On why WWE has changed the product when they know what will be successful.

[That Don Guy]

The "WWE" (what I never understood is why they didn't change the name to something similar to federation. You almost can't say "the WWE" because you can't say "the world wrestling entertainment")

What's "similar to federation" that doesn't start with F? The entire point is that the company was sued by the World Wildlife Fund for violating an agreement involving the use of the term "WWF", and are banned from calling themselves "WWF" in various parts of the world. (In fact, if you watch WWE On Demand, whenever somebody says "WWF" on an old Raw or Nitro, they have to censor out the "F"; also, when the show the "WWF Barbed Wire" logo, they have to blur out the parts of the F that make it different from the WWE logo, although for whatever reason the "old" WWF logo is still allowed.)

Linda McMahon isn't even active in WWE anymore in any official capacity. The product in the process of being cleaned up as early as late 2007, before she ever announced a senate bid. "Widely speculated".

Widely, but not entirely inaccurately. If they didn't tone down the product, the Democrats could easily use it against her, even though she's no longer involved in it, since it was just as "bad" when she was involved in it, and her husband is not only still involved but, as he controls 98% of the voting power, they can claim that he pretty much calls the shots. Never underestimate the power of a good political commercial.

 

[Shotaro]

Oh FFS.

seriously? The product you want (which highly resembles the attitude era, whether you like it or not.) simply doesn't fly nowadays, concussions are a serious problem (They were before the Benoit incident and making light of it doesn't do you any favours.)

Is there a market for the product you are describing? Of course there is, TNA is the show for you. They're not exactly setting the world on fire, as a side note if TNA were popular enough to get a big following investors would have already given them the budget and exposure they would need to be truly competitive. They haven't, they don't, they likely never will.

It's easy to criticise the current product, it's easy to criticise an old product. Fact of the matter is WWE are as profitable now as they have ever been; Wrestlemania 28 broke records (real as well as kayfabe)

Talk about declining ratings all you like, WWE could give a shit. As long as Mania sells well and makes a profit (it does, and it will do) WWE have little to really worry about, it's a niche sport, it may, MAY, have a day in the sun again but it's just as likely that it will carry on as it is now making a nice profit and staying comfortably afloat. If that stops, there are all manner of things they could do to reduce their expenditure, moving back to smaller arenas, less PPVs, all manner if things before they get anywhere near being in real trouble.

Will wrestling survive without WWE? Probably not as it is now, but you can bet that It will carry on without TV.

 

[The Liar]

I think Lesnar is an exception since he had just come from the UFC, which stole a ton of WWE's Attitude Era fanbase. That's the thing - Lesnar's return made WWE "cool" again, if only for a brief period. When he returns and feuds with Triple H, I think things will pick up again.

I see what you mean. I just feel like if the WWE was truly uncool, Brock Lesnar would be frowned upon for going back to it. I don't think the general 18-35 male population thinks the WWE is lame; they're just not interested in CM Punk, Daniel Bryan and others like us IWC guys are.

 

[TLK]

I thought I read somewhere that Lesnar was being laughed at for returning to the WWE, but I could be wrong. I don't think it was by fans, either, so it's really irrelevant. I think Punk is looked upon as "cool" - moreso last summer - by the male demographic. It's hard for a face to be endeared by the 18-35 male demographic these days. I think Punk does a great job of keeping male fans on his side.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Good God...another thread that says, underneath all the long winded bluster, that WWE should go back to the Attitude Era.

People really need to get over this, seriously. The Attitude Era is gone and, all in all, it wasn't nearly as great as AE marks try to make it out to be. I'm not saying that a lot of it wasn't great and wasn't an exciting time, but it wasn't wrestling perfection by a long shot either. The AE was a fad, plain and simple. I know a lot of AE marks hate to hear that but that's just how it is. The glory days of the AE were over the minute WCW died. The minute the Monday Night Wars ended, the ratings started to steadily decline and all this was still while WWE was running more "adult" programming content. This was still during the days when you saw blood in matches on a regular basis. This was still during the days of unprotected chairshots to the head. This was during the days of The Rock & Stone Cold ruling the roost. This was during the days when The Undertaker was performing "satanic rituals" on live television.

The WWE didn't go PG until 2008, long after the ratings were firmly entrenched within the 3s. The AE & Monday Night Wars showed wrestling portrayed in a light that most people had never seen before. It was a fad however and fads to fade over time. Shows like Pawn Stars & Jersey Shore, while still big hits on television, aren't drawing 7 million viewers per episode like they were about this time last year. The more casual fans of wrestling moved on while the more hardcore and devoted fans stuck with it and continue to stick with it.

Just because programming is more "adult" or "controversial" doesn't mean that it's good. There are a LOT of things that made it onto WWE television during the AE that, while controversial, was awful. Remember Mae Young giving birth to a hand? Remember the Katie Vick storyline? Remember Vince McMahon's "Kiss My Ass Club"? Remember Vince basically sexually harassing Divas, such as when he "forced" Trish Stratus to strip down to her bra & panties while she was "crying"? In my 16 year old mind, I thought it was good at the time but now I know better. It was crap then and it'd be crap today.

 

[Nada]

Woah time out guys. When someone says "i want Attitude Era back" what they are really saying is that they want the characters and superstars back, which we have none of today.

You see, that is why AE ends up looking so good compared to today, but it really wasent Sable's exposed ass on TV or Chyna's fake tits that made the show great, or Mick Foley near killing himself, it was the fact that WWF at the time was stacked with a fantastic main event scene with top stars.

WCW, at its absolute peak, was PG. Infact once the show became raunchier it also became worse (99-2001), that was the era when Torrie Wilson was running around in a G string and Gorgeous George had a career as a porn star look alike alongside the late great Savage.

One thing that is certain is that WWE is lacking today, they just do not produce very good television and had it not been for countless stupid reality shows on TV, a solid case could be made that WWE Raw is the worst TV show on prime time television, i say that as a wrestling fan, since 1992.

WWE was also bad in the 2002-2004 era, with lesbian scenes, gay marriage and what not.


Blaming the PG label for a piss poor product that is actually rivaling WCW at its worst (yes we have litterally hit the rock bottom) is misguided.

I and many others wish it was just that simple, but its not, their shows are just down right awful, to a point that saying "oh man last week's Raw was great!" is actually considered trolling, ie you are saying something and offering a opinion that nobody goddamn shares anymore. Its like saying "oh man Stalin was awesome!".


The "twist" to all of this is quite epic in scale, in that WWF never really beat WCW. What happened was that WWF assimilated WCW onto itself and at that very moment started going downhill. I dont believe in ghost stories, possesions or any other crazy **** but if there is a case to be made, look no further.

 

[Yesiamaduck]

In this day and age I look at society around me and think an attitude era style product would TANK. It's no the late 90s anymore and if we're honest Violence & Vulgar language on the whole is considered incredibly lame from the majority.... I think the PG product is way more appropriate for the current cultural climate.

It's just poor writing, that's the problem. Most stories simply start with the characters and the finish/what the writer wants to achieve. They then construct a story to get to what they want to achieve with the story... the is no sense of that in the WWE, they seem to be writing on a week by week basis & deciding to end things whenever they please & as such the is never a sense of accomplishment in anything. In the Attitude era you got a feeling in the majority of storylines that they had a point and a conclusive ending, but that slowly went down the pan when wrestling bookers got it in there head that the reason the era was so popular was because of all the sexy/violence and piss poor language.

 

[scomvp316]

Shotaro is the typical WWE Elitist Mark. To think if WWE went out of business other promotions wouldn't survive on tv is just plain ignorant. If you think VKM would be happy if RAW did a 2.4 you are insane. As long as Raw is 2.9-3.5 VKM is satisfied. In todays wrestling you need balance of quality wrestling and edgy storylines. I was never a big fan of all of the blood and sexuality only if it makes sense with the storyline.

For any fan to say that WWE is more profitable now than ever before is drinking the wrong cool-aide. WM did do around 1.4 buyrates but thats worldwide. UFC recently still has the highest domestically at 1.25. WWE is not a billion doallar company anymore and hasn't been for about a decade. WWE will always make money and VKM is happy if they do between 600 mill-750 mill. For those that think WWE is at its highest peak with 5.5 mill fans watching RAW compared to 15 mill during Attitude I think they must be an accountant at MorganChase!

 

[CrucifiedRaven]

Unless TNA somehow snatches CM Punk or John Cena and pulls a Hogan/WCW/NWO... Vince won't be motivated enough to change the product.

He doesn't need to, because like in the late 80's / early 90's, he didn't need to.

Also... Boom periods are cyclical.
If you were a kid from 1988 - 1992 during the Hogan era, you were likely an angsty teen during the 1998 - 2001 Attitude era. I think the same fans blowing the roof off of wrestling events in the late 90's were the same kids who were major Hogan/Macho Man marks in the late 80s.

So I can see two potential things happening:
1. The same kids who buy all the Cena shirts will grow up and in 10 years fall back in love with wrestling as a teen, and demand an edgier product. This may or may not lead to another boom period.
2. The same kids who were into Hogan/same teens in the Attitude era are now beginning to have kids of their own. If you're 7 in 1988... 17 in 1998... You're now in your early 30s, you might have your own kids. And because you were such a wrestling fan, you may be likely to expose your kids to the PG John Cena era. This follows the same cyclical logic. This also may or may not lead to another boom period.

McDonald's as a brand follows the same marketing approach. Baby Boomers are the largest generation of consumers on the planet. In the early 90s, they targeted the baby-boomers children with Ronald McDonald. Later, those kids grew up, and so did McDonald's, targeting their branding to them with ads featuring Justin Timberlake and ads about how the Big Mac is your favourite 3am snack. It's smart marketing. It's evolving with the same audience that made you rich in the first place. And WWE is no different.

Now the harsh truth is there may never be another boom period. But not at the fault of Vince McMahon. TV has become more segmented. More specialized. Since 1998, the television landscape is completely different. It's very rare for a major network show, or even cable shows don't draw the same ratings as they used to. Nothing is a broad or generic as it once was, because TV has allowed everything to become so specialized. There's a niche channel for everything. This doesn't apply just for wrestling, but any form of entertainment is so accessible by anyone who wants it, that it doesn't need to rely on a weekly TV series. It's the new media world we live in. WWE is actually doing a decent job at trying to adopt or evolve to this.

The reality is though - even if the attitude era was happening right now... the TV shows would be more interesting, but ratings may never be as high as they were before.

 

[Why Always Me]

The best way to win a war is to look at what your mistakes in the past have been and to learn from them. It's also to see what you did right. Let's rewind to 1998, Monday Night Raw is routinely pulling 5.0 Nielson ratings with the new "attitude" product that is captivating millions of people and bringing more and more of WCW's viewership back to the WWF. The well-written storylines, the creative and varied personalities, fantastic feud building and more adult-oriented material is slowly but surely pushing Vince McMahon's wrestling promotion past Ted Turner's World Championship Wrestling in ratings and arena attendance. Megastars, like the Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin, are becoming relevant outside of the wrestling community as actors and celebrities. Monday Night Raw is the most watched weekly telecast on cable television, and the success of this era is launching the World Wrestling Federation to a global phenomenon. Let's face it, if Wrestlezone was around back then, Josh Isenburg would probably be giving Raw an A every week, and the "What I Disliked" portions of his Title This! columns wouldn't exist.

So, fast forward 14 years to the present day.

The industry is a completely different landscape now. Kayfabe is at this point entirely dead; and no one seems to even try to uphold it anymore (a couple weeks ago on iMPACT!, footage from MMA Uncensored Live was aired in which they openly talked about how the wrestling business wasn't real. Regardless of whether or not this is "that big of a deal", it still confirms my point that no one even TRIES, which is part of the reason a marketable superstar can't be built in today's industry unless they do a shoot promo or shout YES! YES! YES!) . The "WWE" (what I never understood is why they didn't change the name to something similar to federation. You almost can't say "the WWE" because you can't say "the world wrestling entertainment") is now adhering to a strictly PG product, disallowing chair-shots directly to the head of performers, blood on television, excessive cursing, excessive violence (violence bad in wrestling? Daniel Bryan lost his job over it once...) and very much less sexual content. WCW no longer exists and WWE's main competition are TNA which has been on a steady decline in recent months/the last year in the same vein as WCW, and ROH, which has yet to find a national audience nor any true marketable product.

Now, Paul Levesque has offered the explanation that the move to PG was done for two reasons:
- 1. To make moments where there IS excessive violence or blood that much more shocking.
- 2. And because the WWE demographic is apparently dominated by girls and children now.

Over the years, the whole basis of what professional wrestling is has changed considerably. And not positively. Wrestling is and always will be a mock championship contention sport mixed in with story-lines. But over the past two or three years especially, the logic of wrestling has fallen apart, especially in WWE. Some of the past mainstays of professional wrestling can still be seen in TNA (an authority figure who books matches, whereas in WWE matches just "happen" or as CM Punk showed us last night, are just booked on the fly by whoever wants to make them, contender systems, which the WWE almost entirely lacks, and so on), but as far as WWE goes, things are just chaotic and disorganized, almost painfully unwatchable. The word "spot" in WWE only means a suicide dive through the ropes at this point. The word "jobber" now means former WWE Champions in WWE now. The word "mark" in WWE at this stage is ANYONE, absolutely ANYONE, oh god please ANYONE who buys into John Cena.

Logic is severely lacking in WWE is the point I'm attempting to get across. Now, when you look at where WWE has gone in 14 years, or, rather I should say where they've failed to go, you'll see the bigger picture.

- 1998: Monday Night Raw is the highest rated cable television show on TV, regularly drawing up to six million weekly viewers and Nielson ratings of 5.0 and higher.
- 2012: Raw is struggling to maintain a weekly 3.0 in the Nielson ratings while Smackdown! has fallen to iMPACT-esque numbers.
- 1998: The top stars in the WWF are The Rock and Stone Cold Steve Austin, arena crowds are lively and attentive during the majority of the program, and the commentary is to this day considered to be the best in wrestling history with the face Jim Ross and his ridiculous color skills and the heel Jerry Lawler who offers the perfect counterpart.
- 2012: The top stars in the company are John Cena (who regularly gets booed even though he's been touted as a face since his debut), CM Punk, and Daniel Bryan. Instead of seeing the two most over guys in the whole company compete in the main-event, they're wrestling the mid-card (which is funny considering the crowd in Raleigh at Over The Limit was pretty much only alive during their match and was chanting "This is awful!" during the main event). The commentary team is now Jerry Lawler doing an unmotivated face imitation and Michael Cole doing a horrific attempt at heel color.
- 1998: Wrestlers rarely turned from face to heel, feuds were built up over months, and logic was the most important factor in the entire product.
- 2012: Wrestlers commonly turn their stance, feuds are short and boring, and logic is non-existent.
- 1999: WWE opens on the New York stock exchange at $17.00 a share with an initial movement of 11.5 million shares. PPV buyrates were at historic highs and "capacity crowd" meant no taped-off sections or faked crowd noise.
- 2012: WWE stock price this year dropped to historic lows, barely above $7.00 per share. Movement of shares is dismal and PPV buyrates are abysmal. Fake crowd noise is often flooded through the arena and sections of the stands are commonly taped-off due to a lack of a pure sell-out.

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point. In 14 years, the once mighty WWF has become the uninteresting and frankly, bad, WWE.

So this is my question to WWE: If females and kids are your core demographic, why do you do best in ratings in the 18-35 male demographic? Why are the majority of your crowds that same demographic? Sure, kids watch the product, but who buys those kids the shirts? Buys themselves the DVDs? Kids loved wrestling in 1998, too. Why would any company focused on the success of their product allow this slow deterioration when history shows exactly what is successful and what will earn them the most money and best critical response? Is it because Vince McMahon, now pushing 70 years of age, doesn't care about his "experiment" anymore? Is it because he's allowing his idiot daughter and his inexperienced son-in-law run the company? When Vince McMahon goes to sleep at night, does he think about the glory his company used to possess? The prestige of the WWF Championship, which has now been relegated to the mid-card? The landmark events in professional wrestling such as the first hell-in-a-cell match, the first ladder match, TLC matches with the best tag-teams this industry has ever seen, incredible main-events on shows as beloved and honored as Survivor Series, The Royal Rumble, and Wrestlemania? Does it trouble him to see what it's all become? Or is he just a senile old man with no more vision, no more heart, and no more motivation? Has the glory-days of this sport we've all come to love, professional wrestling, ended, never to return?

Does the wrestling business even stand a long-term chance if the WWE fails?

Thoughts?

Brilliant post.

People on here will say 'oh it's another person longing for the Attitude Era' or 'the Attitude Era wouldn't work today', and these are more than likely the people who come on here and post daily, the 'hardcore' members of the IWC.

The IWC make up about 10% of the total WWE fans someone told me.

From speaking to my friends and work colleagues who occasionally watch wrestling or people who have in the past been big fans, they give the following reasons as to why they do not watch anymore.

It's too corny/childish/not as violent/exciting - this is because of the PG rating.

The brand extension/two sets of champions - this has sort of been addressed but there still is a split of sorts and two World champions.

No stars that grab their attention anymore - John Cena, Randy Orton, CM Punk, Sheamus, Alberto Del Rio are not Austin, Triple H, Undertaker, Mankind or The Rock.

The appeal is not there, not because times have changed but because the product has changed. Attitude Era produced better ratings, PG era produces worse ratings, if times have changed surely the PG era would have better rating, live attendance and PPV buyrates.......

I can't wait for the IWC to tear me apart on this

 

[IT Factor]

First off, I will say this; WWE are simply trying to clean up their image and reputation with the media and for Linda McMahon's senate campaign. If their motives for going PG were strickly good intentions, it would be admireable that they were doing so. WWE[and Vince McMahon in specific] don't do anything unless it is beneficial for the company and its bottom line. However, in doing so, McMahon has made an erronious assumption: going PG is NOT good for business. WWWF & WWF were both full of bad gimmicks, cartoony characters, and overall stereotypical bad elements of wrestling. While some of these characterizations like Sgt. Slaughter & The Iron Shiek made sense for their respective times, much of wrestling's past is full of bad gimmicks and even worse storylines.

This is why most fans who have been watching any amount of time and remembers both eras and forms of pro-wrestling/entertainment longs for the return of the "Attitude Era". You had shockingly realistic characters with an edge that resonated with casual fans, hardcore fans, and non-fans alike. You had storylines that people could relate to and real stars that people wanted to pay to see. This is where WWE really found their correct niche in business and the wrestling business was at an all-time high for buyrates, ratings, house show attendences, etc. It stands to reason that big stars and interesting storylines=big business. This was the most gutsy, balls-out approach that wrestling had done up until that time which was why most fans loved it. It was an accurate reflection of real society and not some ill-conceived vision of what fans wanted to see that was about as far from realistic as you could possibly get.

There is a flip side to that coin as well, though. There were certain elements of that shock tv concept that were just downright awful. The overuse of borderline porn type of content with the combination of awful storylines full of cliches and double meaning were the embodiment of the negative side of that era. Some of the stereotypical gimmicks and negative grouping were even worse during that time frame with McMahon and Bischoff playing off of every bad stereotype and cliche known to man with nothing being off limits. So in that sense, reality wrestling is a kind of double-edged sword.

The bottom line is that realistically edgy television when kept in check can be a great thing for WWE[and other companies as well]. Keep the talents relateable and realistic, while also making them actual stars. WWE has failed to produce one actual household name for many years now and alot of current talent would never have made it in older days in wrestling. Talent and persistence is what used to make real bonafide stars. This isn't completely the new talent's faults. WWE[McMahon specifically] gets inconsistent with whom he pushes and how frequently talents are booked to be strong stars. Look at guys like Jack Swagger, The Miz, Zack Ryder, and the like to find proof. These guys will never be stars until they are consistently booked as real stars and given consistent pushes to back it up. The art of promos and storytelling with in-ring wrestling has seemingly been replaced by turning these "WWE Superstars" into nothing more than glorified male & female models with soap-opera overkill. The PG thing isn't the total problem with current form WWE, but it is an issue holding WWE back from its full potential. There are several different factors as to why WWE needs to change things to make their shows higher quality. Who knows? Maybe it is simply arrogance from lack of competition and complacency that WWE will always be the only game in town.

I think most fans that have invested more than 5 or 10 years into WWE/WWF and wrestling in general would agree that major changes are indeed needed to make pro wrestling anything near what it once was. Maybe it'll never see heights that high again. As long as WWE is in major denial about their product combined with being out of touch with what their fanbase actually wants, we'll just get more of the same. Which is sad, considering how many numerous legends have given their lives to create the business that Vince McMahon seems to be trying to sweep under the rug and clean up. Wrestling is wrestling. Is entertainment a part of it? Sure. As long as it is advancing a story with characters that people want to see.

 

[Slyfox696]

Why are threads from months ago, with such an incredibly fictitious opening post, not to mention one completely lacking understanding of pro wrestling, being bumped?

Stupid thread, and shame on those of you still posting in it. Thread closed.