This Wednesday night, a major fight takes place in the UFC Welterweight division, as Jake Ellenberger faces Diego Sanchez. Winner could easily be next in line for a shot at Carlos Condit and the Interim title. It's also an exciting match-up between two dynamic fighters. So, cause for celebration, right? Sure - if you are one of the people who will actually be able to watch the fight.
Sanchez vs. Ellenberger headlines the UFC's debut on Fuel, and as we draw closer to the fight, the reality is beginning to set in - not everyone who wants to is going to be able to see this show. Fuel is currently in 36 million US homes. Compare that to the 96 million homes that have Spike and you see what a difference there is. Personally, my carrier doesn't offer Fuel. No one I know in my area has it. So I am left with an interesting dilemma - skip the show entirely or find some sort of unauthorized online stream. Why is the UFC forcing fans to make this decision? Why have they taken such a huge step backwards by going from Spike to Fuel?
The answer is obvious - the Fuel deal was part of their access to Fox. And there's no denying that running shows on Fox is a massive gain. But do those gains outweigh the negatives of the move to Fuel?
In the short term, there are two downsides to this move. The first is that less fans will see Ellenberger vs. Sanchez and the entire card Wednesday night. This is particularly problematic given the current Welterweight division. Jake Ellenberger is not a big name yet, and if this fight leads to a Condit vs. Ellenberger title fight, he needs the extra exposure that will be missing by being on Fuel. These free TV shows also typically serve in part as a hype show for the next PPV. With UFC 144 headlined by Frankie Edgar vs. Ben Henderson, a fight without a lot of casual fan interest, an extra push would again be a real benefit. So that's possibly two upcoming PPV's who could see a buyrate boost from this show, but could be ngatively impacted by lower viewership.
But to me, the bigger problem is in the long-term perception of UFC shows. Over the years, the company has done a great job conveying the feeling that every show is a Must See. Starting last year, they made every fight available to fans, again cultivating the kind of completist "I must watch it all" mentality that is so beneficial to an organization like the UFC. By making fans miss this show and subsequent Fuel programming, the UFC is in danger of reversing this message. There's no doubt that fans will miss this show. But the question is, over time, will this give the message that certain shows are indeed OK to miss? That every show is not in fact must see TV? That's a message casual fans already know, but if it gets into the heads of hardcore fans as well? That has the potential to be a serious long-term problem. And so far, it's not a problem the UFC has addressed publicly in any way.
Will low viewership Wednesday night cause them to reconsider hw they use Fuel programming? If it doesn't, it will be their loss - now and later.
2 recs | 121 comments
Fuel makes Spike look like CBS
FightCardHammer - February 14, 2012
idk how but I happen to have fuel.
granted its not in HD, but it still looks alright. the card isnt great but its free MMA on a wednesday night. i feel for everyone who won’t get to suffer through the screeching of Kenflo for a couple of hours.
lukustra - February 14, 2012
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thanks fraser.
gspmademegay - February 14, 2012
Diego is one of my favorite fighters
So I’m pretty bummed that I don’t have Fuel. I also think this is dumb.
Austin Martin - February 14, 2012
never noticed you wrote for patspulpit
so what’s the bigger disappointment, not seeing Diego or Pats losing again?
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
Is that even a question?
Obviously not being able to see Diego.
The good part about being a Pats fan, is that we went to the Super Bowl in a rebuilding year and we have 4 picks in the first two rounds.
Austin Martin - February 14, 2012
yea AFC definitely had a down year
Jets regressing and fighting. SD falling apart. No Manning, Pitt decimated by injuries, Houston decimated by injuries. Also no offense, but the Pats have had a ton of draft picks every year for the past few and haven’t done a damn thing with them aside from the two TEs. What makes you think this changes now?
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
Well, when one of those TEs sets two records, I’m happy with that.
And I’m not sure that anything changes, but it could?
Austin Martin - February 14, 2012
Austin.....
Where you from? Im from Boston too…..
DJ Pullout - February 14, 2012
I live in Beacon Hill, where are you at?
Austin Martin - February 14, 2012
Hey
I live in Fenway. Would love to meet up at cask and flagon for a payperview sometime…
MasonA - February 14, 2012
law of averages I guess
but man, it’s a long list of first-third rounders that haven’t done a damn thing
Nate Solder, Ras-I Dowling, Shane Vereen, Stevan Ridley, Ryan Mallett (he gets a pass cuz of Brady, duh), Devin McCourty had an absurd fall off from last year, Jermaine Cunningham, Brandon Spikes, Taylor Price, Ron Brace, Darius Butler, Sebastian Vollmer (he’s been OK, right?), Brandon Tate, Tyrone McKenzie, Jerod Mayo (regressed p badly), Terrence Wheatley, Shawn Crable, Kevin O’Connell… and that’s just since 2008!
So Patrick Chung and Rob Gronk are the only two dudes out of all of those guys who’re still playing at a high level. That’s a pretty poor track record :(
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
That's an impressive amount of research you've done there
But the only research you needed to do was how many AFC East titles the Patriots have had under Belichick, and when the last time they won less than 10 games was.
I’m not going to reply to everything, but Nate Solder started the Super Bowl in his rookie season, so you’re just wrong.
If you want some actual analysis:
Austin Martin - February 14, 2012
http://www.patspulpit.com/2011/11/3/2536552/thursday-night-3rd-and-long-analyzing-the-draft
Austin Martin - February 14, 2012
The lineup had Solder as a TE
That’s wrong I’m assuming?
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
No that’s not wrong, we only had two TEs on our roster so Solder kicked out to TE for heavy packages, then back into tackle for 5 lineman packages. As a rookie, he played both positions regularly, so I think we got great value out of the first round pick.
Austin Martin - February 14, 2012
So what is his normal position
and is he the starter there
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
hes an OT… im not a fan of him I think vollmer who we got in like the 6th round is much better. He did start a few games due to injuries.
mlzybaby - February 14, 2012
GODDAMN ERRORS TODAY LIKE A MOFO
lets try that again
Brady’ll do that for ya, but I’m wondering just how successful the other pieces have been and how that translates to the future. Clearly you’ve done more work on it than I have, so mind summarizing it for me? All I know is from what I see on NE, and I saw a really, really bad defense this year (that got better at the end) and a lot of question marks coming out of all of the draft picks
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
Bill just doesnt know hoe to draft. Did gou mention hernandez ? He was a steal as was grink. Solder is garbage imo. I dont think mccourtney fell that much. Spikes was having a good year. I think riddley will be a premier back as could vareen. They just didnt get a chance to play. I love mallet and think he will take over the throne.
mlzybaby - February 14, 2012 via mobile
Way to throw your credibility out with just one of your bad examples.
To say Chung and Gronk are the only 2 of the recent draft picks to play at a high level? You actually said Jerod Mayo is not playing at a high level. He was named to the Pro Bowl AND the All-Pro teams. If you don’t think that’s a high level, you should just go. Go on n git.
nicey - February 14, 2012
Mayo's had a very down year
on one of the worst defenses in the league. Again, they played better at the end of the year, but throughout it was putrid. Statistically it was the worst year of his career, so yea, I’d say he’s not playing at a high level.
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
Pretty sure you left out a team...
you know, the ones the Pats beat in the playoffs only due to a choking FG kicker? The one whose QB has been to the playoffs in each of his first 4 years?
duck - February 14, 2012
I did
that was their best win all season (via team record) and it came on a shanked gimme.
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
I mean
I’m not gonna miss it, but I write for an MMA website, so I’m not exactly the target demographic they’re shooting for. That said, Comcast doesn’t carry Fuel on any of their 993 channels, so a streamin I will be
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
The first time I ever streamed a fight
was the first Fuel undercard. The second time I ever streamed a fight, was the second fuel undercard.
I dont’ know if the outcome the UFC was looking for was turning paying customers into pirates.
Dave Strummer - February 14, 2012
Save your whining for your provider
That’s what Fox wants you to do: get enough people to complain to their providers so they start carrying Fuel.
bmilo - February 14, 2012
I'm not going to spend time and effort
trying to convince Comcast to add Fuel to a cable package I almost certainly don’t have when the internet exists.
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
how hard is it.
couldn’t we do a post about it and get everyone to contact Comcast, TimeWarner etc. in one large petition sort of thing. we know Dana and Co. won’t budge on this so why not hit the providers. if we have time to comment extensively on an MMA blog than surely we have a sec to put our name to some sort of petition to the cable companies.
F'n Clownshoes - February 14, 2012
tell you what
Make the link that tells me exactly what one button I need to press is and I will. I’m not going to waste time and energy dealing with a multi-billion dollar company’s unresponsive customer service department for something I can get anyway.
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
i was hoping someone else could do it.......
i get your point brother, i was just being a dick.
F'n Clownshoes - February 14, 2012
Maybe you should switch to DirecTV? Sounds like you don’t like Comcast or their service. Not saying this to troll, it’s just that money talks & Comcast will listen if they lose subscribers over their customer’s desire to watch MMA.
tigerlee - February 14, 2012
internet as well
which I’m generally happy about. I have 0 other cable options, so I’d have to convince my landlord to wire the building for FIOS or switch to satellite. Not happening.
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
Understandable, apartment living definitely restricts your choices. I’m sure Comcast will come around, or maybe not since DirecTV dropped Versus & a couple other Comcast channels…maybe it’s retaliation. Fucking big business is petty like that, reminds me of junior high.
tigerlee - February 14, 2012
All you have to do is go to the Fuel tv web page, upper right hand corner there is a link “get fuel tv”. i have used it twice, just put in your zip code and it drops down providers in your area. good luck.
Lizzardking - February 14, 2012
where can you stream it?
benten20 - February 14, 2012
don't ask for streams
they aren’t particularly legal and can get BE in trouble
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
What Cory said
I suggest you take it up with your captain. If he can’t help then he can contact me.
wonderfulspam - February 14, 2012
I suspect, although being a Brit I could be waaaay off base here and would gladly be corrected if I am wrong, that the point of putting UFC on Fuel is so that UFC fans pressurize cable providers to make Fuel available? It’d make sense from Fox’s perspective I’m guessing and UFC’s fanbase is very loyal to the point where they’re likely to bombard cable companies with e-mails and phonecalls and what-not.
Newman24 - February 14, 2012
bmilo is right.
The point is they are trying to get Fuel on all the carriers. So complain to your provider because they should have Fuel. I have Dish Network and its available. DirecTV has it as well. The more people watch it, the more demand the cable providers will see and FOX will line their pockets with that money. Fuel is essentially becoming a must have channel for UFC fans so either get a dish or complain complain complain. I already bug Dish that Fuel isn’t in HD like it is on DirecTV. Make them need to carry it.
crisis182 - February 14, 2012
I have DISH, and I just got Fuel, and it is authentically a good channel for those who like A LOT of recent UFC content. No HD though, which is unfortunate.
chrisbboy82 - February 14, 2012
pressure
I won’t be surprised if they pull the same kind of thing that the NFL network does — have promo breaks where they say “hey, if Fuel isn’t available in your area, contact your cable provider, or switch to one of these (usually DirecTV) providers!”
loydb - February 14, 2012
as w/ all things new, i'll wait and see
i’ve said before that i’m an American living in the UK, so for me it’s not a problem. i get to watch the fight for free on UFC. tv. when i get back to the states it might be different. in 1 or 2 years this channel will be standard cable much like Spike is/was. these things take time and w/ that some things get sacrificed. it sucks, but in the end i feel it will be worth it for all UFC fans.
F'n Clownshoes - February 14, 2012
For once I feel bad for American fans
It’s on free tv over here in Australia.
Quick Ben - February 14, 2012
I sometimes get the feeling I will read a complaint no matter what
1) Ellenberger isn’t on free tv? No exposure!
2) He’s headlining a free card? Its only on Fuel!
3) What if it was on Spike? The UFC needs to open to a new fan base
4) FOX is the best thing ever? But they screw it up no matter what!
5) Prelim fighters not getting enough exposure? Put it on tv!
6) But I can’t watch that channel? Put it back on the internet!
7) It costs so much to buy PPVs? The UFC needs more free shows!
8) There are lots of free shows? People don’t feel like they need to watch everything!
Hopefully I just saved everyone lots of time.
Stiff Jab - February 14, 2012
You forgot...
Condit can’t finish a fight and Jon Jones is phony.
I_Mad - February 14, 2012 via mobile
and GSP is exposed.
Overeem is on roids.
and Goldeberg sucks.
and Rogan keeps kissing Bravo’s ass.
Victor Rodriguez - February 14, 2012
beautiful mate
the guy with the big nose - February 14, 2012
This should be a fan post. And it should then be promoted to front page.
( . Y . ) - February 14, 2012
This plus
I think it’s pretty clear these fights on Fuel were a negotiating tactic by FOX and it’s something they wanted in order for the UFC to get what they wanted.
AfroSamurai - February 14, 2012
This is Perfect.
Bunch of Negative Nancys
Anr - February 14, 2012
KO! PERFECT!!
from Street Fighter game.
DarKiller - February 14, 2012
Not a fair comparison?
Wouldn’t the Fuel cards be more like the old “UFC on Versus” cards? The FX cards are the direct comparison to the Spike cards. That being said, I have no idea how Fuel compares to Versus, but I’m pretty sure Versus was in less homes than Spike was too. Not 30ish million low, but definitely lower.
RickBickel - February 14, 2012
Versus(or NBC Sports now) is in 70 million homes.
HaterSlayer - February 14, 2012
Which would definitely be a better comparison to UFC on Fuel
Basically, this card has half the potential viewers it would under the old contract.
duck - February 14, 2012
Seriously, who the fuck gets Fuel?
ElliotMatheny - February 15, 2012
Everyone who's a DirecTv customer
I had no idea so few get it, let alone don’t get it in HD. Party at my house, I guess.
duck - February 15, 2012
My fam back home gets Fuel on Direct TV.
But Comcast doesn’t carry it, not even in their premium package.
ElliotMatheny - February 15, 2012
If I was a fighter I'd be pissed about being on a UFC on Fuel card
What all these fighters want is exposure and having 150K people(which is less than Bellator gets most of the time) is not doing that. If this was on Fox Sports then it would be one thing, but these Fuel cards is such a terrible idea. What sucks is that the card is interesting on paper.
HaterSlayer - February 14, 2012
1st Fight
This is the first fight in a 7 year contract to air on Fuel. Obviously, it’s not ideal given the current state of Fuel availability, but it’s a fight between Jake Ellenberger and Diego Sanchez. We’re not talking Diaz/GSP or Sonnen/Silva. This card is of equal or lesser value to the cards that aired and Versus and it’s only one card. It seems clear that the long-term goal is to get Fuel to as many people as possible and build from there. The UFC is sacrificing near-term profits in order to build something special in their own badass network. Do you think that scumbag Gary Shaw or Bob Arum would ever give up TV/PPV revenue in order to reap the benefits years down the road? I get Fuel, and it’s great to see UFC programming on every day for several hours. It went from being a channel I got and never watch to a must-watch channel for me, and I’m sure that once available will be the same for a lot of UFC fans.
mooseknuckle - February 14, 2012
I feel bad for my US friends here. Hopefully putting these on Fuel will help poster the channel to be available in more areas.
In Canada we get all the events on one channel without having to switch the station. I’d lose it if I had to go through what you all go through
Clay Davis - February 14, 2012
“So I am left with an interesting dilemma – skip the show entirely or find some sort of unauthorized online stream. Why is the UFC forcing fans to make this decision? Why have they taken such a huge step backwards by going from Spike to Fuel?”
This pretty much sums up my feelings about UFC on FUEL TV.
Machiel Van - February 14, 2012
It’s a decent channel and while there is no Mountain State you get Thrillbillies the Jackass knockoff. The Fox deal should have been fair warning that fans needed to switch to satellite instead of cable TV.
tigerlee - February 14, 2012
it's business
Fox wants to build Fuel TV and they know UFC has a strong grip on the key demo that’s going to drive any demand for the channel. Obviously Fox is hoping people are calling their providers and asking for it.
So I’m sure there’s some contigency plan with it, but I imagine they are going to push decent cards on it for awhile, and IMO, the access to 4 Fox cards a year outweighs it.
ChicagoMMAFan - February 14, 2012
Seems like a slight overreaction at the moment
Sure the Fuel TV experiment doesn’t seem like a good move yet. This is a long term plan for Fox to develop a channel using UFC programming. If a year from now things are still the same, then we might have to look at this as a sinking ship.
For now, let’s just wait and see how things pan out.
discoandherpes - February 14, 2012
thanks for nothing Comcast!
deathstar1 - February 14, 2012
I'm a little surprised...
about how show to show a lot of people are viewing this Fox/UFC relationship. I’m not sure if it’s because how SF/CBS ended up, but comparing those two deals are basically apples and oranges.
Fox has made a long term commitment, CBS was very basically show to show. Beyond that, there’s some creative people on both sides with a proven track record of having success in sports programming. Not everything is going to be a homerun, there will be doubles and singles and often strikeouts. However, it is how the higher ups adjust to these misses and learn to tweak them that will determine the long-term success of this deal, not the inevitable whiffs along the way.
ChicagoMMAFan - February 14, 2012
its on rogers sportsnet for us canadians.
the good trade off for not seeing all the other ufc programming tailored to fuel
hewsdaddy - February 14, 2012
any idea...
if most bars carry Fuel?
Benjamin Cole - February 14, 2012 via Android app
I imagine many have DirectTV...
so then they likely would, however that is something you would likely have to ask them to put on, I’m sure most won’t just automatically tune it in. on a wednesday night with no other major sports program going, I imagine most bars would be willing to put it on a TV for you if you asked.
ChicagoMMAFan - February 14, 2012
Most bars I know of have it
But they don’t know they have it. Call in advance and ask if they have DirecTV. If they do, it’s on channel 618, and you’ll probably have to tell them that because they won’t know.
MichaelDavidSmith - February 14, 2012
I would think...
most sports bars would have it. The first one I called did.
Mongoose44 - February 14, 2012
Fuel is doing a free preview week...
…with cable companies that carry the channel (usually in one of their more expensive channel packages).
It’s clear that the UFC is leverage for FUEL to get itself into more homes, so the potential ‘must see’ problem may solve itself before it manifests.
It would have been better for UFC to secure a deal that let them stream the FUEL fights from ufc.tv the way they did with the Spike shows. That would have been a nice compromise.
jasvll - February 14, 2012
Does this free weekend apply to cablevision in Brooklyn & Bronx NY?
Because if not, that’s too bad. Paying $7 a month for three standard definition channels, only one of which is worth watching is not happening in my house.
FUEL TV needs to be on basic cable to gain viewers, not on any of this higher tiered subscription crap.
amendamatrix - February 14, 2012
The Spike events were only streamed on UFC.tv outside the U.S.
Machiel Van - February 14, 2012
Maybe this'll help
http://www.fuel.tv/getfueltv
Or from the Comcast forums:
“You can submit a channel request at your local Comcast office, or by using our customer feedback form*. Please do not include any written correspondence about your channel lineup with your payment.
*The customer feedback form can be found by going to www.comcast.com and scrolling to the very bottom of the page. Click on ‘Comcast.com Feedback’."
Tacoknight - February 14, 2012
I’ve already done this like 4 times but I don’t expect anything to change by tomorrow. And switching cable companies is just way to much of a hassle especially considering I get my internet from comcast already and I’d end up having to get an extra bill and all that crap
Robust23 - February 14, 2012
Funny you mention the short term but not the long term
Long term after renegotiation FUEL could be in a lot more homes and Wed Fri nights could be perfectly known fight nights
AfroSamurai - February 14, 2012
well yea the viewership numbers arent gonna be that high, but they will in comparison to fuel tv’s averages and thats exactly what they’re looking for at this point
fuel will grow, just give it time
milk72 - February 14, 2012
Funny i thought FUEL will air this live
so this means they wont do such a thing.. this means quite closing out international audience no?
szanpan - February 14, 2012
People will find reasons to bitch about any and everything…. I had Comcast for 5 years and changed in December since they didn’t have Fuel. best decision i could have made. DirecTV is much better and cheaper. So change your subscriber if you don’t get it… or bitch about how their brand new relationship is already off to a bad start (CLEARLY the sky is falling).
Sir Jacob of Ortingham - February 14, 2012
What if you live in an apartment and don’t have room for the dish on the patio?
Machiel Van - February 14, 2012
Be resourceful
Anr - February 14, 2012
I think I see what you’re getting at…
Machiel Van - February 14, 2012
Tell your landlord
That you have a job that requires access to channels you can only get on DirecTV and then put your dish on the roof. That’s what I did.
Patrick Wyman - February 14, 2012
Good tip.
Machiel Van - February 14, 2012
It's a great trick
Because you could conceivably take them to court if they’re interfering with a home business by not allowing you to do so.
Patrick Wyman - February 14, 2012
Quid Pro Quo
Well Zuffa, if you want
Then you have to be willing to do
Machiel Van - February 14, 2012
this x1000
the more subscribers fuel gets do to the ufc deal (which is basically any new subscribers this year and next year ) the more big fox is going to be inclined to re-up the deal in 7 years and for bigger money
i think in the long run the ppv model is dead – the ufc last year to my understanding made about 300mill from ppv , this year appears to be a decent amount lower
fox is already paying the ufc 100mill if not more for 4 major events and 15 smaller events (i think thats the number could be way off )9 plus 2 seasons of tuf
i think with great ratings its highly likely we get all 35 yearly events on fox even if the ufc only gets 350 mill for them the advertising (on the cage , timer , ect) value goes way up and the amount of fans is sure to rise thus increasing merch rev and ticket sales
i think the main reason the ufc isnt a bigger sport is because regular sports fans are used to their free sports and arnt willing to throw down paper for a ppv , which keeps them from keeping up with it other then random events they see
so they dont grow an attachement to the fighters and stories like they do with other sports
Richard Doughty - February 14, 2012
I agree.
I dream of a day when ppv quality (numbered events) are being put on FOX once a month, 12 times a year. If the UFC was on FOX more frequently, and continues to dominate ratings-wise on Saturday nights, the most recent of which outperformed the other big networks that night combined, it should begin to attract more high profile sponsors. The UFC would be able to cut back on ppvs if they were getting sponsorships from companies like AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Honda, Mercedes, etc.., and fans won’t have to go out of pocket to watch their favorite fighters fight. One more thing the UFC would see more money in would be the increased gates and merchandise revenue from newer fans who are willing to go to live events and buy games/shirts/etc…
Fighters would get way more money than they do now because of their higher visibility and the increase in high profile companies becoming more willing to sponsor them. PPV put’s an artificial cap on how much money the UFC and it’s roster can potentially make, maybe not right now, but years down the line.
amendamatrix - February 15, 2012
Better Fuel TV than That Versus Shit
at least for me, this lucky canadian gets all the FX and Fuel shows on sportsnet 1…. hahah
Melodic KO - February 14, 2012
You can always buy it for 7 bucks on UFC.tv
Highly suggest it.
Cwade593 - February 14, 2012
Oops, I mean 10 bucks
Cwade593 - February 14, 2012
Locked out in the U.S.
Machiel Van - February 14, 2012
I don't get the channel, it's a bad strategic move in short-term
But holy crap every free card live on the West Coast makes me not care about it being “bad”.
SSreporters - February 14, 2012
Definitely don't agree Fraser
You’re main argument is that you won’t be able to watch the fight, so it’s bad business by Zuffa. It’s really not, it’s a symbiotic relationship between FOX and the UFC to promote both brands. The deal makes UFC available to many more millions on Fox and FX than Spike ever could, and the caveat was that they put shows on FUEL as well to boost those numbers for FOX as a whole. Honestly, it’s a great plan for both of them and to compare FUEL to Spike is a little shortsighted when the real comparison is FX to Spike. The reason I chose DirecTV 15 years ago was that they had UFC PPV (when no one else would touch it), and that’s paid off today when I can watch free fights on FOX, FX, & FUEL.
I’m just happy I don’t have to pay $45-$55 for non-title fight cards anymore.
tigerlee - February 14, 2012
Fraser is playing Checkers while Dana is playing Chess.
That’s why Dana is the head of a still successful UFC and Fraser is on BE writing this short sighted editorial.
Rob Young - February 14, 2012
That’s dumb. Dana White is a one in ten million story. The line was catchy though.
Machiel Van - February 14, 2012
The Zuffa brass are great businessmen, no doubt. But they are not infallible. When companies expand quickly they enter a serious danger time. This is a year of BIG expansion for the UFC, with shows on new channels, regional TUF shows in new markets, shows around the world, live TUF, significantly more shows… it’s a lot. It can absolutely work, but it’s also a gamble that has the potential to backfire if they expand too quickly.
Fraser Coffeen - February 14, 2012
My post wasn't meant as an insult, just my opinion.
It’s not like I just went ahead and called your opinion “dumb”, like someone just did above with me. And I also wasn’t trying to be funny, I pretty much paraphrased what Dana often says when he talks about media people saying how the UFC should be run and I saw this as a shining example of why he holds that opinion. It should be obvious that the UFC is playing chess instead of checkers by putting these shows on Fuel. The shows are already seen as a loss and have been designed that way to build up Fuel and the UFC is cool with a temporarily reduced audience for the long term reward it will bring when the time comes for the cable companies to renegotiate with News Corp again.
Rob Young - February 14, 2012
Sorry, not “dumb”, should’ve said “short sighted.” That’s obviously not insulting at all.
Machiel Van - February 14, 2012
“short sighted” is a specific criticism, “dumb” is more on the ad hominem side of things.
Rob Young - February 15, 2012
I'll be at my mom and dad's house on wednesday
They have Directv but the second tier which does not include Fuel oh well I have all the channels at my house I guess DVR for me.
clarkkentpunch - February 14, 2012
What if you're too cheap or poor to get cable or satellite?
Then you watch it via unspecified means the next day in beautiful high definition with no commercials and avoid mma sites until finished watching.
ace328 - February 14, 2012
Tell us more
About all the poor decision making that the new management of a once failing company currently worth $2 billion continues to make. My investment portfolio and I are all ears.
RobtWeaver - February 14, 2012
LOL
That’s both funny and true, well done sir.
clarkkentpunch - February 14, 2012
good article
the fact is going on Fuel is the price to get on Fox. Literally the whole point of this deal, from Fox’s perspective, is to support Fuel. The shows on Fox are basically advertisements for Fuel, encouraging people to ask their service providers to pick it up.
That’s the deal – trade Spike for FX (which is basically even steven) and pay for getting on Fox by putting shows on Fuel.
Hopefully, interest in the sport will grow, which will help Fuel get in more homes, which will grow interest in the sport. Etc.
You point out the risk that the reverse will happen. Shows will not be on tv, interest in the sport will shrink, etc.
I still think it’s a gamble worth taking. they had to get off spike and into the big leagues sometime. still, there is risk involved.
Clifford J - February 14, 2012
I hear what you all are saying about switching providers, but here’s an honest question – why should I the consumer have to go out of my way to get access to your product? Today’s market is based almost entirely on instant easy access; making me jump through hoops to support you is not the best plan.
Fraser Coffeen - February 14, 2012
because the whole point is to force YOU, fraser coffeen, to get Fuel
and you probably will. so in your case, it will work.
question is: will it work for enough other people?
Clifford J - February 14, 2012
Fair, but is that the best use of the UFC’s resources? Getting me to subscribe to a channel that they don’t own? Maybe it is, but it’s a good question to ask.
Fraser Coffeen - February 14, 2012
i agree
it’s a gamble for both FOX and the UFC.
probably they could have just put all their fights on FX, but if they wanted to get on FOX, this was the price to pay.
most people would say that is a good deal. but you are quite right there is a risk involved.
Clifford J - February 14, 2012
It's to force the hand of companies like Comcast to want to get Fuel ASAP.
If these companies see that a certain demographic of customers are leaving in droves because they’re not getting a channel they want, that makes Comcast want to pay a good amount of money for Fuel to keep them or get them back. Isn’t that obvious?
Rob Young - February 14, 2012
not really, no
John Public Casual Fan doesn’t know enough and there’s a good chance he doesn’t care enough to bother
Cory Braiterman - February 14, 2012
that is certainly the danger
it is not exactly like people were flocking to ION when they got the UFC prelims.
Clifford J - February 14, 2012
Again, to rephrase what I said before:
You’re focusing on the micro and completely disregarding the macro.
Rob Young - February 14, 2012
Who won’t be watching this event because they don’t have Fuel? This guy… :(
Empty Thoughts - February 14, 2012
Same here.
Good article though I have heard about them offering a “Free Preview” of Fuel for this event would have like to seen that mentioned in the article. I live in a small cable market in Iowa I have mediacom they offer fuel through some absurd package that comes along with another 15 channels I have no interest in. I watch enough TV as it is I refuse to pay for more channels just to get Fuel you are wrong UFC you can be a fan and NOT have fuel TV.
nickrodamous - February 14, 2012
True, I should have mentioned that, though personally, it makes no difference to me, as my cable company just doesn’t carry it. I’d order it if I could, but I can’t.
Fraser Coffeen - February 14, 2012
I too hate free fights
Thanks Fraser
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - February 15, 2012
i don't understand why the UFC isn't cool with online streaming of completely free events
such at this one in particular. I know fueltv is generally a premium channel and whatnot but in this case? fuel is offering a free preview specifically to showcase the UFCs’ programming and this fight.
Now my logic here is that they ARE trying to give it away for free, and the UFC ultimately is trying to globalize the sport, so why punish the die-hard fans who will goto great lengths (even risk criminal prosecution) to see your product. Now, i understand about ALL the other ppv’s etc… but if your giving it away for free here? why not everywhere else? i’m not saying they should promote it or anything. but if the UFC was “cool” with sites streaming ONLY THE FREE EVENTS then the UFC would win in 2 ways. 1. Their product would get to a MUCH greater audience worldwide. 2. The UFC wouldn’t have to spend any money setting up any additional servers/accts/etc etc just the internets handle it.
ALOT more people would stream it too if they knew it was cool & users might be alot more likely to find a HD stream that the cable provider that you pay for doesn’t provide it.
ok so i wrote this without even re-reading it. Idc, i’m just vomiting words from head as they come. So please feel free to poke enough holes in my idea till it doesn’t hold any more water.
I guess it’s just dumb to me that you could get arrested for watching a show that they are literally giving away for free. Including the network channel it’s airing on.
Nathan Eli - February 15, 2012
maybe i should’ve proof-read that… i sound like a mumbling 13yr old with a false sense of entitlement.
I apologologize.
i shall air some of my sins.
(product*?,just *let the,the cable provider *who you pay, *won’t even reply, *an HD..)
commence flogging.
Nathan Eli - February 15, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Bloody Elbow to post a comment.