The WWE has three shows (or brands) not counting superstars for (What I hope are) obvious reasons.
ECW started out trying to semi replicate the original ECW, that quickly went down hill and turned into what is essentially now a televised farming system for young talent.
Now the company as a whole has taken over the PG rating and with the PG rating comes a certain mind set to the product.
Here's what I can't help but wonder. Why?! The WWE has insisted on trying to pretend that Smackdown and Raw are two seperate entitys that compete with one another. Yet, for the majority of the brand split both shows have had the same type of program being produced. Hell, I'd go as far as to say that all too often the shows tend to mimic one another.
It felt like a eternity that HHH was the champion over at Raw with the evolution stable. What was happening over on Smackdown? JBL was champion with a cabinet stable to back him. If memory serves they even finally dropped their belts at similar times. I think more often then not the shows just tend to follow in the other ones foot steps.
Hell, look at the main events coming up for survivor series.
Both main events are the champ vs a tag team.
Sure it's not always the case but I personally have noticed both shows tend to follow certain trends.1
Moving on to the point at hand. Why can't the WWE offer us three different shows with three different styles? Why isn't Raw tailoring to 13+? While Smackdown is tailored to the kids? Why isn't ECW tailored to 18+? With fast paced wrestling and/or hardcore wrestling?
It doesn't have to just be limited to age demographics, there are lots of things it could be. One show could be more story focused, while another show focuses on wrestling. One show could feature a more x-division style of wrestling, while another is more classic wrestling. The possibilitys go on and on.
Some might argue that it's almost been like that at times, or that one of the shows is more heavily wrestling focused then the others. My reply to that would be bullshit, plain and simple. Sure at times ECW has the most actual wrestling compared to the other two and sure at times Smackdown was a lot more kid friendly compared to Raw. These occurences are random though, they very rarely (if ever) seem as if they are a fully thought out action, goal or long term plan. If you're going to do it, make it known these are your intentions! Brag about the fact that Raw currently has the most in ring wrestling time of any other show or w/e the hell.
ECW gets the exact same ratings now as it did when it 1st started for the most part. Yet they are two totally different shows. Smackdown always come in behind Raw in the ratings, even in spight of when Smackdown is putting out a slightly better product.
To me this means one thing: Things do not happen over night. People love to talk about "Was this weeks Raw guest host a draw?!" "Did this match draw?!" "Did this gimic draw?!" I'd argue it's not about one offs, it's not about how good was that specific show. It's about consistency. It's not about tuning in each and every week and hoping you're going to be pleased. It's about tuning in because you know what that show offers you is going to please you. That takes time, a plan and word of mouth.
The WWE needs to stop focusing on one audience at a time and focus on at least 2. There's just no reason not to. All three shows will more then likely get the exact same ratings in the short term. In the long term? All three shows can get higher ratings. Three different distinct styles means it's a lot easier to make each show unique. It also means each show is going to broaden its viewer base over time.
It wouldn't happen over night but I think in the long term it would be very profitable for WWE and we the fans would get a lot more out of it.
ECW started out trying to semi replicate the original ECW, that quickly went down hill and turned into what is essentially now a televised farming system for young talent.
Now the company as a whole has taken over the PG rating and with the PG rating comes a certain mind set to the product.
Here's what I can't help but wonder. Why?! The WWE has insisted on trying to pretend that Smackdown and Raw are two seperate entitys that compete with one another. Yet, for the majority of the brand split both shows have had the same type of program being produced. Hell, I'd go as far as to say that all too often the shows tend to mimic one another.
It felt like a eternity that HHH was the champion over at Raw with the evolution stable. What was happening over on Smackdown? JBL was champion with a cabinet stable to back him. If memory serves they even finally dropped their belts at similar times. I think more often then not the shows just tend to follow in the other ones foot steps.
Hell, look at the main events coming up for survivor series.
Both main events are the champ vs a tag team.
Sure it's not always the case but I personally have noticed both shows tend to follow certain trends.1
Moving on to the point at hand. Why can't the WWE offer us three different shows with three different styles? Why isn't Raw tailoring to 13+? While Smackdown is tailored to the kids? Why isn't ECW tailored to 18+? With fast paced wrestling and/or hardcore wrestling?
It doesn't have to just be limited to age demographics, there are lots of things it could be. One show could be more story focused, while another show focuses on wrestling. One show could feature a more x-division style of wrestling, while another is more classic wrestling. The possibilitys go on and on.
Some might argue that it's almost been like that at times, or that one of the shows is more heavily wrestling focused then the others. My reply to that would be bullshit, plain and simple. Sure at times ECW has the most actual wrestling compared to the other two and sure at times Smackdown was a lot more kid friendly compared to Raw. These occurences are random though, they very rarely (if ever) seem as if they are a fully thought out action, goal or long term plan. If you're going to do it, make it known these are your intentions! Brag about the fact that Raw currently has the most in ring wrestling time of any other show or w/e the hell.
ECW gets the exact same ratings now as it did when it 1st started for the most part. Yet they are two totally different shows. Smackdown always come in behind Raw in the ratings, even in spight of when Smackdown is putting out a slightly better product.
To me this means one thing: Things do not happen over night. People love to talk about "Was this weeks Raw guest host a draw?!" "Did this match draw?!" "Did this gimic draw?!" I'd argue it's not about one offs, it's not about how good was that specific show. It's about consistency. It's not about tuning in each and every week and hoping you're going to be pleased. It's about tuning in because you know what that show offers you is going to please you. That takes time, a plan and word of mouth.
The WWE needs to stop focusing on one audience at a time and focus on at least 2. There's just no reason not to. All three shows will more then likely get the exact same ratings in the short term. In the long term? All three shows can get higher ratings. Three different distinct styles means it's a lot easier to make each show unique. It also means each show is going to broaden its viewer base over time.
It wouldn't happen over night but I think in the long term it would be very profitable for WWE and we the fans would get a lot more out of it.