Comments Thread For: DAZN's Markowski On PPV: We're Humble, Honest Enough To Admit We Got That Wrong

[BIGPOPPAPUMP]

By Keith Idec - Joe Markowski knows boxing fans almost never forgive or forget, particularly when it comes to broken promotional promises. Now that DAZN has been forced to acknowledge that pay-per-view is very much alive and well, the last thing the streaming service's savvy executive vice president intends to do is pretend he and its partners didn't guarantee the elimination of that platform when they brazenly burst into the U.S. boxing market almost four years ago.
[Click Here To Read More]

[TheMyspaceDayz]

Michael Montero pointed this out on his podcast:

people who have been loyal to DAZN aren’t actually getting a discount at $60. When you think about it, the people who are ordering the PPV for $80 and getting a free month of DAZN as part of the deal are paying what we are paying.

Lying pieces of shit can’t throw us a bone and go $20 or even $10 cheaper with the PPV. I will no longer criticize anyone who goes team stream after this.

[James Hunt]

How much longer do you plan to cry over losing Canelo?
Your Almighty just couldn't deliver. It's just that simple.

[James Hunt]

btw, I hear Almighty is pushing his puppet Mendoza hard not to sanction Bilvol's fight with Canelo.
You know anything about it?

[Oldskoolg]

I can respect a man who admits he’s wrong. Fair play to him. His boxing promoter partner however is a mong who would nigh confess such an obvious truth

[P to the J]

Guys, the reality is the thriving internet age being a gamechanger, people, particularly u30s, watch programmes unrestricted by TV schedules, whenever the hell they want.
DAZN came along fully understanding this, but not the fact that the way sports and sports figures are funded these days is ****ed, and is no good for fans, especially not for attracting new ones among younger demographics.

Instead the commercial overlords of traditional sports, who are experiencing some crisis and losing their minds at declining revenue, have totally misread this, thus forcing solutions to problems that don't exist instead of ones that do. Yeah, young people watch a lot of programs on apps, but that doesn't mean they're suddenly gonna be interested in live sports just because its on an app.

I mean, its live: it completely missed the selling point of Netflix!


Or in the case of football (soccer), an NFL-inspired, Europewide franchise system where the big names and players face each other regularly, so these young people with short attention spans, "BECAUSE OF SOCIAL MEDIA", can get on their "SnapBooks" and "TikChats" to say **** like, "OMG, can't believe its Ronaldo vs. Messi for the 8th time this month".

But their stated target demographic can easily sit through 8hrs of a series straight, with the curtains closed. So where the **** did this short attention span argument come from?


Such ideas arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of the real problem. If I was a sports exec, I'd like to think (Though being rich has a funny way of making you insane) I'd probably not be coming up with ham-fisted gimmicks to attract DA YOUTH, and look at the reasons they're not attracted in the first place.

My guess: this latest generation grew up in the post-2008 crash, and, like most of us, have worse living standards than before.
Difference is: we were already into boxing by 2008, THEY WEREN'T.
The formative years are typically when you start enjoying ****, and this generation's formative years have been and gone in a time when everyone was getting paid less and paying out more. These mother ****ers ain't gonna start paying £80 to watch Keith Thurman, who they've never heard of, against some random schmuck. Even those of us who love boxing won't do that. But equally, they're not gonna pay £10 a month to stream a sport they don't even love. Why the hell would they?


Understand the problem properly, not superficially, and we might see the need is to make sports, inc. boxing more economically appealing, just in time to snag the next generation, but also to benefit us right here and now.

[P to the J]

Michael Montero pointed this out on his podcast:

people who have been loyal to DAZN aren’t actually getting a discount at $60. When you think about it, the people who are ordering the PPV for $80 and getting a free month of DAZN as part of the deal are paying what we are paying.

Lying pieces of shit can’t throw us a bone and go $20 or even $10 cheaper with the PPV. I will no longer criticize anyone who goes team stream after this.

Well yeah, you've nailed it. If ****head sports execs listened to the voices on the ground, they might hear that ****'s too expensive and do something about it.

Its just not the streaming though, is it? PPV has been a highway robbery for years, and something's gotta give here. What can't happen all at the same time is living standards decline, the cost of boxing goes up, AND sport's money men keep getting richer forever. Something has to give. And I reckon it's the last bit of that flawed equation.

[mattr]

What a set of morons at DAZN. They are saying they couldn't work out what the average boxing fan could when DAZN launched: That it obviously couldn't be profitable and sustainable by charging fans a small subscription while paying big money to fighters. Boxing is just not popular enough to get the tens of millions of subscriptions that would be needed. It's either than or he's lying (probably) and they intended to worm PPV in all along. DAZN will not survive because fans will only take so much shafting before the walk away.

[DClefthook]

Hahahha...so they pushed Boy George (Joe Markowski) out to fall on the sword for this PPV chit...it's good they recognized they were wrong but bad to see they are still going to double down on the same the same fateful policies. 100 milly for Bivol and 3G is just plain dumb as chit. And to increase that to 160 mill to fight another euro is just madness. They will never profit from that. No one in the US knows Bivol and 3G ain't chit without Hbo and ol' racist azz Jim Lampley and Merchant running interference for him. Looks like they are going to die on that proverbial 'Canelo hill' because after these two fights they have nothing else to offer the American boxing fanbase like I've been saying for years. Devin-Andrade-Montana will be on PBC by 2023 because that is their only true option. Devin v Tank on Showtime PPV, Andrade v Charlo and Montana v Antwane Russell all on Showtime. Even ODLH just revealed they're not under contract with DAZN but on a sort of fight by fight basis with them. I have been saying for years that once Oscar finishes extorting DAZN for every last ruble he can he will be on Showtime. Can't wait to see Tank v Ryan, Boots v Virgil, Mungia v Charlo, Zurdo v Browne, etc....like it should be. Fuq DAZN for ****ing up 160-168 in the US.

[DClefthook]

guys, the reality is the thriving internet age being a gamechanger, people, particularly u30s, watch programmes unrestricted by tv schedules, whenever the hell they want.
Dazn came along fully understanding this, but not the fact that the way sports and sports figures are funded these days is ****ed, and is no good for fans, especially not for attracting new ones among younger demographics.

Instead the commercial overlords of traditional sports, who are experiencing some crisis and losing their minds at declining lost revenue, have totally misread this, thus forcing solutions to problems that don't exist instead of ones that do. Yeah, young people watch a lot of programs on apps, but that doesn't mean they're suddenly gonna be interested in live sports just because its on an app.

I mean, its live: It completely missed the selling point of netflix!


Or in the case of football (soccer), an nfl-inspired, europewide franchise system where the big names and players face each other regularly, so these young people with short attention spans, "because of social media", can get on their "snapbooks" and "tikchats" to say **** like, "omg, can't believe its ronaldo vs. Messi for the 8th time this month".

But their stated target demographic can easily sit through 8hrs of a series straight, with the curtains closed. So where the **** did this short attention span argument come from?


Such ideas arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of the real problem. If i was a sports exec, i'd like to think (though being rich as a funny way of making you insane) i'd probably not be coming up with ham-fisted gimmicks to attract da youth, and look at the reasons they're not attracted in the first place.

My guess: This latest generation grew up in the post-2008 crash, and, like most of us, have worse living standards than before.
Difference is: We were already into boxing by 2008, they weren't.
The formative years are typically when you start enjoying ****, and this generation's formative years have been and gone in a time when everyone was getting paid less and paying out more. These mother ****ers ain't gonna start paying £80 to watch keith thurman, who they've never heard of, against some random schmuck. Even those of us who love boxing won't do that. But equally, they're not gonna pay £10 a month to stream a sport they don't even love. Why the hell would they?


Understand the problem properly, not superficially, and we might see the need is to make sports, inc. Boxing more economically appealing, just in time to snag the next generation, but also to benefit us right here and now.

wow....truedat!!\;