IGN interviews iNDemand PPV's Joe Boyle - November 2000
Posted by admin admin on Saturday, May 25, 2013
Under: Misc (Indy Talents, Legends, Etc)
Interview: inDemand's Joe Boyle
Shoot Fighting 101 - Is the UFC too much for mainstream America?
November 21, 2000
By Jake Rossen
Columnist, IGN Wrestling
No one knew what to expect.
On November 12, 1993, SEG's first Ultimate Fighting Championship was broadcast via Pay-Per-View to approximately 80,000 paying customers. Thanks to a marketing campaign that promised a meld of karate, boxing, and wrestling, combat fans were enticed to witness something most of North America had only seen in high schools and bars: a free-for-all fight that barred only eye gouges and groin attacks. Out of eight contestants total, one would be left the winner at the end of the evening.
There were surely pro wrestling fans tuning in at that moment, confident that despite a clever advertising gimmick, the matches would be as faked as anything found in the WWF. It took only a few seconds of the opening bout to convince them otherwise. Gigantic Sumo combatant Teila Tuli was reduced to tears after being kicked square in the face by Dutch Savate Champ Gerard Gordeau. Even on the most worn of tapes, viewers can still make out Tuli's tooth flying out of his mouth and landing outside the imposing Octagonal fence. Promoters couldn't have scripted a better introduction, right up to the eventual victory of Brazilian Royce Gracie, the lanky jiu-jitsu artist who emerged as the UFC's breakout star. Royce would go on to win eleven bouts total, drawing with Ken Shamrock in Gracie's last UFC appearance.
While people quickly became enamored with the raw nature of the combat sports, politicians saw only danger and disaster ahead. Pundits insisted that someone was bound to die in the cage sooner or later. For some fans, that was no doubt the draw. Through 1996, buyrates climbed steadily with each show. But after a deadly dull bout in UFC 9, with Ken Shamrock and Dan Severn circling each other and refusing to engage, viewership dropped significantly. Time-Warner cable, no longer satisfied with business and alarmed by the reaction from influential figures like Senator John McCain, ceased to carry the event.
In reaction to their dramatically reduced viewer base, SEG banned the more potentially dangerous attacks, such as strikes to the spine, headbutts, and kicking a downed opponent. Their best testimonial to safety has been their continued activity: With 32 UFC events having been broadcast to date, none have hosted any fights that have resulted in serious injury. That track record and patience has earned them victories, with trend-setting states like California and New Jersey both agreeing to sanction the now-regulated sporting event.
At this point in time, UFC events are offered only on DirecTV and Dish Network satellite systems, their viewership only a tenth of what it once was. Thanks to an ardent fan base, they continue to stay afloat, hoping that they will once again be able to offer their wares to a general audience. IGN recently had a chance to speak with Joe Boyle, vice-president of Corporate Communications at inDemand, the Pay-Per-View provider that services most of the country. Regardless of the sanctioning body or the safety record, it is the decision of inDemand to carry the event that will make or break the industry. Mr. Boyle was gracious enough to share his company's views on the matter.
IGN: What prompted inDemand (formerly Viewer's Choice) to cease carrying the UFC and related events?
Joe Boyle: The live shows themselves were banned. There were injunctions, repercussions, and a number of states where they tried to schedule these events - I think New York State was one of them - and at the eleventh hour they were moving the venue just to try and find a location. Needless to say, there was an uproar over having these shows. There were numerous public official who were comparing this to human cockfighting. They were coming down very, very hard on cable systems. These were people anywhere from the PTA to the local politicians to John McCain and the U.S. Senate.
Above and beyond that, the quality was horrible. The TV production itself. Looking at our schedule, we passed on it. We get pitched non-stop by suppliers, concert promoters, and independent filmmakers to carry their stuff on Pay-Per-View. We just decided that, look, we have so much wrestling on now with ECW, WCW, and WWF, that we're going to pass on this.
IGN: Did you expect the promotion to go out of business at that point?
Boyle: No, I don't think we expected them to go out of business. They were still free to try and go pitch systems directly. I think they may even have done that. DirecTV is out there, which is huge. There were other options for them to get out there. There's UHF, and a lot of local broadcast stations.
IGN: With the sport's violence having been a factor, how does inDemand feel about carrying events like ECW? Their shows usually involve a sizable amount of gore.
Boyle: Nobody takes wrestling seriously. That's an older generational thing. Remember when people used to argue, "Oh, that stuff is fake!" Who cares? It's entertainment. It's fun. I think that that when UFC came out, it struck people the wrong way.
Look, they're all over the WWF, too. There's not a week that goes by where there's not pressure there as well. It's a very touchy time right now for TV. And Hollywood is getting its share.
IGN: Are there employees at inDemand that follow the sport's progress?
Boyle: We keep an eye on it. We get calls from UFC fans. I think they know there's other places to turn for it now.
IGN: What about the recent regulation by New Jersey and California? Do you see that as having a positive effect with your company?
Boyle: I'm sure it will. We're always reconsidering, whether it's the UFC or other programming. I think we'll take a look.
IGN: What do you see as being the ultimate step or movement this sport needs to take in order to make a re-entry to conventional cable?
Boyle: We have to take a hard look. We have a schedule. There are a lot of things that go into putting together a monthly schedule. First and foremost, we're about major motion pictures. We're a destination for great movies and events. Our focus for 2001 is digital cable and video on demand. We want to be competitive with what's out on DBS (digital satellite systems). We want to be competitive with what's in the local video stores. That's our focus.
IGN: Is there concern that the smaller dishes offer these events, while you don't?
Boyle: I think that when people look at what DirecTV has that we don't, it's really just the NFL.
IGN: Ultimately, what do you think the breaking point will be?
Boyle: I think that a lot of the demand comes from the ground up. The fans need to contact their local cable companies. Just like people who want the NFL, or who want baseball, or movies. That's where it has to begin. There are new networks being launched every single day. It's eating up limited bandwidth.
IGN: What kind of feedback did you get from fans of the event?
Boyle: Every time I picked up the phone, they wanted me to sit down and explain every little issue. That's impossible. I would try to at least be courteous. Some understood, some were not going to understand no matter what you told them, and demanded that it was their right to have it. I was sympathetic. I know what it's like when you're a fan and you can't get your games or your shows. It's not an easy thing.
IGN: Was there ever discussion that the problem wasn't with the sport, but with the UFC in particular? Is there a chance another company could re-enter the PPV market before they would?
Boyle: I don't think so, but anything's possible. Don't take that as an affirmative that we're going to be carrying it, but anything's possible. I don't know of any bad blood between our companies.
We've got a limited number of channels. There are only so many hours in a day. They're free to take this anywhere. Why don't they go on FOX? Why don't they go on other broadcast networks? BattleBots went from PPV to Comedy Central. It's not like there's this scarcity of outlets.
We have more bandwidth than a lot of places, but even with that, the priority is major motion pictures. Boxing is still probably the most popular of events, followed by the WWF. We're trying to build a music business. We have soccer, we have ESPN Gameplan, ESPN Full Court. We have this complete round-up of what we called Sports inDemand. We're really trying to build our sports franchise. That takes up bandwidth.
It goes beyond politics. We're beyond that.
IGN: So the safety record is no longer an issue?
Boyle: Forget about all that. We still have to review for what's the best programming for our fans and for the competitive nature of our affiliates.
IGN: So state sanctioning has had an effect?
Boyle: I think the balance has shifted, although I haven't canvassed our affiliates recently. Some of them were more opposed to this than others. We had some major systems that basically got bombarded locally with all of this. It hurt. The limited number of buys that we got just wasn't worth it.
We've seen and recognized that some of the states have sanctioned this. But again, I don't know what the temperature is like out there. We're a national satellite feed, and we can't customize this so it goes to some markets and not others. That's the problem we had.
IGN: With that in mind, would inDemand consider broadcasting a trial show, to test the waters?
Boyle: I really don't know. I can't answer that. Things have a tendency to change. Who knows what's going to happen with this?
Shoot Fighting 101 - Is the UFC too much for mainstream America?
November 21, 2000
By Jake Rossen
Columnist, IGN Wrestling
No one knew what to expect.
On November 12, 1993, SEG's first Ultimate Fighting Championship was broadcast via Pay-Per-View to approximately 80,000 paying customers. Thanks to a marketing campaign that promised a meld of karate, boxing, and wrestling, combat fans were enticed to witness something most of North America had only seen in high schools and bars: a free-for-all fight that barred only eye gouges and groin attacks. Out of eight contestants total, one would be left the winner at the end of the evening.
There were surely pro wrestling fans tuning in at that moment, confident that despite a clever advertising gimmick, the matches would be as faked as anything found in the WWF. It took only a few seconds of the opening bout to convince them otherwise. Gigantic Sumo combatant Teila Tuli was reduced to tears after being kicked square in the face by Dutch Savate Champ Gerard Gordeau. Even on the most worn of tapes, viewers can still make out Tuli's tooth flying out of his mouth and landing outside the imposing Octagonal fence. Promoters couldn't have scripted a better introduction, right up to the eventual victory of Brazilian Royce Gracie, the lanky jiu-jitsu artist who emerged as the UFC's breakout star. Royce would go on to win eleven bouts total, drawing with Ken Shamrock in Gracie's last UFC appearance.
While people quickly became enamored with the raw nature of the combat sports, politicians saw only danger and disaster ahead. Pundits insisted that someone was bound to die in the cage sooner or later. For some fans, that was no doubt the draw. Through 1996, buyrates climbed steadily with each show. But after a deadly dull bout in UFC 9, with Ken Shamrock and Dan Severn circling each other and refusing to engage, viewership dropped significantly. Time-Warner cable, no longer satisfied with business and alarmed by the reaction from influential figures like Senator John McCain, ceased to carry the event.
In reaction to their dramatically reduced viewer base, SEG banned the more potentially dangerous attacks, such as strikes to the spine, headbutts, and kicking a downed opponent. Their best testimonial to safety has been their continued activity: With 32 UFC events having been broadcast to date, none have hosted any fights that have resulted in serious injury. That track record and patience has earned them victories, with trend-setting states like California and New Jersey both agreeing to sanction the now-regulated sporting event.
At this point in time, UFC events are offered only on DirecTV and Dish Network satellite systems, their viewership only a tenth of what it once was. Thanks to an ardent fan base, they continue to stay afloat, hoping that they will once again be able to offer their wares to a general audience. IGN recently had a chance to speak with Joe Boyle, vice-president of Corporate Communications at inDemand, the Pay-Per-View provider that services most of the country. Regardless of the sanctioning body or the safety record, it is the decision of inDemand to carry the event that will make or break the industry. Mr. Boyle was gracious enough to share his company's views on the matter.
IGN: What prompted inDemand (formerly Viewer's Choice) to cease carrying the UFC and related events?
Joe Boyle: The live shows themselves were banned. There were injunctions, repercussions, and a number of states where they tried to schedule these events - I think New York State was one of them - and at the eleventh hour they were moving the venue just to try and find a location. Needless to say, there was an uproar over having these shows. There were numerous public official who were comparing this to human cockfighting. They were coming down very, very hard on cable systems. These were people anywhere from the PTA to the local politicians to John McCain and the U.S. Senate.
Above and beyond that, the quality was horrible. The TV production itself. Looking at our schedule, we passed on it. We get pitched non-stop by suppliers, concert promoters, and independent filmmakers to carry their stuff on Pay-Per-View. We just decided that, look, we have so much wrestling on now with ECW, WCW, and WWF, that we're going to pass on this.
IGN: Did you expect the promotion to go out of business at that point?
Boyle: No, I don't think we expected them to go out of business. They were still free to try and go pitch systems directly. I think they may even have done that. DirecTV is out there, which is huge. There were other options for them to get out there. There's UHF, and a lot of local broadcast stations.
IGN: With the sport's violence having been a factor, how does inDemand feel about carrying events like ECW? Their shows usually involve a sizable amount of gore.
Boyle: Nobody takes wrestling seriously. That's an older generational thing. Remember when people used to argue, "Oh, that stuff is fake!" Who cares? It's entertainment. It's fun. I think that that when UFC came out, it struck people the wrong way.
Look, they're all over the WWF, too. There's not a week that goes by where there's not pressure there as well. It's a very touchy time right now for TV. And Hollywood is getting its share.
IGN: Are there employees at inDemand that follow the sport's progress?
Boyle: We keep an eye on it. We get calls from UFC fans. I think they know there's other places to turn for it now.
IGN: What about the recent regulation by New Jersey and California? Do you see that as having a positive effect with your company?
Boyle: I'm sure it will. We're always reconsidering, whether it's the UFC or other programming. I think we'll take a look.
IGN: What do you see as being the ultimate step or movement this sport needs to take in order to make a re-entry to conventional cable?
Boyle: We have to take a hard look. We have a schedule. There are a lot of things that go into putting together a monthly schedule. First and foremost, we're about major motion pictures. We're a destination for great movies and events. Our focus for 2001 is digital cable and video on demand. We want to be competitive with what's out on DBS (digital satellite systems). We want to be competitive with what's in the local video stores. That's our focus.
IGN: Is there concern that the smaller dishes offer these events, while you don't?
Boyle: I think that when people look at what DirecTV has that we don't, it's really just the NFL.
IGN: Ultimately, what do you think the breaking point will be?
Boyle: I think that a lot of the demand comes from the ground up. The fans need to contact their local cable companies. Just like people who want the NFL, or who want baseball, or movies. That's where it has to begin. There are new networks being launched every single day. It's eating up limited bandwidth.
IGN: What kind of feedback did you get from fans of the event?
Boyle: Every time I picked up the phone, they wanted me to sit down and explain every little issue. That's impossible. I would try to at least be courteous. Some understood, some were not going to understand no matter what you told them, and demanded that it was their right to have it. I was sympathetic. I know what it's like when you're a fan and you can't get your games or your shows. It's not an easy thing.
IGN: Was there ever discussion that the problem wasn't with the sport, but with the UFC in particular? Is there a chance another company could re-enter the PPV market before they would?
Boyle: I don't think so, but anything's possible. Don't take that as an affirmative that we're going to be carrying it, but anything's possible. I don't know of any bad blood between our companies.
We've got a limited number of channels. There are only so many hours in a day. They're free to take this anywhere. Why don't they go on FOX? Why don't they go on other broadcast networks? BattleBots went from PPV to Comedy Central. It's not like there's this scarcity of outlets.
We have more bandwidth than a lot of places, but even with that, the priority is major motion pictures. Boxing is still probably the most popular of events, followed by the WWF. We're trying to build a music business. We have soccer, we have ESPN Gameplan, ESPN Full Court. We have this complete round-up of what we called Sports inDemand. We're really trying to build our sports franchise. That takes up bandwidth.
It goes beyond politics. We're beyond that.
IGN: So the safety record is no longer an issue?
Boyle: Forget about all that. We still have to review for what's the best programming for our fans and for the competitive nature of our affiliates.
IGN: So state sanctioning has had an effect?
Boyle: I think the balance has shifted, although I haven't canvassed our affiliates recently. Some of them were more opposed to this than others. We had some major systems that basically got bombarded locally with all of this. It hurt. The limited number of buys that we got just wasn't worth it.
We've seen and recognized that some of the states have sanctioned this. But again, I don't know what the temperature is like out there. We're a national satellite feed, and we can't customize this so it goes to some markets and not others. That's the problem we had.
IGN: With that in mind, would inDemand consider broadcasting a trial show, to test the waters?
Boyle: I really don't know. I can't answer that. Things have a tendency to change. Who knows what's going to happen with this?