Jump to content

Wrestling's fanbase at its lowest ever level?


garynysmon

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, BomberPat said:

I have a pet theory, which I've probably banged on about on here before, that boom periods are dictated by changing technology and access at least as much, if not moreso, than by any one or two major stars. And it's driven by wrestling being closer to the zeitgeist - the two usually go hand-in-hand.

If you point to the '50s as the first US wrestling boom, that was driven by television.

The 1980s wrestling boom was driven by PPV and cable.

The "Monday Night Wars" or Attitude Era is the only period where I'd say there probably wasn't a major technological reason affecting the industry as a whole, but that the WWF switching to a change of presentation and production style, and a product in tune with the overall mood of the times, is what drove their success. 

Early 2000s saw a boom in independent wrestling, because production and distribution became cheaper and more accessible - promotions could afford to record, and to create DVDs, and fans could afford to buy them.

More recently, there's been a subsequent boom in independent and international wrestling (US fans following UK products and vice-versa, "Western" fans following Japanese promotions, Lucha promotions gaining a foothold outside of Mexico), which again has been technologically driven, as social media and streaming services have increased access.

 

So if there's something to attract casual fans again, it's a pivot toward embracing a new technology, or a significant change in production and presentation. Something that makes wrestling today look as drastically different from wrestling yesterday as Steve Austin looked from Hulk Hogan. I don't know what that is. If I did, I'd be a millionaire. 

Honestly, I think the future of wrestling is in the East. I think the most exciting thing about AEW is their relationship with OWE, and that a couple of their wrestlers represent the biggest leap forward in mainstream perception of what's possible in wrestling since Rey Mysterio first showed up in WCW, but only if they're presented properly. And I've been disappointed so far that AEW don't seem remotely concerned with changing up what wrestling looks like.

I'm not too sure what deals WWE had outside of the US/Canada/UK back in the day, but they appear to have deals all over the world now and for substantial money. It does make me wonder whether the product is tailored towards a global audience nowadays rather than just the US, supported of course by Network subscriptions which I'm sure WWE are measured on by number of hours viewed rather than subscriptions (which may explain why PPV's have been lengthy as its easier to have viewers watch one PPV even if an extra hour than another show). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
49 minutes ago, Tommy! said:

I'm just making a sly dig at how they push the network and, last time I watched a modern ppv, mocked anyone in their viewership paying to watch shows outside the network. Particularly those 'paying through the nose' rather then getting the network. It's only 9.99 a month don't you know.

They do love to remind you! How long before the rename it Monday $9.99 a Month Raw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tiger_rick said:

The TV audience is down and going further down seemingly by the week but measures like social media interaction, clicks and views of videos online are huge.

Known in marketing lingo as 'vanity metrics' - they are notorious for not converting into actual revenue for the company. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
36 minutes ago, King Pitcos said:

If we’re counting John Cena as part of the current scene, he’s way more famous than Bret, Shawn and Diesel ever were in their WWF heydays. 

Dont know, my aunt had a Bret T shirt. My mum and my aunts all got wrestling T shirts in 199...2 I think. 

 

My mum had a Bossman T. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Maikeru said:

Known in marketing lingo as 'vanity metrics' - they are notorious for not converting into actual revenue for the company. 

And yet, the company is making more money than it ever has. Low 2 ratings and all those twitter followers to promote Saudi Arabia to have proven far more valuable than Sable’s tits and chairshots to the head ever were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easy to overlook the younger generation and their viewing habits. All their viewing time is on phones, video games, Netflix and online. Most people under the age of 30 gave up on linear TV years ago. I doubt anyone under the age of 20 watches more than an hour of linear TV a week without their parents. It's an entirely different world from when we used to watch. I wonder how many recent mainstream TV shows would've flopped if they weren't available on Netflix or torrents.

WWE have over 30 million YouTube subscribers so if we're looking at it from a fan/non-business/financial perspective, then it could be argued that WWE have more viewers than ever. They just don't watch it on TV. I don't think Raw numbers will ever recover, even if they have the next Austin or Hogan and WWF 98 creative, because it's all online.

It would be mad to question why WWE PPV buys suffered for long. The landscape just changed so much.

I bet there's not much difference in the number of kids in the UK who watch WWE on YouTube as there were 10 (shit, that would only make it 2009), 20 years ago who watched on Sky.

Going back to a point earlier in the thread, if WWE are going to hit those heights of the late 90's again, I think it will be a video game or movie or some other area of the franchise rather than TV that will help them achieve it. 

Some really thorough and interesting points in this thread, though - @BomberPat especially made a great post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members

If you look back at the 80s and 90s, Coronation Street and Extenders were seeing three times the viewers they are now. Even in the 2000s, it's twice what it is now.

As @Undefeated Steak said, the game is changing. WWE is valuable because it's still comparatively high. When you keep in mind that it's easier to keep up with what's happening via youtube than their interminable show, they're still doing really well. Those eyeballs matter, even if they're not on TV.

Edited by Chris B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Chris B said:

If you look back at the 80s and 90s, Coronation Street and Extenders were seeing three times the viewers they are now. Even in the 2000s, it's twice what it is now.

The Simpsons is a good comparison.  In 2002 it was getting 10 million viewers a week more than it does now.  Yet it makes massive money still, the actors are all paid 3 times as much as they were in 2002 etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
2 hours ago, King Pitcos said:

If we’re counting John Cena as part of the current scene, he’s way more famous than Bret, Shawn and Diesel ever were in their WWF heydays. Brock Lesnar is as well. And probably Rey Mysterio, Roman Reigns, the Bellas and a good few others.

Bloody hell, you think?! Cena I can see an argument for, due to films etc, but I can't imagine any of the others being more popular than Bret and probably Shawn in the mid to late 90's. Bret Hart was one of the most popular wrestlers in 1992 which was the company's heyday in the UK, and Shawn Michaels was part of the early and very late attitude era.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Paid Members
2 hours ago, Gay as FOOK said:

Do you think wrestling fandom is lower now than what it was in 1995? 

Your right, so much of this is individual perception, but in light of the topic title I'm genuinely curious as to what you make of it. I'd say my general take on it covers more ground than "The Sun doing an article doesn't translate to a new fan", but whatever! 

Personally I do, but in fairness the question I asked is so vague that it's open to interpretation.

The WWF was on its arse in 1995 which is always used as the low watermark, so on a business level it was terrible.

But 1995 was so closely removed to the end of the 1980's/90's boom period that it wouldn't have taken that much to suck that audience back in (as transpired in 1997-98 which was essentially a large part of the audience becoming teenagers).

WCW was just a few months removed of its largest ever buyrate (at that time) and launched Nitro during the course of the year. Combined between the two companies the viewership wasn't too bad at all.

But in fairness, if you count the 80,000 they get for massive stadiums for Wrestlemania as being a regular fanbase, then no.

(I'm not going to count the 100,000+ gates two nights in a row in Korea ;) )

Edited by garynysmon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, garynysmon said:

Bloody hell, you think?! Cena I can see an argument for, due to films etc, but I can't imagine any of the others being more popular than Bret and probably Shawn in the mid to late 90's. Bret Hart was one of the most popular wrestlers in 1992 which was the company's heyday in the UK, and Shawn Michaels was part of the early and very late attitude era.

Bret was a no-mark in comparison to Hogan and Warrior, and if 1992 England had been that big a success for the WWF, we’d have had another SummerSlam over here. The WWF was on its arse for another five or so years still after that. America wasn’t doing big bucks for them, would’ve been the perfect time to do big shows over here. And yet they never bothered again.

Michaels has the advantage of being around for years later and got a lot more eyes on him, but in terms of his mid-nineties big babyface run, no fucker was watching it. Nobody was torrenting or streaming it or watching YouTube highlights of it. Nobody was sharing memes or GIFs of it. You either made the effort to watch it, or you could tape it, or you didn’t see it. And nobody (other than hardcore wrestling fans) was up for making that effort.

Now, you can just go and YouTube it at your leisure. It’s way easier to be a casual “fan” and follow it without watching it on TV. And even if you’ve no interest in watching it, you still might see enough GIFs and shite that you know some of the characters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, garynysmon said:

The WWF was on its arse in 1995 which is always used as the low watermark

That's why I'm arguing for it being the low watermark here, in response to the frankly not that vague at all topic question. We're also patently not talking global here, by the way. Objectively the WWE and wrestling as a whole is more popular globally now than what it was then, whatever about the North American/UK pepperidge farm remembers rose tints. 

The WWF as a brand was dead on its arse at the time. There's really no comparison I think. Even the video games are huge releases every year now, still, and they're directly tied to the product. It's sure as hell not because the 2K games are on a hot streak, critically. It's because of the WWE brand. 

I feel like we have these discussions every few weeks, though. 

Edited by Gay as FOOK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...