Ppv hypothetical
- jeff_lacy_ko
- Posts: 9048
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:46 pm
- Location: milwaukee,wi
Ppv hypothetical
This is an idea ive had given covid. Want to see your thoughts
-
- Posts: 13657
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:43 pm
- Location: Tacoma, WA
Re: Ppv hypothetical
How about 5 dollars, Jeff? What's the point of the thread.
Purses are inflated, yet contracts exist hence the PPV's. Every boxing fan would like to watch the best fights for free, but the business model is fucked in boxing so the only consistent offering from the hurt business is frustration. Folks who want to see this event, whose co-main event are imo the most meaningful and competitive fights since covid hit, will pony up as they always have from Mike to Oscar to Floyd to Canelo.
Purses are inflated, yet contracts exist hence the PPV's. Every boxing fan would like to watch the best fights for free, but the business model is fucked in boxing so the only consistent offering from the hurt business is frustration. Folks who want to see this event, whose co-main event are imo the most meaningful and competitive fights since covid hit, will pony up as they always have from Mike to Oscar to Floyd to Canelo.
Re: Ppv hypothetical
If I had to pay for 1 fight this month it would be Dorticos-Briedis, which to me is the best fight since COVID took over. Two well-established world class fighters with big punches, consensus 1 vs 2 to make a clear lineal champ, and a true 50-50 to me (I think the Charlo fights are more like 60-40 and 70-30).
I think it's a good question though. A lot of of the time there is really only 1 or 2 attractive fights on a PPV card, and I'd rather pay less and just have those than have the price inflated by some undercard I'm not too interested in. Both the Charlo fights are good, but Figueroa and Nery are both in with heavily padded guys they should smash. Roman-Payano is decent but not something I'm really eager to see. For my interest level $75 is an exorbitant price tag.
I think it's a good question though. A lot of of the time there is really only 1 or 2 attractive fights on a PPV card, and I'd rather pay less and just have those than have the price inflated by some undercard I'm not too interested in. Both the Charlo fights are good, but Figueroa and Nery are both in with heavily padded guys they should smash. Roman-Payano is decent but not something I'm really eager to see. For my interest level $75 is an exorbitant price tag.
- jeff_lacy_ko
- Posts: 9048
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:46 pm
- Location: milwaukee,wi
Re: Ppv hypothetical
NoPropaganda 253 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 4:04 pm How about 5 dollars, Jeff? What's the point of the thread.
Purses are inflated, yet contracts exist hence the PPV's. Every boxing fan would like to watch the best fights for free, but the business model is fucked in boxing so the only consistent offering from the hurt business is frustration. Folks who want to see this event, whose co-main event are imo the most meaningful and competitive fights since covid hit, will pony up as they always have from Mike to Oscar to Floyd to Canelo.
Im curious if people would pay a lower fee for 1 good fight. Thats the point.
- jeff_lacy_ko
- Posts: 9048
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:46 pm
- Location: milwaukee,wi
Re: Ppv hypothetical
The sports changing rapidly. Im wondering how many more people would pay 1 lower price for 1 fight rather than 75 for a whole card.
-
- Posts: 13657
- Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:43 pm
- Location: Tacoma, WA
Re: Ppv hypothetical
Now, that's makes some sense, clarity achieved. I think this would work for weaker cards with a more coveted main as a hypo from a fans' perspective. I want to see Jermell/Rosario as well.
From a promotions stand point this idea would increase PPV sales in buys, but decrease revenue generated as the main events percentage of total purse payout would be greater than adjusted PPV cost. Contracts still exist, guarantees are still what they are, the promotion would lose substantially.
From a promotions stand point this idea would increase PPV sales in buys, but decrease revenue generated as the main events percentage of total purse payout would be greater than adjusted PPV cost. Contracts still exist, guarantees are still what they are, the promotion would lose substantially.
- jeff_lacy_ko
- Posts: 9048
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 8:46 pm
- Location: milwaukee,wi
Re: Ppv hypothetical
Agreed but more eyeballs is better for long term is what im thinking
So youd obviously need many more buys at a lower price - but if it were more commonplace in the future where an Undercard is on espn then you pay 20 bucks for a lomachenko fight? I dont know food for thought
So youd obviously need many more buys at a lower price - but if it were more commonplace in the future where an Undercard is on espn then you pay 20 bucks for a lomachenko fight? I dont know food for thought
-
- Posts: 8379
- Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:31 pm
Re: Ppv hypothetical
I wouldn't mind paying for just 1 fight, but it really comes down to how much it would cost for that 1 fight compared to the total price for the card. I mean this is paying for a third of the total ppv.
-
- Posts: 8230
- Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:50 pm
Re: Ppv hypothetical
I think most people would pay a lower cost for just one fight, I know I would. If you said to me, I could watch Floyd vs Manny, for 5-10 bucks, I think we would all jump on that.
The problem however, would come from the networks, sponsors, and promoters. Networks or sponsors, wouldn't risk a shit load of money in commercials or ads, for a fight that could potentially be short. They bank on things lasting longer, so they can stuff the broadcast full of ads, TV spots, and commercials. Even if the one fight we're paying for lasts 12 rounds, that's only about an hours worth of promotion, compared to 4-5 hours of a normal PPV.
Same with promoters: The more fighters from their stable they can have on card, the more money they make. Would promoters be willing to take a pay cut, for the overall promotion of just one fight? I think we all know the answer to that.
Good idea though. It would definitely be a win for us fans.
The problem however, would come from the networks, sponsors, and promoters. Networks or sponsors, wouldn't risk a shit load of money in commercials or ads, for a fight that could potentially be short. They bank on things lasting longer, so they can stuff the broadcast full of ads, TV spots, and commercials. Even if the one fight we're paying for lasts 12 rounds, that's only about an hours worth of promotion, compared to 4-5 hours of a normal PPV.
Same with promoters: The more fighters from their stable they can have on card, the more money they make. Would promoters be willing to take a pay cut, for the overall promotion of just one fight? I think we all know the answer to that.
Good idea though. It would definitely be a win for us fans.
- straycat
- TTR Superfights Challenge #9 Champion
- Posts: 27552
- Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:31 pm
- Location: We Miss You Buddy, Though You're Gone You Are Not Forgotten!
- Contact:
Re: Ppv hypothetical
Sadly with stræming and pirating becoming the norm the entertaiment industry seems to need some kind of gimmick
Ĩ ÁM ŚŤŔÁŶČÁŤ ÁŃĎ Ĩ ÁPPŔŐVĔ ŤĤĨŚ MĔŚŚÁĞĔ
>^^< ŚŤŔÚŤ!
>^^< ŚŤŔÚŤ!
ScapposeJohn commenting on Shane Mosely possibly being unaware he was taking PED's wrote: Likewise. It reminds me of President Clinton saying that he smoked weed in college but never inhaled. Yeah..........right.