|
Tonfa posted:I have to imagine all the actually over faces are thrilled about this No poo poo, it's like, so next week we're gonna boo the Hardy Boyz, right? Just wanna make sure I understand the rules, here.
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:I seem to recall at one point before the brand split they were doing two house show circuits (which is normal) and the one headlined by Reigns was practically getting lapped by the one headlined by Dean and it was hilarious. It only got worse when the split happened, I think. Wasn't there a RAW PPV that didn't even come close to selling out while the SmackDown PPV later that month had already done so? Something like that, yes. The Top Face Roman Experiment is toxic to business.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Wasn't there some article somewhere in the recent past that explained in detail how now that they have a stable base of Network subscribers that is roughly equivalent to the revenue they used to get from traditional PPV buys, the WWE's business model is effectively infinitely sustainable regardless of short-term trends in things like ratings or house show attendance? Unless they have to do something crazy like pay for their employee's health insurance, of course.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
With the Network, their TV revenue, licensing deals, sponsorship deals, etc. and no meaningful competition, they really don't have to give a poo poo about their booking anymore. I mean, who knows what it'll be like in two years when their current TV deal is up but for now they don't have to care.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Yeah the network is a big cash cow for them right now
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Grozz Nuy posted:Wasn't there some article somewhere in the recent past that explained in detail how now that they have a stable base of Network subscribers that is roughly equivalent to the revenue they used to get from traditional PPV buys, the WWE's business model is effectively infinitely sustainable regardless of short-term trends in things like ratings or house show attendance? Unless they have to do something crazy like pay for their employee's health insurance, of course. Basic Chunnel posted:Nothing that you couldn't justifiably attribute to declining live event ratings in general. Network numbers would probably be the best metric and they seem turbulent but predictable. If you're really interested in the business/financial side of wwe check out any article by brandon howard or chris harrington who come to this conclusion I believe they just started up a podcast on the subject that I assume is incredibly dry and boring
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
DJExile posted:wait did they seriously do the loving Eddie Guerrero sit there quietly 'promo' thing after he beat the poo poo out of Rey, but with Roman goddamn Reigns? that was loving incredible
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
DEAR RICHARD posted:that was loving incredible I really miss that. Eddie's just sitting in a chair, i think handling one of Rey's masks, not saying a word, and the crowd was going loving nuclear.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
batistas silent heel turn promo was better because he did it wearing jeans, a denim jacket with no shirt underneath, and timbs
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:I seem to recall at one point before the brand split they were doing two house show circuits (which is normal) and the one headlined by Reigns was practically getting lapped by the one headlined by Dean and it was hilarious. It only got worse when the split happened, I think. Wasn't there a RAW PPV that didn't even come close to selling out while the SmackDown PPV later that month had already done so? If I'm remembering the same article you are Reigns and Ambrose's house show numbers were virtually identical. On average the numbers for shows Ambrose headlined were slightly higher, but he was on the "A" tour that runs in bigger cities while Reigns was on the "B" tour. They even looked at house shows where neither was advertised and they drew just as well if not better in a few cases. Also I think the only time Smackdown shows have have done better with Raw is when Cena's advertised.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
like Dave said, it's not like there's a Daniel Bryan in the roster getting massive reactions and not getting pushed. Both Seth and Finn clearly are getting pushed but they aren't setting the crowd on fire. Ditto Joe and Sami. Dave had a funny comment about the last PPV, where the fan reactions leaving the arena were pretty much evenly split between "Holy poo poo that Bray/Orton match sucked" and "holy poo poo that Roman/Braun match was awesome"
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
for the ratings drops talk btw, dave metnioned that investors seem very confident in a significant boost in the TV deal fees because live sports programming is becoming more and more valuable, even despite WWE's downward trend, though he did mention that ESPN's cutbacks are likely to hurt both them and UFC, since it takes a big potential bidder out of the game. Mentioned that he expected a smaller boost in the rights fees than investors were expecting, but nothing about it going down.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
investors also thought Donald trump shoot bought wwe
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
there was a good Brandon Howard article recently about how while ratings are down there's substantial evidence that overall interest is about at the level it's always been. here it is http://www.fightful.com/read-this-article-before-sounding-alarm-about-wwe-tv-ratings
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
The one really smart move I think WWE has made in recent memory is using NXT and these tournaments to produce original wrestling for the Network to serve as a kind of artificial alternative to their product. Its a great "trap" for people who are wrestling fans but are cold on the WWE product but stick with the Network because its got options. And did I read something about them bringing ICW, PCW, or some other company onto the Network? That's huge and if they can make the Network a wrestling service that also has the WWE stuff that's killer. As far as Roman I thought they were kind of onto something when he was working with the Usos and since they're heel it would be really good to set them up as his stooges. I think that would give him the more actiony backup he needs to make his moves seem bigger and impressive like they did with the Shield. But it seems like besides WWE not wanting to turn him heel they're basically using that format on Jinder Mahal, of all people (I get the India thing).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Watch the Usos promos on American Alpha from a couple months ago and tell me those guys as hype men for a silent killer Roman wouldn't be the greatest loving thing in the world.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:for the ratings drops talk btw, dave metnioned that investors seem very confident in a significant boost in the TV deal fees because live sports programming is becoming more and more valuable, even despite WWE's downward trend, though he did mention that ESPN's cutbacks are likely to hurt both them and UFC, since it takes a big potential bidder out of the game. Mentioned that he expected a smaller boost in the rights fees than investors were expecting, but nothing about it going down. I think that UFC is not going to get near the deal they were expecting a year ago which is going to send ramifications throughout the rest of the sports deals going forward. The WWE is not going to get this good of a deal ever again, ratings are in a huge decline for a multitude of reasons; increased competition from other media, the rise of indie and overseas wrestling, oversaturation of the product, the 3rd hour of Raw, lack of real superstars, etc. With NBC/Universal being the only real suitor I can really see them not making as near of a big offer and likely for shorter term. If they were going to seriously right the ship it would be right now as it would take at least 2 years to really get the product hot again but as we have seen there is no chance of that happening.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
this is why they are scrambling to quash competition in other countries because they will have maximized their domestic profits and tv will never be as lucrative again. india and china are their plays for growth. shameless globalism from the nazis
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
dave mentioned Fox Sports 1 as a possibility because they want more programming and have jack poo poo on Monday and Tuesday nights but IDK how serious that is
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
there's also something to be said for WWE doing what it does well, and as it turns out, having a big babyface wrestler face a giant monster heel in the main event gets big reactions. It's something the company likes going back to because it has historically worked. It's hilarious that it's been so many decades and that poo poo still gets big reactions. I guess it helps that Braun right now is at least as good of a big monster heel as Yokozuna, he's sure as hell better than mid-80s Immobile Andre.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
None of this belongs in the spoiler thread.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
I'm glad there's more life in the spoiler thread. We can't wait every 2-4 months for TNA tapings to give it a pulse Good news is next week is a tape delay Raw 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
all roman talk belongs in the spoiler thread b/c nothing spoils wrestling more than roman reigns
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Jubs posted:None of this belongs in the spoiler thread. Thank you, Jubs.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
MotU posted:all roman talk belongs in the spoiler thread b/c nothing spoils wrestling more than roman reigns harsh, and also true
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I think that UFC is not going to get near the deal they were expecting a year ago which is going to send ramifications throughout the rest of the sports deals going forward. The WWE is not going to get this good of a deal ever again, ratings are in a huge decline for a multitude of reasons; increased competition from other media, the rise of indie and overseas wrestling, oversaturation of the product, the 3rd hour of Raw, lack of real superstars, etc. With NBC/Universal being the only real suitor I can really see them not making as near of a big offer and likely for shorter term. idk if it's that easy to call how cable TV reacts to the continuing decline of the industry. for all we know that makes a strong ratings winner like WWE even more valuable.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 09:57
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:dave mentioned Fox Sports 1 as a possibility because they want more programming and have jack poo poo on Monday and Tuesday nights but IDK how serious that is FS1 has already thrown a bunch of money at stuff that has brought in horrible ratings.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
Spermgod posted:idk if it's that easy to call how cable TV reacts to the continuing decline of the industry. for all we know that makes a strong ratings winner like WWE even more valuable. Like I said the UFC will be the first real sign of where things are going. They were expecting huge numbers for their next contract which I don't foresee being there now. ESPN and FS1 have done major cuts to staff, talent and production. I don't see a major bidding war between either of them and there isn't too many other players out there interested. CBS is involved with Belator and I don't see NBC wanting to throw more money at a product that isn't going to make them money or gain more viewers for other content. WWE is in a bad situation their ratings are spiraling down along with not being able to make much money via advertising rates. Which this would be all well and good but I think a bigger issue with NBC is the fact that it is a awful platform to launch any new series off of. USA can't use Raw or Smackdown as a tentpole to launch other series since they have zero halo effect. For the most part people who watch WWE tune out immediately after the show is over. Now the shows being 2 and 3 hours might have a part to do with that, a large part in fact, but most other Networks can use their marquee sports programing to launch other shows and drive viewers through the channel. I think stuff like baseball, football and basketball are going to still get large contracts for television but my gut tells me that the thinking of just because it is sports doesn't mean it is worth money anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
It's better to just accept the WWE's booking as it is and know that nothing you do can change a thing now that they're still making money hand over fist, and they will continue to do so until Vince dies and investors lose confidence in Triple H and Stephanie. Tranquilo. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Djarum posted:Like I said the UFC will be the first real sign of where things are going. They were expecting huge numbers for their next contract which I don't foresee being there now. ESPN and FS1 have done major cuts to staff, talent and production. I don't see a major bidding war between either of them and there isn't too many other players out there interested. CBS is involved with Belator and I don't see NBC wanting to throw more money at a product that isn't going to make them money or gain more viewers for other content. yeah iirc the current USA deal was negotiated when wwe's leverage was probably at its greatest point - it was the height of the LIVE PROGRAMMING WILL SAVE THE TV INDUSTRY fervor and USA was at their ratings nadir. and even then the fed settled for a deal that was way less than they were expecting. there's only gonna be fewer suitors next time around and rights fees will probably be down across the board because as espn is finding out, if you overpay for programming and the audience continues to diffuse then you suddenly can't keep the lights on. so trying to make their own way with the wwe network may have been a wise move for stability but it's not gonna grow the paying fan base
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Super No Vacancy posted:yeah iirc the current USA deal was negotiated when wwe's leverage was probably at its greatest point - it was the height of the LIVE PROGRAMMING WILL SAVE THE TV INDUSTRY fervor and USA was at their ratings nadir. and even then the fed settled for a deal that was way less than they were expecting. there's only gonna be fewer suitors next time around and rights fees will probably be down across the board because as espn is finding out, if you overpay for programming and the audience continues to diffuse then you suddenly can't keep the lights on. so trying to make their own way with the wwe network may have been a wise move for stability but it's not gonna grow the paying fan base Well if you have a hot product you can make some mistakes and get away with it. If your product is bad you need to be doing everything right for quite awhile before you get going. If you take the most obvious example, the "Attitude Era" it took almost 2 years from the start for it to really become popular and gain that mainstream audience. 99-01 really was the sweet spot and the mistakes being made then caused it to end. 2018 is coming very quickly and I don't think it is going to go well for the WWE. I know if I was talent I would seriously reconsider signing with them right now.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
the thing is that USA basically has nothing else, the days of them having lots of hit comedy-dramas are over and even a declining WWE is still probably their best performing show. it'd be the same deal with FS1, getting WWE on monday and tuesday nights would kill anything they have there currently except for MLB playoffs.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
Chris James 2 posted:I'm glad there's more life in the spoiler thread. We can't wait every 2-4 months for TNA tapings to give it a pulse Plus we have the UK Championship Live event on Saturday - plus Raw and Smackdown are both tape delays. I'm going to all three so I'll bring THE SCOOPS unless I'm beaten to it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Feels Villeneuve posted:the thing is that USA basically has nothing else, the days of them having lots of hit comedy-dramas are over and even a declining WWE is still probably their best performing show. it'd be the same deal with FS1, getting WWE on monday and tuesday nights would kill anything they have there currently except for MLB playoffs. I don't think having fewer hit shows means you have more money. networks are going to have less to spend on even their best performing shows as viewership declines, and again the lack of bidders means they wouldn't have to spend as much to get them anyway
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Djarum posted:I think that UFC is not going to get near the deal they were expecting a year ago which is going to send ramifications throughout the rest of the sports deals going forward. The WWE is not going to get this good of a deal ever again, ratings are in a huge decline for a multitude of reasons; increased competition from other media, the rise of indie and overseas wrestling, oversaturation of the product, the 3rd hour of Raw, lack of real superstars, etc. With NBC/Universal being the only real suitor I can really see them not making as near of a big offer and likely for shorter term. I mean the 3rd hour of Raw is something USA wants, not WWE, so if the third hour was actually a problem financially, WWE would cut it out in a second. tbh if you want my theory, sometime in 2018, somebody is gonna have a miraculous recovery and get cleared to wrestle, coincidentally right before his contract would've been up and he would've been able to gently caress off to Japan or RoH.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Super No Vacancy posted:I don't think having fewer hit shows means you have more money. networks are going to have less to spend on even their best performing shows as viewership declines, and again the lack of bidders means they wouldn't have to spend as much to get them anyway Exactly this. Not only does the lack of hit programing not mean more money it actually means less money since most networks make their money via advertising during their programing. When you have a hit program with a coveted demographic then you can charge premium ad rates and make quite a bit of money. A perfect example of this currently is the Walking Dead, which that show allows AMC to subsidize other programing and take chances on new programing. USA has Mr. Robot which is a critical hit but not as big of a ratings hit as they would like and the next closest thing is that Cristly thing that I always see commercials for but have 0 interested in ever watching but also isn't a huge hit either. Wrestling has laughable ad rates, numbers I have seen in the past are so low I am pretty sure a group of goons could afford to buy a spot on Raw. The reasons being is that advertisers' research shows that the demographics that watch wrestling are basically old, poor and stupid. Couple that with the stigma attached to the product from the Attitude Era stuff and the violence aspect means most top advertisers are going to stay away even with the costs so low. Likely Raw numbers are going to drop to all time lows this Fall once football returns. Right now we are sub 3 million for the first time in 20 years and this should be a hot time for the WWE in the post Mania boost before the lull pre Summerslam happens. Once football comes I will not be surprised if we see sub 2 million viewers. It is much like watching a car crash in slow motion right now, you can see what is going to happen and you know it isn't going to end well. VJeff posted:I mean the 3rd hour of Raw is something USA wants, not WWE, so if the third hour was actually a problem financially, WWE would cut it out in a second. It is but that was when WWE was still a ratings winner along with USA having no programing. USA still doesn't have much but once the WWE hit sub 2 million they are going to have a hard time wanting to reinvest in it when they could use the same money to invest in new programing that will do nearly as well for much less. And let's say Bryan does magically cleared to wrestle again by them it is again a short sighted solution for a larger institutional problem. For example look at the pop Goldberg got when he first returned compared to what happened towards the end. They used Goldberg as good as they could but by the end he was starting to become stale and without a real, interesting storyline going forward people stopped caring. The same will happen with Bryan just like everyone else they bring back. Djarum fucked around with this message at 20:44 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
The difference between Goldberg and Bryan is that Bryan can actually still wrestle. You put him in the ring with, say, Nakamura, and they'll blow the fuckin roof off, especially if it's in a smarky city like Chicago. Granted, I see your point that it may be a problem going forward, but idk, this is a hypothetical situation which'll never happen if the WWE has anything to say about it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Djarum posted:
someone posted it earlier, but Brandon Howard, despite being one of the driest, most boring writers in the universe is probably the best WWE TV numbers guy, and he's consistently pointed out that other measures of popularity, like merch sales and live event sales have at least stayed stable, suggesting that the drop-off in ratings is most likely due to wider trends WWE doesn't have anything to do with. (house show numbers are down, which is most likely due to the lack of any replacement for Cena, but live event revenue is up, and overall attendance numbers (including televised events) are even)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
to go back to the original question, the business as its currently situated isnt perpetually or infinitely sustainable irrelevant of ratings, because even if overall interest in the product is about the same, decreased ratings across the board correlate with decreased rights fees and tv rights fees are still a major income stream. if their next tv rights deal underwhelms then you will see cutbacks in production and talent, or you will see those talent dollars go to international prospects from markets they want to break into
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 05:18 |
|
|
it's also arguable that TV ratings are going down so badly across the board that the small amount of programming that does stay relatively level becomes even more and more valuable (which seems to be what the investors think, though as Dave has pointed out repeatedly, WWE investors are extremely stupid), but that's probably a question best left for TV executives
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 21:57
|
|