« Fight Opinion Radio: Episode 12 | Home | More mainstream dribble about UFC. »
IFL aims for free TV
By Zach Arnold | March 24, 2006
By Zach Arnold
Dr. J has done everyone a service by providing a summary of an interview that IFL co-owner Kurt Otto did with Eddie Goldman. In the interview, Otto claims that the IFL is on its way to securing a free TV deal for their 4/29 Atlantic City, NJ. show. Dr. J brings up the likely scenario of Fox Sports Net as the home for the IFL show.
Read further down for my thoughts about the TV strategy. In regards to Otto saying that he wants to work with DSE/PRIDE… well, let’s just say that Mr. Otto hasn’t been paying attention to what’s been going on in Japan lately, has he? Not necessarily the smartest goal to have right now, in my opinion…
My quick take on their television plan is that this is a bad move on the part of the IFL. Fox Sports Net is, at this point, a pay-for-play channel where you essentially buy time to get on the network. Poker programming has been a big part of this (including the recent Full Tilt Poker world challenge). Unless there is major sponsorship or a barter deal for a deal with FSN, it could be a very costly deal. More importantly, FSN is a network that is sluggish in ratings.
There’s a saying that any time you have to pay to get someone’s loyalty, their loyalty in return is only as good as your next paycheck. That’s what a deal with a pay-for-play channel could look like. It would be a costly gamble. The FSN deal hasn’t done much for DSE at this point. It’s a two-way street, but the benefits have not been tangible so far.
Topics: All Topics, IFL, MMA, Zach Arnold | 6 Comments » | Permalink | Trackback |
I agree that FSN is probably not the best network for the IFL to use, but it is better than not being on TV at all and relying on PPV. You make very good points about the return on investment that is possible with FSN.
Who or what do you think are other options on the cable market? Is there a better alternative than FSN? Espn isn’t an option at this point, none of the major tv networks will want anything to do with MMA at this point. Spike is already in bed with the UFC. That doesn’t leaving many other options I dont think.
If the backers are based out of New York (which I think they are), they had many options. For starters, they could have sent an inquiry to CNBC (which has been shuffled around lately in terms of programming).
Going for Fox Sport Net immediately comes off as copying or mimicking what UFC & DSE did already. Essentially, the message is becoming clear from the IFL – they want to hit the homerun and do it immediately. Grab the biggest names for coaches, buy the TV immediately, etc. This is front-loading, and it’s a bad tactic unless you can burn $20-25 million like TNA has. And believe me, MMA fighters and businessmen are more expensive than professional wrestlers.
The correct strategy for the IFL would have been to focus on becoming a regional powerhouse. The backers live in the largest media market in America. The most interesting alternative they could have considered would have been to get on the new SportsNet New York channel. This new channel is being run by the New York Mets, Time Warner, and Comcast. If the IFL wanted to get into the New York market, they could easily do it this way by running shows at the Meadowlands in East Rutherford (New Jersey).
Here’s the major problem with FSN in the New York area, which is where the IFL creators are based out of. FSN New York is likely now the #4 sports channel in the area behind the MSG Network, the YES Network (Yankees/Nets), and now the new SportsNet New York network (which may get coverage on DirecTV, soon).
The worst part about FSN is that there is absolutely no consistency in terms of programming scheduling. One market will air one program at a certain time, and another market will air it at another time, and a third market may not elect to air it at all.
The IFL has better options at this point than FSN. Let’s hope they choose the right path.
By choosing a local (local to NY) option, they essentially cut off the rest of the US from seeing the show. I don’t think the IFL can sign a deal with a local cable provider in all of the major markets across the US. And just because the show is in Atlantic City doesn’t mean they should restrict their viewership to that area.
There are plenty of MMA shows that are only concerned with their own local area, and they will never get any larger than their own local area. I think the IFL has hopes that are larger than just being a local MMA promotion. They are aiming to be a major MMA promotion and are looking to be that way from the beginning.
The new SportsNet New York network is negotiating to be carried nationally on DirecTV.
Another point to mention is that FSN is not available in all of the bigger markets. My former radio co-host, Adam Summers, pointed out to me in the past that some people in Chicago have access to FSN and others have access to Comcast. I know Comcast has carried Chicago Cubs games that others in the market can’t see.
You’re missing the big picture on the IFL, which is that they should not immediately rush into becoming a national player after one show. There is a concept of getting too big, too fast and putting the horse before the cart. You have to have something solid to build on first.
Let’s say that the IFL was able to get a deal with SportsNet NY. The network is looking for serious programming, and if the IFL did very strong numbers, it would be a major success. The risk would be minimal, their success would be in the largest American media market, and it would allow them to work with Comcast and Time Warner (two giant conglomerations) on a national level to expand their programming. If the IFL was based out of San Francisco, being national by being a regional player wouldn’t work. However, in New York or Boston, it’s an excellent strategy.
Again, I hope the story about the IFL working with FSN isn’t true. To me, it would be another sign of the backers being money marks. My greatest fear with competition coming into the American MMA market is that you’re going to get a bunch of rich guys with a lot of money, who view the business as their pet project or toy, and will spend a lot and hope to hit the homerun immediately instead of building a solid infrastructure over a period of time.
Understand something, I am not anti-IFL in the sense that I don’t want them around. That’s not how I feel. And I know certain people who have been hired to work for the IFL who I hope seriously succeed and get paid well. However, the more details that come out about this project, the more skeptical I’m starting to become. My skepticism was raised a little more when I talked with Eric Fredericks on the radio interview this week about how the fans reacted to Maurice Smith’s IFL Tiger Sharks team members announcement at the PRIDE amateur show in the Seattle area. Absolutely none of the crowd knew what the IFL was.
“You’re missing the big picture on the IFL, which is that they should not immediately rush into becoming a national player after one show. There is a concept of getting too big, too fast and putting the horse before the cart. You have to have something solid to build on first.”
I agree with you that they shouldn’t rush into things. I dont think that is a good idea. I’m simply stating what I perceive the IFL’s intentions to be, not what I think they should do.
From what I can see, read, and hear it appears that the IFL ownership is gearing their “league” to be a national player from the beginning. I’m just playing devil’s advocate, and stating an opinion from that point of view.
[…] As predicted by Dr. J on Friday, the IFL has announced a TV deal with Fox Sports Net. Three TV shows will air on the network in May & June. In the press release, the IFL stressed how they were a national company. […]