Does WWE purposely change with it's fans?

[Kingofthedeathmatch]

I was wondering if anyone else noticed the almost perfect transitions the WWE has been making over the past 25 years from what they feature in their storylines to co-operate with the age and interests of their fans from the late 80s?

1988-1994: 5-7yr old kids fell in love with the hero vs. villain storylines popular during this time and Hulk Hogan was the biggest hero of them all. During these 6 years not much changed and Hogan continued to dominate the main event while the 5-7yr olds turned to 10-12yr olds.

1994-1996: Hogan left and the WWE had already lost most of its steam from the wrestling boom in the 80s. The kids became teenagers and started to realize that everything was "fake". This forced the WWE to start producing more realistic main event storylines with younger talent like Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, and The Undertaker after the older talent started going to WCW.

1996-2002: This is when WWE really started to grow up as the kids who started watching in the late 80s were now 15-17 by the end of '96. They started to feature characters that those fans could appreciate and relate to. By the time the Attitude Era started the fans were in their late teens and enjoyed watching the immature characters like DX and the rebellion from Steve Austin. The stories pretty much stayed the same and the fans kept watching as they entered their early 20s.

2002-2008: After the Attitude Era ended and the fans began to mature, so did the storylines and the wrestlers. Around this time they were 22-28. The product didnt change much except for the introduction of new stars and most of the stars from the previous era leaving.

2008-Present: Now those 80s kids are full-fledged adults in their early 30s who have families of their own and the WWE has started over with the PG Era, once again targeting kids. Now those fans who started watching as children during the wrestling boom can sit down and watch RAW with their kids and WWE still incorporates things into their programming for the parents to enjoy .

I know there were alot of other factors for the changing styles of storyline content but do you think that the cycle is going to continue after the kids watching now start to grow up?

 

[AllanC]

you seem to have a point there, history repeats itself, thanks...now i have a different view on this PG situation now. I never thought about it like this before, and yeah the process should keep going when they start to grow up, and if you are correct, in the next ten years we should have our attitude era back lol

 

[The Crock]

Yeah you're definitely on to something. The way you laid it out makes it pretty clear. I also think that there are a few other factors such as, staleness (after a while the storylines all get the same so you have to make a change), and Linda McMahon is running for Senate so they want to make her look good. The way I see it, it is a cycle and eventually the WWE won't be PG, but there will never be another "Attitude Era", but the rating may very well go up to TV-14.

 

[The Vintage One]

I definitely see what you are talking about, but due to extenuating circumstances like Linda running for Senate is the reason we are in PG instead of TV 14. When this campaing blows over, and possibly in a couple of years I see them raising it up to TV 14.

 

[Bobby B]

It makes a lot of sense in many ways:

- Very cyclic, going with the times. It makes sense that you aim the stories at the bulk of your audience. And right now, the levels of teens watching the show is very low. You've got adults who watch the show, and kids - so risque storylines won't help attract your younger audience, and in turn, you might turn of adults who don't want to see such storylines either. Give it 5-10 years, and they may go back towards a more attitude style of programming.

- Attitude all the time doesn't feel special - I know people say they miss it - and I do too to an extent (the small part I remember of it), but going through the PG lull they are in now will make any move back towards more pushy storylines feel more special because we aren't seeing them all time.

NB: We'll never truely hit attitude again - blading and full on head shots have rightly been banned.

 

[The People's Peep]

Of course.

Its clever marketing. You target a group of people that you want to reach with your product. Once you find that market you want to reach, you try and get them to watch your product. Once they do, you try and keep that market while expanding to other markets and demographics.

The WWE has done a great job of this. They managed, on a few occasions, to get one group, market, or age demographic to stick with their product as they grow up. But once that market is grown and moved on to other products, they need to target another audience and thats just what the WWE does. Its a cycle that will repeat as long as the company exists.

 

[PhD]

To play devil's advocate, I think you are taking a really over-simplified view of the relationship between a television program, its audience, and culture at large.

For example, how can you talk about the PG era without talking about the rise of MMA, which can present the kind of realistic and brutal violence wrestling can't even touch? What about the debates over family values that were taking place during the 1990s, and the feedback loop between censorship establishments (e.g. the Parent's Television Council, which was founded in 1995 and went after Smackdown hard in 1999) and the Attitude Era politics of outrage practiced by the WWF?

Your account it appealing, because it offers a kind of evolutionary model of the product, in which content mirrors the development of the audience. Cultural institutions aren't like animals or people, so applying biological models to them is a dicey proposition. I think you have asked an interesting question, but you really need to consider wrestling as only a part of a larger equation of modes of entertainment and forms of cultural expression to understand how the product has changed over the last 30 years.

 

[Marks "R" Us]

My problem with this particular theory is that these changes weren't really anticipated and made to cater to the fans so much as the fans changed and demanded equal change. And it was usuallly a slow painful process to achieve it.

94 - 96: Michaels and Hart weren't pushed simply cause they were more realistic, they were pushed cause they obviously weren't on steriods at a time when WWF was getting trashed for them. Diesel was pushed as the second coming of Hogan cause thats what Vince still thought would work. And lets us rememeber this is the time frame that brought us Abe "Knuckleball" Schwartz, Duke "The Dumpster" Drose, lots of midget clowns, and dueling Undertakers. Not exactly the hight of realism.

96 - 02: The movement towards racier programing was initially resisted by WWF higher ups (Shawn Michaels was fined for his first DX like promo in his boxers) But once the ratings showed its popularity suddnenly we "deserved programming that didnt insult our intelligence".

02 - 08 Again clinging on to what worked before till veiwership sank forcing change. Katie Vick, the Gay Wedding, Al Wilson, all attempts to show there was still Attitude. Finally with no better ideas apparently they decided to start pushing actually good wrestlers for a period (Benoit, Lesnar, Guerrero, Michaels, HHH) Then came John Cena.

08 - present: I actually dont believe this current PG run has to do with anything but Lindas senate run and its a shame cause if she wasn't running the Nexus angle would be even better and Danielson would still have a job.

 

[Kingofthedeathmatch]

I know there were alot of other factors for the changing styles of storyline content but do you think that the cycle is going to continue after the kids watching now start to grow up?

I am well aware of all of the other things that caused the change in the nature of the storylines. I was just asking do you think that Vince McMahon has noticed how well it worked out for them in the long run that they changed with their targeted demographic instead of staying the same and do you think he will try the cycle again?

 

[bioshock]

You make good and valid points, and that might be how WWE does it all. But you do know there were many adult fans from the 80s, if not more so then the kids, now all those older adults that were I'm guessing fans of Andre when he was a face, and Hogan, Backlund, Bruno ect.. All gave up by the later part of the 90s.

Just saying though you did point out the major demographic, but there has always been that older adult crowd, like the ones who were the marks back then, when we were all kids.

And I do fit right into the demographic you stated, I began watching maybe in 86/87. By 1990 I was 7 years old, so by the attitude era I fit right in with it all, and all does make sense. I am now starting to like the PG era now though, now that we have some real good storylines FINALLY. Past 2 years have been lousy though.

Makes you wonder how long before we get the 2nd attitude era, and how much further to the limit will they take it.

 

[ToniiFraggle]

I certainly dont agree with this theory, it sort of makes sense up to the 2002-2008 part . The fans didnt grow out of the attitude era stuff, the wwe just lost their way with it and forgot how to make it edgey and exciting, thats when the craze began to die down and they started producing less risque stuff to keep the sponsers happy, the story lines were far far FAR from being more mature than they were during the attitude era in fact most of the stuff from that era was insulting to the intelligence of most of the people who were followers of the attitude era. I cant understand where the idea that it was more suited to young adults than what went on during the attitude era came from. At this time they were neither one thing or the other, the tv wasnt deemed suitable for small kids, but it wasnt intelligent or edgey enough for the mature audience. Thats why this pg era has started they realised they needed to pick a side and decided to go with the wholesome pg entertainment side for reasons we all know.

 

[PerfectAngle45]

I think you are looking 2 much into this. WWE changed it 2 PG for many reasons. The percentage of women and children watching WWE skyrocketed to about 45%. In 1997 women and children may have been 10% of the audience. Another reason is because the produce is then more marketable 2 bigger and better sponsors. A bigtime company is not going to want to sponsor a product that has bra and panties matches (as much as we enjoy it) but that is the reality. 3rd reason is that the company is trying to be like the NFL where a WWE Raw can be a family event where the whole family watches the show. Which equals more money. 4th and final reason is because Linda McMahon is running for a senate seat, obviously. Will WWE change back to TV14 in the near future, no, i think PG is for the long haul.

 

[Jackal960]

Thats a different but realistic way of looking at things. But obviously there had been some other factors where WWE had to change itself. I think every year they were thinking of how they can market the product better and they may have realize of their mistakes, looked at where their fan base were heading to and did the adjustments. What i think might have happened is although they might have had long term marketing strategies like you pointed out, the timing of changing the product was mainly because of external factors (ie Hogan leaving WWF, Success of NWO, Sale of WCW and becoming a monopoly, TNA bringing new stars etc) So yes, what you realized might have been the big picture of the direction of the company, but the timings for those changes were external factors.

 

[BernacK6]

Notice this:

1984-1995 the WWF was the biggest thing in nationwide professional wrestling. WCW was not yet on an equal playing field to compete. Thus, WWF ran kid-friendly, Hero dominated programming with safe stories.

1996-2001 the WWF is now competing with WCW head to head for TV Ratings and the Attitude Era happens. Strongly worded, adult themed content dominated because 2 companies with equal resources were competing for the audience. Each show had to one up the other weekly, so the envelope was pushed until WCW imploded and destroyed themselves trying to keep up with an eventually superior WWF product.

2002-present the now WWE has bought out WCW, the brand seperation occurs because WWE owns the Televised Pro Wrestling Market and can occupy two 2-hour shows weekly, and WWE can get back to the business of Pro Wrestling (along with becoming an entertainment juggernaut). In order to succeed in business after dominating and owning its competition, you have to expand abroad and appeal to a new generation of fans. Thus, with the 28-35 Male demographic locked up as lifers by this point, the focus returned to the 8-13 Male and All Female demographic. This led to safer programming that was less objectionable. TNA attempted to compete head to head, but was crushed because smart wrestling fans do not need the mature content any longer. TNA is unable to compete because WWE fans no longer have that teenage bloodlust and the need to see old timers fight!!!

WWE evolves based on what it is competing with. It also works with the original theory, but this is the logistical approach.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

When I was a main site columnist I wrote on this a couple of times, the article is still there in name but nothing shows up when you click on it... I referred to this as the 10 year cycle... It is something that holds true in all forms of entertainment, at certain points of a decade tastes will change... Drastic changes will normally occur at the start of a decade, in 2001 it was the WCW Buy out... in 1991 it was Turner buying WCW, 1981 it was the AWA and WWE war... and today, its the return of PG...

Towards the 7-8 year, wrestling generally hits a peak of creativity and controversy, successful events and characters and controversial events such as the Sheik and Duggan being caugt together, the screwjob and in 2007 the Benoit tragedy...

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

Yes, of course, its the cycle and its spinning as we speak, right now the PG era with Cena etc. then we have the era where these kids right now are going to be growing up, seeing guys like Sheamus, Miz, Dolph etc. being pushed to the main event scene like we saw Bret, Shawn and Diesel, then we're going to see the attidude era reborn when the kids start going into puberty...and then they will keep it..

Unfortunately the cycle then tells us we will get the PG era again..but its the way VKM markets, clever man!! ain't he??

The only thing I have is, the attitude era started to bring viewers from WCW didn't it?? so it wasn't actually planned in the cycle was it? if say TNA starts becoming a threat, then WWE may bring the attitude era in, but then we have them rules, e.g. head shots, and we have the care for wrestlers and wellness policy, we didn't have much of this in the 90's, wrestling has changed a lot, especially since the death of a few wrestlers, that have WWE worrying about wrestlers healths...

Maybe if we're lucky, we can have another attitude era, according to the time line, its in 8 years time!!

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

The WWE does have to change with its audience, in order to remain relevant.

The early 90s PG era was fine, but when those kids grew up into teenagers/young adults, the company had to evolve in order to maintain popularity with that huge demographic. So we got the attitude era, a time of violent, edgy, exciting programming which was perfect for the fan base at the time Now those fans are even older, with children. The WWE product, had it remained the same would not have been suitable for family viewing, which led to young people not watching it, and their parents probably not watching as often, leading to declining viewing figures.

So what can Vince do about this? Its obvious

He will alter his product in order to appeal to the younger audience once again, while still offering some aspects of the show which will appeal to the older fan (Bret Hart return anyone? Nexus (nWo repeat). ) Things like blood and more edgy storylines have been scaled back and this allows the parents to enjoy the show and watch with their kids, who love the superman style John Cena and some of the more kid-friendly characters in the WWE.

But...

in a few years when those young kids have grown up, and are no longer interested in PG era WWE, in order to keep their support, I fully expect the company to evolve once again to a more violent style of programming to stay popular with the fan base, and we will have another "attitude" era.

Then the cycle will repeat again

 

[THTRobtaylor]

It's not as cut and dried as PG/Attitude...

It's more that innovation and breakthroughs of talent tend to take through early in a decade and around the 7-8 year point is where, usually through controversy or natuaral peaks the business purges, ready for its next cycle of talent... Think of 1997 and the amount of talent that purged from WWE from the Screwjob... come 2001/2002 there was a new influx of young talent, Cena, Batista, Lesnar, just like 10 years before had been Owen, Shawn, Tatanka etc..10 years before, Hennig, Martel, Zybysko, Hogan et al...

 

[Hurricane30]

This guy goes off on a crazy/funny rant about how much he hates the pg era of today..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9OmAzQubsY&feature=related

 

[Hawkeye]

It's a business,they have no choice but to change and evolve,or they would die out in seconds.Every now and then they have to step back and ask,"What can we do to resonate with our fan base? How can we show them we've evolved without changing too much into something they aren't familiar with?" I started watching wrestling when the frist episode of Smackdown aired and I've been hooked ever since.The attitude era will stay in my mind as a rebellious stage in WWE where they wanted to be on the forefront of edgy tv.I'm a big fan of the PG era,as it gives kids something positive to look up to.All the unnecessary blading got on my nerves,and along with the wellness policy,it's given our beloved superstars a safer work environment.But naturally,there will be a time for them to change the product once more,I just hope they don't go back to the blunt tawdriness of the attitude era.