Comments Thread For: Star Power: Big Event, Demand Doesn’t Justify Inflation

[big_james10]

And I love how this "boxing fan" reads this and somehow surmises that it's Floyd that's being condemned.

The price of the fight has nothing to do with inflation. The price was raised for Lewis/Tyson to signify the demand for such a fight and that it should be separate from all other PPVs.

Mayweather and Pacquiao are already at that point - sadly to where promoters actually say with a straight face that other PPV events are "only" $50. And now, to where we're supposed to believe that Pac/Marquez III at $55 is somehow a bargain.

Once again, there was no demand for Floyd/Ortiz. It's not to say it's not a big event - it is, as is any Floyd or Many fight these days. But ******* it up to $60 makes no sense. It's not a fight the public clamored for, simply what we expect. It doesn't make sense to raise the price on such an occasion and only suggests that if Floyd-Pac ever happens, we can expect to pay even more, rather than the unprecedented $60 price tag being reserved for that moment.

Anyway, I'm to the point where I'm repeating myself. If you still don't get it, then feel free to believe I'm ****ting on Floyd.

What I wrote was an opinion, just as the column written by the blogger is just an opinion and your comments are just an opinion. I have read numerous blogs written by this blogger and I also read between the lines of this blog and I could see the subtle digs at Mayweather in this blog. Simply because you or others did not see them does not mean they were not there!

Exactly how do you determine demand? There was no demand for the I-Pad until Apple marketed it. If the public thought the price was too high, they didn't have to buy it.

To say that the fight shouldn't be sold for a certain price is a rather ridiculous statement. En****** that sell products to the public can sell them for whatever price they want. If people think the price is too high, they will not buy it. If, as you say, there is no demand for Floyd/Ortiz (which is also an opinion), then the fight will sell poorly on PPV. The question is why the hell do you or this writer or anyone else care about the price of the PPV?

If Floyd/Pac sells for $80, I and others will decide if we want to spend that kind of money on it. If we don't, we won't buy it. Comparing this fight to Lewis/Tyson, for which there was a demand, and saying this fight shouldn't sell for more than Lewis/Tyson, is as asinine as saying my house, which is on the market now, shouldn't sell for more than a bigger house down the street was sold for four years ago because the economy was better four years ago and there was a bigger demand in the real estate market four years ago.

If you don't get that, then you are the one who makes no sense!

[adp023]

Think McFly, think!

It validates who the bigger draw is (undisputed). Get your head out your abused a$$ son.

Floyd being an American, he should draw at least 2-3 times more than Pacquiao. But that is not the case. Since Oscar was the headliner against Floyd and Pac, you don't include those fights. Floyd's team loves to include the Oscar fight. But as headliners, Floyd and Pac are pretty much on par in American PPV buy rates. That says a lot.

And I'm willing to bet Pacquiao's foreign tv sales and ratings are higher than Floyd's.

And Box Office is no contest. Pacquiao sells out his venues a week after his fights are announced. Is Mayweather-Ortiz even sold out yet???

[adp023]

I respect your right to express your opinion about me, Panama. Unfortunately, your opinion means as much to me as the **** I put in my toilet a few minutes ago.

Having made it as far as the 10th grade, you are obviously much brighter than I am with my Master's Degree. So, please enlighten me and explain how I am lacking in my reading comprehension. Please enlighten me on how I misread the part of this blog in which the writer compared the cost of the 2002 fight between Lewis and Tyson to the cost of the 2011 fight between Mayweather and Ortiz, as well as any other examples of my lack of reading comprehension.

The price hike for Lewis-Tyson was justified! It was the biggest heavyweight fight of the decade and HBO & Showtime were sharing tv rights.

A price hike for Mayweather-Ortiz??? Makes no sense whatsoever. I can only assume that Golden Boy/HBO are trying to cover its production costs for combining two separate events (LA & Vegas) into one PPV. If that's the case, it still doesn't justify the hike to consumers.

[JakeNDaBox]

What I wrote was an opinion, just as the column written by the blogger is just an opinion and your comments are just an opinion. I have read numerous blogs written by this blogger and I also read between the lines of this blog and I could see the subtle digs at Mayweather in this blog. Simply because you or others did not see them does not mean they were not there!

Ignoring the rest of your post for a second...

You do know that "this blogger" and I are one and the same person, don't you? Don't you?

Sorry, had to laugh at that part.

With that out of the way, would love to know how you (and for the moment, only you) read this article as taking subtle shots at Floyd.

[JakeNDaBox]

Just logged on to my Dish account and DishNetwork is not showing a price increase.

http://www.dishnetwork.com/packages/...g/default.aspx

Huh?

Saturday, September 17, 9PM ET
$64.99HD
$59.99 (standard definition)

Copied and pasted straight from that page.

[JakeNDaBox]

Boxing PPV prices have been roughly the same for like 20 years, people were paying 50 in the 90's.

I can go back and account for inflation

Year 1 50*.02+50=51
Year 2 51*.02+51=52.02
Year 3= 53.06
Year 4= 54.12
Year 5=55.20
Year 6= 56.31
Year 7=57.47
Year 8= 58.58
Year 9=59.75
Year 10=60.94

So if you paid 50 bucks for PPV in 1990 inflation at 2% which is really low would dictate a PPV in 2000 should be over 60, that wasn't how it went.

Year 11= 62.17
Year 12= 63.41
Year 13= 64.68
Year 14=65.97
Year 15= 67.29
Year 16= 68.63
Year 17= 70.01

So really PPV in 2007 if adjusted for inflation properly PPV should have cost $70 if inflation averaged 2% (inflation was above 2%).

Year 18= 71.41
Year 19= 72.84
Year 20= 74.29
Finally year 21 or 2011= 75.78

So adjusted for inflation even at 70 you are still paying less on average for boxing PPV than pretty much any other item or service.

OK since the only justification for this PPV being $60 is inflation-related, I'll debate from that angle...

Not EVERY PPV in the 1990's sold for $50 a pop and I'm almost positive the trend didn't actually begin in 1990.

Most of King's stacked cards in the 1990's were in the $35-40 price range. In fact, several of Tyson's PPVs during that time were also $40 (plus $5 more if you ordered same day of the fight, though cable companies to my knowledge no longer carry that surcharge). Jones-Toney (1994) also fell somewhere in that price range.

The price for a DLH PPV through the years:
Rafael Ruelas (1995) - $30
Genaro Hernandez (1995) - $30
Miguel Angel Gonzalez (1997) - $35
Pernell Whitaker (1997) - $40
Hector Camacho (1997) - $40*
Wilfredo Rivera (1997) - $40
JC Chavez rematch (1998) - $45
Ike Quartey (1999) - $45
Felix Trinidad (1999) - $50
Shane Mosley (2000) - $50
Javier Castillejo (2001) - $40
Fernando Vargas (2002) - $50
Yuri Boy Campas (2003) - $50
Shane Mosley re (2003) - $50
Felix Sturm (2004) - $50
Bernard Hopkins (2004) - $55
Ricardo Mayorga (2006) - $55
Floyd Mayweather (2007) - $55
Manny Pacquiao (2008) - $55**

* - With the Camacho fight, cable providers (or at least where I lived) offered a package where for $50 you could get DLH-Camacho (which was $40 on its own), Trinidad-Waters ($30 on its own) and Jones-Griffin II ($20 on its own) since all three were about a month or so within each other.

** For Pacquiao-DLH, both Arum and Schaefer went as far as to "confess" during a pre-fight conference call that one of their regrets was defaultly slapping a $55 price tag on the event given the state of the economy, had that they known the US would endure the crash it did that they would've offered for $50 and ticket prices lower than what was offfered (the response came to a question regarding the fact that ticket sales weren't moving as quickly as expected).

What your post and the inflation argument from others merely shows is just how badly boxing fans have been conditioned to get fcuked over.

[Rocky Rode]

Huh?

Saturday, September 17, 9PM ET
$64.99HD
$59.99 (standard definition)

Copied and pasted straight from that page.

I don't know anyone who buys the SD version anymore. I've been paying $65 for HD PPV for awhile now so I didn't see it as a price increase.

[The Gambler1981]

OK since the only justification for this PPV being $60 is inflation-related, I'll debate from that angle...

Not EVERY PPV in the 1990's sold for $50 a pop and I'm almost positive the trend didn't actually begin in 1990.

Most of King's stacked cards in the 1990's were in the $35-40 price range. In fact, several of Tyson's PPVs during that time were also $40 (plus $5 more if you ordered same day of the fight, though cable companies to my knowledge no longer carry that surcharge). Jones-Toney (1994) also fell somewhere in that price range.

The price for a DLH PPV through the years:
Rafael Ruelas (1995) - $30
Genaro Hernandez (1995) - $30
Miguel Angel Gonzalez (1997) - $35
Pernell Whitaker (1997) - $40
Hector Camacho (1997) - $40*
Wilfredo Rivera (1997) - $40
JC Chavez rematch (1998) - $45
Ike Quartey (1999) - $45
Felix Trinidad (1999) - $50
Shane Mosley (2000) - $50
Javier Castillejo (2001) - $40
Fernando Vargas (2002) - $50
Yuri Boy Campas (2003) - $50
Shane Mosley re (2003) - $50
Felix Sturm (2004) - $50
Bernard Hopkins (2004) - $55
Ricardo Mayorga (2006) - $55
Floyd Mayweather (2007) - $55
Manny Pacquiao (2008) - $55**

* - With the Camacho fight, cable providers (or at least where I lived) offered a package where for $50 you could get DLH-Camacho (which was $40 on its own), Trinidad-Waters ($30 on its own) and Jones-Griffin II ($20 on its own) since all three were about a month or so within each other.

** For Pacquiao-DLH, both Arum and Schaefer went as far as to "confess" during a pre-fight conference call that one of their regrets was defaultly slapping a $55 price tag on the event given the state of the economy, had that they known the US would endure the crash it did that they would've offered for $50 and ticket prices lower than what was offfered (the response came to a question regarding the fact that ticket sales weren't moving as quickly as expected).

What your post and the inflation argument from others merely shows is just how badly boxing fans have been conditioned to get fcuked over.

That was just an example the big fights were 50, and this is one of the three biggest fights of the year so I have to think it would cost 50. That would make the point even more clear the biggest fights always cost a premium later on everything became 50.

Oscar is an interesting case, and that is probably what they are following.

I was making the economist argument not the boxing fan in me, I don't find price increases in boxing PPV to be egregious it is well within price increases for every other good or service, I don't consider every other entity trying to sell me stuff or services at a higher price to be fucking me over that is just how it goes prices go up, just because the PPV market doesn't keep up with the time and then just jumps suddenly doesn't make it less legitimate.

I just don't feel that, did the costs to produce and market the event stay the same~ no that has to be covered and they have to make more just to keep the same margins.

[The Gambler1981]

I don't know anyone who buys the SD version anymore. I've been paying $65 for HD PPV for awhile now so I didn't see it as a price increase.

I can barely watch sports in non HD anymore.

[zdrx]

smell that....thats journalism at its best!!!...good read!!!

wow, thanks.

this is not journalism...this is hyping a rotten product. a product that has to be supported by two boxing events of erik and saul to catch attention. a buy one take 3 product marketing...cheaper than a bargain promo.

maybe it didn't work and tickets has poor sales and ppv has anemic subscription...and vegas is still a ghost town just days before the fight. so they have to tap the services of "barkers"...like the "author".

notice how every word the "author" type in this shameless infomercial... is sugar coated. every sentence written is laced with molasses. seems this fight is so desperate...they have to resort to this. pathetic