John Ourand of the Sports Business Journal explains why Monday Night Football has been so successful on ESPN:
Howard Katz, the NFL’s senior vice president of broadcasting and media operations, is the executive tasked with creating the broadcasters’ schedules. He said the best “Monday Night Football” games on ESPN are the ones that allow the network to advance story lines across its TV, broadband and mobile platforms. ESPN executives have long said that they view “Monday Night Football” as much more than a three-hour window, and it’s clear that the NFL agrees.
“We look for opportunities for ESPN to tell stories,” Katz said. “They do that so well and can support ‘Monday Night Football’ with other programming.”
The difference this year is that ESPN has been telling those stories during its 90-minute pregame show and its shoulder programming on Monday afternoons rather than during the telecast. As an example, Williamson pointed to the Oct. 26 Eagles-Redskins game, which occurred just days after the Redskins stripped coach Jim Zorn of his play-calling duties. The team had Sherman Lewis call the offensive plays even though weeks before he had been calling bingo games while in quasi-retirement.
One of ESPN’s features involved interviews with people who played bingo with Lewis. The network decided to run it during its pregame show.
“Sometimes in the past, maybe we felt compelled to force that into the game. I think you learn from that over time,” Williamson said.
Payout Perspective:
The popularity of all sports, including MMA, feeds off of two things: 1.) the quality of the product, and 2.) the element of human interest that allows fans to better associate with the product. ESPN has been so successful, because of its ability to take great sporting events and tell stories about those events in a way that captivates an audience.
That’s why, if the UFC is going to move into network television, ESPN needs to be at the top of its list. Not only does the network have a knack for telling stories, but it also possesses a vast array of consumer touchpoints that allow it to spread a message across the sporting world:
- ESPN’s viewership reach of approximately 99 million
- ABC’s viewership reach of 115 million (ESPN and ABC share a close relationship as they’re both owned by Disney)
- Various regional-based networks around the globe (ESPN UK, ESPN Australia, ESPN Asia, etc.)
- Multiple internet touch points
- Mobile phone applications
- Multiple radio stations
The article really emphasizes the importance of what MMAPayout.com’s Andrew Falzon dubbed corollary programming: a parallel form of content that pushes consumers to another, higher form of content (e.g., cable to PPV). The UFC uses corollary programming all the time with its Spike content – Ultimate Fight Night, The Ultimate Fighter, UFC Unleashed, etc. – and the impact of this content would only be amplified by a network combination of ESPN and ABC.
Moreover, the article also does well enough to imply that the future of media is one of ubiquitous consumer touchpoints. The idea of broadband content, which MMAPayout.com touched on a few weeks ago, will most certainly need to be supported by numerous non-internet touchpoints in order to effectively build an audience for an online event.
However, the article should also imply somewhat of a cautionary tale that MMA must heed: ESPN made some early mistakes with MNF by not emphasizing the product as much as it should have. Ultimately, the actual product content needs to be about the product itself; without the product, the stories are far less interesting.
—–
While it’s easy to say that ESPN should be the UFC’s first choice, there are a host of factors that play into the decision:
1.) Does ESPN want the UFC?
There’s a great deal of internal discussion going on within ESPN right now as to whether the UFC (MMA in general) is a good fit for the ESPN brand. In other words, might the image of a Disney-owned network be impaired by UFC content, and might the network lose more customers than it gains with the addition of the UFC?
2.) From the UFC’s side, there is concern about rights fees, production control, and program scheduling. The organization wants to be paid for its content right off the bat – which may or may not be short-sighted – but they also want control of how and when their product is viewed. The latter is absolutely fair given the way CBS’s production crew hampered their first Strikeforce event earlier this month.
I agree with the article and this site that ESPN/ABC is what the UFC should be shooting for if they want to break MMA because there are many people out there who blindly follow what ESPN says regarding sports. However as pointed out, there are many concerns to take into account for the UFC if they would chose to make a strong move and partner with a network.
I wouldn’t be shocked if they end up on Fox because I think it would fit Fox’s image better and I feel that Fox would be willing to give the UFC more control than ABC/ESPN would.
UFC should be on ESPN already. UFC is a fight sport, no different than boxing in my opinion, probably closer to professional wrestling. I don’t see MMA going big like the NFL, NBA, MLB, it’s a pipe dream to think it can have that type of penetration. MMA Is an individual sport which doesn’t even fit the formula of tennis or golf where everyone competes against everyone. I don’t get why people think that if MMA makes TV that something magical is going to happen. EXC and Strikeforce have been on major network and they had huge names like Kimbo and Fedor. Both shows did well, but it wasn’t ground breaking stuff. The best the UFC can wish for is that they get the type of exposure that the WWE does – but even that died off over time. Fight sports unfortunately will always come down to the individual, not the ORG. In my opinion PPV is where it needs to stay for the big fights.
The UFC needs ESPN if it ever wants to move into the mainstream. Not side programming or special features but the commentary. They need there events on PTI and around the horn. Many casual sports fans watch these shows and if the UFC had more of an impact upon these shows then I feel that it would move the sport to the next level. The idea that fight sports could never reach mainstream is ridiculous. Years ago boxing was the gold standard of sports and the world stopped for championship fights. Ali, Fraser, Liston… these were all household names at one point and theres not reason that Pierre, Penn and Silva could not reach this level. However for this to happen the sport needs to be accepted by the Worldwide Leader in sports.
The real question in the ‘mainstreaming’ of the UFC is this question – in a highly fractionalized media landscape whether the sport can get covered as ‘news’ on the networks that are not broadcasting it.
Baseball, football and basketball get covered in the ‘sports’ section of the newspapers, evening news and other media outlets, they exist in a realm larger than a single network and are present in some greater public consciousness.
MMA is the first sport to emerge in the cable environment, (the other major sports were prominent prior to the rise of television) and it’s worth asking to what degree this helps / hurts the sports development. Surely it would not have reached the current level with out the plethora of outlets one of which, Spike, has thus far proved to be the main vehicle. A major network would not have been able to devote the time to the sport that Spike has simply because Spike was happy with the modest (if embryonic) ratings the sport provided.
I disagree a bit with this article in that Spike, with it’s extensive UFC coverage including the Ultimate Fighter franchise (which is as important as any sporting show to promote the personalities of its athletes), provides an excellent vehicle for the UFC with great demographics and, to be honest, as many hours of broadcasting as the UFC could want. You could almost rename Spike to “the UFC Channel”
Does this create a bit of a conflict of interest, to what extent would they be able to cover Strikeforce, or other mma events? Does it help or hurt the UFC if ESPN simply starts a broad show covering various MMA leagues? For the the complaints ESPN does a great job of covering sports in it’s many forms and it would be long term detrimental for there to be any sort of ‘exclusive’ arrangement with the UFC to only broadcast their fights and not those from other ‘leagues’.
But then would Strikeforce, now heavily backed by Showtime be willing to put their programming on rival network ESPN ?? One starts to see how the increasingly protective, intellectual property concerned networks may imped the sports development. Case in point, the Srikeforce Evolution event didn’t have any lesces
There are plenty of sports that don’t get much airtime simply because they don’t have the broad level of public interest and support.
Can the UFC or Strikeforce become sporting events that necessitate the wider coverage and legitimacy that current major league sports receive? Currently MMA is a fraction as large as
I’m not sure ESPN would provide that much more value to the sport, legitimacy doesn’t necessarily translate into
For the UFC to succeed as a sport like boxing it needs to reach a level where the ‘highest bidder’ broadcasts the
The real question in the ‘mainstreaming’ of the UFC is this question – in a highly fractionalized media landscape whether the sport can get covered as ‘news’ on the networks that are not broadcasting it.
Baseball, football and basketball get covered in the ’sports’ section of the newspapers, talk radio, evening news and other media outlets, they exist in a realm larger than a single network and are present in some greater public consciousness.
MMA is the first sport to emerge in the cable environment, (the other major sports were prominent prior to the rise of television) and it’s worth asking to what degree this helps / hurts the sports development. Surely it would not have reached the current level with out the plethora of outlets one of which, Spike, has thus far proved to be the main vehicle. A major network would not have been able to devote the time to the sport that Spike has simply because Spike was happy with the modest (if embryonic) ratings the sport provided.
I disagree a bit with this article in that Spike, with it’s extensive UFC coverage including the Ultimate Fighter franchise (which is as important as any sporting show to promote the personalities of its athletes), provides an excellent vehicle for the UFC with great demographics and, to be honest, as many hours of broadcasting as the UFC could want. You could almost rename Spike to “the UFC Channel”
Spike needs the UFC probably more than the reverse and so UFC will be able to dictate many of the terms of their relationship including having some UFC events on ESPN and, in the end, the advertising metrics of the sport will probably push it onto ESPN for at least a few hours a week.
For ESPN does this create a bit of a conflict of interest? To what extent would they be able to cover Strikeforce, or other MMA events? Does it help or hurt the UFC if ESPN simply starts a broad show covering various MMA leagues and not just the UFC? For the the complaints ESPN does a great job of covering sports in it’s many forms and it would be long term detrimental for there to be any sort of ‘exclusive’ arrangement with the UFC to only broadcast their fights and not those from other ‘leagues’ – and others besides Strikeforce will rise up if / as MMA becomes more popular.
But then would Strikeforce, now heavily backed by Showtime and CBS be willing to put their programming on rival network ESPN ?? One starts to see how the increasingly protective, intellectual property concerned networks may imped the sports development. Case in point, the Srikeforce Evolution event didn’t have any licensed images / clips from the UFC vaults.
Can the UFC or Strikeforce become sporting events that necessitate the wider coverage and legitimacy that current major league sports receive? Currently MMA is a fraction as large as major league sports, not that the sport isn’t tremendously lucrative but I’d guess that just the baseball card market is larger than the UFC.
Can the UFC or Strikeforce become sporting events that necessitate the wider coverage and legitimacy that current major league sports receive? Currently MMA is a fraction as large as any of ‘The Majors’ and it is complicated to imagine how the UFC will manage (if it even desires it) to propel itself out of cable TV and into wide public legitimacy.
There is a proper level for MMA to hit, lots of sports burn out, rise, fail, get reborn and more. I remember watching ‘Pro Beach Hockey’ on ESPN at one point, then there is indoor football, arena football and too many others to mention.
I would pose that the UFC is hooked on the Pay Per View dollars. The NFL makes plenty of money though 99% of it’s viewers watch the games for free, though with commercials (and plenty of them). I seriously doubt that MMA will ever develop the commercial / advertising base that will support it to becoming a ‘free’ network sport. It will probably exist in a form like boxing and WWE wrestling where free events (basic cable) drive traffic to paid events.
This model will dictate certain limits on the sport, The Superbowl would not be the event it is were it a paid program. Still this does provide many opportunities for the sport to reach a wider base though it will certainly ever be ‘capped’ by paid events. A move to ESPN will widen the core base (though not much beyond the male demographic of both ESPN and Spike) and increase the appeal of the sport a bit.
Dana White is doing a great job of building his budding cartel and seems to be on track to creating a powerful sports / entertainment force. It may have taken down boxing (which by the 00’s was seriously diminished from it’s heyday) but it will be a long time, if ever, that it starts to challenge any of the major league sports. MMA is and will continue to be a ‘niche’ sport though wildly profitable for all concerned.