People make this too much of a big deal.
Why is it a bad thing for adults to complain about the things they want to see?
So what do you call the era between 2003-2008?
Technically, the Attitude Era is accepted as ending around March 2001 when Vince purchased WCW.
The Era from that point in 2001 until around the middle to end of 2006 is generally referred to as the "Post Attitude Era". There were still suggestive/soap opera storylines, however the Era did not have as much enthusiasm as the actual Attitude Era, as the prime faces of that time (Austin and Rock) left the company, and WWE didn't have a marquee star groomed at that point to take over.
WWE began their move towards PG programming around the end of 2006, although the rating officially did not change until 2008. However, it was fairly obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes that WWE began this transition process to PG programming back in the later part of 2006 where all suggestive storylines and the edgy programming were dropped.
We are referring to that point up to this day as the "PG Era".
And if someone calls it the attitude era, don't make me laugh.
Post Attitude Era.
How come there was no success during this period, inconsistent ratings, etc etc?
Ironically enough, and perhaps to your amazement, ratings were higher in the Post Attitude Era, compared to today. The reason for the ratings drop from the 5's and 6's the company was doing was because of the departures of The Rock and Steve Austin. Plus, some of the sexual elements began getting toned down. You were no longer seeing DX, for example, encouraging ladies in the crowd to take their tops off.
Sex does sell. Violence does sell. That has been proven time and time and time again.
It doesn't matter if they put TV-14, I don't see how it will satisfy anyone
.
That's because evidently you are incapable of looking at something from another point of view, other than your own. The bottom line is that you like what you see today, and don't want to see it changed. Therefore, you have to make it seem like you don't, or perhaps you honestly don't understand why other people want to see something different.
It isn't the actual rating that bothers fans. It's the actual content that comes with ... or should I say "doesn't come with" the rating.
The John Cena character will always be there as well as the Edge character. Do you think wrestlers carrying blades to the ring will help the ratings?
The fact that wrestlers carrying blades to the ring will not help ratings. The fact that wrestlers bleeding will probably help ratings, if done sparingly. Not, for example, if done every time Ric Flair comes to the ring.
However, to be fair, I am not a fan of the practice of blading. I think it's unsanitary and unsafe. I would toy with the idea of the WWE using blood capsules, as long as they look realistic. Also, if they would try it, I would strongly encourage WWE to ensure that info would not be leaked to the IWC, who would want the real thing. However, I am of the impression that "what you don't know, won't hurt you".
Do you think "Xtreme" matches at the One Night Stand PPVs will help the ratings? If it has, why has the WWE gone in circles over the past 5 years?
WWE makes bad decisions, just like any other company. Vince probably reacted to the loss in ratings due to Austin leaving, Rock leaving, and eliminating all of his competition and not giving viewers a choice in programming. So, perhaps he came to the false conclusion that people were no longer interested in the edgy programming or complex storylines, and therefore decided to go in a different direction. That "different direction" included placing the heaviest focus on the actual wrestling part of the product since the 70's, while eliminating gimmick characters and storylines. Then, he probably figured he could get away with a PG rating with that type of product, which would be more attractive to advertisers.
So, he went with it, and tried the experiment. And when he did, the fanbase went down even more.
He's trying to build the fans of tomorrow, yet he isn't increasing the size of his audience. Rather, he has alienated his adults who did watch his product for the sexuality of the Divas, course language, complex storylines, and the wrestling.
Just the wrestling isn't going to sell. Vince has tried that, and Smackdown and ECW's ratings have dropped significantly. Raw has dropped somewhat, as well ... however that is the only show remotely resembling a product his older fans remember and enjoyed.
So, what is the difference if you gain one fan, if you simply lose another?
Suck up and deal with it. WWE Makes HUGE profits out of kids.
Ah. The same arrogant mentality that Vince tries to tell his audience. "I don't care what you want. This is what you Should be wanting, because I make profits off children."
I can respect WWE in making money, however can look at the big picture, and clearly see that this is doing nothing to help the size of the WWE fanbase into the future. Because he's losing as many fans, if not more, than he is gaining fans.
And you want to talk about kids ... if Vince is actually trying to consciously go out and lure kids to the current product, he is doing a piss poor job at it. The Hogan Era and the New Generation Era did a much better job in attracting kids through it's characters that were featured. However, since today's product is so toned down, with virtually no gimmicks or virtually no characters ... it isn't doing all that great a job at bringing kids in, in my view. Because they aren't targeted enough.
The only characters that actually shout out to the little kids are Hornswoggle and Rey Mysterio. John Cena though to the older kids. However, what kind of message do the kids think when they are trained to think of John Cena as a "good role model", only to hear the amount of boos that he receives at the arenas? When they hear the top Face being booed, it naturally causes confusion to them and peaks their curiosity on why he is being booed.
Best way to solve that problem is to differentiate your products, and have one product that goes out and targets those kids and families. And give the adults an edgy product.
Both groups are humongous in size, despite what you may think. I personally think it's smarter to have both groups under the WWE umbrella and bringing in revenue, as opposed to alienating one group in exchange for another.
I remember being 7 years old; bringing Austin, Undertaker, Rock, the Hardy Boys, Rikishi, etc etc action figures to school as well as everyone else did. Kids are great profitable material.
Yes, they are. And nobody is denying that. But kids don't purchase PPV's. Adults do. And families are not guaranteed to go out and purchase PPV's for their child every month, given the expenses of families. However, older wrestling fans who are working, are more likely to get a group of people together, throw a party, and do so.
Anyway, even if WWE becomes completely family-friendly, it will revert back to "attitude" form a couple of decades/years later.
And that is perhaps true. However, I just think there is a better way to do it, as opposed to Vince looking at it through tunnel-vision, thinking he has to make his product all or nothing. His current way is alienating fans. What good does it do to send fans away, and simply replace them with the same numbers, or less numbers?
People have moved on from the attitude era.
Ha. That's a laugh. Evidently not. You may want people to move on from the Attitude Era, but that doesn't mean they have. All you need to do is look around a variety of wrestling forums each week, and you can clearly see that people haven't moved on from the Attitude Era. And nor should they, if that isn't what they want to do.
I think there is a little reverse mentality going on here. In customer service, you don't tell your customers what type of product they should see. You listen to what type of product they want to have, through market research. Quite simply, there is a way for Vince to have his cake and eat it too, if he would only open his eyes and think of himself as a Wrestling Distributor of a variety of wrestling products, as opposed to the myopic vision he has had since he started the company.
As for the loyal wrestling fans that has been following the WWE only because of the blood and sexual storylines, I think it's bull.
Pretty much what I think of much of your post. Nobody likes having their tastes in wrestling knocked by some fan who thinks his tastes in wrestling are far superior to others. It is a very pompous, arrogant mentality to have.
You guys are loyal wrestling fans that will tune in no matter what.
What was I saying about arrogance?
As far as fans tuning in, no matter what ... there is a threshold here of what and how long fans will tolerate mediocrity. In case you haven't noticed, WWE has experienced a rather significant loss in ratings over the past few years, across the board. So, evidently people aren't "tuning in, no matter what."
And coming from me personally, who had turned all the shows off and only followed the newsboards for the past couple months, I tuned in last night for the Trump angle, only to see it ended faster than it got off the ground. Best angle WWE did since before they botched McMahon/Orton, and it ended in an hour.
So yeah, speaking for me, it's back off once again, and I'll simply continue reading the newsboards.
I love it when people like you call other people's bluffs.
Anyone who isn't happy with the current product, go ahead and turn it off. I actually challenge you to do so. Go ahead, read the newsboards, participate on the forums, etc. But if you want to see the WWE go back to something it used to be, you have to turn the product off. Or go follow TNA. Sure, TNA isn't the best, but many would argue that believe it or not, it is actually better than what WWE is offering.
The bottom line as far as loyalty goes. If Vince isn't loyal to the fans who made him a Multi-Millionaire, then why be loyal back to him? He has essentially told Attitude Era fans to "Go to Hell, I don't need you anymore." So, the best way to force McMahon's hand is to leave him. And I say that, for the good of the product.
