Comments Thread For: Joshua-Klitschko Live Broadcast Drew 659K Viewers for Showtime

[GMAN SUPREME]

terrible ratings lol

[bigdunny1]

Because Netflix has more subscribers. It's not rocket science

Yeah but by what percent? That's the point you keep acting like the gap is wide it's fluctuates year to year but has only been around 15-17% between HBO and showtime. Yet boxing ratings are about double. Your right this isn't rocket science. Showtime should have much higher boxing ratings based on their number of subscribers. Why don't they?

Edit* quick Google search says last year netflix had 81m subscribers to just 12m for Hulu. Just a tad bit wider then HBO's measly 17% wouldn't you say?

[M Bison]

Americans just don't care for this sport anymore. Sad!

[-Kev-]

Doesn't PPV's over there sell for like $16-18???

$18 dollars per PPV buy is still extra revenue, better than just viewership. UK PPV projected numbers from UK media was 1.5million, if it's anything close to that they are going to make a killing. Also you have to add in the 80k fans at Wembley. This fight made money over there.

[Eff Pandas]

Airing it live was bragging rights. I thought HBO had the better time slot too. And the fact that it was a great fight helped HBO even more.

But on the flip side HBO just promoted Showtime's fighter Now they gotta get Showtime if they want to continue watching Joshua. But it was a great night for boxing.

LOL good point. Didn't think about that angle.

I guess it is better to have HBO's 1M+ primetime viewers wanting to see Showtime's next big name on Showtime vs 750k(?) Showtime primetime viewers excited to see Joshua's next Showtime fight. Showtime is probably gonna get more new subscribers off of this fight being on HBO primetime than vice versa.

[Butch.McRae]

I don't know and don't care. But showtime boxing numbers don't reflect where they stand in subscribers to HBO and the ratings prove that. But every time showtime has weak ratings your bs excuse well they just have less subscribers is lazy and igorant there is more going on.

Figured I chime in here. I think the difference can be explained by the number of "boxing subs" at each network. I'm certain Showtime has less boxing subers than HBO and it's likely not proportionate to their broader market share.

How many people in these forums actually have both? I'm guessing very few, and HBO comes default in a lot of basic packages. The ceiling is much higher for boxing at HBO because more casuals carry it.

I think Showtime has always had packaging issues that are really hard for boxing fans to understand. HBO has much broader package distribution. Everybody doesn't opt in. Some people actually have to opt out of HBO. I don't ever recall getting showtime in a default package.

Those Floyd years, we were all getting it for free through deals. Now, I bet they don't have more than 1 million subscribers who got it primarily for boxing. (They have data that reveals subscribers interest/behavior)

I wouldn't be surprised if over 80% of these unique subs watched this fight.

Remember when Broner was grabbing 1M views? Those were free eyeballs lol

[Motorcity Cobra]

you still going on with this BS? FS1 and ESPN2 are in virtually the same exact amount of homes only slightly over 6% difference. HBO is in what 17% more homes then showtime? Don't believe me see for yourself

https://sportstvratings.com/how-many-more-homes-is-espn-in-than-fs1-and-nbc-sports-network-june-2016-edition/5087/

So then why is Showtime pulling about HALF as many viewers for the same type of boxing programming if there is only a 17% difference in viewership?

Fury/Klitchko 1.038m and Joshua fight was a much bigger fight then the Fury fight. People using well they have fewer subscriptions is just lazy and ignorant because the difference is ratings is significantly higher then the subscriber data shows. There is more going on then just the difference in subscribers.

Six million isn't virtually the same. That's a huge gap. ESPN2 has virtually the same number as ESPN

[bigdunny1]

Official Nielsen numbers not available till tomorrow. But word is HBO's @anthonyfjoshua-@Klitschko replay did more than 800K viewers (more)

— Keith Idec (@Idecboxing) May 1, 2017

Fury/Klitschko replay did 676K. HBO replay more then showtime live and more then the replay of fury fight replay and more then GGG/Brook replay which did 593K. If HBO really did a 800K for a replay that is impressive.

[bigdunny1]

Six million isn't virtually the same. That's a huge gap. ESPN2 has virtually the same number as ESPN

6% difference in subscribers. No matter how many different ways you try to frame it doesn't change that fact. If you have ESPN2 part of your cable package you almost certainly have FS1. When PBC puts out crap ratings it's not because people don't have FS1. Its because they dont want to watch PBCs fights. FS1 is in 83m homes, ESPN2 is in 89m homes.

[HAMMER77777]

Figured I chime in here. I think the difference can be explained by the number of "boxing subs" at each network. I'm certain Showtime has less boxing subers than HBO and it's likely not proportionate to their broader market share.

How many people in these forums actually have both? I'm guessing very few, and HBO comes default in a lot of basic packages. The ceiling is much higher for boxing at HBO because more casuals carry it.

I think Showtime has always had packaging issues that are really hard for boxing fans to understand. HBO has much broader package distribution. Everybody doesn't opt in. Some people actually have to opt out of HBO. I don't ever recall getting showtime in a default package.

Those Floyd years, we were all getting it for free through deals. Now, I bet they don't have more than 1 million subscribers who got it primarily for boxing. (They have data that reveals subscribers interest/behavior)

I wouldn't be surprised if over 80% of these unique subs watched this fight.

Remember when Broner was grabbing 1M views? Those were free eyeballs lol

I have both. In fact, I have every channel my cable company offers. I would have both even if I wasn't a Boxing fan, for movies, etc.. Always have.