Whether you agree or disagree, I will admit, Lord Sidious's posts are always worth at least reading and thinking about.
Thank you very much for the kind words. I greatly, greatly appreciate that.
Okay, I may get in trouble for saying this but here it goes: where is your black audience? I had black roommates in college and their friends came over and watched. But when I turn on WWE where is the black non-celebrities? This is why I would love to see MVP succeed. He is looks like a legit wrestler, can wrestle, can talk, and is... black. So where is your something for the black people? Rey Mysterio and Eddie Guererro were/are used for Hispanics. Where do they (black people) get to relate? Mid-card Benjamin? Kofi Kingston who has the body of a high-school freshman?
I'm not sure if this is really a response to my post, or if you were simply throwing a general statement out there.
I will say that I would firmly believe in promoting new Black stars across the board on my shows. However, the shows would be targeted towards age demographics, as opposed to race. I believe all races should be represented on the three shows, however no I don't believe in separating the products by race. In other words, I don't want to have Blacks watching one show, Whites watching another show, and Hispanics watching another show. Rather, I agree in going out and aggressively targeting the shows via age brackets, but having all races represented across the board on those shows.
So something for everyone, you might want to go get that demographic back. I know that was not brought up but it is something I have wondered about for a while now.
I agree. I'm just not sure on whether or not you are advocating separating the shows by Race or not. I simply think that is definitely the wrong direction to go into, though.
Now for the public opinion. I read the discussion boards on ESPN when WWE makes headlines. "Steroids," "white-trash," "Jerry Springer," "garbage," "soap opera with bad acting" and "fake" are words that tend to pop up frequently.
Well, you have to say "Who Cares what everyone else thinks about my product." Even after WWE cleaned up its program, you still have people, who aren't the least bit familiar with the business, who label it as a kiddie product, product for White Trash, Springer TV, and all that stuff. Who cares? People are always going to mislabel wrestling. As long as Vince makes money while keeping his audience happy, Fuck the mainstream audience, as far as I'm concerned.
Steroids... baseball is seeing their own problem and MLB's "Vince McMahon," Donald Fehr is leaving. So nothing that can't be dealt with. Wrestling has boomed through steroids once.
Again, I am not sure if you are responding to my post or simply throwing stuff out there, as I didn't even bring up the topic of steroids here. However, I am very much against the use of steroids in wrestling, and I even suggested the possibility of Congressional Oversight in getting talent off the steroids. That way, the talent knows that they definitely aren't going to be protected under the WWE umbrella for their testing, and would be encouraged even more to get off the product.
And I would do my part, in addition to what Vince is doing, by taking the next step and reducing the WWE Travel Schedule to allow for more time for rest and relaxation. I would look to reduce the House Show schedule for the Raw and Smackdown Brand by one or two shows a week. We would be looking at each Brand producing 1 TV and 3 or possibly even 2 House Shows a week, as opposed to 4 House Shows a week plus 1 TV. There would be less revenue coming in, however salaries would be adjusted to compensate for that. In addition, WWE would have less expenses since they are running less events. Ultimately, Vince would be making less profit, but it clearly would still be enough for the company to be profitable. And put it this way, he would have a clear conscience on his shoulder, by actually cleaning up his act. The question Vince has to look into his soul and ask himself is "How much profit is enough for me?"
Fake... it is an act. This is why you have storylines and angles because MMA has wrestling beat in legitimate action. Wrestling has boomed through "fake" once.
Well, one of the biggest problems I have and why I don't find wrestling anywhere near as interesting anymore is because I am not seeing the storylines and I am not really the angles.
In the Hogan Era, we had mostly wrestling angles and feuds. And we had interesting characters to follow.
In the Attitude Era, that is where we actually had Storylines formed. And there were storylines given to the Main Event as well as the Midcard.
Today, we don't really have storylines, anymore. And that is why I believe a lot of people think the product is stale and boring. Raw actually has very few actual storylines. I would consider Trump and McMahon a storyline. Smackdown has virtually no storylines, at all. Just the wrestling, people challenging each other for titles, and an occasional angle. It is a wrestling and solely feud-based program. But the difference between this show and the Hogan Era, is that the characters have been drastically toned down from that Era. And I don't think people find them as intriguing anymore.
So I think some of the biggest areas of opportunity for WWE are bringing complex storylines back to prominence as well as giving the characters a lot more complexity and depth, to get the audience interested in them, once again. When I look at today's WWE wrestlers, what I essentially can compare them to is UFC fighters. They have personality, but they don't really have gimmicks. And they simply participate in a scripted wrestling match, not an actual fight.
So, if you are going to compare yourself to UFC and MMA, one would say that since WWE is scripted, they are going to have to offer something else to appeal to the audience, besides the scripted matches, because UFC has them beat in that category, since their fights are real. So, if you don't offer the audience interesting characters or storylines, and only want to offer them scripted matches, it's no wonder why fans become bored with the product and go elsewhere. WWE needs that blend of both Storyline and Characters, as well as wrestling, in order to be successful. Just the wrestling alone, I don't believe, is enough. And that is what the Ring of Honor type of fans who are flocking primarily to Smackdown, don't seem to understand.
The other 4 are a huge reason people aren't watching. Many people view wrestling during the Attitude Era as low-brow, unintelligent, raunchy, disgusting crap. Some of them still view wrestling that way.
And?
And they browbeat their peers into avoiding wrestling.
It is interesting that WWE's raunchiest Era was still regarded as its most popular Era. That was when attendance was the highest. So, I don't think that the browbeating was actually all that serious. There are always people out there who are not going to understand wrestling. But I think there are a lot of people who simply don't care what other people think. Again, I think the Attitude Era proved that.
Personally, I think many of these people are being hypocritical (as they probably watch something else with more sex/language/violence)
Agreed 100%.
but if they are not watching wrestling... they aren't watching. You can probably get away with some language (minimized to proper situations and talent) and the plot of the show is a violent sport.
The problem is that as long as wrestling is scripted, it will never be taken as a "sport" by the Mainstream. So again, there is no sense in pretending that you are.
I would rather the WWE think of itself as an Action/Drama with athletic entertainment and compare itself to simply a show .... rather than try to make what they do look like a real sport. WWE has tried that approach since late 2006, and it doesn't seem to be working. The enthusiasm of the crowds these days, is at an all-time low.
Sex is where wrestling walks a fine line. One screw up and you alienate loyal viewers.
Hmmm. Not so sure on that one. I remember the Edge/Lita Sex Celebration segment actually earned a 5.1 rating. I believe it was a 4.2 rating for the whole show. And the show maintained the same rating for the next two weeks.
But again, what is different is that WWE had one and only one product back in that time AND the time of the Attitude Era. If you had a complaining parent, you simply told the parent that Raw is for adults, and House Shows and PPV's were for the whole family. I don't think that was good enough as far as trying to keep those fans in the WWE family. However, WCW was still out there for the parents to look to.
However, with a good PR and marketing team, they could reduce the emphasis on the WWE name and concentrate more so on the name of the Brands. If you have a complaining parent call up about something they saw on Raw, then you can have a representative tell the parent that Raw is not really the intended audience for that child. Rather, that is an adult show. But there is a show the company offers that is actually intended for children, and that show is called Smackdown."
Think of it this way. If a parent calls up and complains to FOX that their child watched 24, and it had way too much violence on the show, then are they going to hold the entire network responsible? Or is FOX going to tell the parent, that children are not the intended audience for this show? That cartoons are offered to children in the afternoon, as well as family programming from 7-9 PM?
WWE is a television product and in television, there are target markets for each and every show. Does that mean that the target market is the only market that the show brings in? Of course not. But it is the market that the show attempts to actually cater most to.
And the problem is that Vince is deviating from the rules of television and really isn't targeting anyone enough. He's just throwing the product out there and whoever watches will watch, essentially. He isn't aggressively going after certain age brackets. And I know why. He's trying to appeal to as many people as possible. But I am not convinced that this strategy is as effective, as offering different programs, and actually going out and targeting people.
Vince and I believe in the same thing, as far as trying to bring in as many people to the product as possible. However, we just have different ideologies on which strategy is likely the best one, in order to do that. Obviously, Vince isn't pleased with the ratings he is attracting today, and that is simply my educated opinion on why the ratings aren't as high as he wants them to be. I think his strategy is flawed, and doesn't really have an actual target audience anymore.
Probably not going to show an actual nude woman so fans taking the tease can easily get old. Sex is not an Attitude Era invention. But the AE is where the line was crossed.
Well, I am not sure the line was really crossed, generally speaking. It pushed the envelope, which is what the fans liked ... the thrill in seeing how far WWE was actually going to go. But I think "crossing the line" depends on what type of programming you are showing the audience vs Who your target audience for that show really is. If I have older teens and adults watching my show, and am targeting my program to them ... and feature some sexuality "within the show's content rating", then I don't think I am crossing the line. However, if I would be offering this type of product on my proposed idea for Smackdown, then yes, I would be crossing the line, and the content would be inappropriate for that audience.
I simply think it is impossible in this day and age to tell viewers of all Age Demos, that they should "all be liking the same thing". I don't think it's realistic with this product, anymore. Vince got away with it before the Internet was created, but today's viewers are pickier than ever, and more demanding than ever.
Plus, they had a taste of the Attitude Era, and obviously know that Vince is capable of putting out a product like that. And they aren't happy that he isn't doing it anymore. However, it was something Vince had to do, or else he was going to be bankrupted by WCW. The situation is what it is. There was no way around Vince offering that type of product in order to keep WWE alive. So there really is no sense in arguing that Vince should have "never offered that product" because he didn't have a choice.
But, since the viewers know he is capable, they are heavily resisting going backward in time into what he is doing today. If he brings in a kid, he loses an adult. So we have a Net +/- of zero. What good does that do? Plus, being that today's ratings, are even lower than the Post Attitude Era, I don't really see his strategy as working, since he isn't bringing in the fans. Rather,the ratings say that he is losing more fans than he is gaining them.
So that is why I think his strategy is flawed, because I am not seeing the "proof in the pudding" so to speak. If he can offer this type of product, and send the ratings back up to a 4.3 to 4.5 on average, which was typically produced in the Post Attitude Era, than I will be the first to "congratulate" Vince. I just am not seeing it, and the only thing I can conclude is that he isn't offering the fans what they want, and isn't going after an actual target audience anymore ... or at least going after fans aggressively enough by offering them the programming content they want to see.
As for the "educating parents" as to what show is what content, most parents are quick to be educated. (I can say that. I have 3. So keep any "If you were a parent you wouldn't say that" crap to yourself.) Heck, many Americans do not do research necessary to make educated decisions. How many people actually looked up bills that John McCain singned as governor of Arizona? How many people actually checked out Barack Obama's voting record before casting their vote? Or did everyone just go off a slanted view presented by the media? So for parents being more educated in discerning wrestling content, this will be much easier said than done and may not be worth the time/effort/money. WWE was not been so entrenched in adult content that people associated it with wrestling. So it could keep some viewers. Plus, your fans of the 80's were now teenagers. Now it has. People have grown up and changed their view. That is unfortunate.
I can simply respond to this by pointing out the length of time that WWE kept it's ratings during the Attitude Era. Were there parent complaints? Absolutely. But the ratings did not drop from disgusted parents, as a whole. Rather, they skyrocketed, and they stayed that way for several years. In order to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs, as they say. Was there parents that took their children away? Sure. But the bigger picture was despite all that, WWE was still producing ratings for several YEARS in the 5.0 and 6.0 range. I simply want to see that again. I would be happy to see them in the 4.5 range on a regular basis again.
However, again, the difference this time, would that I would be better prepared by again offering that programming choice for the parents. If they feel Raw is suitable for the child, then they can choose Raw. If they feel Smackdown is better suited for their child, then they can choose that. Like the Vince McMahon of old stated many, many times on interviews he went on "it is not the WWE's job to parent the children. It is the parent's job to parent the children."
But again, the difference this time would be that at least a choice for a more kid-friendly product would be offered to them (similar to having WCW in existence again, and offered as a programming alternative) as opposed to Vince basically telling the parent "tough shit".
Sure you can stir up another cult following with adult content, but how long will it last?
That depends on how well Vince keeps the Audience entertained. I would refer you to the Post Attitude Era that still produced ratings in the low and upper 4's regularly, while producing similar content to the actual Attitude Era, however not quite as risque. Where as today's Raw ratings are in the average of the mid to low 3's.
Will this alienate your SmackDown viewers?
If things get bad, it would be worth a shot but right now, why take unnecessary risks?
And I have heard this argument many times. And it is a valid argument. However, in marketing, it is always a hell of a lot harder to bring new customers into purchasing your product, than it is to keep your loyal base. So, the argument I would make would be IF your loyal base begins to erode, then this is only going to be that much more challenging to try and bring in new fans ... and much more costly in the long run. So at which I would have to ask, "What is the point where the line is drawn, in which I feel I must take action?" It's an interesting question. Do we list a rating for each show and say "if Raw gets below a 3.2 average, then this is when I take action".
You can only get away with raising prices to make up for lost viewers so much, before eventually that base says "I'm absolutely tired of paying $45 for these shows. I'm outta here." And at that point, you are going to have a real struggle in trying to bring them back.
So I think that should be a question to ponder. What actually should be the cutoff point? Those fans that do want to analyze the business from a business perspective and television standpoint, should perhaps ask themselves this question, too.
Attitude was interesting. But it was also revolutionary. I believe a revolution is more of a key than sex, language and violence. I wish I knew what that revolution is because RAW (minus the LMS match) just probably lost me for the summer.
It is interesting. I gather you are more so a fan of the wrestling, where as I am more of a fan of the storylines and gimmicks with some wrestling .... while actually wanting to see the great matches on PPV. It gives me something to look forward to once a month, and I think the quality storylines and characters are absolutely critical to get me interested in a feud to begin with. Thus far, these past few years, I have been less-than-impressed.
Where as Raw has lost you, which is understandable based on the type of fan I think you are .... ECW lost me probably almost a year ago. And Smackdown lost me about 8 months ago. Raw lost me also at one point when Adamle was GM, however I came back.
But it is interesting to note that even though Raw was supposedly the show for skits and stories, thus geared towards people like me, I have still absolutely hated this show for some time, as well. So whatever it's doing, it still isn't working for me. I liked it however when Orton had the storyline going early on with the McMahons, but then they completely ruined it, as far as I'm concerned, when Orton admitted he didn't have IED. Because that essentially ruined the most intriguing character WWE had in YEARS. He played the psycho probably better than anyone else. Then, they took the only element people care about, away from him. Now, he is just a run of the mill heel, who just happens to be in the Main Event.
I had the show off for the past 2 months, however caught wind up what happened with Trump last week. So, I tuned back in. Now, after they disappointed me with the Trump storyline only lasting one week, which I thought was the best storyline they've done in ages, they probably just lost me again.
I only hope that 4.5 rating Raw did this week was a huge wakeup call to Vince on the type of programming he needs to produce, in order to bring in that audience.
you Vince!
