this post was submitted on
64 points (70% like it)
111 up votes 47 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

63
64

UFC Finds Ways to Reach New Audiences; Still Missing the Point (self.MMA)

submitted ago by EatingSteak

I was just googling for some info/countdown/prelim info for UFC 143, and I had to do a double-take when I saw the search results pop up in my local theater.

This was the first time I had heard anything about UFC in mainstream theaters. I called and told my dad about it.

He asks "How much?"

I call:

  • $25/ticket

So here are my options to watch UFC:

  • Pay exorbitant fee to watch on PPV

  • Pay $50 for two people to watch at the theater

  • Drive 15+ minutes to the nearest bar with the fight (keeping in mind I live in walking distance of 3 bars; I'm not in the middle of nowhere)

  • Wait for a TV event, with 1-2 fights **per hour* of syndication

  • Pirate UFC events

Now, Dana White is always flipping shit about live streams, piracy, and people "stealing" his fights. Don't you think it would make a lot more sense to make some fights reasonably available to a wider fan base?

If I were just a casual sports fan (maybe I'd decide to give MMA a shot), there are literally no good options available for me to watch the fight.

It's nice to see them branching to a new medium (movie theaters), but they're going to have to SERIOUSLY adjust the price point if they want to actually fill some seats. I think $8 for a movie ticket is a bit steep, but it seems to cost $11 anyway. Why does the UFC think they can double that, and actually attract customers?

all 132 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]porkmaster 26 points27 points ago*

i can watch every NHL game for $160 a year.

UFC should do a subscription like that.

the thing that pisses me off about the NHL package is it doesn't work if your team is the local team- they expect you to have cable, so it's blacked out. or if your game is on VS or the NHL network? blacked out. i still have to watch a stream for those. it's still a pretty good value for the $, but if they want people to not-pirate, they should give you everything you're trying to pay for.

[–]WTFyoukay 12 points13 points ago

Yep. annual subscription of a few hundred dollars and I'm in. $50/month is as much as I pay for my entire TV package including showtime and HBO where my whole get hundreds of hours of enjoyment. justifying $50/mo for a 3 hour ppv just doesn't fit my families budget.

[–]YourCompanyHere 3 points4 points ago

I pay about $6/mo extra on my cable tv (Brazil) to have all UFCs live in HD. I have the $25/mo football (soccer) plan which grants that price on the fighting channel. I am kinda shocked we pay for something here less than in the US after all.

[–]ruffus4life -1 points0 points ago

is Brazil fun? as a person that has not left North Carolina i just wonders?

[–]FackingCanuck -1 points0 points ago

There's a difference between what is best for the fans and what is best for the UFC. Obviously we would all prefer to see every fight for free, but that's not realistic. The UFC prices their product to maximize their revenues. Clearly they have concluded that they can make much more money selling 14-16 PPVs per year at $50 a pop than selling year-long subscriptions. Saying that the "UFC should do a subscription like that" when we have no knowledge of their internal numbers is really just wishful thinking from a fan's perspective.

[–]porkmaster 4 points5 points ago

all i know is they'd be selling more PPVs to me if they were cheaper.

14x $20= $280

3x $50= $150

one of those is better for the UFC and for me.

[–]Tytru 2 points3 points ago

it will never be 20$ a ppv

[–]hvyhitter 0 points1 point ago

I'd buy it for 20. Now I watch every 5th one with a group of guys at a bar.

[–]sharked 21 points22 points ago

damn, UFC fans on reddit are aristocrats. apparently they all wipe their ass with $50.

[–]craigsterino 9 points10 points ago

Now that they have a Fuel/FX/Fox deal more big fights will be available for free. Just think before the Fox deal there is no way that you would see big fights like Velasquez/Dos Santos or Davis/Evans for free legally.

[–]Tat2darms 5 points6 points ago

Unless you live somewhere other then the USA where you might have to pay $15 a month for every card .

[–]craigsterino 25 points26 points ago

Sheeeeeeiiiiiit....if I could legally pay $15 for each event I'd gladly do it. It's when the events are $50 each when it becomes cost prohibitive.

[–]JustKea10 -1 points0 points ago

Going off of list of ufc events from wikipedia there are 4 fights on ppv planned this year...so far (assuming all numbered events are ppv.) 7 events are "free" on fox fuel or fx. 11 * 15 = 165. 4 ppv fights at 50 each = 200. Currently you're paying about 18 bucks per event.

I know I should probably do a larger list consisting of last years events but I think the spike deal limited the amount of free events a year (spike deal only allowed ufc to put on equal or less events on other stations. 4 spike 4 versus.) Looking at last years events I think I counted 11 free events including TUF finale's. Considering the fact that by may we are going to have 7 free fights I think the 11 event mark is going to be passed really easily.

tldr; you're currently paying 18 bucks an event so far this year...

[–]porkmaster 0 points1 point ago

if only i can pay that $20 per event and stream them all without having to get cable...

[–]JustKea10 1 point2 points ago

sounds like a personal problem.

[–]porkmaster 0 points1 point ago

somewhat. the building i live in does not allow cable, only re-sold directv through a company they've given a monopoly in the building. i don't like their attempt at a "my way or the highway" business model, so i don't give them my money.

is it really that unreasonable to want to be able to legally stream these basic cable "free" events and actually pay for them as a package deal?

[–]BongRipsPalin 2 points3 points ago

They should go the HBO boxing route and show the PPVs a week later on Friday night. They could show it on FX if they didn't think it'd pull good enough numbers for Fox, but they'd probably be afraid it would hurt their PPV sales. Ultimately, PPV in the traditional sense is a dying holdover from a few decades ago, and the UFC will eventually drop prices for events or come up with an alternative model.

Even if they stop piracy completely, there'd still be a shitload of MMA fans who would stop watching non-free events. Events cost a pretty huge amount of money to produce, but there's a sizable amount of fans, particularly casual, who won't ever pay the current price for a PPV, through any of the methods they offer.

[–]YoungFlyMista 1 point2 points ago

That's not true. Ufc has always been great about offering free fights. Rampage vs. Dan Henderson Unified the Pride and UFC titles on free tv.

[–]EatingSteak[S] -1 points0 points ago

I think they're really blowing it with FX/Fox so far. I wasn't expecting Davis/Evans to be a "big fight" (actually, I'm surprised it came out as 'close' as it did, if you can call it that).

They simply have too much blabbing, too much banter, and not enough content. Especially for newer audiences, spending exuberant amounts of airtime hyping up future fights is just boring. It seems to be like their top priorities for broadcast UFC events are (a) plugging the PPV events and (b) selling ad space.

A typical syndicated TV show is 44-45 min of content per hour of syndication. With Velasquez/Dos Santos, they gave one event, 25 minutes of content (theoretical max), plus a minute or two of judge's decision an entire hour.

Throw in some intros, and you're talking 30 minutes of actual content, 35 if you really stretch it, of actual "show". Maximum. What were they thinking?

[–]rugbysuperstar 9 points10 points ago

If you think sports fans don't like "blabber" and "useless content" then you have a very rudimentary understanding of the industry. If all you want is fights, sign up for UFC vault.

[–]EatingSteak[S] -5 points-4 points ago

The NFL is surprisingly good about that. They kickoff when they say they're going to kick off, and they keep 'blabber' to a minimum, and mostly during halftime and team timeouts.

Also, UFC PPV events are really good, and I like Bellator's submission demos that they do on some down-time. But the UFC on Fox/FX so far? Reminds me of watching the Pro Bowl.

[–]shakestheclown 8 points9 points ago

Not sure if the NFL is the best example, there are about 11 minutes of live ball action in a 185 minute broadcast.

[–]lizard_king_rebirth 4 points5 points ago

Right, but if you are really a fan of football you are paying attention to what's going on on the field for much more than 11 minutes. Watching formations, motion, audibles, etc makes for a lot more time than that. Plus the NFL broadcasters have a done a great job with replay and analysis during the game, so that really helps to keep people's attention and help them better understand what's going on. The way fights are structured, there really isn't much time for that except post-fight, and that time is generally used for commercials and hyping upcoming events rather than fight analysis.

[–]ponyup 1 point2 points ago

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Study-NFL-games-only-have-11-minutes-of-action?urn=nfl,213941

here is a source for that dude who tried calling me out saying i "don't understand the sport"

[–]ponyup 6 points7 points ago

The average NFL game has around 11 minutes of actual gameplay... the Sonnen and Bisping fight was 3 five minute rounds of action. That one fight had more action than an average football game. If you didn't think that Sonnen and Bisping was a good fight then you're probably watching the wrong sport man.

[–]EatingSteak[S] -4 points-3 points ago

I'm not counting "snap-to-whistle" time here, but if you look at NFL torrents, they have the shit and the commercials, and halftime trimmed, and are still over 2 hours, out of 3 hours syndication. Factor that for fluff, and you're still over 50%. The UFC is not.

[–]gl0ryus 0 points1 point ago

If you torrent UFC events you can fast forward past the the nonsense you don't like. You're arguments aren't making very valid points man.

[–]amalgaman 2 points3 points ago

I kept hoping they'd show highlights from the undercard, or more highlights from each fighter's career. While I (as a former wrestler) don't mind the struggle for position and control, potential new fans will be looking for headkicks or knockout punches. The best way to get that is highlight reels.

[–]StudleyMumfuzz 0 points1 point ago

What do you think NFL Football is?

[–]swampskater 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, but do you realize how few homes have fuel and how much it costs to upgrade a cable package to get it? They've made it less accessible while offering less fights on the fox cards than what you got on spike or versus.

[–]joepawlman 8 points9 points ago

i watched lesnar vs. velasquez in a theater. it was a lot of fun actually. i'm not going to have enough money to see a UFC event live anytime soon and it was actually pretty fun. i'm gonna pay about 20 bucks today to watch today's fights in 3d. it's a bit dorky but i love me some gimmicks; merika

[–]JustKea10 1 point2 points ago

Hey I actually was wondering if anyone was going to watch the event in 3d. Could you make a post giving impressions or reply to me with them I would really like to know how people feel about it.

[–]joepawlman 1 point2 points ago

will do.

[–]crackeddagger 5 points6 points ago

Or on the flipside, have less PPV per year with more stacked cards.

[–]MikeTea 4 points5 points ago

The cards in 2011 and the ones scheduled so far in 2012 have almost all been stacked. It's a great time to be an MMA fan.

[–]Joao_Platypus 0 points1 point ago

i agree. in the old days it seemed like we would wait months for UFC events, but when they arrived, there was always at least one belt up for grabs, and you'd get to see your favourite guy fight every 2-3 events.

IMO the oversaturation of events these days has been accompanied by a marked decline in the overall quality and recognizability of fighters... when they changed from the original themesong it was a sign of the beginning of a decline

[–]andepthman 0 points1 point ago

That lack of recognizability of fighters is bound to happen with aging champions, two new weight classes, and recently taking over two other fighting leagues.

[–]Joao_Platypus 0 points1 point ago

i definitely don't disagree with you; maybe i'm just being a cranky old fart in my longing for the olden days. we've come a long way since UFC 5.

[–]jasonsawtelle 0 points1 point ago

This card was stacked and we got a bunch of decisions.

[–]silky_johnson 2 points3 points ago

I don't mind paying $15-18 for Mayweather fights. I've gone and seen his last 3 fights at the theater. But $25 seems ridiculous.

[–]klaus1986 7 points8 points ago

No you're absolutely right. If producers of content want to cut down on the amount of piracy, they need to make their content cheaper and especially EASIER than pirating.

The UFC may hit a glass ceiling, but they might not care.

[–]notformeplz 2 points3 points ago

It all comes down to profit in the end.

Clearly no one inside the UFC wants to or can make the argument that lower prices will result in a large enough increase in sales to make it beneficial.

[–]EatingSteak[S] 1 point2 points ago

The UFC just seems to be losing on every front with ways to beat piracy. I think price point is the best place to start.

[–]Deadnettle 0 points1 point ago

they need to make their content cheaper and especially EASIER than pirating.

unintentionally hilarious :)

unless you are implying that UFC should pay us to watch the fights, kind of a reverse PPV? that's the only "cheaper than free" option I can think of

[–]EatingSteak[S] 2 points3 points ago

I think the obvious intention was "cheaper than it is" and "easier than pirating".

[–]klaus1986 0 points1 point ago

The majority of UFCs are on PPV...

[–]AtOstentation 3 points4 points ago

Is it $25 for it in 3D? My theater is showing it for $25 in 3D... I saw Lesnar-Velasquez in theaters and it was probably $15 or so, can't remember because there may have been A LOT of alcohol involved

[–]Jonny2k1 1 point2 points ago

Wait, it's in 3D? That sounds pretty cool, at least to see once. Even though $25 is still a bit high, the combined comfort, big screen and 3D gimmick could make it worth it. I can't imagine sitting in a theater with the usual UFC bar crowd though.

[–]EatingSteak[S] 2 points3 points ago

Yeah, $25 for 3D. My point is, that's too much even if it was 4D.

[–]AtOstentation 0 points1 point ago

I kinda disagree... Most bars by me have a $10 cover, standing room only, and usually can't hear shit. Not to mention $30-80 for drinks that night. So, cheapest we are looking at is $40 for me. At the 3D theater I get a comfy seat, huge screen, 3D, perfect sound quality, and bring my flask to fill me up. I'm actually saving money here. Plus, I don't have to clean up or deal with drunks bumping into me or trying to start shit.

Sure, I'd like to pay $10 or $5 less... But it's kinda like buying first class tickets on a plane or coach... Sure, you get to point A to B both ways but one is a lot more comfy.

[–]AtOstentation 3 points4 points ago

Also, I think I payed $18 a ticket to watch Alice In Wonderland in 3D with my nephew.. $7 more for a live event really isn't a lot.

[–]ribeyeandbeer 1 point2 points ago

What time do the prelims start? Are they on facebook or fuel?

[–]skwedgie 0 points1 point ago

Prelims start at 8 EST. They have two Facebook fights, and the rest you can probably watch on TV.

[–]cerealbh 1 point2 points ago

its not a new medium they have done it before.

[–]uses 1 point2 points ago

It's a hard one for them to solve - their entire business model is based on selling high-priced PPVs.

This model exists because traditionally, people buy them as a group and they all chip in. That made more sense when there were like 5 PPVs a year, and they were all star-studded. Casuals can buy into that. That's not the case now.

Now we have a few huge PPVs a year, and a lot of average or mediocre ones. But hardcore fans still want to see every one. So being expected to pay top dollar for every single event leaves hardcores in a bad spot.

So like others have suggested, we need some kind of model that gives hardcores a way to enjoy every event, while not devaluing the price of an individual PPV, since the UFC is trapped into that business model.

[–]Freewheelin_ 1 point2 points ago

Why is driving 15 minutes to the nearest bar not a good option?

[–]EatingSteak[S] -1 points0 points ago

It seems silly that there are 3 bars in a quick walk, one literally around the corner, yet the event is hard to co,e by. They charge around $2000 for a non-private showing. Get a good small-time bar that only holds 50 or so people, and they won't generate that much revenue in a night.

They're simply locking out a lot of their potential market out, then they complain whine about piracy. It's as hypocritical as it is silly.

[–]Freewheelin_ 0 points1 point ago

That doesn't explain to me why driving 15 minutes to a bar and paying (from what I've heard) $8 for a UFC event isn't a good option

[–]bernie16wb 1 point2 points ago

The ppv isn't bad. Just get a few people together. 5 people and it's $11 or so each for the HD one. Not that bad.

[–]Recreant57 1 point2 points ago

find some fellow fight friends or other people interested in MMA, take turns hosting a fight night, have everyone pitch in like $5-10 depending on amount of people!

[–]ppcpunk 1 point2 points ago

I pay 10 bucks to watch UFC with some buddies, i'm fine with that.

[–]Chris-T 1 point2 points ago

I wouldn't mind driving over 15 minutes to a bar if it wasn't so crowded that I can't even sit any where or get any service. Also you don't get to hear the commentary at the bar.

[–]EatingSteak[S] 1 point2 points ago

Where I lived in Indiana at the nearest BWW it was just like that... bar was loud as shit, standing room only, and no tables available unless you get there before 6pm (kinda fucking early for something that goes till 1am).

Just struck it lucky here to have a local place with the volume blasting, not too loud otherwise, and possible table availability.

[–]donnie_brasco 2 points3 points ago

Ufc puts on more free events these days(basic cable free anyways). They are never going to give up the ppv model for the big fights. The only way they could do it would be to create there own cable network and make people pay per month for it which would make it even harder for new fans to find the sport. you are complaining because you are a big fan who doesn't want to spend the crazy amount it would take to catch every ppv the ufc puts on, I feel for you but your argument about new fans is bs.

[–]nerd_prime 3 points4 points ago

As for the driving 15+ minutes, big fucking deal? I sometimes drive even farther to get to the bar I want to for UFC events.

[–]upturn 3 points4 points ago

I'm not sure why you're getting so much resistance over saying what amounts to, "Look, UFC, this stuff is still too expensive to watch." I guess they've put together an audience second only to Apple in devotion if fans are willing to defend paying more.

I agree with you. It's hard to be a UFC fan without either having friends around you to share the cost or spending a lot of money yourself. For what it costs to watch UFC shows, I get a lot more enjoyment out of going to a few local events a year.

[–]MikeTea 4 points5 points ago

No one is defending paying more. I just think his anger might be a bit misplaced. There are a lot of factors that go into the price points that the UFC has set other than "Dana wants another Lambo". They aren't the only ones making money of PPV or movie theaters showing UFC events.

Also...15 minutes. Really?

[–]TheMeatball 1 point2 points ago

Also...15 minutes. Really?

This jumped at at me too. This is pretty petty. 15 minutes is hardly a prohibitive length of time to drive for a 3 hour event.

[–]upturn -3 points-2 points ago

When I said "pay more," I was referring to the current prices ("more" relative to the possibility of less expensive options that the OP would like to see). I could have said that better. Substitute "pay more" with "the current price structure." That certainly has been defended here.

I'm not particularly sympathetic to a fifteen minute drive being a huge inconvenience by itself, however his complaint touches upon a larger point. There are a lot of fans with no local sports bar to view events or (like me) just hate them.

[–]EatingSteak[S] 0 points1 point ago

I think this is the best response here. We need to get some of these people's resumes over to Monster Cable.

[–]hullkogan 3 points4 points ago

I was thinking...

A lot of the people who are watching pirated streams aren't going to buy the PPV no matter what. They either don't have the money or would choose to spend it elsewhere.

Is it better to have eyes on your product and hope that they turn into customers or have the sport available to only those who can afford to be fans?

[–]BongRipsPalin 4 points5 points ago

I think this is an aspect of piracy that's not addressed enough. Piracy does cut into some of the UFC's sales, almost guaranteed, but not all of the people who pirate would be willing to pay the current model if illegal options were gone. As such, piracy does get the content to a larger base than it would otherwise. Some of those fans might buy merchandise or go on to buy legal access to events if they start having more money. It's a more complex situation than just theft.

[–]turkeypants 1 point2 points ago

I want a BMW but they are just too expensive. Why can't BMW be more reasonable and sell them for $15,000 so everyone can have one? There are literally no good options for me to buy a new BMW. If they don't want me to "steal" one, they should quit being stubborn and lower the price. I want to play by the rules but they're just kind of asking for it with these prices.

[–]TheMeatball 2 points3 points ago

Not to mention the nearest BMW dealership is 15 minutes away.

[–]EatingSteak[S] -1 points0 points ago

Clever analogy, but in terms if variable cost: with UFC, it's literally zero. The key difference is that if you can't afford a premium UFC event, you have the option of pirating it.

The UFC seems to try to make it difficult or prohibitively expensive to buy, then cry because of how many people pirate it. BMW certainly doesn't "make their product available" to most income brackets, but then you don't hear them whining about having a small market share.

[–]Simco_ 4 points5 points ago

there are literally no good options available for me to watch the fight.

I don't know your financial situation, but every legal avenue is completely reasonable to me.

  • The PPV fee isn't exorbitant to me. If you have friends, chipping in for this is not a strain economically.

  • The theater is a luxury and costs such. It's certainly not meant to be cheap or meant to be a very popular avenue, but now people who want to watch the event on a 50' wide screen are able to. I think that's great.

  • I guess we'll just have to disagree on 15 minutes being a long time to drive somewhere. Maybe you're used to doing everything within five minutes of your home. That sounds nice but it's certainly not what I'm used to. It is also not up to the UFC which bars will be playing their events; it is up to the bars. I would direct my criticism of you having to drive somewhere to your local bars and encourage them to get the events.

  • A football game has about 15 minutes of playing in a three hour broadcast. MMA far outdistances their ratio of sport:everything. Also, as I brought up before, if you have friends, talking to them shouldn't be a problem and is an easy way to fill the time between fights.

I honestly don't agree with you at all about these avenues being "unavailable" to people. Sorry to be rude, but you seem very entitled and quick to complain. You aren't happy with being given something for free and you aren't happy with having to leave your house. I'm not sure how the UFC could make you happy aside from giving you everything for free in your home and not having any commercials.

[–]ArenSilver 15 points16 points ago*

However if you don't have friends to chip in on a ppv then it is a dramatic strain. I'd be very surprised if people are pirating ppvs in groups, it's more likely individuals that can't get a group together and are too antisocial to sit in a bar by themselves around loud, drunk people watching a fight.

The UFC is trying to stop this with brute force when really they are missing a market they could be making money off of. Sell cheap lo-fi streams decent enough to watch on your computer but not good enough a group would watch on a tv. The pirated streams people are watching online are terrible quality and cut out constantly, if they make it easier and more reliable to get it from them than the pirate problem is solved. BUT they need to make a price accessible for a single person that doesn't have a lot of money or they will continue to see pirating happen. Making more "luxury" and group oriented options, while nice, won't solve this problem.

[–]1norcal415 8 points9 points ago

This is actually a brilliant idea. The UFC definitely should segment their product by price point. Shit, every other industry does this, why can't they? I would probably pay $5-10 for a low-fi stream on a night that my friends were busy.

[–]Simco_ 4 points5 points ago

I think a low quality, cheaper priced stream would be a good idea, too.

[–]hyperinsane 0 points1 point ago

its antisocial to not want to sit by yourself in a bar?

[–]ArenSilver 0 points1 point ago

Not really, I'd say it's pretty normal actually, but as an antisocial person that sounds like a complete nightmare.

[–]Sin2K 7 points8 points ago

It is also not up to the UFC which bars will be playing their events; it is up to the bars.

I agree with all of your points except for this... From what I understand, the UFC charges a lot of money to bars that want to show events, so it's normally only the larger chains that can afford to show them and that's if they decide it's worth it anyway.

[–]gnomesane 4 points5 points ago

My local pub (Canada) paid $2000 for UFC 142. That's definitely a lot considering that a lot of these cards are pulling under 300k buys.

[–]FackingCanuck 2 points3 points ago

It's not a lot if ordering the fighters brings in 50 extra customers who each order food and drinks. The bars aren't ordering the fights out of the goodness of their hearts, it's because it makes economic sense for them to do so.

[–]gnomesane 4 points5 points ago*

Unfortunately it didn't pay off for them. They said a lot of people actually stay away on UFC nights because they expect an MMA crowd (i.e. the Tapout stereotype). Meanwhile a lot of the fans come in and split appetizers, and stop ordering drinks halfway through the card so they can leave after the main event.

I also don't think 50 extra customers would cover it. 50 extra people would have to spend $40 each, and you also have to account for the bar's costs to serve them. Say that's $8 each. Add taxes and tip and each customer would need to spend about $60 for the bar to break even.

[–]Sin2K 1 point2 points ago

I've been to a few bars that charge a $5 or $10 cover for those events to try and make up the cost. And these are places that are hosting after-parties from local amateur events.

[–]swampskater 1 point2 points ago

But the price is based on the what their capacity is. Not how many seats they have, but how many people can squeeze into that bar and it still be "safe". That is horrible for a lot of small bars who can't afford to purchase the PPV on the chance they attract more customers than normal.

[–]notformeplz 6 points7 points ago

The PPV fee isn't exorbitant to me. If you have friends, chipping in for this is not a strain economically.

Terrible argument.

So if I don't have two to four other friends who want to split a PPV with me, I am fucked?

I live in Australia where PPVs are around midday, going to a bar is a terrible idea and every other option mentioned doesn't exist here.

[–]zutroi67 3 points4 points ago

Yes, being in Australia, and maybe without cable, makes our life even more unbearable. Paul Keating's "Arse end of the Earth" statement is so true. We always get the shitty end of the deal. So the OP's post is even more true for us.

[–]Simco_ -5 points-4 points ago

You are fucked if you don't have friends, can't afford it yourself and refuse to go to a bar or other public place, yes.

But if all of those are true, I would argue that you have more important things to deal with than watching MMA.

[–]notformeplz 5 points6 points ago*

I don't drink alcohol. I think the idea of going to a bar during the day sounds absolutely horrible.

I have friends, but not ones that would be happy to chip in $10 to watch something they don't enjoy.

I can afford it myself occasionally (I often shout my only friend who also loves UFC) Lesnar vs Overeem was the last card I purchased and I have attended UFC 110 and UFC 127.

I am a student, therefore the amount of money I can earn is limited. Unless you want to suggest I sacrifice study time for work time in order to buy more UFC.

So what are my more important things to deal with?

[–]Simco_ 0 points1 point ago

I don't drink either. I hear that's a harder choice to make in Australia than the US. Props.

However, refusing to go a cheap place to view the fights is a situation you put yourself in and the UFC shouldn't be held accountable for that.

[–]turkeypants -2 points-1 points ago

work time in order to buy more UFC.

Yes. That's how buying things works. If you can't afford something you have to make more money. If you don't make more money, you can't have it. Traditionally, this is the point at which the thief, lacking money or refusing to spend money, steals things. Pity the poor man, your honor. He just didn't want to spend the money.

[–]notformeplz 2 points3 points ago

Or I could just steal it.

If UFC wants me to legally purchase their products they need to make payment options that suit all their target markets.

[–]turkeypants -2 points-1 points ago

That was the point of the comment. You're trying to defend theft. That doesn't work. Nobody can stop you from stealing it, but you can't say the UFC is making you do it or that it's OK. Go steal a car that you like but can't afford. After all, you shouldn't have to interrupt your studies to go work to earn the money to buy the things that you like. Just tell the cops the company shouldn't have priced it so high if they didn't want people stealing it.

[–]notformeplz 2 points3 points ago

No you are missing the point.

Here is a better version of your car analogy.

Mercedes Benz and Toyota both make cars.
Mercedes Benz has no interest in selling me a car though, so they don't create cars that would be in my price range. Toyota on the other hand targets me by making a low price small car, perfect for a student, among other markets.

I am going to spend a set amount on either product (a car or UFC events), UFC are targeting me but not providing a product that allows me to fully enjoy their product (which is another argument that no single fight is the UFC product, one the UFC itself makes). I will spend my set amount and attempt to full enjoy the product.

Also considering the digital nature of the product, stealing is completely different.

[–]turkeypants 0 points1 point ago

I agree that the analogy was not the best match. And I understand yours. And you're still missing the point that you can't have things that you can't/won't afford. Unless you're willing to steal them, which you are. But you can't make the argument that that's OK or that they're forcing you to do it. You know you're illegally taking a product that they've made and are trying to sell.

I'd like to see the fights tonight, but am trying to save money, so I'm not buying it. I'd like to see every event each year, but I can't afford it. If I made enough more money, I would buy them. I could view every one of them for free like you but I disagree that that's OK. So instead I just buy a few each year and otherwise read the news the next day. If they ever rebroadcast them for free, I watch them.

There's nothing wrong with your opinion that the fights are too expensive. You might even be right that they'd make more money and cut down on theft if they just lowered the prices. You could write to the UFC and give them that advice and make a case for why lowering the price would be a smarter move for them. And they would take that advice or discard it based on what they know about all of the factors involved in running that business. And at the end of all that consideration, they'd offer an experience for whatever price they think works best for the business and you could buy it or not, like everything else out there for sale.

But none of any of that makes a case for why stealing is OK because you disagree with their pricing. Make your argument for why they should lower the price, but don't try to use it to justify what you know is theft, digital or not. Their stuff being too expensive for you doesn't give you the right to jack it, anymore than jacking a car that's targeted at your market that you happen to be too broke to afford. They offer an experience for sale, you get the benefits of enjoying it for $0. Nobody makes that decision to steal but you.

[–]notformeplz -2 points-1 points ago

I validate my stealing through a number of reasons;

1) I am not stealing any actual product, my 'product' is reproduced without any effort. No one works an extra hour to provide me with a particular event. They work to put on the show no doubt, but that is paid for by legitimate customer, who I often am.

2) The UFC provides a essentially a league of fights, there is no single fight I want to see like boxing, I want to see them all. The UFC agrees with me because they are on record saying that you pay for the entire main card in a UFC PPV as the card is often stacked quite deep. I agree with this, but I am forced to purchase a single product piece by piece over a year, never offered a discount for being loyal, never being offered a better price for watching everything.

I absolutely make the decision to steal, but there are many factors effecting my decision; the most prominent being price. If the UFC altered their pricing they would make my decision harder.

Look at it like this, I could have pirated Louis CK Live at the Beacon, but because it was $5 rather than $30 I bought it.

You can argue that stealing it is bad, but that doesn't stop it from happening, which is what ultimately the UFC wants to do. So they can either put me in jail, or provide an option for me to purchase.

Hint - Putting me in jail, stops me purchasing the events/tickets I do purchase.

[–]joepawlman 4 points5 points ago

seriously, i find it a bit strange that somebody who lives in america would complain about driving a mere 15 minutes.

[–]lookcloserlenny 12 points13 points ago

I used to live in DC within 2 metro stops of a bar that played it. Now I live in the middle of nowhere and the nearest bar that shows UFC fights is 1.5 hours away. Seriously, the OP can kiss my ass if hes whining about driving 15 minutes to the nearest bar. Get a friend or two and make that drive.

[–]JudoTrip 2 points3 points ago

I don't know your financial situation, but every legal avenue is completely reasonable to me.

I find the less-than-legal avenues completely reasonable as well!

  • Stream event, taking nothing away from anyone and enjoying quality fights for free.

technology is good.

[–]EatingSteak[S] 0 points1 point ago

I really don't feel like "entitled" is the right word. I'm criticizing their methods of making the action available, which is a primary turn-off to new potential viewers.

  • PPV price - I'm not going to haggle, but $50 is a lot. If you "all chip in", it's still $50.

  • The theater was a 'luxury' in 1920. There are about 4 different theaters within 10 minutes of here that struggle to fill up half their seats They're not a luxury, and they're not scarce; they just overcharge.

  • I live right in town; I do "most things" within a 5-minute walk. (Maybe I should have been more clear in the post, but) I'm more pointing at what the UFC inevitably charges the bars to show the fight (there are 3 sports bars within a 5-minute drive of here that do not show it).

  • MMA does not distance the NFL; not by a long shot. If you look up NFL torrents you'll find most of them are 120-150 minutes of content (with the shit trimmed out). Some of them include some pre-game, and some broadcasts run over the 180-minute plan, so you have, on average, about (140/200) minutes of actual football. The UFC is less than 50%.

[–]1norcal415 0 points1 point ago

Okay, I hate to do this, but I've read some of your comments and I have to step in here and get a little harsh, because you are really off base with some of your remarks. Think of it as "tough love".

1) If you all chip in on the PPV, it is not still $50 for you, which is the only figure that matters in this discussion. I will admit, however, that it would be nice if the UFC lowered the PPV prices a bit.

2) The theater certainly is a luxury. I don't know what super-entitled world you live in where you think the theater is some kind of a commodity, but it ain't in my world.

3) You're a giant baby if you are still complaining about driving 15 minutes to a bar that shows an event.

4) An NFL game is about 11 minutes of actual gameplay. What the hell are you still blathering on about trying to say it is 140 minutes? If you include analysis, play setup, etc, then you have to do the same for a UFC event.

Tonight I'm going to a bar to watch the fight with some friends. It's about 30 minutes away, and there is no cover charge. We're gonna have a bunch of drinks and enjoy the fights, good times will be had by all. I suggest you do the same. Get some friends together who are interested in the fight and make it a night out, you won't be complaining afterwards, trust me :)

[–]ghostofmybrain 1 point2 points ago

An NFL game is about 11 minutes of actual gameplay

What the heck are you counting as "actual gameplay" for you say there is only 11 minutes of it?

[–]Joao_Platypus 4 points5 points ago

i'm guessing 11 minutes refers to the amount of time when the clock is counting and the ball is actually in motion

that been said, i'm no expert

[–]1norcal415 -1 points0 points ago

Snap to whistle. I admit, maybe that's not a fair comparison, but you get the point.

[–]ghostofmybrain -1 points0 points ago

It's not a fair comparison at all, so there's really no point to get.

[–]A_Giraffe 1 point2 points ago

The theater was a 'luxury' in 1920. There are about 4 different theaters within 10 minutes of here that struggle to fill up half their seats They're not a luxury, and they're not scarce; they just overcharge.

How do you know? I'm not trying to call you out, I'd just like some evidence of their costs. They are playing a one-night show, unlike movies which run for weeks. They're paying for staff and licensing. They're also not playing a movie in place of the UFC, hoping that there are more people to watch a UFC event than, say, Tin Tin (or whatever is playing right now).

I have never worked in a theatre, so I'm relying on you to break down a theatres costs and profit-per-ticket to back up your assertion that theatres overcharge.

(Also, as an aside, I think it's silly to compare the NFL to the UFC. The NFL is set up in a completely different say, with salaried players, several franchises, and several venues. During the season an NFL player will play frequently. Within a year, an MMA fighter in the UFC fights seldomly.)

[–]EatingSteak[S] -2 points-1 points ago

For the NFL specifically, I was referring to their syndication: getting good events to a wide audience for a reasonable cost/convenience. They do a reasonably good job. The nature of the sports are different enough that you can't compare their business models, but as far as broadcasting, marketing, and audiences, there's little difference.

Theaters are (effectively) owned and operated by the MPAA. The MPAA sets per-ticket royalties (literally about 90% of box office sales, and also effectively sets minimum ticket prices via per-ticket royalties). I use "owned" loosely, but the actual owner has almost no control over what content to run, and doesn't have freedom to do much other than fill up the theater. Now, would the MPAA go bankrupt if they halved their royalties and allowed local theaters to halve the cost of tickets? I doubt it. The prices are high because they set them high; I consider them too high because of the low cost of alternatives (really how much better is the 'big screen' than your big screen tv?).

[–]Simco_ -1 points0 points ago

  • If $50 split up between a few people is a lot, then watching free cards may be the way a person has to go to do it legally.

  • Watching a sporting event on a 50' screen is a luxury. I'm really not sure how that is debatable.

  • Bars are charged more because they make money off the event. Tonight, for instance, I'm going to a local bar that only has one location and I'm going there because they're showing the event. Because they paid for the event, they're going to make money off of me and my friends along with every other person who goes there tonight to watch. Aside from that, there is the potential for us to go back again another night now that we've been there (which we have done already). I didn't intend to explain the beginnings of how businesses works, but it seems necessary to help you understand why public viewings cost more to order than private.

  • Yes, it does. As I already explained (and others did, too), there is on average 15 minutes or less of actual football played in a broadcast. If you're just not aware of this, I understand why you would think differently. I recommend looking up the studies instead of citing a torrent that includes much more than actual gameplay.

The UFC airs events for free and gives people multiple methods and locations to view them. If you don't think this is good enough, I'm sure they would love to hear your suggestions on ways they can improve.

[–]EatingSteak[S] 1 point2 points ago

I really don't get where this "only 15 minutes of actual football" nonsense is coming from. There are FOUR 15-minute quarters. And the clock stops when the whistle blows on most plays. Literally at least, you're talking 40 minutes of pure snap-to-whistle game.

Time between plays in football I'd chalk up to 'actual content', about the same as I'd give corner time between rounds to the UFC (provided they don't cut to commercial, which they almost always do on Fox/FX).

[–]Simco_ -1 points0 points ago

As I said, you would be better off looking up the research rather than assuming you know what it is.

[–]Chris-T 0 points1 point ago

Driving 15 minutes to a bar is not a problem but having to stand because the place is so crowded and not being able to hear the commentary is a bit of a problem.

[–]Mafy19 1 point2 points ago

I always thought if they dropped the PPV cost to like 25 bucks they would actually have more people buy and probably make more than they would with the regular price. But you know Dana he needs to have a couple more lambos.

[–]MikeTea 3 points4 points ago

OR...the cable and distribution companies take over half of that 50 dollar pricing point. So, in essence...the UFC is actually only charging roughly $25 per event.

[–]upturn 4 points5 points ago

From the perspective of the UFC, yes, you're probably right. You could also subtract their tax liability, operating expenses, and maybe even apply some Hollywood accounting voodoo to bring it down even lower.

But as a viewer, it's still $50-ish that gets added to my cable bill.

We as fans ought to understand a bit about what goes on in the business, but we also need to advocate for ourselves. No one else will.

[–]MikeTea 3 points4 points ago

Do what everyone else does.

1) Get a few friends together and have everyone chip up 5 bucks. I've done it this way for YEARS and I order pretty much every PPV that UFC has.

2) Drive to a bar that shows it for free. (Buffalo Wild Wings, for me) UFC.com has a page that will show you which bars are showing it. BWW doesn't even charge. If you're seriously upset about driving 15 minutes to see a UFC event for free, then it sounds to me like you might just be looking for a reason to complain.

Also...who's to say that it's not the movie theater setting that $25 price point as opposed to UFC? Last I checked, it was $10 to see the UFC events at my local theater.

[–]Zeroc85 0 points1 point ago

good thing is... we get the livestream for free in germany because our gouvernment isnt allowing mma to show on tv =)

[–]noobprodigy 0 points1 point ago

You make good points, but I disagree with your assertion that there are "literally no good options" if you're a casual sports fan who wants to give UFC a shot. I got into it originally by watching a couple PPVs at a friends house, then I was invited out to a bar to watch the fights with a group of friends and I went. Yeah, I drove 15 minutes to get there, and I have bars closer to me than that too. I don't really think driving 15 minutes to a bar to watch the fight is a bad option, especially if you are just giving it a shot because even if you don't enjoy the fights, you're out with your buddies at a bar socializing. It's much better than dropping $60 for an HD PPV and hating it.

[–]sicapat 0 points1 point ago

like anything else it is a cash grab, they exploit the stupid fighters and make billions out of them, i guess the same as what happens to all of us, we pay taxes and work our whole life, for what, really nothing when it is all said and done, just one big puppet show

[–]iorgfeflkd 0 points1 point ago

I wonder how many people paid the 25 bucks.

[–]lhk91 0 points1 point ago

As a UK student, I have only one option.

I only have freeview, so can't pay for any sort of PPV even if I wanted to on my TV. None of my friends like MMA particularly, so can't really do anything there.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points ago

ESPN on digital

[–]afungi 0 points1 point ago

My biggest problem is that since I don't have cable (not worth it to me) I can't watch anything on Fox or FX legally. I would love to see the free fights available online, commercials and all. I know this will probably never happen, but television stations really need to start thinking about making their programming available via internet streaming.

[–]EatingSteak[S] 1 point2 points ago

They're shooting themselves in the foot with that really. The best and most proven way to 'beat' piracy is to give customers what they want, without the bullshit, and at a reasonable price. The UFC seems to be struggling with all three.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

I'd say they're not missing the point. This isn't the first fight card that has been in movie theaters. I'm guessing your town isn't the first town to have the fight in a theater. So that means, there are people that are willing to pay $25 to go see the UFC.

In a way, it make sense. I'll probably buy the card tonight, but if I was a social person maybe I'd want to go to a theater with other folks and see it on a huge screen, with coke, nachos, popcorn etc. Plus, I can go with my friends. If they come over, even if they split the cost of the PPV, I have to make sure to not blow that money before the satellite bill gets here.

Also, the point of the UFC is to make money. They just happen to have picked a model where they put on MMA fights as the primary way to make money. So I'm guessing there are enough people willing to drop either $25 to go see a fight in the theater, or $45 to see it at home (or $55 in HD) or $50 to sit in the last row of the stadium on a fight night (don't know how much it costs to go to a PPV.)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

you cant beat a 60 foot cinema screen in HD

[–]Klashus 0 points1 point ago

they are available its called the fox network everyone wants shit for free these days. if they didn't charge for ppv there would be no ufc

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points ago

No one cares, you pathetic loser. You and your dad both need to get jobs and quit being lazy. You're not entitled to free entertainment. Quit being a whiny bitch.

[–]domite -1 points0 points ago

I always pirate it. I don't even have a T.V.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 16088 on app-101 running c21fb21.