|
Pope Corky the IX posted:170? Are you sure about that number when there are only 196 countries total? The number is accurate, but it's not nearly as impressive as it sounds. They basically went "you can get it from anywhere in Africa except for South Africa (51 countries), Asia except for China and India (46 countries), the Middle East (16 countries), South America except for Brazil (13 countries), Oceania (15 countries), the Nordic states, and a whole bunch of former Soviet republics we don't care about in the slightest because they have no money".
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
Astro7x posted:Why do people automatically assume that shareholders care about the product as much as the fans do? Shareholders are not going to sell their shares because their favorite wrestleman didn't win the big match on the PPV the way the wanted them to. Revenue growth is meaningless unless there's a well-understood path to profitability on a timeframe that shareholders are comfortable with. Shareholders will tolerate short-term losses on the idea that they're reinvesting revenue in things that will bring future longterm growth. That's why a company like Amazon has a stock price that's so high despite never making a dime: shareholders understand that it's basically building a monopoly over e-commerce which will ultimately be extremely profitable and that it could become profitable instantly if they started actually charging market rates for most of their services. That's the narrative that WWE is/was selling on the Network, that it was a big expense that would result in a near-term loss but set the company up very well to realize huge long-term gains. It hasn't performed to expectations. Maybe it's because those expectations were unrealistic, maybe it's not. But when a product that cost the company this much is struggling to hit the benchmarks the shareholders were led to expect even after several drastic changes to pricing and revenue models, it's fair to assume that at least some of them will question the judgment of WWE management in making that gamble in the first place, or their fitness to execute against the original plan. The Network's troubles are a textbook example of the kind of thing that CAN cause a shareholder revolt, the fact that there hasn't been one is probably because there's not a lot of pent up value there for a big activist investor or a hedge fund to realize by staging that shareholder revolt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
Surely they'd have a better time of it if they were to finally get all the RAWs from the Attitude Era up in the archives? That poo poo alone would be worth 10 - 15 bucks a month to a whole lot of people, I'm sure. It was the first thing I thought of when I heard of WWE Network originally. I have no interest in the current product at all, and I have a feeling I'm nowhere near alone in that feeling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 09:26
|
|
|
Network UK signups 8pm Monday. Web and tablet only for now, then everything else gets added Nov 18th apparently. They seem to have just said gently caress it and opened up the US version to us because the price is going to be $9.99 after the free month.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 12:00
|
|
|
Mr Scumbag posted:Surely they'd have a better time of it if they were to finally get all the RAWs from the Attitude Era up in the archives? This is what I don't get. They've already stated that shows won't be edited, so they just have to got through the minimal effort of uploading them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 13:19
|
|
|
Charles Gnarwin posted:This is what I don't get. They've already stated that shows won't be edited, so they just have to got through the minimal effort of uploading them. I'd be more understanding of this if the metatagging was better, but it's just terrible. It makes sense to go through and tag the matches and segments with the participants, because it's a way of exposing the wealth of content they have available. But no, they do it in a half-assed and inconsistent way which ends up nearly useless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 13:46
|
|
|
They just fixed the search algorithm like 3 months ago. I suspect their dev and maintenance team is just one guy who is currently shopping his resume to get out of that quagmire.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
I'm surprised it's so different on every platform, there's no cohesion. If I pull up Netflix or Hulu in my browser and watch 3 episodes of a season, when I pull up Netflix on my Smart TV, Apple TV, Xbox or whatever, it will still remember I've seen those episodes and let me resume where I left off. The WWE Network app is a total crapshoot and behaves differently with different features on every single platform. Connection issues are far worse when I use it on the Xbox when compared to the AppleTV or the browser. With something this important, you'd think they'd actually give a poo poo about the infrastructure of the service and making the app as good as it could be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 14:42
|
|
|
So what does a company like WWE actually get out of being publicly traded? Has it made Vince any richer? Is it just another way to make him not feel like a carny rasslin promoter? Or to approach it from a different angle - what's another example of a publicly traded company that is essentially a fiction content provider? Did it work out for the company? Was the creative output itself influenced by the market? Tato posted:I'm surprised it's so different on every platform, there's no cohesion. If I pull up Netflix or Hulu in my browser and watch 3 episodes of a season, when I pull up Netflix on my Smart TV, Apple TV, Xbox or whatever, it will still remember I've seen those episodes and let me resume where I left off. The WWE Network app is a total crapshoot and behaves differently with different features on every single platform. Connection issues are far worse when I use it on the Xbox when compared to the AppleTV or the browser. Minidust fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
Minidust posted:So what does a company like WWE actually get out of being publicly traded? Has it made Vince any richer? Is it just another way to make him not feel like a carny rasslin promoter? Public trading allows you to raise capital more efficiently for growth either via direct purchase of shares in the company or through loans(known profitable companies can pay back loans). It's also supposed to provide transparency on how a company executes profit-making activities but, as of late, that seems to be going out of vogue. Anyway, WWE is positioned as being the only wrestling content provider with an international reach. That alone is a hard sell to investors who don't understand the money lines of wrestling. But there's people that appreciate a novelty on their portfolio or those that buy into the idea that WWE is a good long term bet based on historical trends in wrestling.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
njsykora posted:Network UK signups 8pm Monday. Web and tablet only for now, then everything else gets added Nov 18th apparently. They seem to have just said gently caress it and opened up the US version to us because the price is going to be $9.99 after the free month. But hey, if this is correct, brilliant! The exact same service for the exact same price is what every country should get.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
They probably just couldn't find Sky or any other partner willing to pay them what Rogers did in Canada, because the VPN thing is pretty common here too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Charles Gnarwin posted:This is what I don't get. They've already stated that shows won't be edited, so they just have to got through the minimal effort of uploading them. As someone that is involved in the video post-production business, nothing is minimal effort. The fact that these shows are so long make it time consuming. You have to digitize the show in real time, then you need to go through the show and remove stuff. There might be old station promos and stuff that need to be removed, hotline numbers that need to be blurred, and other random stuff that is time consuming. At the very least, the shows have huge chunks of black that need to be removed for where there are commercials. The whole things needs a pass at the audio to make sure everything is at the same decibel level as the rest of the content on the Network. Then the whole 2 to 3 hour show needs to be compressed, with multiple compression settings for different bitrates, which takes a long time for a 2-3 hour show. Each one of those compressions needs to be QCed to ensure that there are no glitches in it, and then uploaded to the service they are using to host the video, then probably QCed again to make sure it's working right. Then that content needs to be properly archived so that they can do stuff with it in the future if need be, or recompress when some better compression algorithm comes out 5 years from now. I can't tell you how many days of my life I've wasted just QCing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
The vast majority of that is processing time, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
It was the dirtsheets fault: http://www.thewrestlingmania.com/articles/columns/wwe-network-dirtsheets-blame
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
It's not the dirtsheet's fault. There's tons of reasons why someone wouldn't subscribe to wrestling. I mean yeah there's tons of content but even a lot of diehard wrestling fans don't want to spend THAT much time watching wrestling. If I follow the current product say even just watch Raw each week for 3 hours. Then I watch every PPV. How many hours a week do I really want to watch wrestling? That even expands to TV in general. Like in sports I like hockey, football, and baseball but I usually only focus on just one at a time. Cut Raw to 90 mins a week but that will never happen. Kawalimus fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
rovert posted:It was the dirtsheets fault: ahahahaha quote:I’m not just another WWE fanboy sounding off. I own shares in WWE. I have invested money in the success of the WWE Network and so it is in MY best interests that the Network is as successful as it possibly can be
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
ahahahahaha that is a beautiful find. Thanks rovert.quote:Let’s look at this another way. WWE RAW gets 3million viewers each week on average. At 700,000 subscribers that’s almost 25% of their ENTIRE audience. That’s actually amazing. Let’s compare that to Netflix (which in my opinion is not a fair comparison, but I digress). Netflix could only dream of having 25% of the world’s population signed up. I say the world’s population because EVERYBODY watches TV and Movies right!? Right. So on that basis, WWE and Netflix are actually on a pretty level playing field, and when you compare the subscriber number of the WWE Network to the amount of people who actually watch WWE TV on a weekly basis, it suddenly becomes a very good number. Maybe what Netflix needs to do is start doing campaigns where they call anyone that pays full price for a movie or cable an idiot for doing so. Then maybe they'd be doing better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:00
|
|
Kawalimus posted:Cut Raw to 90 mins a week but that will never happen. I DVR it, and it takes me about an hour to watch the segments and matches that interest me. Smackdown takes about 20 minutes.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
quote:Some of the original content on WWE Network is nothing short of pure brilliance. Legends House is worth the $9.99 alone This man is not to be trusted
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Kawalimus posted:It's not the dirtsheet's fault. There's tons of reasons why someone wouldn't subscribe to wrestling. I mean yeah there's tons of content but even a lot of diehard wrestling fans don't want to spend THAT much time watching wrestling. If I follow the current product say even just watch Raw each week for 3 hours. Then I watch every PPV. How many hours a week do I really want to watch wrestling? That even expands to TV in general. Like in sports I like hockey, football, and baseball but I usually only focus on just one at a time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Minidust posted:Seriously. WWE demands so much more of its viewers than the rest of television they claim as their competition. If you want to be categorized as episodic drama so badly, why are you trivializing your product with 6+ hours of weekly content? No one else does that. The art of "leaving the fans wanting more" is completely lost. There are 41.3 hours in the entire run of Breaking Bad (I don't think they had any 2 hour episodes but let's call it 45 in case there were). WWE has about 7 commercial-free hours of TV in a week when you include Raw/SD/Main Event/Superstars/NXT. It would take six weeks for WWE to run through every Walter White story Vince Gilligan ever told.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Only the craziest of hardcore fans actually watch all the poo poo the WWE puts out every week. I'd guess the bulk of the audience just watches RAW and PPVs. Smackdown is far from its glory years under Heyman and even though Main Event had some pretty awesome matches I rarely make the time. Interesting that wrestling audiences seem ok with watching part of what the company puts out while anyone I know who dug UFC bailed once there was an overwhelming number of shows to follow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
What they need on the Network is something that makes it something you really, truly need. I don't know what that is. But the Network needs to give you something that if you're a WWE fan, you're really, really missing out on if you don't have it. The only thing I can even think of is to have major angles develop on Main Event. Treat it like a 4th hour of Raw.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:51
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:What they need on the Network is something that makes it something you really, truly need. I don't know what that is. But the Network needs to give you something that if you're a WWE fan, you're really, really missing out on if you don't have it. Have cool, crazy poo poo happen on the PPVs, then hype the poo poo out it on Raw. They should also promote NXT more.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
rovert posted:It was the dirtsheets fault: quote:3. I can’t watch it on my TV because it’s not on Cable – This is the biggest issue I have, and WWE haven’t exactly done a great job at advertising just how versatile the Network is. Almost everybody has a games console which is hooked up to the very same TV they claim they can’t watch the WWE Network on. A simple download of the WWE App on your games console will solve that problem. If you don’t have a games console, then a Roku box has HDMI full HD connections which will fit into ANY modern TV. There’s also Apple TV and a bunch of other adapters that will hook your smartphone up to your TV. You CAN watch the WWE Network on TV. He acts like this is a small issue. If I want to watch the network on my TV (and I would), it's not just $9.99, I now have to pay for a Roku box.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:What they need on the Network is something that makes it something you really, truly need. I don't know what that is. But the Network needs to give you something that if you're a WWE fan, you're really, really missing out on if you don't have it. When the Network launched they use to advertise stuff like title matches on Main Event, and The Undertaker would show up and cut a promo on Brock. Now it's just the jobber show. I'm really surprised that they don't have network exclusive PPV type events for the main roster. How hard would it be to do a one night KOTR tournament exclusive to the Network?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
John Cena once cut a promo on Main Event.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:When the Network launched they use to advertise stuff like title matches on Main Event, and The Undertaker would show up and cut a promo on Brock. Now it's just the jobber show. Why do they need network exclusive PPVs when they have PPVs? PPVs are very expensive to run and right now they aren't making their money back with 12 a month. KOTR can't even draw extra ratings on Raw when they run it, it isn't going to do anything as a Network special.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
The business is already exposed, let Austin do his commentary over matches every week. Break down the psychology of Melina/Alicia Fox. Show us how the Graveyard Match between Sting and Vampiro was put together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:I'm really surprised that they don't have network exclusive PPV type events for the main roster. How hard would it be to do a one night KOTR tournament exclusive to the Network? The issue is the product, not the presentation. If people are turned off or bored by the way WWE books things currently, they could make every single PPV a network exclusive and it wouldn't matter a bit. They have to start making a product that's compelling enough to draw people in and make them think that $9.99 a month is a good deal. But since this is a company that's run by a man who likes to rewrite live shows literally hours before airtime (if not while the show is actually being aired), I think it's safe to say that there aren't going to be any changes to the creative side of the product any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Super Ninja Fish posted:He acts like this is a small issue. If I want to watch the network on my TV (and I would), it's not just $9.99, I now have to pay for a Roku box.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:The business is already exposed It's a minor pet peeve, but I hate how they only go half way on things like the Monday Night Wars. They dance around the edges of flat out calling it a work, but wedge in awkward little nods to kayfabe. Every time they have a moment of "golly gee _________ sure is tough and I had to work extra hard to beat him for the title" I cringe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Minidust posted:To be fair, that's like saying the advertised price of a home video release isn't valid because you need a blu-ray player to watch it. It would, however, be in WWE's best interests to remind people of the compatible devices a bit more. Especially if they continue to go the route of "you're a sucker for paying $55!". The new Amazon faux-Chromecast costs $30 and should carry it, I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
BGrifter posted:It's a minor pet peeve, but I hate how they only go half way on things like the Monday Night Wars. They dance around the edges of flat out calling it a work, but wedge in awkward little nods to kayfabe. Every time they have a moment of "golly gee _________ sure is tough and I had to work extra hard to beat him for the title" I cringe. I think in the case of MNW it might be that they're cobbling together interviews and stuff from so many disparate time periods, so some of those talking heads are going to be in kayfabe and others not. They do the same thing on Total Divas though, where there's no real excuse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
rovert posted:It was the dirtsheets fault: There was absolutely no effort put into his cons section.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
Really surprised about the UK network. With the Sky deal I was assuming we were going to get a version without the PPVs
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:The issue is the product, not the presentation. If people are turned off or bored by the way WWE books things currently, they could make every single PPV a network exclusive and it wouldn't matter a bit. They have to start making a product that's compelling enough to draw people in and make them think that $9.99 a month is a good deal. But since this is a company that's run by a man who likes to rewrite live shows literally hours before airtime (if not while the show is actually being aired), I think it's safe to say that there aren't going to be any changes to the creative side of the product any time soon. This is why I cancelled, I can't even get excited about most NXT stuff because when those guys come to the main roster they'll be comedy and jobbers. So I can't get invested in the really good guys I love because they'll be dumped into midcard hell when they come to the main roster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:The issue is the product, not the presentation. If people are turned off or bored by the way WWE books things currently, they could make every single PPV a network exclusive and it wouldn't matter a bit. They have to start making a product that's compelling enough to draw people in and make them think that $9.99 a month is a good deal. But since this is a company that's run by a man who likes to rewrite live shows literally hours before airtime (if not while the show is actually being aired), I think it's safe to say that there aren't going to be any changes to the creative side of the product any time soon. Yeah I might be thinking about it way too simplistically, but I really think if the product (TV) were hot, then they could put absolute poo poo on the network and people would still buy it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 12:23 |
|
|
Alain Post posted:Yeah I might be thinking about it way too simplistically, but I really think if the product (TV) were hot, then they could put absolute poo poo on the network and people would still buy it. Pretty much. If the TV makes people HAVE to see the PPVs, people will buy the network. It's that simple.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:09
|
|
