Looking at the wrong problem. WWE Network is fine. Raw, Smackdown are the problem.

[johnbragg]

Everyone has ideas for how to make WWE Network better. More specials, fewer specials (including PPVs), etc etc.

But WWE Network has about 1.5 million subscribers. About 3 million people a week watch RAW. So WWE already has 50% of the people who watch the product for free as paying customers. That's a huge percentage--I don't think there's a single other TV property that has that percentage of paying customers.

So WWE Network, in the grand scheme of things, is fine. You're not going to get much subscriber growth from the existing WWE Universe of fans.

The problem WWE should be focused on is the long-term shrinking of the audience for RAW and Smackdown. You're not going to see significant growth in WWE Network subscriptions without growing the pro wrestling audience, and RAW and Smackdown are where new viewers start and where casual viewers become regular viewers and customers.

 

[johnbragg]

What exactly do you do is a different question.

How do you
A) Expose more people to WWE pro wrestling, and
B) Make WWE pro wrestling a product that more people will want more of when they see some of it.

Half baked ideas, based on the concept that maybe 5 hours is too much of a commitment to ask of new fans. These are back-to-the-future ideas, thinking that maybe you go back to the 1980s formula of big stars in small doses on weekly TV. In the youtube era, maybe that works better than a 2 hour show and a 3 hour show every week to follow the storylines.

1. Replace the first hour of Raw with a one-hour studio recap of the week in WWE. 15-20 minutes of recapping Raw, 15-20 minutes of recapping Smackdown, 5-10 minutes of clips from NXT, 205 Live, WWE UK, maybe replay the best Network studio slow clip of the week.

2. "Wrestlemania Rewind" The Wrestlemania main show was 4 hours. The kickoff show was 2 hours. Add in the pre-show and post-show RAW and Smackdown, that's another 8-10 hours. If you count NXT Takeover, that's another 2-3 hours. Plus footage from the Wrestlemania fan access festival thing. That's 20 hours. With commercial breaks, you can recap that show for half the year. The rest of the year, run one-hour recaps of old Wrestlemanias.

 

[LBGetBack]

Honestly, the shows are just too long. You don't need a PPV length show every Monday, only with like 1/4th of the action of a PPV. Trim the fat. Cut the show lengths down.....it's not like they really use that time to feature more wrestlers effectively or to develop more strong angles anyway. Cut out the constant recaps. It's 2016. We all have the Internet. We don't need old highlights and recaps. It's why nobody watches Sportscenter like they used to.....because we already know who won and what happened and have seen the highlights before Sportscenter even airs. If you feel you have to recap, make it like a 2-3 minute thing at the beginning of the show and then be done with it. Maybe make Raw and Smackdown available on the Network sooner so that people can catch up on what they missed if they missed the previous week....again, lessening the need to fill your show with recaps.

2 hours for Raw....and the only thing you show is matches and promos. No more recaps. 1 hour for Smackdown....same thing. And use that time effectively. Make it count and stop making me feel like you're just biding your time because you can't possibly make use of all that air time.

NXT is often a much better watch and it's a one hour show! But they seem to do just fine at developing angles, and making their weekly matches feel like they matter.

 

[johnbragg]

Cut out the constant recaps. It's 2016. We all have the Internet. We don't need old highlights and recaps. It's why nobody watches Sportscenter like they used to.....

You're right about it being 2016, and the SportsCenter model being out of date. If you missed Raw/Smackdown, and you wanted to see it, you saw the parts you wanted to see by the time the next show comes on.

But I think I understand their logic, even if it's outdated. If you have a big moment, whether it's a Hogan-Sting faceoff or Angle making Cena tap out or Cena hitting the Attitude Adjustment on Orton or Orton RKOing Seth Rollins or Rollins laying out Kevin Owens, you wanted to show that moment every time the show comes back from commercial to catch those channel-surfers. (Of course, it's not 1998 anymore, and channel-surfing 1000+ channels doesn't work as well as surfing 40 channels, not to mention DVRs.)

It's those big moments that (IMO) make pro wrestling fans, that catch people's eye and bring them to the product. You've seen all the AJ Styles or John Cena or Seth Rollins you need to see this week and you're ready for some Sami Zayn or Miz or whatever.

What you're saying would make current fans happy, and happy current fans are a good way to drive audience growth. Happy fans tell their non-fan friends, and word of mouth spreads. So that's another way forward--make RAW and Smackdown more like NXT.

I think, though, we underestimate what a big part of the WWE business WrestleMania is, and I don't know that you can run WrestleMania on the NXT model, without huge doses of "sports entertainment."

 

[sMark]

You get more viewers with more popular or talented or fresh wrestlers singed - this is the basic idea.

The problem is, most of "indy kings" arent ready for WWE - they don't know where the cameras are, they can't adapt for WWE "health care" style, don't understand many other things, which they learn in NXT.

On the other hand Styles jumped over it and for sure was a rising star of 2016.

So maybe the right thing to do will be let both SD and RAW sign indy talents and draft midcard and lowcard talents between the shows every so often - yes they'll go risky, but both SD and RAW can find their edentity this way. For example it's obvious, Sami Zayn must go SD, because of all other talent here working the same style and being in the "same" weight cathegory. While Corbin can go to RAW instead and work in his style with Rollins, Reigns, Show, Jericho, Owens and others.
WWE's tag team division is mediocre at best right now as well. Remember when they had Dudleys/Hardys/E&C? Or Los Guerreros/Angle & Benoit/Edge & Mysterio/WGTT? It was great action and good promos.

More talented guys you have - more viewers you get, if you have enough big names to bring in people's eyes in the first place. A show can be 1-3 hours, doesn't matter if it's fun to watch, for this to happen, you need better talent.

Just look around and sign couple of best guys indys have to offer, put them on main TV shows, and replace the guys who can't bring in new fans. Don't sign them all, since you'll have noone to sign in the next couple of years then.

 

[ComeOnVince]

I think RAW could shorten to 2 hours and be fine.

I think they have a boatload of really impressive talent right now.

I think that what could be fixed is two-fold (I've said this several times elsewhere, pardon the repetition):

1. Let these talents off the leash a little and allow them to infuse their characters with their own personalities and twists, and

2. BETTER WRITING. Great in-ring action is awesome. Great promos are, too. I love seeing the crazy spots in matches. But all of that is meaningless without great storylines. The best eras of wrestling came with great storylines. Complex, simple, goofy, fun, serious... whatever. Good, coherent, interesting storylines is what makes pro wrestling (sports entertainment) fun & interesting to watch.

 

[Navi]

This is what I would like to see happen on RAW and we wouldn't lose any of the promo's that they so love to do.

As we all know on Talking Smack, matches are usually made for the following week, so we don't have to put up with a lot of annoying promo's during the actual show. If RAW cut back to 2 hours they could use the other hour to do the following. Highlight the action the week before, and then have their version of Talking RAW, call it the RAW Rewind or some other catchy name (that one wasn't very catchy). They could bring some wrestlers in, set up the matches for the night. The show might then actually concentrate on wrestling with the fluff stuff out of the way.

It could happen before the show, or afterwards it doesn't matter, but we would have the choice of whether we wanted to watch it or not. If you think about it SD Live plus 205 Live plus Talking Smack takes 3 hours as well, but no one complains about it because it's nicely broken up. Right now RAW is doing it on the fly and it's a mess. SD Live seems to have their night more planned out for some reason.

I would also take the cruiserweights off RAW. They have their own show, and not everyone is interested in them. Fans who want to watch will, those that won't will not.

If this week's ratings are anything to go by, viewers seem to like SD better, as they beat RAW for the first time since they went live. They only put 3 matches on the card, but all three were meaningful and fantastic, not a bad one in the bunch. RAW on the other hand was a dog's breakfast.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The problem was that WWE thought they were getting an insanely big TV deal last time out and it didn't happen. It caused major ripples for the company on Wall Street and while the network has been slower to build than they projected it is now almost viable that all WWE programming would be for the Network only when the current deals expire, as that number is only gonna drop as the marquee names disappear.

TV bosses are going to get very tough on WWE when those negotiations start and that is why they are trying so hard to build the network with exclusives like 205... If they can get the 2m subscribers, they can tell the TV companies that they're not gonna renew with them and take all their product WWE Network only, or remove the live component so the network gets "first view" and TV gets re-runs or 2 hour edited version to match the lower offer.

Yes they lose the advertising revenue, but that's dying off anyway... 3m on TV or 2m on The Network? chances are at least some of that TV audience will subscribe so as not to miss it, so they could get quite close to the 3m and make up the shortfall.

 

[johnbragg]

TV bosses are going to get very tough on WWE when those negotiations start

I'm not sure that's true. Right now, NBC Universal Comcast is having a dispute with one of the big cable systems, and their pitch to customers to call the company is Sunday Night Football and....John Cena. Say what you want about the demographics of WWE's audience, or whether or not they'll watch whatever else your channel has, but they're loyal WWE viewers.

That's valuable when cable networks are negotiating with cable carriers. NCIS fans either watch CSI, or watch through NBC.com or whatever. WWE fans, Fox News viewers, sports fans are liable to cancel their service if they don't get their programming.

Yes they lose the advertising revenue, but that's dying off anyway... 3m on TV or 2m on The Network? chances are at least some of that TV audience will subscribe so as not to miss it, so they could get quite close to the 3m and make up the shortfall.

But that's suicide, long term. (15-30 year horizon.) You don't get new fans that way. My whole point is that, with WWE Network as the centerpiece of WWE's business, RAW and Smackdown basically exist to advertise the network. Much like in the 1980s when the syndicated TV shows existed to advertise the house shows and in the 1990s when RAW's main focus was advertising the PPVs.

Which is why I'm noodling a one-hour week-in-WWE recap show for broadcast TV.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Maybe, but at this stage they aren't getting new fans anyway... They've struggled along by using nostalgia acts, the only way casuals come into the product is via Dwayne or if Ronda or Connor come in... or if they could get Hugh Jackman to do a HOF appearance or match as well as Shaq.

Broadcast TV deals are cynical and cyclical at best... NBC will use WWE now but have no problem lowballing them again when the time comes, citing the drop in ratings and lack of "big names" as WWE will have used them all by then. 5 years down the line, that might have all changed again.

My point was Vince got burned by the networks this last negotiation, he went out on a limb and predicted a monster number that didn't come... that damaged him with investors and could at worst have cost him control. He's not gonna forget that and if he can remove them from the equation yet not lose "much money" for a few years, he will do.

The WWE Network has one ace up its sleeve in how Vince is seemingly repositioning the company... as the new NWA. It's not hard to see Evolve, DGUSA, New Japan and a few other companies ALL on the WWE network and as part of the WWE Umbrella organisation by the end of 2017. Then the subscribers rise.

It's ironic as Vince killed the NWA, but now is seemingly happy to become the NWA but with the WWE name and work with the other organisations.

 

[Dagger Dias]

It's more Raw that can be perceived as being "the problem" than Smackdown. The booking has been full of headscratchers ever since the return of the Brand Split. It also does not help that we see wrestlers face their opponent at an upcoming PPV far too often on episodes of Raw. Granted Smackdown is not perfect in these aspects either, though the red brand is worse about it. Smackdown's quality skyrocketed. If I wanted to introduce a new fan to the product, I'd start with Smackdown given that they would be more likely to enjoy it. I have no issues with the Network. It's amazing. So, yes, the threadstarter is on to something there. There are two big things that need to be fixed. First of all, the forced push(es) of Roman Reigns needs to end. Either turn the guy heel or find someone else because the fans do not WANT him as "the top guy". Secondly, if someone has an upcoming PPV match then they should NEVER face their opponent a single time for that entire PPV cycle up until the actual PPV match. Have them go through jobbers or guys that are scheduled to face others at the PPV. Anyone but their opponent. Raw's booking is the majority of the problem.

 

[Psykohurricane55]

Everyone has ideas for how to make WWE Network better. More specials, fewer specials (including PPVs), etc etc.

But WWE Network has about 1.5 million subscribers. About 3 million people a week watch RAW. So WWE already has 50% of the people who watch the product for free as paying customers. That's a huge percentage--I don't think there's a single other TV property that has that percentage of paying customers.

So WWE Network, in the grand scheme of things, is fine. You're not going to get much subscriber growth from the existing WWE Universe of fans.

The problem WWE should be focused on is the long-term shrinking of the audience for RAW and Smackdown. You're not going to see significant growth in WWE Network subscriptions without growing the pro wrestling audience, and RAW and Smackdown are where new viewers start and where casual viewers become regular viewers and customers.

While I understand your point, you really can't compare raw's and smackdown's rating to the number of subscribers to the network.

The number of subscribers is a global number while the ratings are only for the u.s broadcast. Their some country we're the ratings are higher then others so that number really means nothing when talking about the number of subscribers. In fact 1.5 millions isn't that much when you put it into context. The problem in my opinion is that they don't really want to cater to everybody especially for the over the top network. They have all that old footage available on demand for the network and yet not one minute of old programming is founding is way to the main network.

You need to cater to those that not necessarily like watching the current product but love watching old stuff from the attitude era or the hogan era. It's great having exclusive programming and doing specials like the uk championship tournament but that not going to attract the casual fans.

The ratings in the u.s will stay the same and you do whatever you want, it's not going to change because that's your audience you're going to go and wwe is getting the same amount of money for the ads right for raw and smackdown whatever the ratings are. What they need is trying to attract people to the network and having a more diverse programming on the network would help in my opinion.

 

[Navi]

The biggest difference between RAW and SD Live is the booking, it's just that plain and simple.

RAW books their shows around Stephanie McMahon, Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns, Kevin Owens and Chris Jericho. The rest of the talent are treated as filler matches. That why we end up watching the same four guys each week in the main event. They don't bother to elevate any one, as a matter of fact guys like Rusev and pushed back. They have a much deeper talent pool, but don't seem to know how to use it.

SD Live on the other hand does elevate their rookies. Look at Baron Corbin, he is in a match with John Cena next week. It's not for a title, but if he was on RAW he wouldn't be getting that chance to go up against a main eventer. Last week he was in a three way for the title with Ziggler and Styles. American Alpha another rookie team won the tag titles off the Wyatt's and the rematch is next week. Same with Alexa Bliss another rookie who has been elevated to the same rank as Becky Lynch. On SD Live they are given the opportunities to show what they can do in the ring, on RAW they would be filmed standing in the back of the arena.

The best way I can put it is this. RAW is a small pond with 4-5 big fish, the rest are feeders. SD Live is a smaller pond, but all the fish are treated as equals.