The IPO of WWE Stock was the worst thing to happen to the company.

[FromTheSouth]

When WWE became a publicly traded company, the story lines and direction of the company began being influenced by more outside forces than were good for it. While it has allowed the WWE to branch out into other forms of media that they can ruin, it has forced creative to continue pushing what works for the masses in spite of the anger it generates in long term fans.

Cena sells ads, so he stays on top. The reason other stars haven't been given a chance is that Vince needs to keep selling T-shirts and ads so that his shareholders get a dividend and don't sell off his stock, devaluing his company.

What sold in the 90's? McMahon family drama. Enter Shane.

What sold in the early 2000's. Cena and HHH....watch the product.

Before the IPO, you had the Austin Era, DX, the ministry, and the emergence of an entire new roster of stars. Everyone established had left to go to WCW and with nothing to lose, Vince shot at the moon and hit.

Now, there is a billion dollars to lose. That is far too much to gamble on the fickle nature of fans. I've made this point before, but it takes time to switch all of the storylines to accomodate the fans desires. If Titus O'Neal gets a big pop when he walks out the start RAW, he can't be champ by the end of that episode. This is a TV Show, and the trajectory of the plot needs to make sense. By the time the WWE takes a month to get Titus ready to be champ, the fans are tired of his being shoved down our throat, and now we're cheering for Neville. A month later, we're tired of Neville, and now it's on to Tyler Breeze. If you elevate someone and they do not remain over, it takes a month or two to correct. Ratings drop, ad sales slow, investors get nervous, stock gets sold, company loses value....

It's a slippery slope, but it's how business works. If Vince had been happy being worth $600 million instead of cashing in while his company was a fad, he could have sustained his star making machine instead of having to try to be an ATM for investors.

 

[Burritocover]

I don't think the IPO had as much to do with them expanding to other forms of media as their relationship with the USA Network which is owned by NBC Universal does. An IPO doesn't just immediately expand your business, it just raises the cash to do it. Having a working relationship with a huge media company and having a proven record of ratings is what gets you opportunities in other forms of media. And I think they've always been more concerned with the casual fans, or the masses as you called them, than they have been the hardcore loyal fans. The hardcore fans are always gonna be there. Things can get bad at times but the majority of hardcore fans stick with it. That's what makes them hardcore fans. The casual fans are the ones who only watch when things really heat up or some one really becomes a Stone Cold level ridiculously popular character. Cena is still their biggest star because he still makes them the most money when put into a position to do so. It doesn't matter how much of the IWC hates him, he generates money for them. When he's on a show it sells more tickets. He gets PPV buys. You mentioned him selling shirts. He doesn't sell the most shirts for no reason. He has a huge number of fans. I'm not any super Cena fan myself; I just think using his as an example is a bit misguided. Other guys have been given chances and so far no one has gotten to his level. He hasn't been world champ in well over a year and has been out of the main even picture for the most part and he's still making them more money than the guys who've been put in his old spot. I would argue that he's not on top and hasn't been for some time so your point about keeping him on top and not giving anyone else a chance is bogus. I don't think that their problems have anything to do with going public. I think it's just weak booking. There have been times since they've gone public that I thought the show was really good and other times it was just ok. The last couple months of last year were the worst I can remember it being in a long time actually. But I don't think any of that had to do with pleasing shareholders or selling ads. If they were gonna play it safe theyd have Cena working on top like you claim he always is. Instead they had him working the middle of the card for most of last year defending the US Title while they were trying to get Reigns, Ambrose, and Rollins to be the guys to carry the company going forward. I don't think that's what I'd prefer if were holding a lot of WWE stock. I'd want a proven commodity. And as far as Vince being happy with $600 million, that's just crazy. I don't think in his case it's about the money. I mean I'm sure he wants money because everyone does but I think it's about growing the company as much as possible. He's that kind of person. He wants to run as global and as large a company as possible and I'm sure part of that is ego. Actually probably a lot of that is ego but when you run a company like that the more profitable it is the more profitable it is for your employees as well. As a business owner he has a responsibility to his employees to make it as profitable as possible as well. A lot of people who work for public companies own stock; also the more money a company makes the more they have for payroll. Not that they necessarily willingly just offer more to everyone but in general the more money companies make the more they pay because they want the best employees they can get and that costs money. Also anyone in a position to negotiate a salary can negotiate a bigger one, especially when the company's earnings are public.

 

[FromTheSouth]

OK, try separating ideas into paragraphs. It makes it easier to follow and allows the debate to flow. This is not me being a dick. This is me offering some advice.

The whole reason they offered stock was to build capital to expand into different forms of media, i.e. publishing and film. Of course their corporate partnerships helped enable the expansion...so did the influx of cash.

You're right. They have been more concerned with the casual fan. The casual fan is leaving. The ratings are significantly lower than they should be on a build to Wrestlemania...a time when drawing casual fans is crucial. I'm not sure what you were going for there.

Cena is the biggest star because he makes them the most money. I said that. I don't understand how you're saying I'm misguided. My point is that he makes money, so he stays on top. The problem is that because he makes money and stays on top, when he's injured, ratings suffer because no one else has been established as a draw for casual fans. Cena makes them so much money and gets to so much good press that he is often featured at times that someone else could be getting an opportunity. I agree that there is a lack of depth, and that is creative's problem for sure...but it is hard for me to imagine that Cena has not gotten pushed at times when others could have because of a responsibility to deliver a certain buy rate at a PPV because it wold affect the stock price. Look at the stock. It has lost half of its value in two years. That is a serious issue.

Of course the show has been up and down since the IPO, but the decline has been steady. It is at it's worst point now because everyone is tired of the same ole same ole. The issue is that the same ole same ole has sold for so long that there was no motivation to change it. Now, there may be some traction to it, if Shane's promo is any kind of foreshadoiwing.

If the company were profitable, the stock price wouldn't be where it is. There hasn't been a stock split at any point, the WWE is just hemorrhaging money.

I really think that you don't know how owning stock works. You mention that people who own businesses own stock and that gives them more room for salaries? That's not how it works. Salaries are paid by the company and listed on balance sheet as a liability, and the investors see that balance sheet and the value of the company is determined by the free market through the buying and selling of stock at negotiated prices. Vince doesn't pay more because hit stock is worth more. He pays out of the profits of the company, not his individual share.

 

[dsotm5150]

WWE went public back in 1999 so investors are nothing new. The PG era I think is more to blame on NBC than anything else, they control USA Network so if theywant the product toned down it behooves WWE to listen or be in breach of contract and unfortunately I'm pretty sure NBC can afford better lawyers than Vince McMahon. Happens all the time in TV shows, the network sees something they don't like they tell the production team to change it, not even the almighty WWE has full creative control over their televised product. Another thing that led to that is that fact squeaky clean less risque characters like John Cena got over, got to cater to who's spending the majority of money on the product and in this case, its kids buying John Cena merchandise so the product got toned down to a more "family oriented" product. Unfortunately for those of us who have been watching for 20 years or more its rather unsatisfying and creatively stiffled product. That's not to say that there aren't investors that might want a kinder friendlier product but I would imagine it had more to do with NBC and who was getting over than anything else.

 

[Azane]

I've seen the PG Era blamed on everything from Cycles, to Linda's Senate run, to public trading, to Vince going insane.

Cyclical is probably the most likely cause, as we're starting to see the storys become a little more mature, we won't see Austin vs Hart Blood baths, but we may see some blood used like Roman vs HHH.

The Shift in how characters are portrayed and pushed is more a mechanism of the company being ever more exposed, due to reality TV, the internet, the networks' own showcase of things like Total Divas, where we can watch John Cena pooping.

Eric Bischoff actually talked about how bringing in outside suits into wrestling discussions always ruined things,like when they asked for his scripts MONTHS in advance, while wrestling is live entertainment and needs to be current and timely, Outside investors don't care if WWE's product is good or bad, just that it's bottomline looks good, so in a way, the responsibility is shifted SOLELY on profit, but hey, That's the definition of business.

If there were a new Monday Night War erupting now, it wouldn't be based off TV ratings, it would be purely based on who kept money flowing through all the reservoirs, television is a large chunk of that, but we're seeing media evolve away from the overpriced cable and satellite methods, in 20 years, TV is going to be a misnomer for a viewing habit on computers.

I won't get into the Cena argument, that's completely off topic of how the Stock trading influences decisions. Hulk Hogan would still be the face of the WWF in the 90's if WWF was publically traded then.

 

[Burritocover]

I get how stocks work but I think I just didn't write it clearly. I understand that Vince isn't paying anyone out of his own pocket and that it comes out of the company's money. What I meant was when a company makes more money they can afford bigger salaries. Also I should use paragraphs more, that's true.


Revenue increased 21% to $658.8 million, the highest in the Company’s history, including record levels of revenue from WWE’s Network, Television, Live event, Venue Merchandise, and WWE Shop businesses
Total international revenue increased by 46% to a record $169.8 million
Adjusted OIBDA1 reached $68.7 million, representing an $80.3 million increase from 2014
Network segment generated revenue of $159.4 million and OIBDA1 of $48.4 million that nearly doubled the average annual revenue of the Company’s pay-per-view business before network launch
I don't know where you are getting them hemmoraghing money. The stock price is about half of what it was right after the network launched two years ago but at the time it was way up because of the network. If you go back to just before it launched it was right about the same.

As far as being publics affect on the actual product USA has much more to do with it. Obviously they want to make a product that is going to be profitable to reward shareholders but that's how any business works. Jericho had Freddy Prinze Jr. his podcast a couple weeks ago and he was saying that a lot of stuff that they used to be able to do back in the attitude era they wouldn't even be able to do now because of the networks standards and practices. As someone else mentioned even WWE isn't fully in control of the show. If they break the rules the network can find them. USA basically squashed Goldust back in the mid 90s because they felt that it was too much. Having to please someone other than the audience isn't a new thing.

 

[Un-Bo-Lievable Jeff]

You're blaming him for wanting to make more money?

Yes he could have stayed where he was, but would we have had NXT? Would WWE still be travelling to many parts of the world for the fans to see them? Would the network be as extensive?

I get your point but you've no idea where this investor money goes or what would have happened without it. Everybody in the world will always want more no matter how much they have. Anyone saying different is a liar!!

 

[FightOwensFight]

When WWE became a publicly traded company, the story lines and direction of the company began being influenced by more outside forces than were good for it. While it has allowed the WWE to branch out into other forms of media that they can ruin, it has forced creative to continue pushing what works for the masses in spite of the anger it generates in long term fans.

Cena sells ads, so he stays on top. The reason other stars haven't been given a chance is that Vince needs to keep selling T-shirts and ads so that his shareholders get a dividend and don't sell off his stock, devaluing his company.

What sold in the 90's? McMahon family drama. Enter Shane.

What sold in the early 2000's. Cena and HHH....watch the product.

Before the IPO, you had the Austin Era, DX, the ministry, and the emergence of an entire new roster of stars. Everyone established had left to go to WCW and with nothing to lose, Vince shot at the moon and hit.

Now, there is a billion dollars to lose. That is far too much to gamble on the fickle nature of fans. I've made this point before, but it takes time to switch all of the storylines to accomodate the fans desires. If Titus O'Neal gets a big pop when he walks out the start RAW, he can't be champ by the end of that episode. This is a TV Show, and the trajectory of the plot needs to make sense. By the time the WWE takes a month to get Titus ready to be champ, the fans are tired of his being shoved down our throat, and now we're cheering for Neville. A month later, we're tired of Neville, and now it's on to Tyler Breeze. If you elevate someone and they do not remain over, it takes a month or two to correct. Ratings drop, ad sales slow, investors get nervous, stock gets sold, company loses value....

It's a slippery slope, but it's how business works. If Vince had been happy being worth $600 million instead of cashing in while his company was a fad, he could have sustained his star making machine instead of having to try to be an ATM for investors.

I don't think being a public company has anything to do with it. All the major networks are owed by publicly traded companies or are publicly traded themselves. They all show content that is much more adult than anything you will see on WWE. From The Walking Dead to Gotham to Archer, there is more violence, language and sexual situations on other shows than are on WWE. Ratings are also higher for those shows.

I think you hit on the issue in the last part of your post commenting on people turning on the talent. I really think that is the issue. One week it is "Ziggler needs a push! He is the best!", he gets a title shot and wins and within a month the reaction is tepid at best. Dean Ambrose is "the" fan favorite right now. Yet, when he was attacked by Brock and F-5'd the fans chanted "One more time". How can the WWE write stories when the fans flip flop on what they want basically to go against whoever is getting the push at the moment?

 

[Navi]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the main reason for making the stock public was so they could get the money to launch the network. I remember reading that the WWE would take a huge loss in the beginning and it might take 5 years to recover from that.

Personally will all the problems in getting it launch worldwide, especially the screw up with Sky Sports in the UK, it might take longer. The network has been out now almost two years, and there are still countries that don't have it I believe. Didn't China just get it?

Also will the drop in PPV buys and not having the subscription numbers they wanted it's put the WWE behind the 8 ball for awhile. Investors don't care where or how the company gets the money to pay their dividend cheques, as long as they get them.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I don't see how WWE going public hurt it. WWE's financial report that was released a few weeks ago stated that the revenue for 2015 was roughly $660 million, making it the biggest in the company's history. Revenue from the WWE Network, live events, merchandise, WWEShop.com, etc. were all up across the board, WWE Network subscriptions continue to rise, albeit slowly, and, unlike 2014, WWE turned a solid profit. In terms of monetary value, when you take into account that the 2nd largest wrestling company in the world, New Japan, had roughly $26 million in revenue from August 2014 to August 2015, it shows just how much bigger WWE is than anyone else.

When it's all said and done, it's about making money; that's the goal of any business and that's just how it is. I usually don't comment on the corporate aspect of things because there's so much about the goings on that I don't know or understand because I've zero experience in such a field. However, WWE is making more money than it's ever made and is successfully adapting to the changes going on within media entertainment as a whole.

Vince McMahon has always been a PG oriented guy at heart. Before the days of the Attitude Era, all wrestling content that I saw on American television was firmly within the PG area. Vince started pushing the envelope when WCW started winning the ratings war and despite what some may think, it wasn't as though WWE was getting killed week in and week out; When WWE lost, they usually didn't lose by very much. An example of one side being killed each week would come about during the last year and a half or so WCW was in business when Nitro was being outdrawn by Raw by a 3 to 1 margin. However, despite all that, Vince was no longer the #1 name in pro wrestling and that got to him on a purely egotistical level; he wanted to be #1 again by any means necessary and the result was some of the best and worst television in the history of pro wrestling. I don't buy into the PG thing hurting WWE because WWE's ratings were heading south while WWE was still very much in the TV-14 format; they didn't go back to PG until 2008 when the days of drawing 5s in the ratings each week were years and years behind them.

In my opinion, and that's all it is, we're seeing the worst thing to happen to WWE in that Vince McMahon is unable or unwilling to change the product to coincide with the times. While WWE is adapting to the changes in media, the product itself lags because Vince no longer has his finger on the pulse of modern American wrestling fans the way he once did. Now I'm not saying that Vince is supposed to jump at every beck & call of fans, especially internet fans as they're even more fickle than your average viewers, but there are some things that seem glaringly obvious. For example, WWE fans as a whole aren't going to embrace Roman Reigns the way Vince wants using the sort of formula that Vince has been using with him for the last 1.5 years. It's not to say that Reigns doesn't have ability or that EVERYONE hates him, but it should be glaringly obvious by now that most WWE fans don't want another John Cena type guy, especially when that guy isn't nearly as good as John Cena is. When fans are as much in support of wrestlers like Dean Ambrose, Cesaro, Kevin Owens, etc. as they've consistently been, it just seems logical to me that a very strong consideration should be made because of audience interest rather than judging based on whatever flaws Vince might personally find with them to justify not pushing them to their greatest potential. Those wrestlers, and others like them, aren't fads like we've seen with Zack Ryder or Fandango.

 

[Burritocover]

The Company went public in 1999 so thr intention at the time wasn't to launch the network. It was just to expand. They did say that they knew launching the network was going to be a struggle financially and that's part of why the stock price dropped. it was a long term plan to make money but as of now they are are making money from it now. According to what the initially said a million subscribers was the break even point and they are over a million now.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

Why are you blaming an IPO on the quality of a show? Why is that even a factor. Thousands of companies go through an IPO and if anything it means more money and better product.

WWE has 0 excuse for producing a bad show. The quality of the show depends entirely on them. Yes, outside factors may influence how things are executed, but a good team will adapt to those changes and still produce something entertaining.

It's not the IPO, it's WWE, their vision, their method of doing things these days. It's entirely their fault and there's no excuse for it. They don't need competition to produce a good show, they don't need to be a private company to produce a good show, they don't need to get rid of the PG rating to produce a good show.

 

[stingray11214]

A Long, long time ago, two men by the names of Irwin and Kenneth Feld owned something very much like Professional Wrestling. They were the owners of Ringling Bros. and Barnum and Bailey Circus. The decided to make the company Public sometime in '69. in 1971, they sold out to Mattel. However, they kept creative and managerial. positions within the new company. Did it work out? Not really. The Felds bought the company back from Mattel. Irwin Feld, when asked by the media why they bought back Ringling Bros., made this quote:

"A Circus was never meant to be owned by a Corporation."

When WWE made the IPO, they became a CORPORATION. There are far different rules when something is owned privately, as for when you have many masters to serve. Though the IPO allowed WWE to expand the way they did, it came with a cost: It is not about WWE anymore. You need to take care of the shareholders and their sensibilities. Shareholders demand the most bang for their buck. They do not care about the McMahon family sensibilities. They care about making money. Period.

Now, would there have been a Network or massive stages or movie studios if not for the IPO? Probably not. However, you might have seen a far different landscape if the IPO never went through. Eric Bischoff might have bought WCW instead of Vince. You might have two companies fighting it out today if the IPO did not happen, You may have a more robust Indy landscape today. But, it happened. Now? You have a company trying to ram individuals down the Public's throat because he is "best for business". If this was a "Private" company, you would a completely different attitude and mentality to its fan base.

So, did the IPO help? It allowed WWE to expand. However, the heavy price has been paid in creativity and talent development. It has become all about the Benjamins. Irwin Feld's quote never fails to ring true in this case.

 

[Burritocover]

So if I'm following what you are saying correctly you think they are shoving talent down our throats because that's what Wall Street wants because that's what's gonna make the most profit. But if they were still a privately held company they wouldn't do that because they wouldn't care about being profitable? How does that make any sense. Wether they are private or public the goal would still be to make money. Bad creative, or perceived bad creative has nothing to do with shareholders and everything to do with just screwing up.

 

[FromTheSouth]

So if I'm following what you are saying correctly you think they are shoving talent down our throats because that's what Wall Street wants because that's what's gonna make the most profit. But if they were still a privately held company they wouldn't do that because they wouldn't care about being profitable?

No. I'm saying that they're doing so because it's safe. There's a bit of difference there. My point is that the responsibility to shareholders keeps them from doing anything too risky or moving too quickly on anyone. I think that the brass wants to make sure that anyone that gets put "on top" has been focus grouped and tested before they pull the trigger and by the time that is done, we, as fans, have moved on to a new flavor of the month.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

No. I'm saying that they're doing so because it's safe. There's a bit of difference there. My point is that the responsibility to shareholders keeps them from doing anything too risky or moving too quickly on anyone. I think that the brass wants to make sure that anyone that gets put "on top" has been focus grouped and tested before they pull the trigger and by the time that is done, we, as fans, have moved on to a new flavor of the month.

When were things different? Hogan only gave way to others so he could do other projects. Then Vince gave him everything when he came back. Bret and Shawn spent lots of time in the tag scene and midcard before getting their time and Vince stayed pretty darn loyal to them even when others were clearly gaining popularity. Austin had a long run but had to give way due to injuries and The Rock would still be on top if he had not found greener pastures.

Plus to the topic at hand. Do you believe Vince is a control freak? If so, I don't understand how you can blame the IPO for their lack of creativity when the same guy is basically in charge of the creativity. Maybe you could say that he is being stretched too thin by WWE's growth. I guess that's a possibility but how hard is it to write a wrestling show? And from all those dirt sheet script rewrite articles, we know that he is still very involved in the Monday night product.

The IPO was not a good thing creative wise but it is far from the worst thing. The lack of competition comes to mind, but then again the smallest sniff of competition lead us to a geriatric fighting a stroke survivor at Mania. Here are some other things that are bigger problems:

1) what we know about head injuries
2) drug testing
3) dirt sheets
4) too much wrestling in a month
5) we've been watching this shit for too long
6) too many titles
7) too much wrestling that you enjoyed originally available on demand
8) the need to rebuild your base
9) the numerous and frightening deaths
10) the disappearance of the Smackdown fist

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

Paul Heyman summarized my feelings on this topic perfectly back in like 03/04.

"If the Vince McMahon wanted to push the envelope, the WWE would push the envelope. If you're investing in the WWE, and you don't believe in the vision of Vince McMahon, I'm not sure what you're investing in."

Now Paul Heyman is probably not the most savvy businessman in the world, but it's true that investors want their company to be successful, end of story. Owners of companies that are not publically traded feel the same way. If pushing the envelope would help make the WWE more successful, it would happen, regardless of whether it's publically traded or not. Success is success, and for a business it's measureable in dollars. Management feels like the current approach will ultimately be more beneficial, so they're taking that approach, and that apparoach is validated by dollar figures.

Also, the fact that the WWE is publically traded has nothing to do with the TV-PG rating or the so-called "PG Era," which might be the dumbest term used on forums like this. The WWE was rated TV-PG in the Attitude Era, and they pushed the envelope just fine. The current product is nowhere near the TV-PG line. At all. If they wanted edgier content, they could do it with this rating. They did it before. Again, the Attitude Era was rated TV-PG. The PG rating itself has exerted exactly zero influence on the product. This myth needs to fucking die.

 

[MERPER]

While the IPO may have something to do with the product being lame, PC and bland it really is the fault of NBC. They are a "Family first" company and therefore, need the programming to be PG.

What shocks me, is with the roster at its current size, and so many stars not getting TV time, is why they can't either purchase a 2-hour slot on a cable network (HBO/HBO Sports) or something like that and run a more PG-13/R product once a week. Or make a part of WWE Network geared more towards adults?

Right now it's all geared towards children but the children aren't the only big part of the product. There's plenty of over 18 fans. I think the mistake they had was thinking that once fans that grew up with the 90s product got older, they stopped being fans.

If they put a more "risque" product on a cable network or an 18+ section of the Network then they can begin pushing boundaries again. And the only way kids watch are if their irresponsible parents let them and that's not WWE's fault.

Ideally, you'd have RAW start the week for everyone. Smackdown would be another show geared towards the kids and then televise a house show that is more mature on either Friday or Saturday night, late night or something.