AEW Double or Nothing

[DavidB6937]

I definitely have to consider my purchases more these days. I'm subscribed to Netflix, Amazon, Sky, Disney Life and Spotify without even considering wrestling content.

I dropped Sky Sports so I'm happy to pay for the WWE Network considering the amount of stuff I watch on there. Same with everything else actually. There's nothing I pay for that I don't get good value for money for. I buy a lot less physical media now so that's just the shift in technology.

But with all that on my plate it's all about time and money beyond that. I tend to pick up NJPW for a bit early in the year but then I run out of time to keep up with it, so it's not worth keeping. I'd be happy to get others too if I had anywhere to fit them in. 

In some ways a limited schedule for AEW works perfectly for me and if they continue to deliver a solid product then I'd definitely make time for them and be willing to pay out every so often. It'll never be a case of replacing something else though as I can't imagine dropping the Network.

[Retro Red]

31 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

But it’s not always as simple as people being “content thieves” or not wanting to support a small business.

It is though. If you can't afford something, then you have to do without it. If you want something, then you should pay the required fee to buy it. If you take it without paying then you are a thief, regardless of circumstances. Especially so for non-essential stuff like music, movies and TV.

[FLips]

I think honestly the smartest thing for them to do, if it's possible in regards to TV deals is to make a streaming service that has:

Live PPVs and replays
Live TV Shows and replays (This is where it might fall down because I know WWE has a month delay, but AEW has a different revenue model for TV doesn't it?)
Move all the internet-popular shows like Being The Elite, Weigh-ins, Post Show Interviews, etc onto it rather than Youtube.

They need to do something to warrant a streaming service though because I'm not forking out £15 for it in this day and age, even if the live illegal stream was brutal.

[Devon Malcolm]

10 minutes ago, Bicurious Dad said:

It is though. If you can't afford something, then you have to do without it. If you want something, then you should pay the required fee to buy it. If you take it without paying then you are a thief, regardless of circumstances.

No it isn't. What if it's not available anywhere that you can pay for it and it's only available through free means?

[Retro Red]

Then the seller hasn't made it available for you to purchase and you're obtaining it illegally via free sources then yes, it's theft. Unless the license for the content has expired then the holder of that license retains the right to offer it or not as they see fit.  Would you class movies that are out of cinemas but not available on DVD/Blu Ray/Digital release yet under that criteria?

[Yakashi]

3 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

No it isn't. What if it's not available anywhere that you can pay for it and it's only available through free means?

It’s not available through free means. It’s available by stealing. If it’s not available without you stealing it then it’s not free. I’ve done it so I’m not shitting on anyone that does it. But it is stealing, regardless of how people want to justify it. 

[Devon Malcolm]

3 minutes ago, Bicurious Dad said:

Then the seller hasn't made it available for you to purchase and you're obtaining it illegally via free sources then yes, it's theft. Unless the license for the content has expired then the holder of that license retains the right to offer it or not as they see fit.  Would you class movies that are out of cinemas but not available on DVD/Blu Ray/Digital release yet under that criteria?

Don't be ridiculous, you know full well that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the thousands of films and TV shows that wouldn't be available at all if it wasn't for their distribution through torrent sites, streaming sites and other means. Content that has been forgotten about by copyright holders or has been in possession of companies that have gone out of business. If it wasn't for such sites keeping such content in circulation then we would have lost so much art since the internet has been able to sustain such content. Labelling this subject as completely black and white is nonsensical.

[Retro Red]

I should also clarify, I'm also just arguing the point about theft I'm not condemning it as I'd be a big old hypocrite if I did.

[DavidB6937]

I used to torrent a lot back in the day, mostly due to the ridiculous wait times between US and UK airings for TV shows. That was always for spoiler avoidance and while I knew it was illegal, I didn't feel too bad just because I still paid for Sky etc. Thankfully that problem rarely exists now.

There are a few shows I'll still do it for that aren't available here in any form but on the whole the networks have sorted their shit out.

[King Pitcos]

15 minutes ago, FelatioLips said:

I think honestly the smartest thing for them to do, if it's possible in regards to TV deals is to make a streaming service that has:

Live PPVs and replays
Live TV Shows and replays (This is where it might fall down because I know WWE has a month delay, but AEW has a different revenue model for TV doesn't it?)
Move all the internet-popular shows like Being The Elite, Weigh-ins, Post Show Interviews, etc onto it rather than Youtube.

They need to do something to warrant a streaming service though because I'm not forking out £15 for it in this day and age, even if the live illegal stream was brutal.

If all of their promotional content went behind a paywall, they'd never be able to grow the fanbase.

[Retro Red]

That's also subverting the conversation from it's initial intent though Devon, we were talking about people not paying for AEW or their local Indy.

Preservation of historical content, where there is no known license holder is a good thing, I absolutely won't argue with you on that; it's very prevalent in the PC gaming sphere with Abandonware - and in the absence of someone to preserve it then it's a good place for it to be. However If the license provider did emerge and said 'Thanks, but I'm now going to keep a copy of this movie/tv show for my own personal use and that's it' then they have the right to do so and you then would be illegally viewing it if you used another source in that instance. It's the same with fine art, there are pieces which owners donate or loan to museums for display to the public but on the flip side there are pieces owned and kept private forever.

[d-d-d-dAz]

21 minutes ago, FelatioLips said:

I think honestly the smartest thing for them to do, if it's possible in regards to TV deals is to make a streaming service that has:

Live PPVs and replays
Live TV Shows and replays (This is where it might fall down because I know WWE has a month delay, but AEW has a different revenue model for TV doesn't it?)
Move all the internet-popular shows like Being The Elite, Weigh-ins, Post Show Interviews, etc onto it rather than Youtube.

They need to do something to warrant a streaming service though because I'm not forking out £15 for it in this day and age, even if the live illegal stream was brutal.

Would be a terrible, terrible idea.

Streaming services, for the most part, lose money as the perceived value is lower to the customer as, for now, streaming is still seen as sub-premium.

Their nearest competitor (WWE) and their lateral competitors (Netflix, ESPN+, Hulu etc..) have informally set the parameters of what an acceptable streaming subscription price is not based on financial returns, but on either what financial losses the business can tolerate or how many alternative revenue streams they can generate to offset those losses. They are a loss leader, for the most part.

They’re also dangerous as without significant brand awareness, you run the risk of disappearing into a digital silo.

If AEW launched their own subscription service they’d have fewer people paying less than a break even amount. It’d be a disaster.

Having a non-exclusive digital partner, who’d pay a moderate license fee, could be a smart way of injecting value into the business right now. But that’s it.

I’m a digital evangelist, but for a start-up like AEW, linear TV is an absolute essential awareness tool. And, until they can generate alternative revenue, PPV is the most effective way of a) offsetting liabilities (I.e. getting partners like ITV and DirecTV invested, literally, in an events success) and b) monetizing interest.

They’ve made a lot of the right moves in getting it off the ground. The next stage is brand awareness. That should be their main concern for the next 12 months. Nothing else.

Owned and operated Streaming services are a million, billion miles away. They shouldn’t event think about that until they have regular, guaranteed, varied revenue streams and a consistent linear audience that they wouldn’t mind losing 70-90% of.

 

Edited May 27, 2019 by d-d-d-dAz

[Devon Malcolm]

2 minutes ago, Bicurious Dad said:

That's also subverting the conversation from it's initial intent though Devon, we were talking about people not paying for AEW or their local Indy.

Preservation of historical content, where there is no known license holder is a good thing, I absolutely won't argue with you on that; it's very prevalent in the PC gaming sphere with Abandonware - and in the absence of someone to preserve it then it's a good place for it to be. However If the license provider did emerge and said 'Thanks, but I'm now going to keep a copy of this movie/tv show for my own personal use and that's it' then they have the right to do so and you then would be illegally viewing it if you used another source in that instance. It's the same with fine art, there are pieces which owners donate or loan to museums for display to the public but on the flip side there are pieces owned and kept private forever.

How is it subverting anything? "If you want something, then you should pay the required fee to buy it. If you take it without paying then you are a thief, regardless of circumstances."

You said that, not me. It's a completely black and white statement that you are applying to all media.

This forum is headache inducing at the moment.

[d-d-d-dAz]

Just now, Devon Malcolm said:

How is it subverting anything? "If you want something, then you should pay the required fee to buy it. If you take it without paying then you are a thief, regardless of circumstances."

You said that, not me. It's a completely black and white statement that you are applying to all media.

This forum is headache inducing at the moment.

I haven’t been tracking this argument completely, but if there’s an accessible legal format you can pay for and you don’t that’s theft, right?! 

If it’s not available legally in any way, then I think all bets are probably off..

[LaGoosh]

11 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said:

They’ve made a lot of the right moves in getting it off the ground. The next stage is brand awareness. That should be their main concern for the next 12 months. Nothing else.

Absolutely. Kurt Angle has told stories of fans coming up to him during his TNA years asking why he doesn't wrestle anymore. If no one hears of AEW then everything else they do ends up being pointless.