Nielsen Ratings for HBO BAD's Ali-Funeka/Bute-Andrade
by John Chavez
Dec 03, 2009 -
Don't kill the messenger, I'm just a measly "reporter" stating the facts given to me by Nielsen Media Research. This past weekend, HBO subscribers were privvy to a double-header that took place on the premium cable network between Joan Guzman-Ali Funeka and Lucian Bute-Librado Andrade. It was a fight card that featured some fairly decent action with a controversial outcome in the first bout while a definitive ending in the second.
Controversy is never good for the sport as it reminds the spectator that boxing still has a flawed system when it scoring a bout clearly and effectively.
Here are the Nielsen Media figures for HBO's BAD card:
11/28/2009 - HBO B.A.D. - Funeka-Guzman - 741,000
11/28/2009 - HBO B.A.D. - Bute-Andrade - 903,000
From my horribly flawed understanding, Boxing After Dark cards are put together for a fraction of the price of a World Championship Boxing event.
In addition to garnering a much lower price tag, boxing fans generally witness 2 or 3 bouts rather than the comparable one that is shown by WCB events.
You'd think that if the more expensive cards were costing upwards of 3 to 5 times as much as that of the B.A.D. cards that feature more fights, that they would at least draw a significant amount of more viewers to the table.
This just isn't the case as Chad Dawson's rematch with Glenn Johnson the week prior failed to break the 800,000 viewer mark which is by far the lowest ever for a World Championship Boxing card.
How HBO decides to spend their money is their business...
How the average consumer decides to spend their money and time on boxing is their business...
I think the case is quite closed.
by John Chavez
Dec 03, 2009 -
Don't kill the messenger, I'm just a measly "reporter" stating the facts given to me by Nielsen Media Research. This past weekend, HBO subscribers were privvy to a double-header that took place on the premium cable network between Joan Guzman-Ali Funeka and Lucian Bute-Librado Andrade. It was a fight card that featured some fairly decent action with a controversial outcome in the first bout while a definitive ending in the second.
Controversy is never good for the sport as it reminds the spectator that boxing still has a flawed system when it scoring a bout clearly and effectively.
Here are the Nielsen Media figures for HBO's BAD card:
11/28/2009 - HBO B.A.D. - Funeka-Guzman - 741,000
11/28/2009 - HBO B.A.D. - Bute-Andrade - 903,000
From my horribly flawed understanding, Boxing After Dark cards are put together for a fraction of the price of a World Championship Boxing event.
In addition to garnering a much lower price tag, boxing fans generally witness 2 or 3 bouts rather than the comparable one that is shown by WCB events.
You'd think that if the more expensive cards were costing upwards of 3 to 5 times as much as that of the B.A.D. cards that feature more fights, that they would at least draw a significant amount of more viewers to the table.
This just isn't the case as Chad Dawson's rematch with Glenn Johnson the week prior failed to break the 800,000 viewer mark which is by far the lowest ever for a World Championship Boxing card.
How HBO decides to spend their money is their business...
How the average consumer decides to spend their money and time on boxing is their business...
I think the case is quite closed.
The ratings were a little under the average for the year but also it's not bad for a B.A.D card considering Showtime had it's card at around the same time.
Comment