I Am Not Financially Invested In The WWE!!

[Coco]

Of course that’s not the popular thing to say nowadays.

More and more as I indulged in my daily frivolity in the Internet Wrestling Community (I hate the term, but it’s apt), I’ve seen a growing contingent of people who like to pretend that the thing we (as mere wrestling fans, most of us not financially invested in the product) should be most concerned with is in the best financial interest of the WWE rather than what we enjoy. This comes in many forms. Some parts of this contingent are begging for WWE to go back to the (unsustainable) kind of product they had back in the period of time hailed as WWE’s Attitude Era, as that was the era in which WWE ratings were at their all time peak. With this view comes the logic that long matches, good matches, or main event level matches being given away for free on television is bad for the pay per view part of the wrestling business. Every time a big match is given away on Raw, these people come out of the woodwork to declare how bad a move like that is for business. As shows like ECW and SmackDown become more and more wrestling oriented, these people run down how much these products dilute the market for pay per views. I don’t believe any of this. You shouldn’t believe any of this. We are not ruining the business with our selfishness. We are the ones bringing sustainability back to professional wrestling.

This past Monday, Raw drew a huge rating. How? They advertised a major main event level title match which would be aired commercial free. People were promised quality out of that match. And while I don’t think the match delivered on the promise of quality, it delivered at least twenty minutes of in-ring product. Guess what? After that big match, people didn’t go away. They stuck around for a huge main event. The promise of quality keeps fans hooked. Rather than the standard Monday night fare which leaves one’s wrestling palate unsatisfied, two weeks of above an above average amount of heavily promoted top matches on Monday nights have drawn in viewers. Yes, you heard me correctly. The promise of professional wrestling made people interested in shows and boosted ratings. They weren’t Attitude Era level ratings, but they were above average nonetheless.

But of course the doubters of the drawing ability of professional wrestling would tell us that this still doesn’t matter because it doesn’t begin to combat the success of the Attitude Era and that the viewership of the more often than not wrestling oriented Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday shows is faltering when compared to the more (by today’s standard) sports entertainment oriented show. They would have us believe that WWE needs a dramatic increase in the amount of talk, adult oriented themes, and stunt booking to get the WWE back where it belongs coupled with a decrease in the length and quality of the wrestling provided on free TV so that stories and not wrestling sell the PPVs and so that wrestling fans are intentionally starved of what they crave so as to stir up interest for PPVs. However, I believe this sort of tactic will not work on the wrestling fans of today and will not bring back the wrestling fans lost at the end of the Attitude Era.

Why is the logic of the “wrestling hurts the WWE financially/bring back the Attitude Era” club not as sound as they like to make it sound? I mean, after all, they have numbers. Ratings. Some of them even have numbers on spreadsheets. Not only is it impressive, but it’s actually mildly intimidating. Add on to that the fact that you can’t even indulged in liquid courage while discrediting the spreadsheets because that’s liable to impair one’s reasoning skills and it becomes safe to say that taking these people on is no short order. Not to mention, as we’re constantly reminded by this increasingly large and vocal contingent, the numbers aren’t subject to any sort of interpretation or scrutiny. They can’t possibly be discredited. They are rock solid proof of the superiority of the Attitude Era and a less wrestling oriented product... Wait, that’s not right...

It is my humble opinion that the numbers that were garnered during the Attitude Era, as impressive as they were, have absolutely no business being directly compared to the numbers of today. To put it simply, the bubble burst. The bottom fell out. The value offered to the company by using progressively more adult oriented characters and angles, simply for the sake of being shocking, plateaued at the early part of the decade. People lost interest as top performers (Rock and Austin) left, but management perceived that the best way to solve this problem was to garner interest by being even more controversial (once again, simply for the sake of being controversial). However, this strategy failed as ratings continued to decline despite WWE’s best efforts to be true to the standard of programming they set with the Attitude Era. Katie Vick couldn’t save the WWE from a decline in the ratings. Neither could the marriage of Billy and Chuck. The largest travesty of all was that, as scintillating and arousing as HLA and the Torrie Wilson/Dawn Marie hotel segment was to the twelve year old Coco once upon an Armageddon, WWE ratings continued to dip in the wake of Al Wilson’s tragic honeymoon related coma. But despite all these indications that senseless shock oriented television in the place of wrestling wouldn’t help business, the myth continued to grow among fans of that era that the audience of the Rock and Steve Austin could be won back with promises of adult oriented television. There is a great refusal in a certain sect of the IWC to accept that the bubble busting means that the value of the shocking and adult content associated with the Attitude Era is gone and not coming back for the foreseeable future.

What serves to further annoy me about the use of the numbers to discredit people who enjoy a wrestling oriented product is the assertion that since Raw gets better ratings than ECW, Superstars, and Smackdown that sports entertainment draws better than wrestling. It baffles me that this myth has gained any sort of steam, but the fact that it’s simple to debunk helps keep me from getting too angry. The fact is that Raw is more heavily promoted than any of the other shows and more heavily distributed than any of the other shows. Thinking the ratings of the current shows are prime for a valid comparison is one of the grave acts of ignorance committed by the crowd looking to run down good or long matches being given away on free television. However, once one looks past their smoke and mirrors it’s clear that they’re interpretation of the facts is anything but rock solid.

Now don’t let the coming arguments of Attitude Brigade fool you. I am no mere simple minded, biased, impulsive, foolhardy hater of all adult or character oriented entertainment who is just seeking the latest opportunity to put over a product that I find superior to that of times gone by. The fact is, I truly believe that it’s in the best interest of the long term sustainability of the wrestling industry to weather the storm and sell a wrestling oriented product to the remaining fans of the business. That doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy blood. That doesn’t mean that I don’t enjoy crass language. That doesn’t mean that I don’t enjoy sexuality. However, its value in professional wrestling is marginal in 2009 (if it even has any value at all). Let’s dispel the rumors that may arise about any supposed bias that I might possess. I’m a man who loves the show Dexter. I’m a man who, just last evening, enjoyed the somewhat violent and definitely adult oriented Michael Mann film Heat, not exactly something marketed for its family friendliness (something which evokes vehement ire from those who long for the second coming of the Attitude Era). I think The Sopranos is the greatest artistic achievement since the days of Shakespeare. Would a man who hates adult or character themed entertainment really throw his stamp of approval on a show where a character summed up the whole of the first season with the phrase “Cunnilingus and psychiatry have brought us to this point”? No. I enjoy adult entertainment. I enjoy character driven entertainment. However, going out of one’s way to deliver the former or sacrificing the wrestling roots of the show to deliver the latter creates a type of product that simply cannot be sustained in this industry.

Adult entertainment is fine. However, there is only so far that can be taken before your show becomes hardcore pornography. The entire point of building a show around being shocking is that the content has to escalate. You always have to show something more shocking than you did before. Eventually, you can’t sustain a product under the weight of that kind of demand. The Attitude Era, in this regard, harmed the professional wrestling industry. When the WWE product returned to its status quo baseline roots of being a more professional wrestling oriented program, it was (for a time) no-sold because the Attitude Era spoiled wrestling fans to the point where wrestling wasn’t enough for them anymore. It took a rebuilding phrase in order to repair the harm caused by what happened at the end of the 90s and over the last few years we finally got people once again to celebrate professional wrestling. Is everything perfect? No. But that doesn’t mean enjoying and expecting wrestling on a wrestling program in any way makes us the bad guys. We aren’t bad for business. If you are here for wrestling, you are saving the industry.

You can have characters on a wrestling oriented show. Just ask Chris Jericho. Just ask Edge. Just ask CM Punk. One does not have to focus solely on characters on free television though. It is possible to have wrestling matches and get characters over. SmackDown and ECW are doing this quite well at the moment. However, the illusion created by the success of the Attitude Era is being used as weapon to make it seem that liking today’s product is a bad thing. It’s not a bad thing to enjoy marquee matches being given to us for free. Heck, logic dictates that the business would be better served if the fans were taught to expect great wrestling rather than get starved of quality action and lose interest. Not only that, but putting quality action on TV gives the Tyson Kidds and Evan Bounes of the world a chance to shine that they would not be given if all the quality action were saved for pay per view. Those guys getting over now gives the company a chance to have people care when they’re used to make money in the future. Now that’s really thinking about the good of the company!

Unfortunately, the lie that liking wrestling hurts the wrestling business continues to grow. All because the lie we were told at the peak of the business’ popularity. Does that seem odd to anyone else?

 

[spiketbear]

I agree. I actually cringed back in the day when people kept pointing at their crotches. Now the show is able to entertain without going for the shock value that is so limited. I have found that it is better for a show's long time credibility if it isn't pushing the limits of gore and sexuality. When a show is tasteful but still edgy, it can last through generations, and in time be considered a classic. The Looney Toons are classic because they are not made for kids, not made for adults, but they are adult oriented in a subtle way that won't harm a kid's well being when watched. So I am glad that the WWE has stopped embracing drug use, humping dead bodies, convincing kids to form wrestling-related gangs to beat on nerds, and things like that. The show is much better now than it was in the Attitude Era.

 

[Coco]

Looney Toons is a fantastic example. Even as part of that young adult male demographic that some wish the WWE would focus more on by pandering with shock TV, I still enjoy checking out old episodes of Bugs andTweety on Teletoon Retro here in Canada. They really capture that demographic transcending quality that you talked about which makes it possible for something to appeal to both children and adults. One of my favorite examples of something that does that is most Pixar films. For example, last year Wall-E was a hit with both kids and adults because it had the fun that the kids need coupled with great storytelling, but it never pushed itself too far towards pandering to either demo or excluding the other at any point. It's a really fantastic example of how both children and adults can be pleased at the same time.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

NOTE: I am going to have to do this in 2 parts, because the text was too long for it to be accepted when I tried to post it.

So here it goes.

...................................

Of course that’s not the popular thing to say nowadays.

A nice lengthy post to respond to. What the Hell. I'm motivated.

Before I continue, I would simply request that everyone who wants to participate in this discussion read this brief column which was posted on 411mania.com. Because I think it gives a pretty good analysis of the bickering that is going on between posters online today.

The IWC is Happy. Vince is Not.



The IWC is euphoric. But if ratings don't improve, things could get ugly.

In my opinion, WWE programming is awesome at the moment. Smackdown, ECW, and WWE Superstars are great wrestling shows. And much of that is due to the outcome of the WWE Draft. Smackdown was given such stars as Rey Mysterio, CM Punk, Chris Jericho, and John Morrison. They have joined Edge and Jeff Hardy to form a modern day version of the Smackdown Six. And if you think Smackdown has a good roster now, it'll be even better when The Undertaker returns.

The same goes for ECW. They may not have the star power of Smackdown or Raw. But they have the right pieces in place to produce quality wrestling matches. Swagger, Christian, Finlay, Kidd, Smith, and Bourne have given fans plenty to cheer about. Even Dreamer, Henry, and Kozlov have performed well since the Draft. ECW is generally well-liked by the persnickety IWC. Some members of that community have even called it the best show around.

WWE Superstars has already given fans a few match of the week bouts… and it's only been around since April. It is a reliable and solid "wrestling" show.

IWC fans are finally getting what they've wanted for years. They're getting wrestling. They're getting long matches. New stars are being built. The main event scene is fluid. The IWC wants parity in wrestling; WWE's Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday night shows are giving it to them.

Smackdown especially has drawn nearly universal acclaim from internet wrestling fans. Every week, the show just keeps getting better and better. The IWC finally seems to be warming up to the WWE. However…

There's a problem…


Ratings



Nobody is watching those shows! While Raw has remained consistent since the Draft, WWE's other three "wrestling-oriented" broadcasts have drawn subpar ratings. Smackdown rarely exceeds 2.0, ECW has been trending downward (often below a 1.3), and WWE Superstars consistently scores in the .9 range. Those numbers have to be unsettling for WWE's top brass.

Here's something to keep in mind...

Raw is WWE's "entertainment" program. It reliably draws in the 3's, and occasionally in the 4's. On some weeks, the other three wrestling shows combined struggle to get as many viewers as Raw. Yes, there are many factors that affect ratings. But so far, "wrestling" programming has not delivered. The quality of the shows has improved in the eyes of the IWC. But if WWE judges success by ratings... our favorite wrestling shows have failed miserably.

Does that mean those shows will change? I hope not! But it may only be a matter of time before Smackdown, Superstars, and ECW take on a zanier Raw-like tone.

Bottom line...

If Vince McMahon concludes that "wrestling" doesn't draw, we may see WWE's non-flagship shows go in a different direction.

More Food For Thought

It's kind of funny that ratings fall when the IWC is happy. Should that tell us something?

I know what it tells me: The IWC wants one thing, the general wrestling fanbase wants another. Both groups want drama, but that's the only thing they share in common. The IWC wants the drama to come from wrestling matches. The general wrestling fanbase don't always believe that the best stories are told in a match. They prefer a soap-opera style. They like long promos, backstage segments, and swerves. For them, matches serve a purpose... but only as a means to an end. If a match doesn't serve a storyline purpose, the general fanbase tends to tune out. I've even heard fans bust out the "boring" chants during 4 star matches.

For the IWC fan, a match is usually an end in itself. Matches don't need to advance a storyline. That is probably the key, fundamental difference between the IWC and the general wrestling fanbase. The IWC wants the wrestlers to shut up and wrestle, and everyone else wants the opposite.

My final observation: Raw is drawing in viewers, and appealing to a broad fanbase. Shows like Smackdown are drawing in less people, and appealing to a narrow fansbase. Something has to give. And unfortunately, I don't think McMahon will continue to produce IWC-friendly TV if the ratings continue to plummet.

www.411mania.com

And that is primarily what I see going on today. We have two different breeds of fans that want two different things. However, rather than there being any sort of acknowledgment or willingness to compromise on the programming, the ROH-bot WWE fans feel the need to attempt to push their own personal views of how "wrestling should be".


We've seen all the typical comments, along with these posters kicking and stomping their feet:


"The Attitude Era is over and it isn't coming back!"

"Who wants to see Bra and Panties matches, anyway?"

"What's the big deal about no cursing?"

"No blood? Who needs blood?"

"Why do there always have to be storylines? Why can't people just be happy watching good matches each week?"

"We need more wrestling, More Wrestling, MORE WRESTLING!!!"

"You aren't thinking about the Kids!"

"Maybe you didn't hear me. The Attitude Era ISN'T COMING BACK!!!"

More and more as I indulged in my daily frivolity in the Internet Wrestling Community (I hate the term, but it’s apt), I’ve seen a growing contingent of people who like to pretend that the thing we (as mere wrestling fans, most of us not financially invested in the product) should be most concerned with is in the best financial interest of the WWE rather than what we enjoy.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why when I see the dozens of posters who come on here, and especially more so another Forum you and I are aware of, and they defend the PG Era on the grounds that "it is best for business, best for merchandise ... how it's good business to kick the adults to the curb and bring in more kids because it is best for business and best for Vince" ...... I just want to throw something at the monitor.

I want to make this very clear. When I have these debates, I am advocating having a product that most reflects my interests (TV-14, edgy product like what Raw used to be) on ONE of the shows.

Then, I advocate having a PG product completely representative of what we see today, on another show to please those types of fans, too. And I rank a good part of the IWC ... AKA ROH-bots ... into that category, as well. This is the group that is absolutely ecstatic about what Smackdown is today.

Smackdown isn't my cup of tea. I have no interest in watching "Ring of Honor" ... I mean "Smackdown" in its current state.

ECW isn't my cup of tea. I have no interest in watching "FCW" ... damn, I did it again, I mean "ECW" on the Sci Fi Network. Which essentially is what it is.

But ... not even Raw is my cup of tea. Even though it is a show that features more vignettes (more up my alley), it is still as boring and stale as all get-out. The characters are boring. They aren't really involved in storylines, and if they are once in a while, it is a rarity. That show simply does not do a good job in making me care about its talent on there, anymore. And that used to be done through good story-telling and good angles the talent was involved in. The wrestling alone, doesn't do it for me, which is why Ring of Honor (Smackdown) isn't my cup of tea.

Once Raw resembles a product that I used to like, with edgy programming, complex storylines, interesting characters, etc. then I will be happy because at least I will have one show to myself. The ROH-bots can have their show (Smackdown) and ECW, as well. I just want one show. That's all I'm looking for.

And I don't say all that simply because I think it will be better business. I say that because I am a fan of that type of programming. However, I just happen to think it will be better for business, anyway, and can certainly build a case and argue why.

This comes in many forms. Some parts of this contingent are begging for WWE to go back to the (unsustainable) kind of product they had back in the period of time hailed as WWE’s Attitude Era, as that was the era in which WWE ratings were at their all time peak.

I certainly don't think WWE will be bringing in 6.0 ratings again. They would have to do some something very major in order to achieve that.

However, in pointing to the Post Attitude Era from March 2001 until the middle of 2006, WWE had no problem sustaining ratings in the 4's and upper 3's consistently. And, it was programming that I personally enjoyed ten times better than what I see on my screen today.

The Post Attitude Era was very, very slightly toned down from the Attitude Era. However, make no mistake about it, there is absolutely no question I enjoyed that programming more than today's programming.

With this view comes the logic that long matches, good matches, or main event level matches being given away for free on television is bad for the pay per view part of the wrestling business.

In arguing this from a business point of view, I agree 100% with that viewpoint.

However, and I may be unique here, but I also argue this from a fan's point of view, as well. And I think those that are very thoughtful about this may agree. But let's continue, and I will elaborate more on this as we go.

Every time a big match is given away on Raw, these people come out of the woodwork to declare how bad a move like that is for business.

My position is that it is fine to do a big match once in a while, but doing this on a continual basis every single week, in my very strong opinion, is very, very bad for business. From a fan's point of view, I also have a problem with it, as well. If I would have been arguing this point 10 years ago, I wouldn't have understood the implications that doing this has done to the business. But being older, I see those implications today.

Let's talk about why this is a bad thing after your next quote.

As shows like ECW and SmackDown become more and more wrestling oriented, these people run down how much these products dilute the market for pay per views. I don’t believe any of this.

Coco, you are a very intelligent poster. But I feel this is a common sense argument you just happen to be on the wrong side of. This does dilute the market for PPV's and it HAS diluted the market for PPV's. Not only has this diluted the PPV market, it has also taken interest in the overall product down substantially. And I will tell you why.

You, as a fan, can not expect the entire fanbase to be continually interested in seeing the same matches, between the same two competitors, over and over and over and over again. You have John Cena vs Edge on Free TV. Then you have John Cena vs Edge on the PPV. Then, we have John Cena vs Edge in another Free match on TV. Then, we put them on PPV the next month on a PPV. Then, they have another match on Raw. Then, we put them on PPV again the following month.

And I just used Cena vs Edge as an example. You can really substitute any two names you want.

John Cena vs Big Show
Triple H vs Randy Orton
Triple H vs Big Show
Edge vs Jeff Hardy


The fact that there are gimmick matches once in a while to vary the matches, is NOT ENOUGH, anymore. You are still getting the same two competitors facing each other several times a month on Free TV, and several times a month on the PPV's.

So the problem is two-fold. Not only do people get bored of seeing the same two superstars wrestle each other for 3-4 months in a row, then they also question why they should bother paying to see the same two wrestlers fight on the PPV's 3-4 months in a row for $45, when they can see them wrestle on Raw or Smackdown ... especially Smackdown where the matches now go over 10 minutes.

This all goes back to the column posted earlier. We basically have two different breeds of fans. We have those fans who watch wrestling more so for the characters and storylines, who like to see the storylines build up to a huge match on PPV between the two superstars.

Then, we have the Ring of Honor WWE fans who don't get tired of seeing Cena vs Edge or Triple H vs Randy Orton. They could wrestle on PPVs 4 times in a row, and countless times on free TV and it does not matter to these people. As long as they produce good matches on TV, this particular breed of wrestling fans DO NOT get tired of seeing two specific superstars wrestle.

So, some (a lot) of fans get tired of seeing the same two superstars wrestle, which leads to them becoming bored with the overall product. Other fans don't get tired of seeing the same two superstars wrestle and could watch them wrestle 100 times a year. Some fans watch wrestling ONLY for the quality of the wrestling matches. Other fans watch wrestling for a variety of reasons. I understand this because I see both of these mentalities with my own two eyes, and I see both breeds of fans. With all due respect, Coco, I don't think you see this, and are only arguing from your own viewpoint in how you feel "things should be" through your eyes only.

You shouldn’t believe any of this. We are not ruining the business with our selfishness. We are the ones bringing sustainability back to professional wrestling.

Well, one of us is right and one of us is wrong.

I guess we have a difference of opinion, although WWE ratings and PPV buyrates are falling for a reason. And to me, the answer is as clear as day on why this is happening. Plain and simply, because it is boring, and because Vince rarely offers anything new that we haven't seen before. The characters are toned down to the point where they are no longer interesting. And there are basically no storylines, anymore.

I have been giving you the answers for a long time now, Coco. And I feel that after following the business for 20 years, that I have a pretty good grasp on what I am talking about. However instead, you chose not to listen to what I or others are saying, and the reason I think this is, is because you personally enjoy what you see on TV today. You watch wrestling for the wrestling. And you feel that others should ideally watch wrestling for the wrestling, as well. In other words, I feel you want us to embrace Vince's new vision for the product.

And my answer to that is "no". I am not going to be told by anyone what I "should be liking". I make that determination for myself. And I think others feel the same, which is causing a lot of frustration amongst Vince and his loyalist ROH-type followers who get mad at fans still complaining about the Attitude Era ending ... because they want fans to "like wrestling strictly for the wrestling". And I have to say that I am very proud of the fans who keep the fight going. If you believe in something, you need to fight for it. Turn that TV off. Don't purchase the PPV's. Don't go to the shows anymore. Because that is the only way you are going to convince the Dictator that he's wrong, is by hitting him in his wallet.

This past Monday, Raw drew a huge rating. How? They advertised a major main event level title match which would be aired commercial free. People were promised quality out of that match.

See, this is exactly what I am talking about.

People who are out of touch with what the casual fans want and why they tune in and out. Either that, or they so don't want to believe the truth, they would rather keep repeating the lie because they just don't accept that people watch wrestling for a variety of reasons, besides the wrestling itself.

I am going to tell you the real reason that Raw did a 4.5 rating last week and you probably aren't going to like it. And the reason I can testify to this is because last week's Raw was the first Raw I tuned into in 2 months. However, something out there compelled me to tune in. If you really think it was Triple H vs Randy Orton in yet another match, I don't know what to tell you. You couldn't be more wrong.


The answer is 2 words:

"Donald Trump"


More specifically, because Donald Trump announced that he was going to physically be at last week's Raw, and that he was taking over as the New Owner of the show. I tuned into that show because I felt I was finally getting something different that I have not seen on Raw in months, if not years. That was a new, compelling and exciting storyline which would produce some interesting television. The reason I tuned in was not because of the matches at all. It had absolutely nothing to do with the matches.

Raw could have not even announced a Main Event for that show, and I would have still tuned in.

Raw could have aired with commercials, and I would have still tuned in.

Donald Trump and Vince McMahon together in a storyline generates buzz and interest. And if you don't believe me, look at the Wrestlemania 23 Buyrate that brought in more PPV buys than any other Wrestlemania in history. I thought the Head-Shaving angle was completely lame, but Trump's name attached to the PPV was enough for the show to sell. To be frank, I thought this angle with him buying Raw was ten times better than his Wrestlemania 23 part, and I actually wish they would have done this storyline back then.

And while I don’t think the match delivered on the promise of quality, it delivered at least twenty minutes of in-ring product. Guess what? After that big match, people didn’t go away.

It wasn't the match, Coco. It was Trump's involvement in the show and the storyline that he "bought Raw".

I think the commercial free element was another great promo tool that also gave the ratings a boost, but the driving force behind the rating, make no mistake about it, was the fact that Donald Trump was announced to be present at the show, and that he was involved in a HUGE angle with the company, that brought in the viewers.

I can not believe you honestly are suggesting that you think that

yet another Triple H vs Randy Orton match was responsible for pulling in a 4.5 rating for the entire show, just because it was commercial free. You are talking about making a claim that the WWE brought in one entire ratings point higher, which is basically a miracle, because of Randy Orton vs Triple H.

They stuck around for a huge main event. The promise of quality keeps fans hooked.

Quality storylines are what the fans are looking for on Raw. They got it .... for one week. Watch what happens tomorrow, unless they find a way to continue that storyline. My guess is that Vince is going to be all over Raw tomorrow, which will help. Raw isn't going to do no 4.5 tomorrow, but if McMahon is plastered all over the TV tomorrow, that will help the show.

I bet you if Raw simply went back to its usual self, you wouldn't see anywhere near even a 4.0 rating tomorrow.

People aren't interested in quality matches on Free TV. And Smackdown's falling ratings should be a big wakeup call to you on that. Smackdown consistently produces great matches, yet the ratings continue to drop every week, and it's time to cut the excuses on as to why that is happening.

We've heard the usual arguments, and I am going to respond to those right now.

It's because the show is on Friday Night.

Well, Friday Night is NOT the most desirable night of the week, but hardly an acceptable excuse for Smackdown dropping down to a 1.6 low. Why? Because Smackdown has been on Friday nights since September 9, 2005. Yet the ROH Smackdown bots know that this argument is a fallacy and that finger-pointing is being done. So they feel the need to pretend that the move to Friday nights occurred just recently, and that's the reason for the declining ratings. Wrong.

Here is the other big argument.

It's because the show is on My Network TV.

I am willing to listen to this excuse, however am still not completely sold on it. And here is why.

When Smackdown was on the CW Network, it was doing a 2.3 average rating the last several weeks. When they moved to MyNetworkTV, they did a 1.9 the first week (to be expected the week of the actual change), BUT then they bounced back to a 2.1 and 2.2. So realistically, since the change to the network, the WWE only lost about .2 ratings points from changing to the new network.

Smackdown's highest rated show on MyNetworkTV is a 2.3, which was done on February 27th of this year. And that was in line with what the show was doing right before it left the CW.

So, if we know that Smackdown is capable of pulling in 2.3 ratings on this same network, why has it dropped all the way down to a 1.6 and 1.7 as of late, despite the excellent matches?

I know I am very blunt when I speak, but I'm just being honest. The bullshit excuses need to end. The problem is that despite the most noble intentions of the ROH bots who enjoy today's Smackdown, and want Raw to be the same thing ... the reality is that "wrestling, by itself, DOES NOT SELL. It simply DOES NOT SELL."

I would rather sit down and watch intense angles and intricate storylines on the weekly shows to actually get me excited to see the match on PPV. And when I buy the PPV, then I can into the match because of every thing that happened in the storyline that brought us to this point on the PPV. I can get much more into an actual match IF it had sufficient build through quality story-telling and intense angles as opposed to simply throwing the same two superstars in a match for 3-4 months in a row, AND having them wrestle on Free TV along the way. It boggles my mind how someone can not see how this is taking all the intrigue away from seeing the two superstars wrestle on PPV, which are supposed to be built as the Big Events.

Rather than the standard Monday night fare which leaves one’s wrestling palate unsatisfied, two weeks of above an above average amount of heavily promoted top matches on Monday nights have drawn in viewers. Yes, you heard me correctly. The promise of professional wrestling made people interested in shows and boosted ratings.

I'm not going to repeat myself any further from above, but it isn't the wrestling that is bringing in the ratings. I think Smackdown proves that.


They weren’t Attitude Era level ratings, but they were above average nonetheless.

But of course the doubters of the drawing ability of professional wrestling would tell us that this still doesn’t matter because it doesn’t begin to combat the success of the Attitude Era and that the viewership of the more often than not wrestling oriented Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday shows is faltering when compared to the more (by today’s standard) sports entertainment oriented show.

You can call us "doubters" all you want. The fact is that we are right on the money with our allegations, and we actually have the data to back up our assertions.

Again, going back to that column, you are a classic part of the IWC and what I call an ROH-bot WWE fan. Nothing wrong with that and you can feel free to like what you want. I just think you couldn't be more off-base, as the column points out, in your views of what the Casuals want to see. You don't understand their viewing behavior, or what they want, but even worse ... you don't want to. You would rather them adopt your ideologies of how you feel wrestling "should be".

They would have us believe that WWE needs a dramatic increase in the amount of talk, adult oriented themes, and stunt booking to get the WWE back where it belongs coupled with a decrease in the length and quality of the wrestling provided on free TV so that stories and not wrestling sell the PPVs and so that wrestling fans are intentionally starved of what they crave so as to stir up interest for PPVs.

I couldn't say it better myself.

If you want your fanbase to get excited about a match, you need to give them a REASON to get excited, in the first place. And you do that through good storytelling. You don't do that through having multiple matches on free tv between two superstars, only to see them wrestle yet again on the PPV.

I think the adult themes were great, and tapped into the interest of the 18-24 year old male fans, however even I would be willing to sacrifice the adult-theme television in the PG Era, IF Raw would get back to being the male soap opera it used to be, with telling complex stories on the show, and getting people fired up to see the Big Match on PPV.


Triple H vs Randy Orton for Free on Raw is not going to sell Triple H vs Randy Orton yet again on PPV.

Randy Orton DDT'ing Stephanie, breaking into a home, or punting Vince McMahon will sell Triple H vs Randy Orton on PPV.

However, I believe this sort of tactic will not work on the wrestling fans of today and will not bring back the wrestling fans lost at the end of the Attitude Era.

Clearly, fans are willing to come back to the WWE and are still out there. Raw going from a 3.6 to a 4.5 in a one week time frame is evidence enough of that.

BUT, you have to give them a big angle to tune into, and Vince did that. He brought in Donald Trump and did a storyline of Trump buying Raw. And .... he ended the biggest thing happening on Raw in one week. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. But again, it shouldn't be surprising.

When we read the newsboards that WWE ended the Trump angle because "the feeling backstage was negative towards the angle", yet the angle is responsible for giving the WWE almost a full point ratings increase (coincidentally enough, now WWE is thrilled with the rating, and is talking about having Trump back) then the evidence should be as clear as day that we have people backstage that are not listening to what the audience wants, and are out of touch with what the audience wants.

Why is the logic of the “wrestling hurts the WWE financially/bring back the Attitude Era” club not as sound as they like to make it sound?

It's actually very sound. All I think we are doing is stating things that are very much "common sense", with all due respect, of course.

I mean, after all, they have numbers. Ratings. Some of them even have numbers on spreadsheets.

Slyfox was nice enough to compile a ratings and PPV buyrate database for everyone on the General Wrestling forum, to help the quality of the debates on the forum. I simply update the database each week with all the ratings, as a hobby.

Not only is it impressive, but it’s actually mildly intimidating.

I can't speak for others, but I use the data on the spreadsheets to make a case. It is very difficult to argue with cold, hard data. The more concrete data you have in your favor, the easier time you will have in making your case. You and others are more than welcomed to do the exact same thing, however you and I both know that the numbers don't work to your favor, therefore you will have a more difficult time supporting your opinions that you think "people tune in to WWE just to see good matches".

Again, Coco, I think you are a great guy. I just think you are out of touch with the Mainstream. I think Vince is too, though so don't feel bad.

Add on to that the fact that you can’t even indulged in liquid courage while discrediting the spreadsheets because that’s liable to impair one’s reasoning skills and it becomes safe to say that taking these people on is no short order. Not to mention, as we’re constantly reminded by this increasingly large and vocal contingent, the numbers aren’t subject to any sort of interpretation or scrutiny. They can’t possibly be discredited. They are rock solid proof of the superiority of the Attitude Era and a less wrestling oriented product... Wait, that’s not right...

The funny thing is that I think the ROH bot IWC WWE fans are the ones who are increasingly large and vocal on the Internet. I just don't think they are as big as they think they are in the Mainstream of things. But I find this group to be extremely mouthy trying to tell everyone online how "we shouldn't be bored to tears with Randy Orton vs Triple H for the 500th time, because they put on great matches .... or how we shouldn't be upset that John Cena is taking on Edge for the 100th time on PPV, because we should be happy with the quality of match they produce. And nor should we be upset if they wrestle each other another dozen times for free on weekly TV, and nor should that take away from the intrigue of the match on PPV after the 3rd month in a row."

You guys are just a different breed of fans and watch wrestling for different reasons than the Mainstream Fans do. And again, I sense a level of frustration that the other fans who argue for the Attitude Era are not adopting to your way of thinking. Once you accept the fact that this is the year 2009, and we are in the Day and Age of the Internet ... and you are "no longer capable of telling fans what they SHOULD be liking" anymore, than you can take it to the next level and address the problem.

I personally think Vince is still stuck in the 80's/90's Pre-Internet Era and thinks he can still dictate to his fans what they SHOULD find enjoyable, and it just doesn't work in this day and age. Again, I applaud the fans for standing up to Vince and keeping the fight going. You have my absolute utmost respect.

He has his priorities reversed. He thinks he can give fans whatever he wants to give them, and they should be satisfied with what they get. Why? "Because there is no competition, that's why! So I am going to do what's best for me" -- which is his mentality.

Instead, I think he should be conducting market research and actively going out and asking fans what type of programming they want to see. And the reason he doesn't is because we know what the answer is going to be.

"I want to see Bra and Panties matches and sexuality from the Divas."

"I want to see cursing."

"I want to see blood."

"I want to see violent feuds."

"I don't want to see the same two wrestlers wrestling each other for 3-4 months in a row. I want to see variety."


Basically, Vince wants his business ran one way, and the mainstream fans want something else.



And he doesn't want to give in to them, because he is a very stubborn man, who doesn't like being told what to do ... who also thinks he knows better than anyone else what the fans should be enjoying (which "ironically enough", just happens to be the type of programming that most appeals to advertisers, because it's "safe television").

The fans are trying to push Vince, and he doesn't want to budge. To be frank, this is one of the more entertaining things I find about following the business these days. Seeing the feud away from the TV cameras with the fans putting up a fight and protesting with Vince and his direction of the company. I find this more entertaining than just about anything on WWE TV today.

It is my humble opinion that the numbers that were garnered during the Attitude Era, as impressive as they were, have absolutely no business being directly compared to the numbers of today.

I have heard the argument that "The Attitude Era was a Fad, and that ...

To put it simply, the bubble burst. The bottom fell out.

And I can agree, but only to an extent. And the reason is because I also look at the numbers from the Post Attitude Era (2001-2006), which was a substantially longer period than the Attitude Era, after that "fad" was over. And those numbers were still superior to today's numbers.

What I think transpired was that Vince saw the numbers decline from the Post Attitude Era from the actual Attitude Era, and made a rash decision. I think he felt he had to totally change his product and start over, when I don't really think he had to. Instead, he reacted the wrong way to the "fad" ending.

I don't think the fans wanted the programming content to change, overall. The WWE's main problem is that they didn't have anyone to take over for icons like Steve Austin and The Rock. Vince was caught behind the 8-Ball, and instead pushed people like John Cena and Randy Orton to the moon as quickly as possible. However, since they weren't ready to take over when Austin and Rock left, this had a very damaging impact on the business.

Again, this points yet again to people's complaints that Vince DOES NOT focus enough on the midcard and Tag Team Divisions. Had he done so and had John Cena and Randy Orton developing all that time while Rock and Austin were headlining the Attitude Era, there wouldn't have been a problem.

And we see the results today with Cena and Orton. Absolutely nowhere near as popular ... absolutely NOWHERE near as popular as Rock and Austin. Of course, a big part of that is also that Cena can not rely on the same programming content that Austin and Rock used either, now.

So, we have two uphill battles to climb. The fact that Vince pushed Cena and Orton too soon perhaps, AND that they can not rely on the same risque programming to get over that Rock and Austin did.

The bottom line is that Vince reacted poorly to the fad ending, and not being prepared to give the fans two marquee stars ready to take their place.

The value offered to the company by using progressively more adult oriented characters and angles, simply for the sake of being shocking, plateaued at the early part of the decade.

And yet, the ratings throughout the entire Post Attitude Era, from 2001-2006, still drew higher than today.

People lost interest as top performers (Rock and Austin) left, but management perceived that the best way to solve this problem was to garner interest by being even more controversial (once again, simply for the sake of being controversial).

Even more controversial? The Post Attitude Era had one or two very suggestive storylines. We are talking about Katie Vick, which most people agree was a horrendous storyline. That programming was not reflective of the entire Post Attitude Era. That was one bad storyline.

You have to keep in mind that DX in the actual Attitude Era was going as far as getting women in the crowd to take their tops off. You mean to tell me that you saw this happening in the Post Attitude Era? Hardly. The Post Attitude Era still had the soap opera storylines, but it was definitely toned down a notch from the actual Attitude Era.

However, this strategy failed as ratings continued to decline despite WWE’s best efforts to be true to the standard of programming they set with the Attitude Era.

I thought you just got done telling us that the Attitude Era was a "fad". So if the bubble burst, then doesn't it make sense for the ratings to go down with the bursting of the bubble?

With the departures of Steve Austin and The Rock, AND the closing of WCW and ECW ... AND the fact that Vince was not prepared for life after Austin and The Rock, the ratings dropped from 5's to 4's and the upper 3's on average. And they stayed there for years.

Let's examine the yearly average ratings for Raw from the actual Attitude Era, Post Attitude Era, and today in the PG Era:

Attitude Era

1998- 4.4
1999- 6.1
2000- 5.9

Post Attitude Era

2001- 4.6 (WWE transitions to Post Attitude Era, WCW and ECW are shut down, and Rock/Austin now are Part Time workers)

2002- 4.0
2003- 3.8
2004- 3.7
2005- 3.8
2006- 3.9 (WWE begins the move to cleaner, more wrestling-oriented television at the tail end of this year)

WWE PG Era

2007- 3.61
2008- 3.27 (due to cleaning up the television, the WWE officially earned the PG rating this year)

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Since the move was made to wrestling-oriented programming and the PG Era, ratings dropped significantly. Last year, with the PG Era in full gear, WWE earned its lowest annual rating for Raw since the year 1997.

As you can see, even the annual rating in 2007 was lower than any year ever, even in the Post Attitude Era.

Katie Vick couldn’t save the WWE from a decline in the ratings. Neither could the marriage of Billy and Chuck. The largest travesty of all was that, as scintillating and arousing as HLA and the Torrie Wilson/Dawn Marie hotel segment was to the twelve year old Coco once upon an Armageddon, WWE ratings continued to dip in the wake of Al Wilson’s tragic honeymoon related coma.

I must say, it is funny in seeing the tried and true tactics of the ROH-bot WWE Fans. Just for those that are unaware, a tactic that is used amongst this breed of fan is to point out the absolute worst gimmick they can possibly find of the Era, and beat it into the ground, and make it seem like those particular storylines dragged on for the entire Era.

Case and point with Katie Vick.

One bad segment from the Post Attitude Era results in making it seem like Katie Vick happened every single week of the Post Attitude Era, when it didn't.

My personal thoughts on Katie Vick was simply that it was "stupid and not very funny, at all." I largely ignored the segment. I wasn't offended by it, however didn't laugh at it, or find it amusing. So, I went on watching the program to see what was next. I simply moved on.

As far as your other examples, I did find HLA amusing and enjoyed the storyline with Bischoff and Stephanie McMahon. And I am not ashamed to admit it, either. Bischoff even had the crowd chanting "HLA", which is more than I can say for today's fans who sit there like a bump on a log, and who would be more excited by watching paint dry than actually being at the show.

And I can tell you the Torrie Wilson/Dawn Marie/Al Wilson saga is far more interesting and likely to keep the attention of the mainstream fans more than anything you see on television today. Again, another angle I didn't have a problem with. It was a great angle for two of the premier Divas to be involved in and gave them something to do. All of them produced some great television.

But despite all these indications that senseless shock oriented television in the place of wrestling wouldn’t help business, the myth continued to grow among fans of that era that the audience of the Rock and Steve Austin could be won back with promises of adult oriented television. There is a great refusal in a certain sect of the IWC to accept that the bubble busting means that the value of the shocking and adult content associated with the Attitude Era is gone and not coming back for the foreseeable future.

The bubble burst because of the reasons we discussed. And even though the burst, again ratings were still higher and PPV buyrates were higher than what we see today. Wrestling by itself DOES NOT SELL. You need to have a formula like WWE used to have:

Raw/Smackdown- storyline driven with angles and intriguing characters to get people interested in the characters and the feuds.

The PPV- One big PPV a month in which we see two talents battle it out. The interest and intrigue is there as a result of the effort put into the storylines on weekly TV.

Now, Vince has a very hard head, but it may be sinking into him that we need that formula back. Hopefully, the Trump experiment on Raw last week will knock some sense into him. Also, I noticed that Vince appeared on Smackdown 4 times last week and is involved with a storyline with Teddy Long. Despite the fact that Smackdown has been a strictly-wrestling oriented show, would you care to make a wager right now in whether or not last Friday's ratings will be up or down as a result of Vince's appearances? Just to let you know, Smackdown did a 1.7 the week prior, before Vince began appearing.

You and I both know the answer to that, without you even answering. Although it doesn't look like a full blown storyline, Vince appears to be working an angle now with Teddy Long and threatening him with his job. So that probably means Vince will try this experiment for a couple weeks with appearing on the show, to see if things improve. And if they do, this will yet again be another strike against the ROH/WWE-bots and further demonstrate their disconnect with the mainstream fans.

What serves to further annoy me about the use of the numbers to discredit people who enjoy a wrestling oriented product is the assertion that since Raw gets better ratings than ECW, Superstars, and Smackdown that sports entertainment draws better than wrestling.

It is my firm belief that "Sports Entertainment" does draw better than wrestling, however I agree with you to a very small extent.

Part of the problem is that Raw is marketed as the "flagship show". If it were up to me, there would be no "flagship show" and instead, all of my shows would have an equal effort put into them. It is my philosophy that you can not build an audience for a show, but subtly telling them that the show doesn't matter.

But, at the same time, it is interesting to note that once WWE does a storyline with Donald Trump, then ratings for the Sports Entertainment show go up almost a full ratings point.

Now, here is the real question. I am going to present you with a choice for 2 different Smackdown shows. Your job is to pick the one that YOU THINK will produce the higher rating.

You can either pick from:

A) A show driven by a Donald Trump vs Vince McMahon storyline, with Donald Trump trying to take over Smackdown.

or ....

B) A show that is completely wrestling-driven that will be headlined by John Cena hopping over to Smackdown to take on Edge.


Which show do you think will produce the higher rating?

It baffles me that this myth has gained any sort of steam, but the fact that it’s simple to debunk helps keep me from getting too angry.

Erm, not so fast. You haven't debunked it.

The fact is that Raw is more heavily promoted than any of the other shows and more heavily distributed than any of the other shows. Thinking the ratings of the current shows are prime for a valid comparison is one of the grave acts of ignorance committed by the crowd looking to run down good or long matches being given away on free television.

Again, true to an extent because of the way Raw is marketed.

BUT, let's take a look at the ratings PATTERNS for the two shows.


Raw attempts to be the Vignette/Promo oriented show (and I still think it sucks, because they've abandoned the concept of storylines and interesting characters). Put it this way, Raw is not the wrestling-oriented show and Smackdown is.

Let's see what happens to the ratings of each show when:

1) Raw puts effort and focus into an attempt at an angle/storyline
2) Smackdown puts effort and focus into having great matches



What happens to Raw's ratings when Vince appears on the show? They go up.

What happened to Raw's ratings when Orton punted McMahon? They went up.

What happened to Raw's ratings when Triple H broke into Orton's house?

What happened to Raw's ratings when Orton face-planted Stephanie? Ratings went up.

What happened to Raw's ratings when Donald Trump appeared on the show in a short storyline? Ratings shot waaaaay up.

So without even comparing actual ratings, it is clear that the ratings' pattern goes up whenever this show does storylines.




Now, let's see what transpires with great matches on Smackdown.


6/19/09-- Headlined by 2 IWC favorites-- Rey Mysterio vs CM Punk.

Rating: 1.7. (Gain of only .1 ratings points from the week prior)



One of the greatest examples of how wrestling by itself does not draw on the weekly shows is the hour long marathon match between John Cena and Shawn Michaels. This was on April 23, 2007

That week's show rating was a 3.7, which isn't bad. The prior week, Raw did the same ... a 3.7. So that did not motivate viewers to tune in, even with announcing a Wrestlemania rematch in advance. Not to mention the fact that it lasted 50 minutes. But even more interesting was noting that the rating for the match dropped as the match progressed. I have searched everywhere for the actual ratings breakdown for that match, as I haven't seen it in years, but I distinctly remember the ratings breakdown released stating that the ratings fell as the match progressed, and there being discussions on why that was the case.

We know Smackdown, the wrestling show, doesn't produce very high increases in ratings from one week to another depending on the match and who's in it. The show has simply dropped from a 2.3 to a 1.6 from the time the show began on that network. And I have yet to hear a credible explanation from your side as to why, even though the show is unquestionably heavily focused on the actual wrestling.

But I feel like I am going through and posting a lot of numbers throughout this post. If you could do the same and post examples of shows that are wrestling-focused, specifically on Smackdown, and post some numbers to demonstrate your point that you think the actual matches are what brings in the numbers, then feel free.

However, I am going to tell you right now, if WWE can find another Rock or Austin (well, certainly not an Austin since the current rating won't allow for that type of character anymore) ... but if they can find another promo-oriented megastar like the Rock and put him on Raw, ratings would sky-rocket. The public is absolutely begging for this, but Vince can't accomodate them. So instead, he gives them a show with lame promos, and basically no storylines, nothing new. And he wonders why fans could care less.

Anyway, let's continue on ....

However, once one looks past their smoke and mirrors it’s clear that they’re interpretation of the facts is anything but rock solid.

I feel are arguments are heavily logic-based and common-sensical. At least we can produce actual numbers from a variety of Eras to demonstrate our point. I can't say the same from your side.

If you think the public turns in strictly for the quality of the matches, please demonstrate your point with several examples of lengthy matches, and the ratings the show (and preferably the match itself, if you can find it) drew.

It's funny because I challenged the ROH/WWE-bots who were praising Smackdown and trashing Raw if they would be willing to put their money where their mouth is and say if they would be in favor of seeing Smackdown's wrestling-oriented format shifted over to Raw, and Raw's format go over to Smackdown ... and wager that Raw's ratings would rise. And I basically got nobody willing to come forward and put their reputation on the line and say "Yes, if Raw adopted Smackdown's format, ratings would increase." Very telling.

Now don’t let the coming arguments of Attitude Brigade fool you. I am no mere simple minded, biased, impulsive, foolhardy hater of all adult or character oriented entertainment who is just seeking the latest opportunity to put over a product that I find superior to that of times gone by.

Well, I am glad you said that. Because I typically find the ROH/WWE fans too be some of the most arrogant group of smarks that I've ever seen. The people with the mentalities of "I'm better than you", "I am a REAL wrestling fan and you aren't", "Why do you even bother watching wrestling, if you don't like 15 and 20 minute matches every week", "My programming is better than your programming", "Either enjoy what WWE is today or TURN THE FUCKING TV OFF AND LEAVE!" etc.

And it's amusing hearing smarks like this insert all their mouthy "I'm better than you" opinions, but with absolutely zero .... and I do mean ZERO data to support any of their stances. If anything, with examining the data and comparing it to their stances, that gives even more credence to there being an incredible disconnect between what they like, and what the mainstream audience is looking for.

What I am still toying with is whether or not they know this deep down, and are simply trying to shout everyone else down so momentum doesn't start building against them ..... or whether they are truly naive and disconnected from the rest of the fanbase out there. I think it's a mixture of both, at this point.

The fact is, I truly believe that it’s in the best interest of the long term sustainability of the wrestling industry to weather the storm and sell a wrestling oriented product to the remaining fans of the business.

Again, where you and I disagree is simply that I would want a wrestling oriented product, but it has its place in the big scheme of things. I just don't think the mainstream public of today wants to see an entire wrestling-oriented product with no interesting gimmick characters and no intriguing storylines. And nor do I think the strategy of "I'm going to tell you what you want, and you are going to like it" mentality working, either. Again, with the day and age of the Internet, where fans communicate their thoughts with each other daily, I just don't think that is feasible anymore.

If there are people out there who aren't happy, and they can see and communicate with all the other unhappy people out there online, then the movement shall remain with everyone feeding off everyone else. Where as before, people never communicated with each other with other fans from around the world on their thoughts with the product, and rather took what they got.

That doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy blood.

Blood is something I can do without. Like I've stated elsewhere, I hate the practice of blading. If WWE can pull off very realistic blood capsules and get this practice initiated without the IWC finding out and shitting all over the idea, I would love to try it.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t enjoy crass language. That doesn’t mean that I don’t enjoy sexuality. However, its value in professional wrestling is marginal in 2009 (if it even has any value at all).

Again, I still point to the ratings of the longer, Post Attitude Era being higher than today's ratings average in the PG Era. I don't think WWE could obtain 5's and 6's weekly, however I do think they would be doing a Hell of a lot better today IF they had some of that stuff incorporated into the show.

Again, it all comes down to the two primary breeds of wrestling fans and giving them each what they want. I think you should have a show for you. And I think I should have a show for me.

Let’s dispel the rumors that may arise about any supposed bias that I might possess. I’m a man who loves the show Dexter. I’m a man who, just last evening, enjoyed the somewhat violent and definitely adult oriented Michael Mann film Heat, not exactly something marketed for its family friendliness (something which evokes vehement ire from those who long for the second coming of the Attitude Era). I think The Sopranos is the greatest artistic achievement since the days of Shakespeare. Would a man who hates adult or character themed entertainment really throw his stamp of approval on a show where a character summed up the whole of the first season with the phrase “Cunnilingus and psychiatry have brought us to this point”? No. I enjoy adult entertainment. I enjoy character driven entertainment.

If you like character-driven entertainment, that may explain why you rated yourself as being Apathetic to the wrestling product in the poll. The problem is what I have said countless times now: Gimmick characters are gone, and even characters themselves have been severely limited. I think it is even up for debate whether we even truly have "characters" anymore, or if we just have "wrestlers with personalities".

And what's even worse, is the fact that you have that, but you also have the fact that storylines have been virtually eliminated across the board. The wrestling alone is NOT ENOUGH to get the public to care about the wrestlers. And that is one thing I think WWE is struggling with today. They are finding a very difficult time getting people to care about today's performers. And like I have said a million times, it is because these people aren't put in interesting storylines to get people to the point of caring about them. The wrestling itself isn't cutting it.

Now, to be honest, I don't watch much television.

The shows I do like are and have been: 24 (Action/Drama), Lost (Drama), Criminal Minds (Drama), The Shield (when it was on), I feel like an absolute dork admitting these two but the OC (Drama) and Smallville (Action).

However, I have always watched and enjoyed wrestling as "Sports Entertainment" ever since 1990, and I like a lot of those elements incorporated into my wrestling programming, to enjoy it.

In the Hogan Era, we didn't have many storylines, but we had gimmicks and other interesting characters. I was happy.

In the Attitude Era, WWE cut down on the gimmick characters, but instead gave us complex characters and intriguing storylines. And I was still happy.

Today, there are no gimmick characters. There are no interesting characters. And there basically are no storylines. Again, it should be a no-brainer why fans like myself are not happy across the board, even with Raw.

However, going out of one’s way to deliver the former or sacrificing the wrestling roots of the show to deliver the latter creates a type of product that simply cannot be sustained in this industry.

Again, the fact that the Post Attitude Era lasted longer than the Attitude Era says otherwise. Where as WWE won't likely get ratings up to a 5 or 6 again, the 4's and upper 3's were still the norm. Today, the norm is the low 3's. Put it this way, when Raw starts dipping BELOW a 3.0, which it has several times, that should be a red flag that there is a big problem. Same with Smackdown. When Smackdown starts dipping below a 2.0, that should raise some red flags. Vince appearing on Smackdown this past Friday and working with Teddy Long would hopefully be an indication that at least he picked up on the flag and is trying to do something about it.

Adult entertainment is fine. However, there is only so far that can be taken before your show becomes hardcore pornography.

Hardcore Porn? Give me a break. Dramatic much?

Not even Softcore Porn. When women start bearing their breasts, let me know.

Everything on Raw that was "suggestive" fell within the Y-14 rating. And of course, we have the Live Sex Celebration which produced a 4.5 rating for the show, and a 5.2 rating for the actual segment. Highest rated segment since anything produced in the Attitude Era. Again, clear indicator to what the public wants to see. Plus, Raw sustained the exact same 4.5 rating for the two weeks after.

The entire point of building a show around being shocking is that the content has to escalate. You always have to show something more shocking than you did before. Eventually, you can’t sustain a product under the weight of that kind of demand. The Attitude Era, in this regard, harmed the professional wrestling industry. When the WWE product returned to its status quo baseline roots of being a more professional wrestling oriented program, it was (for a time) no-sold because the Attitude Era spoiled wrestling fans to the point where wrestling wasn’t enough for them anymore.

It still doesn't sell by itself and it still isn't enough. Smackdown and ECW is a perfect example of this. Ratings are decreasing on each of those programs. Superstars frequently can't even support a 1.0 rating.

What you seem to enjoy is WWE going back to its Pre-Wrestlemania days, when this was all they had-- just wrestling. And I'm telling you right now, that isn't going to work, and it isn't working.

Throw some interesting characters into the mix like in the Hogan Era, and maybe. BUT, you have to have an absolute MEGA-STAR to lead the way, and John Cena is not capable of filling those shows in his current personality. I keep saying this, but I only wish they would have kept him in the Rapper gimmick. That had so much more potential than what we see today. He simply connected ten times better with the fans when he played that persona. He had the crowd in unison rapping with him. He did not get mixed ovations like he still does to this day.

It took a rebuilding phrase in order to repair the harm caused by what happened at the end of the 90s and over the last few years we finally got people once again to celebrate professional wrestling.

If that were true, then what would have transpired would have been ratings would have started out high in the Attitude Era. Then, they would have decreased in the Post Attitude Era (which they did). Then, they would have decreased in the PG Era (which they did). BUT, they would have shot back up simply because of the wrestling itself. That has not transpired, and I don't think you are at that point yet.

Notice again how ratings still DO NOT go up for BIG MATCHES. Rather, they go up for BIG EVENTS and ANGLES. Like Trump, Orton DDT'ing Stephanie, Orton punting Vince, etc.

Is everything perfect? No. But that doesn’t mean enjoying and expecting wrestling on a wrestling program in any way makes us the bad guys. We aren’t bad for business. If you are here for wrestling, you are saving the industry.

I think there is a definite place for fans with your ROH-mentality in the wrestling business. I just vehemently disagree with revolving the ENTIRE WWE product around this philosophy, like Vince has done. And YES, I DO think it is doing long-term damage to the business. And it is only going to be that much harder trying to bring fans back into the business, the more you alienate them today.

So if you are here for wrestling and ONLY wrestling, and insist on the entire product being nothing but wrestling across the board, I don't think you are saving the industry at all. I think you are damaging it beyond the point of repair. And I mean that as sincerely as possible. And that may be why Ring of Honor is not doing so swell these days, either.

I think if you want a wrestling-focused product, that is fine. I just think you should be happy with one television show from the WWE.

I think if you want a storyline/character-driven weekly show (with the key being that it is programming that incorporates your sitcom interests to get you into the feuds), with the BIG matches on the monthly PPV's, then I think you deserve to have that, and should also be happy with one show.


Not to mention, having different themed shows gives the adult fanbase something new to look forward to with each program. Instead of having all wrestling oriented shows, you can watch one sitcom with wrestling, and watch one wrestling show with characters/gimmicks on it. I'd also like to see ECW become a Cruiserweight show, which again is something different for the fans to watch and enjoy.

The same old, same old mentality is killing the WWE right now. There two primary shows aren't differentiated from each other enough at this point in time to make a difference.

The shows have the exact same set, and therefore look exactly like each other.

They have the same open. The same format. The announcers are always in the same place. Same boring interviews from the talent (the ones who are actually fortunate enough to even be allowed to speak). There is never anything new. And like Vince told Teddy Long last night at the PPV, "It's boring." In actuality, he was referring to Long's character, however that is the mentality I believe the general fanbase possesses with the product, and that is why they aren't enthusiastic when they come to the shows anymore.

You can have characters on a wrestling oriented show. Just ask Chris Jericho. Just ask Edge. Just ask CM Punk.

Again, I think we have a tendency to confuse the difference between a character/gimmick and simply a personality.


Examples of gimmicks:

The Undertaker
"Nature Boy" Ric Flair
Million Dollar Man Ted Dibiase
Goldust
Honky Tonk Man
Big Boss Man
Waylon Mercy
Yokozuna
Ultimate Warrior
The Mountie
Brutus "The Barber" Beefcake
"The Birdman" Koko B Ware
Cryme Tyme (when originally debuted)
DJ Gabriel (had to think of one from today)
"Heartbreak Kid" Shawn Michaels (rock star days)
Demolition
The Rockers
Dudley Boys




Examples of Personalities

John Cena
Batista
Triple H
Randy Orton
Edge (today)
Christian
Shawn Michaels (today)
Chris Jericho
CM Punk
Jeff Hardy
Priceless
Shelton Benjamin
Charlie Haas
The Miz
Maryse
Michelle McCool
Paul Burchill
The Hart Foundation



.... basically just about every single person on the Roster. And what is even worst is that many of the Mid card and Lower card guys don't have gimmicks, but also don't have a chance to get on the mic and exhibit any personality. And then WWE wonders why their talent is getting the reactions anymore like they used to or why the undercard guys are having problems getting over.

One does not have to focus solely on characters on free television though. It is possible to have wrestling matches and get characters over. SmackDown and ECW are doing this quite well at the moment.

I couldn't disagree more with this analysis. At least on Smackdown, WWE has the option of piping in some crowd cheers to their broadcasts. However, I think it's clear to me that WWE IS NOT getting the talent on these shows over just with the wrestling matches. Hence, again, why there are hardly reactions at all, unless you are a Main Eventer.

You can hear the crickets chirping when The Hart Foundation comes out, or when Shelton Benjamin comes out, or Charlie Haas, Ricky Ortiz, even Christian's pops are disappointing, as are Tommy Dreamer's. CM Punk fortunately has been picking up some reactions since they look to be turning him heel, however when he was a Face, his reactions were poor. You are absolutely pressed for talent on any of those to get any reaction at all, unless there is a Main Eventer in the ring.

However, the illusion created by the success of the Attitude Era is being used as weapon to make it seem that liking today’s product is a bad thing.

Again, you have your place in the formula. My position is that across the board, it IS a bad thing. If you are in the Mix, it is Fine.

Not having a storyline and character driven product that actually features quality storylines and interesting characters, in my view, is a very bad thing.

Fans like you and fans like I comprise the total fanbase. Alienating one group or the other, especially when Vince has a monopoly, is utterly damaging to the business itself.

It’s not a bad thing to enjoy marquee matches being given to us for free.

If that is your thing, then that is fine. However, that is also assuming you are purchasing all the WWE PPV's, as well. For some reason, I'm highly skeptical that this is transpiring.

Heck, logic dictates that the business would be better served if the fans were taught to expect great wrestling rather than get starved of quality action and lose interest.

I'd argue the exact opposite.

If the fans see great marquee matches on Raw and Smackdown for free, that sends a message to them "Shit, why the hell should I shell out $45 each month when I can basically get about the same quality product for Free on TV?" And that is a valid question. That is what common sense dictates.

That is why the formula worked before. Give the public good storylines on weekly TV for Free, which will get them into the feuds. And then, have them purchase the actual BIG matches once per month on PPV, to see the guys settle their differences. This is a very basic, simplistic concept. Why pay for a PPV when you can get pretty much the exact same thing for Free on TV?

I have no problem with an occasional match here or there, but these BIG matches every week is absolutely killing the interest in this product. Because it doesn't give the people anything new to look forward to, that they haven't seen dozens of times before.

That is why the attitude is like "Ho hum. It's PPV time again." I just saw Orton vs Triple H wrestle on Raw for 20 minutes, which I've seen countless times already. The PPV is this week and it costs $45, and I guess I'll see the same thing again. Except this time, it will cost money."

The guys are wrestling each other way too much, and the novelty has worn off on the PPV's, which is where the money is supposed to be.

Again, this all points back to the commentary I posted at the beginning of my post. There are two different breeds of fans, and you have a lot of difficulty understanding and getting into the head of the breed that you are not a part of.

Not only that, but putting quality action on TV gives the Tyson Kidds and Evan Bounes of the world a chance to shine that they would not be given if all the quality action were saved for pay per view.

That is an absolutely incorrect statement. That is what the House Shows were used for, in the past, and that is what they are for today. That is also why we have Dark Matches. They would still be given a chance to shine. However, the advantage would be that the novelty wouldn't have worn off of those two facing each other for Free on weekly TV for several weeks, and give the people something to look forward to on the PPV. Again, you are assuming people tune in only for the wrestling. They don't.

Those guys getting over now gives the company a chance to have people care when they’re used to make money in the future. Now that’s really thinking about the good of the company!

Again, we've been through this. It is extremely difficult to get any given wrestler over with the audience, UNLESS they are given storylines or interesting characters to get people to care about them, in the first place. All one needs to do is open their eyes and ears, and watch/listen to the crowd reactions to understand that. CM Punk puts on great matches, and even he struggled for reactions as a Face.

Getting over with the wrestling alone doesn't cut it. There can be some rare exceptions to that rule, though, if you have a Daredevil wrestler like Evan Bourne, which definitely helps. That is also what got the Hardys over originally, as well, when they first came to the WWE and weren't allowed to speak. So unless you are a Daredevil, you can forget it.

Unfortunately, the lie that liking wrestling hurts the wrestling business continues to grow. All because the lie we were told at the peak of the business’ popularity. Does that seem odd to anyone else?

Wrestling hurts the business (again, imo and based on numbers) when it is done in the ways I've outlined in this post. I've explained why it isn't good for long-term business to be giving away Free PPV quality matches every week on TV. It leads to too much repetition in the same guys wrestling each other multiple times, which takes away the interest of seeing them on PPV, where it is supposed to count. Again, why bother seeing two people wrestle, when you can see them wrestle for free on Smackdown in a 15 minute match?

My conclusions are that you like watching wrestling strictly for the wrestling. That obviously is no surprise. However, you have a lot of difficulty in understanding and accepting that fans have different viewpoints than yours, and it is frustrating to you. I acknowledge fans like you, and their importance to the business overall. However, in many cases, fans with your mindset aren't willing to show the same degree of respect back in return. And I do attribute that primarily to selfishness and arrogance on the part of the ROH/WWE-bots.

And there is a lot of bitterness I hold towards the more mouthy fans with your ideologies, because I have very few interests, and wrestling in the form of Sports Entertainment, has truly been one of my absolute biggest passions I have held near and dear to me since my childhood, back from 1990 on to today. Not only do I have that passion of mine completely altered to the point where I don't even enjoy watching it anymore ... I come online to voice my displeasures about it, and I have mouthy ROH/WWE bot fans simply tell me "Shut UP!! My wrestling is better than your wrestling. The Attitude Era absolutely sucks!!! It ain't coming back. Vince is a genius. He does no wrong. WWE does no wrong. You can go to Hell!"

That is essentially what people like me are told. And after paying for virtually every PPV since 1990 up through 2006, anyone with a rationale head on their shoulder can understand why I am so infuriated with fans like this, who not only advocate the type of product that has completely lost my interest in the business ... but take it a step further to have the audacity to mouth off at me, without having a single shred of evidence that supports any single thing they say. Those types of fans are the most obnoxious, nasty, and arrogant fans in this entire business. And they couldn't be more wrong or out of touch with the rest of the casual fanbase. They live in their own little bubble, and can not or do not want to understand anyone else's viewpoint other than their own.

So again, I advocate a compromise in the product, recognizing that both of these groups are sizable in number and both can hold their own with their own products. And I cite the benefits of doing so. But, the ROH-WWE bots, who absolutely have to have all 4 programs and all 8 hours of program each week full of all wrestling matches with no interesting characters and no storylines ... will have absolutely no part of it. This group of fans reminds me of the little brats on the Playground who never wanted to share with anyone else, and its frustrating, yet amusing at the same time.

I think you are a lot more respectful a poster from when we first encountered each other elsewhere. And I appreciate that and have tried to show the same degree of courtesy back in return. However, again my opinion with examining your entire post is that you are a fan of just the wrestling, and would be ecstatic if the entire product on all 4 shows had nothing but wrestling action, yet no storylines to get people into the feuds. You don't feel storylines are needed. I do. Because it gets me into the feuds and makes me want to see them wrestle on the Big Shows.

Again, I feel like I can point to ratings and buyrates to prove my points. But nowhere in your entire lengthy post did you post a single rating or buyrate to support any single claim you made. It was all 100% opinion based. And that is why your side has difficulty making your case, because you don't have any data at all to support your arguments.

And if that isn't bad enough, then you actually try to twist it around and attribute the 4.5 rating to the advertised Triple H vs Orton match, just because the show was commercial free, as opposed to the legitimate cause for the increase in ratings ... because Donald Trump was announced as the "New Owner of Raw", it got a lot of buzz in the Media, fans were intrigued by the angle, and as a plus, it was announced that this Raw was going to be commercial free. That was the cause for the .9 increase in the rating, which is basically unheard of. No match alone is going to shoot the ratings up that high in the course of a week. If that was the case, the Shawn Michaels vs John Cena Wrestlemania rematch would have shot up a full ratings point, from the week prior, but it didn't.

I think your heart is in the right place, but I simply feel you couldn't be more off-base on your analysis of why people watch wrestling, and how there are a variety of different wrestling fans out there who each tune in/out for different reasons. You simply can not successfully change the attitudes and opinions of these fans, and again I respect fans like that immensely, because they aren't going to let the Bots push them around in what they want to see in the product.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Looney Toons is a fantastic example. Even as part of that young adult male demographic that some wish the WWE would focus more on by pandering with shock TV, I still enjoy checking out old episodes of Bugs andTweety on Teletoon Retro here in Canada. They really capture that demographic transcending quality that you talked about which makes it possible for something to appeal to both children and adults. One of my favorite examples of something that does that is most Pixar films. For example, last year Wall-E was a hit with both kids and adults because it had the fun that the kids need coupled with great storytelling, but it never pushed itself too far towards pandering to either demo or excluding the other at any point. It's a really fantastic example of how both children and adults can be pleased at the same time.

We've also tried this argument before. Who are more susceptible to Kids/Adults being pleased at the same time? 18-34 year old males, which is the coveted demographic? Or older adults with families?

So, you can bring in the adults who have sons, who are willing to tolerate it. However, what about the Father, who likes wrestling, but only has daughters that have zero interest in wrestling? What about the Father that wants to get away from the Family and go out and have a "Guys Night Out" with his friends? Does that programming still appeal to them as much.

When we hear about "the Kids" argument, you are assuming that the same percentage of little girls are as interested in the WWE as little boys. And common sense says that this isn't the case at all.

So, why would the family (primarily the Father), who does not have any sons and only has daughters, want to go out and watch, when only the Father is interested? It doesn't make sense for the father to take the wife and little girl out to the arena, if only he has an interest in seeing it. It's a waste of money.

Not every adult is going to find the family product enjoyable. That is why there are so few shows on television that are PG. It isn't realistic. Disney is simply a household name and is the exception to the Norm. They are experts in attracting families with children both male and female.

But Disney isn't wrestling. And wrestling does NOT appeal to little girls like it does little boys.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

Your right wrestling isnt directed at kids, but isn't it children that buy the merchandise lord sidious?, isnt it family orientated shows that bring in the sponsors and drive up the ratings because the whole family can enjoy the product?.

Thanks to the PG rating the WWE has been able to grow worldwide and be seen in countries like Iran whom otherwise wont get WWE programing due to its highly religous views on adult orientated products.

You say that the WWE shouldn't concentrate on PG but as COCO said before the fact is PG is where the money is, the WWE can no longer concentrate on tity and fart jokes, and making the show resemble the old ECW because the fact is look at the WWE and look at Paul Heymans ECW back when it was popular, the product had to change to become mainstream, Heyman wanted to be on the level of the WWE but was to stubbon to change his approach so he ended up killing his product overall, It wasn't the main thing that killed it but it did help alot, you cannot sell advertisers porn, you can not sell sponsors porn because in the end they will turn their noses up at the product your offering because they cant direct it at the whole family and most companies are family orientated.

The fact is I applaud the WWE for doing something new with the product, making smackdown more of a place for young wrestlers and making Raw a place for more established talent, ECW is now and will ever be for the talent coming up to the main roster, or those needing a complete overhaul or an attempt at the main event so that they can prove themselves ( and by the way it is profitable) ECW now sells merchandise, ECW now has a bigger fan base, ECW now actually has focus, no matter how much you plead for a more adult orientated product the WWE is actually making profit and is one of the strongest companies out there in these challenging times, so you can plead all you want as COCO and many others have said before the WWE's attitude era will never come back, but this new era will allow the WWE to grow and become more international which is a good thing financially so you cant knock something thats not broken why fix something that is catering to the WWE's main audience, the audience of investors that want to make sure they get a return on their investment, so if they have to cater to children and younh adults whilst keeping their fanbase happy at the same time, then why not keep the product PG rated instead of satisfying the bellyachings of the few who want to watch adult orientated material.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Your right wrestling isnt directed at kids, but isn't it children that buy the merchandise lord sidious?, isnt it family orientated shows that bring in the sponsors and drive up the ratings because the whole family can enjoy the product?.

Show me the evidence that Family shows drive up the ratings. Especially when it pertains to wrestling, RDJ.

Is it more appealing to advertisers? Probably, depending on the advertiser. Put it this way, it is a safer bet for advertisers, and my suspicion is that Vince has had a difficult time getting advertisers over the past couple years. And I'm sure the Benoit incident didn't help. What I see Vince doing is telling his Fanbase to like this product because it is more attractive to the sponsors.

So as far as your statement goes, yes it is designed to bring in more sponsors. But you show me the evidence of the second part of your statement, that it brings up the ratings. Do you see that happening today? No.

And to Coco's point, we can argue what's best for business or we can argue over the type of programming we want to see, because it actually appeals to us.

The fact that Vince can bring in more family-sponsored advertising dollars doesn't mean diddly squat to me enjoying the product as a fan. Why the Fuck should I care if Vince brings in more "wholesome sponsors" to his product? How does that make me enjoy the product anymore, after I told you the type of product that I want to see? It doesn't.

Thanks to the PG rating the WWE has been able to grow worldwide and be seen in countries like Iran whom otherwise wont get WWE programing due to its highly religous views on adult orientated products.

Show me a list of countries that WWE has been in before they went PG and after they went PG, to demonstrate your point. Also include the years that WWE entered these foreign markets, if you would. And if you could also prove that WWE got in the country specifically because of the rating and submit what proof you have of that, that would be great, too.

You say that the WWE shouldn't concentrate on PG

Hold it. Stop right there.

The fact that you made a statement like this makes it fairly obvious to me that you didn't read my entire post. So why don't you do that first, so you can see what my true position is when it comes to PG programming and how it "does have its place" in the mix, and then you can redo your argument.

If you want to argue with me, after the amount of time I spent compiling that post, than put the effort into reading all of it before jumping to conclusions with what you supposedly "think I am advocating".

Then, perhaps I'll do you the same courtesy of reading and responding to the rest of your post.

Thank you.


EDIT: You are also another one of those stereotypical posters apparently that says that "the Attitude Era is never coming back", that I alluded to in my post.

I have seen a lot of other posters on here that say that "the business goes in cycles. When today's youth grows up, you will likely see another Attitude Era."

However, explain to me All-Knowing and Wise One, after you have a chance to read my entire post without mouthing off "what you think I wrote in it" ... explain to me how you can predict that the WWE "will not see another Attitude Era", and what you base that opinion on? Do you have a crystal ball, out of curiosity?

 

[Coco]

Thanks for posting Sid. You and I know where we stand in regards to this issue and I won’t be giving you too much attention because we don’t have much to say that we haven’t thrown at the other already. However, you posting gives people a look at the equally passionate people on the other side of the argument. What I would like to see is some new faces come in this thread and weigh in on the topic. Here’s hoping for that.

While I definitely see the problem of ratings being a big one, it’s not going to be solved by taking wrestling away and replacing it with an exaggerated proportion of storyline related content. Stories are definitely needed and are an important part of wrestling, but the declining ratings on ECW, SmackDown, and Superstars is a result of things that aren’t involved in the Wrestling vs. Attitude debate. Raw is more heavily advertised than any of the other shows the WWE has and is more widely distributed to the best of my knowledge. On every other show the WWE has, we are “treated” to recaps telling us how important Raw is. But if the WWE cared enough to tell us why the other shows rock, surely the difference in ratings wouldn’t be so dramatic. Couple all of that with a piss-poor SmackDown timeslot and what you have is essentially a recipe for disaster. This is a problem much deeper than “put on adult content and deep storylines, get more characters, and starve the wrestling fans and the ratings will roll in.” The product at this point is not the number one issue when it comes to ratings. The issue is marketing.

Now recently I have given some consideration to your usual proposal of what to do with Raw, SmackDown, and ECW respectively. My biggest gripe has always been, and I will stand by this scruple I have with your suggestion, that having adult content on one show under the WWE umbrella will turn parents off to letting their children watch ALL of the programming offered by Vince and company. While I stand by this assertion, I’ve conjured up what I feel is a great way to make it happen and overstep the parent problem. When certain film companies known for their family friendly entertainment want to get involved in more adult oriented fare, it’s not uncommon for them to do it under the guise of another company. What I am saying is that if there are going to be distinct products for different demos, then it should be presented as though some of them are not what those with insider knowledge know it to be. WWE Raw cannot be WWE’s Raw if they’re going to go your route and still run family friendly stuff on Fridays. Remove the logo from the show and change the look of the product completely (Guard rails, announce tables, the ring, the arenas they work, the lighting, etc should be distinctly un-WWE. The titan-tron should be gone or seriously down-played.). If they were to go your route, they should un-brand Raw. Do not have people associated with the other shows anywhere near Raw. It can still be advertised during the other shows, but it should look like a separate product. That is how I would go about it if I were to ever consider your idea. In addition, I would bring back single brand PPVs so WWE’s ECW/SmackDown could do one month and Raw could do the next. Co-branded PPVs should look like an uneasy coming together of the brands on four occasions a year to do a “biggest event in the industry” type of show.

Even after saying all of that about your grand idea, I simply am not sure it will be better for business. Sure, they would be TRYING (key word) to garner that old Attitude audience on Mondays. But would they be wasting their time trying that while leaving only Friday for families? As I’ve said before, I feel (and have yet to see any proof that I’m wrong) that the majority of the Attitude audience has moved on and isn’t coming back. General Motors is the example I will use here. They’ve over-exerted themselves in recent times by trying to everybody’s car company and trying to do everything. Unfortunately, they drove themselves into the red trying to do this. What do most analysts say that the new philosophy for business needs to be to get GM out of the hole? They need to do what they’re good at and not do everything. I don’t know if this societal problem or what, but trying to monopolize and industry and be everyone’s everything is not good in the long run yet a lot of people have grand designs to do this or, in your case, see it done. But I think WWE, just like General Motors sees this isn’t the solution right now. Yes, I’ve given your proposal more consideration than before but I still don’t know if it would be the best thing for business. Perhaps the WWE is willing, at the moment, to settle for being a smaller company than they were in the Attitude Era as long as they get to turn a profit. Yes, I’ve looked at WWE’s current financials. Profits have dipped slightly, but that’s all part of becoming smaller company. They’re still turning a profit. What do I feel would be a better thing to do than trying to be everyone’s everything? Trying not to incur more debt than you did in the last fiscal quarter, something the WWE failed to do this quarter. Call me crazy, but that’s how I see it.

On the issue of gimmicks versus personalities, I feel strongly that a character is a character. We are in a day and age of subtler characters, that’s all. This is just the latest evolution of the business and I think you are fighting the changing tide here. As you would not have wanted the business to take backwards steps in the Attitude Era and go back to being the Hogan Era, surely you aren’t suggesting that a business that has progressed past over the top gimmickry in regards to characters for the most part go back to being something resembling times gone by. And while you cite that there are some un-over characters at the moment, I think that the most over guys in the company are doing exactly what I feel they should. They wrestle and throw in a promo when it’s called for without going over the top with it. That’s how Cena does it, that’s how Punk is doing it now (finally!), that’s how Hardy, Edge, Jericho, and pretty much everyone who gets a reaction does it. But this leads into another point you brought up.

Why, you ask, did I label myself as apathetic of the current product? Because they did something that I, in the opening post, said they shouldn’t have done. They pandered. And just as I feel it’s wrong to pander to your part of the audience, it’s wrong to do it for the children as well. Hornswoggle, Golddust, poop jokes from Cena, the awful stereotype Cryme Tyme puts forth... There are problems. Couple that with the fact that there could be more character development on a regular basis and better time management to get more promos on shows and still have good matches... Guys could be given more freedom in and out of the ring... Don’t get me wrong, I love parts of the product. But I certainly hate others. When it comes down to an overall analysis, I am pulled in both directions and come up feeling decidedly neutral. Feeling different than you about the current product doesn’t mean I’m madly in love with everything I see.

Feel free to respond or not respond. I’m personally waiting to see if anyone else wants to weigh in on the subject.

 

[TSG]

Okay, so what we have here, is that some people want more wrestling, and some people want more promos. What we have, is 95 minutes of actual WWE programming without commercials each week on RAW and Smackdown. (I won't mention ECW because its only 1 hour and doing fine anyway). So divide it up. 45 minutes of promos, 40 minutes of wrestling. We can have 5 matches each week, about 8 minutes in length. A couple can be made shorter, the main event can be long. Or the mid-card can be longer. However. This leaves 45 minutes promo time. So, we can have one 10 minute promo for mid-card/upper mid-card. One 15 minute promo for the ME. We now have 25 minutes left. An average of 10 muntes for two backstage interviews. We now have 15 minutes. Now three backstage segments, one lasting 5 minutes, one lasting 6-7 minutes, one lasting 3 to for minutes, this to further storylines. Cut down on match time or interviews one night if you need a few more minutes.

Now you'll say with this balance of wrestling and storylines, we will have people whining about the same matches over and over. Well it's quite simple. RAW and Smackdown should have enough talent to vary matches week in and week out. You can have quality matches with two people in a fued facing other talent, and furthering the storyline through promos, interference, and other things. That is how good storylines and fueds are built anyway, through promos. There will usually be only two or three major fueds on a show at one time, so backstage segments and in-ring promos should be able to further the fued while they face other people on different weeks. And maybe once in the fued they face each other on free TV. This way, you can have good matches each week, yet it won't be the same matches every week and PPV buyrates won't drop. And in all honesty a fued shouldn't go more than 2-3 months/PPV's before ending. ME fueds also. Unless they're built up to be very personal or they can put on 5-6 good matches for 5-6 months, like HHH/HBK or Vince/Austin. If they are fueds like Hardy/Edge, Orton/HHH, Show/Cena, and drag on and on, blame creative for not being creative enough.

Now, for the part on the kids. Now, if you can remember this far back (it's only about 5-8 years, I'm quite sure you can), back from 2001-2006. WWE wasn't PG. They were TV-14. They were still edgy, yet the ratings were fine, proably better than now. If not they are the same, or at least pretty much so. The thing is, they were still somewhat edgy, provided surprises, more than now, there was blood, they cussed, yet kids still watched when it was TV-14, and I doubt most parents will stop them if they go back. And if the parents do stop them, they'll probably catch it at a friends house. And if not, they'll eventually be to the age where their parents will let them watch and if they were interested in it a few years ago, they probably will still be interested. So this way, the TV-14 way, you won't lose that many kid viewers, I'm sure, and you entertain the adults much more.

So what have we learned today. Balance promo time and wrestling, and the fans who want more wrestling and the fans who want more promo time are both happy. Create different matches each week on TV while providing quality matches, and further fueds through interference, promos, interviews, backstage segments, and the like, and create new fueds every 2 or 3 months, and the people complaining about boring matches between the same people all the time will be happy, while PPV buyrates stay the same, possibly even improve because they haven't seen the match on the PPV on free TV and the promos and the like have built up the PPV match quite nicely. Be more edgy, cuss a little bit, show blood every now and then, and the adults are more happy, and the kids will most likely stay tuned. See, a few simple changes and things improve drastically.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

Show me the evidence that Family shows drive up the ratings. Especially when it pertains to wrestling, RDJ.

Is it more appealing to advertisers? Probably, depending on the advertiser. Put it this way, it is a safer bet for advertisers, and my suspicion is that Vince has had a difficult time getting advertisers over the past couple years. And I'm sure the Benoit incident didn't help. What I see Vince doing is telling his Fanbase to like this product because it is more attractive to the sponsors.

Unless im inside of the WWE I cannot provide you with that information maybe check out their corporate site or actually ask vince himself, the fact is you can't deny the WWE's growth in recent months post attitude era the company has excelled having four first run shows where TNA which includes alot of cursing and aparrent adult orientated themes for example has only one first run programming and does not cover as diverse an area as the WWE, they even have more sponsors due to the fact that they are PG look at Raw, smackdown even ECW.

So as far as your statement goes, yes it is designed to bring in more sponsors. But you show me the evidence of the second part of your statement, that it brings up the ratings. Do you see that happening today? No.

Actually i do, look at WWE.com, check out the adverts in between monday night Raw, if i had an exact number you'd see that advertisers trust the WWE more now then they did when it was smutty edgy tv.

And to Coco's point, we can argue what's best for business or we can argue over the type of programming we want to see, because it actually appeals to us.

So you buy the t-shirts go to the broadcasts?, invest in PPV's the fact is fans are getting older and are now more willing to take their children to see wrestling because of the family friendly environment.

As long as kids keep spending the WWE wont listen to you me, or anyone who likes adult orientated wrestling.

The fact that Vince can bring in more family-sponsored advertising dollars doesn't mean diddly squat to me enjoying the product as a fan. Why the Fuck should I care if Vince brings in more "wholesome sponsors" to his product? How does that make me enjoy the product anymore, after I told you the type of product that I want to see? It doesn't.

And who are you?, you mean nothing to the WWE, the fact is you make up less then a small percentage of their viewers, your a dot on their radar at this point, if you stopped watching i doubt they would care.

Hold it. Stop right there.

The fact that you made a statement like this makes it fairly obvious to me that you didn't read my entire post. So why don't you do that first, so you can see what my true position is when it comes to PG programming and how it "does have its place" in the mix, and then you can redo your argument.

I read it you basically st
ated you wanted one show for yourself a

nd PG for the rest, simple fact is my arguement stands because ive seen you advocate adult orientated products in more then one thred and you have yet to make a valid point on the matter

EDIT: You are also another one of those stereotypical posters apparently that says that "the Attitude Era is never coming back", that I alluded to in my post.

I have seen a lot of other posters on here that say that "the business goes in cycles. When today's youth grows up, you will likely see another Attitude Era."

However, explain to me All-Knowing and Wise One, after you have a chance to read my entire post without mouthing off "what you think I wrote in it" ... explain to me how you can predict that the WWE "will not see another Attitude Era", and what you base that opinion on? Do you have a crystal ball, out of curiosity?

oh your upset because i disagree with you?, seriously this is a forum we debate, you dont liek my opinion then seriously dont reply to me

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Unless im inside of the WWE I cannot provide you with that information maybe check out their corporate site or actually ask vince himself

Actually, you don't have to "be inside WWE" to do any of that. Let your fingers do the walking and come up with some ratings for some Family programming from some PG rated shows out there. No need to do a cop-out, there.

Also, I said that it was a safe assumption that WWE is doing better in terms of advertising dollars with a PG product, because it is "safer" for advertisers to purchase. I wasn't denying that.

All I asked you to do is show me some evidence that matches your claim that PG family shows are "better for ratings" ... especially when it comes to wrestling. I've done some ample quotes with ratings over the past couple years, on this site. Now, all I am looking for you to do is back up your claims. Go out on the Internet and provide a list of Family PG shows that produce good ratings.

You see, this is the problem I have with people that are typically on your side of the fence. You are a mouthy group of people who have absolutely zero substance to your debate. You come on here shouting your opinions about why PG is better for WWE, yet you have no evidence or can't articulate your logic to a degree that makes sense of the points you are trying to make. You throw blanket statements out there like "WWE can now enter other countries with religious values", yet don't take the step of telling us exactly what new countries WWE has entered since the beginning of the PG Era, to support your point.

By the way, WWE is not seen in Iran, and there is not a shred of evidence that suggests it is even going to be.

But here, I'll do your research for you and tell you which countries where WWE is seen in:

http://www.wwe.com/worldwide/


Now, if you could provide us a list of which countries WWE has expanded to being in, as a result of the PG Era from that list, that would be great.

the fact is you can't deny the WWE's growth in recent months post attitude era the company has excelled having four first run shows where TNA which includes alot of cursing and aparrent adult orientated themes for example has only one first run programming and does not cover as diverse an area as the WWE

What good is expanding your television shows, if your audience is shrinking? How is that truly "growth"?

Declining Ratings. Declining PPV Buyrates. And then this little piece of information that just hit the newsboards ...

According to IT News Online, the official website of World Wrestling Entertainment, WWE.com, lost nearly a third of its audience within one year's time. WWE website traffic dropped 31 percent from May 2008 to May 2009. The story notes that WWE.com was visited by 2,574,245 unique visitors in May 2008, but dropped to 1,784,088 unique visitors in May 2009. It's also interesting to note that WWE and NASCAR were the only major sports sites that dropped among the top-10 finishers. To read the full story, click here.

The only numbers I see going up are WWE's prices to all of their shows, to make up for their decrease in their fanbase.

TNA's problem is that it has done a piss poor job of marketing its product. I dare say that an overwhelming majority of casual wrestling fans still don't even know it exists, sadly to say.

It is, however a bit disingenuous for you to say that "WWE has excelled in having four first run shows ... when the ratings across the board for each of those shows have dropped. It has led to over-exposure of the WWE product because each of the shows are not differentiated enough from each other to get enough people interested. And that, I feel, is bad for business across the board.

they even have more sponsors due to the fact that they are PG look at Raw, smackdown even ECW.

Tell me how WWE having more family friendly sponsors than in the past is supposed to provide for "entertaining television to the fans". Explain the correlation.

Plus, what good are advertising dollars, if fan interest in the product depletes, along with PPV buyrates, which they have done? WWE gains advertising dollars and loses PPV buyrate dollars in its place. What's even worse, is that this option erodes the fanbase, which it has.

Eroding the fanbase is the absolute worst thing Vince can do. Each and every fan is a cash register for him, in a variety of facets.

More fans mean more people that will purchase PPV's. And PPV's are the life blood of WWE, at one point accounting for 40% of company revenue. And if you want to talk about families, changing the fans from single 18-34 year old guys over to families aren't going to help WWE's PPV numbers. What it does is that it eliminates the amount of single guys (whom each could represent more buys for the show), and it replaces it with one buy for a family.

Again, like I pointed out before ... with all this talk about families, the only families that really help WWE are families that have sons. Families that have daughters are not going to help WWE all that much, plain and simply for the same basic rationale that WWE has more male viewers than female viewers. A wrestling product is simply going to appeal to men more than women.

So the big question is can the WWE produce more PPV buys from families with sons in them, or from 18-34 year old single guys who want to watch things that match the interests of typical 18-34 year old guys? I don't know if we've discovered the answer to that yet, but Vince having to raise the prices of PPV's, tickets to shows, merchandise, etc. these past few years since he adopted his new strategy is not a good sign.

Actually i do, look at WWE.com, check out the adverts in between monday night Raw, if i had an exact number you'd see that advertisers trust the WWE more now then they did when it was smutty edgy tv.

What's your point, again? Why should I care about advertising dollars as a fan? I care about watching programming that entertains me.

Here is the thing that Coco touched base on in his post, hence the title of the thread. "I am not financially invested in the WWE". And neither are you. So are you telling me that you will only enjoy the product when Vince is doing well financially? Are you saying that there could be the best angle ever on TV, but you will only enjoy it if Vince is turning a profit? This makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever.

But, if you do want to argue from a business perspective, I can do that, too. What is the real benefit of bringing in advertising dollars, if you are losing PPV buys and ratings?

The higher WWE's ratings are, the better a deal they can secure from the network they air on. And we are talking beaucoup dollars, prime airtime slots (something WWE seems to be struggling with today) for the most exposure .... I hear your side complaining about WWE having Smackdown on Friday nights and ECW being on Sci Fi from 10-11. And the fact that Superstars is on a bad network, as well.

Have you ever thought about why this is? The more shows they have that produce the same thing old stuff, the more this decreases interest in the product. The harder it is for Vince to come up with new and creative things each and every week. Hence, he is forced to rely on the wrestling. But, the only problem with that is that this inevitably leads to recycled feuds with the same guys wrestling each other all the time. So then, the public becomes bored by it all. So expanding the television to 4 times a week has done WWE no favors at all. Instead of increasing interest in the product, it has done the exact opposite, as evidenced by declining ratings across the board.

Which show do you think is more likely to secure a better deal with a network with a primetime time slot?

Show A that produces consistent 4.0 ratings?

or

Show B that produces 1.8 ratings every week?


Which show is more likely to get the better night and timeslot and which show is WWE most likely to get more money for?

So you buy the t-shirts go to the broadcasts?, invest in PPV's the fact is fans are getting older and are now more willing to take their children to see wrestling because of the family friendly environment.

Bottom line, has WWE gained more fans ever since this switch to the family-friendly, wrestling-focused product, or have they lost more fans? Have ratings and buyrates gone up or down? Again, bottom line here, is has the fanbase gone up or down?

This time, I give you credit in that you are at least trying to talk logic here. But do the real numbers paint the rosy picture you attempted to paint? Respond by backing up with data on whether or not the fans have done just that.

As long as kids keep spending the WWE wont listen to you me, or anyone who likes adult orientated wrestling.

Well, firstly it isn't the kids who are doing the spending. It's the parents who do the spending for their sons.

My question to you is whether one even has to alienate both sets of viewers, or whether it's possible for WWE to have their cake and eat it, too, if they are smart? Why alienate one person who is willing to spend money on your product, in favor of another ... if you can find a way to do both and bring in twice the amount of revenue?

And who are you?, you mean nothing to the WWE, the fact is you make up less then a small percentage of their viewers, your a dot on their radar at this point, if you stopped watching i doubt they would care.

What a naive statement to make.

First of all, I have watched WWE for two decades. Does that register with you? Going on 20 years next year.

I have paid for virtually every single PPV that WWE has offered from 1990 until the end of the year in 2006. I have attended hundreds of live events and PPV's all over the country .... we are talking New York, California, Florida, Texas, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, hell even Canada for Mania X-8.

And you imply that the thousands and thousands of dollars I have given this company means nothing? You know, you might be right, actually. That is kind of the way I feel, more specifically because Vince has abandoned fans like myself who made him a Billionaire in the first place. However, Vince is not even close to being a Billionaire anymore due to all the money he has lost over the years.

But make no mistake about it. Fans like myself are no simple blip on the radar. You remember McMahon's Million Dollar Giveaway, in which he stated that the purpose of it was to bring back lost fans to the WWE and try to attract some new ones? If Vince didn't care about the erosion of his fanbase, I doubt he would have spent a couple Million dollars trying to get them back.

He is at the point now where he knows he has lost fans as a result of him not giving them what they want, but is afraid to alter course on his current strategy.

I read it you basically stated you wanted one show for yourself and PG for the rest, simple fact is my arguement stands because ive seen you advocate adult orientated products in more then one thred and you have yet to make a valid point on the matter.

I've actually backed up my assertions quite well on why this is best for business. Not only is it a product that I would personally enjoy better, but I have advocated that it is better for business as well. And I have demonstrated that through ratings, buyrates, attendance, and logic.

You sir, are the one who has only relied on your opinions and supplied not a single solitary piece of substantial data that supports any one of your claims. Not a single piece of data. Not one.

I think once the country pulls out of the recession, providing alternative programming under the WWE banner is the best move Vince could possibly make to generate interest in the product once again, just like Nitro did back in September of 1995. Wrestling booms don't just happen. They are created. And they are created by trying innovative things with the product. That is what I am advocating.

oh your upset because i disagree with you?, seriously this is a forum we debate, you dont liek my opinion then seriously dont reply to me

It's not that I can't stomach your opinion. Ask Coco if you think I have a problem with debating. We can debate all you want. I just asked you again what evidence you had that supported your claim that "WWE was NEVER going to see another Attitude Era again" and I asked you "how you arrived at that conclusion"?

And again, I see you dodged the question with a non-answer.

Now recently I have given some consideration to your usual proposal of what to do with Raw, SmackDown, and ECW respectively. My biggest gripe has always been, and I will stand by this scruple I have with your suggestion, that having adult content on one show under the WWE umbrella will turn parents off to letting their children watch ALL of the programming offered by Vince and company.

The trick is how to do it successfully. And I think nights of the week, timeslots, PR and marketing (especially) and production are all critical in pulling it off. I am just very confident it can be done, especially with a competent PR team.

And if I am not mistaken, you share similar ideas to myself on how to do it below ....

While I stand by this assertion, I’ve conjured up what I feel is a great way to make it happen and overstep the parent problem. When certain film companies known for their family friendly entertainment want to get involved in more adult oriented fare, it’s not uncommon for them to do it under the guise of another company. What I am saying is that if there are going to be distinct products for different demos, then it should be presented as though some of them are not what those with insider knowledge know it to be. WWE Raw cannot be WWE’s Raw if they’re going to go your route and still run family friendly stuff on Fridays. Remove the logo from the show and change the look of the product completely (Guard rails, announce tables, the ring, the arenas they work, the lighting, etc should be distinctly un-WWE. The titan-tron should be gone or seriously down-played.). If they were to go your route, they should un-brand Raw. Do not have people associated with the other shows anywhere near Raw. It can still be advertised during the other shows, but it should look like a separate product.

That is what I have advocated from the get-go. I maintain that IF WWE were to try this, again with the goal to increase it's total overall fanbase and bring in more revenue than the current system, they have to completely differentiate everything about the shows.

The sets have to be completely different. They shouldn't even resemble the other show's sets, at all. For example, look at both WCW Nitro and WWF Raw when they were competing against each other. 2 totally different looks for each of the shows.

Position the commentators in different places on each show so it doesn't appear that they are always in the same announce booth in the same place like they are now.

Different TV production features used throughout the shows by way of replays, Character Generators, etc.

Different commentary styles. Perhaps on Raw we would have a Play by Play and a horny Jerry Lawler like we used to have.

On Smackdown, I would prefer to see a traditional Face/Heel commentary team.

On ECW, which would be the Cruiserweight Show, we could have 2 "analysts" (similar to what we see today), which the actual "wrestling fanatics" don't seem to mind as much as someone like myself.

And again, as you alluded to, which is also what I have stated from the get-go ... the mention of the name "WWE" would have to go away. It hasn't been the same since they changed the company name to that anyway. That was when the "WWF" from my childhood truly died.

Instead, the announcers would refer to their show only by name.

"Welcome to Raw!!"

"This is Friday Night Smackdown!!"

"ECW is on ... the ... air, and it's time to get Extreme!!"


Basically, all references of WWE would pretty much go away. It would simply be seen in the closing credits and copyright in the lower left hand corner at the very tale end of each show in small print "World Wrestling Entertainment".

That is how I would go about it if I were to ever consider your idea. In addition, I would bring back single brand PPVs so WWE’s ECW/SmackDown could do one month and Raw could do the next. Co-branded PPVs should look like an uneasy coming together of the brands on four occasions a year to do a “biggest event in the industry” type of show.

And again, that is exactly what I have advocated from the get-go, as well. Being that ECW would inevitably be the smaller brand since that style of wrestling won't likely appeal as much to the mainstream as it would a niche audience, it could be worked into the same PPV as Smackdown. And if you think about it, this is what WCW PPV's pretty much used to be. Family friendly PPV's mixed with a Cruiserweight Division. Unless, the Brand would actually take off and it would be determined that they could stand on their own in charging less money for these shows. That remains to be seen, though with how well it is promoted and how receptive the audience would be to it.

And again, I have always been a strict advocate of the Brand Splits and I feel especially the case with this suggestion, for obvious reasons as to not confuse the Brands.

In essence, they would be treated like different companies, just like the days of WWE, WCW, and ECW ... except this time Vince reaps in all the profits.

Not only do I feel these products would appeal to far more people as a whole, but by alternating PPV's, you are less likely to see the same repetitive matches over and over again month after month ... AND WWE won't be as scrambled in rushing to put feuds together. More storyline and better build on each program to get the crowd fired up for the big matches.

I just think doing this would solve a lot of problems with WWE today as far as alienating older fans who don't want to leave wrestling altogether, but aren't enthusiastic about today's product

Vince could be more effective in going out and targeting fans, as opposed to essentially throwing his one product out in a trough, and whoever wants it wants it, and whoever doesn't want it can go away. I think the first method is a lot more friendly to the fans.

And I genuinely think it would give fans who are willing to watch everything something new and exciting to look forward to each week, instead of watching the same old product across the board every week. And I think adopting this strategy would help renew interest in wrestling.


I have made no bones about my distaste for the current product. However, from a business perspective, I recognize and accept the fact that there are people that like it. From a business point of view, I would be stupid to alienate all of those people simply because I enjoy a different product. However, I think the reverse applies as well. And I think it is stupid for the other side to alienate a fanbase that is willing to spend money on the product again as long as Vince gives them what they want to see, as well.

Basically, it would be just like WWE and WCW coming back, except this time Vince would control it all. And the advantage he has this time is behind the scenes, there would be no competing with the other Brands, he wouldn't have the problem of someone making a jump to the other company for more money since he controls everything, he would ensure that his shows would not run opposite each other, he controls when each Brand airs their PPV's ... etc. WWE and WCW survived for a long time in co-existence. However, bad internal management killed one of those brands, and Vince purchased it. But he never bothered replacing what that brand offered to the public, which I think also hurt the product.

As long as WWE has a competent PR team and takes the measures we touched base on, I see nothing but advantages and opportunities for Vince to expand his fanbase, which should be his #1 Goal as that leads to greater profits.