So by now everyone knows UFC 161 and 163 both did poorly on PPV - comfortably under 200,000. Most people point to this and say it's because the UFC is "watering down" PPVs compared to the past.
I don't think this is true. A scan of some older cards quickly reveals that the UFC has always put out some turds. Yet, the turds of yesteryear sold a lot better than the turds of today. For example
UFC 78 did 400K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_78
UFC 60 did 620K!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_60
Those are some BAD cards, no matter how you slice it, yet they are more than doubling and tripling the buy numbers of today's weaker cards.
Rashad Evans vs. Michael Bisping could move 400K units in 2007, yet in 2013 Rashad Evans vs. Dan Henderson couldn't break 200k.
What is the explanation for this and how worried should the UFC be about it?
(Apologies to those who read this basic post in another thread... I think it deserves a separate topic.)
I don't think this is true. A scan of some older cards quickly reveals that the UFC has always put out some turds. Yet, the turds of yesteryear sold a lot better than the turds of today. For example
UFC 78 did 400K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_78
UFC 60 did 620K!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_60
Those are some BAD cards, no matter how you slice it, yet they are more than doubling and tripling the buy numbers of today's weaker cards.
Rashad Evans vs. Michael Bisping could move 400K units in 2007, yet in 2013 Rashad Evans vs. Dan Henderson couldn't break 200k.
What is the explanation for this and how worried should the UFC be about it?
(Apologies to those who read this basic post in another thread... I think it deserves a separate topic.)