Comments Thread For: Oscar De La Hoya: PPV is No Longer Alive Because of DAZN

[LacedUp]

It would be on PPV & both networks will show the fight.

lol as if Canelo will do anything charlo wants

It would go straight on DAZN or no fight.

[BigStomps]

It would be on PPV & both networks will show the fight.

LoL, you must be smoking that Triple D again...
You do know DAZN is not doing ppv's... So why would it be on ppv??
And if both networks were gonna show the fight then why would anyone pay $80 for a Showtime ppv when they can just subscribe to DAZN for $20.... Think about it man!
Plus Charlo has NO leverage on a Canelo fight! So think about it..
Why would it be on ppv???

[Combat Talk Radio]

That's not true. They've had a few good fights on the undercards, Beterbiev vs Johnson springs to mind.

Fine. So you either get a "decent" undercard with a garbage main event or an excellent main event with a garbage undercard.

Now, compare that to Tyson/Holyfield II and come back to me.

That's the point here. The quality of things is degrading FAST. Turning the business into a commodity isn't going to help that.

I'm not suggesting the price of PPV is still sustainable, I'm suggesting that if someone with billions in the bank were to set up a boxing TV channel that aired both free AND paid deals...and took contracts from fighters people wanted to see...that company would clean up, despite DAZN. Top Rank/ESPN is the closest, but they don't have the fighters. That's all they lack.

DAZN's internet-only strategy can't work big picture.

Remember the fiasco with UFC's app with Mayweather/McGregor?

At the end of the day, throwing everything into the internet isn't the right answer. IT can be one option for those that want it, but you still need TV. Period.

DAZN is free for the first month, right?, so you don't have to pay to see Canelo vs Jacobs for example.

DAZN is "free" if you're a new sub. It isn't free if you're not a new sub. Now, follow this.

A new sub has to be someone who wants to actually watch it.

Those that have DAZN are people who actually want to watch it.

That means a new sub has to be someone CONVINCED to watch it somehow.

Aka, people who probably didn't want to watch it and still don't.

Now, DAZN has a ton of other content that might convince someone to sign up, whereby they would randomly notice Canelo/Jacobs on the ad and get curious. But that's a big IF. DAZN's marketing strategy has been an abject failure thus far.

It's a shame too, because what they SHOULD be doing is marketing the back catalog they have in there. That would entice people who used to watch but stopped because they can't stand the new stuff.

[Truth Serum]

You're an idiot.

Streaming services go up in price all the the time, especially when they get more popular.

It's cheaper to watch fights on DAZN than Showtime + the added cost of PPVs.

$80 a year to watch Canelo, GGG, and Joshua and others (plus MMA and whatever else they have) fight multiple times per year vs $80 to watch ONE PPV?I

PPV is dead. Only idiots bought the Spence and Crawford mismatches. I streamed them, illegally, and laughed my ass off at the idiots that paid for that trash.

I laugh at the idiots who pay $20 per month just for 90% garbage fights... ESPN+ is still $5 per month and they got the most exciting elite boxer to watch right now... LOMA!

[LacedUp]

Fine. So you either get a "decent" undercard with a garbage main event or an excellent main event with a garbage undercard.

Now, compare that to Tyson/Holyfield II and come back to me.

That's the point here. The quality of things is degrading FAST. Turning the business into a commodity isn't going to help that.

I'm not suggesting the price of PPV is still sustainable, I'm suggesting that if someone with billions in the bank were to set up a boxing TV channel that aired both free AND paid deals...and took contracts from fighters people wanted to see...that company would clean up, despite DAZN. Top Rank/ESPN is the closest, but they don't have the fighters. That's all they lack.

DAZN's internet-only strategy can't work big picture.

Remember the fiasco with UFC's app with Mayweather/McGregor?

At the end of the day, throwing everything into the internet isn't the right answer. IT can be one option for those that want it, but you still need TV. Period.




DAZN is "free" if you're a new sub. It isn't free if you're not a new sub. Now, follow this.

A new sub has to be someone who wants to actually watch it.

Those that have DAZN are people who actually want to watch it.

That means a new sub has to be someone CONVINCED to watch it somehow.

Aka, people who probably didn't want to watch it and still don't.

Now, DAZN has a ton of other content that might convince someone to sign up, whereby they would randomly notice Canelo/Jacobs on the ad and get curious. But that's a big IF. DAZN's marketing strategy has been an abject failure thus far.

It's a shame too, because what they SHOULD be doing is marketing the back catalog they have in there. That would entice people who used to watch but stopped because they can't stand the new stuff.

But that's the exact same principle with literally all other networks. They are not reliant on hardcore boxing fans. that's why all PPV shows minimum do around 75-150k because those are the same hardcores buying every time.

They are reliant on advertising on their own network and all around the web in order to get people who are just curious to buy. It's the same with Showtime and Fox and ESPN.

The DAZN business model is better for the fight fan. MUCH BETTER. how is this even debatable? First of all, you get a ton more fights. They seem to be putting on a show every other week, whereas Showtime seem to be putting on a show every other month and that's just become PPVs, even though those fights are not ppv worthy.

DAZN for a year is the same price more or less as . Pacquiao vs Broner or Spence vs Garcia or Crawford vs Khan.

No one in their right mind would choose one of those mediocre fights over year's worth of fighters like Canelo, AJ, GGG, Usyk, Andrade, Jacobs etc etc.

Not to mention the big fights like Canelo vs Jacobs or the card we had just last week with Rungvasai.

This business model is far more sustainable than PPV. Far more. Subscription service is the most sustainable revenue model in the world, if you can succeed at it.

It doesn't mean they are profitable right now, but that's not their business model.

I'm not in the U.S but if I was DAZN would be the first thing I'd get. I can't believe there's even a debate on a boxing forum whether or not this is an absolute gift for everyone.

[Combat Talk Radio]

But that's the exact same principle with literally all other networks. They are not reliant on hardcore boxing fans. that's why all PPV shows minimum do around 75-150k because those are the same hardcores buying every time.

ESPN+ doesn't rely on boxing. It has a diverse set of programming. Same with Showtime.

DAZN also has a diverse set and I said that. But their marketing sucks ass compared to the other two.

More people probably know the name Hublot than DAZN. Why? 90% of black fighters have that word plastered on their boxers - which causes curious casuals to look it up and see the overpriced watches. But the point is, it's a brand name that is marketed VERY well. That's what DAZN needs and is failing to do.

They are reliant on advertising on their own network and all around the web in order to get people who are just curious to buy. It's the same with Showtime and Fox and ESPN.

Negative. Sho/Fox/ESPN are marketed every time you turn around, every football event has at least two banners for it, every baseball event has at least one, all over the place. Not DAZN. At least not in 'Murica.

The DAZN business model is better for the fight fan. MUCH BETTER. how is this even debatable? First of all, you get a ton more fights. They seem to be putting on a show every other week

"Better" is subjective. I'd rather have one amazing fight than 6-10 stinkers. But that's just me.

Again, I'm not debating the price of PPV being too high. But that's not a boxing thing. All PPV is overpriced. The funny thing is how many people will happily pay for Sirius XM (overpriced), NFL Sunday Ticket (overpriced), Howard Stern (overpriced), cigarettes (deadly and overpriced), liquor (deadly and overpriced), and tickets to a basketball game...but complain about PPV.

DAZN for a year is the same price more or less as . Pacquiao vs Broner or Spence vs Garcia or Crawford vs Khan.

And in that one year, you get two fights worth that amount of money. The rest you used to see on free TV - Friday Night Fights most notably. So basically you're just getting two for the price of one. That's still a deal, but let's not pretend it's some amazing hundreds of dollars savings.

This business model is far more sustainable than PPV. Far more. Subscription service is the most sustainable revenue model in the world, if you can succeed at it.

Not without TV it isn't. I don't know how old you are, but we've seen these types of internet dependent sub models for live streaming come and go like the plague. NONE of them survived. Netflix doesn't count as a LIVE streaming service. It's not the same thing.

Hell, ESPN went through THREE such models and they're still trying things.

I'm not in the U.S but if I was DAZN would be the first thing I'd get. I can't believe there's even a debate on a boxing forum whether or not this is an absolute gift for everyone.

You not being in the US means you lack perspective.

Out here, the dollars and cents of it are common sense. Sure. But out of 50 states. at least 10 of them have large swaths of land where you get literally NO internet. You can get cable all day long. Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Kentucky, etc. So you say "oh, who wants to live there?" Tons of people do for some reason. It's why Trump got elected.

So you take that a vast majority of people simply cannot or won't get internet fast enough to stream and what are you left with? You need TV. Somehow.

I'm not saying DAZN should go away. I'm saying it needs a TV channel if it wants to be successful long term. That's why WWE signed the deal with Fox for more money for Smackdown - their Network isn't doing it either. YOU NEED TV.

[Death_Adder]

I laugh at the idiots who pay $20 per month just for 90% garbage fights... ESPN+ is still $5 per month and they got the most exciting elite boxer to watch right now... LOMA!

$8.33 a month if you pay the $100 up front you cheap moron. You get Canelo, Joshua, GGG, and others. Plus MMA and old fights.

I never said ESPN+ wasn't a bad deal. But you still have to pay for garbage Crawford PPVs.

[frosty-g]

I see your hate for DAZN has blinded you from the change that will come in the near Future! So you're willing pay $70-$100 per ppv 5-10 times per year than pay $100 per year? Manny/Broner, Spence/Garcia, Wilder/Fury, & Crawford/Khan didn't belong on ppv! There will probably the three more ppv events this year!

Erm, no, you’re way off with all your assertions.

I’ve only ever paid for a single PPV in my life and it certainly didn’t cost that much and it certainly wasn’t paid for in dollars.

DAZN just has a really really ****** name. End of rant.

[LacedUp]

ESPN+ doesn't rely on boxing. It has a diverse set of programming. Same with Showtime.

DAZN also has a diverse set and I said that. But their marketing sucks ass compared to the other two.

More people probably know the name Hublot than DAZN. Why? 90% of black fighters have that word plastered on their boxers - which causes curious casuals to look it up and see the overpriced watches. But the point is, it's a brand name that is marketed VERY well. That's what DAZN needs and is failing to do.

Negative. Sho/Fox/ESPN are marketed every time you turn around, every football event has at least two banners for it, every baseball event has at least one, all over the place. Not DAZN. At least not in 'Murica.



"Better" is subjective. I'd rather have one amazing fight than 6-10 stinkers. But that's just me.

Again, I'm not debating the price of PPV being too high. But that's not a boxing thing. All PPV is overpriced. The funny thing is how many people will happily pay for Sirius XM (overpriced), NFL Sunday Ticket (overpriced), Howard Stern (overpriced), cigarettes (deadly and overpriced), liquor (deadly and overpriced), and tickets to a basketball game...but complain about PPV.



And in that one year, you get two fights worth that amount of money. The rest you used to see on free TV - Friday Night Fights most notably. So basically you're just getting two for the price of one. That's still a deal, but let's not pretend it's some amazing hundreds of dollars savings.



Not without TV it isn't. I don't know how old you are, but we've seen these types of internet dependent sub models for live streaming come and go like the plague. NONE of them survived. Netflix doesn't count as a LIVE streaming service. It's not the same thing.

Hell, ESPN went through THREE such models and they're still trying things.



You not being in the US means you lack perspective.

Out here, the dollars and cents of it are common sense. Sure. But out of 50 states. at least 10 of them have large swaths of land where you get literally NO internet. You can get cable all day long. Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Kentucky, etc. So you say "oh, who wants to live there?" Tons of people do for some reason. It's why Trump got elected.

So you take that a vast majority of people simply cannot or won't get internet fast enough to stream and what are you left with? You need TV. Somehow.

I'm not saying DAZN should go away. I'm saying it needs a TV channel if it wants to be successful long term. That's why WWE signed the deal with Fox for more money for Smackdown - their Network isn't doing it either. YOU NEED TV.

More people know a swiss watch brand that's been around for 40 years over a sports app that launched in the U.S 6 months ago. That doesn't say much.

Btw, DAZN have 4million subscribers - They can't be that bad at marketing.

Yes, alright i'll bite - which amazing fight have you seen this year? You'd rather pay for one amazing fight than a year's worth of Canelo vs Jacobs, AJ, Usyk, GGG etc etc.? I wouldn't, and even so, more and more of the best fighters are on DAZN, so if I had it I wouldn't even have to think about that either.

No they don't need TV. Not being able to give 100% of the population doesn't mean they can't succeed.

[Combat Talk Radio]

More people know a swiss watch brand that's been around for 40 years over a sports app that launched in the U.S 6 months ago. That doesn't say much.

Btw, DAZN have 4million subscribers - They can't be that bad at marketing.

Yes, alright i'll bite - which amazing fight have you seen this year? You'd rather pay for one amazing fight than a year's worth of Canelo vs Jacobs, AJ, Usyk, GGG etc etc.? I wouldn't, and even so, more and more of the best fighters are on DAZN, so if I had it I wouldn't even have to think about that either.

No they don't need TV. Not being able to give 100% of the population doesn't mean they can't succeed.

Let's agree to disagree with this.

WWE didn't turn to Fox - and continue to do so - because they were succeeding.

WWE doesn't still broadcast PPV because the Network is a smashing success.

WWE doesn't still splatter their crappy shows all over free TV because the Network negated the need to do so.

Do you know why the WWE does what they do - and mind you, they've been around WAY longer than DAZN?

It's because WWE understands that TV won't go away now or in the future, and success is not managed by depending on internet only. It's managed by exposure in multiple ways, to maximize your viewing audience.

I'd trust that model over an internet-only one all day long.

You can deny all you want. I'll keep trusting the long standing companies, thank you.