FACEBOOK TWITTER RSS APP PODCAST Opinion & Analysis : Keller's Take KELLER BLOG: A perspective on Bent's column on whether UFC is following dangerous path WWE took

Aug 31, 2009 - 4:42:47 PM

Here are a few thoughts after reading Jason Bent's column on this site earlier today...

-He closed with a line saying remember "those days when people actually watched Monday Night Raw." Raw remains one of the top ranked shows each week, routinely drawing 5 million plus, and surpassing the 5.75 million mark when Shaq was guest hosting a few weeks back. What's more comparable is the PPV buyrate figures, which have been dropping as UFC's have been rising.

-I believe that UFC would absolutely be making a mistake by running two PPVs per month at $45 at $50 each (plus tax) unless both shows were loaded. UFC should be deliberate in making sure when they have two PPVs in one month, they are two dream cards. Following up UFC 100 and UFC 101 with a relatively weak line-up was a mistake. The last thing Dana White wants to do is push UFC fans' budgets to the point that they begin skipping any events, because once someone decides to skip one, I believe the pattern can begin of them being more discriminating on all future events.

-It's one thing to commit to 12 PPVs a year and know one will be on each cable bill. When two fall within the billing period, there better be great memories of both events when that bill comes. Dana needs to stay connected with his audience, many of whom have to sacrifice other parts of their budget to fit an extra $50 into it.

-I think UFC could run two PPVs per month and succeed, but they need the strong main events and strong undercards to support it. I think UFC fans will find a way to pay $100 a month including pooling resources with friends if White puts together must-see line-ups. UFC 102 did not feel like that.

-Another big issue UFC faces with increased PPV frequency and questionable depth on some of them is cable pirating. It is not difficult to find a live stream online of PPVs or find a video shortly afterward. UFC's core audience is young and savvy. Once they feel fleeced or taken for granted, those who might feel guilty watching pirated feeds or who don't like their unreliability and small screen size and poor audio will begin to look at it as the only way to keep up.

-As for the WWE analogy, what hurt WWE and the now-defunct WCW were bad programming choices more than burnout. If UFC provides a top quality effort 100 percent of the time, they'll be insulated from many of the causes of the downfall of WCW.

-While there are comparisons to be made between the Monday Night War boom period and pro wrestling, and UFC's current emergence, there are key differences. For one, pro wrestling's been around as part of American entertainment for a century. It was hugely popular in the early 1980s with much great attendance at arenas during that stretch of time than even during the Monday Night War boom period, but it was off the mainstream radar because it was pre-PPV and pre-WWF domination via national expansion. But when WWE and WCW had their late-'90s boom period, it was a bubble waiting to burst in part because it was an established product having much greater success on cable and PPV than it ever had before. In other words, the water level was going to return to the long-established normal at some point. UFC (and more aptly put, MMA) is different because it's a new sport that America (and the world) is just getting acquainted with. The height of its potential popularity has yet to be established, and there's no reason - if Dana White plays his cards right - that it's can't continue to experience increased success and popularity. We don't know yet what the natural water level is for MMA's popularity, and I believe it's a compelling, exciting enough sport to continue to rise to new heights.

-Bent is right, though, in pointing White toward lessons to be learned from WWE and WCW. Monday Night Wrestling, while still massively popular, is drawing half the overall viewers that Raw and Nitro did collectively at one point. PPV buys are down (although that could be attributable to UFC competition and even Internet pirating as much as mistakes in promoting tactics), too. In general, though, WWE and WCW had a sense of being invulnerable in the 1990s - and some promoters had some extra-curricular activities on the side which enhanced that sense of immortality that played into dumb decisions or a lack of long-term planning - and it cost them big time. UFC is riding high and, in the eyes of many of their fans, they can do almost no wrong. However, it doesn't take much to break that loyalty to the product. If fans feel fleeced, gouged, disrespected, or taken for granted, that bond can break. UFC as a brand and MMA as a mainstream popular sport is almost for sure here to stay, and I expect it will keep growing (baring a death in a fight, which could change everything depending on the circumstances), but nothing today should be taken for granted, no move should be made that fans might see as being motivated by greed as opposed to what's good for fans, the sport, and the fighters, and UFC should be sure to grow at a pace that's a smart mix of both aggressive and cautious.

ALERT: Every Tuesday night, listen to the MMATorch Livecast from 9-10:30 p.m. ET or listen now to the most recent shows by clicking here. Listen live this coming Tuesday as Jamie Penick, Rich Hansen, and Matt Pelkey discuss the latest MMA happenings. Online listen at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mmatorch or call into the show at 646-716-8090 to either just listen or participate.