Jump to content

What Would Happen


TheLowdown1987

Recommended Posts

  • Paid Members

You can't go back to 4 PPVs a year. TNA can, because their PPVs are doing bad and you need a base to grow and later expand on it. But when the WWF had 4 PPVs in the 1980s, they were running two house shows a night for most of the year. The house show business made up an massive part of their revenue. Even in the early 90s, you had like Earthquake not doing jobs to Hulk Hogan at SummerSlam and Survivor Series because they were in the middle of a big house show run. House show business is pretty routine now. People pay to see the WWE come to town. They aren't paying to see must see matches. So house show business isn't what it was. If you cut the PPVs down, that would be a massive amount of money lost. Its unthinkable. Especially in 2012, where they are spending money to get that Network up and running.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

I think I understand what you mean about having less tired/burned out guys wrestling less often and having fewer injuries and able to enter more vigorous performances on TV if they werent running house shows. Even if they had half the number by finishing the roster split and having one loaded main event scene and one competitive midcard like the 2000 roster, could be a possible improvement to the product, meaning the tv output. However, much like the argument for a Cena heel turn potentially being artistically satisfying, it would be like setting fire to a big pile of money.

 

With no competition, there isnt enough reward to justify taking risks. With the state of the global economy at the moment, shutting down any profitable venture would be crazy if its sustainable. The business is about making money, not necessarily making as entertaining telly as possible. Yes, the theory is anything to make the TV better could produce higher buyrates, which dem wans argue in favour of things like scrapping the brand extention and turning Cena heel. However its not worth messing with your current guaranteed income in favour of potential higher returns. Not when you're already the unthreatened global leader in your industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With no competition, there isnt enough reward to justify taking risks. With the state of the global economy at the moment, shutting down any profitable venture would be crazy if its sustainable. The business is about making money, not necessarily making as entertaining telly as possible. Yes, the theory is anything to make the TV better could produce higher buyrates, which dem wans argue in favour of things like scrapping the brand extention and turning Cena heel. However its not worth messing with your current guaranteed income in favour of potential higher returns. Not when you're already the unthreatened global leader in your industry.

 

Just to be clear, I agree with most of your points, but the bit in bold interests me.

 

Considering they are the undisputed Kings of Wrestling, doesn't that make it easier to take risks?

 

If they tried something drastic and the whole business took a downturn, it's not like there is a WCW waiting to overtake them in the ratings and start stealing away TV/sponsorship/film deals and all that stuff.

 

They've tried all sorts of wacky stuff like guest hosts, McMahon's Million Dollar Giveaway etc... none of it worked the way they hoped but it also didn't have any long term effects. They just stopped doing it and carried on as before.

 

Like I said, I agree with your points above, and I'n not saying they should stop house-shows or anything mental like that, but part of me thinks that their current audience is still pretty loyal and wouldn't suddenly disappear if they tried some new things out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
The wrestlers would probably live a longer and fuller life.

 

...but earn far less money.

 

After reading Jericho's 2nd book he was adamant that he wouldn't miss any of his kids' birthday parties maybe money isn't quite as important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wrestlers would probably live a longer and fuller life.

 

...but earn far less money.

 

After reading Jericho's 2nd book he was adamant that he wouldn't miss any of his kids' birthday parties maybe money isn't quite as important.

 

To one person in particular in that example, not everyone has kids, some want to make as much money as possible, some want to work as much as possible. Its how the business has worked for decades, long before the modern day WWE format was the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The wrestlers would probably live a longer and fuller life.

 

...but earn far less money.

 

After reading Jericho's 2nd book he was adamant that he wouldn't miss any of his kids' birthday parties maybe money isn't quite as important.

 

To one person in particular in that example, not everyone has kids, some want to make as much money as possible, some want to work as much as possible. Its how the business has worked for decades, long before the modern day WWE format was the norm.

Jericho is in a position where he can take WWE or leave it. I doubt he would have been so chivalrous about his kids birthdays when he was working Smokey Mountain for $50 a night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

He was on decent money in SMW to be fair. $400 a week or whatever was more than what proper talents like the RnR, Tracy Smothers, Tony Anthony, Dr Tom, "World's sleaziest looking wrestler" Jimmy Del Ray and the Armstrongs were on. And they'd sell gimmicks, and they were the people that drew the houses.

 

I fucking hate Chris Jericho. Him and Edge walk the Overrated prize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the way every dad should look at it that day at work is another chunk of money to support your child simple as, you provide for the child and the family. I didn't get to see my dad as much as he would of wanted on weekends when I was a little kid but guess what? He was busy working all the overtime he could as there was a recession going on (born in 86) and those extra hours helped us get by much better.

 

Yeah that sounds like bollocks really, everyone is wise in hindsight with that kind of stuff as well.

 

(Edit - laptop went a bit spastic or I did, not sure.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
Considering they are the undisputed Kings of Wrestling, doesn't that make it easier to take risks?

 

I went back and forth on that. The risks they may have taken during the Monday Night Wars were about survival to hear Vince talk, whereas (perceived) risks they could consider these days would be purely about improving their future income. If what they're turning over now gives enough sustainability, they might be too comfortable to risk losing some of what is for what might be in the future.

 

In simple terms it's complancency, which wasnt there when they had WcW pushing them all the way. They were forced to take risks where failure could mean going under, because they thought the consequences of not taking them were that they would go under anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...