is riddled with agenda.

OP - Total PPVs are down 5% since 2011!

Common sense - There were 3 less events held than in 2011, so you cannot use that comparison. A more meaningful comparison would be average PPV buys per event, which have increased 17% since 2011.

OP - There were 3 less events held than in 2011, so that is a meaningless comparison.

Do you not see how comparing total PPV numbers between 2 years with a different number of events is not a meaningful analysis of an industry which has seen an average increase in PPV buys in that time of 17%?

This isn't the doom and gloom story you're trying hard to make it seem like.

What r u even talking about? We are talking about TOTAL PPV REVENUES. Do you understand that? That is what the discussion is about. Those are DOWN as reflected by the lack of TOTAL BUYS.

You talking about avg per event and how you can't compare years MAKES ZERO SENSE.

You might as well say that you corner store stopped opening on Saturdays and revenues are down but that's okay because you can't compare this year's revs to previous years because they were open on Sat.

Preposterous.

Is it meant to be some groundbreaking analysis to seethat TOTAL PPVs are down from 2011? No it isnt. Of course they are down, they held 3 less events, how is that at all shocking?

Is a shop owner meant to declare insolvency based on a decrease in total revenues of 5% from a previous year despite being open for business 19% less? No, because they have seen a marked decrease in their costs of operation (fixed costs notwithstanding)yet their revenues have not seen any significant decline to justify being open for that additional 19% of the year.

You're trying to suggest the PPV model is collapsing. It clearly is not, despite the way you're trying to spin these numbers.

YES, TOTAL PPVs are down since 2011. Does that have any significant take home meaning at all? No, for a few reasons:

1) They staged 19% less PPV events, yet only saw a 5% decrease in total revenue. You completely ignore they have seen an improved success on an event by event basis in 2013 over 2011 to the effect of 17%.

2) Zuffa's business has restructred significantly since the FOX deal to accomodate far more free to air live events, to which they are compensated by FOX for. Less PPV events were staged in 2013 because they needed to accomodate FOX. This is hardly an indictment on the PPV model.

Do you agree that using the fact that TOTAL PPV numbers dropping 5% since 2011 as the SOLE indicator and argument for why the PPV model has "collapsed" is extremely short sighted? Because that is proposterous.

Last response you are getting:

Your argument (if you can call it that) conveniently ignores the fact that PPV buys are down 28% from the 2009-2010 average. The idea that you keep talking only about 2011 because it is at the bottom of that peak and is conveniently only 5% higher than 2013 is LAUGHABLE.

Not to mention that you keep babbling about how there were 3 less events in 2011 than 2013 and that is the reason the total is down. Then why is 2013 lower than 2009 and 2008 which had 13 and 12 events? Just think 2008 had even less events than 2013 and yet had a higher total!!! How is that even possible???? According to you it's not possible...

And to say I am ignoring the avg WHEN YOU ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE I PUT IT IN MY CHART is borderline ludicrous.
1/9/14 6:01 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 19399
SevenLeggedSpider - 

HP, I see what everyone else is saying.

 

For one, there are too many variables for anything to be concrete, all this is speculation.

 

That being said, even if we speculate on the numbers your'e talking about, I don't see any significance in ppv numbers either way.

 

It's not fair to compare one year with 13 events to another year with 11 events.

I imagine the year with 11 ppv events more than likely had more free show events.  

We don't know specifics but what is being discusses is nothing significant to even be discussing it imo.

 

Discuss.


See what I said above. 2008 had less events than 2013 and 2009 had the same amount. yet they both beat 2013 in total buys.

The big picture here is that with the marketing and expansion Zuffa has seen in the past 3 years they should have triple the total revs of previous years and PPVs and ratings should have increased instead of shriveled...
1/9/14 6:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 19400
Tomato Can - 
Haulport - 
IAmNotImpressedbyYourStocktonSlap - 

Haulport, why do your arguments always suck?


If by "suck" you mean "attacked by shills, trolls and nincompoops" then I'd say: because of the nature of the attackers...

Your threads get "attacked" because they routinely involve strained logic and completely unsupported conclusions.

Oh whatever dude. I have had even conversations with you to know that anything that is outside your incredibly narrow tunnel vision is considered illogical and strained by you...

The people attacking me here are the same shills who do the exact same thing on EVERY thread that does not paint a rosie picture of the UFC. That speaks volumes to their "arguments"...
1/9/14 6:05 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SevenLeggedSpider
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/20/09
Posts: 20346

See what I said above. 2008 had less events than 2013 and 2009 had the same amount. yet they both beat 2013 in total buys.

The big picture here is that with the marketing and expansion Zuffa has seen in the past 3 years they should have triple the total revs of previous years and PPVs and ratings should have increased instead of shriveled...

 

It's quite obvious though that 2008 and 2009 UFC didnt' have a Fox deal bringing in revenue from Fox shows.

That has to be expected.

 

Why would UFC have more ppv buys when they are doing less ppv's and more free shows?  I don't understand your logic.

 

1/9/14 6:06 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 19401
FETT_GayFerPayNINJA - 
SevenLeggedSpider -

I think the point most people are trying to make is that this thread would be more relevent and accurate if it was made in 2011, when the decline was at an all time low. 

Which leads me to my unanswered question-do you think the huge number of main event injuries had any effect on the decline of ppv #s in 2011?

Of COURSE injuries had an impact.

Of course Haulport wont aknowledge that and will keep ignoring his own chart that shows PPV rebounding over the past 2 years. Phone Post 3.0

Keep looking at that chart and trying to make believe it's a positive sign that the avg per event is up at the bottom of a giant mountain.

Meanwhile you didn't even read my response that said that 7legs and I agreed. You just spew out whatever illogical, obviously incorrect filth you have in your mouth and keep running.
1/9/14 6:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 19402
SevenLeggedSpider - 

See what I said above. 2008 had less events than 2013 and 2009 had the same amount. yet they both beat 2013 in total buys.

The big picture here is that with the marketing and expansion Zuffa has seen in the past 3 years they should have triple the total revs of previous years and PPVs and ratings should have increased instead of shriveled...

 

It's quite obvious though that 2008 and 2009 UFC didnt' have a Fox deal bringing in revenue from Fox shows.

That has to be expected.

 

Why would UFC have more ppv buys when they are doing less ppv's and more free shows?  I don't understand your logic.

 


Because they want as much revenue as possible. The difference between the fox and spike deals just barely cover the PPV losses from 2009-2010. Why would a company just trade out revenue streams instead of looking to optimize all revenue streams?
1/9/14 6:19 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Tomato Can
136 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 48945
Haulport - 
Tomato Can - 
Haulport - 
IAmNotImpressedbyYourStocktonSlap - 

Haulport, why do your arguments always suck?


If by "suck" you mean "attacked by shills, trolls and nincompoops" then I'd say: because of the nature of the attackers...

Your threads get "attacked" because they routinely involve strained logic and completely unsupported conclusions.

Oh whatever dude. I have had even conversations with you to know that anything that is outside your incredibly narrow tunnel vision is considered illogical and strained by you...

The people attacking me here are the same shills who do the exact same thing on EVERY thread that does not paint a rosie picture of the UFC. That speaks volumes to their "arguments"...

Sorry dude, but your threads are predictable and silly most of the time and when anyone calls you on how dubious your reasoning is, you get defensive. I mean, the UFC doesn't want stars? Really? You think they're happy that Lesnar flamed out and GSP retired? That is some straight up unsupportable lunatic shit, but I guarantee you will defend it to the hills.

When everyone else is an asshole, you're the asshole.
1/9/14 6:20 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
ranier wolfcastle
1139 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/28/03
Posts: 66591

if they had  only 4 ppvs per year (no free events) the individual events would sell more

but now we got tons of good mma, lots of it free,  and ufc is profiting huge, so we all win

1/9/14 6:22 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
dabigchet
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/10/07
Posts: 12702
this thread = 10-8 round on all judges scorecards Phone Post 3.0
1/9/14 6:24 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
tenchu
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 12574
Haulport - 
SevenLeggedSpider - 

HP, I see what everyone else is saying.

 

For one, there are too many variables for anything to be concrete, all this is speculation.

 

That being said, even if we speculate on the numbers your'e talking about, I don't see any significance in ppv numbers either way.

 

It's not fair to compare one year with 13 events to another year with 11 events.

I imagine the year with 11 ppv events more than likely had more free show events.  

We don't know specifics but what is being discusses is nothing significant to even be discussing it imo.

 

Discuss.


See what I said above. 2008 had less events than 2013 and 2009 had the same amount. yet they both beat 2013 in total buys.

The big picture here is that with the marketing and expansion Zuffa has seen in the past 3 years they should have triple the total revs of previous years and PPVs and ratings should have increased instead of shriveled...

Triple?
Based on what?
1/9/14 6:40 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
dabigchet
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/10/07
Posts: 12703
well, his say so of course. They should have triple because he said so, they don't so it's a collapse. that logic is bulletproof! Phone Post 3.0
1/9/14 7:02 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FETT_GayFerPayNINJA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/13/11
Posts: 24669
Haulport -
SevenLeggedSpider - 

HP, I see what everyone else is saying.

 

For one, there are too many variables for anything to be concrete, all this is speculation.

 

That being said, even if we speculate on the numbers your'e talking about, I don't see any significance in ppv numbers either way.

 

It's not fair to compare one year with 13 events to another year with 11 events.

I imagine the year with 11 ppv events more than likely had more free show events.  

We don't know specifics but what is being discusses is nothing significant to even be discussing it imo.

 

Discuss.


See what I said above. 2008 had less events than 2013 and 2009 had the same amount. yet they both beat 2013 in total buys.

The big picture here is that with the marketing and expansion Zuffa has seen in the past 3 years they should have triple the total revs of previous years and PPVs and ratings should have increased instead of shriveled...
Your theory about revenue is totally ignoring the fact that they have HUGE revenue streams from foreign markets, and the FOX deal.

So while you want to bring up revenue you conveniently ignore that.

And while you wanna harp on watered down PPV product you ignore that we get 5x as much FREE mma out of zuffa than we did in 2008/9.

You fail on so many levels and intentionally ignore so many factors.

That is why 98% of the posters on this thread are laughing and mocking you. Phone Post 3.0
1/9/14 7:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
tenchu
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 1/1/01
Posts: 12576
For some background, here's Haulport's recent post, waiting for the PPV numbers:

"Seems like they are hiding them [PPV numbers]. It has been 11 days and Meltzer hasn't said shit and no one has any figures. My guess is that they sucked and so they are going to soft peddle the numbers a while from now to hide them.

I have been waiting every day for them so I can make a post about the collapse of Zuffa's PPV model. They would have to have had $1.8mm+ buys for there to anything resembling good news for 2013 on the PPV front. That's how bad it is..."
1/9/14 7:04 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FETT_GayFerPayNINJA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/13/11
Posts: 24670
dabigchet - this thread = 10-8 round on all judges scorecards Phone Post 3.0
Cecil Peoples scores it 10-7 for Haulport. Phone Post 3.0
1/9/14 7:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
crsjedi1
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/20/13
Posts: 49

what is this tool bag central?? the collapse of zuffa ? there ppv model?? wtf are you guys talking about?? your outta your minds or lack there of, keep hating your gigantic no nothing fkn toolsheds...

1/9/14 7:37 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CindyO
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/10/06
Posts: 24564
Rambo John J - 

 

 

 

LMFAO and voted up!

 

Cindy

1/9/14 7:47 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
CindyO
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/10/06
Posts: 24565
Haulport - 
slamming - 
RicGillespie - 
Haulport - 
RicGillespie - 2013's numbers better then 2012's or 11's and people are saying it it collapsing? Seems like it's starting to rebound from the switch from moving off of Spike to FS1.

No. 2013 edged out 2012 but were 5% lower than 2012 which were 24% lower than the avg of 2009-2010.

There were 3 less ppv events. Average buyers per event increased. Try to spin it as a negative all you want but it is an increase with the money they get from the Fox shows.

This thread is a failure, just as expected.

There was a 17% increase in PPV buys since 2011 and somehow this is considered a collapse. Way to be.

Another one who can't read charts. Total PPVs are DOWN 5% not up. The avg per event is up which is meaningless since there were less events in in 2013 than 2011.

If you people can't read a basic chart I don't even know what to say....

So you're saying down 5% = COLLAPSE??? I'm not sure what's wrong with you sometimes, HP, but I bet its hard to pronounce.

 

Cindy

1/9/14 8:08 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FETT_GayFerPayNINJA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/13/11
Posts: 24671
Haulport -
SevenLeggedSpider - 

See what I said above. 2008 had less events than 2013 and 2009 had the same amount. yet they both beat 2013 in total buys.

The big picture here is that with the marketing and expansion Zuffa has seen in the past 3 years they should have triple the total revs of previous years and PPVs and ratings should have increased instead of shriveled...

 

It's quite obvious though that 2008 and 2009 UFC didnt' have a Fox deal bringing in revenue from Fox shows.

That has to be expected.

 

Why would UFC have more ppv buys when they are doing less ppv's and more free shows?  I don't understand your logic.

 


Because they want as much revenue as possible. The difference between the fox and spike deals just barely cover the PPV losses from 2009-2010. Why would a company just trade out revenue streams instead of looking to optimize all revenue streams?
Possibly because unlike you, they are smart enough to look at LONG TERM goals and the big picture. Phone Post 3.0
1/9/14 8:10 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FETT_GayFerPayNINJA
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 5/13/11
Posts: 24672
time traveling 12er -

I'm guessing the UFC's end goal is to move away from ppv anyways.  If so the % of revenue that comes from ppv should drop and be made up by network contracts or money from their own network.  That would be more of a controlled detonation rather than a collapse.  It's better for the sport to have more of the money stay in the sport and not get leeched off by ppv companies.

This isnt about logical growth and expansion. You are not allowed to make this logical arument!!! Zuffa is COLLAPSING!!! THIER PRODUCT SUCKS!!! ARRRRGGGGGHHHH Phone Post 3.0
1/9/14 8:15 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SevenLeggedSpider
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/20/09
Posts: 20351
Haulport - 
SevenLeggedSpider - 

See what I said above. 2008 had less events than 2013 and 2009 had the same amount. yet they both beat 2013 in total buys.

The big picture here is that with the marketing and expansion Zuffa has seen in the past 3 years they should have triple the total revs of previous years and PPVs and ratings should have increased instead of shriveled...

 

It's quite obvious though that 2008 and 2009 UFC didnt' have a Fox deal bringing in revenue from Fox shows.

That has to be expected.

 

Why would UFC have more ppv buys when they are doing less ppv's and more free shows?  I don't understand your logic.

 


Because they want as much revenue as possible. The difference between the fox and spike deals just barely cover the PPV losses from 2009-2010. Why would a company just trade out revenue streams instead of looking to optimize all revenue streams?

What is your source that UFC isn't making money with the Fox deals, or as much money with the Fox deals?

Wouldn't that be pure speculation on your part?(or anyones part for that matter)

 

I don't think anyone knows if and how much of a cut UFC gets for sponsorships run on UFC/Fox shows.

I do think however that is something to take into conisderation, which I don't think you are.

 

 

1/9/14 8:18 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
SevenLeggedSpider
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 11/20/09
Posts: 20352

Wow, HP I really think you should take consideration of your angle in this thread.

 

Main reasons being Cindy O is on this thread and she just made me laugh, and 2, nobones post above looks to be on point.

 

When I'm agreeing with Cindy O and nobones, something has got to really be off with me, or something is really off with you.

1/9/14 8:39 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Haulport
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 2/28/07
Posts: 19403
SevenLeggedSpider - 

Wow, HP I really think you should take consideration of your angle in this thread.

 

Main reasons being Cindy O is on this thread and she just made me laugh, and 2, nobones post above looks to be on point.

 

When I'm agreeing with Cindy O and nobones, something has got to really be off with me, or something is really off with you.


If Cindy intentionally ignoring the fact that ppv buys are down 30% since 2010 makes u laugh it might be you :-)

Since you're a blue, do me a favor and post my chart like 10-20 times. I would do that but I ain't a blue. Much appreciated!
1/9/14 8:44 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
xXJayRobXx
28 The total sum of your votes up and votes down Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Member Since: 9/17/12
Posts: 1169
kalt - I bet it will be revised down to 500k or less. No way it did 1.1 million buys, never mind the slightly raised price. These tentative estimates always turn out wrong.

UFC is making bad business decisions now. It's loaded with 'yes men' who won't tell dana no or offer any alternative ideas or criticize anything. "Awesome idea Dana, hell yea" is the only thing said over there. And Dana will always cite previous success as the reason why current plans will turn out profitable. Bad mistake.

Oversaturating the market with events is a horrible idea, and now they're oversaturating the talent pool as well. I hope they realize and correct their mistake before it's too late. They probably think they're "too big to fail" now but that is never the case and the worst business fallacy you can ever make.
Cause your in the meetings right? Phone Post 3.0

Reply Post

You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.