Revenue. The end all be all of pro wrestling success.

[Mighty NorCal]

I defy you all to refute this. Slyfox will come here, and lay a beat down way better than I could. Im just starting this thing while others do reasearch.

Anyhow. Pro wrestling companies exist to make money. Therefore, the ones who gain the most of it, are the most successfull, and the best. People go way too far in thinking Pro wrestling is about anything other than trying to get people to spend their hard earned money for a ticket. Its not about suplexes, or "working stiff" or a bunch of ridiculous shit. Its about making money. Ive heard numerous pro wrestlers explain say this VERY thing to me, and explain anyone who thinkis otherwise is a total mark, it the truest, purest sense of the word.

Money makes the world go round. Cash rules everything around me. Disprove it.

 

[klunderbunker]

I've said it once before and I'll say it again: if wrestling was based on skill then Dean Milenko and William Regal would have headlined more Wrestlemanias than Hulk Hogan. Wrestling is about making people interested in your show, meaning they see more of it, meaning advertisers want to pay the company money to buy time on it. In the mid 90s the company was built around Shawn and Bret. The ratings absolutely bombed as neither are a good ratings draw. Both guys could wrestle a hell of a match that smarks drool over but there's no appeal to American masses at all. Revenue was through the floor and the ratings prove it.

Cut to WCW and the NWO. Hulk Hogan, who in America couldn't wrestle his way out a paper bag (how would that work anyway?) was the head of the company. He never wrestled, but damn it was entertaining television. The revenue was way up, so the company ran with it. The WWF kept going with the same stuff and they nearly died. Once tehy caught up with the times and made Austin the head of the show, revenue was way up and the company was saved. Did the quality of wrestling go down? Yes it did, but at the same time, it worked for business.

Pure wrestling simply does not sell on tv. My best proof of this: the NWA. Now their style worked for years, but eventually it died off with the advent of national TV. When it was something that you only saw once or twice a year, you were so mesmerized by the excitement of the show that you didn't realize it wasn't something that would work long term. Once national TV hit, people who watched it every week got bored with it. You need something to keep the fans hooked, because without that, people don't watch. If people don't watch, why perform?

 

[TheOneBigWill]

I know this will get ripped up, but it needs to be said because I know people are thinking it. E.C.W.

They were a Company that was being ran out of the fucking Basement of Heyman's Parent's house, and yet one of the top 3 Promotions in the world. Not Town, Not State, Not Country, but World. And they drew very little money off their product. Did this cause them to go bankrupt? You bet your ass.. but that wasn't the basis of our question.

You asked me to prove you how Professional Wrestling could be about something, other than the money. Multiple workers/Wrestlers were working within the E.C.W umbrella, and never got paid on several occasions, yet they didn't quit or walk out.. they continued with the Company because they believed in it. They in-trusted in it, to produce something they felt the other two bigger Companies weren't.

Again, E.C.W. bellied up, and filed for bankruptcy, I'll never dispute that. You'd be stone-stupid to try, since there's proof. But again, your question was to disprove to you that Professional Wrestling could be about anything other than making a buck.. and E.C.W. is your prove.

Paul Heyman ran it, but everyone who worked in the Company did their part. You'd hear about guys like Dreamer running a huge amount of financial stuff, behind the scenes. Whereas other guys would go out and make shirts, or have them made by way of local t-shirt makers to save money through going the way W.C.W & W.W.F did it, with big-name shirt makers.

E.C.W was a Company made and bound by and for the Professional Wrestling die-hard fans. Everyone who worked for them, knew of not always making money. Were they pissed when they didn't get a check, or the ones they did, bounced? Sure, why wouldn't they be.. but did any of them ever truly walk out on the Promotion when it original happened? Fuck no.. they stayed. They stayed, because they loved the industry, and felt that E.C.W was doing something the other two Companies weren't.. addressing the fans, and the passion of the Industry.. not the money making aspects of it.

 

[RVDgurl]

Every business's top priorty is making money, whether it's a wrestling company or an advertising agency. The WWE is the best possible example of a wrestling company that has succeeded in making money.

But I truly believe that many wrestling companies exist for more than just making money. As Will pointed out, ECW is a prime example of this. The fact that many of the talent that Paul Heyman employed had checks bounce or simply didn't get paid at some point or another- and most of them stayed- says alot about integrity and dedication to the business. Some people really do get into the business simply for the love of it.

Just look at some of the smaller promotions currently in business today. ROH is not a huge money making company, but many of the wrestlers love working there because they believe in the vision of the company. Austin Aries and Bryan Danielson have both been courted by bigger companies, yet they have chosen to remain in ROH.

Take CZW as another example. Here is a promotion that is based almost 100% on hardcore violence rather than wrestling. Certainly they are not attempting to generate millions of dollars in revenue. They are simply trying to provide a good hardcore product to that small niche of fan that enjoys hardcore wrestling.

Don't get me wrong, every wrestling company needs to generate enough money to stay in business. Money is the foundation for growth and longevity. Certainly every wrestling company, even promotions like CZW, wants to be successful and they all have a vision that the company will survive for years and years to come. However large a piece it may be, money is still just that- a piece to the puzzle.

 

[Cowboyfromhell]

But the question is, were the ECW guys doing it purely for the love of entertaining or did they want to go further and make WWE money? I have no doubt they love doing what they do. But most of them left ECW when the other offers came in. I would bet my house that the Dudleys love what they do, if you watch their farewell speech when they left ECW you will agree (my best friend sat there and cried). So I think it is a combination. If you could make a living doing what you love doing and you are good at, well, most of us would have different jobs. These guys are lucky enough to be able to do that. So I have no doubt 90% of these guys love their job. But they also have families and probably won't be able to walk right if they live into their sixties so they going to make decisions based on money, but so would all of us.

 

[Razor Blade Dream]

I totally agree that no matter what the circumstances are, a great match is watched by the true fans but what "puts asses in the seats" is just straight up story lines or characters that moves tickets.




And kudos to the Wu-Tang reference. Cash does rule everything around us

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

I defy you all to refute this. Slyfox will come here, and lay a beat down way better than I could. Im just starting this thing while others do reasearch.

Anyhow. Pro wrestling companies exist to make money. Therefore, the ones who gain the most of it, are the most successfull, and the best. People go way too far in thinking Pro wrestling is about anything other than trying to get people to spend their hard earned money for a ticket. Its not about suplexes, or "working stiff" or a bunch of ridiculous shit. Its about making money. Ive heard numerous pro wrestlers explain say this VERY thing to me, and explain anyone who thinkis otherwise is a total mark, it the truest, purest sense of the word.

Money makes the world go round. Cash rules everything around me. Disprove it.

All right, I'm done with my preliminary research, so here goes.

In this post, I aim to make two points: one, that financial success, logically speaking, does not necessarily entail a product of high quality; and two, that, contrary to popular belief, Japanese wrestling organizations were once extremely successful, and thus that fans of puroresu shouldn't feel ashamed to like something that uninformed fans of WWE persistently scoff at them for liking.

Does Financial Success = Quality?​

Intuitively, it seems that a financially successful wrestling promotion would be in the black precisely because it is putting out a quality product that people feel is deserving of their money. But, such a view possibly ignores the four sources of revenue wrestling promotions rely on and the implications of this reliance. In his book, Controversy Creates Ca$h, Eric Bischoff notes that wrestling companies generate revenue through house shows, pay-per-views, advertisements, and licensing (i.e., merchandise). Furthermore, Bischoff notes that stable and healthy wrestling promotions should see a quarter of their revenue coming from each of these streams.

As far as I can tell, WWE is far from generating equal amounts of revenue from these streams. Rather, it seems that, in the face of reduced gates at house shows and a deal on USA that more than likely gives them only a small percentage of the revenue generated through advertisements on RAW, they have come to rely a great deal on merchandising (pay-per-view buyrates have been pretty consistent, but there is evidence that they are starting to decline). It is my belief that WWE's current product, which caters mainly to children, is a direct result of the scenario that I just described. As can be seen then, a wrestling promotion's ability to still generate revenue and turn a (significantly diminished) profit can be attributed to other things besides producing a quality product. In fact, turning a profit can still be achieved while producing a less-than-stellar product by putting more focus on one stream of revenue at the cost of revenue in other streams. But, does this bode well for WWE's long-term future? What happens when its current audience grows up? Do they just cater to the next batch of kids to come along, who, due to the information age we live in, will be much shrewder and will be turned off from a product that is gradually becoming all style and no substance? I don't think there will be another wrestling promotion to come along to rival WWE, as there are just way too many barriers to entry in a market that WWE almost has a stranglehold on.

In the end, financial success, contrary to our intuition, does not entail a quality wrestling product. If professional wrestling in America was more competitive, and if ratings, gates, and buyrates were significantly higher than they currently are, I might have to agree with what the original poster said. But, given the evidence, I am not able to do so.

On Japanese Professional Wrestling's Supposed Inability To Draw​

Before the surge in popularity of MMA in Japan, before Antonio Inoki's horrible decision to book "shoots" between legitimate grapplers/Gotchian hookers and professional wrestlers in NJPW, before Misawa's decision to leave AJPW and form NOAH, and before Keiji Mutoh's subsequent decision to leave NJPW to head AJPW and book it as "sports entertainment," Japanese professional wrestling drew formidable numbers. In fact, things really didn't get bad for the big Japanese wrestling promotions until Mutoh's aforementioned defection to AJPW in 2002.

Just for shits and giggles, let's take a look at some of the attendances NJPW put up for 2000 and 2001:

*Unlike American professional wrestling companies, which tend to tour year-round, Japanese professional wrestling companies have tours ranging from days to weeks that usually center around a particular event (e.g., the G1 Climax or the G1 Tag League in NJPW). Such events usually draw gates that range from 850 to 6000 people.

*Also, Japanese professional wrestling companies have several big shows a year, which are akin to pay-per-views here in the US. These shows may or may not be on pay-per-view, but they are nonetheless always significant for their cards. Here are NJPW's big shows for 2000:

Wrestling World 2000/4 January 2000/Attendance: 63500
Dome Impact/7 April 2000/Attendance: 60000
Wrestling Dontaku 2000/5 May 2000/Attendance: 35000
Riki Choshu Revival!/30 July 2000/Attendance: 18000
Do Judge!!/9 October 2000/Attendance: 64000
Battle Final 2000/10 December 2000/Attendance: 9500
The 2nd Judgment!/14 December 2000/Attendance: 6700
DREAM*WIN/23 December 2000/Attendance: 1805

And, here are NJPW's big shows for 2001:

Wrestling World 2001/4 January 2001/Attendance: 62001
New Century Dash 2001/19 January 2001/Attendance: 4500
Strong Style 2001/9 April 2001/Attendance: 27000
Wrestling Dontaku 2001/5 May 2001/Attendance: 35000
Super-Force Group Declaration 2001/6 June 2001/Attendance: 13200
Dome Quake/20 July 2001/Attendance: 28000
Tokyo Dome Eve/7 October 2001/Attendance: 1906
Indicate of Next/8 October 2001/Attendance: 61500
Osamu Kido Retirement Show/2 November 2001/Attendance: 4500
DREAM*WIN/23 December 2001/Attendance: 1904

Unfortunately, I don't yet have data on the 1990s, the years us "pretentious asshole smarks" usually look back on as the glory days in puroresu. But, I'm searching, and I hope to find something in the near future. But, I did recently have some words with David Meltzer's people (sorry, I know, I know, he's a big piece of poo who doesn't know anything whatsoever), and they have put me in the right direction, as well as telling me which archived newsletters to look at for financial and gate information. However, from what I've heard, the numbers during the 90s were even stronger, which should put away any myths about the supposed drawing inabilities of Japanese professional wrestling promotions.

So, what do these data tell us? Well, they do tell us that WWE, on a more consistent basis, draws bigger crowds than Japanese promotions. Also, they tell us that WWE tours a hell of lot more. But, they also show us that NJPW was able, back in the day, to draw crowds multiple times a year that WWE could only dream of getting one time each year. Also, it shows that, at least in terms of gates, Japanese promotions are more than capable of generating revenue. Furthermore, all of this excludes the facts that Japan has half the population of the US and only a third of its wealth. So, can Japanese wrestling draw? Or, is it nothing but wrestlers working stiff and doing a bunch of different suplexes who can't draw a dime? I'll leave that up to you to decide.

 

[Slyfox696]

All right, I'm done with my preliminary research, so here goes.

In this post, I aim to make two points: one, that financial success, logically speaking, does not necessarily entail a product of high quality;

Great. Then I'll aim to make one point, and completely refute this ridiculous logic.

and two, that, contrary to popular belief, Japanese wrestling organizations were once extremely successful, and thus that fans of puroresu shouldn't feel ashamed to like something that uninformed fans of WWE persistently scoff at them for liking.

How the fuck does that have anything to do with this thread? I'll ignore this simply because it's irrelevant.

Does Financial Success = Quality?​

Intuitively, it seems that a financially successful wrestling promotion would be in the black precisely because it is putting out a quality product that people feel is deserving of their money.

Exactly. Thread over. Why do you continue?

But, such a view possibly ignores the four sources of revenue wrestling promotions rely on and the implications of this reliance. In his book, Controversy Creates Ca$h, Eric Bischoff notes that wrestling companies generate revenue through house shows, pay-per-views, advertisements, and licensing (i.e., merchandise). Furthermore, Bischoff notes that stable and healthy wrestling promotions should see a quarter of their revenue coming from each of these streams.

Hmm...I'm not sure I agree with that, but whatever. I care not for debating this.

As far as I can tell, WWE is far from generating equal amounts of revenue from these streams. Rather, it seems that, in the face of reduced gates at house shows

I'm wondering where you came by this "reduced gates" information. Because it sure as hell wasn't from the official WWE Corporate website. If you had looked there you would see that, despite a terrible economic recession, the WWE actually generated more revenue from house shows than they did the year before for the last three years (thank you John Cena). Further more, you would see that average domestic attendance remains closely the same (despite higher ticket prices), but average international attendance by approximately 800 tickets per show, at a much more expensive ticket price.

So, please source your information for reduced gates. Thanks.

and a deal on USA that more than likely gives them only a small percentage of the revenue generated through advertisements on RAW

Actually, they probably don't make ANY money from advertisements on Raw (at least in the US).

However, what they DO make is $100.7 million dollars a year in television rights fees. So, again, they generate a good amount of money from TV.

they have come to rely a great deal on merchandising (pay-per-view buyrates have been pretty consistent, but there is evidence that they are starting to decline).

Yes, PPV buyrates decline...but wouldn't you say that's more the result of a sagging economy than a poor product? I know I would.

As far as "relying" on merchandising, far from it. I would say that's just the added benefit to the coffers.

It is my belief that WWE's current product, which caters mainly to children, is a direct result of the scenario that I just described. As can be seen then, a wrestling promotion's ability to still generate revenue and turn a (significantly diminished) profit can be attributed to other things besides producing a quality product.

Completely false. If you weren't putting on a product that people enjoyed, why would they buy your merchandise? Why would they watch your TV show regularly with very good ratings? If you put the WWE now back 15 years ago, they'd be pulling in low to mid 4 ratings, at the minimum. But thanks to Internet, TIVO, and loads of other channels, the ratings go down.

Doesn't change the quality of the product though.

In fact, turning a profit can still be achieved while producing a less-than-stellar product by putting more focus on one stream of revenue at the cost of revenue in other streams.

But what if you are making good revenue in all of your streams. How do you explain that then?

But, does this bode well for WWE's long-term future? What happens when its current audience grows up?

Then, like tobacco companies, they have hooked an audience, to be compounded the new audience they'll hook.

And you'll see a much better business. The WWE is only now starting to climb out of the shadow of the poor long-term business plan that was the Attitude Era. And they are doing it at a time of economic decline.

In the end, financial success, contrary to our intuition, does not entail a quality wrestling product.

Sure it does. Maybe it isn't what YOU would like to see necessarily, but if you're making money, then you are putting on a product that people want to see. And when the sole purpose of your existance is to entertain and make money, then you are doing a quality job.

This isn't difficult at all.

If professional wrestling in America was more competitive, and if ratings, gates, and buyrates were significantly higher than they currently are, I might have to agree with what the original poster said. But, given the evidence, I am not able to do so.

Aside from the "more competitive" line, how much higher are you wanting them? I mean, how many cable TV shows can you name that can draw 5 million viewers every week for over 15 years? How many of those same shows can get 200,000-300,000 people to pay $40 for a show which is very similar to what they see 4 times a week every week? How many entertainment programs can show themselves on TV every week, get people to pay $40 a month for a show they see every week..AND get them to fill arenas as well?

Whether people like to admit it or not, the WWE is arguably the greatest and highest quality form of entertainment around. They put on 6 hours of original TV every week, get people to pay $40 to see a show where people pretend to fight, and still manage to sell tickets to see the live shows every where they tour. It's incredible how good the WWE is when it comes to providing entertainment. It's a testament to how high quality they really are that they can do this and be so successful at it.

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a wrestling promotion that has been not-for-profit. And since profit is what promotions strive for, the one who brings in the most money is clearly the best promotion. And that honor goes to the WWE, without question.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Great. Then I'll aim to make one point, and completely refute this ridiculous logic.

Give it your best shot.

How the fuck does that have anything to do with this thread? I'll ignore this simply because it's irrelevant.

A dispute over the ability of Japanese promotions to draw was the impetus for this thread.

Exactly. Thread over. Why do you continue?

Because our intuition can trick us.

Hmm...I'm not sure I agree with that, but whatever. I care not for debating this.

Sounds good to me.

I'm wondering where you came by this "reduced gates" information. Because it sure as hell wasn't from the official WWE Corporate website. If you had looked there you would see that, despite a terrible economic recession, the WWE actually generated more revenue from house shows than they did the year before for the last three years (thank you John Cena). Further more, you would see that average domestic attendance remains closely the same (despite higher ticket prices), but average international attendance by approximately 800 tickets per show, at a much more expensive ticket price.

So, please source your information for reduced gates. Thanks.

Well, it seems like we got our information from the same source. It seems like you're already somewhat familiar with the quarterly earnings reports, so let's look at quarterly revenues from live events since 2006:

2006, Q1: $17 Million
2006, Q2: $25 Million
2006, Q3: $17.3 Million
2006, Q4: $24.4 Million
2007, Q1: 18.2 Million
2007, Q2: $30.1 Million
2007, Q3: $20.1 Million
2007, Q4: $30.9 Million
2008, Q1: $24.6 Million
2008, Q2: $35.3 Million
2008, Q3: $20.3 Million
2008, Q4: $25.5 Million
2009, Q1: $18 Million

Looks like there are great periods of growth, until we hit quarter 3 in 2008, where there is just about a 1% increase in quarter 3 live event revenues. Then, we hit quarter 4 in 2008, where there is about a 17.5% decrease in quarter 4 live event revenues. And, well, we don't need to bring up quarter 1 in 2009, as it didn't have the benefit of Wrestlemania like quarter 1 in 2008 did. But, even with Wrestlemania, something tells me that we still would have seen a decline.

Now, I look forward to you explaining this away with the recession.

Actually, they probably don't make ANY money from advertisements on Raw (at least in the US).

However, what they DO make is $100.7 million dollars a year in television rights fees. So, again, they generate a good amount of money from TV.

Yes, PPV buyrates decline...but wouldn't you say that's more the result of a sagging economy than a poor product? I know I would.

I would put television rights fees under licensing. And, as far as PPVs go, who knows? I think the recession was actually a blessing in disguise for WWE.

As far as "relying" on merchandising, far from it. I would say that's just the added benefit to the coffers.

I won't dispute this. I would say that they do rely on licensing quite a bit though, since I include television rights fees under licensing.

Completely false. If you weren't putting on a product that people enjoyed, why would they buy your merchandise? Why would they watch your TV show regularly with very good ratings? If you put the WWE now back 15 years ago, they'd be pulling in low to mid 4 ratings, at the minimum. But thanks to Internet, TIVO, and loads of other channels, the ratings go down.

Doesn't change the quality of the product though.

I don't see how this is false at all. We already agreed that merchandise sales play a very small part in WWE's bottom line. So, I would say that it's far from being a good business indicator. Also, the Internet, DVRs, and more variety in what you can watch are nothing more than alternate explanations. Furthermore, the Internet seems like it could only hurt viewership a little bit in the worst case scenario. Moreover, how come DVRs have yet to affect ratings for prime-time television shows on the Big 4? I don't see how any difference between a cable channel and a major network can be used to show that DVRing affects cable shows more than network shows.

But what if you are making good revenue in all of your streams. How do you explain that then?

Can similar amounts of revenue still be made by neglecting one stream in an attempt to exploit another stream? This is the question I am seeking an answer to.

Then, like tobacco companies, they have hooked an audience, to be compounded the new audience they'll hook.

And you'll see a much better business. The WWE is only now starting to climb out of the shadow of the poor long-term business plan that was the Attitude Era. And they are doing it at a time of economic decline.

If anything, the next thing we will see is another Attitude Era in seven or eight years. WWE is obviously trying to cater to a specific demographic (i.e., kids). So, what does WWE do when its current audience reaches 'tweener and teen status? They give them more Attitude Era.

Sure it does. Maybe it isn't what YOU would like to see necessarily, but if you're making money, then you are putting on a product that people want to see. And when the sole purpose of your existance is to entertain and make money, then you are doing a quality job.

This isn't difficult at all.

Or, maybe you continue to watch a product that you only marginally enjoy because nothing else is available? Also, you're equivocating on "quality" in the second to last sentence.

Aside from the "more competitive" line, how much higher are you wanting them? I mean, how many cable TV shows can you name that can draw 5 million viewers every week for over 15 years? How many of those same shows can get 200,000-300,000 people to pay $40 for a show which is very similar to what they see 4 times a week every week? How many entertainment programs can show themselves on TV every week, get people to pay $40 a month for a show they see every week..AND get them to fill arenas as well?

Whether people like to admit it or not, the WWE is arguably the greatest and highest quality form of entertainment around. They put on 6 hours of original TV every week, get people to pay $40 to see a show where people pretend to fight, and still manage to sell tickets to see the live shows every where they tour. It's incredible how good the WWE is when it comes to providing entertainment. It's a testament to how high quality they really are that they can do this and be so successful at it.

Wrestling promotions all over the world do this. WWE may be singular in their volume of business, but they are accomplishing no big feat here.

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a wrestling promotion that has been not-for-profit. And since profit is what promotions strive for, the one who brings in the most money is clearly the best promotion. And that honor goes to the WWE, without question.

Again, you are equivocating on what "quality" is. I have no doubt that WWE is the most financially successful wrestling promotion ever. What I originally tried to argue was that financial success doesn't entail actual quality. Intuitively, it may seem that this is so, but it is far from the truth. Are people willingly giving their money and time to watch WWE's product? No doubt. Are a vast majority of the people who currently watch WWE unconditional consumers of professional wrestling? Yes. Would they gladly switch over to another product should it become available, and should it have just as much marketing power as WWE? I definitely think so.