Network TV Important, Not “Be All, End All”
Bill King of The Sports Business Journal talks about the importance of network television in creating boxing stars with Bob Arum in his latest article in the jounral.
Arum runs through the names, gushes with stories of their stature in foreign lands, and then ties them together.
“The common thread is exposure,” said Arum, who was around to promote Ali and Leonard and remains at the top of his profession today, in a vastly different environment. “All of them have had the benefit of free, network, terrestrial television. All of them. The problem for American fighters is that they don’t have that. And it makes things very, very difficult.”
You cannot talk to an American boxing promoter about the sport’s past, present and future in this country and not hear a similar assessment. Boxing has been off what the sport’s elders refer to as “network television” long enough that none of the current U.S. fighters were exposed there.
The traditional pipeline of American stars started with broad exposure during the Olympics, but that has broken down as amateur boxing in the U.S. has faltered in the last decade. U.S. fighters have won three medals, total, in the last two Olympics. An American boxer hasn’t won gold since Andre Ward did it in 2004.
ESPN has mass distribution for its campfire-like “Friday Night Fights” series, which is a gathering place for about a half-million hard-core fans on most weeks, but it doesn’t spend enough money to get star fighters. Showtime has more money to spend — up to about $2 million for its bigger fights, according to insiders — but it rarely has enough to land the biggest American guns, and instead focuses on making exciting matches at the next tier.
HBO is the only U.S. outlet that has dedicated a fat enough bankroll to air the stars, typically paying $500,000 to $3 million for a big bout, then sweetening the deal by promising fighters multiple appearances and, eventually, pay-per-view slots. It is, in essence, the sport’s de facto banker, even though it has seen its own budgets slashed of late.
Payout Perspective:
No matter what you think of Arum, he makes a good point: widespread terrestrial viewership was the key component to building the fighter popularity which managed to anchor the sport of boxing for so many years.
However, it’s also important to note that with the growth of alternative distribution channels, network television may not be the “be all, end all” that it used to be. It’s probably the next step, but if the UFC or Strikeforce – or any other emerging promotion - can find a way to harness the power of digital online distribution platforms, they might not need to worry about securing a full blown network deal at all.
Really think about it: how is the the M18-34 demographic viewing the bulk of their programming these days?
I am a part of that group, and I can tell you that I don’t watch more than 1 hour of television a week (granted the MBA plays into that). But I do watch probably 10-15 hours of programming every week. It’s just that I watch it on a different medium – the internet and digital streaming.
Moreover, MMA is well-prepared from a product standpoint to adapt an online distribution model:
* MMA is not a “perishable” product like other sports where, if you know the outcome, fans are less likely to watch the game. The audience cares as much about watching the fights as they do about the outcome.
* Product placement within the sport ensures the sponsorship aspect isn’t going to suffer on a digital medium. There are even opportunities for “brought to you by” moments.
* Additionally, many of MMA’s fighters have a strong online presence which could be leveraged into an even stronger viewership for that digital medium.
The caveat here, of course, is that diversity is another key to long-term success, and you always want to build that into your business model.
The digital medium may play well to the 18-34 year old demographic, but MMA is starting to pull increasingly well from some older demographics that may prefer the traditional television distribution.
It’s a balancing act.
