BoxRec

Boxing and TV has provoked quite a lot of debate recently. I interviewed the top men from each of the big four UK channels to get their views and also got some interesting viewing figures.

Nothing in boxing writing took me as long as this series so you bastards better read it!

There'll be one a week for the next month and I start with ITV:

http://www.britishboxing.net/news_3319- ... t-One.html

I'd be interested in your views and opinions - not on the writing - but on the views of the TV execs and perhaps the statistics.

Good article this, Sharman's response seems fair enough.

If the promoters can deliver the fights people want to see, then ITV will screen them and their ratings will go up.

If the promoters deliver cr*p like most of Warren's bills on ITV then they won't want to know, which is why Warren got dropped.

I can also understand ITV's frustration in building a fighter up as it were, then when they get the big shot having to put the fight on at stupid o'clock and lose ratings.

As he says, its all about ratings. It doesn't seem to me that he wants to pull the plug on boxing on ITV, it seems to me that he wants promoters to deliver quality fights that will capture the public interest and they'll be willing to screen them in exchange for good ratings. Which is probably why they're showing the Carl Froch promotion.

Good stuff Ian.

Sadly confirms everything I've always thought about the problems boxing creates for terrestrial broadcasters. Never even thought about the advertising between rounds before!

The viewing figures statistic is interesting. For at least half the year, ITV has to battle against MoTD on BBC1, which is for the same demographic.

The Khan fight on Sat just missed the start of MoTD. Perhaps a change in start time might help. Say 8.00pm. And make sure it's in the contract that ITV has a say on the start time.

Finally, make sure you have a say in the fighter's involved, like HBO.

I may be naive on these matters, but surely this is boxing contract 101 here?!

Yes it's a revealing article.

A corporate ratings based TV network has advertising space to sell to recoup costs and produce profits. I can see now where this is at odds with boxing and its variability and unpredictability.

The onus has to be on promoters to produce bills that have a deep reach in terms of good matchups. If the headliner ends early there has to be at least another 2 to 3 honest matchups that will keep an audience. At the same time the TV companies shouldn't buy wholesale into one name without promoting other names/contests on the bill (unfortunately the HWs haven't cut it and should have been bypassed because they may have caused more harm than good).

Good to see that there is a wait and see how things pan out policy at ITV with Froch v Inkin coming up but I fear that once Khan has gone so has ITV.

On the flip side. Boxing offers advertising break potential every 3 minutes. Or every 6-8minutes if you wait two rounds.

Football cant do that, rugby cant....etc...

Its why boxing was regarded as made for tv when tv came into it.

Its also a nighttime sport, all year round, offers personality and human interest more than team sport and even when 11-0 down, a victory is still possible.

Few sports can match that level of anticipation.

All this is of course moot, if you show Audley Harrison fights.

I can't access this link http://www.britishboxing.net/news_3319- ... t-One.html is the site down? I'm at work, so they may have blocked it here

Doesn't work for me either Pob. They must be doing maintenance.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Doesn't work for me either Pob. They must be doing maintenance.

Ta

DavidPayne wrote:On the flip side. Boxing offers advertising break potential every 3 minutes. Or every 6-8minutes if you wait two rounds.

Football cant do that, rugby cant....etc...

Its why boxing was regarded as made for tv when tv came into it.

Its also a nighttime sport, all year round, offers personality and human interest more than team sport and even when 11-0 down, a victory is still possible.

Few sports can match that level of anticipation.

All this is of course moot, if you show Audley Harrison fights.

That is a great point mate since advertising seems to be sold on the back of ratings. Football will get the ratings but where's the advertising space. Presumably ITV can charge top dollar during any break in the action. Love to see what Sharman has to say to that to be honest.

Because the advertisements in between rounds are so short I don't switch over just in case I miss some of the boxing. With standard programs I refuse to watch the usual 3 minutes advertising. That's a great advantage for boxing, imo.

Bear in mind that football grounds are festooned with advertising hoardings all over the place, which are viewed throughout the 90 minutes of play.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Bear in mind that football grounds are festooned with advertising hoardings all over the place, which are viewed throughout the 90 minutes of play.

Yep, plus all over the kit they wear, plus the various comp sponsors too.

Interesting stuff Ian, be good to see who you have lined up next. Not CH4 I guess, as I don't think they have ever given the fights a look in? Could ask all the same, why not?

All about the immediate viewing results I suppose, rather than having to build a boxer up from scratch.

Worth the wait though, if you strike gold with the right prospect. A gimmick to get the press, a good chin and preferably a TNT punch

So risky for terrestrial TV companies.

Imagine if Khan got annihilated, suffered a career ending injury. ITV would probably have lost money on their investment overall, and never got the chance for the bigtime fight to draw massive figures.

Terrestrial TV is severely hampered by only being able to draw it's money from advertising. At least Setanta and Sky have the PPV and subscription models, which are not reliant in the same way.

BBC have their license fee, but they only have a limited amount to allocate. They took their gamble with audley, and look where that landed them. Right in the shite.

What the terrestrial channels surely need, is the ability to put PPV on their subsidurary channels for bigger events, otherwise they are going to always get outbid by Setanta and sky who can recoup far more that way.

500,000 people buying a show at 15 quid a pop is a lot more than you'll get from an advertiser surely, plus Setanta and Sky also have advertising ON TOP.

Maybe, but ITV make considerably more than Setanta and SKY because they have higher ratings and can access a larger audience.

SticknMove wrote:

DavidPayne wrote:On the flip side. Boxing offers advertising break potential every 3 minutes. Or every 6-8minutes if you wait two rounds.

Football cant do that, rugby cant....etc...

Its why boxing was regarded as made for tv when tv came into it.

Its also a nighttime sport, all year round, offers personality and human interest more than team sport and even when 11-0 down, a victory is still possible.

Few sports can match that level of anticipation.

All this is of course moot, if you show Audley Harrison fights.

That is a great point mate since advertising seems to be sold on the back of ratings. Football will get the ratings but where's the advertising space. Presumably ITV can charge top dollar during any break in the action. Love to see what Sharman has to say to that to be honest.

Everyone's also forgetting that advertising isn't purely volume-driven, it's also about whether the programme is perceived to be an attractive environment for that particular brand.
For example, Big Brother doesn't do amazing numbers, but is perceived as the perfect 'rifle-shot' for targetting the desirable 18-34 demographic, hence big sponsorship deals with the likes of Carphone Warehouse in the past.
Rightly or wrongly, most advertisers associate boxing with 'white van man', who doesn't represent an attractive demographic for them. Hence even if the numbers are good it may still be problematic in terms of attracting lucrative advertising revenue.

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Maybe, but ITV make considerably more than Setanta and SKY because they have higher ratings and can access a larger audience.

Do they make 'considerably' more than Sky though?

Sky now have well over a million customers plus, and that's not including broadband, and other services. All paying them about 400 quid a year.

That's not including profit from PPV services.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

Emerson Poncey Name Ghent wrote:Maybe, but ITV make considerably more than Setanta and SKY because they have higher ratings and can access a larger audience.

Do they make 'considerably' more than Sky though?

Sky now have well over a million customers plus, and that's not including broadband, and other services. All paying them about 400 quid a year.

That's not including profit from PPV services.

Agreed, I meant from advertising revenue.

Ah right. Yes in that case.

Just looked and ITV are valued at around 2000,000,000. Is than an English Billion, or American billion, can never remember.

Their share price has been going down for a while too.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ah right. Yes in that case.

Just looked and ITV are valued at around 2000,000,000. Is than an English Billion, or American billion, can never remember.

Their share price has been going down for a while too.

Who provided the estimation. If it's Forbes it's $. If it's D & T or KPMG it'll be £.

It was a UK site.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Ah right. Yes in that case.

Just looked and ITV are valued at around 2000,000,000. Is than an English Billion, or American billion, can never remember.

Their share price has been going down for a while too.

It's a US billion

Been wanting to read this, but BBN appears to have been down all day?

Its an interesting piece, well done Ian... good concept. I look forward to the other views.

All in all a bit encouraging, although one wonders if Sharman wasn't just talk in TV language to keep us thinking positive that they will showcase more shows.

Are you planning to do one with the non terrestial channels.... it will be nice to know the views of Sky Sports, Bravo, this Fight Network, BEN, Setanta are etc.

What I'd like to know specifically, is whether there will be any chance in the future that HBO Sports, Showtime, ESPN 2 - will be put on the Sky platform (at a Subscription rate) eventually... so we could get to watch the shows direct.

stujones wrote:Its an interesting piece, well done Ian... good concept. I look forward to the other views.

All in all a bit encouraging, although one wonders if Sharman wasn't just talk in TV language to keep us thinking positive that they will showcase more shows.

Are you planning to do one with the non terrestial channels.... it will be nice to know the views of Sky Sports, Bravo, this Fight Network, BEN, Setanta are etc.

What I'd like to know specifically, is whether there will be any chance in the future that HBO Sports, Showtime, ESPN 2 - will be put on the Sky platform (at a Subscription rate) eventually... so we could get to watch the shows direct.

Is there any benefit in the former two, stu? Chances are SKY or Setanta (Vasquez v Marquez excluded) will show it. ESPN and Versus would be very good channels to add to SKY, as we can then watch WNF and FNF live and small domestic cards on Versus.