Doctor Whos Next Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 I think the problem is that WWE is basically an ongoing narrative. Would people pay for every 5 or 6th epiosde of Eastenders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted November 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 13, 2011 WWE is a live form of entertainment as well, though. People do pay to see WWE. The Eastenders comparison isn't right at all. Wrestling is and always has been 90% promotion. Everything is an advert for people wanting to invest in you. The main guys always have to be protected and presented like a star. WWE is a proven formula. If you protect the main characters and they can carry big angles and interviews, people will pay to see you. Its why the ratings went up when the Rock came back earlier this year. If there's something people want to see, they will watch it. Look at the night TNA debuted on Monday Night and hyped it like no other show. TNA drew a 1.5 head to head with Raw, and Raw never lost any of its audience. It was a big success for wrestling. More people watched wrestling that night than they had in years. It was hyped up for ages as the return of Hulk Hogan on one side and the return of Bret Hart on the other. The weeks that followed, people went away again because it was pretty much the same old thing on both sides. The audience came back, didn't like what they saw and left again. Its just that neither promotion seems to be giving the audience what they want. I've seen much worse runs of Raw and Impact, but it seems now more than ever the audience dont see them as must see. Wrestling is a cold business at the minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members garynysmon Posted November 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 13, 2011 Some of it has to do with Wrestling's image too. Â For example, our local pub has all the big boxing fights and attracts a large audience every time. Â Although I hate MMA, a few of my mates always bunch up to watch the big PPV's with cans etc. (Not sure if they are on free tv or PPV in this country) Â You could never do any of the above with Wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 14, 2011 Author Share Posted November 14, 2011 Some of it has to do with Wrestling's image too. Â For example, our local pub has all the big boxing fights and attracts a large audience every time. Â Although I hate MMA, a few of my mates always bunch up to watch the big PPV's with cans etc. (Not sure if they are on free tv or PPV in this country) Â You could never do any of the above with Wrestling. Of course you could. I think personally it's more to do with the product being rather shit at the moment. I used to meet up with my mates for a Sunday night party then watch the PPV's not that long ago. Â We don't do it now simply because the events are just three hour Raws. Usually Wrestlemania gets us all together with a few beers and so forth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefdave Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Think part of the problem for WWE is the pressure from NBC to put the top stars on TV every week. Why would you buy a PPV to see Cena wrestle when you can see him for free on Raw every week? Â The decision for WWE to make is whether to go after the TV money (and the associated advertising and sponsorship) over PPV revenue. Â Whilst I'm sure they still make a profit on PPV there must be people who don't bother watching the weekly shows as they have no intention of watching the PPV, would the increase in TV ratings offset the loss of PPV revenues? Of course while the PPVs are making money WWE shareholders will be reluctant to scrap them but I can certainly see a point in the future where they're slimmed down to a maximum of 4 and longer term you can see only Mania remaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
300 Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 I dont want to re quote the ppv numbers, but when did International buys become a factor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugaziuk Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 As noted before the numbers might have dwindled - but WWE is still making a really good profit off their PPVs - so to answer the question i don't think its dying at all. Â reen the other supershows as 3 hour specials on a network like NBC, or their own network if it ever comes about. Â The last specials they did for NBC were a disaster didn't they draw low 1s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vealster Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 As noted before the numbers might have dwindled - but WWE is still making a really good profit off their PPVs - so to answer the question i don't think its dying at all. reen the other supershows as 3 hour specials on a network like NBC, or their own network if it ever comes about.  The last specials they did for NBC were a disaster didn't they draw low 1s?  Those didn't replace the pay per views though were in addtion to them and they all came across as glorified adverts for the next big ppv event defeating the idea of calling it "Satruday Nights Main Event" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
300 Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Maybe he meant USA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 I still watch the PPVs with my mates. We tend to get something from the kebaby and maybe drink. Me and two mates were playing Micro Machines when we made the quick decision to watch Capitol Punishment as it was on that night and though I'd initially dismissed the PPV as one that would be shit, my mate was saying how certain matches could be good. Turns out I was right. Can't believe that Money In The Bank only got 15,000 more buys than Capitol Punishment with its shite Obama adverts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 14, 2011 Author Share Posted November 14, 2011 As noted before the numbers might have dwindled - but WWE is still making a really good profit off their PPVs - so to answer the question i don't think its dying at all. No, the numbers would suggest that it is actually dying. It's just not reached the point yet where a large profit isn't being made. If the trend continues though that will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted November 14, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 14, 2011 On the NBC thing, this question was asked on the Observer the other week and Meltzer said "you know" a few times before saying that NBC doesn't want WWE on the channel. They are contracted to do WWE specials once or twice a year, but instead opt to but best of shows or the Tribute To the Troops show on the channel, because WWE live specials dont do any business. They drew 33 million in 1988, and millions of people for years after that and WCW was going to be the most watched special in years on the channel in 1999 before it fell through. The average person only watches wrestling on a big network like that, if business is doing well. Its not a case of putting it on NBC and seeing people come out the woodwork. You have to make people want to watch. Â Another thing is, WWE starting this Network. They all shit themselves in 2005, because USA was the only one bidding for WWE's services. A lot of channels dont want WWE anymore. WWE wants a successful network because if they lose USA, they want a back up straight away without the risk of not getting another TV deal. Thats why if TNA loses Spike, they are probably done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted November 14, 2011 Author Share Posted November 14, 2011 The most reasonable avenue for WWE to go down would be the idea of putting monthly supershows on their own network, then maybe putting "the big four" on PPV? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted November 14, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 14, 2011 I think they definitely need to establish a big four again. Or even a big five, like when they had the King of the Ring. SummerSlam and Survivor Series were always a huge draw for them. But not anymore. They were even thinking of getting rid of Survivor Series. Fans need to know when the big angles are due. Its why people crawl out from under the bed to watch WrestleMania 5 or 6 weeks before the PPV is even on. You know all the pieces are going to be put in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted November 14, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted November 14, 2011 WWE badly need to evolve. Trouble is, Vince doesn't appear to know or want to, unless he's shown the way (like when he stole Bischoff's format). Raw's a well run ship, production-wise, but the content needs a shake up. Â Speaking of ripping (Bisch)off, his Reaction show had a ton of potential. I'd love WWE to give something like that a go. The problem Reaction had was it was too long and was made for TNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.