Can someone answer this question please?

[Dave]

I recently happened across an article on What Culture about the most financially successful years in the history of the WWE. The top 2 years were 1998 and 1998. But there was a note at the end that said, should WWE have not gone ahead with the XFL, they would have had the biggest year of their company by far - losing $65 million dollars apparently isn't good for business...

So with that being said, why did Vince move away from the Attitude Era and an edgy product? It was clearly making a tonne of money for him and his shareholders, so why change so drastically? Was the Attitude Era a product of necessity to beat WCW and Vince never really wanted to go down that route anyway? Was it for eventual political gain? I just don't get it.

 

[CyberPunk]

Whatever we'll say would be pure speculation because no one here would know why Vince did what he did unless someone is privy to that information. Having said that, why not speculate?

I always thought that Vince's hands were forced by WCW to go for the attitude era. They weren't pulling great numbers, there biggest draw from that time (Brett Hart) had moved on, and he really needed something to keep the business afloat. He did what he had to do. But once the war was won, he didn't have any competition. He didn't need to Attitude Era because he had noone to whom his audience would go to.

I'm pretty sure even the network might have to do something with it. As good as the numbers were, USA network must've feared the loss of sponsors. Not only that, as WWE went public, they needed to clean up their image to please the investors. While McMahon family was still the majority holders, they had to answer to a board.

 

[Kodo Sawaki]

I have a theory that contrary for what most people believe Vince Mcmahon is a visionary. And that he saw attitude product as unsustainable. It was fine to be edgy and all that with strong opponents but after wars he saw things change. He no longer needed to be edgy because his product was already at top with no competition, and he could change the product in more family oriented way. Because he knew that kind of product he offered didn't cater other demographics he wanted to cater. Because lets face it, kind of stuff like Paige telling Charlotte how her brother didn't had much fight in him was too much for todays fan, but at Attitude era it was just another Monday. Plus after Benoit and Linda's political thing he really needed to change perception of WWE as ruthless and barbaric and he already had Cena as no1 face of WWE. And sponsors were probably not so crazy to invest in company who could bring them huge backlash with stuff it does.

As for money stuff, he didn't do so bad after Attitude Era too. So he still made a bundle of money but he didn't had to face so much backlash from the stuff product do. So it was kinda easy decision for them. If he stayed attitude, who knows. He would still made a bundle but in todays time cost of that would maybe be too big. Times changed so they grabbed opportunity and changed with that time.

 

[Dave]

From a reputation stand point, I can totally understand where Vince would be frightened to continue, especially if Benoit did what he did during the Attitude Era. However, I haven't found a single shred of theory that makes sense when it comes to money. First of all, sponsorships. The sponsors back in the day were a power more enticing to their target audience than they are today. I remember sponsors being things like Budweiser, Snickers and Castrol GTX. Now it's Slim Jim. I don't know what the figures are but I don't think there are a tonne of sponsors waiting to get on board today and the marketing aspect if WWE HQ is working a lot harder today than they were 15 years ago.

When it comes to Cena, he didn't appear to much later than when the Attitude Era came to an end. And plus, when Cena made his debut, he was spouting lyrics that might have actually gone down well back in the AE. In fact, some of the reason he got over, I believe, was due to that very fact. If the AE had stayed, he'd have fit right in. And as I pointed out before, there's definitely companies out there who want to get behind an edgy product aimed at the 18-49 demographic.

 

[Hyorinmaru]

I would say it's because he always wanted to make the company an over all entertainment company instead of a pro wrestling company. The XFL & WBF are proof of that.

With WCW (and to a smaller extent ECW) in play he had to do what he did in order to stay in business but when they went under and he bought them out he no longer had anything to worry about so he could do what he wanted with not having to worry

 

[Richard Blonoff]

I think Milenko is pretty close to the truth. It wasn't long after the AE ended that the WWE began to branch out into more venues of entertainment. Yeah they had some ventures during the AE that failed like the XFL and The World, but once they were free to focus on things outside of wrestling they really stepped up how much they branched out.

 

[Hard Hit Prince]

I don't know if 1998 was WWE's most profitable year to be honest. They seem to be making good numbers out of their TV contracts, attendance, merch and the Network.

But there's a good answer for your question. In movies (and I believe in general entertainment) you can either be PG or Rated R and for the last few years there have been discussions about super-hero movies being PG instead of rated R for some darker characters and it all comes down to the audience.

If you are putting out a product for adults only, your target will be a lot smaller than a PG product one. As a PG you are pandering to kids, adults, old people, women, men, etc. Take a Marvel movie and think about watching it with your grandparents and your younger cousins... Will it really be terrible for anyone of them? However, the Deadpool movie, most likely will not be the same for them. A lot of jokes, puns, easter eggs and stuff for the 18/34 target.

It's just business. It doesn't necessarily mean a good one, but it's always close to their strategy. In this case, a Wrestling Network needs the PG more so than the R rating for it's launch. In the near future, I could totally see them have a more edgy product on the network for that audience. It gives them that type of freedom and to an extend we can call the NXT a edgier product or at least, an hardcore one.

 

[Slyfox696]

I recently happened across an article on What Culture about the most financially successful years in the history of the WWE. The top 2 years were 1998 and 1998. But there was a note at the end that said, should WWE have not gone ahead with the XFL, they would have had the biggest year of their company by far - losing $65 million dollars apparently isn't good for business...

So with that being said, why did Vince move away from the Attitude Era and an edgy product? It was clearly making a tonne of money for him and his shareholders, so why change so drastically? Was the Attitude Era a product of necessity to beat WCW and Vince never really wanted to go down that route anyway? Was it for eventual political gain? I just don't get it.

Because the Attitude Era wasn't popular for its wrestling, it was popular for its shock value. Guys like Austin and Rock don't come around every day and the fact is when shock can no longer sell, then what do you have left?

The WWE made the smart play. They leveraged their incredible financial success into a far more stable form of success, while also bringing back down the expectations of their product. And what I mean by "expectations of their product" is that it is humanly impossible to raise the bar every week. The human body has limits. So you have to gradually drop the shock value part of your programming and push the far more sustainable aspects.

The WWE in the late 90s was popular, but it also came along at just the right time. It was the Jerry Springer era, where everything was about pushing the envelope, and the WWE just happened to have two superstars available to do that. But TV itself is not that way anymore. Sure, shock value exists, but pushing the envelope essentially means saying a cuss word and how graphic The Walking Dead can make a death. TV played out its shock ability a decade ago.

In the meantime, the WWE has leveraged its product into a global empire, a product which can have uninterrupted flow of consumers (as opposed to the Attitude Era, which was definitely not appropriate for children). The WWE simply could not have sustained the Attitude Era.

Finally, I'll leave you with this. If all it took to be successful was an edgy product, then TNA would be in a much better place now than they are. They tried the edgy route and it didn't work. The Attitude Era wasn't successful because they were edgy, the Attitude Era was successful because it was shock TV during a time when shock TV was desired and because they had some of the greatest talent in wrestling history.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Here's the thing about this thread. It was long after 99 that WWE dropped the edgy nature of its programming. We still had Edge's simulated sex with Lita and John "homophobic rapper" Cena to go along with the bloody and brutal Ruthless Agression Era. My guess is that during that time Vince saw a loss in projected growth, revenue, and profit. Those Hogan fans that grew up and embraced Attitude got jobs and had families and abandoned the product. It wasn't like Vince made a record profit in 1999 and decided to bail on the format of the show in 2000. It took time, failure, lost advertising, declining merchandise sales, and a generation not being allowed to watch WWE programming for Vince to make the switch.

And some other stuff that has already been mentioned in this thread.

 

[therockiswwf]

As a business major, I love this stuff.

2015 is the most successful revenue year (if the trend continues, 2016 will beat 2015, gone up for a few years in a row now). 98-99 is the most successful profit year. I'm not sure when the year 98 starts to count/99 ends (they went to a regular calendar year for financials in 06).

I don't want to regurgitate everyone else so I'll give other reasons. The AE should really be split between 98-99 and 00-01. The product was vastly different after Russo left.

Russo left (late 99). Chris Kreski left (head writer after Russo, left in 02). Both head AE writers left. Rock/Austin left. The four biggest components of the AE were mostly gone by 02. Hard to continue when the biggest pieces leave.

The AE gave WWE a really bad image. Advertisers wouldn't touch them. Primetime shows with subpar advertising isn't attractive to big networks. Their TV contract now is $100 million more than 99 (only could find one source with a number so it could be wrong but it is definitely way higher now than before). This is due to cleaning up their image.

Austin was responsible for a lot of the money WWE made. How hot Austin actually was is hard to convey.

It's not so black and white. Also saying WWE is not as successful now is not totally correct. Ratings are different due to the internet, 100000 different channels, etc.