Peak Money
The finish of Serena Williams's loss to Roberta Vinci was peak drama. There was a protagonist -- be it Serena for the lovers or Vinci for the haters. There was high antagonism: Serena about to lose her chance at history; an unheralded Vinci facing a moment no person could ever prepare for. There was everything else: suspense, a climax, reactions that spanned the emotional spectrum. It was, in a word, money.
One subplot was the loss of money. And that was true. Ticket brokers saw re-sale prices for the Women's Final plummet in the moments after the match. Advertising buyers who snapped up spots early saw their investments deflate and ESPN folks lost a chance to sell at a higher rate next time Serena plays. Those are just the big ones. Journalists, concession vendors and even -- maybe especially -- the sellers outside the grounds who planned to offer commemorative t-shirts Saturday night took a hit, too.
It is a reminder of who pays the bills in the world of entertainment. It buffers C.M. Punk's case that he belongs on a UFC card and it counters C.M. Punk's case that The Rock didn't belong in the last match at WrestleMania. Big stars doing big things draws big money. But that's obvious. What's less obvious -- and often frustrating -- is that everyone else makes more money when the big stars draw bigger.
What is interesting about Serena Williams is that she wasn't the draw. At least, not on her own, she wasn't. A bigger draw was The U.S. Open, and the main draw was History. When Serena plays in a non-major tournament, few people tune in. Her drawing power increases when she plays in the U.S. Open, but it's still mediocre. The people who care about money -- ticket brokers, ad buyers and even those guys selling merch outside the grounds -- will tell you: a Men's Final, even featuring players with name recognition well below Serena's, will outpace Serena in a Women's Final by every financial measure. Unless, that is, History is involved. With the same Serena and the same U.S. Open as there always is, History made this Women's Final a special draw. At the gate it was special -- it sold out before the Men's Final for the first time ever, even though in many years the Women's Final fails to sell out at all -- and on television it would've been special. Serena's quest for a Grand Slam was enough History to pique people's interest.
Vinci's upset win offers an obvious lesson for pro wrestling: strong characters make people care. Roberta Vinci is an over-the-hill, journeyman tennis pro who has been mostly anonymous, but for a moment she meant something. Depending on one's rooting interest, she was either an unexpected obstacle in a epic quest, or an underdog hero trying to slay the dragon. That happened because all of the things that have always made pro wrestling work, happened: A strong champion had been created. A scenario that stirs people's emotions existed. Suspense was built, because fans could plausibly believe that something unexpected might occur.
The takeaway for fans of MMA is trickier to ascertain.
It is known that stars draw money and jeopardy draws money. Three months ago, this site ran an analysis of UFC pay-per-view buyrates by Paul Fontaine, and it showed that big stars and grudge matches (which, at their core, are all about jeopardy for the two combatants) draw better on pay-per-view than middling stars without a backstory.
What Paul's numbers also showed is that when the stars are bigger, the non-star, non-grudge pay-per-views are bigger as well. The chart below, showing the year-to-year change in pay-per-view buys for both star and non-star shows, illustrates the point.
Whenever a dot on the graph lands above the "0" line, that means that average pay-per-view buys were higher for that year than for the previous year. If a dot lands below "0", then average pay-per-view buys were lower than for the previous year.
With the exception of 2008, non-star pay-per-view buys followed the trend of star/grudge pay-per-view buys. If the stars got bigger, then the non-star's ability to draw money also got bigger. (For example, in 2009 Brock Lesnar led star-driven pay-per-view buyrates to an average that was 200,000 buys higher than the year before. His presence in the company also resulted in non-star pay-per-view buys jumping by 100,000 per show.)
Big stars draw in both UFC and Tennis. Check. Star athletes and grudge matches have drawn more money -- both for stars and non-stars -- in UFC. Check. Making "History" draws in Tennis. That's a tough one for UFC.
"History" was the money maker for the 2015 U.S. Open and it has been for just about every sport -- but not UFC. Jon Jones made History by becoming the youngest champion of all time and it didn't draw. Demetrius Johnson fights for History by trying to reach Anderson Silva's record for successful title defenses and relatively few people buy his shows. UFC fans, in general, don't care how many titles have been won or how many weight classes have been conquered or how long someone has been winning. History doesn't draw.
There is another sport where History means nothing, and it is boxing. Floyd Mayweather has a chance to reach Rocky Marciano's undefeated record of 49-0 this Saturday and the sporting public couldn't care less. When he fought a star in a grudge match four months ago, it did record business.
It is fine for UFC and boxing to eschew History and rely on stars and grudges. They've both done it for their entire histories. But by doing so, they are, as Dana White likes to say, "stepping over dollars to pick up dimes."
UFC's entire yearly revenues are a rounding error to sports that use History to draw. A single NFL team receives triple the television revenues that UFC draws, per year. That's because History matters. When the Patriots almost went undefeated or when the 49ers tried to equal the record for most Super Bowl wins, that was History. Companies know that History means money in the NFL, they know a chance for History will happen at some point, and they want to be a part of it.
There is one, single reason why UFC and boxing can't draw based on History: they have no structure. Both sports promote like pro wrestling. They scrape for stars and they try to push grudges, always hoping to score that next big buyrate or Network number. The NFL, and other sports like it, have no need for such silliness. They have a defined structure.
An NFL team -- like an English soccer team or a women's tennis star -- knows what they have to do to become champion. A UFC fighter has no idea. Will he (or she) have to win eight fights to get a title shot? Two fights, like Brock Lesnar? Does a loss require him (or her) to win once more to get back in contention? Or would five successive wins not be enough because his (or her) first championship fight was one-sided and it didn't draw? There is no answer to any of these questions, and so History means nothing. Who can care that Demetrius Johnson might defend his championship eleven times in a row (which would break Anderson's record), when Chael Sonnen was a competent ringside doctor away from reaching Championship status because he talks good smack and Jon Jones broke his own toe?
If UFC executives want to make MMA the biggest sport in the world -- and they say that they do -- then they need structure. For, with structure comes History, and when History is a draw, an event can reach peak money.
One subplot was the loss of money. And that was true. Ticket brokers saw re-sale prices for the Women's Final plummet in the moments after the match. Advertising buyers who snapped up spots early saw their investments deflate and ESPN folks lost a chance to sell at a higher rate next time Serena plays. Those are just the big ones. Journalists, concession vendors and even -- maybe especially -- the sellers outside the grounds who planned to offer commemorative t-shirts Saturday night took a hit, too.
It is a reminder of who pays the bills in the world of entertainment. It buffers C.M. Punk's case that he belongs on a UFC card and it counters C.M. Punk's case that The Rock didn't belong in the last match at WrestleMania. Big stars doing big things draws big money. But that's obvious. What's less obvious -- and often frustrating -- is that everyone else makes more money when the big stars draw bigger.
What is interesting about Serena Williams is that she wasn't the draw. At least, not on her own, she wasn't. A bigger draw was The U.S. Open, and the main draw was History. When Serena plays in a non-major tournament, few people tune in. Her drawing power increases when she plays in the U.S. Open, but it's still mediocre. The people who care about money -- ticket brokers, ad buyers and even those guys selling merch outside the grounds -- will tell you: a Men's Final, even featuring players with name recognition well below Serena's, will outpace Serena in a Women's Final by every financial measure. Unless, that is, History is involved. With the same Serena and the same U.S. Open as there always is, History made this Women's Final a special draw. At the gate it was special -- it sold out before the Men's Final for the first time ever, even though in many years the Women's Final fails to sell out at all -- and on television it would've been special. Serena's quest for a Grand Slam was enough History to pique people's interest.
Vinci's upset win offers an obvious lesson for pro wrestling: strong characters make people care. Roberta Vinci is an over-the-hill, journeyman tennis pro who has been mostly anonymous, but for a moment she meant something. Depending on one's rooting interest, she was either an unexpected obstacle in a epic quest, or an underdog hero trying to slay the dragon. That happened because all of the things that have always made pro wrestling work, happened: A strong champion had been created. A scenario that stirs people's emotions existed. Suspense was built, because fans could plausibly believe that something unexpected might occur.
The takeaway for fans of MMA is trickier to ascertain.
It is known that stars draw money and jeopardy draws money. Three months ago, this site ran an analysis of UFC pay-per-view buyrates by Paul Fontaine, and it showed that big stars and grudge matches (which, at their core, are all about jeopardy for the two combatants) draw better on pay-per-view than middling stars without a backstory.
What Paul's numbers also showed is that when the stars are bigger, the non-star, non-grudge pay-per-views are bigger as well. The chart below, showing the year-to-year change in pay-per-view buys for both star and non-star shows, illustrates the point.
Whenever a dot on the graph lands above the "0" line, that means that average pay-per-view buys were higher for that year than for the previous year. If a dot lands below "0", then average pay-per-view buys were lower than for the previous year.
With the exception of 2008, non-star pay-per-view buys followed the trend of star/grudge pay-per-view buys. If the stars got bigger, then the non-star's ability to draw money also got bigger. (For example, in 2009 Brock Lesnar led star-driven pay-per-view buyrates to an average that was 200,000 buys higher than the year before. His presence in the company also resulted in non-star pay-per-view buys jumping by 100,000 per show.)
Big stars draw in both UFC and Tennis. Check. Star athletes and grudge matches have drawn more money -- both for stars and non-stars -- in UFC. Check. Making "History" draws in Tennis. That's a tough one for UFC.
"History" was the money maker for the 2015 U.S. Open and it has been for just about every sport -- but not UFC. Jon Jones made History by becoming the youngest champion of all time and it didn't draw. Demetrius Johnson fights for History by trying to reach Anderson Silva's record for successful title defenses and relatively few people buy his shows. UFC fans, in general, don't care how many titles have been won or how many weight classes have been conquered or how long someone has been winning. History doesn't draw.
There is another sport where History means nothing, and it is boxing. Floyd Mayweather has a chance to reach Rocky Marciano's undefeated record of 49-0 this Saturday and the sporting public couldn't care less. When he fought a star in a grudge match four months ago, it did record business.
It is fine for UFC and boxing to eschew History and rely on stars and grudges. They've both done it for their entire histories. But by doing so, they are, as Dana White likes to say, "stepping over dollars to pick up dimes."
UFC's entire yearly revenues are a rounding error to sports that use History to draw. A single NFL team receives triple the television revenues that UFC draws, per year. That's because History matters. When the Patriots almost went undefeated or when the 49ers tried to equal the record for most Super Bowl wins, that was History. Companies know that History means money in the NFL, they know a chance for History will happen at some point, and they want to be a part of it.
There is one, single reason why UFC and boxing can't draw based on History: they have no structure. Both sports promote like pro wrestling. They scrape for stars and they try to push grudges, always hoping to score that next big buyrate or Network number. The NFL, and other sports like it, have no need for such silliness. They have a defined structure.
An NFL team -- like an English soccer team or a women's tennis star -- knows what they have to do to become champion. A UFC fighter has no idea. Will he (or she) have to win eight fights to get a title shot? Two fights, like Brock Lesnar? Does a loss require him (or her) to win once more to get back in contention? Or would five successive wins not be enough because his (or her) first championship fight was one-sided and it didn't draw? There is no answer to any of these questions, and so History means nothing. Who can care that Demetrius Johnson might defend his championship eleven times in a row (which would break Anderson's record), when Chael Sonnen was a competent ringside doctor away from reaching Championship status because he talks good smack and Jon Jones broke his own toe?
If UFC executives want to make MMA the biggest sport in the world -- and they say that they do -- then they need structure. For, with structure comes History, and when History is a draw, an event can reach peak money.
Comments
Post a Comment