Dragonslayer
Getting Noticed By Management
There is indeed a myriad of reasons for (apparently) many people being thus unsatisfied with the current form and shape of the WWE product, and I believe most of them have been named already. However for good measure, I'll just throw in my two cents as well.
1. For me, the biggest issue definitely is one that has been named quite frequently: The lack of any real competition for WWE.
WWE nowadays has not one, not two, but three shows which are theoretically supposed to be equal in status - and thus they, and they alone dominate Wrestling programming week in and week out. The only possible contender to that status could be TNA, but they only have one major show (as far as I know), and even that, at the end of the day, just can't keep up with the magnitude of WWE. For as much as TNA's pure wrestling is even in the undercard by far more entertaining than about 90% of everything WWE puts out there - just by casting one brief glance at both products, everyone can see that WWE is the big time, and TNA is just something else no one has to take seriously. Now of course "size shouldn't matter" - but fact is, it does; for even if storylines, wrestling abilities and novelty should matter - it is also the first impression that can be a lasting one (especially for occasional/new viewers), and WWE just seems that much bigger, and thus, that much more important.
Besides, as much as I like TNA from a wrestling point of view (as they have a number of guys who are really awesome inside the ring) - from a storyline perspective (but not only that), TNA reminds me a lot more of WCW in the early stages of the Monday Night War era. You have a lot of good technical wrestling in the lower parts of the card (X Division in TNA, Cruiserweights in WCW), but you have a main event scene that to a very very large part is made up of Stars WWE just doesn't want to or cannot use anymore - much like WCW did when they took Hogan, Nash, Hall, and later on Bret Hart, just to name a few, from the then-deteriorating WWE. But it is especially the types of characters the wrestlers play, the way they have to conduct their interviews (which is A LOT more frantic shouting, the kind that was so popular in the 80ies and early 90ies, instead of the more toned down, sophisticated approach WWE is taking right now), the storylines themselves (which are nothing new either, much the same things WWE is doing or WCW did in the MNW-era) - so I just can't quite shake the feeling that TNA is unfortunately still nothing but an attempt to revive the idea and concept that made WCW so successful in the mid-90ies; however with both the lack of Ted Turners money going against it as well as the fact that it just ISN'T 1996 anymore, TNA will have a hard time competing with WWE, and should not try to win over the WWF audience of the years 1990-1994, but the wrestling audience in general that is there TODAY.
But as of now, both companies are doing pretty much nothing like moving into new directions - while WWE is somehow reviving the early 1990ies (albeit thankfully in still a moderate way, thus keeping the advent of all too many comic characters at bay), and TNA is basically trying to use WCW's style while apparently trying to emulate WWE's "Attitude" spirit in the use of many weapons and over-the-top gimmick matches, at the end of the day, neither company is currently really trying to once again innovate the business as a whole, and both are more or less playing it safe - with safe champions at the top or in the main event scene (even though both are taking some risks recently, in trying to build up new ME guys such as Samoa Joe or CM Punk respectively), well-known characters and tuned-down programming without too much "adult content" so as not to scare off any viewers (especially WWE with their catering to kids).
So unless TNA finds a way to present something "new", something that will get people interested for another reason than simply the fact they are NOT interested in WWE anymore, they will not be true competition for quite some time. Unless they can compete with WWE in terms of looks, in terms of image, in terms of prestige and pageantry; they will never be taken quite as seriously as WWE. It is sad to see as there is huge potential there, but that's they way I see it.
2. Hand in hand with the problem of WWE's nigh-monopoly of the business goes the issue of the brand split. Now theoretically, it would be great to have not one, but three great wrestling shows every week, now wouldn't it?
The problem is just - since there IS no real competition out there, WWE does not have to deliver any astounding programming whatsoever; it is sufficient if they deliver average material week after week, and most of the times they even deliver sub-par - thankfully they're at least trying to pick up a little bit these days. But most of the times, you get what a lot of people critisized: A ton of promos by usually always the same handful of people, then a handful of matches, most of which are just the very same match week after week in order to further a feud (I personally can't understand why they've resorted to doing this; back in the day, a feud between two guys would be built up by say, interferences in the other's match, by tag team matches or such - and not by pitting them against each other anyway week for week, so that the ultimate PPV encounter becomes stale and uninteresting), and quite many of which are squash matches anyway (Khali, Big Show, Taker, Kozlov, Kane, Batista...), which once again are VERY reminiscent of the 1990-1993 era of WWF, with basically always one "Superstar" litterally destroying a jobber (let's all go silent a minute now and remember our heroes Barry Horowitz and Brooklyn Brawler), instead of truly interesting matchups that could go either way which were typical of WWE's Attitude era.
Besides, the fact that titles hardly change hands on weekly shows anymore is also annoying - I mean, everyone used to complain about how WCW could give away Goldberg vs Hogan for free on Nitro - but good lord, what would it do for RAW or Smackdown, if the title changed hands on the shows every once in awhile?!
Now the problem I have with the brand split is that all of those three major brands I talked about earlier are at the end of the day controlled by the same entity - WWE. And WWE creative can only be so creative. And thus, we get the same type of programming, the same type of ideas, the same concepts for shows and angles on ALL THREE wrestling programs, making the content even more stale as people grow overly fed-up with seeing the same types of things over and over again.
Add to that the ridiculous amount of title belts (which is what I absolutely despise most about the entire brand split), which just destroys any value any belt might have ever had, and you end up with people just not giving a rat's lower back anymore at all.
Now I understand that with such a huge roster, you need three shows to have time for all of them - however my issue and question is: Does WWE really need such a huge roster, just to make 3 shows?! But alas - I believe as long as they keep making a ton of money (which is as long as there is no competition that could take it away from them), they will just milk the golden cow to no end. I mean, if they cut down on ECW altogether, fire a few more people no one cares about and just work with a select group of Stars and another select few chosen to become the "next big thing" (talking about the MVPs, Kennedies and Morrisons here), it could work. But WWE won't do it; and why should they? 'Make hay while the sun shines'; and WWE is making A LOT of hay right now - and I don't see dusk setting in anytime soon.
3. Internet spoilers are not that big an issue to me. I mean sure; it will affect the viewing pleasure of quite a number of people - but I believe the majority of the fans that actually watch wrestling is not a part of the IWC, and doesn't follow any results for taped shows, or storyline spoilers via the net. But I will agree that it definitely has somewhat effected our perception of the business - de-mystifying it by unveiling more and more of the "background" infos like keyfabe stuff, injuries, Wellness Policy violations and what not.
4. As for the superstars themselves not being able enough - I tend to disagree. Surely, not everyone is a Steve Austin or a Rock or a Hulk Hogan - but well, even in the glory days of wrestling, there also were only ONE Steve Austin, ONE Rock or ONE Hulk Hogan in their respective eras. And I do believe that WWE has some very capable people in their ranks who could become the new icons of their generation - John Cena, as little as I could ever make anything out of his "rapper" gimmick or his style, has meanwhile shown that he is truly passionate about the business and will go to greatest lengths to make the product better. He is a definite pick for the face of the generation, even if a lot of people might not like him; then there is Edge of course, there are Orton and Batista (even if they are often critized, especially Batista - but well, he is just the Warrior/Goldberg of this era, you also need those) and of course the up-and-coming hopefuls in the midcard. Now while hardly any of those will ever be as great as the Rock was on the mic, let's face it - In terms of timing, of mic abilities, there never was a better man than The Rock at the later stages of his career. It will be hard for anyone to even come close to that; the only one who could right now would probably be Y2J, whose time I feel has finally come now. But let's not get carried away here.
In closing, I just want to say that I believe it is first and foremost the lack of competition that causes WWE's progamming to be as it is - but frankly spoken, it's working out for WWE right now.
I just have to look at WWE's popularity here in Austria, where they are able to completely sell out venues of 8000 - 10.000 people every time they come these days, when back in 2002, 2003 or so, when they were also doing a tour and were planning to come to Austria, and f'n STEVE AUSTIN was still advertised on the posters, they actually had to CANCEL the show here because ticket sales were that bad, to see that WWE is doing more than great right now. Of course they are not taking risks; they simply don't need to. Who would they lose their viewers to? They can do anything they want, and enough people will still buy the product, as there simply are no reasonable alternatives. Sad as it may seem, but that to my mind is the reason for the state of the wrestling scene.
Maybe the storylines are bad, maybe the way they are pulled off and often scrapped is bad - but in the end, it all doesn't matter as long as there is no competition that could take viewers away from WWE.
And even if they lose viewers over this altogether (which is illustrated by the ratings drops), many many fans still linger just because of this lack of alternatives.
1. For me, the biggest issue definitely is one that has been named quite frequently: The lack of any real competition for WWE.
WWE nowadays has not one, not two, but three shows which are theoretically supposed to be equal in status - and thus they, and they alone dominate Wrestling programming week in and week out. The only possible contender to that status could be TNA, but they only have one major show (as far as I know), and even that, at the end of the day, just can't keep up with the magnitude of WWE. For as much as TNA's pure wrestling is even in the undercard by far more entertaining than about 90% of everything WWE puts out there - just by casting one brief glance at both products, everyone can see that WWE is the big time, and TNA is just something else no one has to take seriously. Now of course "size shouldn't matter" - but fact is, it does; for even if storylines, wrestling abilities and novelty should matter - it is also the first impression that can be a lasting one (especially for occasional/new viewers), and WWE just seems that much bigger, and thus, that much more important.
Besides, as much as I like TNA from a wrestling point of view (as they have a number of guys who are really awesome inside the ring) - from a storyline perspective (but not only that), TNA reminds me a lot more of WCW in the early stages of the Monday Night War era. You have a lot of good technical wrestling in the lower parts of the card (X Division in TNA, Cruiserweights in WCW), but you have a main event scene that to a very very large part is made up of Stars WWE just doesn't want to or cannot use anymore - much like WCW did when they took Hogan, Nash, Hall, and later on Bret Hart, just to name a few, from the then-deteriorating WWE. But it is especially the types of characters the wrestlers play, the way they have to conduct their interviews (which is A LOT more frantic shouting, the kind that was so popular in the 80ies and early 90ies, instead of the more toned down, sophisticated approach WWE is taking right now), the storylines themselves (which are nothing new either, much the same things WWE is doing or WCW did in the MNW-era) - so I just can't quite shake the feeling that TNA is unfortunately still nothing but an attempt to revive the idea and concept that made WCW so successful in the mid-90ies; however with both the lack of Ted Turners money going against it as well as the fact that it just ISN'T 1996 anymore, TNA will have a hard time competing with WWE, and should not try to win over the WWF audience of the years 1990-1994, but the wrestling audience in general that is there TODAY.
But as of now, both companies are doing pretty much nothing like moving into new directions - while WWE is somehow reviving the early 1990ies (albeit thankfully in still a moderate way, thus keeping the advent of all too many comic characters at bay), and TNA is basically trying to use WCW's style while apparently trying to emulate WWE's "Attitude" spirit in the use of many weapons and over-the-top gimmick matches, at the end of the day, neither company is currently really trying to once again innovate the business as a whole, and both are more or less playing it safe - with safe champions at the top or in the main event scene (even though both are taking some risks recently, in trying to build up new ME guys such as Samoa Joe or CM Punk respectively), well-known characters and tuned-down programming without too much "adult content" so as not to scare off any viewers (especially WWE with their catering to kids).
So unless TNA finds a way to present something "new", something that will get people interested for another reason than simply the fact they are NOT interested in WWE anymore, they will not be true competition for quite some time. Unless they can compete with WWE in terms of looks, in terms of image, in terms of prestige and pageantry; they will never be taken quite as seriously as WWE. It is sad to see as there is huge potential there, but that's they way I see it.
2. Hand in hand with the problem of WWE's nigh-monopoly of the business goes the issue of the brand split. Now theoretically, it would be great to have not one, but three great wrestling shows every week, now wouldn't it?
The problem is just - since there IS no real competition out there, WWE does not have to deliver any astounding programming whatsoever; it is sufficient if they deliver average material week after week, and most of the times they even deliver sub-par - thankfully they're at least trying to pick up a little bit these days. But most of the times, you get what a lot of people critisized: A ton of promos by usually always the same handful of people, then a handful of matches, most of which are just the very same match week after week in order to further a feud (I personally can't understand why they've resorted to doing this; back in the day, a feud between two guys would be built up by say, interferences in the other's match, by tag team matches or such - and not by pitting them against each other anyway week for week, so that the ultimate PPV encounter becomes stale and uninteresting), and quite many of which are squash matches anyway (Khali, Big Show, Taker, Kozlov, Kane, Batista...), which once again are VERY reminiscent of the 1990-1993 era of WWF, with basically always one "Superstar" litterally destroying a jobber (let's all go silent a minute now and remember our heroes Barry Horowitz and Brooklyn Brawler), instead of truly interesting matchups that could go either way which were typical of WWE's Attitude era.
Besides, the fact that titles hardly change hands on weekly shows anymore is also annoying - I mean, everyone used to complain about how WCW could give away Goldberg vs Hogan for free on Nitro - but good lord, what would it do for RAW or Smackdown, if the title changed hands on the shows every once in awhile?!
Now the problem I have with the brand split is that all of those three major brands I talked about earlier are at the end of the day controlled by the same entity - WWE. And WWE creative can only be so creative. And thus, we get the same type of programming, the same type of ideas, the same concepts for shows and angles on ALL THREE wrestling programs, making the content even more stale as people grow overly fed-up with seeing the same types of things over and over again.
Add to that the ridiculous amount of title belts (which is what I absolutely despise most about the entire brand split), which just destroys any value any belt might have ever had, and you end up with people just not giving a rat's lower back anymore at all.
Now I understand that with such a huge roster, you need three shows to have time for all of them - however my issue and question is: Does WWE really need such a huge roster, just to make 3 shows?! But alas - I believe as long as they keep making a ton of money (which is as long as there is no competition that could take it away from them), they will just milk the golden cow to no end. I mean, if they cut down on ECW altogether, fire a few more people no one cares about and just work with a select group of Stars and another select few chosen to become the "next big thing" (talking about the MVPs, Kennedies and Morrisons here), it could work. But WWE won't do it; and why should they? 'Make hay while the sun shines'; and WWE is making A LOT of hay right now - and I don't see dusk setting in anytime soon.
3. Internet spoilers are not that big an issue to me. I mean sure; it will affect the viewing pleasure of quite a number of people - but I believe the majority of the fans that actually watch wrestling is not a part of the IWC, and doesn't follow any results for taped shows, or storyline spoilers via the net. But I will agree that it definitely has somewhat effected our perception of the business - de-mystifying it by unveiling more and more of the "background" infos like keyfabe stuff, injuries, Wellness Policy violations and what not.
4. As for the superstars themselves not being able enough - I tend to disagree. Surely, not everyone is a Steve Austin or a Rock or a Hulk Hogan - but well, even in the glory days of wrestling, there also were only ONE Steve Austin, ONE Rock or ONE Hulk Hogan in their respective eras. And I do believe that WWE has some very capable people in their ranks who could become the new icons of their generation - John Cena, as little as I could ever make anything out of his "rapper" gimmick or his style, has meanwhile shown that he is truly passionate about the business and will go to greatest lengths to make the product better. He is a definite pick for the face of the generation, even if a lot of people might not like him; then there is Edge of course, there are Orton and Batista (even if they are often critized, especially Batista - but well, he is just the Warrior/Goldberg of this era, you also need those) and of course the up-and-coming hopefuls in the midcard. Now while hardly any of those will ever be as great as the Rock was on the mic, let's face it - In terms of timing, of mic abilities, there never was a better man than The Rock at the later stages of his career. It will be hard for anyone to even come close to that; the only one who could right now would probably be Y2J, whose time I feel has finally come now. But let's not get carried away here.
In closing, I just want to say that I believe it is first and foremost the lack of competition that causes WWE's progamming to be as it is - but frankly spoken, it's working out for WWE right now.
I just have to look at WWE's popularity here in Austria, where they are able to completely sell out venues of 8000 - 10.000 people every time they come these days, when back in 2002, 2003 or so, when they were also doing a tour and were planning to come to Austria, and f'n STEVE AUSTIN was still advertised on the posters, they actually had to CANCEL the show here because ticket sales were that bad, to see that WWE is doing more than great right now. Of course they are not taking risks; they simply don't need to. Who would they lose their viewers to? They can do anything they want, and enough people will still buy the product, as there simply are no reasonable alternatives. Sad as it may seem, but that to my mind is the reason for the state of the wrestling scene.
Maybe the storylines are bad, maybe the way they are pulled off and often scrapped is bad - but in the end, it all doesn't matter as long as there is no competition that could take viewers away from WWE.
And even if they lose viewers over this altogether (which is illustrated by the ratings drops), many many fans still linger just because of this lack of alternatives.
