UFC Blew Goldmine Business Opportunity with Mega Super-Fight

By EconMatters  

 

 

Super Bowl of MMA

 

In looking back at investment decisions for 2013, one of the most glaring business mistakes was made by the UFC in failing to pull off a once in a lifetime marketing bonanza with the Mega Super Fight between Anderson Silva and Georges St-Pierre. This event could have been the Super Bowl of MMA bringing in more revenue, and roping in even casual soccer moms into event viewing parties that are an advertiser`s wet dream.

 

Super Fight Risk Realized

 

Unfortunately, for the UFC Anderson Silva lost his belt to Chris Weidman earlier this year, and Georges St-Pierre got beat up pretty bad against Johny Hendricks and went into semi-retirement causing much of the hype and luster to fall off of that Goliath versus Goliath matchup to once and for all determine the pound for pound best fighter in the Universe of Mixed Martial Arts.

 

Penny Wise & Pound Foolish

 

This is where the UFC, being penny wise and pound foolish really came back to bite them in the profit category as an organization. I give the organization a lot of credit for risking everything at one point, really putting it all on the line, which most businesses these days just don`t have the guts to do, to make MMA into an actual mainstream sport. So before I am rather harsh with this present criticism, I want to give kudos to that incredible business accomplishment.

 

Once in a Generation

 

However, with all the UFC has been through this makes this failing to pull off the Mega Super Fight in 2013 an even more glaring business blunder. Dana White grew up around the boxing world, he understands the promotion game.

 

It isn`t whether fighters really are invincible, it is the perception of greatness and invincibility that sells tickets for such a marquee matchup. These types of matchups don`t come around very often, maybe once a decade if promoters are lucky. 

 

These are the Sugar Ray Leonard versus Thomas Hearns, Gerry Cooney versus Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali versus George Foreman Super-Fights that promoters have to cash in on for the bigger picture growth opportunities for marketing the sport to a wider audience.

 

Everybody has a Price

 

Both fighters had an aura of invincibility around them earlier this year, the UFC needed to sit these two guys in a room and make this fight happen. Eventually every fighter is going to lose this aura of invincibility if they fight long enough. A good promoter never lets this happen, when both fighters are at their peak you make the fight happen, and this means by whatever means necessary.

 

In this case it all came down to money as it usually does. Sure one of the fighter`s legacy was going to be tarnished. One of the fighters was probably going to take a reputational hit, a marketing blow, and maybe a considerable beating in the Octagon. But this is MMA that is to be expected. 

 

I am sure that one or both of the fighters probably wasn`t ready for the fight, or the timing wasn`t perfect, it never really is right? There is always going to be some scheduling, training, or vacation timetable that could take precedence in matc
hing these two fighters. The point is that great fighters are perfectionists and they want everything to be perfect. They want things to be just right to maximize the opportunity to win every fight. 

 

These Super Fights are never going to fall just perfectly for both fighters, and this is where compensation comes into play, to compensate both fighters for taking the risk of this fight not fitting perfectly into their fighting and life schedules.

 

Compensate for Risk Aversion

 

The business opportunity is so great that the UFC needs to pay the fighters to assume the risk of not being the perfect time for the fight. One or both of the fighters had at times issues in blocking this fight from occurring that if enough money was put on the table, to compensate one of these fighters for taking on additional risk outside of their own comfort zone, this is what means were necessary to make this fight happen.

 

Silva – GSP Transcends Sport

 

From a business perspective this fight is bigger, transcends the actual outcome of whether one of the fighters wins or loses; it is the promotion of the sport, and the huge, once in a lifetime marketing opportunity that rarely presents itself. 

 

It all comes down to money; a good promoter sits the two fighters in the room, and keeps raising the money bar until this fight happens. There literally is no realistic figure of fighter compensation whereby the UFC ever loses money on this fight when you run the numbers and account for the extrinsic and intrinsic revenue benefits of this event. 

 

Furthermore, when you factor in the big picture of becoming the ultimate hype destination for the entertainment and media focus one time in the year like the Super Bowl, and what that means for broadening the sport to a wider audience, and future advertising opportunities – the $20 million per fighter figure is a bargain for the UFC. I guarantee you the UFC never saw this big picture or this fight would have happened!

 

UFC lacked Due Diligence Analysis: Didn`t Commit Enough Money to make Fight Happen

 

I have watched over the years how tight the UFC is with their money, and they didn`t put enough money on the table to make this Super Fight happen. The UFC wasn`t willing to put enough money on the table to change one of the fighter`s minds to pull off this event. I don`t know the exact figures that the UFC offered both the fighters but it obviously wasn`t enough to persuade one of the fighters to overlook their reservations about taking the fight. 

 

Therefore it wasn`t enough, whatever that figure was. I am pretty confident that it was nowhere near the $20 million figure I just cited which would have made this Super Fight a reality in my opinion. I am guessing they envisioned something in the 6 to 9 million dollar range per fighter.

 

UFC Should Have Comprehensively Crunched the Numbers

 

This is the main criticism of the UFC, they were too short-sighted in their analysis to realize that by lowballing the fighters, so that one or both of them wouldn`t commit in early 2013, that they were risking never being able to have this Super Fight because one or both of the fighters could lose and ruin the aura of invincibility. The UFC failed to adequately factor in what I call the Lost Opportunity Cost.

 

They figured eventually one of the fighters who were putting off the fight would come to the table at the figure the UFC wanted to make this fight happen, and it could have worked out this way in a perfect world. 

 

But you just cannot take that risk with these once in a generation Marketing Goldmine Super Fights, the risk is too great for conditions to no longer exist that make it just an ‘interesting fight.’ This is where the UFC failed in their analysis, and they should have built this into their equations, and put more money on the table.

 

$200 Million Mistake Brutal for Private Ownership – Forever Lost Opportunity

 

Well, this is what happens when a business becomes penny wise, and pound foolish. This business failure for 2013 probably cost the UFC an additional $200 million dollars in 2013 by my conservative calculations, and much more long-tern goodwill in the advertising and marketing space. 

 

This is something that a sport like the UFC who only recently got the attention of the broader advertising community just cannot let happen considering where they have come from, once being on the verge of bankruptcy, and shunned by mainstream advertising and product affiliation. 

 

This is one of the classic business and marketing failures of 2013, and a future lesson to be taken to heart by any promotional and entertainment firm, don’t be shortsighted when it comes to putting money on the table to make big productions come to fruition.

 

 

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | Post Alert | Kindle


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/RhW_gwSksqY/story01.htm EconMatters

UFC Blew Goldmine Business Opportunity with Mega Super-Fight

By EconMatters  

 

Super Bowl of MMA

 

In looking back at investment decisions for 2013, one of the most glaring business mistakes was made by the UFC in failing to pull off a once in a lifetime marketing bonanza with the Mega Super Fight between Anderson Silva and Georges St-Pierre. This event could have been the Super Bowl of MMA bringing in more revenue, and roping in even casual soccer moms into event viewing parties that are an advertiser`s wet dream.

 

Super Fight Risk Realized

 

Unfortunately, for the UFC Anderson Silva lost his belt to Chris Weidman earlier this year, and Georges St-Pierre got beat up pretty bad against Johny Hendricks and went into semi-retirement causing much of the hype and luster to fall off of that Goliath versus Goliath matchup to once and for all determine the pound for pound best fighter in the Universe of Mixed Martial Arts.

 

Penny Wise & Pound Foolish

 

This is where the UFC, being penny wise and pound foolish really came back to bite them in the profit category as an organization. I give the organization a lot of credit for risking everything at one point, really putting it all on the line, which most businesses these days just don`t have the guts to do, to make MMA into an actual mainstream sport. So before I am rather harsh with this present criticism, I want to give kudos to that incredible business accomplishment.

 

Once in a Generation

 

However, with all the UFC has been through this makes this failing to pull off the Mega Super Fight in 2013 an even more glaring business blunder. Dana White grew up around the boxing world, he understands the promotion game.

 

It isn`t whether fighters really are invincible, it is the perception of greatness and invincibility that sells tickets for such a marquee matchup. These types of matchups don`t come around very often, maybe once a decade if promoters are lucky. 

 

These are the Sugar Ray Leonard versus Thomas Hearns, Gerry Cooney versus Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali versus George Foreman Super-Fights that promoters have to cash in on for the bigger picture growth opportunities for marketing the sport to a wider audience.

 

Everybody has a Price

 

Both fighters had an aura of invincibility around them earlier this year, the UFC needed to sit these two guys in a room and make this fight happen. Eventually every fighter is going to lose this aura of invincibility if they fight long enough. A good promoter never lets this happen, when both fighters are at their peak you make the fight happen, and this means by whatever means necessary.

 

In this case it all came down to money as it usually does. Sure one of the fighter`s legacy was going to be tarnished. One of the fighters was probably going to take a reputational hit, a marketing blow, and maybe a considerable beating in the Octagon. But this is MMA that is to be expected. 

 

I am sure that one or both of the fighters probably wasn`t ready for the fight, or the timing wasn`t perfect, it never really is right? There is always going to be some scheduling, training, or vacation timetable that could take precedence in matching these two fighters. The point is that great fighters are perfectionists and they want everything to be perfect. They want things to be just right to maximize the opportunity to win every fight. 

 

These Super Fights are never going to fall just perfectly for both fighters, and this is where compensation comes into play, to compensate both fighters for taking the risk of this fight not fitting perfectly into their fighting and life schedules.

 

Compensate for Risk Aversion

 

The business opportunity is so great that the UFC needs to pay the fighters to assume the risk of not being the perfect time for the fight. One or both of the fighters had at times issues in blocking this fight from occurring that if enough money was put on the table, to compensate one of these fighters for taking on additional risk outside of their own comfort zone, this is what means were necessary to make this fight happen.

 

Silva – GSP Transcends Sport

 

From a business perspective this fight is bigger, transcends the actual outcome of whether one of the fighters wins or loses; it is the promotion of the sport, and the huge, once in a lifetime marketing opportunity that rarely presents itself. 

 

It all comes down to money; a good promoter sits the two fighters in the room, and keeps raising the money bar until this fight happens. There literally is no realistic figure of fighter compensation whereby the UFC ever loses money on this fight when you run the numbers and account for the extrinsic and intrinsic revenue benefits of this event. 

 

Furthermore, when you factor in the big picture of becoming the ultimate hype destination for the entertainment and media focus one time in the year like the Super Bowl, and what that means for broadening the sport to a wider audience, and future advertising opportunities – the $20 million per fighter figure is a bargain for the UFC. I guarantee you the UFC never saw this big picture or this fight would have happened!

 

UFC lacked Due Diligence Analysis: Didn`t Commit Enough Money to make Fight Happen

 

I have watched over the years how tight the UFC is with their money, and they didn`t put enough money on the table to make this Super Fight happen. The UFC wasn`t willing to put enough money on the table to change one of the fighter`s minds to pull off this event. I don`t know the exact figures that the UFC offered both the fighters but it obviously wasn`t enough to persuade one of the fighters to overlook their reservations about taking the fight. 

 

Therefore it wasn`t enough, whatever that figure was. I am pretty confident that it was nowhere near the $20 million figure I just cited which would have made this Super Fight a reality in my opinion. I am guessing they envisioned something in the 6 to 9 million dollar range per fighter.

 

UFC Should Have Comprehensively Crunched the Numbers

 

This is the main criticism of the UFC, they were too short-sighted in their analysis to realize that by lowballing the fighters, so that one or both of them wouldn`t commit in early 2013, that they were risking never being able to have this Super Fight because one or both of the fighters could lose and ruin the aura of invincibility. The UFC failed to adequately factor in what I call the Lost Opportunity Cost.

 

They figured eventually one of the fighters who were putting off the fight would come to the table at the figure the UFC wanted to make this fight happen, and it could have worked out this way in a perfect world. 

 

But you just cannot take that risk with these once in a generation Marketing Goldmine Super Fights, the risk is too great for conditions to no longer exist that make it just an ‘interesting fight.’ This is where the UFC failed in their analysis, and they should have built this into their equations, and put more money on the table.

 

$200 Million Mistake Brutal for Private Ownership – Forever Lost Opportunity

 

Well, this is what happens when a business becomes penny wise, and pound foolish. This business failure for 2013 probably cost the UFC an additional $200 million dollars in 2013 by my conservative calculations, and much more long-tern goodwill in the advertising and marketing space. 

 

This is something that a sport like the UFC who only recently got the attention of the broader advertising community just cannot let happen considering where they have come from, once being on the verge of bankruptcy, and shunned by mainstream advertising and product affiliation. 

 

This is one of the classic business and marketing failures of 2013, and a future lesson to be taken to heart by any promotional and entertainment firm, don’t be shortsighted when it comes to putting money on the table to make big productions come to fruition.

 

 

© EconMatters All Rights Reserved | Facebook | Twitter | Post Alert | Kindle


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/42AlENj6CnQ/story01.htm EconMatters

Spot The Paradox

This morning we showed that new home prices in America have never been higher. This is great news, right? Well not if you are an average American looking to buy a new home. Based on the median real income, home prices have never been more unaffordable at a stunning 6.7x average salary. Moreover, for those unable to see the bubble (or unsustainability), it appears Bernanke learned well from his previous planner-in-chief, having manufactured a much more aggressive ramp in prices leaving the average American even further away from the American Dream.

 

 

Still think “we” can handle higher interest rates?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/1EQ0Fnm_gFQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Mark Spitznagel Asks "Wouldn't We Be Better Off Without Central Banks?"

Submitted by Mark Spitznagel via Institutional Investor,

Happy 100th Birthday, Federal Reserve – Now, Please Go Away

Nearly 100 years ago, on December 23, 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law, giving the U.S. exactly what it didn’t need: a central bank. Many people simply assume that modern nations must have a central bank, just as they must have international airports and high-speed Internet. Yet Americans had gone without one since the 1836 expiration of the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, which Andrew Jackson famously refused to renew. Not to be a party pooper, but as this dubious anniversary is observed, we should ask ourselves, Has the Fed been friend or foe to growth and prosperity?

According to the standard historical narrative, America learned a painful lesson in the Panic of 1907, that a “lender of last resort” was necessary, lest the financial sector be in thrall to the mercies of private capitalists like J.P. Morgan. A central bank — the Federal Reserve — was supposed to provide an elastic currency that would expand and contract with the needs of trade and that could rescue solvent but illiquid firms by providing liquidity when other institutions couldn’t or wouldn’t. If that’s the case, then the Fed has obviously failed in its mission of preventing crippling financial panics. The early years of the Great Depression — commencing with a stock market crash that arrived 15 years after the Fed opened its doors — saw far more turmoil than anything in the pre-Fed days, with some 4,000 commercial banks failing in 1933 alone.

A typical defense acknowledges that the Fed botched its job during the Great Depression, but once the wise regulations of the New Deal were put into place, and academic economists realized just what had gone wrong during the 1930s, it was relatively smooth sailing from that point forward. It would be silly, these apologists argue, to question the advantage of central banking now that we have learned so many painful lessons from experience, which Fed officials take into account when making policy decisions.

What about the excruciating pain of the recent past, dubbed the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009? In the five years from 2008 to 2012, almost 500 banks failed. What would history need to look like for people to agree that the Fed has not done its job?

But wait! The Fed is necessary to the promotion of stable economic growth — or so the conventional wisdom says. The idea is that without a central bank, the economy would be plagued by wildly oscillating business cycles. The only hope is a countercyclical policy of raising interest rates to cool an overheating boom, and then slashing rates to turn up the flame during a bust.

In actuality, the Fed’s modus operandi has been to trick capitalists into doing things that are not aligned with economic reality. For example, the Fed creates the illusion, through artificially low interest rates, that there are both higher savings and higher consumption, and thus all assets should be worth more (making their holders invest and spend more — can you say bubble?). The perpetuation of this trickery only delays the market’s eventual, and often precipitate, return to reality.

Many economists now recognize that the massive housing bubble of the early and mid-2000s was caused by the artificially low interest rate approach of Alan Greenspan’s Fed, enacted in response to the dot-com crash (itself the ostensible result of artificially low rates). At the time, this was viewed as textbook pro-growth monetary policy: The economy (allegedly) needed a shot in the arm to get consumers and businesses spending again, especially after the 9/11 attacks.

It appears those textbooks are wrong. Economists George Selgin, William Lastrapes, and Lawrence White analyzed the Fed’s record and found that even focusing on the post–World War II era, it is not clear that the Fed has provided more economic stability when compared with the pre-Fed regime, which was characterized by the national banking system. The authors concluded that “the need for a systematic exploration of alternatives to the established monetary system is as pressing today as it was a century ago.”

In other sectors, we don’t normally defer to a committee of a dozen experts to set prices. Yet this is what the Fed does with its Open Market Committee, which routinely sets a target for the federal funds rate as well as other objectives. If we all agree that central planning and price-fixing don’t work for computers and oil, why would we expect them to bring us stability in money and banking?op09

On this, the 100th birthday of the Fed, it’s time to ask ourselves: Wouldn’t we be better off without a central bank?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/-BvgpDmKaLI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Mark Spitznagel Asks “Wouldn’t We Be Better Off Without Central Banks?”

Submitted by Mark Spitznagel via Institutional Investor,

Happy 100th Birthday, Federal Reserve – Now, Please Go Away

Nearly 100 years ago, on December 23, 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law, giving the U.S. exactly what it didn’t need: a central bank. Many people simply assume that modern nations must have a central bank, just as they must have international airports and high-speed Internet. Yet Americans had gone without one since the 1836 expiration of the charter of the Second Bank of the United States, which Andrew Jackson famously refused to renew. Not to be a party pooper, but as this dubious anniversary is observed, we should ask ourselves, Has the Fed been friend or foe to growth and prosperity?

According to the standard historical narrative, America learned a painful lesson in the Panic of 1907, that a “lender of last resort” was necessary, lest the financial sector be in thrall to the mercies of private capitalists like J.P. Morgan. A central bank — the Federal Reserve — was supposed to provide an elastic currency that would expand and contract with the needs of trade and that could rescue solvent but illiquid firms by providing liquidity when other institutions couldn’t or wouldn’t. If that’s the case, then the Fed has obviously failed in its mission of preventing crippling financial panics. The early years of the Great Depression — commencing with a stock market crash that arrived 15 years after the Fed opened its doors — saw far more turmoil than anything in the pre-Fed days, with some 4,000 commercial banks failing in 1933 alone.

A typical defense acknowledges that the Fed botched its job during the Great Depression, but once the wise regulations of the New Deal were put into place, and academic economists realized just what had gone wrong during the 1930s, it was relatively smooth sailing from that point forward. It would be silly, these apologists argue, to question the advantage of central banking now that we have learned so many painful lessons from experience, which Fed officials take into account when making policy decisions.

What about the excruciating pain of the recent past, dubbed the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009? In the five years from 2008 to 2012, almost 500 banks failed. What would history need to look like for people to agree that the Fed has not done its job?

But wait! The Fed is necessary to the promotion of stable economic growth — or so the conventional wisdom says. The idea is that without a central bank, the economy would be plagued by wildly oscillating business cycles. The only hope is a countercyclical policy of raising interest rates to cool an overheating boom, and then slashing rates to turn up the flame during a bust.

In actuality, the Fed’s modus operandi has been to trick capitalists into doing things that are not aligned with economic reality. For example, the Fed creates the illusion, through artificially low interest rates, that there are both higher savings and higher consumption, and thus all assets should be worth more (making their holders invest and spend more — can you say bubble?). The perpetuation of this trickery only delays the market’s eventual, and often precipitate, return to reality.

Many economists now recognize that the massive housing bubble of the early and mid-2000s was caused by the artificially low interest rate approach of Alan Greenspan’s Fed, enacted in response to the dot-com crash (itself the ostensible result of artificially low rates). At the time, this was viewed as textbook pro-growth monetary policy: The economy (allegedly) needed a shot in the arm to get consumers and businesses spending again, especially after the 9/11 attacks.

It appears those textbooks are wrong. Economists George Selgin, William Lastrapes, and Lawrence White analyzed the Fed’s record and found that even focusing on the post–World War II era, it is not clear that the Fed has provided more economic stability when compared with the pre-Fed regime, which was characterized by the national banking system. The authors concluded that “the need for a systematic exploration of alternatives to the established monetary system is as pressing today as it was a century ago.”

In other sectors, we don’t normally defer to a committee of a dozen experts to set prices. Yet this is what the Fed does with its Open Market Committee, which routinely sets a target for the federal funds rate as well as other objectives. If we all agree that central planning and price-fixing don’t work for computers and oil, why would we expect them to bring us stability in money and banking?op09

On this, the 100th birthday of the Fed, it’s time to ask ourselves: Wouldn’t we be better off without a central bank?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/-BvgpDmKaLI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Bitcoin Vs Twitter

One of these is an "asset" that produces no profit based on an underlying architecture with low barriers to entry,  the other is a virtual currency… and remember: Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, doesn't trade at 1000x 2013 (or 340x 2014) EBITDA, and is nowehere near 40x it next year's revenues. It is, after all, simply a non-fiat currency. Which is why it is a bubble, and why, according to experts, Twitter is a screaming buy.

 

Spot The Bubble…

 

What a difference a little propaganda makes?


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/YfBNr_xALGo/story01.htm Tyler Durden

MeRRY OBaMaCaRe!


.

 

The Obamacare tree’s looking dire

Affordable care might expire

The plan for the tree

Is like you and me

From the frying pan into the fire

The Limerick King

 

.

 




.

 

Obama’s a Grinch with no soul

Your medical plan he has stole

Your savings are gone

Your freedom’s a con

This douche played one hell of a role!

The Limerick King

.

 

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/KhblqakQ8R4/story01.htm williambanzai7

Dow & S&P Close At Record Highs As 10Y Approaches 3%

VIX closed at its lowest in a month as stocks pushed on higher to new record-er highs (and Twitter hit $70). The Nasdaq underperformed today (after yesterday's outpeformance) as the Dow, S&P, and Russell all closed around 0.4% higher (and Twitter added 8.2%). Treasury bond yields rose notably all day with the 10Y at its 2nd highest closing yield of the year +5.4bps to 2.98% today (but Twitter is almost a double off its lows in 2 weeks). Commodities drifted higher all day with Gold back over $1200 (and that so-called fat finger in copper leaving it up large still on the day). The USD ended unch with slight weakness in JPY. From the Taper lows, the S&P is up 3.7% (but Twitter is up 30% in that period).

Stocks rose today – as good news seems like good news (if you choose to ignore the massive seasonal adjustments)…

 

In case you missed it…

 

Bonds sold off notably – pressing 10Y up near the high yields of the year…

 

Commodities pushed higher with Copper's fat finger not retracing much…

 

Charts: Bloomberg

Bonus Chart: Spot The Bubble…


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/IV6jAcMKIYg/story01.htm Tyler Durden