Forbes Article: Is John Cena best for business?

[Chrome]

This is a VERY interesting read
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissm...-wwe-champion-whats-really-best-for-business/

There is an entire article to read in that link, but take notice of this chart..

So the gist is, since 2009, whenever Orton or Punk have held the belt, business has generally improved. Whenever Cena holds the belt, business declines. Interesting. The most interesting thing is that the best business WWE has done since 2009 was when they gave Punk the title in 2011, BUT, when they started booking Cena in the main events over Punk, business quickly started declining again.

Wow. Never thought I'd see that.


The article ends with the following:

And curiously enough, in-story COO Triple-H’s repetitive claims that Orton ought to be the face of the company appear to ring true. When Orton wears the championship belt, WWE’s revenues tend to climb. Then again, company performance was all over the place during CM Punk’s 434-day reign, and that may be the only proof we need that WWE’s in-ring champion doesn’t actually have much impact on the company’s revenue.

To reiterate, this is obviously far from a scientific study. WWE’s total revenues include segments like DVD sales and WWE Studios, which have little to do with the ongoing in-ring action. Plus this study only looks at the revenue side; perhaps a further analysis would show that WWE’s profits surge under Cena’s title reigns. But a brief look at the numbers suggests that, popular as he is, Cena being the WWE champion isn’t necessarily the best thing for business. And who knows, maybe that means Cena’s latest title run has more to do with in-ring story telling than cashing in on young fans, and maybe, just maybe, that means he’ll do something interesting for once.

I guess Punks numbers dropped when he turned heel as champ or was that when the whole Cena vs People Power storyline was taking over everything and Punk was Champ but not closing out shows? Interestingly enough, when Punk was actually starting to main event shows again (Q3 2012), revenue improved. When Punk got the title, revenue started to peak.

I'm confused because if I recall (I might be wrong someone correct me) CM Punk was actually losing viewers in ratings during a time of his long reign. So I'm not clear on how revenue would rise? (Or maybe thats around the time it was dropping like the chart states)

NOTE: I actually like John Cena but this was eye opening

What do you guys think of this Forbes article?

Are you surprised that The Rocks 3 month reign was the highest revenue WWE had Circa-2009?!

 

[klunderbunker]

The numbers may not lie, but they're rather misleading.

First and foremost, Punk's time with the title was a time when Cena was often the top man.

Second, Cena hasn't needed the title to be the top man in a very long time. He's the top guy no matter who has the belt, meaning most of this graph is taking place under his time on top.

THird, and most importantly, if you look at the chart, you'll notice the exact same pattern every year: business starts well in quarter one, goes down until quarter three, and goes back up again until quarter one. In other words, it's the same exact pattern every single year no matter who is on top.

We'll also ignore the fact that whoever is the World Champion has meant very little in WWE for years now as the WWE has been the draw for a long time.

 

[Con T.]

It's disappointing when Forbes decides to drop something fairly half baked like this.

If you want to look at specific indicators - House Show Attendance, Raw Quarter-hour Ratings, PPV Buys - and correlate them to who was in major title pictures during that time, I think it makes a lot of sense - at least that you can investigate and it may be meaningful. If you want to look at general WWE financials, it really doesn't. And that's not hard to understand why - they get escalating TV rights payments regardless of who is the champ in accordance with their contracts. They get Videogame Royalties at a certain time of the year. Wrestlemania is usually in Q2. They're going to sell a bunch more stuff for WWEShopZone during the last quarter of the year. They have a very erratic schedule for revenue from WWE Studios. Hell, they made more money last quarter in Home Entertainment (up $3.5M Year-over-year) than Live Events (up $0.9M Year-over-year) because jargon like "recognition of minimum guarantees” and “higher current sell-through rates than expected”. That sort of variation shows how who was champ in Q1 had next-to-nothing to do Q1 2014 results. So the article just struck me as woefully insufficient for a serious financial website/magazine.

TL;DR: the metrics Forbes is using holds almost absolute zero correlation to actual business measurements for individual wrestlers. Considering the fact that the title has become less about the actual draw, Cena is still involved in the main event programs. Comparing periods where he isn't champion is superficial at best; Cena's still at the top of the card, and drawing the larger house shows. The article is flawed, at the very core.

 

[JVel]

If anything, this article just shows the impact of Christmas season WWE shop sales and video game revenue.

-Revenue picks up in Q4 due to the immense amount of WWE shop sales for Christmas presents and the annual game.
-Stays fairly consistent throughout Q1 due to the Road to Wrestlemania when ratings tend to go up for a short time.
-Q2 earnings start to see heavier decline due to ratings generally going back down a bit after Mania and the only big money maker tending to be Wrestlemania itself.
-Q3 continues slump.
-Shopping/game season once again. Go back to 1 and repeat.

WWE overall has been going in this same predictable cycle for years. I don't know what Forbes really thought this chart would prove. As Dirty Dutch Oven stated, the only real way to find a correlation is to analyze the segment ratings on Raw and the house show attendance. Cena is basically at the top of the card, with or without the title, whether as a challenger or in high profile feuds that get main events spots above the companies own champion.

 

[Tyrant25]

As aforementioned, quarterly revenue has zero to do with who's champion and who's not. Notice how the graph tends to rise in quarter 1, around the road to Wrestlemania and Wrestlemania itself. It declines in quarters 2 and 3, as people for some reason lose interest in the product, and rises again in quarter 4 around Christmas time. I doubt the champion has much to do with this. Honestly, as credible as Forbes is, this sure seems like a cheap outlet to hate on Cena and somehow discredit what he's done.

 

[Mudlup50]

Ok if you guys read the article, he says he accounts for the Wrestlemania bump. I do agree that it doesn't prove anything. But title reigns prove nothing.

People please actually read the article, it's not great but a lot of the arguments made here were made on the article.

 

[Slash-LN]

"And who knows, maybe that means Cena’s latest title run has more to do with in-ring story telling than cashing in on young fans, and maybe, just maybe, that means he’ll do something interesting for once."

That quote from the end of the article hurts the credibility of the piece. It's clearly written by someone who doesn't like Cena.

As others have said there are trends that stay consistent over time.

You could also go to 2011 when Orton beat Christian for the World title (I know this article is for the WWE title) and Smackdown ratings dropped to the lowest of the year because people were mad that Orton beat Christian for the title so soon.

So the supposed best for business made ratings go down.

There's probably all sorts of "facts" and graphs you could make to swing things in favor of whoever you want to look good when it comes to the top guys.

 

[Pedigree1]

Numbers are indeed very misleading.. Like KB said,Cena was indeed the top man when Punk had the belt,so theres a little info for yah.. Cena is the top man,no matter if he has the belt or not.. Quarter 1 for the WWE is usually the strongest Q2-Q3 usually are a little weaker,maybe because the weather is better people go out more etc etc..

Cena sells the most merch,is recognized worldwide,boo'd cheere'd no matter where he goes.. Video Game sales,and such especially Q4 during Xmas time,sales of course go up..

Is Cena best for Business yes he is! He is the Top guy,has been for quite awhile now whether he has the belt or not

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I read about this a few days ago. I was initially interested before reading that this test wasn't scientifically in depth, at least that's what it said in the report I read. If anything, the data indicates that whomever is carrying the WWE Championship isn't automatically the single biggest draw in the company. And, in all honesty, that's something that's been pretty easy to see for anyone that's been watching for the past 5years or so. Cena is probably the most overall consistent, long term draw WWE has had since the days of the Attitude Era, but his drawing potential doesn't necessarily depend majorly upon being champion.

At the same time, as I & lots of other posters have pointed out in various threads, it's not at all surprising that a good number of people are burned out on John Cena as WWE Champion. Even if the overall biggest draw in the company isn't always the guy with the title, the main event champion is traditionally viewed as the company's highest profile spot no matter the wrestling organization. Fans have been geared towards that, they've been conditioned to look at the guy carrying the title as being THE top guy but, as with so many things in professional wrestling, that's no longer automatically how it is.

 

[FlairFan2003]

It's disappointing when Forbes decides to drop something fairly half baked like this.

If you want to look at specific indicators - House Show Attendance, Raw Quarter-hour Ratings, PPV Buys - and correlate them to who was in major title pictures during that time, I think it makes a lot of sense - at least that you can investigate and it may be meaningful. If you want to look at general WWE financials, it really doesn't. And that's not hard to understand why - they get escalating TV rights payments regardless of who is the champ in accordance with their contracts. They get Videogame Royalties at a certain time of the year. Wrestlemania is usually in Q2. They're going to sell a bunch more stuff for WWEShopZone during the last quarter of the year. They have a very erratic schedule for revenue from WWE Studios. Hell, they made more money last quarter in Home Entertainment (up $3.5M Year-over-year) than Live Events (up $0.9M Year-over-year) because jargon like "recognition of minimum guarantees” and “higher current sell-through rates than expected”. That sort of variation shows how who was champ in Q1 had next-to-nothing to do Q1 2014 results. So the article just struck me as woefully insufficient for a serious financial website/magazine.

.

This is true...much of the total financial picture depends things outside the purview of the champion, his storyline, or actual wrestling shows in general. One of two heavily sought after DVD released will significantly boast up total company revenue, as will merchandise sales of wrestlers who are not champ.

The best way to gauge individual champions success is A) House show attendance - look at what it is with the champ, compare it to recent champs, and examine the drop off when the champ doesn't appear, as well as the drop offs when previous champs were MIA B) TV Ratings - Mostly for the segments and matches involving the champ. One guy wont significantly boast ratings every week for an entire 2 or 3 hr show, but you can see who draws and who doesn't by examining their individual segments. Look at the total ratings for the segment vs the show over all and the total ratings for the segment compared to the previous segment (did the champ bring extra viewers in for their segment or simply hold the audience that was there for the previous segment). Looking at the ratings for the following segment is important too (did a large portion of the audience leave when the champ was done?)

Mercahndise sales are good too but typically fan faves sell merchandise and heels don't as much since the vast majority of merchandise is geared to and sold to children who are more likely to support their hero than the show's villain. HHH was a good draw as champ in the 2000s but spending most of that time as a bad guy he wasn't selling as many shirts as Cena for instance.