WWE is no longer a wrestling company, according to them

[PepperPlunge]

Jesus wept...

 

I was reading the news on my phone, saw how you whittled someone saying about wrestling media down to 'newz sites' and I threw an example of wrestling media out there. I even said I couldn't tell you much about PWI because I never read it and that it wasn't necessarily a suggestion to go forth with it.

 

They'd be better off focussing on selling their own magazines - WWE Kids, WWE Magazine and WWE Heroes - than promoting WWE in PWI. I'm agreeing with you that PWI would be pretty much useless and you're still on the defensive!

 

I tend to agree with a lot of what this King Pitcos (what does that mean for the uninitiated?) says but they seem to be being a benny here.

[The Cum Doctor]

I can't say this bothers me too much. They still have wrestling on their shows, and lots of it, so what does it matter to me how they refer to themselves? As long as they continue to put out a decent product, which they do, then I don't care what they choose to refer to themselves as.

[Chris B]

Because Vince McMahon's corporate branding nonsense disrespects our great sport, and if you were a real wrestling fan you would understand the importance and significance of that.

Are you being serious? Can't quite tell, as it's difficult online. I won't bother responding properly if you're not.

It's serious business. But no, I'm being more sarcastic than that bloke who got locked in the hamper on Father Ted.

 

I don't think sending John Cena to do interviews with Rajah and Wrestlezone is going to have any effect on that, like.

 

Because 'any effort' = that. Well done.

I'm sorry you got offended by context. But go on then, how should WWE be publicising itself through the newzsites?

 

I didn't get offended by context. I was responding to this:

 

It would be arse-backwards stupid for WWE to expend any effort to publicise itself to us.

 

Which ignores the idea of customer retention. Bear in mind, I'm not saying that they should solely concentrate on customer retention. Just that they shouldn't ignore it and concentrate only on untapped markets. You're the one suggesting it should be all or nothing, which doesn't make much sense.

 

But as far as some ideas to how I think they should be using newzsites?

 

Well, first of all, is it worth them doing? I'd suggest so, partially because they have a market there that could be spending more money. A lot of the newzsites experience high traffic the day after PPVs, suggesting that people are interested in the PPVs, but not always in paying for them. It also isn't just the die-hards - you get a lot of casual fans looking for more information.

 

There could be more engagement there, even if it's with the intention of getting people to use WWE.com more often. Film companies do this fairly often, giving interviews and site/blog-based competitions, trailer information, premiere tickets, and press releases, aware that if people are willing to do marketing for them, it's counter-productive not to encourage it. Also, it's a strong source for consumer feedback, and that could definitely be useful. I'm not saying that they should be directed by the workrate-fappers, but that they shouldn't be trying to actively push away a section of their audience either.

 

They should concentrate on untapped markets, absolutely. But customer retention is important, and WWE aren't always very good at it.

 

When people are talking about the audience being respected, it's not usually about 'RESPECT DA BIZNUS', but more about not showing contempt for your audience. When you complain about how your fanbase described you, you're showing contempt for your audience. And it's the kind of thing that puts some people off, and if they're the die-hards, that's not very smart.

[PepperPlunge]

It is a weird one but, i do understand it and the wanting to separate themselves from the term to an extent. If there was a good word for it i wouldn't actually be too bothered if it was to change. Although WWE Pro-Wrestling obviously spawned from actual catch-style wrestling, what it is today is an entirely different animal. It's long been accepted and presented as such that it's not a genuine combative sport. It is a Spectacle combining elements of athletic, combat sport and theatrical performance. But there's no all-encompassing word that accurately describes that and fits or works. I think it would be great if there was because it probably shouldn't really be called wrestling now but i wouldn't know what a good title would be.

 

It's such a unique thing, it just originated from wrestling but what it is today (with WWE anyway) is big hybrid of wrestling/ theatrical performance/stuntshows/soap opera. It's as much about those other aspects as it is wrestling.

 

That's a good point. I still think that WWE are never going to get people saying 'sports entertainment'. 'Wrestling' seems to be synonymous with 'WWF' for the casual fan...or 'that fake American shit' and 'World of Sport' over here.

[PepperPlunge]

Because Vince McMahon's corporate branding nonsense disrespects our great sport, and if you were a real wrestling fan you would understand the importance and significance of that.

Are you being serious? Can't quite tell, as it's difficult online. I won't bother responding properly if you're not.

It's serious business. But no, I'm being more sarcastic than that bloke who got locked in the hamper on Father Ted.

 

I don't think sending John Cena to do interviews with Rajah and Wrestlezone is going to have any effect on that, like.

 

Because 'any effort' = that. Well done.

I'm sorry you got offended by context. But go on then, how should WWE be publicising itself through the newzsites?

 

I didn't get offended by context. I was responding to this:

 

It would be arse-backwards stupid for WWE to expend any effort to publicise itself to us.

 

Which ignores the idea of customer retention. Bear in mind, I'm not saying that they should solely concentrate on customer retention. Just that they shouldn't ignore it and concentrate only on untapped markets. You're the one suggesting it should be all or nothing, which doesn't make much sense.

 

But as far as some ideas to how I think they should be using newzsites?

 

Well, first of all, is it worth them doing? I'd suggest so, partially because they have a market there that could be spending more money. A lot of the newzsites experience high traffic the day after PPVs, suggesting that people are interested in the PPVs, but not always in paying for them. It also isn't just the die-hards - you get a lot of casual fans looking for more information.

 

There could be more engagement there, even if it's with the intention of getting people to use WWE.com more often. Film companies do this fairly often, giving interviews and site/blog-based competitions, trailer information, premiere tickets, and press releases, aware that if people are willing to do marketing for them, it's counter-productive not to encourage it. Also, it's a strong source for consumer feedback, and that could definitely be useful. I'm not saying that they should be directed by the workrate-fappers, but that they shouldn't be trying to actively push away a section of their audience either.

 

They should concentrate on untapped markets, absolutely. But customer retention is important, and WWE aren't always very good at it.

 

When people are talking about the audience being respected, it's not usually about 'RESPECT DA BIZNUS', but more about not showing contempt for your audience. When you complain about how your fanbase described you, you're showing contempt for your audience. And it's the kind of thing that puts some people off, and if they're the die-hards, that's not very smart.

 

Yeah, good points there. They've scraped the surface of exclusive content on their site but I think they could do more. That King Pitcos should be butt-hurt.

[Dirty Eddie]

That's all he's done in the last few pages of this thread, and it's pretty fucking mong-like, for Mr Best Poster On The UKFF.

I love it when the perverts get all butthurt about that. Maybe if you took a step away from the hivemind silliness, you'd stand out more and be in with a shout.

 

 

You are actually just a full-on gimmick poster these days.

 

I'm surprised you have time to write on here when you could be out with your shotgun, taking out all the rasslin pervs and fappers.

What the fuck are you even arguing about here?

 

McMahon has lost out on mainstream press because he refused to allow anyone in his company (or anyone reporting on it) to use the word @wrestler@.

 

Do you not think that is a bit f'n stupid?

Or will you just continue to defend pretty much any claim of discontent that anyone else brings up about WWE and it's product.

 

You just seem to leap to the defense of them at all costs, you've become the fictional opposite of the fappers/perverts you bang on about constantly.

[King Pitcos]

I didn't get offended by context. I was responding to this:

 

It would be arse-backwards stupid for WWE to expend any effort to publicise itself to us.

 

Which ignores the idea of customer retention. Bear in mind, I'm not saying that they should solely concentrate on customer retention. Just that they shouldn't ignore it and concentrate only on untapped markets. You're the one suggesting it should be all or nothing, which doesn't make much sense.

I'm not suggesting that at all. This may be an issue of semantics, but I don't think WWE needs to publicise itself to us. We're already more than aware of the goings-on. Customer retention should be done by the product itself once you're in.

 

There could be more engagement there, even if it's with the intention of getting people to use WWE.com more often. Film companies do this fairly often, giving interviews and site/blog-based competitions, trailer information, premiere tickets, and press releases, aware that if people are willing to do marketing for them, it's counter-productive not to encourage it.

But it's an analogy that doesn't hold up. I definitely think they should put more effort into wwe.com to make it more appealing, like that excellent Facebook video thing they did the other day. But external wrestling sites, not so much. Film distributors utilise news sites because not everyone reading those sites/magazines/etc is familiar with their film yet. Every film that comes out is tiny in comparison to the film industry overall. Those distributors are looking to increase exposure and awareness.

 

WWE already has the maximum exposure possible among the audience for wrestling sites and mags. There's very little to gain. And because of the overwhelming negativity of most of the sites, WWE would be silly to drive traffic to them with exclusive content. A kid could go to PWTorch to win WrestleMania tickets or read a Mysterio interview via a wwe.com link, then two weeks later he's seen wrestling picked apart so much that he hates everything on the show and feels nothing for it except dull outrage about the commentators not calling the belts belts.

 

Also, it's a strong source for consumer feedback, and that could definitely be useful. I'm not saying that they should be directed by the workrate-fappers, but that they shouldn't be trying to actively push away a section of their audience either.

The diehard section of the audience never goes away. If someone isn't interested in wrestling, they're not going to notice any competitions and info in wrestling magazines or on wrestling websites.

 

They should concentrate on untapped markets, absolutely. But customer retention is important, and WWE aren't always very good at it.

They're downright rubbish at it at times, but I think that's an issue of content rather than semi-external niche marketing.

 

They have moved away from the 'guest host' nonsense already. Wrestlemania has always been linked to celebrities.

 

As for 'old school wrestling angles' - surely they still rely on these? Some of the stuff that is used today has been going on for years!

 

I believe it still remains 'wrestling' at the heart of it.

Anyone with any sense would agree. WWE is the same core thing it's always been (at least since the WrestleMania era began), but adjusted to fit a weekly primetime TV and monthly pay-per-view model. People have just grown out of the genre and rather than accept that, they look for petty little pseudo-reasons to have a go at it, I think. Sports entertainment and Superstars were the buzzwords back when we all enjoyed it and nobody listened or cared, these things only became a problem for people who weren't into wrestling anymore but keep watching.

 

It's just Vince's stubbornness in the wording and presentation.

Nobody should even pay any mind to his attempts at rewording the terms of the industry, and nobody except bitter ex-fans ever did until this TV Weekly writer got annoyed by one of the PR team.

 

McMahon has lost out on mainstream press because he refused to allow anyone in his company (or anyone reporting on it) to use the word @wrestler@.

 

Do you not think that is a bit f'n stupid?

It's very stupid.

[Pinc]

Pro Wrestling Illustrated could be seen as wrestling media. They're kayfabe and pro-WWE. I've not read much of it so I'm not necessarily suggesting it but you're trying to narrow someone's mention of wrestling media to 'newz sites'.

Think about what you're saying. Do you seriously think there is an untapped market of PWI readers that don't follow WWE?

It's already been pointed out that greater courting of the wrestling media would be as much about customer retention as it would attracting new fans. Every other comparable entity I can think of caters to its industry's media moreso than WWE. Have you ever read an interviewer with a footballer in FourFourTwo magazine? Why are they bothering? FourFourTwo's readers are already football fans after all.

[IANdrewDiceClay]

The football comparison is an interesting one. Manchester United took the "Football Club" off the badge because they said the brand goes beyond the the sport these days. This is evident when they released their Beyond the Promise Land Film came out and 90% of it was Peter Kenyon showing his new Vodafone Mobile and the new kit. United also dont allow their players to get interviewed by the likes of Soccer AM and Match Magazine and stuff like that. Its not that United arent a football club anymore. Its because they have the power and name value to control certain aspects of the media that might pull a hatchet job on them and what have you. I can see why WWE are trying to carve out their own identity away from wrestling, so they can stregnthen their brand identity. Its one of those things where they know us wrestling fans know its wrestling and they know the casual audience knows its wrestling. But they also dont want the wrestling aspect to handcuff them in other markets, because lets face it: wrestling is a massive turn off for some people.

[Ross]

I know from personal experience that generally WWE don't deal with the wrestling media but are quite happy to deal with other outlets. Think that says it all really.

There is no "wrestling media." There are websites and blogs written by people who already watch and moan about WWE, exclusively read by people who already watch and moan about WWE. It would be arse-backwards stupid for WWE to expend any effort to publicise itself to us. That'd be as pointless as WWE shooting itself in the foot by being stupid about what a mainstream source calls the genre in an article.

 

I'm sure you're just trying to be difficult but of course there is wrestling media, including many professionally produced magazines as well as websites and blogs. It also isn't 'arse-backwards' that many sports and entertainment organisations deal with media related to their particular medium such as magazines covering other sports, movies and MMA for example. However, in WWE's case as they presumably don't consider themselves to be a wrestling company they don't associate with such publications.

[spurs 4 life]

The football comparison is an interesting one. Manchester United took the "Football Club" off the badge because they said the brand goes beyond the the sport these days. This is evident when they released their Beyond the Promise Land Film came out and 90% of it was Peter Kenyon showing his new Vodafone Mobile and the new kit. United also dont allow their players to get interviewed by the likes of Soccer AM and Match Magazine and stuff like that. Its not that United arent a football club anymore. Its because they have the power and name value to control certain aspects of the media that might pull a hatchet job on them and what have you. I can see why WWE are trying to carve out their own identity away from wrestling, so they can stregnthen their brand identity. Its one of those things where they know us wrestling fans know its wrestling and they know the casual audience knows its wrestling. But they also dont want the wrestling aspect to handcuff them in other markets, because lets face it: wrestling is a massive turn off for some people.

 

I saw Ryan Giggs on Soccer am not 2 weeks ago?

 

It's all such typical corporate bollocks. Nobody cares if the WWE calls themselves wrestling company except the WWE, by not allowing themselves to be called a wrestling company i bet they aren't getting one extra viewer and by the same token if they let the word wrestling go they wouldn't lose one viewer.

[Colt Stevens]

I'm surprised at the uproar or arguments anyway about Vine wanting them not to be referred to as 'Wrestling'. For years now it has been sports entertainment that they do (as in what they say they do and in what they promote). He is prptecting the WWE brand.

[air_raid]

You don't think it's ludicrous World Wrestling Entertainment saying they aren't a wrestling company? And pulling out of any publication that suggests they are?

[Snitsky's back acne]

As was mentioned in the original article, they are called World WRESTLING Entertainment and their biggest show of the year is WRESTLEMania.

 

Vince can call it whatever he wants but his bread-and-butter is, and always has been, professional wrestling.

[JohnnyChimpo]

I'm sure Vince is aware that his bread and butter is wrestling, but he does (rightly or wrongly) see himself as an entertainment production. He knows he isnt going to lose a single viewer by moving away from the word wrestling, but he is also trying to move in a direction where people dont automatically associate WWE with wrestling, but with entertainment in general. Like WWE movies arent just movies all about wrestling, or WWE music isnt just CD's all about wrestling. I know some people who assume that a WWE movies has to be a wrestling movie ala No Holds Barred or something, so I guess it has become a sticking point when trying to grow other sides of their business. I'd imagine he has been trying to branch into new markets and attempt to grab an audience who are more interested in the soap opera/entertainment side of things. I mean, lets face it, its not technically wrestling either is it? Its not wrestling like American's do in high schools, colleges or Olympics. Its not a real sport. People arent watching it to see competitive action, they are watching to be entertained by the overall package. It makes sense (somewhat) for Vince to try and lose the wrestling tag in things like a TV guide if he is trying to attract new demographics.

 

Its not necessarily Vince trying to distant himself from wrestling, more that he wants the term/logo of WWE to mean more than just wrestling.