Happy to see you too, Sid.
Touche.
I never said the children are more important.
You verbally did not come out and state this, but in what you are suggesting, yes apparently they are more important to you. Because if they were not more important to you, you would agree with the philosophy that something should be offered that appeals to older adults, as well.
I group a lot of fans of todays wrestling all in the same category ... because they share a lot of the same characteristics.
1) They think their opinions are far superior to everyone else's, such that today's wrestling is far superior to the Crash TV style of the Attitude Era and "Trash TV".
2) They complain about adult-based storylines, coarse language, etc. yet they were big fans of Stone Cold Steve Austin's character. Go figure.
3) They want Raw and Smackdown filled with first-rate long, lengthy matches going 15 to 20 minutes minimum ... yet can't understand why other people complain about PPV events when you see the same two competitors going at it in a match that took place on TV a few weeks prior.
Most recently, they can't understand why people are sick of seeing Cena vs Edge, when it has been done to death. I know these two can put on a good match. I'm not necessarily looking for a first rate match between two guys I have seen wrestle probably damn near close to 75 times already. I want new, fresh matches between superstars I haven't seen wrestle before.
4) Even though they feel their preferred style of wrestling is far superior and turn their noses up to those that like Crash TV or some Springer-like moments in storylines ... they have absolutely zero statistical data that backs up their opinions on a majority scale. Neither TV ratings, PPV buyrates, or arena attendance supports today's state of wrestling being superior to that of the WWE of the Attitude Era.
So when push comes to shove and data gets brought up that doesn't support their arguments, they choose to disregard the data and continue to stick to their opinions ... as if their opinions are somehow greater proof of the state of the business as opposed to actual concrete data.
5) They also can not understand that there are fans that watch wrestling for the total, entertainment product. I am not like a Japanese fan that dissects and picks apart matches, as evidenced by most of my posts. I actually am an educated fan of wrestling, that looks at wrestling from a Casual fan's perspective into what I think they find enjoyable, as opposed to necessarily smarks.
Therefore, my criticism is more on a broader scale with the entire product, as opposed to focusing on the quality of wrestling, which is miniscule in the big scheme of things. The quality of today's actual wrestling is far superior to that of the Hogan and Attitude Eras. No question about it. But that doesn't mean that today's total, overall product is a better product compared to both of those time frames.
They're both important and compromise will create a product that appeals across demographics.
Not to say that compromising is a bad thing, but it is all in the way you actually do it.
Your way of "compromising" is to sit fans of all ages down and say "look. I have one product that I am putting out, and I EXPECT all of you to like it regardless. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Little 6 year old Johnny, I expect you to enjoy Randy Orton making out with a knocked-out Stephanie McMahon on camera. Likewise, Mr. Bill, I expect you to find Hornswoggle dancing around with little children in the ring entertaining."
It is an unrealistic expectation in this day and age. And that is why the company isn't as successful as it could be, in my view.
You mention compromise. I am also compromising. However, my way of compromising involves making all of my major audiences happy by offering them products that appeal to each of them.
1 product for older teens and adults
1 product for all age brackets
1 niche product geared towards hardcore fans of wrestling
Yes, Disney appeals to many demos, with Wall-E, that rat film, Toy Story (1 & 2), The Incredibles, and so on having a great adult audience while also pleasing children. Not every adult needs shock TV. Some just need smart TV. That's not to say Disney doesn't invest, indirectly, in other adult products, but they don't pander to the violence and sex nuts under the Disney banner.
Are you going to tell me with a straight face that Disney tries to "target adults"?
There is a difference in your total audience, as well as your Target Audience. Disney is unquestionably geared and specifically targeted to children. However, they insert some material that is bound to attempt to please adults who happen to take their kids to the shows. A couple moments here and there to get the adults to snicker, as well.
Also, are you classifying the fans of the Attitude Era as "violence and sex nuts"? If that is the case, then I suppose there are a hell of a lot of "violence and sex nuts" out there, since that was the most popular period of all time in the history of WWE television. Again, nothing to turn your nose up at.
I think there is a difference between those who like their television filled with some violence and sexual situations, and those that are actually violence/sex addicts in real life. Maybe that's just me, though.
Some of us have the capability to understand that what is on our TV screens is just a TV show and entertainment. Others, still can not distinguish between wrestling and the real world.
Of course that doesn't rule out that there are a few outliers who just enjoy being difficult. But I can't imagine anyone wanting to pander to them. It's the same with every product I'm sure. Some All My Children fans probably find Ryan as annoying as they come, but you can't change the product for a few outliers who will never be pleased when you have unemployed fat chicks tuning in every day to swoon over Ryan's huckiness.
You do realize that WWE has lost half of its audience since the Attitude Era, I assume? Ratings went from its peak in the mid 6's to an average rating in the low 3's, with it even dipping below the 3's and into the 2's when Cena was gone. So with that being said, I don't know who you think you are calling that group that vanished the "outliers". That is actually a SIGNIFICANT chunk of your total audience you just lost. What Network Executive is going to be thrilled to announce that he "isn't worried about the outliers he lost over the years, which happened to be half of his audience"?
We can't always get what we want.
Actually, we can. It all depends on how selfish a fan you want to be. I have enough respect for fans like you that I can acknowledge that you are one large portion of the audience. And therefore, that is why I think you deserve a product suited for you and for families.
However, what ticks me off is your complete disregard and lack of respect for fans like me, who comprised the other half of that audience, who do like the edgier content mixed with wrestling. Content that is more geared towards the 18-34 year old male, many of which are single, don't have kids, but spend money just the same and come to the shows with their friends who like the same kind of content.
That is why I say that you guys are very arrogant and pompous in you are not willing to acknowledge anyone else in the wrestling audience other than those who share your same viewpoints. In reality, you are only a portion of the total potential wrestling audience.
Why don't we leave it to the Mods to decide that one? This is nothing more than a routine trick of making false allegations to get the Mods to take notice in an attempt to sway their opinion, by making the allegation. Do your job and let them do theirs.
Not all adults are closed minded enough to demand blood and guts in every show they watch. If I want Dexter and NYPD Blue, I know how to pop in that disc.
And you wonder why I call people like you "arrogant"? It's because you turn your nose up at those that find different programming content appealing than you do.
To be frank, I never found the blood and guts all that appealing in the old ECW. I was a fan of a few aspects of the old ECW, but as a whole, I didn't personally find it very appealing.
But yes, I do like violence in my wrestling. Yes, I do like a little sexuality from the Divas in my wrestling. Yes, I do like cursing in my wrestling. Yes, I do like controversial subjects/storylines in my wrestling. What I am proposing is nothing new and nothing WWE hasn't done before. As a matter of fact, what I find appealing is clearly what the majority of fans also found appealing, as well ... as supported by ratings, buyrates, and sold out arenas for even House Shows.
Furthermore, what makes you think your money is more valuable than that of the parents who spend money spoiling their children with Cena gear, Rey masks, and Hornswoggle hats?
The fact is that your money is the same as theirs.
So you are admitting that my money is the same as theirs, but what you are telling me is that you don't want my money by offering me a product that is targeted specifically to me. Rather, you are only offering a watered down target that you are "attempting" (key word- "attempting") to target to everyone.
And like has been addressed, if setting "everyone" as your "target audience" was such a brilliant strategy, don't you think more tv programs and movies today would do just that? There is a reason why they don't. Because they know that it is unrealistic to expect a child to have the exact same tastes as a grownup.
You can try telling them that they should all you want, but it just isn't realistic in this day and age. With the advent of the Internet, the population today is more picky and choosie as a whole, as it has ever been.
The advantage the wrestling industry as a whole had years ago, was that those choices were available to all the consumers. Now, there is only one product in town produced by one company. The answer should be obvious to anyone with a brain why today's wrestling isn't as popular. It's because there are no more choices to pick from. So over time, half of the audience gave up and left. This should be considered a monumental failure on the part of WWE and it's loyalist fans, as they severely dropped the ball in this regard.
Don't act like PG-WWE has changed the product any, either. We saw a man DDT a woman and then kiss her prone, lifeless body. I don't remember seeing that on Scooby Doo...
Last time I checked, Scooby Doo is Rated G.
Besides that and using your example of "a man DDT'ing Stephanie McMahon and then kissing her", while implying this is supposedly "not PG programming", this again points to the ignorance of many of today's fans with either trying to attempt to distort what the rating is to try and claim that what we are seeing today is actually NOT PG television, but rather PG-13 television with a PG rating attached to it (interpreted as WWE being "cool" in trying to push the envelope) .... OR fans being truly ignorant as to what constitutes certain ratings.
Every thing you see on WWE television since the PG rating has been PG television. One can not successfully dispute that fact.
Here is the definition (as I posted in another thread) ...
Parental Guidance Suggested
This program contains material that parents may find unsuitable for younger children. Many parents may want to watch it with their younger children. The theme itself may call for parental guidance and/or the program may contain one or more of the following: some suggestive dialogue (D), infrequent coarse language (L), some sexual situations (S), or moderate violence (V).
So again, as far as your example ...
Don't act like PG-WWE has changed the product any, either. We saw a man DDT a woman and then kiss her prone, lifeless body. I don't remember seeing that on Scooby Doo...
What that is, is PG television with "Moderate Violence" and perhaps "some sexual situations". Are you going to dispute that and the definition of the rating, or are you going to keep further digging yourself in a hole by claiming that this segment was PG-13 television? Maybe it was "R Rated television" according to some people's definitions in their heads. However, clearly that fits the actual definition of PG Rated programming according to the TV Ratings Board.
The problem is that when parents see shit going down on Raw (breast fondling, for example..), they won't let their children watch ANY wrestling. Parents are like that.
Well, I would first like to see what statistics you have that points to this claim. The fact of the matter is that "kids" watched WWE right along with parents all throughout the Attitude Era, and ratings were absolutely magnificent, and it stayed that way for an extremely long time ... until Rock and Austin left, unfortunately.
Then, ECW went out of business. Then, Vince bought WCW, which was a serious blow to the entire wrestling industry, and hence why we are responsible for having the stale, awful, uncreative (in my opinion) product we have today.
As far as your Parental Concerns, let me re-iterate again, here is yet another example of despite your claims to the contrary, you are still putting the kids first before the adults, who actually are the ones paying to order the shows and attend the events.
Let me try to break this down even further, since you are so concerned about the kids.
This information on who exactly is watching WWE television is taken directly from a WWE.com corporate ad website.
http://adsales.wwe.com/research/
U.S. Audience Profile:
Demographics
* 86% are male
* Mean Age = 24 yrs old
* 36% are ages 12-17
* 58% are ages 18-49
* 40% are males 18-34
* 39% are non-white
* 62% of males 18-34 are full time employed
* 41% are student
* 78% have high speed connections
So, the Mean Age is 24 years old. 58% of the market are aged 18-49, with 40% being aged 18-34 ... yet you want to cater to the minority?
What this is by trying to emphasize the "kids", is nothing more than a cop-out attempt that many defenders of today's wrestling try to use ... with their true intention being that they in reality like the product themselves better now, so therefore try to make that up as an excuse on why kids should supposedly be catered to. And I know that is what is really going on, more so than people actually being "concerned for the kids".
However, like I have stated numerous times, WWE absolutely should not turn their backs to the kids, as that would be a horrendous move. Kids do makeup some 36% of the Audience, and they are the fans of tomorrow. But at the same time, they are not the Majority of the Fan Base, who WWE should have an obligation to catering to, as the 18-49 year old male makes up well over 20% more of the fanbase than the kids.
So what I am saying is that instead of unrealistically attempting to tell a 49 year old that he should be liking programming content that is suited for a 12 year old, that each of these groups should have programming that targets their interests. That is EXACTLY what we had with WWE, WCW, and ECW ... when business was the strongest, and that is the correct approach for today. With the only difference being that all the brands would be under the WWE umbrella, with Vince reaping ALL the profits from his different products.
That way:
The sizable number of adults who want the edgy programming content including the sexual situations, greater degree of violence, and complex/controversial storylines are happy with a TV-14 product.
The kids are happy with a PG rated product.
The adults who don't like the edgy programming content, are happy with the PG rated product.
The diehard fans of wrestling are happy with a niche product featuring either hardcore wrestling, cruiserweight wrestling ... or a show that features both.
Adults with children can watch the PG rated show (Smackdown) with their kids, while watching Raw on Mondays, after the kids go to bed.
The bottom line is that there is still going to be a ton of cross-programming watching going on. I am willing to wager that the adults would watch both shows, and the older teens would also watch both shows. But the kids would watch Smackdown, as is the job of the parent to enforce ... and which would be communicated to them through WWE PR and Marketing, making it very clear that Smackdown is the show for the kids to watch, as it is cleaner and better-suited for their age bracket.
For all intents and purposes, the shows would truly be treated as separate Brands under the WWE umbrella, and absolutely NO superstars would be appearing on each of the weekly shows like today, EXCEPT when there is a Draft and they actually change brands.
They wouldn't research the topic further. They wouldn't know of the reputation of SmackDown. All they'd think is, "Wow, wrestling sure is trashy." Some PR teams can't counter an impression as strong as some shock TV aims to make.
Again, here you go putting the kids before the adults. Why don't you just come out and say what's really on your mind? Kids are more important to you than adults are, despite the fact that adults are clearly the much larger demo. Or, that you simply prefer today's wrestling over Attitude Era programming, and are simply trying to beat this argument into the ground by using this "Kids" argument as a crutch?
It doesn't hold water.
It is not the WWE's job to parent the kids. It is the parent's job to parent the kids and teach them what is and what is not appropriate. This statement came out of the mouth of none other than Vince McMahon himself several years ago.
The fact of the matter is that from a PR perspective, WWE is covered, unlike before several years ago. Before, they offered one product, and tried to tell parents that it was okay for kids to attend house shows, but that Raw was more geared for adults. That idea was ineffective because WWE truly only offered one product back then. Where as today, they have the ability to offer multiple products, by actually treating their shows as real, separate brands, all under the World Wrestling Entertainment umbrella.
The fact is that WWE would actually offering a show for suitable for kids this time. But at the same time, they are appealing to their majority demo on a different show.
Expect adults to act like adults and not be mindlessly bloodthirsty?
Some things don't need to be adult themed for the sake of it.
Adults don't like to be told what they should and what they should not be liking. That is not your decision to make. Adults like adult things, while kids like things that appeal to them. You can not expect 49 year olds to have the same interests at 12 year olds. It is simply unrealistic.
Again, this goes back to why we have a variety of television programs that air every single day on TV networks, that each target a variety of target markets. Some target children. Some target teens. Some target adults. Some target seniors. Some target men. Some target women.
You see very few things on TV that actually "target Everyone". It's because TV Network Execs (and advertisers) know that it is impossible to effectively do so. You mentioned Disney, but let's face it ... Disney targets kids. Adults watch some of their films, but Disney's Target Market is Kids. So, with that in mind, can you list any other programs that targets "Everyone", like WWE is attempting to do?
Because you're watching too. The attitude era is gone, those fans aren't coming back.
I watch out of being a wrestling loyalist (not a WWE or a Vince loyalist) ... but there is a key difference between me now and me back in 2007 and earlier. I have not purchased a single PPV since the middle of 2007. I have also not attended a WWE event since Survivor Series of 2007 in Philly. It's because I don't enjoy the product as much anymore to actually be motivated to attend the shows anymore. I am not as enthusiastic about the product, as I once was.
I used to attend shows at great frequency, traveling from Maryland to Philly, to Madison Square Garden ... even flying to LA, Texas, and even Canada for several Wrestlemanias. Not anymore.
As far as my viewing patterns ... I used to watch every minute of Raw and Smackdown. Now, I basically have the shows on in the background, and if I miss them, then I miss them.
I don't watch Superstars. I don't watch ECW.
I even took a break from watching Raw altogether for 4 or 5 months last year, when Adamle was GM, as I was incredibly disgusted with their programming.
So no, I am not nearly as loyal a viewer as I once was, and nor is WWE making a single dime off of me in this day and age. So to claim that I am still doing all the same things I did before the content became less appealing to me is simply false.
Fans are finally being resensitized, the damage of that era is being undone, and the leftover attitude era fans are now the minority but are still watching... and complaining... and buying shows.
I'd like to see what data you have that supports that argument.
Again, this statement also shows your own personal bias towards Attitude Era programming content, as well as its fans. You say the "damage done during that Era"? Unbelievable. Last time I checked, WWE revenues were higher, attendance was higher, buyrates were higher, and ratings were higher all during the Attitude Era compared to today.
The only thing WWE does better today is a better job at cutting costs and reducing expenses, so they are more profitable. Things they could have done back then, as well ... and if they had, their profits would have been even more impressive.
But they spent more money on House Shows back then through bringing lights and pyro to all the shows and also were not charging the price for tickets and PPV's that they do today ... which makes all the difference in the world as far as profitability is concerned. The fact of the matter is that WWE was more popular back then, then it is today, as they had the larger audience back then. That can not be disputed, no matter how much you may want to wish otherwise. You can dispute opinions, but you can not dispute facts.
As far as your claims that they are still complaining and buying shows, again I'd like to see some data on that, because I for one, am not. I complain, because I am passionate about the wrestling business as a whole, and if I wasn't, you wouldn't see me writing to the lengths I do on the Forums ... but make no mistake about it, I am not passionate about the current WWE product, and nor am I spending a single dime on it.
Yet you feel the need to alienate the people on my side of the debate by giving us one show a week while your minority gets special treatment. Insulting.
You want to talk about alienating people, that is exactly what WWE and your kind did to the Attitude Era crowd. They absolutely alienated those fans who spent their hard-earned money on that company by essentially telling them "we used to offer you a product you enjoyed, but now that there is no competition around, we don't give a flying fuck about what you like. From now on, we are targeting the kids and are only offering one product. You can either like it or you can go Fuck yourselves."
That is exactly what has transpired and it is an absolutely piss poor mentality to take.
You claim that you are upset that under my proposal, that you would "only get one show per week that you would enjoy". So with that I ask you, who is really being the selfish one?
I also greatly contest your claim that your side is the majority of the total potential wrestling audience. Keeping in mind that WWE programming was pulling in 6.5's during the Attitude Era, to pulling in 3.3's on Average, Vince has essentially lost half of his audience. So your claim that "those with your mentality is the majority" I also find to be misleading and insulting.
Personally, I think both sides are about equal. I honestly don't know which side is greater than the other. All I know is that there was a greater total fanbase of wrestling fans back in the Attitude Era AND when WCW and ECW was still around, as compared to the number of fans who watch wrestling today. Even when Rock and Austin left, WWE was still regularly pulling in above 4.0's on a weekly basis, attendance at House Shows was still higher on average, and PPV buyrates were still higher than today.
All the statistical evidence shows that today's WWE programming, despite the fact that it may appeal to your kind, is NOT as popular with as many fans as it was back when it featured an edgier programming content. You may not like that, but again, all actual physical data points to the contrary of what you like.
The difference between people like you and I, is that where as you are biased against Attitude Era programming, and don't wish to acknowledge its enormous popularity, or its fanbase ... and whereas I am biased in favor of Attitude Era programming while not liking today's WWE nearly as much ... at least I am willing to acknowledge fans like you as sizable in numbers. However, you aren't willing to show the same degree of respect for fans of that programming, despite the fact that they are equally sizable in numbers. That I think is extremely disrespectful.
All because one show isn't enough for you. One show per week that I am actually excited about (Raw) would hold me over. I would also watch the ECW niche product featuring either Hardcore or Cruiserweight wrestling. And I would watch Smackdown somewhere between occasionally to regularly.
Because 24 isn't thought of in the same sentence as something lighter like Chuck. However, with wrestling little distinction is made between the brands. Wrestling is wrestling and that's all there is too it.
If wrestling is just wrestling and the programming content (given the day and age we live in) doesn't matter, then you may want to ask yourself why WWE is having so much difficulty in creating the next Hulk Hogan or the next Steve Austin ... while desperately trying to get Cena on the level of either of those two. It's because their Marquee character does not appeal to enough people. And it's because his character is restricted by the rating in what he can and can not do.
Wrestling may have just been wrestling back in the Hogan Era. But from the Attitude Era, when we have programming choices, on to this day and age, wrestling is not "just wrestling". And that is precisely the reason those like you, as well as Vince, can not understand why not as many people are attending the shows, buying the PPV's, and watching the weekly shows as when wrestling had an edgier WWE, when WCW was around, and when ECW was in existence.
The fact that WWE does not have a Hogan, an Austin, or a Rock, and nor do they even have the capability to make one in this day and age because of the content restrictions on the character, basically says it all about the current strategy.
I'd respond to the rest, but I skimmed and it looked like a bunch of repeating old points and telling me how arrogant I am. So... yeah.
I can respect your likes as a fan and acknowledge the number of fans in your group, but you can not respect my interests or the number of fans that enjoyed the programming I enjoyed. I think that says it all about who is arrogant and who is actually willing to put his personal viewing preferences aside to do what is best for business.
) and you actually looked forward to each show, but nowadays its just constantly rammed down our throats, with a dozen catch up shows and more PPV's than i can handle! God i miss those days!!! 
