Thurman/Guerrero card brings in 3.4 million viewers

Great news for boxing. 3.4 million viewers, the most watched boxing broadcast since 1998. And most importantly, it beat out the recent UFC shows on FOX.

This past weekend, the big player in the combat sports world was Premier Boxing Champions, the Al Haymon enterprise that brought boxing back to network television. PBC aired their debut show Saturday night live on NBC, and the overnight ratings speak well for the company's future.

Premier Boxing Champions pulled in 3.4 million viewers on the night, making it the most watched boxing broadcast since 1998. They also did a 1.08 rating in the coveted 18-49 demographic, making NBC #1 amongst the big 4 networks in this group.

The show was headlined by Keith Thurman vs. Robert Guerrero in a dramatic fight, and also featured Adrien Broner vs. John Molina, Jr. in a snoozer.

One other statistic worth noting: the show saw a steady rise throughout the broadcast, with an increase every half hour, culminating in a 4.2 peak for the last half of the main event.

The big question for MMA fans - how do these numbers stack up to the UFC on Fox?

The most recent UFC on Fox show, UFC on Fox 14 headlined by Alexander Gustafsson vs. Anthony Johnson, pulled in 2.82 million viewers, a definite notch below the PBC show. That was the high mark for the UFC in some time. UFC on Fox 13: Dos Santos vs. Miocic saw a significantly lower 2.27 million viewers, which was consistent with their most recent shows.

The highest rated UFC on Fox show remains the first ever event (Velasquez vs. Dos Santos I) which drew 5.7 million viewers back in 2011. Overall, only 4 of the 14 UFC on Fox events have beaten this PBC show in terms of viewers - none more recent than UFC on Fox 6: Johnson vs. Dodson in January 2013 (3.77 million).

Don't get too excited. For a Prime Time show, it needs to have a consistent showing of 4.0 for it to have a future. Below that, its just a matter of time. 65% of all new shows get canceled. That's around 115 to 120 and below on the overall list of shows that get chopped. When a show scores in the 7's then it's future is good enough to survive on prime-time.

Snoozer or not, Broner vs Molina should get some credit because everyone wants to see Broner get his butt kicked again. IMO Lol

THat's probably good news, but I bet they banked on even higher ratings considering the investment Haymon made on it. If Broner-Molina had been a better fight it might have kept more people tuned in, the reality is that a casual viewer will just change the channel watching that kind of action, guaranteed people were kicking themselves after how that one turned out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Don't get too excited. For a Prime Time show, it needs to have a consistent showing of 4.0 for it to have a future. Below that, its just a matter of time. 65% of all new shows get canceled. That's around 115 to 120 and below on the overall list of shows that get chopped. When a show scores in the 7's then it's future is good enough to survive on prime-time.

---

true, but i believe that many people didnt even know about it. its a new thing and as time goes on, more and more people will start to realize that there is some good boxing on national tv.

I wonder how the money works out for this? We know with ppv it's in the buys. But how does regular network TV get that money in for boxing shows? Gatta be more than just spot advertisements.

Maybe it's just me, but I noticed Thurman's guard is wide open.

He also has a tendency to drop his left, and there were a few times where he left himself open after throwing flurries.

In between rounds, they introduced several fighters. So for the public that tuned in-they at least can match the face to the name Deontay Wilder for example: smart promo on Hayman's part.

Gotta think even the novice fan could point out how amatuerish Molina looked with that wild overhand right, while some of us hardcore fans probably didnt expect for him to fight that way. Hey, shit happens.

Keep Laila on roving assignment, she looks nice, but I dont care for the sound of her voice. Marv & Ray great job.

I think this is a long term plan to continue to bring back boxing on free tv. For a first time it is a good audience and will continue to rise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ykdadamaja

I wonder how the money works out for this? We know with ppv it's in the buys. But how does regular network TV get that money in for boxing shows? Gatta be more than just spot advertisements.

---

I'll guess the money's come from the Live Gate Sales and Advertising Dollars. There are sponsors for the event itself as well. Typically Beer & other Spirits, Energy/Sport drinks & Sport attire and the Networks themselves. I only see mega fights having a site venue bid. Otherwise the promoter pays the venue and to get the fight aired. I'm not sure how the ad dollars are divided up. Al Haymon reportedly made a deal with NBC to air 24 fights. The same formula that the networks use applies to Al Haymon's investment bid to get boxing back on aired TV. With the rating received, it cost advertisers between $50k-$60k for a 30 second spot. I would think just looking at the number in general that Al Hamon needs to clear a bit more that 1 million per fight on average to make any money. With only 4 of the 24 fights on prime-time with a 1-ish rating, that number doesn't look very attainable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ykdadamaja

I wonder how the money works out for this? We know with ppv it's in the buys. But how does regular network TV get that money in for boxing shows? Gatta be more than just spot advertisements.

---

I'll guess the money's come from the Live Gate Sales and Advertising Dollars. There are sponsors for the event itself as well. Typically Beer & other Spirits, Energy/Sport drinks & Sport attire and the Networks themselves. I only see mega fights having a site venue bid. Otherwise the promoter pays the venue and to get the fight aired. I'm not sure how the ad dollars are divided up. Al Haymon reportedly made a deal with NBC to air 24 fights. The same formula that the networks use applies to Al Haymon's investment bid to get boxing back on aired TV. With the rating received, it cost advertisers between $50k-$60k for a 30 second spot. I would think just looking at the number in general that Al Hamon needs to clear a bit more that 1 million per fight on average to make any money. With only 4 of the 24 fights on prime-time with a 1-ish rating, that number doesn't look very attainable.

---

hhhmmmm....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Don't get too excited. For a Prime Time show, it needs to have a consistent showing of 4.0 for it to have a future. Below that, its just a matter of time. 65% of all new shows get canceled. That's around 115 to 120 and below on the overall list of shows that get chopped. When a show scores in the 7's then it's future is good enough to survive on prime-time.

---

Yeah but this isn't a hip new sitcom or game show where they're expecting to hit a grand slam on the first night. They're reintroducing the mainstream to an old product, and for those numbers to be pulled in by guys who are nowhere near the top of boxing in terms of name/star power, that's pretty encouraging. NBC had to have known that this was a test event, and for it to pull in solid numbers like that shows a lot of promise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Don't get too excited. For a Prime Time show, it needs to have a consistent showing of 4.0 for it to have a future. Below that, its just a matter of time. 65% of all new shows get canceled. That's around 115 to 120 and below on the overall list of shows that get chopped. When a show scores in the 7's then it's future is good enough to survive on prime-time.

---

Yeah but this isn't a hip new sitcom or game show where they're expecting to hit a grand slam on the first night. They're reintroducing the mainstream to an old product, and for those numbers to be pulled in by guys who are nowhere near the top of boxing in terms of name/star power, that's pretty encouraging. NBC had to have known that this was a test event, and for it to pull in solid numbers like that shows a lot of promise.

---

Based on what I read about Al Haymon's deal with NBC, NBC has no risk. (I frankly think this is a big mistake on Al Hamon's part) It's mostly on the weight of AL Haymon's $$$. I'm willing to bet his motivation is not completely because his heart is with boxing, but rather a bigger chunk of the motivation is to earn money. I doubt the decision makers care about content as much as the performance ratings. The bottom line is profit margin. This is mostly why some 65% of all new shows get canceled. The only shows that seem to survive with lower ratings are the ones that get social and media attention due to feed back from the fans. Branding in advertising carries more weight and sponsors are willing to lose money in a demographic because they earn a name. Let's hope this rings true for Boxing. When an investor dumps more than his net worth into a product, I suspect it's not testing. I however, find it very difficult to believe, Al Hamon's net worth is only $15 Million.

This wasn't a one shot deal. We have many good nbc fights coming up. He has a plan to try to build this up. If the ratings are good and people are looking forward to the negotiations will change. Let's give it time and see if it gives boxing a kick in the ads as far as ratings go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Based on what I read about Al Haymon's deal with NBC, NBC has no risk. (I frankly think this is a big mistake on Al Hamon's part) It's mostly on the weight of AL Haymon's $$$. I'm willing to bet his motivation is not completely because his heart is with boxing, but rather a bigger chunk of the motivation is to earn money. I doubt the decision makers care about content as much as the performance ratings. The bottom line is profit margin. This is mostly why some 65% of all new shows get canceled. The only shows that seem to survive with lower ratings are the ones that get social and media attention due to feed back from the fans. Branding in advertising carries more weight and sponsors are willing to lose money in a demographic because they earn a name. Let's hope this rings true for Boxing. When an investor dumps more than his net worth into a product, I suspect it's not testing. I however, find it very difficult to believe, Al Hamon's net worth is only $15 Million.

---

Everything comes down to $$$, we all know that. But to Haymon's credit, at least he's risking his money for the betterment of boxing. That's something the dinosaurs before him like Bob Arum and Don King never did. Like JFK said, a rising tide lifts all boats, and obviously as boxing's current king pin the bigger boxing is the more money he makes. But it's great to have a guy out there thinking about the big picture and taking risks.

I don't know much about the particulars of the deal, but you have to imagine boxing is a tough sell for the big networks. It's fallen almost completely out of the public's eye and has largely been eclipsed by the UFC. It's not something that's going to be a home run right away.

So was this broadcast nationwide to the entire US population that have access to terrestrial TV?

If so then the figures are shit when you think about it - 3.4 Million watching out of a population of 318 million.

Here in the UK Nigel Benn v Chris Eubank pulled in figures of over 16 Million and Barry Mcguigan pulled in over 18 Million in the early 1980's, these fights were years ago before Social media, smartphones and even the Internet to help promote them!!!

Bare in mind the UK population back then was around 48 Million - Thats a quarter of the UK watching these fights ;)

Some official UK terrestrial fight statistics (in Millions) from over the years

Ali v Frazier 1971 BBC 27.3
McGuigan v Cabrera 1986 BBC 18.3
McGuigan v Pedroza 1985 BBC 18.0
Eubank v Benn 1993 ITV 16.3
Malinga v Eubank 1992 ITV 13.3
Benn v McClellan 1995 ITV 13.1
Rocchigiani v Eubank 1994 ITV 12.3
Eubank v Close 1993 ITV 11.5
Eubank v Thornton 1992 ITV 10.3
Eubank v Holmes 1993 ITV 10.1, Bruno v Marin 1995 ITV 10.1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smashup

So was this broadcast nationwide to the entire US population that have access to terrestrial TV?

If so then the figures are shit when you think about it - 3.4 Million watching out of a population of 318 million.

Here in the UK Nigel Benn v Chris Eubank pulled in figures of over 16 Million and Barry Mcguigan pulled in over 18 Million in the early 1980's, these fights were years ago before Social media, smartphones and even the Internet to help promote them!!!

Bare in mind the UK population back then was around 48 Million - Thats a quarter of the UK watching these fights ;)

Some official UK terrestrial fight statistics (in Millions) from over the years

Ali v Frazier 1971 BBC 27.3
McGuigan v Cabrera 1986 BBC 18.3
McGuigan v Pedroza 1985 BBC 18.0
Eubank v Benn 1993 ITV 16.3
Malinga v Eubank 1992 ITV 13.3
Benn v McClellan 1995 ITV 13.1
Rocchigiani v Eubank 1994 ITV 12.3
Eubank v Close 1993 ITV 11.5
Eubank v Thornton 1992 ITV 10.3
Eubank v Holmes 1993 ITV 10.1, Bruno v Marin 1995 ITV 10.1

---

Right and when Kessler fought in Denmark, half the people watched him fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smashup

So was this broadcast nationwide to the entire US population that have access to terrestrial TV?

If so then the figures are shit when you think about it - 3.4 Million watching out of a population of 318 million.

Here in the UK Nigel Benn v Chris Eubank pulled in figures of over 16 Million and Barry Mcguigan pulled in over 18 Million in the early 1980's, these fights were years ago before Social media, smartphones and even the Internet to help promote them!!!

Bare in mind the UK population back then was around 48 Million - Thats a quarter of the UK watching these fights ;)

Some official UK terrestrial fight statistics (in Millions) from over the years

Ali v Frazier 1971 BBC 27.3
McGuigan v Cabrera 1986 BBC 18.3
McGuigan v Pedroza 1985 BBC 18.0
Eubank v Benn 1993 ITV 16.3
Malinga v Eubank 1992 ITV 13.3
Benn v McClellan 1995 ITV 13.1
Rocchigiani v Eubank 1994 ITV 12.3
Eubank v Close 1993 ITV 11.5
Eubank v Thornton 1992 ITV 10.3
Eubank v Holmes 1993 ITV 10.1, Bruno v Marin 1995 ITV 10.1

---

Right but you have to remember that this is a different time. Boxing is not nearly as popular as it was in the 70s, 80s and 90s. Those fights also occurred when there were only a handful of channels to chose from. There are also much less eyes on TV now a days than there were: the growing trend is that people are now accessing their media online and on mobile devices. And then of course you have to consider that those fights you listed involved boxing superstars who had a built-in following. Keith Thurman, Adrien Broner... these guys are potentially future superstars. Not really fair to compare their numbers to the numbers of Ali and Frazier. ;D

I don't know why people are being so negative about it. You have to compare it to their direct competition, the UFC prime time shows, and considering the UFC is much hotter than boxing and a much newer exciting product, the NBC show did very well and it's definitely something to build on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fan johnny

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ykdadamaja

I wonder how the money works out for this? We know with ppv it's in the buys. But how does regular network TV get that money in for boxing shows? Gatta be more than just spot advertisements.

---

I'll guess the money's come from the Live Gate Sales and Advertising Dollars. There are sponsors for the event itself as well. Typically Beer & other Spirits, Energy/Sport drinks & Sport attire and the Networks themselves. I only see mega fights having a site venue bid. Otherwise the promoter pays the venue and to get the fight aired. I'm not sure how the ad dollars are divided up. Al Haymon reportedly made a deal with NBC to air 24 fights. The same formula that the networks use applies to Al Haymon's investment bid to get boxing back on aired TV. With the rating received, it cost advertisers between $50k-$60k for a 30 second spot. I would think just looking at the number in general that Al Hamon needs to clear a bit more that 1 million per fight on average to make any money. With only 4 of the 24 fights on prime-time with a 1-ish rating, that number doesn't look very attainable.

---

Purses for Saturday night's fights.

Thurman $1.5 million
Guerrero $1.225 m
Broner $1.25m
Molina $450k
Mares $500k
Reyes $20k

So Haymon isn't even coming close to covering the purses with TV revenue and forget the gate money, half the arena was curtained off and most of the people there were comped. Non- TV advertising is buttons. The lighting rig above the ring cost a million dollars and the production of the event cost a bomb too.

Haymon is getting bankrolled by a bunch of private equity firms and big investors. This isn't a philanthropic endeavour, everybody involved is trying to turn PBC into another UFC so they can eventually run either PPVs or their own subscription channel or both. They're eating a big initial loss to build a potential customer base and then they're going to try and monetise it. So enjoy the free stuff while it lasts and eventually becomes either another UFC-type thing or blows up.

So it is a loss leader and they are investing to make a bi profit later. Enjoy the ride. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

Purses for Saturday night's fights.

Thurman $1.5 million
Guerrero $1.225 m
Broner $1.25m
Molina $450k
Mares $500k
Reyes $20k

---

And people hate Haymon why? Great pay day for those guys, a free night of fights for the fans, he's taking risks and doing big things.

Well if you compare with other leagues like NFL, MLB, NHL, Nascar.... all (NHL did previously do PPV, not sure if it still is) of these products are on network TV, free for the customer to watch if they have the channels.

Now if there's a way for PBC to go this route, I'm almost certain that's what they are going to do. Which is TV licensing deals if I'm not mistaken?

That's when PBC and Mr Haymon will get their big payday.

Arum and Don king have been in the fight game for a lot longer and brought the world the biggest fights in history. The ufc is a mix of wwe and boxing. AL Haymon is not bringing anything new so my guess is he will be lucky to make half his money back from this venture. What he can achieve is branding. Already he is building his name with boxing fans with a positive spin. If this is his actual intent the he has already succeeded.

I heard the fight between Thurman v Guerrero was not for WBA title? That Haymon may create his own titles.

Thank you al haymon..what has bob arum done?

So can someone from the USA confirm something please.....

Was this fight free to watch right across the entire U.S. Nationally?