Star Power Matters! (But Being a Sport Matters More)

The Wrestling Observer website has a very good article up today tracking the drawing power of UFC pay-per-views (PPVs) in the Ultimate Fighter (TUF) era (2005 to Present).  The article is recommended reading, but just in case here's a summary: UFC will always have two or three top stars.  Those top stars' pay-per-view buyrates will always draw far larger numbers than pay-per-view events headlined by fighters with lesser star power.

The ostensible lesson told in the article is that non-star PPVs stay pretty much constant, while PPVs that feature stars and/or grudge matches tend to fluctuate dramatically based on the quality of star.  Towards the end of the article, there is a graph (created by Paul Fontaine, author of the article) that purportedly shows a relatively constant level of non-star PPV buyrates (the lower line on the graph) and a fluctuating line of star/grudge match PPV buyrates (the graph's upper line).

Neat stuff all around; good job, Paul.  But I think the conclusion is wrong.  I think that non-star PPV buyrates are not, in fact, constant.  I also think that the whole discussion within the article is missing the larger point about what produces the hills and valleys of UFC business.

I'd like to start with another graph.  It's non-star PPV buy averages, shown to scale:

The non-star PPV averages don't look very constant any more.  Non-star PPV buyrates showed year-over-year jumps as much as 140% and dips as much as 17% (doesn't sound like a lot, but if UFC is valued at $2 billion, as it was before the 2009-2010 drop happened, then a 17% dip would be $340 million).  Those fluctuations are less than the fluctuations for PPVs that featured stars or grudge matches, but they still are significant.

Here's another graph that's illuminating.  It's PPV deltas for star and non-star PPVs:

What that last graph shows is that in eight out of ten years, PPV buy averages rose or fell across the board.  If buys for PPVs featuring stars and/or grudge matches rose, then non-star PPV buys increased.  And if buys fell for stars and grudge matches, then they fell for ordinary PPVs as well.

So what does this all mean?

It means that stars matter, but that doesn't mean anything to a promoter.  UFC knows that James Toney and Brock Lesnar were stars before entering UFC, and that they popped buyrates.  UFC knows (or, at least, hopes) that CM Punk's star status will pop a buyrate at some point.  But doesn't need to know that stars draw money, UFC needs to know how to make stars.

The data shows that non-star PPVs draw less than PPVs featuring stars or grudge matches, but that doesn't mean anything to a promoter, either.  Dana White can't wake up and wish TJ Dillashaw into star status.  Lorenzo Fertitta can't blink his eyes and make people think that Rory MacDonald vs. Robbie Lawler is a grudge match.  

Here's what the data actually shows:

Brock's promo at UFC 100 was bad for business

The deltas in the last graph show that every year prior to Brock's promo at UFC 100 showed growth on PPV.  PPVs featuring stars and/or grudge matches grew every year from 2005 to 2009.  Non-star PPVs grew in every year except 2008.

After Brock's promo, UFC PPV business began a dramatic fall that it is just now recovering from.  Every single year has seen PPV declines up until this year.  (2012 saw the star/grudge PPV average increase, but UFC's overall PPV buys fell significantly in 2012 because the company promoted four fewer PPVs.)

The reason why Brock's promo meant whatever-word-is-the-antonym-of-business is because it ushered in the B.S. Era of UFC.  Brock's promo turned a sport into something resembling pro wrestling.  Countless UFC fans who thought that the sport was the coolest, bottle-serviciest thing began to see UFC as that uncool thing that they used to like when they were in high school.

Also...

It's easier to make stars when fans think that you're a sport

There were far more stars made in the era before Brock's promo at UFC 100 turned UFC into a joke.  Randy Couture, Chuck Liddell, Rick Franklin, Tito Ortiz, Brock Lesnar, BJ Penn, GSP (while Paul Fontaine listed GSP as a star beginning in 2010, he was clearly a top draw throughout 2009) and Anderson Silva (in a sweet bit of reverse engineering, Paul listed as a top draw beginning in 2013, but Silva drew massive buyrates well before then).  That's eight stars made in the pre-B.S. Era of UFC.  The post-B.S. Era of UFC saw only Jon Jones and Ronda Rousey become stars.  So, that's two.  

It took UFC four years to make eight stars when fans believed UFC was a sport, and then took six years to make two stars after Brock's promo made many fans view UFC as WWE 2.0.  

Stars are made in the same way that stars have been made since Odysseus got over in 1194 B.C.  Stars need to be believable.  Stars need to have a goal.  Stars need to overcome antagonism to achieve that goal.  And stars need to have their story told to the public.

In the B.S. Era of UFC, goals are harder to come by.  Back when fans perceived UFC to be a sport, goals were defined.  A championship was a goal.  Beating a person who was formerly a champion was a goal.  Today, the only possible goal is Epic Dominance.  Jon Jones and Ronda Rousey are Epically Dominant, so they are stars.  Everyone else competes for a fancy quilt made of leather and gold, and the public barely cares.

There's one more lesson to take from the data; a lesson that rank-and-file fighters should heed:

Stronger stars lead to better business for non-stars

In eight out of ten years, the trajectory of buys for PPVs that featured stars or grudge matches matched the trajectory of buys for non-star PPVs.  When star PPVs peaked, non-star PPVs peaked.  When star PPVs hit their post-2005 nadir, so too did non-star PPVs.

If you are a rank-and-file fighter, love your stars.  Give Chael Sonnen a hug, send Brock Lesnar some flowers and buy GSP some delicious poutine.  Because when a star gets hot, you're gonna get paid.

***

If you would like to support my writing, you can shop via my Amazon link.  Thank you!