Sunday, July 12, 2009

Matt Sussman uses giant soapbox to whine

The only thing I know about Matt Sussman is that he is a contributing writer for the site Deadspin, which I read every day. Today he wrote this really crumb-bum article:

Was That A Great UFC or What? (No, Really, Tell Me)

When I first read this, I assumed that this article would be about a non-MMA enthusiast having watched UFC 100. But I was wrong. Dead(spin) wrong!

Not to break wind on the parade of the 18-35 male demographic, but it seemed from this comfy couch that everyone was watching UFC 100 because everyone else was.

Yeah, that, or maybe it was the Welterweight and Heavyweight title fights, which included possibly the best pound for pound fighter in the sport and the most physically dominant heavyweight ever respectively.

So, not being one to fall behind on today's hip happenin' trends, I turned it on. And let me tell ya, I don't know what the big deal was. All the view was obfuscated by the letters "SORRY, THIS CHANNEL IS NOT AVAILABLE." I was later informed that you have to pay money to see this event, because it is important.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I did not see that coming!

I then inquired why such a huge event in a sport trying to constantly prove itself to the mainstream isn't available for free. The dog had no idea.

Just a wild guess, but maybe it has something to with money.

I really want to formulate some kind of thoughts on the sport — and I'm sure others out there are curious too — but, c'mon, I don't have that channel. Especially as a guy who has to keep a site like this warm on the weekends, it's beneficial to be at least competent in boxing and MMA and the Premier League.

Argh, if only Deadspin or the Gawker network had some sort of revenue stream. Then they could pay for you to watch both.

But I'm not going to spend another $30 a month to get certain premium soccer channels or spend ... really? Just 55 bucks for the fights in HD?

God forbid, you'd go to a bar and watch it for the price of drinks/some cover charge.

Were the Super Bowl to be aired on pay-per-view, the live blog of it would be much less descriptive. All the sports websites would still be talking about it, and you'd feel left out, too.

Yes, NFL : UFC :: Apples : Apples

Except for the fact that the NFL is the most popular league in America, with every regular and post season game being broadcast on network television (save for MNF on ESPN). Additionally, the Superbowl (which happens once a year) rakes $90 billion per 30 second ad spot.

Compare that to the UFC (whose best fighters fight 1-3x per year) which has a couple shows on Spike TV, and has pay-per-views an average of once per month. Those ppv's draw powerhouse sponsors like Mickey's Malt Liquor, and for UFC 100: The USA Today Sports Section, the Cadillac of sponsors. But I'll be darned if I can figure out why Dana White would want people paying $55 per ppv.

So I understand how MMA is ever-proving to everyone that it's legitimate entertainment and how far they've come, but ... um, would ya mind showing the rest of us cheapskates?

Yes, they would mind because they like making money.

If not, then I'll be damned if I ever have the desire to write about the sport anymore.

This was the MMA article that Deadspin, the most prevlant non-msm sports blog in America, ran the day after UFC 100. Sheesh.

24 comments:

Larry B said...

The important thing is that Sussman's post gave Deadspin's army of dipshit commenters plenty of opportunity to repeat the same snarky joke back and forth to one another for a couple hours.

Anonymous said...

Eh, I think most of us are with Sussman and Deadspin on this one. MMA? Get real.

Cornelius Talmidge said...

Ppv buys for the event have been projected upwards of 1,000,000 and more. So, actually, "[m]ost of us" were watching. Oh, and for the Sussman's of the world, that'll add up to around 40 million reasons that the UFC chose not to air it for free.

Chris W said...

Anonymous--

Actually the article didn't say "MMA get real", it said "I'm interested in the MMA but I think they're stupid to put it on pay per view"

So uh....like, that's the point you should agree with or disagree with, if anything.

Bengoodfella said...

Larry B, don't make fun of Deadspin commenters. They generally have brilliant takes on such diverse issues such as whether "x player's" girlfriend is hot and what sexual act said commenter would like to perform on said girlfriend or who can have the most clever screen name that is a play off some other pop culture event/character/reference.

I have no real interest in boxing, MMA or anything of the like. I know that is how MMA makes money on pay per view events, but it also ensures only the diehard fans. I will never pay nor go to a bar to watch two guys beat the shit out of each other for a sport I have little interest in. So I am torn. While I may have a 10% chance of watching if it was free, they would not make money by catering to people like me.

I personally think MMA is dumb but I know I am in the minority on that.

I think MMA is still a niche sport so they have to gain revenue by paying. Making it free would seem to be a financial mistake.

Bengoodfella said...

Yeah...and what Chris just said. How do they make money if they don't charge someone to watch it? The sponsors are not exactly lining up at this point.

FormerPhD said...

MMA is restricted by those wonderful laws of economics. Namely, if the options your organization have are not be on tv at all, get stuck on some terrible time slot on a fringe channel (VERSUS BABY!!!!) or make a ton of money on PPV: PPV wins every time. Especially when it's one of the few major events that your organization can make money on. Is MMA supposed to lose money so that people can watch their premiere event when there are free alternatives on tv already?

Honestly I think MMA is being very smart. If you want to see if you're into MMA, watch the shows that are on cable and see if you like it. It's stupid to shell out 50 bucks to see if you like something if you can figure that out for free/much cheaper (friends all pitch in, going to a bar, etc.). PPV was a godsend for boxing. A couple major events that you know people will get together and make it an all-day event and not mind pooling together the 50-75 bucks for the ability to do that.

What I want to know is what does Sussman think about shelling out $60 bucks (per person, plus concessions and parking) to go to a baseball game. Same length of time, less action and more expensive.

That said, Deadspin commenters are on par with the intelligence level of CNN commenters are. No one denies this!

dan-bob said...

Unless you are going to about six select stadiums in this country, you don't need to spend anywhere near sixty bucks.

Shoot, I can see the Reds for five bucks. Four, on certain days.

Bengoodfella said...

You are right Rich, it's simple economics. Really, there is no need to make it free if the niche market is willing to pay $60 to watch it.

Shamus McDickhead said...

MMA is a joke. UFC is a fake sport for little boys who never grew up or completely got over WWE.

You all popped boners when Lesnar forgot Vince McMahon wasn't his boss anymore, didn't you?

Geigh.

Anonymous said...

I'm with Shamus on this one -- it's definitely not a sport. It's for all the dudes who couldnt play real sports well and the fanboys are the same. It's awful.

Bengoodfella said...

Hey! Mr. Dickhead and your alter ego "Anonymous," you are trying to bait people. Good one. I will take the bait.

I agree with Jack on this and I hate professional or fake wrestling and I hate MMA. I can't describe to you how much I hate professional wrestling. I think you are missing the point. It's not whether MMA is a joke or not or if it is even a sport, but whether it was smart to make consumers pay for the product or make it free on the television and hope advertisers pay for time on commercials.

I am not going to argue over whether it is a sport or not, though it is more of a sport than horse racing, which primarily involves a non-little little person riding a horse and beating it with a whip.

You are quite possibly the worst baiters I have seen in a long time honestly. Saying it's for dudes who can't play real sports well and also for fanboys...that goes deep since most of the bloggers who write on the Internet have never been outside.

I would like to hear your comments on why MMA should show their shitty product on television and not PPV...that's what the discussion was about. I agree with you in some premises but we have to stay focused here.

Bengoodfella said...

Sorry, I meant "Mr. McDickhead," not "Mr. Dickhead."

And also you aren't the worst baiters I have ever seen since I took the bait and actually attempted to engage you in conversation.

Were you offended by the negative comments about Deadspin commenters and felt the need to strike back? I bet that was it.

Cornelius Talmidge said...

Anonymous/Shamus,

That was undoubtedly the single most obvious attempt in blog-commenting history by one troll to appear to be two separate trolls.

Here's a tip: if you want to make it the least bit believable that you're two different people, don't start off by saying, "I'm with [the first commenter] on this one." Dead giveaway.

FormerPhD said...

Everything they (he?) argued is incredibly subjective. I quit playing hockey in HS my senior year to do debate because I had almost reached double digits in the concussion territory.

Just because people find entertainment value/happiness out of something, doesn't make them worth hating. So someone decided they enjoyed MMA more than football, so what? Honestly does it matter that much to anyone what people do in their spare time? As long as it doesn't negatively impact my life, feel free to do whatever you want.

If you don't like it (and I don't like MMA or boxing), then keep it to yourself and don't try to tear other people down for liking it.

Surprise! People like different things, get used to it or at least try to be classy and respectful (i.e. I don't like MMA because I've never really found enjoyment out of fighting done for the sake of fighting) and not act like you've got sand in your vagina (It's not a real sport!).

And to further Cornelius' argument. Don't post within 10 minutes of each other.

Bengoodfella said...

I agree Rich. It doesn't matter really what I like or don't like, I don't really care who likes wrestling or MMA, it doesn't matter to me.

What is annoying is to say a person who does/does not like MMA sucks or anything like that. It doesn't hurt anyone's feelings but it's a pretty useless way to argue.

Anonymous said...

Admittedly, I know nothing about MMA and I don't really care to know anything about it. It seems, for the most part, to be thuggery between lower tier athletes. That said, if you're the Deadspin writer, why even make the post? You're commenting on an event that you didn't watch? Really? And, seriously, if you're intent on watching it, get a few buddies over and split the cost. Or just pay for it yourself. I don't get it. Also, that Anonymous was definitely Shamus.

-- different anonymous

Jack M said...

@Shamus McDickhead

Fuck, how could I not have known that UFC was fixed. In retrospect, those knockouts are so fake looking. I can't believe how geigh I am!!1

@last anonymous

While I appreciate your shared view that Sussman's column was lame as shit, I do have to take umbrage with your suggestion that UFC is "thuggery between lower tier athletes." The amount of skill required to be an elite MMA fighter is not something anyone can just pick up. Even Brock Lesnar, who's considered a johnny come lately to UFC, spent well over a decade as an amateur wrestler. As for athletic ability, not everyone grows up wanting to be a pro football player. Most UFC fighters are in insanely good shape, and the fact that they were never in the NFL, NBA, NHL, or MLB is irrelevant.

Chris W said...

If you've read this blog before you'd know that we are huge MMA fans.

Look at all the "Randy Couture" tags down there at the bottom!!!

Alex said...

For what it's worth, here are my two cents (Canadian. I think that's 2.3 cents U.S.):

My buddies are really into MMA. Personally, I can't get into it. I like boxing though. I can't explain why I don't like MMA but my interest to boxing is connected to my father who used to take me and my brother to the fights (whether local or going to a hockey arena to view a big fight. Back in the 80s pay per view didn't exist) when we were kids.

The workout regiment of a MMA fighter is insane and I would never take that away from them nor would I bother badgering people who enjoy it. You have to give the sport credit, it found its niche.

As for Deadspin, not really into it. I can only take it in small doses - if at all. It has its moments but for the most part...whatever.

But again, to each his own.

Anonymous said...

Sussman's Deadspin story was funny. Funnier than this story.

And, argument over whether MMA is/isn't a sport aside, no one is going to pay for an 'event' like this unless they are already a huge fan. If MMA is content with that, then fine. If MMA is looking to build an audience, then we have a problem.

AnonShamus

Jack M said...

Yes, having main event cards on PPV has clearly failed to build UFC's audience. This is now roughly their 100th PPV, and yet, their buy-rate has continued to be stagnant since UFC 1.

Chris W said...

Most recent anonymous--

You're totally right. Certainly no sport which has minor events on free tv and major events on pay per view has ever managed to increase their popularity over the years*









*nb: Boxing and professional wrestling don't count because, well, they're the exceptions, right?

Angelo said...

is it too late to comment on this? Does anyone realize that free television stations are run by large corporations interested in making boatloads of money? And that they don't believe there is enough interest in MMA to justify airtime? And especially that the typical viewers and sponsors stand in contrast to the type of image that will attract the majority of the country?