The "Stand up for WWE" Promo

[The Shockmaster]

First off I just want to say i don't really give a crap about the pg rating anymore. I've accepted the fact that it is the way it is and if i want non pg content i just tune into tna. Its a simple solution. Now onto the topic...

The "Stand Up for WWE" was pretty good. It got its point across that the wwe was a company that cares about its fans and does a lot for communities, organizations and children all around the world. There was only one thing that puzzled me and that came at around 2:45 off the video shown before. It flashed a demographic that stated " Over 78% of our audience is over 18 years old". This confused me because the whole promo they seemed to mainly focus on the pg rating by mentioning it and flashing the pg logo across the scene multiple times. Then you throw out an overwhelming demographic of an age group that is not in the target guideline for your ratings.

Im not going to argue saying that the pg rating should be lifted due to the demographic(even though by looking at the numbers it looks like they should). If just wanted to know why the hell would you include this demographic when you have everyone and the mothers complaining about how this pg rating is bullshit. Now your just giving them proof on why it shouldn't.

IDK...I just wanted to put that out there, your opinions?

 

[Nikeo]

The WWE are well aware the majority of their current audience are over 18. However, that demographic's interest in the product is dwindling (it's abundantly clear Attitude fans have moved on) and the WWE are trying to do what they did in the 80's: making kids fans so they'll be fans for life.

When the Cena generation start to get older we'll get a more mature product, it's a cycle.

I applaud McMahon's promo, I don't think he should be criticized for defending his business and as a fan I do feel insulted at the pot shots taken at wrestling during this campaign. However, the reason I won't be "standing up for the WWE" is because Linda's only qualification is running a big business. I don't need a CEO of a Corporation telling me what's good for me while serving their own interests; it's well documented what people from corporations get up to in office.

 

[huegtoad]

nice said, right above me

The problem for McMahon, no matter what they are doing now, and what they are doing now is toned down, family friendly(although my kids are still to little to "get it" so i don't let them watch) and they do do some amazing things with charities and whatnot, the problem is, what they did in the past is absolutly undisputable, undeniable, worthy of mention, it wasn't an accident, it was intentional and is a definate skelton outside the closet that deserves to be vetted. Hey, George W Bush's indescritions occured many many years before he even ran for govenor of Texas, yet it was fair game. Bill Clinton's "pot expereince" occured while he was in college, yet it was fair game. Barak O'Bama was a community organizer way back in the 80's and early 90's, he held public office for both the state of IL and the US Senate before being voted President, yet it didn't stop the opposition from taking shots at him for it. There is no statue of limitations for pot shots in a campaign, if she had designs on running for office all the way back then, she should have thought better back then. I applaud WWE for cleaning up their act, but too little too late, what's done was done and will be fodder for attack no matter WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW!!! It's just part of the game of politics, deal with it, and you can overcome it, don't deal with it and it will drag you down.

 

[Kidd]

I haven't seen the media adds attacking linda so this may sound uninformed.

Usually, the media would be the first to jump out and say "Wrestling's Fake! It's not real!"

Yet they wish to attack someone's character based on something that is "fake" and "not real."

Seems hypocritical to me.

 

[Chill]

How low is Vince McMahon willing to go for Linda and her political career? Pretty low it would seem. I mean, I find this 'Stand Up for WWE' a crock of shit to be honest, how about investing time in the future stars of the company and advancing the quality of the program instead of wasting it on shit like this? Haters will always be haters Vince and yes that is almost everyone who isn't a WWE/wreslting fan. Of course, this latest crap isn't so much about sticking it to the 'WWE haters' as it is about offering opposition to those who have criticised Linda McMahon and her association with pro-wrestling and her aptitude to be involved in politics. The sooner the 2nd November comes and goes the better as far as I'm concerned. 'Stand Up for WWE'?? Good grief...

 

[nbkush]

the political attacks on Linda regarding the WWE have been inneffective and she is and has been more than capable of defending herself. I find Vince's promo to be a slap in the face of any WWE fan. talk about self-serving. people buy the tix, they buy the ppv, they buy the merch....and now(without any compensation) you want them to go out and promote how great the WWE is and spread the word...FUCK YOU VINCE!

 

[Legendary1]

However, the reason I won't be "standing up for the WWE" is because Linda's only qualification is running a big business. I don't need a CEO of a Corporation telling me what's good for me while serving their own interests; it's well documented what people from corporations get up to in office.

So in this economic climate we don't need someone who knows how to run a business????? (And running a Government IS like running a company.) We need MORE attorneys and lawyers in office??? (Which is what her opponent is.) As far as serving her own interest, She has funded her entire campaign!! The most anyone can donate is $500, that way there is NO "quid pro quo" when she gets into office and she isn't owned by special interest groups. Unlike our President, who's campaign was heavily financed by the Auto workers Union!! (And they were then given a large portion of ownership shares of GENERAL MOTORS by President Obama after the Government purchased GM with the bailout.)..... But yeah, I'm sure that attorney opponent of hers will REALLY look out for other peoples interest beside his own. (After all, he is such a stand up guy, he only lied about fighting in war that he DIDN'T fight in.... what great character he must possess!!)

Back to point....Yes, while it is true that WWE is marketing to catch kids while they are young and make them fans for life. The 18-34 demo is the advertising demo that matters the most. So WWE really likes to tout that 78-80% demo number and the PG rating around for advertisers. (The promo that was aired last night was a modified version of the one used to help attract new advertisers.)

 

[Kliq4Life]

The WWE are well aware the majority of their current audience are over 18. However, that demographic's interest in the product is dwindling (it's abundantly clear Attitude fans have moved on) and the WWE are trying to do what they did in the 80's: making kids fans so they'll be fans for life.

When the Cena generation start to get older we'll get a more mature product, it's a cycle.

I applaud McMahon's promo, I don't think he should be criticized for defending his business and as a fan I do feel insulted at the pot shots taken at wrestling during this campaign. However, the reason I won't be "standing up for the WWE" is because Linda's only qualification is running a big business. I don't need a CEO of a Corporation telling me what's good for me while serving their own interests; it's well documented what people from corporations get up to in office.

Gotta say im tired of hearing this statement by the WWE sheep "it's abundantly clear Attitude fans have moved on" I think thats the biggest crock of shit i keep hearing, i have been watchin since 84' but the attitude era was the biggest, but most of those fans are still around, just not as into it as they used to be, and can you blame them? This product is so watered down, stale and boring. THE ONLY REASON the WWE is PG is because of Linda! You tell me 78% of the demo is 18yrs and older, then hit me with a PG rating, tells me how full of shit the WWE is.

 

[brighamosity]

I just think it's dumb how WWE is insulting its viewers' intelligence by claiming that the political attacks should somehow be offensive to me. The politicians aren't talking bad about me, they are talking bad about WWE, and rightfully so. WWE keeps saying they are lying but have no rebuttals. Because there aren't any. When Linda first announced her campaign, all I could think of is "Good luck with that."

 

[SFGFan10]

the political attacks on Linda regarding the WWE have been inneffective and she is and has been more than capable of defending herself. I find Vince's promo to be a slap in the face of any WWE fan. talk about self-serving. people buy the tix, they buy the ppv, they buy the merch....and now(without any compensation) you want them to go out and promote how great the WWE is and spread the word...FUCK YOU VINCE!

Get the stick out of your ass dude. He is doing it to help is wife and he is doing it because he is trying to clear his company of its bad name that I doesn't really deserve.

 

[MMK]

The criticism that's sticking against WWE has nothing to do with all of the positives WWE touted, nor did WWE's video counter any of the more serious points made against WWE in a variety of areas be it the whole lack of an off-season, the slow adoption of a concussion and wellness policy, the off-and-on drug policy's lack of true independence and transparency, the non-PG era with a lot of not-so-smile-inducing segments for families, the bullying of people who take reasonable stands against their policies or fight back against injustices, and many other traits that critics point out which WWE didn't address.

All WWE did in the promo was talk about how popular they are and which charitable organizations they work with. No one is criticizing their work with the troops or the make-a-wish foundation, so showing video of that proves nothing. The video did nothing to address any legitimate criticisms against WWE over the years. It also took up WAY too much time on last nights RAW.

 

[czar76]

To me it just sounded like Vince is reaching for anything that will draw viewers. The promo was more or less him begging for people to keep watching and defend his company.
The fact is Linda ran a multi-billion dollar company well. It shouldn't matter if it's a wrestling company or fast-food chain. Yes Vince should defend his wife, but I didn't get that from the promo. It was more about WWE then Linda.
The ratings have been droping but not all that much. Vince came off like he was in a state of panic. Makes me wonder if there is more to all this. Vince has only done things like this in the past when his company was in real trouble(mid 90's). So I have to ask if there is something else going on.

 

[Nikeo]

Gotta say im tired of hearing this statement by the WWE sheep "it's abundantly clear Attitude fans have moved on" I think thats the biggest crock of shit i keep hearing, i have been watchin since 84' but the attitude era was the biggest, but most of those fans are still around, just not as into it as they used to be, and can you blame them? This product is so watered down, stale and boring. THE ONLY REASON the WWE is PG is because of Linda! You tell me 78% of the demo is 18yrs and older, then hit me with a PG rating, tells me how full of shit the WWE is.

Crock of shit? Currently, Raw has a viewer ship of around 3.0. right?

On May 24th, 1999 Raw had a rating of 7.2 while Nitro had 3.8. Thus, the wrestling audience at that time was the equivalent of 10 points as Nitro and Raw aired simultaneously. So that would mean, a little less than a third of the audience of the Attitude era still watch and that's not taking into account new fans.

So it's quite clear that it's not a "crock of shit", it's simple maths.

And to the other dude who claimed "running a government is like running a company". That's ridiculous and, frankly, stupid. Running a corporation means one thing: making profit for your shareholders. Whether you like the sound of socially responsible corporations or not, at the end of the day the only thing a corporation cares about is profit and numbers. I can name a situation where a car company actually valued a potential risk factor of one of their cars in terms of how much money they'd have to pay in lawsuits and weighed it up with the cost of fixing the fault. They opted with the cheaper route, simply pay the lawsuit money to relatives of the people who would soon lose their lives. Linda McMahon may not be corrupt, she may be, I don't know but corporations are out to make profit while government SHOULD be out to make the choices that will take care of and benefit the lives of the people it serves. Government is not about making profit and satisfying shareholders, so just how is running a corporation like running a country? Are you aware it is quite literally illegal for a corporation to use profit for goodwill unless they can prove it benefits their interests in some way? Do you think it's a good idea to put people, who have weighed human lives with profit in terms of wealth, in charge of serving YOUR best interest?

 

[The Shockmaster]

this thread is a total mess. About 2 people actually posted a reply that had anything to do with what I discussed in the original post. This thread is about the wwe's main age demographic in relation to its current television rating.

The demographic stated was "over 78% of there viewing audience is over 18 years of age".
Some people state that they are catering to a new audience because the attitude era fans are either leaving or gone. Raw averages around 4 million viewers a week. 78% of those viewers or about 3,120,000 people are stated to be 18 or over. If they are indeed over 18 there is a good chance they sat and watched during the attitude era too. Many viewers from that period might have left but a significant amount of new viewers has not poured in. So that argument that someone posted before is now dead.
My problem with this is that if such a large portion of your audience is basically considered adults then why is the wwe so pg. Could adults not handle edgier and more controversial story lines and actions. Im not saying bring back chair shots and blading but if a guy has a scrape dont stop the match. Kids get hurt imitating wrestling moves, maybe it should just be two hours of verbal confrontation. Kids dont get hurt by storylines and good television, end of story.

 

[Davi323]

Because a lot of that 78% of Raw viewers that are adults aren't just adults. They are parents of young children. Really, Shockmaster, can you really be that dense, that you can't see the relationship between the age demographics? Those kids, whose parents let them watch a PG rated wrestling show now, will grow up watching the WWE, and will then let THEIR kids watch it. Vince McMahon is ensuring the WWE has an audience years from now, long after he is no longer in charge. It's damn good business sense.

As a single adult fresh out of college, I could watch the Attitude era and not have to be responsible to anyone but myself about what I watched. That was a long time ago. My girlfriend and I frequently have to babysit her young niece and nephew on Mondays, thanks to her sister's wonky work schedule. If the WWE was still operating as it did during the Attitude era, there is no way in hell I would let them watch it, even if as a 100% single guy, I would personally continue to do so.

When you grow up, you have responsibility to control the TV you let impressionable kids watch. With the WWE as PG, on those mondays when we look after kids, Raw gets four viewers from my household. Under Attitude era style programming, they would get zero viewers from my home, even though I personally would watch, if I wasn't helping to babysit.

PG means the parents can watch, because their kids can watch. Non-PG means a lot of them can't watch, because their kids can't watch...and let's be honest, going to a different room to watch a show that they aren't allowed to is kind of a douchebag move.

Further, if as a responsible adult, I don't let them watch Attitude era programming, then I am not going to take them to Attitude era style shows, nor am I buying them Attitude era merchandise. PG means kids watch, parents take kids to shows, parents pays 25 bucks for a Cena shirt that cost 2 bucks to make, parents buy their kids WWE toys. In general, the WWE profits more from PG programming with both kids and adults watching than they would

 

[Davi323]

Apparently when I post from my cell phone there is a character limit...half of my post got cut off, and I don't feel like trying to recreate it. In a nutshell, there is nothing wrong with a company encouraging its loyal customers to spread the word, its advertising by word of mouth, and has been done ever since the beginning of time. Further, if the WWE is successful in removing some of the stigma, and increase the available wrestling audience, it helps TNA, ROH and everyone else too, so fans of other promotions should be supportive.
Okay, that is a brief summary of the rest of my post, but I think it covers the basics of what I was getting at.

 

[Man of 1,004 Holds]

this thread is a total mess. About 2 people actually posted a reply that had anything to do with what I discussed in the original post. This thread is about the wwe's main age demographic in relation to its current television rating.

The demographic stated was "over 78% of there viewing audience is over 18 years of age".
Some people state that they are catering to a new audience because the attitude era fans are either leaving or gone. Raw averages around 4 million viewers a week. 78% of those viewers or about 3,120,000 people are stated to be 18 or over. If they are indeed over 18 there is a good chance they sat and watched during the attitude era too. Many viewers from that period might have left but a significant amount of new viewers has not poured in. So that argument that someone posted before is now dead.
My problem with this is that if such a large portion of your audience is basically considered adults then why is the wwe so pg. Could adults not handle edgier and more controversial story lines and actions. Im not saying bring back chair shots and blading but if a guy has a scrape dont stop the match. Kids get hurt imitating wrestling moves, maybe it should just be two hours of verbal confrontation. Kids dont get hurt by storylines and good television, end of story.

Trying to build a new fan base. It's just like anything else, get to the children so early so they become lifelong fans and you'll see the results later.

 

[Awesome]

It was a political propaganda video to aid Linda's campaign, nothing else. Mentioning the over 18 thing, I think, is just to show that most WWE viewers are of voting age - so they have a voice, blah, blah, blah.

 

[JM Punk]

To me, the whole 'Stand Up for WWE' campaign reeks of desperation from the McMahon campaign. Now, good luck Democrats trying to prove the link between the two......but to me, it just looks like subliminal messaging from the WWE telling me to vote Republican (and more specifically, for Linda).

Blumenthal reportedly has an 18 point lead in the polls now over McMahon. Thats a lot considering the lead was a lot closer than that at certain points before the election and as a whole, Republicans seem destined to bounce the Democrats from office.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/10/poll-richard-blumenthal-leads.html

Some people have said 'its just the WWE trying to spread the word'. That's fine if you want to buy the company line and blindly follow like a lemming. But the timing is too much of a coincidence for most rational people to think otherwise. All of a sudden, we see ads telling us to 'Stand Up for WWE' while Linda's campaign is spiraling down the toilet? Not a coincidence.

 

[Davi323]

and its also not a coincidence that Blumenthal's commercials haven't attacked only Linda McMahon, but they have gone after the WWE as a company. What is the WWE supposed to do? Sit back and let Blumenthal attack them, air commercials all over Connecticut that are insulting to the WWE, and do absolutely nothing to defend themselves? What a great fucking strategy you came up with there, genius. I don't have any doubts that this is in reaction to the race for Senator in Connecticut, but Blumenthal is the one that started attacking the WWE as part of his campaign strategy. If Blumenthal doesn't try to drag the WWE down, Vince doesn't go on the offensive. Linda McMahon hasn't used WWE time to attack Blumenthal. We didn't see Linda McMahon on WWE TV trying to put down Blumenthal...at no point was WWE programming being used to assist Linda McMahon's campaign. Privately, Vince has helped out, but he kept the Senate race completely apart from Raw, Smackdown, NXT or anything else WWE related. So, if Blumenthal wants to attack the WWE as part of his campaign, and make it public, why shouldn't the WWE respond?

 

[Brahma Bull]

No this isnt like the other stand up for wwe thread, and im not gunna bash the pg era or how it is directed to kids. What i want to know from you guys is if you think the wwe as a whole is something to stand up for, or a bad organization that we tolerate for the talent we see on tv.

pros for the wwe: unparralled support of the make a wish foundation
tribute to the troops each year
supports hundreds of workers
has personally helped workers going through problems
does teach good morals sometimes at this moment (cena and hustle, loyalty, respect)

Cons: many wrestlers have died
many drug problems
questionalbe business dealings from mr mcmahon

i know there are more on each side, but i want to know if you guys think the wwe is good as a whole or not?

personally i think they are more good than bad. they do give back a lot to the community, children, employees and veterans. in business, everyone is brutal and ruthless. you have to be to run a business. do you not think that every other owner and president of mega corportations do not do shady and ruthless things for their company's success? if you do your naive. mcmahon has done questionable things, but i think they have benefited this world more than hurt it.

thoughts, opinions?

 

[Davi323]

other than the questionable business decisions, of which there certainly have been a few, the other cons you mention are all faults of the individual wrestlers for the most part (with the obvious exception of Owen Hart). The vast majority of wrestler deaths were the result of personal decisions the wrestler made, not because it was WWE policy. Same goes for the drug use. You are holding the WWE accountable for the poor decisions employees, former employees, and people who never worked there a day in their life made in their personal lives. Two of the cons listed are very questionable as far as blaming the WWE or Vince McMahon personally for.

 

[Icedawg316]

I'll stand up for WWE, it's the only major entertainment venue I know to get so much shit talked about them and against them. I know they are "real" sports, but to me the NFL and other sports leagues have seen a lot worse than what the WWE has done in recent memory. I'll even defend the attitude era as the 9-11 Raw time or the pay per views weren't the only times when you saw adult content on Tv, around those years everyone was doing it.

I've been a WWE fan for 16 years, I'll support them even though they aren't 100% smart or right all of the time (what business is?). I just can't wait until the stupid CT race is over

 

[jasonhainline420]

I'll stand up for WWE. I'm 32 years old, and have been watching WWF/E since I was 2. Yeah, they aren't always right, but I really don't think they're as evil a company as the media tries to make out. As for the drug problem in wrestling, well, isn't that the wrestlers choice to do the drugs in the 1st place?

 

[Honkey_Kong]

I don't see any con on the WWE's fault really. Aside from making boring television (as of late).

As far as business practices go, so what if they bought out WCW and put the squeeze on other promotions, to keep themselves with essentially a monopoly in pro-wrestling? Every business wants 100% of the market they're in.

As far as wrestler's deaths go. Let me put it this way, if I start sniffing massive amounts of cocaine, while chasing it with booze, Oxycontin and Somas, who's fault is it?

That's what most of these wrestlers die from. And guess what, it shouldn't be Vince's job to babysit grown men and keep them from doing drugs. If they want to take shit that will kill them, it's their own fault.

So really the company doesn't have too many bad practices. In fact on the contrary. Look at the rehab they paid for all those wrestlers to go to (even though, it wasn't their fault these wrestlers became drug addicts). Or better yet, look at what they did for Paul Bearer with his gastric bypass surgery. I even heard that Vince found out Mr. Fuji was on hard times and just gave him like 10 grand with no strings attached.

On top of that, they've been campaigning to get young people to vote, they participate more than anyone in the Make a Wish foundation. All those troop tribute shows. And on top of all that, they still find time to give us years of entertainment watching their hours of programming every week.

WWE is an example of what more companies should be like.