|
|
|
|
#1
09-10-2007, 11:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
UFC events on Spike vs. pay-per-view
Does anyone know the business tradeoffs for having UFC events on cable vs. PPV? I am curious because they showed UFC 75, with arguably their biggest fight ever, on Spike. So they obviously lost a lot of PPV revenue. Do they make this up by selling commercials, or do they just have events on cable occassionally to generate new fans and accept the decreased revenue for that event?
|
|
#3
09-10-2007, 01:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: UFC events on Spike vs. pay-per-view
This could easily be part of their contract with Spike, which was probably made up when UFC didn't have the leverage they do now.
|
|
#4
09-10-2007, 01:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: UFC events on Spike vs. pay-per-view
It's the best way to develop a fan base. You can only show 5 year old Tito Ortiz fights on spike so many times before people lose interest. This way you can show people the atmosphere of a huge ppv, get them interested in current title holders/contenders, and use it to promote your upcoming ppvs.
|
|
#5
09-10-2007, 01:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: UFC events on Spike vs. pay-per-view
[ QUOTE ]
This could easily be part of their contract with Spike, which was probably made up when UFC didn't have the leverage they do now. [/ QUOTE ] doubt it. it wasnt announced that it was gonna be on free tv until relatively recently, after the big fights were set my guess is spike gives ufc a big chunk of change to put the ppv on their network. ufc is willing to lose short-term money on the deal to increase exposure, and spike might be willing to also
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
