Jump to content

twelve_grand

Members
  • Posts

    722
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by twelve_grand

  1. Do you think the 'tropes' of WWE come from him them or the writers/HHH? I'm thinking about things like 'always lose match(es) before winning the title/turning face', start/stop booking for pushes (including Cesaro), stupid comedy promos when they should be serious and never let the lighter fliers have the chance to shine against each other. Because those sorts of things that really annoy me and are reasons I delete or fast forward Raw each week.

  2.  

    It's been a huge gamble.  I'm not convinced the monthly pay model is sustainable unless you have a substantial turnover of content, greater than WWE has.

     

    Some sort of pay per view system would be better, where you have access to everything but pay pennies and pounds for content.  So for example Raw and Smackdown are free, an old PPV is a quid, a new PPV is 4 quid, a documentary is a quid, and once you've bought something you can watch is again as much as you like.

     

    The other option I've been thinking about is whether you can tie online video content into ISP packages - so the IP provider (in this case WWE) tots up the number of minutes of content watched and charges the ISP, who in turn bill you, either by minute or in a similar fashion to your download limit, i.e a certain amount as part of the contract per month.

     

    So you pay 40 quid a month for your internet connection which includes 24 hours of media viewing, or something.

    Interesting ideas but I'm deeply suspicious of micro charging models. I think their model is the right model for the wrong product. They should be running it for 8 events per year plus all of the archive footage with the big 4 on PPV. Instead they panicked and messed up their biggest money earners of the year (WM and related content) to try and shoot a big network number, Now they can never go back.

  3.  

     

    So if the films partner deal is only breaking even, why bother with it? 

    Limited liability/costs but if you ever have a hit you can cash in and you get in theory some brand and marketing value out of having the films out there on dvd. It may be just more or less than break even but not big loss anymore despite the Tesco like accountancy of films.

  4.  

     

    Because the kind of people who will pay $9.99 a month for unlimited wrestling (in theory) are the same ones who will pay $29.99 for a monthly PPV.

    Wrong price but right idea. There is a limited market with a hardcore of fans. The product is price inelastic. It's so American that Stephanie McMahon got that fellowship when she can't understand basic economics.

  5.  

    Hundreds of hours of Raw

    Hundreds of hours of Nitro

    Hundreds of hours of PPVs

    But I thought they need to put subtitles on it to avoid a netflix type situation where they get sued? Which is why they're so slow in the first two elements. 

  6.  

     

    Timescale?

    19 months if they stick with the network model. That will be when they announce the subscriptions post WM.

     

     

     

    No they won't.

     

    If the network fails, they'll just abandon it and take a financial bumming for a couple of years. To elevate that, they'll cut a lot of deadwood to claw back what they've lost.

    If Vince can survive a federal trial against him, the XFL failure, they can survive the failure of the network.

     

    Easiest way to save money would be to ditch WWE Films 

    They paid for the XFL out of the money from going public. They have almost burnt through their cash pile which is why the loss situation is so critical - if they can't pay the dividend their stock is going down the toilet. The film division is break even they went to the partnership model.

  7. The WWE is likely to get bought out or go broke.

     

    The network model simply won't work - the market isn't there for the product, they're going to lose lots of money, and the dividend can't be paid. The cost cutting is causing the situation to get worse - see them paying for advertising for non existent UK PPVs, the equally non existent communication over the UK launch, the failure to update the network let alone produce new and interesting programming, and finally the cost cutting on key employees that live and breath the company. The creative model won't let anyone break out of the pack and their existing stars are breaking down or will only work big shows for big money.

     

    The numbers next week could mean this all happens in a year.

  8. This is off topic but seems the right place - has anyone tried using news.google.com/newspapers for contemporary coverage of old wrestling events? It's great for news articles from the US and UK local press - I was just reading Big Daddy giving it the 'show must go on' (after Mal Kirk died) in several papers and thought I'd type in some random historical names into the search engine - whether it's the earliest "fake" wrestling gang reports in 1908 or more recent coverage in local papers of why 'local resident' Brian Hildebrand can't get a managers job in wrestling it's bloody amazing.

  9. Yep - that is indeed it which is why I said "rumour". With Sky not seemingly having anything to do with it you could imagine they have some exclusivity on PPVs which makes it seem more credible. 

  10.  

     

    There's no product to sell in the UK, spunking money on Google ads and the like when there's no mechanism to preorder doesn't make sense.

     

    I agree on your test load point but not here - my point was they had bought google search word ads for "wwe network uk" but they were pointing at useless (in fact misleading) information.

     

    Anyhow we're a week out and we still have no information on what will  be launched etc.

  11. Indeed it was reported due to being on preventative blood thinners to avoid heart disease and strokes. If that was true it becomes a weird situation as to how WWE got themselves into the position of having had him wrestle whilst he was on those drugs without having him do a proper medical. Almost up there with Vince supporting Mick Foley's first retirement onl;y because he was suffering memory loss - and then bringing him back over to do dangerous matches. http://www.cagesideseats.com/2012/3/25/2902377/nash-reveals-entire-summerslam-story

  12. Unless they've got something coming this next week the UK launch has been yet another fuck up for them. You do not build expectation and interest by keeping quiet & not telling your most likely customer base loud and clear what is coming and how to order etc. 

     

    EDIT: as an example I had a look at their paid for ads. They don't have one for "WWE network" on google uk but weirdly they do have one for "WWE network uk". That shows as "Get the WWE network now".

     

    So where does the paid for link take you - to a generic rather than region specific site. And if you then select the UK option in the drop down you don't get any information about the network and instead you get a Night of Champions ad. And you know what it suggests - that you need to order Night of Champions through Sky Box Office. Idiots. The job cuts are affecting their core promotional ability to save the company.

     

    If the majority of US subscribers with their 6 months up now don't sign up again this week I could see WWE needing to sell to a third party or go to the wall in the next couple of years once they've burnt through their remaining cash.

  13.  

     

    Wasn't there some sort of controversy surrounding his suicide at the time? I'm sure I recall in all the tributes people refusing to comment on the likely reasons for him taking his own life. 

    I took it more as there were some regrets, some dislikes etc but yes thinking back you could have read between the lines perhaps (whether correctly or incorrectly). 

     

    Not related but I couldn't for the life of me track down what Alex Shane said/posted at the time (which he mentioned in the podcast).

  14. Foley had a back surgery late last week but referred to it as being the first of several 'minor' back surgeries. That's highly unusual and sounds like they're trying several (multi-level) minimally invasive clean ups of discs and/or removing bone to relive pressure. I'd be very concerned from what I know and have heard of that type of approach but I guess he's desperate to try something. I also remembered in his Countdown to Lockdown he mentioned he had 4 disc herniations and his foot went numb for a year when they gave him a epidural/steroid injection into his spine - that again is a really bad reaction and you've got to feel for the guy.

  15. Now come on then - he was unlucky according to the team! Seriously he's a weird one given he's won a GP in an uncompetitive car but now is alomost a pure pay driver.

     

    How's about this for getting it wrong  - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaaYW5uBB-o

     

    Those crashes over the sausage curbs are scary because it's only a matter of luck he doesn't t-bone/decapitate another driver.

  16. F1 is back this weekend with BTCC, and Indy Car for those that want more. Hamilton is trying to play psychological games which usually means he'll suffer bad luck or bin it in the the wet at Spa. In other news Max Verstappen has come on since June from nowhere to Red Bull sponsorship, to F1's newest and youngest star. As I wrote at the time he was obviously immensly talented but I couldn't conceive they would put him in a F1 car straight away in this era of near nil testing.  

     

    Bigjag - a good reason to watch the feeder classes when you have time is the great racing. But occasionally you get to see some immensely special talents be born!

×
×
  • Create New...