“I’m not in this for the art … I want to make money.”
I thought of this quote from Triller’s Ryan Kavanaugh this weekend (Note: I have no stake in the Triller Fight Club strategy, but did help out with their first event of the year at Mercedes Benz Stadium) which was in a story by Damon Martin of MMA Fighting prior to TFC’s pay per view event on Saturday night in Florida, the one which had Evander Holyfield as a substitute for Oscar de La Hoya against Vitor Belfort.
The thought came up again as I read Kevin Draper’s New York Times piece post fight on all the issues, and problems and boasting during and after the extremely shortened fights were, which essentially talked about who was to blame in the sport of boxing for what went on Saturday night.
The story, which went into great online detail about the issues in sanctioning Holyfield, the value that the PPV did or did not deliver, the sideshow presented by former President Trump, the ravings about former President Obama and whether or not he has been contacted about commentating on future Triller events, the immediate offering of millions for upcoming fights etc etc and it reminded me of another quote from a highly respected colleague in the strategy world, who, several years ago, was asked about the strategy of one of his potential clients, one who would go on to win the a presidential nomination.
It was in the fall before the Clinton-Trump election, and I asked the colleague point blank if there was a strategy to the chaos that the candidate named Trump was pushing in order to deflect criticism on key issues? He looked at me and frowned…”there is no method to the madness, it’s just chaos, he projects chaos and then thrives off of it…it’s not a plan, it’s disruption on which he thrives.”
That in a nutshell is what many had said about the sport of boxing, or what many areas of boxing and fight sports have become.
However this begs to ask the question, is it a bad plan to inject chaos and disruption into the status quo if you can show there is a market for it? In Martin’s story, Kavanuagh points out, and has in numerous places, that the market he is looking for is the one that loves spectacle not tradition, and that it is maybe not for boxing fans or maybe it’s not a boxing business…it is entertainment.
Now define entertainment however you like…but if the spectacle and the chaos is what brings a PAID audience with cash and email addresses to market to, and that brings brands to the mix who are interested in spectacle…then who is duping who?
If the goal is to generate buzz and attention for a startup with a large budget and you bring in ancillary attention by having the former POTUS call your fights at $49.99, and you state clearly that’s what the goal is, then again…who is being fooled?
It is PT Barnum in many ways in the 21st Century…give them a spectacle and then decide who the fool is…is one born every minute?
The whole spectacle as entertainment as sport also reminds me of another very successful member of the media world, one Stephen King, and a talk he gave several years ago. When asked who he wrote his books for, King looked up, smiled and said “I write for anyone who slows down to look at accidents.”
The spectacle, the sideshow, the disruption, the chaos, is sometimes irresistible. The status quo be damnned…at least for winning the day, many feel. Is that right? If it works it is, but it’s not for everybody.
Now the irony in all this is that fight sports are built on spectacle, and Triller’s idea of bringing music and other elements into a mix of traditional boxing was, and can still, prove concept. Even testing other formats and matchups makes sense as it is laid out and executed, it is all part of spectacle.The biggest boxing matches, the beginnings and growth of the UFC, Sumo wrestling and on and on, are predicated on their success with big personalities, confrontation, heroes, and villains. It is also what the ultimate entertainment perceived as competion thrives on…the WWE and all forms of professional wrestling. Give them craziness and the show and thrill them with the unexpected and sometimes the absurd, and they will come back.
But here is the rub, as pointed out in Deadspin that spectacle without a plan, just for the sake of doing, runs out of steam as the novelty wears off. While a platform like Barstool Sports was built on chaotic and disruptive humor tailored toward an audience, their plan on capturing, maintaining and growing an audience by being true to their brand and rarely deviating from that audience, is what has helped the platform grow. The UFC, for being disruptive in its early days before its sale to Endeavor by Zuffa, still stuck to its core audience of delivering solid action its fans craved. There was rarely a sideshow, and even to add women’s competitions took quite a while until it made good brand sense.
Now is this to say that a platform like Triller, still essentially a startup, can’t test the waters to keep finding an audience? No. Boastful challenges by leadership and even those involved in a property who is looking to break a perceived status quo makes sense, but at some point you should have steak with the sizzle, a steak that brand partners, media members, and even consumers look at and say that’s what this is, and that’s why I will spend against it.
Buzz is great, finding unique ways to cut through the clutter is admired, identifying and feeding a core audience is important, but in a world of high competition, and for an audience, a young audience that loves authenticity as much as spectacle to get a competitive dollar, at some point the plan needs to come into focus, and the messaging with it.
Winning the day is great, winning the year is tougher, even for the biggest spectacles which, at some point, need to make good business sense and build some brand identity. Yes it’s about the cash, but the art…the art of the deal…is what even the most perceived chaotic businesses eventually find, and thats how sizzle and steak make consumers crave for more.
