The boxing spectator consensus agrees that if you paid $100 to watch the Mayweather vs. Pacquiao pay-per-snooze you are a "chump". Mayweather & Pacquiao danced around the ring like two ballerinas at their first recital, all while laughing to themselves about the amount of money they were raking in. They would split $158,000 per second if you break it down.
If you're a smart spectator, you found more economical ways to watch the fight. Maybe you got a group together to buy the PPV, 10 of you would have made the cost $10/ea. Some went to watch the game at the local bar, where some bars were offering viewing packages ranging from $30-50, complete with a buffet and all the draft beer you could drink.
So the "fight of the century" was upon us and a large number of viewers turned to live-streaming apps, such as Periscope & Meerkat. We saw the live-streaming app picked up by Twitter a few months ago, and it exploded with popularity on the app store. The big question after everybody used it for a few days was "What was it's purpose".
Well, apparently, streaming live events, especially those which are hard or expensive to access has become a niche market for Periscope. I personally turned to Periscope to watch the fight on Saturday night and found it easy to obtain stream access from multiple users. In some of the streams there were upwards of 5,000 viewers.
CNBC reports that while the co-creator of the app was not happy about the use of the app to skirt the PPV cost, Twitter's CEO & investors were gloating. At any rate, the pay-per-view industry needs to catch up with the revamp of the music & movie industry. We've already seen streaming music services redefine the business model for the way consumers consume music, and the movie & TV industry has seen services like Redbox, Netflix & Hulu flourish. Could Periscope flow into a business model that positions itself as the next PPV streaming platform?