Yesterday MMAPayout.com featured an exert of an interview with Zuffa's Marshall Zelaznik. Bellow the interview is reprinted in full with the permission of Fighting Spirit Magazine. Specal thanks to Editor James Denton.
The head of the UFC’s
FSM: First of all, tell us a little bit about your role and your responsibilities within the UFC.
Marshall Zelaznik: I’m the president of the UK division of the UFC’s parent company. We’re a British company, called Zuffa UK Limited, and I’m a director of that company, having relocated my family here. Our responsibilities in this office are to continue to push forward the UFC brand, to work on putting events together in the UK, and also to work with our TV partners and media outlets here.
Another element that a lot of people don’t know about is that we’re also responsible for the international deployment of the UFC beyond the UK and US. So when it comes to Asia or the Middle East or Continental Europe, we’re the ones out there talking to media partners and meeting with venues and putting UFC programming on television in those territories.
So those are the main objectives of this office, and then day-to-day a lot of our focus is getting the ticket sales together for events such as the O2 Arena in June, working on PR and dealing with foreign television rights holders, getting them all the information on our shows… so there’s a lot of administrative stuff behind the scenes that isn’t so sexy, but there’s a lot of sexy stuff that we get involved with as well!
FSM: You mentioned relocating to the UK from the US. How long have you been over here?
MZ: I joined the company in September 2006 after spending three years with a television and pay-per-view company in the States, called InDemand, which is how I got to know Dana White and Lorenzo Fertitta. My official start date was September 12 2006 and I was on a red-eye flight on September 11, of all days, flying to the UK to start my job.
So from my first day on the job in September 2006 I was here for a few weeks at a time, then back home for a week, just trying to get the office put together so we could hit the ground running last year, and I’ve been here permanently since January 2007.
FSM: As someone who’s still relatively new to the country, how have you found the difference between how British viewers consume television product as compared to Americans?
MZ: I think if you just look at sport, over here it’s football first and then it’s everything else. When I was in college in San Francisco, the American football team there is the 49ers and at the time they were winning every Superbowl and doing very well. And you would turn on the news there and there could have been a major assassination in the world, but the first story in San Francisco was always the 49ers.
It’s sort of that way here; if there’s a big story in the world of football, the news will open up with that. So I wasn’t quite ready for that. I always knew it was big, because I used to license European football in the States, but that was the one thing that really jumped out at me, and I always try to explain to my friends back home what it’s like here in terms of sport!
The other thing I’ve noticed is that TV consumption here, while there are some programmes that appear to be ‘appointment viewing’ – which means, “I’m going to be at home at eight o’clock on Sunday to watch Top Gear” – a lot of networks here ‘strip’ their programming. So if they like something, they give it to you every day and make sure you have it available to you, and then it might disappear for a while.
So the way they programme television here is a little bit different, and the appetite for sport and the way the news covers it is a bit different, certainly as it relates to football. But I don’t think there are that many significant differences in how viewers here consume television because if they like it, they want it, they can’t get enough of it. And we can see that on our website with the consistent traffic that our UK fans generate.
FSM: Obviously in the States, the UFC model is geared towards PPV consumption, whereas here the viewer is less inclined to pay for content on an individual basis, but more agreeable to paying for subscription-based content. How have you reconciled that difference between the markets?
MZ: It’s funny that you mention that, because if you speak to television executives in America, which I was doing for three years, they’ll you that PPV is dying. They were saying that from the day I first started until the day I left. Yet every year in the States, PPV revenue keeps going up and up – be it PPV movies, video-on-demand or one-off events like UFC and WWE. But you’re right, there’s a big difference.
You don’t know what came first in this, the chicken or the egg, but the UFC in the States was a PPV product because no one else would touch it, so it had nowhere else to go. But the irony is that the programme that made the UFC the beast it is now was The Ultimate Fighter, which is on free television. So the paradigm has been completely switched here, because we have a lot of free television partners that want the UFC, which we didn’t have in the States, yet there isn’t a great outlet for PPV here in terms of consumers willing to buy.
Which in a sense leaves us to create our own future here. Like you said, we think people will have an appetite to pay monthly, because they’re going to get more product than a one-off show. They’re going to get better value for money, which is one of the reasons we went to Setanta and the subscription model, and we think we can deliver good product that way.
FSM: How sympathetic are Dana and the guys back in the States when you try to convey that difference – are they sympathetic to the change in trends or are they still, “Gotta drive the PPVs, gotta drive the PPVs”?
MZ: I’m lucky because I have some television experience, so if I have a reaction or a feeling in the TV sphere, their reaction is usually to say, “Okay, we understand.” But that doesn’t mean we don’t have some good discussions about the best things to do with the UFC brand in the UK – and I don’t subscribe yet to the fact that it isn’t a PPV product here. We’re still getting people used to the idea of paying for the UFC, because for years they’ve had it free on Bravo.
But by doing the UK events, which have a special appeal, I think over time that the UFC will become a PPV product in this market, and the revenue will be substantial. Ultimately the decisions we make here and back in the States are made by Dana and Lorenzo, but they’re more or less willing to take my recommendation on what I think is best for the product. So I’m lucky that way, but maybe not so lucky, because if the shit hits the fan, I’m the only guy there holding it! But I’m okay with that.
FSM: If you look at WWE, for the last 15 years PPV broadcasts have aired here as part of the standard subscription package. But in the last few years, pay delivery has gradually been introduced and WWE has moved shows towards that model. Initially fans were resistant but, gradually, it’s become accepted and you’ve got shows like WrestleMania and the Ricky Hatton fight doing big buyrates.
MZ: Definitely. You’ve got to develop a desire, because we’re in a generation now where people are used to paying for what they want. Think about ringtones and internet content; people are willing to pay for what they want, now. And what we’re trying to do is educate the fans so they have a better appreciation for the sport, and then when we decide that we’re going to be on PPV again, people say, “I have to have this!” They won’t be offended at having to pay for it because the culture these days is to pay for what you want, when you want it – it’s very much an on-demand culture.
FSM: Dana infamously said last year: “I don’t think there’s anything profitable about the European market right now. We’re getting our ass kicked over there… But for this sport to grow, we need to move out to Europe.” How does that relate to what you’re doing – are there strict targets or deadlines, or things that have to happen for this expansion to be considered a success, or is it more organic?
MZ: It’s really organic. If you were to read through all the emails and documents on my computer, you’d never find one that said, “Your revenue goals are X,” or “your ticket goals are Y.” This is a product that lives and breathes with every day. When we launched in the UK we had a business plan that, at the end of the year, looked nothing like what we actually did this past year, in terms of the kinds of shows we put on, how we marketed them and the fighters we expected to bring over.
We’d done some forward planning but, at the end of the day, we made decisions kind of from the hip, which ended up putting us in the situation that Dana refers to. But there’s no arguing with selling out events, breaking merchandise records, having good ratings on television, doing good numbers on PPV, having enough success that just about every significant network in the UK wanted to licence our rights.
So while the overall profits may not have met the desired goals, I think the amount of revenue we created in this office is about where we thought it would be – it’s just that we spent more money! And we did that because we could see the upside of the market pretty early, based on how UFC 70 tickets were going, so we started spending to make sure we hit it out of the park.
That was an investment that will come back in the next few years, but overall there are no targeted goals here – it’s kind of, you’ll know it when you see it. I’m so optimistic for this year in terms of the measurable things like ticket sales, merchandise sales, total revenue and profits for this office. So for me we’re ahead of targets, when you look at the five-year plan when I sat down with Dana and Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta, back when we were flirting about me taking this job.
We’re ahead of the game right now and I’m very happy with the progress, and overall I think Dana and Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta are as well – otherwise we’d be all packing up and going home. Which isn’t going to happen, because my kid’s in school and I’m not taking him out!
FSM: Aside from the usual business barometers, how else do you measure the success of the UFC in this country, both as a brand and a young sport?
MZ: There’s really a lot of little pieces that make up the pie. The media acceptance is one of the more difficult ways to judge it – getting more stories in the periodicals and the daily news, and getting the news to cover us as an ‘official sport’. Once those things happen, that’s one of the best indicators of success – if we can start showing that we’re being accepted as a proper sport, that’s really what our goal is at the end of the day.
We’re lucky enough that we’re building a new sport here. It sounds kind of egotistical, but it really is; this is a new sport that’s being exposed to the world through the efforts of the UFC. In ten or twenty years, when this thing is bigger than it is now, I think all of us involved with it – who either reported on it early or were putting the shows together – will look back and say, “That was a big success, because look where it is now. It’s in every country – there’s a circuit of these shows going on, everyone wants to participate in it and no one can get enough.”
That’s the grand way to look at success, but for us I think it’s making sure that we’re perceived as a proper sport and that people will continue to buy tickets over time. We’re going to be in London again in June – are we going to be as successful as last time? All indications are that we will, but you never know. So it’s going to take a couple of years of having the success we’ve had, to know that we’ve been a success.
FSM: Getting acceptance from the press is an ongoing battle both here and in the US. How have you found the general reaction thus far from the mainstream media in the UK – does the “human cockfighting” mentality still pervade?
MZ: Well, anyone in the press or anywhere else that’s willing to close their mouth and open their eyes and ears can’t really argue with the statistics. But I do think the human cockfighting hangover still exists here, because every time you see a story written by a new journalist in a daily, inevitably that comment gets put in there – even though it was made in 1993.
I get it – it’s sensational. But I think the acceptance of the sport here is far behind where it is in the States. And we’re far from mainstream in the US, even though we have great success there. And while we have what I feel is great success here, we have more work to do and there’s a lot more education we can do. And that’s why we put our events throughout the region here, so that everybody in the media can get a chance to look at it, and our fans can see it up close and personal.
If you come to a show and you’re not a fan of it, that’s okay. It’s not for everybody – it’s just a matter of opinion and taste. But if you’re not a fan for the wrong reasons, then shame on you. Don’t dislike us because of some misconception, especially a comment that was made 15 years ago!
FSM: While it isn’t quite mainstream, the UFC has had extraordinary growth here. A big part of that has been the partnership with Bravo, which is an edgy, laddish, adult-focused channel. In July UFC programming moves to Setanta, which is a dedicated pure sports network. That’s a big step towards the legitimisation of the UFC.
MZ: It is, definitely. You asked about success, and part of our feeling about that deal was that it’s not just about money; it’s having people perceive us as a true sport. In the States we’re on Spike TV, which is very similar to what Bravo is; if we got a deal with a sports network in the US, it might do something to take us to the next level there. You never know, and we’re very happy with our relationship with Spike.
But here, we had Sky and we had Setanta and we had a couple of terrestrials all bidding for us. And it was flattering but, for me and for the group back home, the ability to be perceived with Setanta – which we felt was a hard-charging, young upstart – was a good fit for us, and it helps give us that sports legitimacy we’re looking for.
FSM: Okay, how big is it for the UK division to get Chuck Liddell fighting at UFC 85, on 7 June at the O2 Arena?
MZ: For us it’s massive and, for me, I’ve just got a huge smile on my face. I have a six-year-old son and he’s always wanted a chance to meet “The Iceman”, but because we’re here now and not in the States, it’s harder for me to get him the opportunity. So when I told him a few weeks ago that, “Hey, The Iceman is coming!” he was just so jakked! But for me as a fan, and as someone who’s pushing and shepherding the UFC brand, to be able to have arguably the biggest MMA star come and help us in our endeavour – I just couldn’t ask for anything more.
FSM: There was huge interest in the rumour that Brock Lesnar would be on that card, though his next fight is against Mark Coleman in August. But that interest and the WWE parallels we discussed earlier are representative of the crossover between pro wrestling and mixed martial arts. There seems to be a natural progression with many wrestling fans transitioning into MMA fans – what’s your take on that cross-pollination?
MS: I’m a believer in that, as I think all of us in the UFC are. I think there comes a point when a majority of WWE fans, as they get older, while they may continue to be WWE fans, they want something maybe a little more real. And they’ll ‘graduate’, which is one of the terms we use, to the UFC from WWE.
For us it’s great. Those fans are loyal – the WWE fan is a loyal, hardcore fan. And they know all the ins and outs of the wrestlers they like – what they’re doing, what their background story is, and they love the nuance of the sport and the entertainment factor. And so those are the kinds of fans that, for all the same reasons, are the core fans of the UFC – they can follow their fighters, they can see how they’re progressing as they get older, and they see how good they really are.
The other thing that’s good is that WWE fans are consumers in the biggest sense of the word – they’ll reach into their pocket to get their product, be it pay-per-view, merchandise or whatever. So for us, because we’re driven by a similar model, they’ve graduated to us and that means they’re used to paying for it on television, they’re used to looking online for information, they’re used to buying a t-shirt, so there isn’t a whole lot of re-education that has to happen.
So I do believe that there’s something to the WWE fan graduating to the UFC. But we’re lucky because we know that we’ll not only get some of the matriculating WWE fans, we have the ability to draw other sports fans – certainly combat sports fans and likely boxing fans.
FSM: Another parallel would be WWE’s long relationship with the international market – Europe and the UK in particular. Not only have overseas territories become as valuable, day-to-day, as the US market, when business is down domestically WWE has relied on its international business to compensate.
MZ: And it’s not just in sport and sports entertainment – it’s just about every product. Whether it’s Coca Cola or Kleenex, they all rely on these different markets, sort of a diversification of their US stock portfolio. Dana, Lorenzo and Frank are smart guys – they know that in order to be secure, they need to be pulling from every possible market, because inevitably you’ll have a downturn somewhere.
You’re right, WWE has mastered this, and we’d be crazy if we weren’t looking at that company’s success. And having worked with WWE when I was in PPV, they’re trailblazers in this field. Obviously our product is a little different, and we can pull from a wider demo, but Europe and the success WWE has had here is definitely on our mind, and we’d love to obtain that kind of success.
FSM: What other territories are you looking at in the near future?
MZ: Germany is high on the list, as is Italy, and of course France with its recent legalisation of MMA – those are the big three. Holland would make great sense for us with its great K-1 history, and then we’re looking at moving into Eastern Europe is part of our strategy, as well as the Middle East. But in the short term it’s Germany, Italy and France that are our top three targets.
FSM: A big part of your UK success has been Michael Bisping. If he hadn’t done so well on The Ultimate Fighter or in his first fight at UFC 66, would this expansion have been possible without him?
MZ: While he was ultimately a big part of it, I know from having been in the discussions that no one ever said, “Let’s go into the UK because we have Michael Bisping. And I think our instincts were right, because when we held UFC 62 in Belfast, the applause that Forrest Griffin got and the way he was received really confirmed that our fans here want to see the UFC fighters.
This is what’s unique, and Dana always says it: in boxing you’ll have such nationalism for a fighter that comes from your country, but the UFC – and again, it’s similar to WWE – they want to see the big stars and the best fighters. So not having Bisping probably wouldn’t have affected our rollout here – his success certainly made it a lot easier, but it was by no means the reason we came here. Of course, we’re lucky that he is the fighter he is and we’re glad we can rely on him!
FSM: Finally, There was talk last year of doing a season of TUF in the UK or possibly having some sort of UK-based TV magazine show. Has there been any movement in that direction, and where do you see the UFC here in a year or two’s time?
MZ: A TV product isn’t on the front burner right now, but it’s definitely something that we expect to do. It won’t happen this year, but my suspicion is that sometime in 2009, something like that will happen. Whether it’s a TUF or a UK Fight Night series, something is going to break so that we have what would truly be perceived as a UK product, as opposed to a product made in the US that can be exported to the UK.
In a couple of years? My belief is that we’ll be running four to six shows in the UK. We’ll be out in Europe running a couple or more shows a year. And, most importantly, that we’ll become an accepted part of the landscape of the UK sports scene.
