Can A Good Storyline Draw More Than A Big Name?

[Hard Hit Prince]

For years wrestling fans have been taught about the concept of "drawing power", specially when it comes to the most popular wrestlers in a company. Simply put - it's the one that puts «asses in the seats», as many legends have said. To name a few big household names - Bruno Sammartino, Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, The Ultimate Warrior, Steve Austin, The Rock and currently John Cena.

And to give evidence to how important those names are, most of the time, the company offers a complete refund to the families if said wrestlers isn't on the show. In fact we've been following a trend where WWE is actually using "name value" to sell most of their events. WrestleMania 31 followed Sting's WWE debut, and alongside that part-time (special attractions) Brock Lesnar and The Undertaker were in "main event" (really basic) storylines. Somehow WrestleMania 32 was the most profitable event in the history of the company, and that is saying a lot.

When you look at other industries (less entertainment, more sport), you don't really need a story to sell a big boxing fight or a big football game. Specially when it comes to good names fighting it out. In fact, I don't even remember watching a video package highlighting Ronda Rousey's journey to a fight, mostly because I just want to see her kick ass. She's the sole reason for me to watch UFC, her presence and her brand and I recognize that.

But what about WWE? WWE isn't a sporting event. In the big picture, WWE is purely entertainment. It's storylines, it's characters, it's drama, comedy, etc. And, I for once love the big ol' rivalry - something like a CM Punk vs. John Cena. It wasn't for the names fighting and the rivalry in itself wasn't a big "money" project (for that time period), but the whole story based in real-life drama really drew me and I was hooked for that time period (I bought MITB and SummerSlam PPV and I've never bought any before it). Always wondering when CM Punk would show up, how he would show up, checking his Twitter and really emerging in the story they were telling.

When I think about Sting vs. The Undertaker, I think we all know that the image of seeing this two icons wrestling is more than enough to say "heck, I'll buy it", but is it a better reason than a good story arc between two less known names?

You be the judge. Quality over Star Power or the other way around?

 

[Heartbreak_Kid_707]

I think absolutely!!!!
Stories give something to draw fans in. Like a book, or movie...you have to turn the page to find out www what happens next. That's wwwwhat storyline do..

I'm not familiar with FCW and not much with ROH. They tell their stories a lot!!!

 

[Navi]

Really it's the wrestler themselves that make the story happen. You can take the best story line in the world, but put the wrong person in place and it will fizzle. Whereas you can have the worst story line, put the right person in there and they can make it work.

Look at Cena. The US title was really nothing to write home about. He won it at Mania and all of a sudden his US Open Challenge was one of the best things on RAW. Now Del Rio is holding it, watch it go back to nothing to write home about.

Another example is New Day. They sucked when they first appeared, but now they are one of the best things the WWE can put out there. All they needed was a little heat, a trombone and a big mouth in Xavier Woods. Last week when just Kofi and Big E where there, it's wasn't half as much fun, Woods makes that team rock.

Of course when the story line and the wrestler fit together you have gold, like the Rollins/Ambrose feud of last year. Problem is that doesn't happen much anymore. When the head guy, McMahon, is as out of touch as he is well you see what we end up with.

 

[MartialHorror]

Both, really.

Look at the NWO. Hogan was somewhat of a flop (or at least a disappointment) during his early reign in WCW, Nash had a rep for being the worst drawing champion ever for the WWF and Scott Hall was mostly a midcarder. Yet it was the perfect angle involving the right people and it helped make WCW successful.

But yeah, if Eddie, Saturn and Raven formed the NWO, it wouldn't have worked. Even the implied invasion of the WWF wouldn't floundered if they took irrelevant performers. Can you imagine that instead of Hall and Nash, it was Repo Man and Virgil?

 

[That N Word]

I should say so. I mean take this past Monday's Raw for example. Neither Cena ,Taker,Rock,Lesnar,Orton appeared. The only legends that appeared in "wrestler capacity" was Kane and The Dudley's. The Raw rating went up because two great stories starting in "Roman's reign?!" And "Wyatt's takeover."

The rating has been down for weeks even with the likes of HBK,Austin,Brock,Taker,Flair all on one show we have been getting record lows. With the storylines that's going on now and about to start, I expect the ratings to rise even more over the span of the next few weeks.

 

[timothy26]

It's a bit harder to tell who draws these days as mostly the WWE brand itself is the draw, they will rarely not sell out a show, whereas back in the day of territories it was much more the name and star power of the main event which sold out the venue. Many fans will be watching on the network now or torrenting shows and PPV's so there won't be as many traditional PPV buys.

I think it's a combination of both. The Rock will draw regardless of what angle he is thrown into, guys like Lensar and Undertaker will always boost numbers. "Appearances" by old stars won't boost ratings or buys necessarily unless they are actually wrestling a match.

I think a decent angle will pull in the adult IWC demographic in much more than a big name whereas someone like Cena can sell out arenas simply because parents take their kids to see him

 

[OYDK]

For people like me, who have watched wrestling religiously for years and will continue to watch no matter what, the story absolutely plays a big role in drawing me to the program. Much more so than the actual competitors. For the most casual of fans who only tune in for Wrestlemania, RR, and SS, names like Brock Lesnar, The Rock, Sting, and Undertaker are the big draws. Mania 31 was the most profitable event in the history of pro-wrestlng because WWE relied on names like HHH, The Rock, Brock Lesnar, Sting, and Taker to sell it. The build was terrible to most of these matches, but having those 5 megastars on the show drew in a shitload of casual viewers... people who could have cared less about the storylines.

So to answer your question, I don't know if it's possible for an amazing storyline between say, John Cena and Daniel Bryan to draw more eyes to WWE than the appearance of Brock Lesnar or The Rock. Are more casuals going to tune in to see Cena/Bryan with a great storyline than Brock/Rock with a shitty build? I doubt it.

 

[A11oftheLights]

With negative stigma attatched to wrestling these days, its the names that draw over the story. Thats why Lesnar gets the big $$$ and its why he's rarely booked in anything other straight forward stories. Because the WWE wants to draw the person who doesn't watch the show usually in. The thing with this approach is that they should be stacking out the rest of the card with exciting stories so that viewer who doesnt normally watch becomes a fan of wrestlers A,B,C & D and hangs around. This is the problem with the wwe's booking atm, its stacked in one story at the top and lazy at the bottom. When if anything it should be lazy at the top and stacked at the bottom

 

[Kurgen]

You actually need both. The big names didn't become big out of nothing, they have a storyline. Take Brock for example, his story is that he's a legit former UFC Champ and has had countless talents put him over as such. Without the storyline, there's no big names.
I'm talking character development of course, not written stories as a stand alone.
Steve Austin's character was what made his feud with Vince work, and that created a name draw. Today's product isn't written in a way to create new top stars, it's a jumbled mess that's out to fill a time slot and protect the already established names.
Shortly put, they have the talent under contract to be able to create new big draw names, but they are being very selective and limited on who gets the angles and storylines to help build that star's brand. A previous post made the great point that the WWE is more concerned about pushing the brand than new talent, that is a solid point. The problem is that the brand is now finding it harder to sell itself without resorting to stars they previously created. Without good, solid storylines, there won't be anymore big name draws. So in essence, right now, building new stars requires great storylines and that should be the priority.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

Great storylines, create great stars, however, it's not the story that draws, but the star.

Take two examples to understand what I mean:
a) From 1997-1999 WWE were producing stellar storylines, however it was still that WCW was on top. In 1999, when Austin, Foley & The Rock became such big names (because of the srotylines), was when WWE took the lead.
b) Remember Cena vs Rock II? Or Roman Reigns vs Lesnar? What do those two have in common? Disgusting build-ups. but still, both matches drew.

Another proof that names>story is WWE's part timer program.

Of course the best scenario is combining stories+star power, but today's WWE seems to lazy for that.

 

[NatureBoy3:14]

Firstly the Raw rating did not go up because two great stories starting in "Roman's reign?!" And "Wyatt's takeover." The Monday Night Football matchup was crap. That's all. Secondly it's a combination of both. The storyline between Dusty vs Flair, Sting vs NWO, Cena vs Punk, Matt Hardy vs Edge, Macho vs Hogan, the Freebieds vs Von Erichs. These are some of the best story lines in history. They all had great talent in them. Let's do it iwc style Adam Cole vs Jay Briscoe, Tanahashi vs Okada, Roderick Strong vs Jay Lethal, El Generico vs Steen (one of the greatest story lines in the history of wrestling). They all had a start, climax, and finish. The talent sold the storyline. It's a combination of both. But the issue is no one cares about the talent nowadays. People won't invest their time into talent they care less about. The E is focused on selling thief product to children. So they know they can throw anything out their and they will simply like it. U.S. Die hard fans are going to watch anyway because basically we are just as gullible as said 14 year olds. For heavens sake they leave so many endings in un addressed it's rediculous. Jimmy Jacobs is a great writer. Great story teller. Helped ROH tell some great stories over the years. He now writes for the E. So there is a glimmer of hope. They have freakin Paul Heyman and don't let him touch anything in terms of writing. The $ is rolling in and they don't have to do any work. Life of good why actually work hard. I wouldnt

 

[Mustang Sally]

While much can be said in regard to this interesting subject, I'd put it this way: Those who follow wrestling faithfully on TV might be more interested in the storylines that will be continued.....and possibly resolved.....at the next PPV.

But those folks aren't the only ones who attend wrestling shows; there are plenty of adults who take the kiddies for an evening of family entertainment. Many of them don't watch the TV shows and don't have much interest in the continuing storylines. For these good people, it's the big names that draw them in......they've been coming to wrestling shows for years to see guys like Sammartino, Hogan, Rock, Austin and Cena, without knowing (or particularly caring) what these guys have been doing in the ring lately.

 

[Wald]

I think a new and original idea can catch on and draw people in so once in a lifetime storylines perhaps could. I'm thinking about the nWo and Stone Cold with the blurring of reality television into the WWF. Storylines that rip up the script and do things that casual fans and non-fans question what is happening and tune in. The only thing I can think of since WCW closed its doors that had the potential to do likewise was CM Punk's Pipebomb and the potential a Summer of Punk had.

I think had they gone with the idea of Punk showing up in different organisations, on TV, at conventions etc. saying he is the true WWE champion than it could have drawn in a lot of people. His pipebomb promo was the most shared wrestling related footage I have seen in the social media age. They could have built off that but didn't because business, be it politics, WWE or day traders, in the 21st century looks for short term gains over long term planning.

 

[sMark]

The answer is already known thanks to Monday Night Wars - WCW had all the starpower, WWF had better stories...

 

[OYDK]

The answer is already known thanks to Monday Night Wars - WCW had all the starpower, WWF had better stories...

And WCW was winning until WWF created bigger stars. In 96 and 97, Hogan, Hall, Savage, Nash, Flair and Luger were probably the biggest stars out of either promotion. All WWF really had at this time were Shawn, Bret, Taker, and and a young Stone Cold who was yet to reach his potential. WCW was handily beating WWF in these years although that could also be attributed to the NWO storyline. Once Stone Cold, The Rock, HHH, Mick Foley, Kane, and Kurt Angle broke out from 98-2000 and Guerrero, Benoit, Malenko, Saturn, and Jericho jumped, WCW was dead in the water. They may have still had Hogan, Savage, Flair, etc. but their star power had diminished greatly in those 2 years and shifted to the WWF as did the ratings.

The answer has become blurred once again.

 

[Kurgen]

Great storylines, create great stars, however, it's not the story that draws, but the star.

I'd have to disagree. The story makes the stars, if you compare it to movies, you can have a great actor that draws in a bad movie that will flop. Same for pro wrestling, see HHH vs Kane on the Katie Vick story.

Take two examples to understand what I mean:
a) From 1997-1999 WWE were producing stellar storylines, however it was still that WCW was on top. In 1999, when Austin, Foley & The Rock became such big names (because of the srotylines), was when WWE took the lead.

The Attitude Era was the turning point, and the Austin vs McMahon was the main storyline, and it was good, because it came on the heels of the Montreal Screwjob and everybody wanted to see Vince pay. AE was storyline driven, everybody on the roster had some sort of angle going, not all great,
Harry Beaver Cleavage, the Brawl For It All was possibly the dumbest angle EVER in pro wrestling history, it's not all Pulitzer Praise material.

b) Remember Cena vs Rock II? Or Roman Reigns vs Lesnar? What do those two have in common? Disgusting build-ups. but still, both matches drew.

They also have another thing in common, they featured made names, that's why they drew.

Another proof that names>story is WWE's part timer program.

Precisely my point. Without good storylines, you need to resort in bringing back established stars in order to draw. They are limited and they will eventually grow old and stale. Meanwhile, nothing is being prepared as a replacement. Giving Reigns the Daniel Bryan storyline isn't going to work, they need to let him have his own character and angle.

Of course the best scenario is combining stories+star power, but today's WWE seems to lazy for that.

Then they better prepare for a long descent into oblivion as the brand is starting to get the reputation of being lazy and it will turn off even their hardcore fans that are waiting for great storylines and new stars.

 

[ShinChan]

Yeah it can happen and should too....
Because big names are made by good storyline only...... So to make future big names; Good storylines is a necessity......
We can always rely on Legends or Past/Nearly Past Big Names..... We have to make new stars and that is possible only by good storylines

 

[Jonyboyuk2]

Absolutely. In fact, it is story lines that create stars. Stone Cold was big in 1997, but he became HUGE when given a decent story line. You only have to look at Lex Luger, the most over he ever got was in 1993 - because he was given a storyline as the Great American Hero.

A great story that fans can get engaged with is going to draw more than any star in the long run.

 

[Azane]

Storylines will rope the wrestling fans in, big names and cross-branded promotion bring in the casual and non-wrestling fans.

To get the type of buyrates Vince wants for the big events (Rumble, Mania and the 2 SS's), Vince needs to appeal to the latter demographic.

I think it's been proven at this point, putting a name like Brock Lesnar on the Marque of a payper view draws in a lot of fans who wouldn't normally watch wrestling, while having a strong soap opera is only roping in people who already had a good shot at buying in the first place.

I'll go even further and say that good characters will draw more than storyline, Daniel Bryan could get over while "wrestling a broom", and Stone Cold Steve Austin could get over cutting a promo about wrestling the broom.

You can tell by a lot of grumbling on these and other wrestling boards by the fans, that WWE doesn't focus on the wrestling fan demographic, he focuses on the casual and cross-promotion fans. It's kind of where the whole "WWE DOESNT CARE" cries come from, they do care, obviously, but they put more effort into trying to draw in people than retaining us.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

Good storyline can draw good attention but in order to draw big, mostly you need big name. Thats why Hollywood studios need big stars in order for the movie to draw big money and thats why big stars get payed that much. Sure, you get few suprises every now and then when smaller production goes big but not everyone can be "Star Wars" or even "Clerks". Most of big movies relies on big stars to sell them. Good stories have their part but in order to sell big you need to invest good in production and actors.

Thats why you had Rock and Cena match twice and not CM Punk and Jericho or even Taker- Punk or Taker- HHH with Shawn Michaels as mainevents. Because it just draws more and has more sense bussiness-wise to have two huge names against eachother in shittiest build you can find then having a great story but less atractic names to sell that story.

 

[WhiplashUnited]

The names generally anticipate the sell. The sell out WWE arenas is generally sold on the appearance of Cena (people taking their kids to see him) but the remainder is generally the IWC crowd who go every time an event is in their town/city

Most angles can be built off one person and make the other bigger.
From Flair plucking Steamboat from relative obscurity to a lesser degree of over as fuck Steve Austin putting the 'evil Mr McMahon' character through the roof off the back of the Montreal Screwjob, even CM Punk's angle with Jeff Hardy was like that, Hardy the WWE veteran and Punk the guy WWE wanted nothing to do with so not known character wise, then it ignited him on a 5 or so year run

 

[mkw1962]

For us everyday fans a good storyline will draw us in and new storylines after a pay per view gets us excited. That is why the ratings are down because the storylines have been terrible and some of the big names are getting stale. I watch the wrestling no matter how bad the storylines are, because I love wrestling. Bringing back big names like Rock, Stonecold or Sting will bring back the casual fan and even the fan that stopped watching because of the bad writing.
My answer is a returning big star will draw more than a good storyline or even a big star now will draw more than a good storyline. We are getting ready for SS and new stories are hopefully starting but John Cena and Randy Orton are out I will watch but will a casual fan tune in probably not.
Now would if Daniel Bryan comes back the Rock is going to be at SS Stonecold will be there, so do you think the casual fan turns in now.
Good writing keeps us everyday fans interested and Big names brings back the casual fan and keeps us happy.

 

[John McCass]

Wrestling is a cycle type thing. Everything needs to be balanced. The big names we see are a result of good storylines. Cena's story is that he is a patriotic savior who will always contain the evil forces when they reach their course. Lesnar's story is that he is a monstrous force who will wreck anything that crosses his path. Similarly, every big star is a result of good storyline. No, I'm not taking anything away from the wrestlers themselves. Without their efforts, the storyline wouldn't have sold itself. Things need to be co-ordinated carefully.

Let's relate this to movies. Big stars sell out movies, if they have nice story. Rarely have been cases when a movie has been sold just because of big names it has involved. Still, it happens sometimes. Sometimes, big names do sell out shit storyline. But, it is rare. While, a good storyline always creates big names.

 

[Checkmate]

The big names we see are a result of good storylines.

This ^

Stars are born as a result of moments. The moments come, usually, at high points in a storyline. Then, the stars draw in the fans, because the fans want to see what the star is going to do in their current and upcoming storylines.

To answer the OP's question, no, the storyline doesn't draw more than the name. It can elevate a star's drawing power though. For instance, the Royal Rumble is essentially people paying to watch the start of a storyline, but the draw is the guys in the Rumble, and people pay to see which guy is going to get a big storyline going into Wrestlemania.

 

[chicagokmc]

a good storyline is most likely able to draw better for television. stars on the other hand are definitely the better draw for live events. easier to sell and for fans to understand that (fill in the blank) is scheduled to be at an event. storyline by definition usually extends to several events/shows. that kind of build up just works better for tv