2019 Non-Event General MMA Talk Thread

[Elsalvajeloco]

 

[Elsalvajeloco]

FWIW 

 

[supremebve]

 

FWIW 

 

Theoretically how much would you pay for ESPN+ that includes all of the UFC PPVs?  

[Elsalvajeloco]

 

Theoretically how much would you pay for ESPN+ that includes all of the UFC PPVs?  

In actuality, if you paid $79.99 now and bought each of the remaining PPVs for 2019 not counting UFC 236 which would be including in that 79.99, it would come to to $619.90 for the rest of the year. Before this change, ten months of ESPN+ and all the remaining UFC PPVs for the year, it would be $699.89 for the rest of 2019.

So if ESPN had their druthers, you would be paying between $500 and $600 annually if not more. So the lowest they could go would be $44.99 per month (MAYBE $39.99) with the PPVs included. Anything other than that is purely fantasy because ESPN is not going to lose their ass anymore than they have to. DAZN's model is committed to losing a boatload of cash. Hence, why they're raising their price now to stop some of that bleeding. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Elsalvajeloco

[supremebve]

 

In actuality, if you paid $79.99 now and bought each of the remaining PPVs for 2019 not counting UFC 236 which would be including in that 79.99, it would come to to $619.90 for the rest of the year. Before this change, ten months of ESPN+ and all the remaining UFC PPVs for the year, it would be $699.89 for the rest of 2019.

So if ESPN had their druthers, you would be paying between $500 and $600 annually if not more. So the lowest they could go would be $44.99 per month (MAYBE $39.99) with the PPVs included. Anything other than that is purely fantasy because ESPN is not going to lose their ass anymore than they have to. DAZN's model is committed to losing a boatload of cash. Hence, why they're raising their price now to stop some of that bleeding. 

Yeah, that sounds about right, but that's an insane price point.  I asked because I believe this is going to be kind of a disaster, at least to start, and they're going to start looking for different ideas.  ESPN+ is a great value at $5.00 per month, but I'm pretty sure their market share is pretty small.  Do they have a customer base big enough to sell 250K PPVs?  They have 2 million subscribers, how many of those 2 million are going to be willing to pay $60 more to watch a UFC PPV?  How many UFC fighters are going to draw the numbers they are going to need to make this profitable?  I think Conor McGregor can draw that many viewers.  Jon Jones may be able to drive that many buys.  I don't know if there is anyone else who is going to be able to get people to sign up for the service if they haven't already signed up...and then getting them to pay $60 more is a lot to ask.  I forsee a discount coming, but $40+ per month doesn't seem like a value.

[Elsalvajeloco]

 

Yeah, that sounds about right, but that's an insane price point.

How so? When was the last time UFC PPVs weren't 50 or 60+ bucks? At 40 or 45 dollars, you're getting every ESPN+ event, prelims on ESPN+, and EVERY UFC PPV. If those were on TV and you were buying every PPV (which I doubt anyone does anyway) with your cable subscription, it would be way higher than that. If that's insane (considering how much ESPN is paying the UFC), it would be insane the other way.

 

Do they have a customer base big enough to sell 250K PPVs? 

The whole purpose of the ESPN deal and getting all that content on ESPN+ is to expose the UFC product on their linear channels. Now with the PPV component on ESPN+, ESPN has no choice but to go above and beyond marketing the UFC as oppose to the Fox deal where there was a clear disconnect between how they were marketing Fox/FS1 events and PPV prelims and the marketing of the PPVs itself. The Spence Jr./Garcia estimate just came out and it was well above what many expected. Why? It was an actual Fox PPV as oppose to PBC being a Fox property and them selling the prelims leaving the PPV component to float on its own merits like they did with UFC. They made sure that PPV didn't flop. With ESPN and what they've done with combat sports between Top Rank boxing and the early UFC stuff, they've made it to where they can insure the success of what they want to be successful. The Crawford and Lomachenko bouts never draw a bad number. The Crawford vs. Khan PPV may be a different story, but again, ESPN isn't paying Top Rank nowhere close to what they're paying UFC. Crawford is probably making 4 or 5 million tops and Khan probably 2 or 3 million if not less for that bout. If that show doesn't do well, they're not going to fret. With the UFC, coming in, they knew the PPVs generally weren't doing 250k anyway. However, the UFC's brand awareness if you want to call it that is much higher now on ESPN and the ability of ESPN to market and advertise UFC content is much better than Fox. Most of these ESPN+ only cards are going to be rank and file shows. That isn't going to change much like what it was on FS1 when you got like a Marreta vs. Anders or Usman vs. Maia. However, for the ESPN shows they do once a month or once every six weeks (I think June may not have one), they are going to advertise the piss out of those shows. From there, they going to advertise the PPVs to death. At that point, it's a case of do you want to actually buy the show (the case pre ESPN+) and/or do you feel a subscription is worth it to buy the show. The customer base doesn't come in really because it's not the case of DAZN where I safely surmise most people who fit the target demo doesn't even know it exists. If the UFC was on DAZN and they attempted a similar thing, it would be an outright disaster just because it would be FS1 and FS2 from scratch all over again but on a much smaller scale. Due to the fact the UFC has already done well and created a ton of awareness for ESPN+ through two months, that's not something they have to worry about. The folks who want to buy the upper mid tier to gigantic PPVs are still going to buy those shows. If the hangup is ESPN+ itself, were you going to buy that PPV anyway? They're not forcing you to buy every PPV. You can still pick the ones you want to purchase. You just can't do it through your cable provider anymore. The thing is you won't be able to do that for any of the other big draws in combat sports anyway. So if you plan to watch Cormier vs. Lesnar, you will find a way to watch it if you want to watch through legal means. You will be well aware that fight is happening. If you're not watching the UFC product on ESPN, that's kinda on you at that point and personal preference.

 

  I forsee a discount coming, but $40+ per month doesn't seem like a value.

1. Yeah, I don't see much of a discount coming. Maybe a few dollars knocked off but it won't drop below a certain threshold.

2. It is a value. They're not going to cannibalize their PPVs and fans need to realize that. It's not happening. It didn't happen in the Fight Pass era and now that ESPN is paying them a ton of money, ESPN is going to make sure that doesn't happen. So even if Endeavor/Zuffa wanted to, the mouse ain't going to be as nice.

 

[supremebve]

 

How so? When was the last time UFC PPVs weren't 50 or 60+ bucks? At 40 or 45 dollars, you're getting every ESPN+ event, prelims on ESPN+, and EVERY UFC PPV. If those were on TV and you were buying every PPV (which I doubt anyone does anyway) with your cable subscription, it would be way higher than that. If that's insane (considering how much ESPN is paying the UFC), it would be insane the other way.

I think its insane based on the fact that it is so much more expensive than any other streaming platform and doesn't take into account that most people aren't paying for every PPV.  It is less expensive when compared to how much it would cost to buy every PPV a la carte, but more expensive based on how much other streaming platforms are giving at a much lower price point.  Yes, it would be more expensive with a cable subscription, but you also get much more out of a cable package.  Netflix provides far more entertainment options for $11 per month.  WWE Network allows access to all of their PPVs for $10 per month.  Asking for $40+ is a value when compared to what you got if you paid for every PPV on cable, but I don't know if that matters when you are competing with other streaming platforms and not cable.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14

 

The whole purpose of the ESPN deal and getting all that content on ESPN+ is to expose the UFC product on their linear channels. Now with the PPV component on ESPN+, ESPN has no choice but to go above and beyond marketing the UFC as oppose to the Fox deal where there was a clear disconnect between how they were marketing Fox/FS1 events and PPV prelims and the marketing of the PPVs itself. The Spence Jr./Garcia estimate just came out and it was well above what many expected. Why? It was an actual Fox PPV as oppose to PBC being a Fox property and them selling the prelims leaving the PPV component to float on its own merits like they did with UFC. They made sure that PPV didn't flop. With ESPN and what they've done with combat sports between Top Rank boxing and the early UFC stuff, they've made it to where they can insure the success of what they want to be successful. The Crawford and Lomachenko bouts never draw a bad number. The Crawford vs. Khan PPV may be a different story, but again, ESPN isn't paying Top Rank nowhere close to what they're paying UFC. Crawford is probably making 4 or 5 million tops and Khan probably 2 or 3 million if not less for that bout. If that show doesn't do well, they're not going to fret. With the UFC, coming in, they knew the PPVs generally weren't doing 250k anyway. However, the UFC's brand awareness if you want to call it that is much higher now on ESPN and the ability of ESPN to market and advertise UFC content is much better than Fox. Most of these ESPN+ only cards are going to be rank and file shows. That isn't going to change much like what it was on FS1 when you got like a Marreta vs. Anders or Usman vs. Maia. However, for the ESPN shows they do once a month or once every six weeks (I think June may not have one), they are going to advertise the piss out of those shows. From there, they going to advertise the PPVs to death. At that point, it's a case of do you want to actually buy the show (the case pre ESPN+) and/or do you feel a subscription is worth it to buy the show. The customer base doesn't come in really because it's not the case of DAZN where I safely surmise most people who fit the target demo doesn't even know it exists. If the UFC was on DAZN and they attempted a similar thing, it would be an outright disaster just because it would be FS1 and FS2 from scratch all over again but on a much smaller scale. Due to the fact the UFC has already done well and created a ton of awareness for ESPN+ through two months, that's not something they have to worry about. The folks who want to buy the upper mid tier to gigantic PPVs are still going to buy those shows. If the hangup is ESPN+ itself, were you going to buy that PPV anyway? They're not forcing you to buy every PPV. You can still pick the ones you want to purchase. You just can't do it through your cable provider anymore. The thing is you won't be able to do that for any of the other big draws in combat sports anyway. So if you plan to watch Cormier vs. Lesnar, you will find a way to watch it if you want to watch through legal means. You will be well aware that fight is happening. If you're not watching the UFC product on ESPN, that's kinda on you at that point and personal preference.

This is the most important part of this entire partnership.  There is no evidence that either ESPN or the current version of UFC leadership have any idea how to build fighters into stars.  I'm not saying they can't, but I haven't seen it yet.  How do they get fans to care about Kamaru Usman enough to spend $60 on a PPV?  They have to figure out a way to turn more fighters into household names.  The average sports fan has no idea who Kamaru Usman is, and would not spend an extra dime on a PPV because he was the headliner.  Except, he's good enough to be a headliner, has a story that people would buy into, and is a current champion.  Is he going to be on First Take?  Get Up?  PTI?  Do the hosts of any of those shows have enough knowledge about MMA to provide any context to why Usman is a better fighter than anyone else on the roster?  They have put a lot of eggs in this basket, and I hope they all hatch.  I think the UFC has been negligent at best, incompetent at worst, since WME has taken over.  They've done everything they could to make most of their champions look like chumps, and gave away enough belts that no one actually buys into any of the champions.  They have to figure out how to put these guys out there in a way that they feel like they matter, because outside of Conor McGregor they really don't matter at all to the average sports fan.

[Elsalvajeloco]

6 hours ago, supremebve said:

I think its insane based on the fact that it is so much more expensive than any other streaming platform and doesn't take into account that most people aren't paying for every PPV. 

No other streaming format has an entity that offers PPVs. The one closest that does may not be around in 2 or 3 years time. Second, they're not forcing you to buy the PPVs. You can still pay $5 a month and not buy the PPVs.

Quote

 but more expensive based on how much other streaming platforms are giving at a much lower price point.  

Again, it's not designed to replicate those platform given the UFC puts on PPVs. 

Quote

Yes, it would be more expensive with a cable subscription, but you also get much more out of a cable package.  

But this component is strictly for UFC fans. They don't give a shit about what you get out of your cable package.

Quote

 WWE Network allows access to all of their PPVs for $10 per month.  Asking for $40+ is a value when compared to what you got if you paid for every PPV on cable, but I don't know if that matters when you are competing with other streaming platforms and not cable.  

The WWE also gave up several million dollars when they moronically decide to basically give their content for free. This is the UFC once again serving as the market correction. Also, we see how Netflix is warring with the cinema chains. Let me tell what would not be under 15 dollars if they were able to grab new releases and have them during the same window as their theatrical release run: Netflix. Hence, why you can't compare the WWE Network and Netflix. It also doesn't help Netflix loses a brinks truck every year. DAZN is a much better example to compare Netflix to. Nobody wants to lose money as bad as Netflix does. So guess who has the quickest way to make their money back or at least get close to being in the black based on their current model? Hint: It ain't Netflix.

6 hours ago, supremebve said:

 There is no evidence that either ESPN or the current version of UFC leadership have any idea how to build fighters into stars. 

The thing is...the UFC don't have to. They're getting millions just to put to PPV on just like they get a fee for every TV card. ESPN is the ones on the hook for this, which is why they going to market UFC at a whole different level. 

Quote

How do they get fans to care about Kamaru Usman enough to spend $60 on a PPV?  They have to figure out a way to turn more fighters into household names.  The average sports fan has no idea who Kamaru Usman is, and would not spend an extra dime on a PPV because he was the headliner.  Except, he's good enough to be a headliner, has a story that people would buy into, and is a current champion.  Is he going to be on First Take?  Get Up?  PTI?  Do the hosts of any of those shows have enough knowledge about MMA to provide any context to why Usman is a better fighter than anyone else on the roster?  They have put a lot of eggs in this basket, and I hope they all hatch.  

A lot of that's on Kamaru Usman. But yeah, how is this any different prior to this change? Who can and cannot be a star is an argument you can have up and down the roster. We're talking about the fairness of the price point based on your original question.

Sidenote: I've been listening to Bryan and Vinny do the NWA 1988 review. Most of the complaints sound like JJ Dillon's insane rant about how 100 million are going to watch Great American Bash 88 based on it being available in 100 million homes or w/e. If you're watching the ESPN prelims right before a PPV (the prelim numbers have been great for both PPVs so far) and it's a fight you really wanna watch, you will subscribe and then pay for the show. If you don't, then you won't. 234 did a not so good number but 235 did a good number.

6 hours ago, supremebve said:

they really don't matter at all to the average sports fan.

The ratings say different which is why they have ESPN paying them so much money. Are they doing Monday Night Wars numbers? No but no one in combat sports (or fake sports) is doing that. 

Edited March 22, 2019 by Elsalvajeloco

[Elsalvajeloco]

I like how ESPN offering what we both agree to be a fair value of potentially 40 or 45 dollar a month for a bunch of content including PPVs is insane BUT saying that ESPN+ should be like WWE Network (stuck at 1.5 million subs despite offering every discount and free trial under the goddamn sun) and Netflix (losing 2 to 4 billion A YEAR) is not insane. This is why none of us run giant corporations, thank god.

[supremebve]

1 hour ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

I like how ESPN offering what we both agree to be a fair value of potentially 40 or 45 dollar a month for a bunch of content including PPVs is insane BUT saying that ESPN+ should be like WWE Network (stuck at 1.5 million subs despite offering every discount and free trial under the goddamn sun) and Netflix (losing 2 to 4 billion A YEAR) is not insane. This is why none of us run giant corporations, thank god.

I think 40-45 dollars a month would put an unnecessarily low ceiling on the service, despite the value.  Getting 250K people every 6 months is fine, but If they could get a million people paying $24.99 per month in perpetuity I think it would be better for both the UFC and ESPN.  There has to be a sweet spot where they have enough people paying the monthly fee that they make money even if half of those people skip a few PPVs.  250K PPV buys is equal to 600,000 $24.99 subscriptions.  They need to find a price that gets as many dollars from subscriptions as they are getting from PPV buys.  I think that price is lower than $40, but it doesn't seem like they have any plans to do that. 

One thing they do need to do is add FightPass to the package, there is no reason to have a UFC fight pass without any UFC fights on it.  

[Elsalvajeloco]

1 hour ago, supremebve said:

I think 40-45 dollars a month would put an unnecessarily low ceiling on the service, despite the value.  Getting 250K people every 6 months is fine, but If they could get a million people paying $24.99 per month in perpetuity I think it would be better for both the UFC and ESPN.  There has to be a sweet spot where they have enough people paying the monthly fee that they make money even if half of those people skip a few PPVs.  250K PPV buys is equal to 600,000 $24.99 subscriptions.  They need to find a price that gets as many dollars from subscriptions as they are getting from PPV buys.  I think that price is lower than $40, but it doesn't seem like they have any plans to do that. 

One thing they do need to do is add FightPass to the package, there is no reason to have a UFC fight pass without any UFC fights on it.  

I think unfortunately we're at a point where for all the faults of current regime, they understand even though they don't really need a PPV model, the PPV model can still be beneficial for the overall growth in heading toward their end game. Endeavor is about to go public pretty soon. They've kill the town (I would argue it was heading that way before then but I digress) when it comes to mid tier PPVs but so did HBO between the years of 2002-2006 post TVKO between Lewis/Tyson and Mayweather/De La Hoya. That didn't stop PPV from being able have giant buyrates every once in awhile. As a result, they're not going to give up PPV. They could do the IYH thing through ESPN+, but you're going to get 15 to 25 dollar PPVs for real for real. Then, everyone will say, "why isn't this shit free?" After that, they would find a way to charge you Mayweather/Pac or Mayweather/McGregor money to watch all the real superfights. I don't trust them to get that right. Essentially, you would pay the exact same thing as a 40 or 45 a month plan (12x25=300 plus two seperate 100 dollar PPVs=$500 a year) and the churn would be crazy. Hence, why it's evident to me AT BEST we're several years away from the UFC walking away from this model. When DAZN popped up and took every boxer that wasn't signed to Al Haymon and Frank Warren, they saw blood in the water and from a fan perspective (especially ones who don't have a bunch of disposable income), that was the worst thing possible. Now the PPV distributors had a very little bargaining power and if they didn't cave (which eventually came to pass), it left ESPN to swoop in and finish them off. They had the most to benefit in signing the UFC to an almost two billion dollar deal and Disney diving in hard on the streaming game. A platform like DAZN has to charge only $9.99 and now $19.99 a month/$99.99 annually because they have little to no credibility outside a deal here or there with other sports entities. Nobody can be the new Netflix because Netflix itself is build off up paying billions for current and future content and losing an obscene amount annually on the HOPE they can one day make money. That's what investors are betting big on. If two or three years from now the backers of DAZN said "we can't do it anymore" and backed away to their previous model pre combat sports, it shouldn't shock anyone. Therefore, I obviously don't expect ESPN on behalf of the UFC to put themselves in a position where they allow you the consumer to pay 20 to 25 bucks a month for everything just to be nice. Their plan is to make money. Whether they use sugar and honey or straight up brute force is just semantics now because the UFC has already entered it into the brains of customers past and present "you have to pay a grip to watch our product when it's time to do that...if you don't fuck you". No matter if you like the current regime and the matchmaking or not, ESPN found the perfect opportunity and they're capitalizing on that right now.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Elsalvajeloco

[username]

I'm sure this has been discussed and I just missed it somewhere, but from what I can gather to buy a UFC ppv now I'd have to pay an initial $5 for a one month ESPN+ subscription on top of the actual ppv cost, but the ppvs now cost $5 less so it breaks even?

[Elsalvajeloco]

4 minutes ago, username said:

I'm sure this has been discussed and I just missed it somewhere, but from what I can gather to buy a UFC ppv now I'd have to pay an initial $5 for a one month ESPN+ subscription on top of the actual ppv cost, but the ppvs now cost $5 less so it breaks even?

For existing users like myself that would be the case. You're saving 60 bucks annually because it's not like ESPN+ would exist otherwise. You would still have to pay for that service and then order a PPV through your cable provider. I think that also applies to the new users but new users can pay $79.99 for ESPN+ for the year and get a PPV included in that. So that would be 30 dollars off the usual price for that PPV. 

[Setsuna]

9 hours ago, supremebve said:

 

One thing they do need to do is add FightPass to the package, there is no reason to have a UFC fight pass without any UFC fights on it.  

Not saying Fight Pass shouldn't be added on for certain audiences but for my corner of the world, Fight Pass is still the platform to watch UFC ESPN shows. I was really worried about the ppv news until I found the press release that stated it was only for the (North American?) market.

[Elsalvajeloco]

4 hours ago, Setsuna said:

Not saying Fight Pass shouldn't be added on for certain audiences but for my corner of the world, Fight Pass is still the platform to watch UFC ESPN shows. I was really worried about the ppv news until I found the press release that stated it was only for the (North American?) market.

Yeah, as far as I know, this is strictly for the United States and whoever else bought PPVs through their previous domestic PPV partners.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Elsalvajeloco

[The Natural]

Fuck you, Frank Shamrock.

Edited March 23, 2019 by The Natural

[Elsalvajeloco]

Damn...I knew Kenney would be in the UFC but I didn't think it would happen in two days. That was fast.

[Niners Fan in CT]

Eh 

 

[Elsalvajeloco]

Urijah Faber unretired yesterday. He is ducking Urijah Faber clearly.

[Jiji]

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GIANT FUCKING BOAT!?

Edit: lol, apparently he bought a 75 foot yacht this January. That is clearly not the one he was eye fucking a while back. This fucker will be back.

Edited March 26, 2019 by Oyaji

[Craig H]

Cocaine is a helluva drug.

[supremebve]

So those rumors that have been going around...The New York Times has started reporting on them.  That doesn't make them true, but that gives them a much higher level of credibility.

[Elsalvajeloco]

44 minutes ago, supremebve said:

So those rumors that have been going around...The New York Times has started reporting on them.  That doesn't make them true, but that gives them a much higher level of credibility.

The actual sexual assault investigation isn't a rumor. ESPN MMA just posted it on their Twitter.

[Niners Fan in CT]

Oh so this was a "hey guys I'm out.  Nothing to see here"  retirement. 

[Elsalvajeloco]