JohnJohnson
aka JuanJuanson
This is an interesting question that I began to ask myself last week. None of my coworkers still watch wrestling and a lot of them like to make fun of me for still being a wrestling fan. That's fine, I usually egg it on especially because they immediately point out that it's fake. in return I point out that so are their favorite movies and TV shows. Anyways that's not the point. The point is, while at lunch, I mentioned attending a wrestling event and one of my colleagues said something to the effect of, "What? Is wrestling still around, it hasn't died off yet? What are they hanging in there just grasping for life?" I told them no it's around and doing very well and is pretty widely accepted around the world. I told them that they are really big with social media, anti bullying, are making movies, have several celebrity appearances on the show and even musical performances. He and another coworker both agreed that that souonded more like grasping for life.
They said wrestling was biggest in the 80s and I said well it had even higher viewership and mainstream attention in the late 90s. I said the quality of wrestling has gone down but they are still thriving, which got me thinking. Is it really doing well or is it everything else keeping them afloat. It's kind of like McDonalds. They have crappy food and rather than fixing it, they spend millions on adding extra drive thrus, remodeling playgrounds, adding a cafe, replacing the menu with flat screen tvs and making the lobby look nicer. They redo designs and logs and dress everything up all the while leaving the quality of the food unchanged. This goit me thinking about WWE. WWE has the high production value, the brand recognition, the movies, the celebrities, the social media, the app, the anti bullying campaigns, the make a wish foundation and all the jazz. But what happens when you take all of those things away? You're pretty much left with TNA. TNA doesn't have the same brand recognition, because they haven't been around as long and aren't as main stream. They don't have the high production quality, the strong social media presence, the fan interactvity, the budget, charitable campaigns or the big celebrity appearances. They have to rely solely on wrestlers wehter it be matches or promos or storlines etc much like WWF back in its greatest days whether it be 80s or 90s.
Let's take for example the late 90s and early 2000s. This is not an era versus era thread. i pick this soley because this is the period with the highest ratings and mainstream attention. You can argue the WWF was more mainstream with the Hulkamania days, but they weresn't running a regular weekly show back then, and Hogan was arguably more mainstream than WWF. So we will use late 90s and early 2000s for this. Many loved this time already whether they like the Attitude Era or the Ruthless Agression Era. They had the big stars and were in mainstream media. The business was thriving and viewership was great. Many can argue that the product was far greater then than it is now. So hypothetically speaking, what if this era of wrestling had the same production value as today. The same big names and feuds but with the current arena set up and lighting, the quality of audio and visual effects, high definition and the whole Jazz. What if Wrestlemania was as big as it is now as far as the whole production, setup up, fireworks, celebrities, grandeur but with the talent of the era. Then on top of that WWE/F was also producing movies and featuring celebrities regularly on their programming, while also having their performers appear more regular on other media outlets. Add the ability to interact more with the Superstar, whether it be fan Touts shown on Raw, interactive polls, tweeting and facebooking their favorite stars etc.
Do you think that Vince would be a Billionaire or even multi Billionaire?
Would it have the same effect as taking McDonalds with all its jazz and dressing up but at the same time offering restaurant quality burgers for essentially the same price?
Is today's WWE only doing well just because all the extra stuff surrounding the wrestling product whereas ,if applying the same extra jazz, it would pale in comparrison to it's past and thus actually be dying out?
Do you think that the opposite is occuring, and all the extra stuff(except maybe for production value) is actually holding it back and smothering the product? This meaning that rather than WWE grasping for life through all the extra outlets, it's actually burrying the wrestling product in all of the extra outlets, and the company would be more prosperous and more widely know without the jazz?
I personally am starting to think that WWE isn't thriving as much as I thought they were. I do believe the company is doing very well and that is evident with the stock value, and the companies income. Business is great sure, but I am starting to think that it has become too dependent on outside celebrity appearances, social media, charity recognitions, and merchandising. The company was once able to stand on it's own too feat and prosper as a wrestling organization and now it has to lean on these crutches so to speak. I do believe that without the movies, social media, celebrites and charity the company really would be dying or at least falling. It would essentially be another TNA. i believe that if the same crutchs were applied to the past that thse eras would have significantly out done today's era. \
Opinions?
They said wrestling was biggest in the 80s and I said well it had even higher viewership and mainstream attention in the late 90s. I said the quality of wrestling has gone down but they are still thriving, which got me thinking. Is it really doing well or is it everything else keeping them afloat. It's kind of like McDonalds. They have crappy food and rather than fixing it, they spend millions on adding extra drive thrus, remodeling playgrounds, adding a cafe, replacing the menu with flat screen tvs and making the lobby look nicer. They redo designs and logs and dress everything up all the while leaving the quality of the food unchanged. This goit me thinking about WWE. WWE has the high production value, the brand recognition, the movies, the celebrities, the social media, the app, the anti bullying campaigns, the make a wish foundation and all the jazz. But what happens when you take all of those things away? You're pretty much left with TNA. TNA doesn't have the same brand recognition, because they haven't been around as long and aren't as main stream. They don't have the high production quality, the strong social media presence, the fan interactvity, the budget, charitable campaigns or the big celebrity appearances. They have to rely solely on wrestlers wehter it be matches or promos or storlines etc much like WWF back in its greatest days whether it be 80s or 90s.
Let's take for example the late 90s and early 2000s. This is not an era versus era thread. i pick this soley because this is the period with the highest ratings and mainstream attention. You can argue the WWF was more mainstream with the Hulkamania days, but they weresn't running a regular weekly show back then, and Hogan was arguably more mainstream than WWF. So we will use late 90s and early 2000s for this. Many loved this time already whether they like the Attitude Era or the Ruthless Agression Era. They had the big stars and were in mainstream media. The business was thriving and viewership was great. Many can argue that the product was far greater then than it is now. So hypothetically speaking, what if this era of wrestling had the same production value as today. The same big names and feuds but with the current arena set up and lighting, the quality of audio and visual effects, high definition and the whole Jazz. What if Wrestlemania was as big as it is now as far as the whole production, setup up, fireworks, celebrities, grandeur but with the talent of the era. Then on top of that WWE/F was also producing movies and featuring celebrities regularly on their programming, while also having their performers appear more regular on other media outlets. Add the ability to interact more with the Superstar, whether it be fan Touts shown on Raw, interactive polls, tweeting and facebooking their favorite stars etc.
Do you think that Vince would be a Billionaire or even multi Billionaire?
Would it have the same effect as taking McDonalds with all its jazz and dressing up but at the same time offering restaurant quality burgers for essentially the same price?
Is today's WWE only doing well just because all the extra stuff surrounding the wrestling product whereas ,if applying the same extra jazz, it would pale in comparrison to it's past and thus actually be dying out?
Do you think that the opposite is occuring, and all the extra stuff(except maybe for production value) is actually holding it back and smothering the product? This meaning that rather than WWE grasping for life through all the extra outlets, it's actually burrying the wrestling product in all of the extra outlets, and the company would be more prosperous and more widely know without the jazz?
I personally am starting to think that WWE isn't thriving as much as I thought they were. I do believe the company is doing very well and that is evident with the stock value, and the companies income. Business is great sure, but I am starting to think that it has become too dependent on outside celebrity appearances, social media, charity recognitions, and merchandising. The company was once able to stand on it's own too feat and prosper as a wrestling organization and now it has to lean on these crutches so to speak. I do believe that without the movies, social media, celebrites and charity the company really would be dying or at least falling. It would essentially be another TNA. i believe that if the same crutchs were applied to the past that thse eras would have significantly out done today's era. \
Opinions?
