Good Article about PG Rating

[WWEIsLife2]

This is a good Article I found talking about the PG Rating. Read and see what you think,

http://badbookingblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/wwe-pg-post.html

 

[scomvp316]

The real reason WWE went PG was a slumping economy and sponsors would dump loads of money into this cash cow company. What alot of people don't understand is when WWE releases its annual report the bottom line is inflated. All that sponsor money goes in as if its revenue when its more like petty cash. So when WWE comes out and reports say $560mill the actual number is if you take away close to 200mill sponsor money the company fiancially is holding on to less than a 1% revenue gain. Lately WWE hs given some freedom to certain talent on the mic but promos are weak. you see guys like Triple H,CM Punk,Jericho,and Big Show having to many paused moments thinking of whats family friendly in a socialized debate. Script promos should only be for certain talents but main event talent should have way more freedom. The dumbest thing is since the HIAC and EC creation before PG we saw blood with certain feuds so fans have a certain expectation. Now with a no blood policy to succumb to certain family friendly sponsors has turned away certain viewers, Look in the 80's JCP was PG and their weekly shows was some watered down but special tv events and PPV's even though still under PG was more like TV-14. WWE has to figure no matter what they do certain political groups will never accept a entertainment company that promotes kid friendly characters and kis friendly merchandise with script violence. Have the promos like they did under "Attitude" and you can water down the weekly shows to a certain degree but make the PPV's edgy and exciting!

 

[H33LTurn]

That was a great article. The PG rating/era does have its benefits, giving way to much younger and more well rounded talent. The entire landscape of the main event has changed and its seems like we're in one of those Pre-attitude era periods. Like the author said, wrestling always changes to survive, and the fact is that when WWE sees that its not bringing in enough money it will adapt to its surroundings once again. I think the PG era was somewhat necessary in order to test the waters as to where the WWE could go with its programing. One extreme was tested during the Attitude Era and I think the other extreme has been exhausted during the PG era. This era also has its setbacks such as the lack of reasoning in cage or extreme rules matches. The bland rivalries coupled with the pandering to children has made WWE look like a shell of its former self. But all this sacrifice couldnt have been for nothing and if you truly believe in Vince's ability to bring forward the best kind of material he can its not long before we get another boom period in the industry. Until then lets made due with what we have.

 

[DeathClutch]

That's a good article and brings up many good points, I concur we don't need blood in todays product more so due to all the blood infections their is (Hep, HIV being the main two) so blading should be passe'.

But WWE have said "Fuck you" too the fans they gained before and during the Attitude Era, I'm not saying they should bring back the smutty tv, not by a long shot but they need to look at what worked for them then and what could work for them now and please everyone.

Hardcore matches happen nowadays, minus the blood and head shots they're more like falls count anywhere matches, so they could have them easily it's WWE progative not to.

What the documentary "Beyond the mat" from 1999/2000 near the start of the programe you get a sense that Vince wanted to move into a more family friendly product, WWE's just going with current trends, late 90s it was smutty, trashy, jerry springer tv and WWE followed that up, unfortunately all good things come to an end but WWE didn't try to give something back to the fans who plowed tons of money into the company on a weekly basis WWE went for the corporate money, it is what it is.

 

[IHW]

I enjoyed this article. It has some very interesting points.

I do think that some of the guys mentioned, like Sheamus and Ziggler, would have gotten over easier in the old rating. But overall this article is spot on.

 

[WWEIsLife2]

I liked the article and it did make some very valid points.

You don't need smut,blood,over the top violence,etc to make a Wrestling Show.

Glad you guys enjoyed reading it.

 

[King of the Words]

Hopefully, WWE are on the verge of coming back to life and giving the adult fans something for their money. The writing and booking seems like the biggest problems at the moment. They need to become way more professional in that area to have any type of descent product. The Redundant Super Cena character, is the first to change. Since 2005 he has played the same basic character. I thought you had to evolve to survive in the entertainment business. I guess that doesn`t apply John Cena.(lol)

 

[Headman]

Good article with lots of good points. Too many fans make such a big deal out of the PG rating and blame it for just about every problem they manage to conjure up in their small minds. I really wouldn't have a problem with these fans having their own opinions if they didn't all get them from the same "PG sux/Cena sux" handbook. Right now the internet fans have everything they've ever asked for. CM Punk is battling Jericho for the WWE title, Daniel Bryan is world champion... AND THEY ARE STILL COMPLAINING! If anyone thinks for one second that bringing back the blood and the sex will change that, they haven't been paying attention.

 

[brighamosity]

Eh, it was an interesting article up until he started saying that they should blade themselves in Hell in a Cell and should use chair shots occasionally. I stopped reading at that point. I don't feel that those are necessary EVER. I wouldn't mind FAKE blood if they thought of a clever way to make it work. Or even real blood if it happened by accident. But I don't want to see a guy with his head busted open, knowing that he did that himself with a razor blade.

And chair shots to the head should be one standard across the board: Never again. Period.

 

[Master_MIND]

I'm responding directly to scomvp316 who said: The real reason WWE went PG was a slumping economy and sponsors would dump loads of money into this cash cow company. What alot of people don't understand is when WWE releases its annual report the bottom line is inflated. All that sponsor money goes in as if its revenue when its more like petty cash. So when WWE comes out and reports say $560mill the actual number is if you take away close to 200mill sponsor money the company fiancially is holding on to less than a 1% revenue gain.

Where did you go to business school?What you don't understand is anything about accounting. Sponsorship money is absolutely revenue. I love how you say it's "more like petty cash" like that's what you think it should be. Petty cash is small amounts of money a company uses to pay small expenses. For example a retail store that gives customers change. Not 200 million fucking dollars! There is nothing petty about that at all! We may not like the product all the time but if companies continue to provide sponsorship dollars to the WWE then it's a positive aspect of their strategy. Even if you loved the product and bought every PPV and every T-shirt and every DVD and all your friends did too, do you think it would even come close to the money they get from just one of their thousands of sponsorship deals?

I had to respond to your post because the tone of it is so condescending like you know so much more about the WWE's financial state than anyone else. You use terms that you do not understand and it makes you sound like an idiot, especially to people who actually do have business degrees.

I don't love the PG era of WWE. I miss the more hardcore matches and I liked seeing blood in certain matches. We still do get great matches and that's when I enjoy WWE. It's too bad they seem fewer and further between now.

I used to be more pissed off with this era of wrestling until I travelled. I have personally seen WWE on TV in South Korea, Cambodia, Thailand and Japan. Kids I taught in Korea loved WWE and of course they loved John Cena, Batista, HHH (because he's a face). It made me realize that WWE has really become the WORLD BRAND of wrestling. There's no way they would have got syndication deals in many countries they do now if they still had the "attitude era" style of wrestling and storylines. Those overseas tours make them so much money and they have to have exposure on TV in other countries to have the market for live shows.

 

[The Suplexer Perfecter]

If people want garbage hardcore wrestling go watch CZW. The lack of hardcore, even though they have plenty of ladder matches and other gimmicks during the year, is a good thing. People have been far too desensitized to weapon usage and spots.

Guys like Austin, Jericho, Punk, and JR all agree PG is not the issue. It's how the show is booked, written, and performed.

80s WWF was by no means a mature product. It was an era where they had a Saturday morning cartoon based off of their guys. But with great personalities and angles, it was great.

 

[Fisheatppl]

80s WWF was by no means a mature product. It was an era where they had a Saturday morning cartoon based off of their guys. But with great personalities and angles, it was great.

This right here should halt any and all "PG" rated compaints. Seriously. 10 years from now, maybe 15, people are gonna be complaining how "Its not like the PG era used to be, when they were GOOD. (insert name here) is NO John Cena..." and etc.

Saturday morning cartoons... you don't get more "immature" then that. And at 28 years old I still like me some saturday morning cartoons (well the old ones anyway... I'm not even sure if there are any more or if they'd count as "cartoons").

 

[dudedudedude]

The WWE mostly went PG due to their deal with Matel, which is worth 100's of millions of dollars. Seriously, yes, they wanted to appeal to familes etc, but, the catalyst was the matel deal. The end.

 

[justinept]

*Disclaimer: The Attitude Era officially ended in the early 2000s Vince McMahon declared that a new era of Ruthless Aggression was upon us. To most, the two eras are one in the same since the direction of the company remained the same. I will continually refer to the entire era as The Attitude Era, understanding that some of my examples actually occurred during The Ruthless Aggression Era...

-----------------------

I guess I'll be the first to "criticize" this article as trite and a total reach to support the PG Era.

That isn't to say that I haven't enjoyed the programming recently. Nor does it say that I want the Attitude Era to return. It's just an honest opinion of this article, which takes the same mentality of "Attitude Era" enthusiasts and applies it toward the PG Era. While many fans of the Attitude Era generally - and unjustly - believe that everything good from that era came as a result of a TV-MA rating, this article is giving the PG rating undue credit for a lot of the good things that are currently going on with this era. Neither opinion, to me, is valid because the best parts of both eras were a result of stars being put in a position to shine while the negatives of both eras were a result of stars NOT being put into a winning situation - mostly due to bad writing and lazy booking.

This article hits on that to an extent. It criticizes the Attitude Era for giving us some awful filler segments. It mentions the proposed angle between Paul Burchill and Kate Lea, and it fairly contemplates the ramifications of said angle. Where the author completely veers off course is that he continues to criticize the bad angles from the era and seemingly comes to the conclusion that he is glad that the Attitude Era is over because we are no longer subjected to bad, raunchy filler such as an incest angle.

But even by the author's admission, the PG Era has given us some AWFUL filler just like the Attitude Era did. So it's really a wash between the two eras in terms of bad content. The only difference is that the bad filler of today is aimed toward children - Midget court - as opposed to bad, taboo humor - incest, necrophilia. What's really the difference? To me, the same bad writing and lazy booking that gave us Katie Vick during the Attitude Era is now giving us fart humor with Nattie Neidhardt. Again, that's the real issue with both eras ... When the writing was - or in the case of the PG Era, has been - good, then the product has been watchable. When the opposite has been true, the product has been difficult to watch.

Now, what I really disagree with is that the writer gives unnecessary credit toward this current era. He mentions the lack of star power for the company in 2009, and then mentions how many of those stars either retired, quit, defected or went on hiatus in 2010. That being the case, how can the PG Era be given credit for the rise of Punk, Ziggler, Bryan, Ryder, Rhodes, Barrett, Shaemus, etc? To me, the ascent of the younger stars came more as a necessity from attrition than it did as a result of the PG Era. To argue that those wrestlers only became top attractions because of the PG Era is akin to saying they wouldn't have become top attractions with a more mature audience watching. I just don't believe that to be true.

 

[Bad Booking]

Now, what I really disagree with is that the writer gives unnecessary credit toward this current era. He mentions the lack of star power for the company in 2009, and then mentions how many of those stars either retired, quit, defected or went on hiatus in 2010. That being the case, how can the PG Era be given credit for the rise of Punk, Ziggler, Bryan, Ryder, Rhodes, Barrett, Shaemus, etc? To me, the ascent of the younger stars came more as a necessity from attrition than it did as a result of the PG Era. To argue that those wrestlers only became top attractions because of the PG Era is akin to saying they wouldn't have become top attractions with a more mature audience watching. I just don't believe that to be true.

What I was trying to say was that because of attrition and WWE trying to build up the future, that's why a lot of guys were pushed, for better or worse. It just so happened this occurred in the 'PG Era', and that's all I tried to hint at.

If there is one thing I criticize of myself in a "scribe" sense, it's that I write things as if I'm still in high school. Not based on sentence structure, but on those stupid state tests that make you list positives/negatives of a certain topic in a certain way. I will admit some of those topics covered weren't so much as a result of a rating, but because of the era they were initiated in.

Also, I will note that bad segments will never go away. Just ask poor Natalya.

 

[Wrestlemania 20-0]

in same time, the WWE has mades many many brutal matchs in the past no reason to relive this just for the health of wrestlers.
The PG era is not the best thing in WWE history but to see wrestlers injured every time is the one reason to let the company like this.

 

[scomvp316]

Hey Master Mind actually read the post and you might understand it. When you get sponsor money you inject that money as actual revenue like I stated. The reason any company that likes sponsor money is it saves on actual expenses which inflates your bottom line. If any company gets say $100mill in sponsor money and doesn't use that on actual expenses throught that fiscal year it makes the company's bottom line greater than the actual number which helps for futre investors. If you think VKM doesn't set aside certain sponsor money without a decree from the sponsor company then its you who doesn't know business. Every major Fortune 500 and Wall Street company that recieves sponsor money does what I have just explained to increase dividends and future investors. I am just saying that WWE's bottom line in't as great as it says. I am just tired of certain fans putting WWE on a certain pedestal without knowing day to day operations of a company. By the way I run my own company and just sold my previous company so I do know what I am talking about!

 

[Master_MIND]

scomvp316:

I think what you are trying to say is that if you analyzed WWE's profitability by stripping away sponsorship revenue then they would not be as profitable. However the way you are saying it does not make sense. Revenue - expenses = profit (or the "bottom line"). Revenue in this case is an aggregate of a company's revenue streams. In WWE's case sponsorship revenue is one of it's streams and it is a very lucrative one. Obviously without it they would make less profit, in other words a lower bottom line. I think this is what you are trying to say.

I don't know if you were trying to say this but it is a valid point. If you take away sponsorship revenue then WWE's business is barely growing. (you mention a %1 revenue increase). I didn't check the numbers myself but based on that it would mean that they are not pulling in more money from such things as PPV buys, live gates, etc. All the figures in reports says this is true. This means that the product is not attracting new fans or current fans to spend more money. The PG rating and family friendly content bring in more sponsorship revenue which is they need considering the downturn in other areas. This makes sense. The product could be much better than it is regardless of PG rating. Better storylines, better character development, and matches are certainly needed. How much would they add to the "bottom line" is really unknown.

PG helped pull in more sponsors and has made the product more attractive to children. It did however alienate a large portion of fans, namely that 18-35 male demographic. Many of those people have turned to UFC and don't give a shit about wrestling anymore. Others, myself included, like both (however if it comes down to spending money on either product UFC wins 9 times out of 10 for me). And finally others are still hardcore wrestling fans who love to bitch about the product.

It is worth considering if the rise in MMA, namely UFC would have had a similar effect on WWE's business even if they still had the same kind of material they did in the late 90s and early 2000s. I read an article 02 or 03 around the time when TNA was becoming bigger and looking for a national TV deal. It said that Vince wasn't worried about a new wrestling company, he was worried about the UFC. This was around the time Ortiz and Shamrock were drawing big money. UFC still wasn't mainstream yet though, but he could see it was coming. Maybe the huge success of the attitude era was also a function of right place right time. Boxing wasn't doing great at that time. Tyson wasn't what he used to be but he still did draw huge interest when he was allowed to fight. And MMA wasn't on the mainstream radar yet. It allowed Austin and The Rock to grab people's attention, especially that 18-35 male demo. Austin was that badass people loved. Hell he even got in Tyson's face! Real fighting will always draw interest, sports entertainment is a niche market and it's harder to draw casual fans. However kids that aren't allowed to watch UFC or aren't interested in it might become wrestling fans, and in Vince's eyes WWE fans. Many for the long-term. He got me when I was 6 years old...wow that really sounded creepy.

 

[Marv95]

Good article. justinept Katie Vick was in the Ruthless Aggression era which began in the spring of 2002. And the Attitude Era wasn't TV-MA, in fact some of its shows like Smackdown, Heat, etc. were TV-PG.

And yes they got the PG rating because they needed sponsorship in a time where WWE was in deep trouble after the Benoit tragedy. And there's nothing wrong with the actual rating. The thing is PG doesn't mean your product has to be so watered down, pandering to folks without a high-school diploma and kid-friendly. WCW was TV-PG until Russo took over and they almost put the WWF out of business. There wasn't anything kid-friendly about it, yet there was almost no profanity and lack of sex. WWF was also TV-PG until late 1998. If they put on an intense, unpredictable product like WCW did from 1996-1999 or WWF did from 97-98 I doubt you hear many complaints about the rating.

Guys like Austin, Jericho, Punk, and JR all agree PG is not the issue

I know Austin and JR said it, but when/where did Punk and Jericho say it?

 

[scomvp316]

Ys thebasis of my rant was about the bottom line of WWE's business module. This company will always make money regardless of how the industry is perceived. I am a life long wrestling fan mostly of JCP but also care deeply about the success of WWE. i do apologize if I came across as a prick or some insider. The numbers I gave were just off the top of my head as an example. Granted Boxing was dying and VKM has the final nail in the coffin for them. Going PG was smart in a few areas. They were starting to lose a shitload of life long fans like Soap Opera fans they had seen everything that could possible do and were tired of watching rehashed stories just with new characters. The economy for all entertainment companies have struggled just some revamped writers and others went to a more family friendly enviroment. I do believe VKM is so stuck in the 80's and never ever wanted the material he showed under Attitude but was forced due to competition. The best thing for WWE IMO is go to shoot style like ECW and what ROH is doing. Have the fans decide who is good and who isn't. The days of a good guy always doing the right thing in the wrestling business died around WM6 when Hogan lost to Warrior. The name of the game is wrestling and let the fans decide like it use to be!