Page 2 of 2
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 07:32
by dekker88
banjo wrote:Nobody is arguing about the matches made, they're fantastic, what we want to see, it's the lack of promotion on Hennessy's behalf, his job is to promote his product and he's not doing it.
i'm not really getting my point /. query across...
what i'm tryin to say is is the fact that froch has been in with the top boys linked to his lack of exposure / poor promotion? has the promotional side been sacrificed to an extent to ensure that carl gets the top fights?
would sky / itv whoever have been happier to pay less for a froch fight against a lower opponent?
i'm not well versed in these matters but it seems to me to be a commercial decision to take a fighter on board then have a fuckload of basically nothing fights to build the name recognition before then cashing in later on...
whereas froch hasn't had that luxury...but he HAS been in with the best....
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 07:35
by gobbles
BIGMARK wrote:There have been some good points made in this thread but it still seems no one really knows why Froch hasnt the media coverage of other Uk Boxers. yes it does seem that various papers ran pieces on the monday after the fight and Froch was interviewed on FiveLive and breakfast. However this doesnt really explain the lack of coverage before the fight and Glyn correct if i'm wrong but i dont think Boxing Monthly had a piece on the build up to this fight or do you do a piece before the cancelled Monaco show? ( i cant remember, old age it seems is setting in)
I heard Froch do a piece on Buncey's London Radio show where he pushed primetime but was on nothing else. It has to be the case that Froch/hennessy sports were earning from PPV sales so the lack of exposure it recieved was shocking. Yes Glyn this was in the aftermarth of the Haye - Harrison disaster but as you said in your magazine this was soon forgotten about due to the Disaster which is the England Football team. Surely FRoch/Hennessy media team could of played on the Harrison farce to get air time with Carl talking about that fight and pushing his own.
To me Talksport is a great media outlet to sell an event and by giving a 2 ticket fight and travel package to them as a prize would of help public awareness of the fight. This is how that works:
"Welcome to the Alain Brazil Sports Breakfast (huge audience) (cue Rocky music) today we are giving a chance to 2 lucky listeners to win a trip of a lifetime to Helsinki to see Carl Froch fight in the super six in assocation with primetime, BA and Hilton Hotels. Everyday this week we will run head to head to find the biggest Uk boxing fans with the best 2 playing off in fridays final to win this great prize. (cue competition)
Remember if you werent lucky enough to get through today The fight is available to watch on primetime Sky Channel 480, come on Carl"
I used Hilton and BA as examples as I dont know who flys to Finland or what Hotels are there but i'm sure someone would give up two room and flights for a week of publicity.
The fight was live on Radio FiveLive. And every national daily paper had someone in Helsinki apart from the Guardian. Five Live has much, much bigger audiences than anything on Talk Sport. Just because you didn't read the papers, or listen to Five Live, that doesn't mean it wasn't out there.
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 08:37
by doctorboxing
dekker88 wrote:
but look at the actual fights that have been made for him?!?
far better than the dross fw served up to calzaghe for years....
pascal, taylor, dirrell, kessler and abraham.
jc never had a run like that...tho i expect he has far more exposure, name recognition and far more money.
Yes, he has had far bigger fights that Joe did at this stage of his career but thats even more reason why everyone should be talking about him. The Kessler fight was an absolute classic and very few people even saw it. He outboxed Abraham in a manner that was in someway reminiscent of Calzaghe's destruction of Lacy (obviously not as one-sided but the winning every round against a person many thought he would lose to) and his KO of Taylor was a fantastic TV moment. Yet, still absolutely bugger all in the mainstream press and casual fans are not interested.
Some of this might come down to Froch coming across a bit of a knob and he is never going to be as good-looking or as charismatic as Haye but Calzaghe was hardly Mr.Personality. Poor promotion has to come down to a poor promoter....... its not all due to a TV deal collapsing. Papers, radio, TV shows...... Mick should have had Froch doing the rounds for years now and when his ITV deal went tits-up, people would have had to have signed him.
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 09:31
by stujones
Joe was hardly Mr well known before the Lacy performance.
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 12:09
by fasteddie
i think froch is the best of the british world champions out there after his display against abraham he proved he is many skills to his game rather than just meet in the middle and have a scrap
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 14:05
by WOODDDDDDDYA
Froch is the right man at the wrong time. Everyone can blame Hennessy but the fact is terrestrial TV currently hates boxing and treats it like the porn of sport. Even Carl's local news channel's couldn't even bother to travel to Finland to cover the fight. Boxing promoters need to think big and out of the box to attract a new audience to the sport.
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 14:17
by gobbles
If Froch can keep winning and go on for 5 more fights or so, he will be a huge star. The Johnson fight, as long as it doesn't end up somewhere like Foxwoods, will be a very big deal.
I believe he has also been signed up by Brandnation, which will hopefully help get his mug out there too.
But he needs to capitalise on that win now, remember how Warren gave away the recorded highlights of Calzaghe-Kessler to the BBC, which got seen by 2million and then he ended up Sports Personality of the Year. He needs to take a chance and do something similar right now.
And he should also have someone touting him around to TV stations this week. All these 24-hour channels (news and sport) are desperate to fill hours of airtime. Get him round a few studios, let people know who he is and get his win over Abraham into some of the sports reviews of the year.
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 14:24
by hurlock
hennessy need's pumping. obviously they have became friend's but mick cant do anything for froch.
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 14:32
by whiskey
Isnt the BBC boxing page run by some calzaghe fan boys in Wales ?
True or false?
Clev passed his exam and got videos, pics and a huge write up.
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 14:43
by earsjohn
I would argue that some of the lack of coverage this weekend must have been down to the competition from other sports - The first Ashes test, a full Premier League programme with goals aplenty, the tour finals of the Tennis, one of the richest tournaments in Golf that also crowns the European champion and a full set of home nations Rugby Union internationals. It was a full weekend of sport, so something gets pushed. Having been full of boxing in the weeks leading up to the Haye fight, it was maybe an editorial decision to limit the coverage this week.
I'm a little inclined to think "So what?" when it comes to his lack of coverage. I'm savvy enough to know when he will be fighting and to be able to find some way to watch it and I'd much prefer an under-covered Froch fighting Pascal-Taylor-Dirrell-Kessler-Abraham-Johnson-Ward than, say, Calzaghe fighting Mkrtchyan-Salem-Veit II-Ashira-Lacy-Bika-Manfredo. Should I really care that Mr Ignorant man on the street doesn't know who Froch is?
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 16:51
by leforge
Apparently he meeting with a tv company this week link on facebook fan page.
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 17:16
by gobbles
G0mez wrote:Isnt the BBC boxing page run by some calzaghe fan boys in Wales ?
True or false?
Clev passed his exam and got videos, pics and a huge write up.
Totally false
They don't run the website, that would purely have been supplied by people working in the BBC Wales newsroom, possibly a piece that was on the local TV news. If BBC Midlands or Nottingham did pieces too, they would get put up
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 30 Nov 2010, 21:42
by jamesmcdonnell
earsjohn wrote:I would argue that some of the lack of coverage this weekend must have been down to the competition from other sports - The first Ashes test, a full Premier League programme with goals aplenty, the tour finals of the Tennis, one of the richest tournaments in Golf that also crowns the European champion and a full set of home nations Rugby Union internationals. It was a full weekend of sport, so something gets pushed. Having been full of boxing in the weeks leading up to the Haye fight, it was maybe an editorial decision to limit the coverage this week.
I'm a little inclined to think "So what?" when it comes to his lack of coverage. I'm savvy enough to know when he will be fighting and to be able to find some way to watch it and I'd much prefer an under-covered Froch fighting Pascal-Taylor-Dirrell-Kessler-Abraham-Johnson-Ward than, say, Calzaghe fighting Mkrtchyan-Salem-Veit II-Ashira-Lacy-Bika-Manfredo. Should I really care that Mr Ignorant man on the street doesn't know who Froch is?
No, but Froch should, because it's 'Mr ignorant man on the street' that makes the difference between being a well paid star, or a hard working, hard fighting unknown.
Froch is putting his balls on the on the line, and deserves tha maximum coverage possible.
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 01 Dec 2010, 09:10
by earsjohn
BIGMARK wrote:earsjohn wrote:I would argue that some of the lack of coverage this weekend must have been down to the competition from other sports - The first Ashes test, a full Premier League programme with goals aplenty, the tour finals of the Tennis, one of the richest tournaments in Golf that also crowns the European champion and a full set of home nations Rugby Union internationals. It was a full weekend of sport, so something gets pushed. Having been full of boxing in the weeks leading up to the Haye fight, it was maybe an editorial decision to limit the coverage this week.
OK i understand there was a lot of sport going on at the weekend but i'm sorry a British World Champion winning a real world title should be news on a British Sports radio Station. Yes it may not be as important as a German winning the Golf Euro tour or a tennis match between a spaniard and a swiss but i'm sorry it needed reporting. Monday was a quieter day of sport and they ran the Kell Brook change of oponenet story so maybe it's just down to who you are promoted by because Kell Brook is not national sports news yet made the headlines on Talksport
The achievements of Kaymer and Federer were among the 5th or 6th biggest events in their sport for the whole year. While Froch beating Abraham was important for boxing fans, I don't think in terms of prestige it compares. The fight probably ranks in the top 25 in terms of "Biggest Fights of 2010" and sadly, after the Haye fight, it wasn't even the UK's biggest fight of November. I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong, just putting a bit of context. The media will generally focus attention on what sells the most papers or gains the most listeners - I can't believe that across the board they've all made a decision to "ignore" Froch in spite of what the public want. Facts are that most people don't know or care about Froch, and with the media responding to the desires of the public, they will not go overboard about him.
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 01 Dec 2010, 10:08
by earsjohn
BIGMARK wrote:I'm wouldnt say the weekends tennis or golf rank in the top 10 sports events of the year but were important in the world of Sport. I find it sad that a top fighter who is a British winner doesnt get the credit he due and is bumped in favor of international sport on a British Station. Today the BBC are reporting on their homepage that Audley is not going to retire yet didnt do the same with Froch's win. Froch needs a marketing manager
No - I meant that the ATP tour Finals is the 5th most important tennis event in the calendar and the culmination of the Race to Dubai the 6th in Golf (maybe 7th). They were extremely important within their own sports and Golf and Tennis will always garner a wider, richer (therefore more attractive to advertisers) audience than boxing.
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 01 Dec 2010, 10:25
by Deserter
BIGMARK wrote:I'm wouldnt say the weekends tennis or golf rank in the top 10 sports events of the year but were important in the world of Sport. I find it sad that a top fighter who is a British winner doesnt get the credit he due and is bumped in favor of international sport on a British Station. Today the BBC are reporting on their homepage that Audley is not going to retire yet didnt do the same with Froch's win. Froch needs a marketing manager
I think the other thing to bear in mind in specific reference to Talksport is that its demographic is comprised primarily of listeners who are far more interested in a sport like boxing than they are a sport like tennis.
Couldn't agree more re. Froch needing proper marketing and PR support!
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 01 Dec 2010, 10:27
by Deserter
earsjohn wrote:Golf and Tennis will always garner a wider, richer (therefore more attractive to advertisers) audience than boxing.
You're right in terms of channels like the broadsheets, but listen to the type of advertising that Talksport carries... it's very clearly targeted at 'white van man' to use a cliche...
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 01 Dec 2010, 10:36
by earsjohn
Deserter wrote:earsjohn wrote:Golf and Tennis will always garner a wider, richer (therefore more attractive to advertisers) audience than boxing.
You're right in terms of channels like the broadsheets, but listen to the type of advertising that Talksport carries... it's very clearly targeted at 'white van man' to use a cliche...
Well thats fair enough - i can't comment on the Talksport coverage as I haven't listened. I do know that Froch was on 5 Lives flagship weekly sports show, Sportsweek, on sunday morning. I don't doubt Bigmark, but I find it hard to believe that there was no report on the fight the following day on Talksport.
Re: Strange thing about the Froch media coverage.
Posted: 01 Dec 2010, 10:37
by REAL_DEAL
G0mez wrote:Isnt the BBC boxing page run by some calzaghe fan boys in Wales ?
True or false?
Clev passed his exam and got videos, pics and a huge write up.
Its good press that a boxer can be a student and a champ at the same time. Juan Diaz used to get plastered all over
HBO for doing this as well.
Froch would get decent press if he wasnt locked away on channel that only a few watch. I am sure if his next fight is on Sky he will get some huge press. Sky are experts in promoting people.