Do you think that the UFC has been using the right product and branding strategies for non-US markets? What could they do differently? The UFC has acquired competitors as an entry strategy into overseas markets. The most significant is the World Extreme Cage fighting (WEC) and PRIDE. The acquisition of WEC was strategic. It would enable the company to control more of the US market. PRIDE on the other hand was popular in the Asian and Japanese markets. Acquiring it a reduced competition and also provided leverage for UFC. The problem with UFC’s products and branding in the international markets was ignoring consumer needs. The assumption that what was successful in the US will also be successful in other parts of the world could cost UFC dearly. The company closed the Japanese operations of PRIDE and re-branded under UFC names. This was not well received by the market, which did not appreciate the ‘Americanization’ of the sport. Asian and Japanese consumers would relate more to the Japanese martial arts rather than the American version. Therefore, this was a suicidal move for UFC. PRIDE fighters were treated poorly. They were forced to change their culture to the UFC culture without adequate adjusting time. This led to low morale and a large turnover from UFC in favor of smaller companies. The fact that UFC made no effort to retain these fighters indicated their disregard for the Asian and Japanese fans. The fighters who left also created bad publicity for UFC. The company could have done many things differently. The first would be to conduct market surveys before entering new markets. They should not assume that all customers are like Americans. Insensitivity to local culture and consumer needs will cost them heavily in the future. Marketing campaigns and products should be focused on consumers. In the case of PRIDE, it should have been left as it was. Secondly, after an acquisition, the members of the acquired company should be given adequate time to adjust to the new corporate culture. This will do away with situations where UFC loses valuable people because they cannot adapt. The UFC is ultimately dependent on fighters who are willing to step into their ring. Is the UFC doing enough to develop and encourage fighters? What do you think they should be doing? UFC is not doing enough to entice first-time fighters. The company pays a fighter who wins an average of $2000 while the fighter invested a minimum of $2500 in the game. This means that most first time fighters are operating at a loss. The fact that UFC charges sponsor so highly discourages them from availing funds for new fighters. This leaves the fighter in an awkward position. To avoid further monetary loss, most would opt to leave. Fighters in UFC are not unionized. They lack the protection of numbers and as such, are exploited by management. The company had a monopoly in the industry and used it to exploit the fighters. It fails to recognize that fighters are their best asset. Poor remuneration coupled with management exploitation has caused several fighters to leave in search of greener pastures. This means that UFC is losing its current fighters and attracting very few new ones. UFC needs to change its attitude tow