Our current WWE Draws

[CyberPunk]

So I was at work and didn't have much to do in the last half hour or so. A question popped into my mind. I thought, why not put it out here? So, I am here.

We all know what draw in wrestling means. If not, here's what I picked up from Wikipedia: A wrestler or storyline that attracts the attention of the audience; someone fans are willing to pay to see. Pretty straightforward definition, isn't it? But has the definition for someone being a draw changed in WWE? Or is it that our perception of what a draw is in today's WWE changed? Let me explain what I am trying to say.

Let's take the current WWE scenario. John Cena is a proven draw. People invest in what he does. He attracts a lot of media attention as well as does tons of PR work for WWE besides wrestling. However, if we take him out of the equation and thrust, let's say, Daniel Bryan, people would start questioning his drawing ability (which I've seen countless times on this board to back up any anti-Bryan sentiment). Now, Bryan makes me tune into RAW every week, which turns into rating for WWE. That means Bryan draws me for WWE. WWE is wrestling company (whether you like it or not), and a wrestling company would try to draw as many wrestling fans it can. If someone is able to draw casual fans in, that's bonus. But main focus for any wrestling company would be to draw it's fanbase (whether it is children or women or men) and then hope and expect that they'll bring some not so hardcore fans with them. Ratings, merchandise, PPV buys etc are somewhere directly proportional to the number of fans tuning or showing up in arenas for a show.

Now, WWE has become the apex of wrestling. It has gone beyond its boundaries and it's a testament to what WWE has been able to make wrestling i.e. more mainstream than targeted at any particular demography. It has become more of an entertainment company than just a wrestling company (or at least that's what they are trying to project). In process, they've been able to create stars who have been able to go beyond wrestling community and draw casual fans. People like Hulk Hogan, The Rock, Stone Cold Steve Austin etc. became big names who could've filled half the arena by simply putting there name on the card. But barring some stars, wrestling always remained a niche product. For example, as much as I like Edge, I am not sure he could've filled arenas all by himself.

My point is, wrestling is not the same it was 20 years ago. I doubt any wrestler has the star power to fill arenas and jack PPV buys all by himself. but somewhere WWE is still trying to treat it as it is the same time. They are still hanging on to try and draw casual fans than first keeping their current fans. Wrestling itself is not as popular as it once was. Then how can WWE judge whether someone is a draw or would become a draw without proper chance? Cena, as much hard work he has put in over the years, is lucky enough to come at a time when wrestling still had its core fanbase intact, same with Orton. One cannot expect a new star to just come in and start selling out arenas and drawing astonishing PPV buys. A wrestler takes time to connect with his audience. That too in a time when your fanbase is not as big as it was before. Then how do you decide he's going to be a draw or not?

Case in point, most of us think that Reigns is a star in the making. But do you expect him to draw same numbers as Cena within next 2 years? How many people outside wrestling fanbase know him? And even if he is pushed to the moon, how many outside the wrestling fanbase would know him after 2 years? Or let me put it this way. As a company, wouldn't you want to see if Reigns can retain the current fans before he starts drawing other fans?

So I think it's a two pronged question (in the same vein as my previous questions in this post earlier):

Is WWE too quick to judge who is/isn't or can/can't be a draw, especially these days?

Question to the fans

Have we become too impatient and not ready to give chance to a wrestler to prove him/her self?

Bonus question

Is it justified to question someone's drawing ability in a dicussion?

Let's have an candid discussion on this (I know this has become a long post). And please, no spams.

 

[teampunk]

as long as the wwe keeps everything scripted and watered down, they will not be able to create a huge draw. imagine if hogan, austin, the rock were given thbut the watered down storylines of today. none would have gotten over. and they can blame it on wrestling not being popular today, but that's a lie. the first raw after cm punk cashed in his first money in the bank had over a 6 rating. hell, even when the rock came back, rating skyrocketed. the fans are there and they want to watch, but the wwe keeps giving us watered down corporate crap. anytime someone gets a little over, the storyline is killed and the person gets sent to midcard hell. i feel like the wwe is actively trying not to create new stars and keep fans.

 

[Raptor93]

I think you make an excellent point, as soon as someone gets their first chance in a significant spot everyone quickly points to the lack of immediate skyrocketing buys/views and says "ha see this guys isn't mainevent worthy there has been no big jump in numbers what so ever" People forget it takes time to build up that kind of draw power and no ones going to do it their first night maybe not even first year or two.

Any way to answer your questions
1.You'll have tp ask vince, guys may be taken down for unrelated reasons
2. YES!
3. In the instances of a CM punk/ Cena/ Orton yes they have in Punks case had a reasonably long run at the top and Orton and cena have had more then enough. These guys have had the chance its fair to Judge them. A guy like bryan whos just briefly had one 4 month run as top face, no thats just plain dumb

 

[LiarsDice]

as long as the wwe keeps everything scripted and watered down, they will not be able to create a huge draw. imagine if hogan, austin, the rock were given thbut the watered down storylines of today. none would have gotten over. and they can blame it on wrestling not being popular today, but that's a lie. the first raw after cm punk cashed in his first money in the bank had over a 6 rating. hell, even when the rock came back, rating skyrocketed. the fans are there and they want to watch, but the wwe keeps giving us watered down corporate crap. anytime someone gets a little over, the storyline is killed and the person gets sent to midcard hell. i feel like the wwe is actively trying not to create new stars and keep fans.

I dont know where you pulled that number from but the RAW he cashed in had a 3.5 rating, and the RAW after he cashed in also had a 3.5. In fact, RAWs highest rating in 2008 was on the Feb 18th edition, and that was only a 4.0.
Don't make stuff up to suit your argument.

The fact of the matter is, wrestling popularity comes in waves. It boomed in the 80s, waned in the early 90s, then boomed BIG during the attitude era, and it has been a slow decline since. It has pretty much evened out over the past few years, which is to say WWE hasn't lost many fans, but they haven't gained any either.

The lack of competition really hurts them too. I mean, they aren't pushed to create stars to combat the popularity of a rival companies stars, so everything has just kind of stagnated. Cena being on top longer than Hogan shows that. No reason to make stars when you can just rely on the one you already have, eh?

I think its going to take something drastic to draw fans back in. As good as people may think Reigns is, he isn't going to have people running to the ticket booths. No one is until there is something for him to do. Just having a guy go for the title doesnt mean anything anymore because the title doesn't mean anything anymore!

One day Im sure the business will boom again, but Im not sure that it will be initiated by WWE, and with the current state of their "competition", it probably isnt going to happen for a while.

 

[DarksideEric]

imagine if hogan, austin, the rock were given thbut the watered down storylines of today. none would have gotten over.

You mean The Ringmaster and Rocky Maivia?

Those kinds of watered down storylines? Are those the ones you're talking about?

 

[thewreckingcrew]

First off you named their gimmick not a storyline. and second if my memory is right they were those gimmicks not long at all and it was a year before the second big boom in wrestling so wwe from 93 to 96 sucked ass obviously there were a few gem matches back then like brett vs shawn, brett vs stone cold, brett vs owen ect. but it pretty muched sucked back then kinda like today just its been a longer period of time between the sucking

 

[DarksideEric]

First off you named their gimmick not a storyline. and second if my memory is right they were those gimmicks not long at all and it was a year before the second big boom in wrestling so wwe from 93 to 96 sucked ass obviously there were a few gem matches back then like brett vs shawn, brett vs stone cold, brett vs owen ect. but it pretty muched sucked back then kinda like today just its been a longer period of time between the sucking

The point went over your head.

Regardless of how long it lasted, or if in fact that was the "gimmick" rather than the "storyline," both examples were an example of "watered down." Austin went from his popular Hollywood Blonde and ECW persona... to "The Ringmaster." That's really watered down.

Why are you bringing up Bret and Shawn? Neither have anything to do with the examples I gave.

Austin and Rock were "watered down" and yet eventually got over. The statement I was replying to was:

none would have gotten over.

That is incorrect, as despite being given initially bad gimmicks/stories, both men were able to get over.

 

[M]

I'm doing a statistics degree at university and let me tell you a secret that may shock you: RATINGS DON'T MATTER.

Neither does PPV buys.

Neither does arena attendance.

Usually, things like that would matter, but due to the way that wrestling is presented, there is never a solid amount of time where enough variables stay the same to ever justify the argument of "X PPV did Y amount of buys and therefore Z wrestler cannot draw a dime and should never be given the chance to shine again"

The entire thing about looking at "statistics" is trying to find a trend among the data, but the data itself barely ever stays within it's own category, so you get tons and tons of people looking at isolated events and saying what is effectively this in statistical terms - "X happened Y times, therefore X happens ALL times and will never not happen" which is a hilariously silly way of looking at things.
Here's a fun statistical trend: feuds and storylines that HHH or any other authority figure get involved in tend to go down in ratings and PPV buys - but even that never explains WHY either.

 

[NegativeFeedback]

Here's a fun statistical trend: feuds and storylines that HHH or any other authority figure get involved in tend to go down in ratings and PPV buys - but even that never explains WHY either.

Well, the WHY is going completely over your head. I don't have a Nielsen box, but I'm one of the many people who've stayed away from watching Raw due to the bullshit they put on every week. It isn't surprising that people with Nielsen boxes who know their ratings matter are going to stay away from an awful show.

 

[M]

See that's an example of what I meant about people using isolated examples as a basis for something that is beyond what those isolated examples would suggest.

There IS a trend of ratings going down when there's authority figures/HHH on screen, but that cannot be used to properly justify saying that is the cause of the ratings going down because it could also have something to do with everything else that the show has.
For instance, in each situation where an authority figure has been on screen there may have been different things there too each time which drag he ratings down. Examples:
The wrestlers involved being unpopular.
The production values somehow turning people off (I.e. voice overs being corny as fuck).
Maybe the show's up against another big show which steals ratings.
Maybe the same situation but it's a public holiday.
Maybe the time of the year has something to do with it.
Maybe the rest of the 3 hour show just isn't good enough to justify sitting around for the main events.
Maybe the actual storyline they're involved in is too predictable/crap.
Maybe the authority figure is indeed turning people off.
Etc etc. there's just too many outside things that change too often to use properly.

 

[Blade]

Oh boy. Okay, I'll try (and likely fail) to keep this short.

Firstly, I'm not sure if the OP's definition of a draw is correct. I mean, I know for a fact that people paid to see Daniel Bryan, not John Cena, at Summerslam. Sure, more people probably paid to see Cena, but there are people who paid to see Bryan as well. Is Bryan a draw, or just less of a draw? Or is Bryan not a draw at all because, though people would pay money to see him, the money he brings in might not be enough to keep the company going for years to come?

See, I think the idea of a wrestler being a draw is kind of an outdated concept. At the start of pro-wrestling decades ago up until the 80's, it was indeed a name that drawed. If the name Bruno Sammartino or Hulk Hogan or Ric Flair was on the bill, people would pay to see that. But when wrestling started being aired more and more on TV, especially as the industry went into the Attitude Era, it stopped being wresters that were draws, and it became angles that would draw.

For example, let's look at Hulk Hogan. He was a consistently big draw for most of the 80's and the early 90'. But then, buy rates for PPV's he headlined started declining for shows that Hogan headlines. WCW TV ratings started declining. This was when Hogan was locked in a long-term feud with the Dungeon of Doom. Then Hogan vs Flair did supposedly disappointing numbers because people didn't care about their feud. But then Hogan turns heel and joins the nWo, and ignited a new boom period in wrestling. Because it was an exciting angle. Stone Cold was super hot in 1997, when WWE ratings, attendance and PPV buys were at their lowest. But it was angle with McMahon that became a draw and saved the company.

There are some exceptions, admittedly. Especially when it comes to part-timers. If the Rock, Lesnar or Undertaker are on a PPV, it'll likely sell regardless of who they're against, because those guys are a novelty attraction. People tune in to see them, whether it's casual fans who want to see one of the few names they instantly recognise, or hardcore fans looking for a nostalgia trip. But even then, "The Rock's return match" or "Lesnar's return match" could count as angles themselves.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it comes down to the WWE writing staff completely. The wrestler has to be over. It has to be someone the audience cares about in an angle that keeps people interested. Obviously, John Cena in a major angle is going to attract more interest than Drew McIntyre in a major angle (sorry, Sally).

But a majority of it still comes down to the writing, booking and the angle. People really care about Daniel Bryan, any idiot can see that. They eat him up on a weekly basis. But when he's put in an angle as boring and silly as the Authority angle, people aren't going to tune in. They want to see their favourite wrestlers in good angles. And they will tune out if their favourite wrestler is put in crappy storylines.

If Cena is put in a bad storyline, and ratings and PPV buys decrease, does it mean Cena isn't a draw anymore? In my opinion, it means that the angle he's in is simply not a draw, and if he's put in a good angle the numbers will improve.

So yeah, it's not as simple as a wrestler being a draw or not. It's not that black and white. A wrestler people care about in storylines that keep people interested is what draws.

 

[jessejanzures]

Its more about the stars drawing power. For example in movies. If megan fox is in a movie. And some small time celeb like michelle beadle was in another. What would you rather watch? Fox cus she an attraction. Same goes for people who go to wwe events. Most dont go to see storylines. They go to see there fav wrestler. Dwayne just went out there and talked sometimes with non storyline but he drew cus of his attraction. Everything would be considered a storyline. A wrestler walking to the bathroom can be a storyline.

 

[CuddleBuns84]

The WWE is very quick to judge talent, especially with poor storylines. I remeber it was just a couple years ago, maybe 3 or so. Where Chavo and Hornswoggle had a 3 month feud. I don't know about you, but that doesn't help anyone. You could of invested more time in better IC feuds, and make the belt mean something.

In addition, we really aren't impatient, just don't like non-sense. Have a wrestler come out, and tell me "Oh, WWE Universe, I think the Miz is loser. What do you think?" Then a poor pop from the crowd. I want life and feeling in my feud. I want to see a hatred for another person, and that guy is looking for justice. Pro Wrestling isn't a soap opera, they are westerns! I want the heel built up, and the face ready to take names. I don't want this goobery build up. Not also that, but take these Mid-Card titles serious! Defend them on Pay-Per-views, and give the champion the mic. I don't know what Big E Lanston sounds like, or why he wants beat down people. I just know he has the belt.

You really can't question a talent's drawing power with today's wrestling. Santino is Jobber and get's bigger pops than other talent, and sells T-Shirts. Buyrates are hard to judge as well, since WWE management thinks having re-match after re-match for the main event is a good idea. Or they book things, just cause they think it would make a big splash on twitter. For example; The Rock and John Cena vs. The Miz and R-Truth for SS in 2011. At the time, it was booked for The Rock to hate Cena, and want to give him the beat down. Now, they are in a tag team for no reason taking on the Miz and R-Truth. Why are the Miz and R-Truth even in the Main event. Why is a tag match for no title the Main Event. It is poppycock! Poppycock I tell you!

 

[Kidpolean]

The term draw and drawing power are kind of dumb to me. This term and the way the IWC uses it makes it seem as though one wrestler's presence can double or triple ratings which is not true at all. This is a terrible way to judge a wrestler.

One thing I always hate is when people call Austin the greatest draw of all time. This is one of the most used FALSE statements ever. Austin got big in an era where one man draws weren't even relevant anymore. I think Hogan was the last true drawing force in pro wrestling. Hogan could face anybody, all across the world and people would come see it. Hell, people would come see Hogan without even knowing his opponent. By the time Austin was big, wrestling wasn't marketed the same way. The entire card was showcased instead of just one guy. Austin was great but you could have slapped Rock and Taker's face on a poster and people would have still showed up, the ratings wouldn't have been affected that much. Just look at WM17 for example...yes the main event was Austin vs Rock but the rest of the card was just as huge. You had TLC2, Taker vs HHH, and Vince vs Shane, that's four matches that could have drawn on their own. Now look at WM 1, 2 or 3...all you had was Hogan vs insert any name here and people ran to the shows. I know wm 3 had Savage/Steamboat but that match was just randomly great and wasnt marketed as a premier or main event match.

Today wwe is built on two man drawing power or matchups. Nobody, including Cena, can draw huge numbers while main eventing against nobodys. Cena needs help the same way Austin did. I think that HBK and Bret were the first to realize that one man couldn't draw anymore and they suffered because of this. Fans dont show up to see one guy anymore, they show up to see huge match-ups.

 

[L@RISANO]

I agree with both B-Lad and Kid, to some extent.

One wrestler alone cannot draw anymore.People look forward to a feud between two guys with a good story alongwith it. The angle also has to be something interesting that the audience can feed off of. Is it any wonder that the Authority angle was scrapped after Survivor Series...? Also, it isn't any wonder that coming onto TLC and moving forward, the presence of more than just a Main Event story(even though all are intertwined somehow) has made RAW and SmackDown more enjoyable for myself. Tonight's SmackDown gave me some anticipation with the Shield's beatdown and the subsequent staredown between Big E and Roman Reigns, even though I have been one of those who supports the Shield breaking up.

To me, the Draws of now, involve a Good Story, and the Superstars in those stories have to be relevant for it to Draw and keep people interested in the product.