Page 2 of 2
Re: Froch/Bute Peaks at 668,000
Posted: 01 Jun 2012, 12:43
by earsjohn
loaded_gloves wrote:If you had a TV show that pulled in those figures it would be deemed a waste of money.
And by boxing standards, we all remember routine fights from the likes of Audley and Danny Williams and Amir Khan pulling in millions on terrestrial.
Ignorant nonsense. Some comparative figures from recent times to put it in context....
The Champions League Final shown at primetime on a saturday night featuring an English team garnered 1.5m viewers, and was up against a free-to-air channel (ITV) showing the same match (5.9m). The only other Sky Sports show from the same week that beat the 668k was the Championship Play Off between West Ham and Blackpool (1.1m). The final of the Darts Premier League was watched by 300k.
If 668k is the average for the show over the 4 hours from 10-2am, then that is a pretty spectacular success by modern TV viewing standards and by boxing standards in particular.
We all remember routine episodes of Eastenders featuring the likes of wicksy, ali cabs and lofty pulling in 16m an episode. Now? Lucky to break 9m. Times have changed and like for like comparisons are moot.
Re: Froch/Bute Peaks at 668,000
Posted: 01 Jun 2012, 13:16
by loaded_gloves
earsjohn wrote:
If 668k is the average for the show over the 4 hours from 10-2am, then that is a pretty spectacular success by modern TV viewing standards and by boxing standards in particular.
Now this really is "ignorant nonsense".
Re: Froch/Bute Peaks at 668,000
Posted: 01 Jun 2012, 13:17
by earsjohn
loaded_gloves wrote:earsjohn wrote:
If 668k is the average for the show over the 4 hours from 10-2am, then that is a pretty spectacular success by modern TV viewing standards and by boxing standards in particular.
Now this really is "ignorant nonsense".
So what else (terrestrial or otherwise) pulls in those numbers during that timespan?
Re: Froch/Bute Peaks at 668,000
Posted: 01 Jun 2012, 13:28
by jamesmcdonnell
loaded_gloves wrote:If you had a TV show that pulled in those figures it would be deemed a waste of money.
And by boxing standards, we all remember routine fights from the likes of Audley and Danny Williams and Amir Khan pulling in millions on terrestrial.
yes but the fight wasn't on terrestrial was it?
For a non terrestrial platform, those are excellent figures, the highest ever figures I think were something like 1.4 million, one of the mayweather fights - so 600k is excellent.
Re: Froch/Bute Peaks at 668,000
Posted: 01 Jun 2012, 14:15
by Khaosai-Galaxy
loaded_gloves wrote:earsjohn wrote:
If 668k is the average for the show over the 4 hours from 10-2am, then that is a pretty spectacular success by modern TV viewing standards and by boxing standards in particular.
Now this really is "ignorant nonsense".
If it wasnt for "ignorant nonsense" boxing forums would have died out years ago, young man.
Re: Froch/Bute Peaks at 668,000
Posted: 01 Jun 2012, 14:52
by whiskey
668,000+ people who pay their subscription fees a month wipes the floor with 2 million who watch it for free.
Ch456 has rumoured to between 10-30,000 subscribers and thus it's at best sixty times the audience.
Epix did big numbers in America too. Massive cock-up by Showtime not picking this up. Their Canadian signing's rep is now in tatters too.
If Hershman was still onboard he'd have bagged it definitely.
Re: Froch/Bute Peaks at 668,000
Posted: 02 Jun 2012, 05:45
by chinny
Khaosai-Galaxy wrote:loaded_gloves wrote:earsjohn wrote:
If 668k is the average for the show over the 4 hours from 10-2am, then that is a pretty spectacular success by modern TV viewing standards and by boxing standards in particular.
Now this really is "ignorant nonsense".
If it wasnt for "ignorant nonsense" boxing forums would have died out years ago, young man.
![[icon_notworthy.gif] :bow:](./images/smilies/icon_notworthy.gif)