What has hurt the WWE more: PG Rating or Brand Split

[justinept]

There's no denying that wrestling isn't as popular as it was just 10 years ago. Back then, a bad rating for a show was in the 4's ... and that was when the audience was supposedly split between Raw and Nitro. Consistently, the two shows would combined for about a 10 rating... These days, the WWE is struggling to get a 3.5 rating when technically going unopposed by a wrestling show.

What is more to blame for this: The PG rating or the Brand Split.

I know these boards have been littered with people who hate the PG era that the WWE product has slapped on its product, but I don't believe that is the true culprit for the demise of pro wrestling's ratings.

I look back at 2002 when the brand split first took place as the turning point in WWE's popularity. The concept was simple: We have no competition, we have 100% of the market, so let's split the company in to two companies, run twice as many shows and double the profit!

Lets fast forward a few years, and you now have roughly 25 wrestlers for each of the two big shows. In those 25 wrestlers, you have maybe 5-6 guys on each show who is credible enough to hold a World Title (Raw: Trips, Cena, Orton, HBK, Big Show, Shaemus... SD: (UT. Edge, Jericho, Punk, Batista, Mysterio) You have maybe another 4-5 guys who could hold the mid-card title on each show (Raw: Kofi, DiBiase, MVP, Miz... SD: McIntire, Morrison, R. Truth, Kane, Ziggler) You then have 10-15 guys who are either throw-away talent or are trying to establish themselves as stars in the industry (Rhodes, Bourne, Santino, Swagger, etc...)

On top of that, you now have 2 World Title and 2 mid-card title ... which, in my opinion, devalues the titles while also over-valuing the title chase. The mid-card title used to mean something, but with the creation of multiple World Titles, it has devalued the mid-card title. While the IC title used to propel guys to stardom (Austin, Rock, HHH), it is now more-or-less a prop that most recently was defended at the Royal Rumble unannounced. Furthermore, the creation of so many title has over-valued the title chase. These days, if you aren't chasing the World Title or the mid-card title, then you're lucky to be in a program. There's no working your way to the top of the ladder, building your character by fighting for a chance to get a chance at a title. It is all instant gratification. You're either fighting for the World Title or people think the WWE has botched your stardom.

The two most damning points I have to the brand split hurting Raw more than the PG rating are:

1) Repeat main events. The WWE has about 10-12 established main eventers. There are so many guys who I would buy a ppv to watch fight for the World Title ... but because the WWE has to give me two World Title matches ... and because the pool of people who can be put into either World Title match is split in half, we went through a year period where we saw either Cena/Orton or HHH/Orton ... If there was one World Title, then we could see ... Cena/Punk, HHH/UT, Batista/HHH, HHH/Edge, Cena/UT, Jericho/HHH, HBK/Punk ... the pool of matches would be greater... furthermore, it would enhance the undercard as we could still see these feuds played out in non World Title programs... The same proponent can be put into place for the mid-card feuds.

2) Does TNA have more talent than WWE? This question was seriously posed on a board a few weeks ago, and I just laughed at it. TNA has nowhere near the talent of WWE. That's not meant as a knock on TNA - which has some serious talent in its company. But it got me thinking why people would believe that TNA has more talent than WWE ... and the reason I came up with is becuase the WWE splits its talent in to two separate entities as if it is two different companies.

But I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks. What has hurt WWE more in the past decade ... the brand split or the PG rating.

 

[Genius_Deadman]

i'll say the brand split.

the brand split has killed tag team wrestling so far, we're seeing more of it now. but WWE broke up tag teams and had a smaller roster, so tag teams were scrapped. tag wrestling brings variety, more feuds, more storylines, more uniqueness.

i also think the extension went over the "line" which was the brand extension. when it was Steph and Bischoff, it was awesome. they fought for guys to sign with them, they "invaded" shows, etc. it was fun to watch, it brought the Monday Night Wars feel at times, where we saw it as legit competition of sorts. now it's stale. guys going over to other brands, ECW teamed up with SD at a point and they both in a sense "combined" brands, it lost that feeling.

 

[worldchamp101]

I leaning more towards the PG ratings than I am towards the Brand Split. It feels like WWE is dumbing down wrestling over the years just to attract the kids. I think that the Brand Split in a way helped WWE because it allowed for more storylines to evolve and more airtime for the wrestlers. Think about it this way:WWE had purchased its two biggest competitors before the brand split, WCW and ECW. It would've been nearly impossible for every single superstar to be somehow involved in a storyline for 2 hours a week. That is why they would need the Brand Split. But look at the quality of the matches we have seen as of late. How many wreslters do we see applying a submission manuever on a regular basis lately? How rivalries do we witness that will have a lasting impression on us? How many matches can we watch and say was an amazing match? Not asmuch as we used to right? Think of the Montreal Screwjob, or of when Brock Lesnar superplexed the Big Show and the ring collapsed. How about the Brock Lesnar and Kurt Angle fued and their match at Wrestlemania 19 for the WWE Championship. Does anyone remember the Hardcore Holly vs Big Show match in which Holly won by making the Big Show tap after using a chiar to strangle him. Personally speaking, it feels that for the sake of getting of getting more kids to watch, things were dumbed down and the quality of the matches suffered.

 

[RKOHBK9693]

Its hard to say which one has wwe more in ratings. i think that the brand extension went useless once they got rid of brand exclusive ppvs and that you cant build matches they way you could if you had more time to make the fued worth something. It really devalued the titles alot also as u said uve got the same guys fighting eachother almost every ppv now just with different stipulations in some. I think that if they were to end the brand split it would probably make the product better. Cause GMs have really gone stale to me and i would like to see vince really controlling the shows as hes as good as it gets on the mic and it gives more of a real feel to it since u know hes the owner so get rid of the brand split give so teaks and the product will be better.

 

[goodlay]

This is pretty easy for me: Brand Split.

The brand split was cool initially and was okay due to the overflow of guys that were coming in from ECW/WCW. But in today's WWE it just doesn't work. It's cool for like a week after the draft, seeing guys on different shows, but it really limits feuds/potential matchups that you can have on each brand, and it can really make certain matchups and guys feel really stale. Also, prior to 2007, the individual brand PPV's were absolutely terrible for the most part. They mainly were just slightly enhanced episodes of Raw and Smackdown. There was so much filler that just could have been on Raw and Smackdown.

People bitch about the PG rating way too much. Yeah, the kiddy segments are annoying, it sucks not seeing blood, but the focus seems to be more on the wrestling rather than the ridiculous storylines we saw in the attitude era. Yeah, Austin getting run over by a car was badass as shit, but thinking about shit like the castration of Val Venis doesn't really make me miss it that much. The brand split did a damn good job at nearly killing the company, and it continues its work today.

 

[Greenlight13]

The point about main eventers is a good one, we've seen the same 3 or so guys dominate on either brand for years whereas before it seemed there was a limitless combination of guys they could put together for a main event and keep it feeling fresh. Rarely did you get two PPV rematches.

The Brand Split

Pros
1) Gives all the main eventers something to do, rather than pushing two to the forefront each month and relegating the others to the mid-card.

2) Allows the mid and lower card talent a chance to shine that they wouldn't have gotten before

3) Each show not only looks different but feels different with opposing styles. Raw used to have the divas, smackdown the cruiserweights.

4) Inter-Brand warfare makes for an interesting dynamic

5) Draft Night is always exciting.

6) The inclusion of ECW allowed them to develop new stars in front of a big audience and many have moved on to become champions such as CM Punk, John Morrison, The Miz, Kofi Kingston and Sheamus. Veterans could also be brought in to help raise them.

Cons
1) 3-4 weeks between PPVs makes for some rather lackluster feuds which hurts the buy rate. When a week used to consist of 4 hours of tv instead of 2 that wasn't a problem.

2) In recent years the mid and lower card have dried up and having them spread thin has exposed this to a greater degree than if they combined them together.

3) The cruiserweights are all gone so divas have been spread thin amongst both brands and its made them suffer for it.

4) The number of tag teams has diminished which led to one set of champions who appear on every show.

5) It isn't uncommon for wrestlers to appear on different shows anymore. Back in the day it had to be a trade or some kind of invasion.

6) ECW messed up the dynamics a lot, for example Survivor Series, Bragging Rights, Royal Rumble.

Solutions? Well, the guest host concept has made Raw and Smackdown feel different again... not that it's a good concept. ECW is about to have its roster assimilated into the other two so that should strengthen them again.

All in all I think the split was needed because the roster got way too big, but it's now shrunk a bit due to new budgetary constraints. Both brands wrestle on PPV so the audience don't need to pay any extra money to keep up. New stars have been created that may not have managed to make a name for themselves before. I don't think it's hurt WWE's business much if at all.

The PG Rating

Pros
1) Children buy the merchandise, merchandise is where the big money is. Merchandise appears (at a glance) to be at an all-time high.

2) The WWE doesn't get bashed by the media as being a bad influence as much anymore. Makes for better PR generally.

3) Less weapon and blood spots leads to healthier, more durable wrestlers.

4) Advertisers are more comfortable associating themselves with a family-friendly company.

Cons
1) At times the WWE appear to be dumbing down and pitching directly to their young audience rather than simply making it suitable for them. This, to adults, makes for shallow storylines. CM Punk's current storyline is an exception as it appears to go straight over kids' heads.

2) The guest hosts are likely only really possible thanks to the PG Era because of the advertising revenue and public image that I mentioned in the pros. Unfortunately the guest hosts bring more bad press than good as far as I can tell. The WWE get made fun of on sports center every time an athlete hosts.

3) An entire Hell in a Cell PPV with not a single blood spot felt a bit of a cop-out. Having EMTs come out and close John Cena up in the middle of the final match in the biggest feud of the year killed the buzz.

4) We seem to be getting more ad breaks than ever before. I hate leaving a main event halfway through, or even worse, the good old lets clothesline everyone out of the ring and have the faces pose and then when we come back the heel has a rest hold on.

Solutions? The guest host concept is running to Wrestlemania but may not continue to do so afterwards, which may stop the public bashing and sillyness. CM Punk is running a clearly adult storyline and doing so quite successfully so you have to believe more of the same is possible.

All in all the PG-Era was a smart business move and they appear to be making a killing off merchandise these days. The guest hosts have bastardized Raw and turned it into the stereotype the public have always had of wrestling: silly, badly acted, over the top. The guys have to miss seeing the girls in their underwear from time to time too.

So which is more to blame for the decline in ratings in the last decade? Well... neither in my opinion. I think that wrestling generally peaked and won't match that again. People have turned to reality television and MMA and all sorts of other forms of entertainment. Perhaps it was just one generation of fans that was responsible for the huge boom and now they're older they have lost interest. The no-compete clauses and lack of a main competitor have killed some of the surprises. The internet has killed even more of the surprises. Maybe it's the change in the writing staff. Maybe the wrestlers just aren't as good.

If you put a gun to my head and made me choose one or the other I'd go for the brand split spreading the recession-impacted talent roster too thin and exposing the flaws in both.

 

[The_Instant_Classic]

Honestly i think there is no right answer to this question. The brand split absolutely destroyed main events, like you said there is only a total of 10-12 main eventers and i feel like 8 or 9 of them are on RAW, and Christian would be a main eventer but Vince hates him and he's stuck on ECW (but not for long ). Every wrestling fan over the age of 16 is sick and tired of seeing the same main events at PPV's over and over again and because of that we no longer have Survivor Series. The brand split actually cost us one of the greatest PPV's of all time!!!

The PG era has taken away all of the attitude that made WWE famous. If The Rock or Stone Cold came back to wrestling it probably still wouldn't be worth watching because they wouldn't even be able to cut a decent promo. Can you imagine Steve Austin calling some one a "son of a jerk" or the rock telling people he's going to "layeth the smacketh down on all your candy behinds!". It is true that the PG era earns more money for WWE than the attitude era ever did, but the ratings and product have obviously suffered because of it.

 

[Savion83]

I'll ah tell ya'll like this!

Of course the PG ratings is all Vince McMahon's idea. Ever since Vinnie mac became a grandfather, he see things in the WWE are just a little too edgy for the children, mainly his grandchildren. Vince is looking at the wrestling industy through the eyes of a grandfather! And in a retrospeck there's nothing wrong with that. But in our view as lifelong wrestling fans, the WWE is really being watered down.

D-Generation X for exsample! There no where near what they were when the whole DX group came along. I mean sure both HBK & HHH are now parents themsevles and married. But what's the point in hav'in DX brought back if they don't break anymore ground TV?? I mean (not to sound gay) they don't even show there asses anymore!

Maybe the re-birth of the Monday night wars is what Vince McMahon/the WWE needs to wake the hell up in my opinion.

 

[SinCityBlitz]

I'll ah tell ya'll like this!

Of course the PG ratings is all Vince McMahon's idea. Ever since Vinnie mac became a grandfather, he see things in the WWE are just a little too edgy for the children, mainly his grandchildren. Vince is looking at the wrestling industy through the eyes of a grandfather! And in a retrospeck there's nothing wrong with that. But in our view as lifelong wrestling fans, the WWE is really being watered down.

D-Generation X for exsample! There no where near what they were when the whole DX group came along. I mean sure both HBK & HHH are now parents themsevles and married. But what's the point in hav'in DX brought back if they don't break anymore ground TV?? I mean (not to sound gay) they don't even show there asses anymore!

Maybe the re-birth of the Monday night wars is what Vince McMahon/the WWE needs to wake the hell up in my opinion.

This might be true if the WWE/WWF wasn't PG in the 80's but it was. People act like PG is a new thing and it's not. The WWE has been PG for a lot longer than they were ever anything else. Some of you need to understand that wrestling was around before the Monday Night Wars and the Attitude Era.

As far as the topic goes, I don't think either has hurt the WWE. The lack of competition has hurt worse than anything.

 

[Nadeem Ahmad]

The no-compete clauses and lack of a main competitor have killed some of the surprises. The internet has killed even more of the surprises. Maybe it's the change in the writing staff. Maybe the wrestlers just aren't as good.

If you put a gun to my head and made me choose one or the other I'd go for the brand split spreading the recession-impacted talent roster too thin and exposing the flaws in both.

I was not sure what the "no-compete clauses" were. Did you mean kayfabe or reality? Also, most of those reasons were right except for the wrestlers not being as good. Athletes like Brock Lesnar, Kurt Angle, John Morrison, Shelton Benjamin, Christian, Edge, John Cena and Randy Orton really brought up the levels of intensity and technical wrestling. I think I read about them having to work at more programs including "house shows" than the wrestlers of the eighties and early nineties needed.

 

[Highfly Warrior]

I think the PG rating has tooken out all of the remaining realism in the WWE. When two high caliber superstars are acting like they truely hate each other, a few small swear words gets there point across and funny enough gets the croud pumped. Im not saying wrestlers need swearing in there promos, but I do miss it.
Blood! Blood was one of the best ways for guys in a cage match,HIAC,extreme rules to really showcase a barberrack match.
But one of the things that is ruining wwe is ( cant believe im saying it) they have too many weekly shows, and too many PPV's. Consider the match between John Cena and HHH, two of the best in the buisness, but this has got to be there 4-5 encounter. Its lost all its flare. Although HBK and the undertaker had one of the best matches in history, I feal they are overdoing it again with a wrestlemania match. those are just my thoughts.

 

[JBK2008]

The brand split gave mid carders the chance to shine, but most of them failed or the main eventers hogged it and killed their chance. Triple H is a perfect to the T example. The tag team division got decimated and the divas' division is very very thin now. It was nice at first to have everyone get a chance on t.v but it also showed why everyone wasn't fit for t.v every week.

The brand split will need to end I think in order to start fixing the WWE. With Raw, SmackDown and Superstars, that's still 5 hours to showcase the main feuds while getting different mid carders and what not on t.v every week.

 

[Mr_billy]

I'd have to say neither, just poor creative. You could still do a lot of interesting stuff through innuendo and other techniques and maintain a PG rating. They need more personal feuds, keep some story lines held over to another ppv, remember, some feuds would last months before matches even happened. Internet spoilers are killing wrestling ratings, because I know a lot of people who read the spoilers, and if the results do not strike them as good, they refuse to watch. Smack Down on Wed or Thurs would help it's ratings because Friday is party night or date night. So PPV being so cose together and poor story lines are the problem. Also wrestling is cyclic and 20-30's big, 40's slow 50's and 60's big, 70's kind of slow, 80's Hogan era, 90's until 1997, wrestling was kind of weak, and I even quit watching, 97-04 big again, we are just in a low popularity cycle. Maybe bringing in some good managers might help.

 

[SickJames]

PG Era because the brand split was needed when it happened, just got stale. Thing is IF it was still Attitude like and this PG crap was gone it'd be better for WWE

When it comes down to it it's crap to think kids wont watch if it's Attitude all over again. Stone Cold sold more merchandise than anyone and he was in the Attitude Era. And you more stars in the Attitude Era especially when the InVasion storyline happened


I just feel it sucks that cartoons are less PG than wrestling

 

[Kanye South]

Obviously the Brand Split. The WWE was awesome at times before the Attitude Era and it was about as PG as you could get. And there was no Brand Split. The WWE can still do decent angles, but the thing they suffer from most is that four or five guys are stuck in the main event. I say that the best time on WWE programming was around 2001 when they had Raw and Smackdown, but nobody was stuck on one show, and there were two world titles. WCW Title and Undisputed. I think that this could work today in the PG Era. Keep two world titles, one tag team, one women's, and two midcard. This would make the feuds much more interesting. If WWE has two shows that talent can jump around with, then it would make shows more unpredictable, and people love unpredictability as much as I love bacon pizza. And I loves me some bacon pizza.

 

[FromTheSouth]

The answer is The Brandsplit. PG has worked in wrestling for all but about eight years of it's history. Splitting the brands has led to a diluted product where far too many guys get far too many title matches because there aren't enough guys to properly flesh out any division. Splitting the brands has also led to the death of tag team wrestling. Forcing people into midcard title feuds when ordinarily they would even sniff that belt has led to tag team wrestling being put on the back burner and not even being remotely interesting.

 

[pessimism101]

I would actually go back further than the Brand Split. The rise and fall of WWE, as it were, could be traced back to 2001 and the Invasion storyline. It had the potential to be one of the biggest storylines in history, but wound up being a hideous flop and I think the product suffered severely for it and it's been downhill ever since. The brand split was desperately needed, but has been executed very poorly the past couple of years. I contribute this to the drafts... which have become predictable and boring.

The PG thing doesn't help any, but it certainly was not the reason for the decline in popularity.

 

[psykohurricane]

personally, i would say neither, it just that wrestling is going through a phase of not being as cool as it once was. That's always happens in wrestling just look at the late 80's when wrestling was super hot with guys like Hogan, Savage and Warrior on top, they were making a lot of money during that period then hogan left, warrior dissapear and savage was retired and wrestling became lame. Even with guys like Bret Hart and shawn micheals nobody seemed to care anymore. Then WCW came along with the NWO and that gave the WWE and wrestling a shot in the arm because WWE was able to change their format and create guys like Stone Cold, HHH and The Rock and wrestling was cool again. But ultimately, i had to end sometime and when both WCW and ECW went bankrupt, the wrestling business took a nosedive in popularity again. I normal with in the wrestling business to have a downtime and while ratings are important,it not as important as making money and the WWE does make a lot of money out of merchandise sales and ppv's so will they are not as popular as they once were. They are still very successful and that all that matters.

 

[HBK619]

The PG rating has made it less violent and more pussy.Now extreme rules are just hardcore,now hell in a cell your not allowed outside of the cell(DX vs Legacy is an exception because they got locked out)and the most common weapon is when HHH brings his sledgehammer to hurt people or someone getting a chair.And still you hardly see the impact.And not even blood.I think the last time i can remember blood on a PPV that i have watched is and im being serious is no way out 2008.

 

[Straight Edge Loyalist]

TV-PG was never a problem, since both Nitro and Raw were rated TV-PG during the Monday Night Wars, when wrestling was most popular.

The brand split has watered down the competition and destroyed two divisions in the process(cruiserweight, tag team) with one currently on life support(ladies).

My vote goes to the Brand Split, although I wouldn't even put the Brand Split as one of the top 5 reasons why the WWE is hurting(poor booking, too many PPVs, lack of characters, bad wrestling, etc.)

 

[JJohns]

Neither one. I think what has hurt the WWE most was the influx of talent after WCW went out of business. Now, before someone tells me that I'm wrong, hear me out.

Before March of 2001, WWE's writers had at the most about 50 guys that they had to worry about on a weekly basis. Even then, they usually just took guys like Raven and Justin Credible, threw them on Heat, and that was the end of it. If they made it to the main shows, they were beaten by an upper midcarder, and that was the end of it.

With the purchase of WCW, they had the single largest talent acquisition in the history of the company. Sure, some guys like Shannon Moore and Mike Sanders were ushered to HWA or OVW, but a great many of them stayed on the main roster.

Now, instead of worrying about maybe 50 guys, you were worried about close to 80. With one creative team, that quickly diluted the talent pool, and even more guys (Val Venis, K-Kwik) were lost in the shuffle. It remained like that until 2002, when WWF finally did the Brand Extension, which gave some of the further undercard guys something to do, but also was able to be used to bring up more of the up-and-comers that were in OVW and HWA, including a couple of guys named Randy Orton and John Cena.

As far as going PG, as long as they don't start having characters like Duke "The Dumpster" Droese and The Goon, I'm OK with that, I don't think that it's going to hurt the company that much.

 

[Dysturbed]

There's no denying that wrestling isn't as popular as it was just 10 years ago. Back then, a bad rating for a show was in the 4's ... and that was when the audience was supposedly split between Raw and Nitro. Consistently, the two shows would combined for about a 10 rating... These days, the WWE is struggling to get a 3.5 rating when technically going unopposed by a wrestling show.

What is more to blame for this: The PG rating or the Brand Split

If we're going to compare older ratings to ones to both the initial drop and then now I think that inevitability is the reason that outweighs both the pg era and split. Greenlight13 touched on that when he mentioned things peaking. Television shows in general tend to go off the air when ratings start to drop too much or they go off the air before they can but WWE keeps on going and going and never had any intention of not doing so (and apparently still doesn't). They were never realistically going to maintain the old ratings forever. Additionally something like Raw is probably a one of a kind thing being the only scripted American primetime tv show that creates as many new episodes per year without the hiatuses that other scripted primtime cable and network shows get. There are non primetime shows that have more episodes (soap operas) but where primetime is concerned WWE is in a league of it’s own even if they just had Raw. When WWE had it’s highest ratings it was part of a fad so to speak. Wrestling itself was popular before and after but the high ratings were part of a phase that, as mentioned inevitability was never going to last forever. When something big or cool happened it was expected by a lot of people for the next thing to be even better cause anything less was a downer to some. WWE couldn't always get better because things were eventually going to stop being as shocking and impressive. The initial hiac matches for example set high standards, but eventually the quick high standards were going to have to set a lower bar.

Regardless of the fact ratings always had a high probability of eventually going down you did mention two things that seem to be a turnoff for some people based on current standards. I personally don’t have a problem with the basic concept of either so I don’t know which I think ultimately hurt WWE more. I do however agree with those who feel that the executions of both the pg and brand extension concepts seem to be what turns people off so it’s probably a combination of both at this point. Some of the ideas that people are always mentioning for how they feel WWE could execute things differently may not be good if actually used but in theory they’re often great suggestions imo. (For example the suggestions offered about tag teams being “used better” and things like that seem like no brainers.)

The key to getting ratings to be at least somewhat higher (but not realistically to the old high) would of course be to offer something that makes people want to watch. If WWE is dead set on having a pg product and the extension then they need to work on getting more people to enjoy what they offer within those things. At the same time maybe people just wouldn't care to watch regardless because, as stated, when something is on long enough it naturally will have lose it's luster to some degree.

But it got me thinking why people would believe that TNA has more talent than WWE .

It could be that they feel that TNA does a better job with giving fans reason to care about certain members of their roster than they feel that WWE does. I'm not saying that is the case (I don't know) just that it may be why they said it. Even if WWE didn't have the split, if they presented certain guys in the same light fans would probably feel the same way about certain guys as they do right now.

I would actually go back further than the Brand Split. The rise and fall of WWE, as it were, could be traced back to 2001 and the Invasion storyline. It had the potential to be one of the biggest storylines in history, but wound up being a hideous flop and I think the product suffered severely for it and it's been downhill ever since.

That is another example of a concept being good but the execution not being good(depending on opinions). WWE didn't have a lot of the bigger names and that's fine with me personally but possibly doing more with what they did have, not having non stop title switches, etc would have pleased some portion of fans more.

we no longer have Survivor Series. The brand split actually cost us one of the greatest PPV's of all time!!!
.

The split very well may be the reason, but I'm not sure if it is. It's possible that WWE just made a choice to move on just like they have made a lot of other choices that aren't always pleasing to a lot of fans. Years ago when they stopped with the KOTR ppv they said that it was because they felt like the other matches on the card were overshadowing the tourney. Why not do their best to let the tourney outweigh the other matches for that particular month? They apparently didn't want to. This time they seem to feel like SS isn't worth focusing on but I'm not sure if we can really blame the split as opposed to WWE just making a choice that they could have possibly made even without it. Either way I don't know so I'm not saying that you are wrong.

Internet spoilers are killing wrestling ratings, because I know a lot of people who read the spoilers, and if the results do not strike them as good, they refuse to watch. .

That's got to be a big part too. There are plenty of people that don't care if they know what will happen because they enjoy seeing it play out but like you said there are those who immediately feel that it's not appealing and therefore their desire to watch is gone.

 

[The Roid Rage]

This might be true if the WWE/WWF wasn't PG in the 80's but it was. People act like PG is a new thing and it's not. The WWE has been PG for a lot longer than they were ever anything else. Some of you need to understand that wrestling was around before the Monday Night Wars and the Attitude Era.

As far as the topic goes, I don't think either has hurt the WWE. The lack of competition has hurt worse than anything.

This post said it all.

My sentiments exactly. The PG era is not to blame, and I wouldn't put so much of the brunt on the brand extension either. You have to remember that the WWE has been PG for most of it's existence. The best example is the Hogan Era. If PG was so bad, that wouldn't have worked. But, if you look back to those days there was territorial competition as well. It all comes down to competition. When WCW and WWF were feuding, both parties had to put their best foot forward. Each one tried to top the other, they all did crazy shit, and it made people watch. Since there has been no competition that is when things have went downhill so to speak.

I personally don't think anything is wrong with wrestling for the most part. Sure, it's not quite as popular as it was at one time, but as mentioned by some of you this is a natural thing as well. It has been noted that after the Hogan Era there was a drop in viewers, as there has been after the MNW. I agree with the above quote that a lot of you need to remember that wrestling was around long before the MNW, and that it was successful before them as well. The Hogan Era is still arguably the biggest point in wrestling history to date. Then, if you look back to the territory days, guys like Ric Flair, Bruno Sammartino, and Andre the Giant, were selling out arenas with over 100,000 people. Why aren't they doing that anymore? I'm not entirely sure. Back in the day a lot of those 100,000+ crowds were in outdoor arenas and that is not the way of things anymore so that is probably a big part of it.

If you want to get down to what is "wrong with wrestling" I'd have to say it's the fans. You and me. We are the problem. We were treated to so such great material through our lives that our standards have grown higher and higher. Also, now that there is no competition to drive the industry it has become harder to keep things interesting. How do you sell an unrivaled product? If Microsoft didn't have Apple to compete with how would you sell Windows? If Chevy didn't have Ford to compete with how would you sell Silverado's? You get my drift? I think once TNA gets bigger and becomes more of a threat you are going to see wrestling become more popular again, and you are going to see the best product either company can create. It just takes time. I'd give it another year maybe two and we will be talking about how much better wrestling has become.

 

[buckfast67uk]

the Brand split

I have been saying this for yours.

10 years ago, granted you had guys like the Rock, Stone Cold, HHH - huge main eventers that would have you tuning in every night.

I used to watch Raw and come the end be salivating at the prospect of Smackdown! later in the week. As soon as the brand split happened i knew it was a bad idea. I effectively stopped watching Smackdown! 5 years ago.
Why have talent confined to one show?

If the WWE shaved the roster down a little and had two shows for one product they would certainly get +1 on their ratings for Smackdown because i would start watching again.

If there are others like me it would only make business sense to do so. They wisely abandoned the single brand pay-per-view concept and if they have any nouse they'll do so with the weekly shows too.