One wonders why the "Superbowl" isn't Pay-for-view?

[ThomWV]

Lot of money to be made.

[Ishoutandscream2]

1. Thom, I think it will get there one day

[hlthe2b]

15. that would be the day they lose a majority of their audience

IMO...

[Idealism]

2. can't put commercials to PPV

and at $3 million per minute or whatever, that is a lot more revenue missed.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

3. Exactly. nt

[ThomWV]

4. $50~$100 per TV would dwarf it.

[Idealism]

6. I wouldn't pay $50 to watch the Superbowl unless Miami made it

You would find viewership diminish to the point where it would be more cost-effective to just keep it on NBC or whatnot.

[ThomWV]

8. How much do they get for big boxing matches? Something like $40 or so?

If they can get that for boxing why not football's biggest game?

[Idealism]

11. The drop in viewership would hurt them

Boxing is different than football. There is supposed to be 100 million people watching this game because 100 million people have access to it. How many people would order it off PPV? I doubt even 5% of that number. So, at 5 million viewers spending $50 dollars each, it would yield $250 million profit. That is equivalent to around 83 commercials at $3 million per, and there are more than 83 commercials when this is all said and done. Plus, sponsors have to pay more for being seen by 100 million people than if they only reached 5 million.

And honestly, in these economic times, 5 million paying $50 dollars to watch this game might even be high.

[dysfunctional press]

30. why not?

there's no law that says that pay-per-view has to be commercial-free.

[Idealism]

33. Who the hell would pay $50 and STILL have to watch commercials?

What other PPV event has commercials? None, to my knowledge.

[dysfunctional press]

34. traditionally, the commercials have been a big part of the super-bowl broadcast.

btw- who the hell would pay $10 for a movie ticket and STILL have to watch commercials?

as to other ppv events with commercials- i couldn't say, because i've never seen one. :shrug:

but- if the only way to see the game was ppv and commercials were included- what choice would people have?
and if the commercials were all big-budget and entertaining, most people wouldn't mind that they were there.

[Idealism]

36. At that point your viewership would diminish to

just the two teams fan base, which would hurt revenues worse. Not cost effective in any way compared to selling commercials at a few million per ad.

[dysfunctional press]

37. people haven't stopped going to the movies because of the commercials.

most people wouldn't pay to see the superbowl, commercials or not- except for the fans of the two teams playing.

that's why they do it the way they do. the networks pay more for the rights to televise, than ppv would generate.

[Idealism]

39. Which is why I pointed out this won't ever happen

And used those reasons, and others, as to why

[dysfunctional press]

40. i don't think it will either.

my point was that if it DID go to ppv, it wouldn't necessarily mean that it would be commercial-free.

[Warpy]

5. Maybe next year

when putting it on cable instead of HD broadcast will likely increase the audience rather than decrease it.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Dumbest. Question. Ever.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Cause they make lots more money off of the ads they sell

Duh :)

[ThomWV]

10. What makes anyone think ads could not be sold during a Pay-for-view telecast?

Half time, during 'breaks in the action'. Why not?

[NYC Liberal]

17. Because if I was going to pay $50 or however much

you'd better believe I'd be pissed if there were ads on top of that. So would a lot of people.

Not that that doesn't happen in other places, namely movie theaters (where it seems the higher the ticket prices go, the more commercials there are now).

[pipi_k]

20. Magazines, too

seems like the more they cost, the more advertising is in them, and the less real substance/articles, etc.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. Would you pay for a show and expect commercials?

Not me.

[NoSheep]

28. What would one's choice be? Certainly if you paid to view an event you wouldn't

have a choice if they ran ads. Just sayin'.

[RB TexLa]

12. They get paid more from the networks to broadcast it than they would make selling it on PPV.

[dysfunctional press]

32. yep. the network contracts are worth A LOT of money...

and the superbowl broadcast is a big part of it.

[hlthe2b]

13. PPV or commercial ads revenue... I'm guessing the latter is far more

profitable....

[greguganus]

14. Because most people wouldn't pay to watch it. n/t

[JVS]

16. Because only fans of the two teams playing would pay to see it.

People are also accustomed to going to parties and bars to see it, so it would be easy for viewers to watch together and save.

[pipi_k]

19. That's a pretty good point

If I had to pay to see a couple of teams I don't really care about, I wouldn't bother.

[hlthe2b]

24. Even my own teams... I just would not pay much if anything to

watch. It isn't like you are paying to go to the game--just to watch on tv? No thanks. I'm sure many would, but I think they'd wise up and maximize the crowds at public viewings or parties.

[Cerridwen]

18. Because historically,

bread and circuses are free.

Of course, that's just me being a cynic.

It could simply be because "it's just business."

[silverojo]

22. Riots would ensue - n/t

[Harry Monroe]

23. I've already got Sirius satellite radio

I'd just go ahead and listen to it. No way would I pay to view the Super Bowl, since in essence I'm already paying for it, albeit only for the audio.

[book_worm]

25. They make more money with commercials. Just think if one year the SB had two really boring teams

which can't pull in enough people pay for view, but on regular TV it can still pull in a sizeable audience w/ commercials.

[pipi_k]

26. Now that it's over...

a comment on this year's Superbowl and why I'm glad it wasn't PPV...

It was a complete bore until about five minutes before the end of the 4th quarter.

Arizona didn't even look like it belonged in the Superbowl till then. It'll probably be another 62 years before they make it back there again.


If people had to pay for it...at home...there may have been a revolt.

[NoSheep]

27. Isn't it? I pay @ 95 per month for cable

[BlooInBloo]

35. (facepalm)

[dysfunctional press]

29. if they felt they could make more money with pay-per-view, it would already be there.

but they probably realize that they'd lose a major part of their audience.

the nfl contract with the networks is worth a LOT of money- so the networks are already paying them more for it than they would get from ppv. ("they" being the nfl)

[JerseygirlCT]

31. They wouldn't be able to charge as much for the ads, I imagine

The advertisers want the biggest possible audience.

[vanderBeth]

38. Because the NFL network just doesn't piss enough people off?

:shrug:

[fortyfeetunder]

41. I give it another 5 years for that to happen

All depends on when the NFL and its network get greedier.

And it's likely the discussion has begun....

[serrano2008]

42. The Superbowl is pay-per-view.

You think 50 million American's watched it for 6 hours avg. today for free?

Advertisers in this bad economy paid a record $3,000,000 for a 30 second commercial. You think they would do that if it wasn't going to pay off with people going out and buying their sh*t?

It most certainly is "pay-per-view". Companies "pay" for you to "view". Enjoy!