One Big Name Performer Or Several Well Known Performers?

[Ferbian]

What would be the most beneficial for a wrestling company? Now certainly the obvious answer on the surface would seem like "Big name performer" well, obviously that's true, I'm sure a guy like John Cena, Hulk Hogan or Steve Austin in terms of popularity could've thrived inside a company of no-names and still made the company do good.

But on the other hand, several well known performers could easily variate into many different categories of well known performers. I would like to consider CM Punk a well known performer, but nowhere near a big name performer. The same goes for a guy like Chris Jericho, A.J Styles etc. All of those names that can draw, but could never truly be considered the top drawing power of the business in their generation, or any generation for that sake.

So, obviously while a promotion could obviously thrive well on one big name, or several lesser named wrestlers. Which one is really the better choice? Would a wrestling promotion be anything worthwhile with just one big name that obviously can't fill the entire show, where as the other choice would have several well known wrestlers that could attract people to not only look forward to one aspect of the show, but the entire show.

What would you think is the better choice?

 

[shattered dreams]

The answer is subject to the same thing that everything comes down to in the IWC. Are we talking about the perceived quality of the product or the business side? If it is the former then several well-known performers is going to be better but since the latter is what matters in reality that one big name is the answer. It is easier to build up those secondary guys with one big name anyway than it is to make that one big name.

 

[#hamler]

I can see both sides. On one side you have someone like Hulk Hogan who will draw in millions no matter who else is on the card. On the other hand, you have guys like the old 90s ECW roster. They can draw, but only draw loyal and hardcore fans. Sure they were great performers but they couldn't draw the enough to be considered huge. In my opinion, while having one top name performer, the company will likly thrive on their popularity, I think you need more guys that can actually perform. Like I said, the 90s ECW roster is a good example of this. They didn't really have a big name but the company thrived on loyal fans. Their fans were entertained through the whole show. I've also noticed the WWE doing a great mix of this lately. Lately on RAW, you have the top drawers like Randy Orton and John Cena getting into feuds with good performers that aren't drawing power wrestlers. John Morrison, R-Truth, Daniel Bryan, and guys like that are great performers and any match they are in, I'm glued to the tv while the audiance maybe silent. I can kinda see both sides but id have to go with several great performers. If a company wants to thrive on Money instead of loyal fans then they should obviously choose a Big Name instead.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Its an interesting question. I think the correct answer is that one big performer, someone say with the charisma of a Hogan or Austin will give your company intant recognition and fame but in order to sustain that you need several good performers once the novelty wears off.

A good example of what I am talking about is the scenario in the WWF post Wrestlemania 14. When people talk about how great the roster was in the Attitude Era I'm sure they forget about 1998.

Look at the roster. There was only one huge star ie Stone Cold and even he had not reached his peak by then. Still let us say that he was extremely popular and he was the one big name performer you are talking about. After him we had The Undertaker who was still not the legend he is today as yet. Kane had debuted as his younger brother and had an awesome look but was still somewhat an unknown commodity. Mick Foley was a great performer but someone with more of a cult popularity rather than mainstream popularity at that point. DX with the exit of HBK was essentially a midcard faction, no matter how popular. Same with NOD. Rocky Miavia had just taken his baby steps towards his evolution to The Rock.

You could say that WWF had Vince Mcmahon and that he worked extremely well in his role of an evil boss. It was an awesome storyline and it is what helped Stone Cold become Stone Cold but again he was not a huge star prior to this storyline. He was merely an announcer. So if you were a really casual fan chances are you would only know who Stone Cold was when you tuned into Raw.

Still even with a pretty limited roster consisting of say only two big names( Austin and arguably Mcmahon) WWF managed to beat WCW in the ratings war. Granted there was a great storyline to back it up but facts are facts.

What transpired in 1999 is even more interesting. The Austin vs Mcmahon saga reached an end and we say great wrestlers like Benoit, Angle and Jericho come into the company. Simultaneously we say Triple H being pushed as the next big heel and we got our next great storyline in the Mcmahon-Helmsley era. The transition from Austin-Mcmahon to the Mcmahon-Helmsley era was particularily seamless and something that WWF deserves a lot of credit for. These changes are the reason why WWF survived. As great as Austin was I don't think he could have carried the company on his own without the help of Rock or the guys I just mentioned. So in short one big guy cannot carry a company. You need several good performers.

Had this been WCW I think we would have just seen multiple variations of the Austin and Mcmahon feud by now with little variety on offer. But that was not the case and that is why WWF survived.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

One big name performer, it's not even close with me.

For a long term goal, I believe having one superstar so over with the crowd he becomes a household name would be better for the product then a few "okay" guys. The money rests on the top dog; no one else. I want my company to make $$$, not cater to the everyday fan. Having a guy like Hulk Hogan on the roster is golden; he will be remembered and merchandise will fly off of the racks.

Not only that, but once my "top draw" is ready to head out the door, he can give the rub to the next breakout superstar. With that going and the heat/praise that has already been generated to his opposition/friends, my product can still remain fresh and in business.

 

[Ultra Awesome]

I would have to go with a wrestling business being more successful with one big performer. The reason being because in any wrestling company, no matter how pathetic it may be, if you have a top draw as that of the likes of John Cena going there, it will instantly garner fan attraction from the moment it is heard that he will be going to that company. People all over the nation will be tuning in to watch said wrestling company to see John Cena. Top draws = big bucks. If you have a top draw in your company, then it is very likely that you will be able to make a big profit as a result of having him in the company.

Not only that, but you have the increase number of viewers to your promotion. Now, with more viewers, the current talent on the roster have a great chance to get exposure to the new population that was brought by that one big performer. Meaning, all those under-exposed/under-rated talent will finally get to show what they are made of. And if the people start to dig what they see, then they will keep tune-ing in to the said company not just to watch the top guy, but to watch all the little guys do there stuff.

Thus, having one big performer going into a wrestling company causes a chain reaction for the greater good for the said company. First you have a top guy going there; then you have him attract viewers; the viewers are exposed to the rest of the card when tune-ing in; if the viewers like what they see, then they will keep tune-ing in; eventually, these viewers will then invite more people to tune in and so on---point is, one big performer causes an increase in the amount of viewers a wrestling company both directly and indirectly.

However, while in theory, this idea should work, there is one thing that fails to get noticed here. And that thing is, the CREATIVE WRITING held in the company. I mean, it’s one thing to have a great roster, but it’s another thing to use them properly. When the big performer attracts the “initial” popularity, you have to make them to keep tune-ing in to your company. Now, how do you do this? By putting the talent to good use and making worthy stories for the people to keep watching. Because if you don’t, that “initial” gain in fans that you got, will start to decrease and eventually you will be back to where you started. It doesn’t matter if you have someone like John Cena there. If you don’t use him (along with the rest of the roster) properly, then it won’t do you any good.

All in all, I would say that having one big performer is what generates the most success to your company. However, the only condition is that you put him to good use and not misuse him.

 

[klunderbunker]

One big name for sure. Look at the times in WWE when they've been the most prosperous. It was the time of Austin and the time of Hogan. When you can find one guy that people want to see, it doesn't matter who is around them. You can get a fever going for one guy and the whole company revolves around them. That's all you need at times and it almost works that way every time. Look at the times when you have multiple people on top and it hardly ever succeeds at the same level one guy does.

 

[Tastycles]

One big name performer. Wrestling start-ups to point to as examples are few and far between but, if you look at TNA, they have had a lot of reasonably big names, but they're still not really anywhere near WWE. Compare that to WCW, who started to gain significant ground on WWF by adding Hogan, before the glut of other talent came in later to take them forward. You will never become a dominant force without both, but you'll never get off the ground without a big star.

 

[mrbrownstone]

One big name performer and it's not even close. When you look at the times that WWF has been at it's peak in terms of fan interest and drawing money it was the times that Hogan and Austin (the two biggest name performers ever) were on top, no one cared what went on the rest of the time, as long as those two were on the card people were going to keep watching.

Now on the other hang look at the times WWE was least successful, 1993-1997 and 2002-2005ish, they were the times when lots of big names were on top as opposed to one main guy. Guys like HBK, Hart, Taker, Diesel and Mankind from 1993-1997 and guys like HBK, Hunter, Lesnar, Angle, Benoit, Eddie and JBL from 2002-2005.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I think Hulk Hogan is the perfect example of one big name being the most successful.

Having a "NAME" player like Hogan was will attract the fans no matter who else is on the card. Stone Cold during the 90s is another example of this, and the other wrestlers stock will rise simply by wrestling or being associated with a name such as these two.

This will help to create the next big star, to replace the BIG name once they retire or suffer an injury. It is important to have other stars on the roster but having the one major name initially is the best route to go

 

[Dagger Dias]

It depends. The choice of having one big name be the top guy while random others are fed to him seems like the better option. In terms of desiring financial success, having one big name is the superior option due to how they can market the main guy as being a nearly invincible super hero (if face) or an unstoppable evil villain (if heel) then just constantly feed other guys to them in high profile matches. Now, there is another variable to consider. Looking back at Cena's year long title reign 3 years ago. He got injured in real life and had to surrender the title. What if WWE had not built up guys like Orton to step up when they desperately had to find a new champion? It's safer to have a tier system where there a few top guys and a large group of midcarders to build up and feed to them in the main event matches when they have feuded with each other too much. This option is safer because if you lose one or more of the main eventers, then there is someone else to fall back on. So in the end it just depends if the federation wants the better option for financial success, or the better option for a safe fallback if the top guy gets hurt. A happy medium in between the two is the best in my opinion, much like what WWE has been doing lately.