What's the MAIN reason the WWE appears to be in a slump right now??

[Why Always Me]

Ok, we have all given reasons in various threads as to why the WWE seems to be in a slump at the moment, but what I want to know is which is the biggest reason.

From looking at various threads these are the main reasons that seem to be thrown around:

PG Rating
Having split rosters
No Undisputed World title
No marque star on the level of Austin or The Rock
Too many PPV's
Smackdown isn't live so people read spoilers and then don't watch (I am guilty of this)
Lack of competition

For me the biggest reason is not having a star on the level of The Rock or Austin. Yes John Cena is the face of the WWE, but he aint nowhere near the level of Rock or Austin. These two (Rock in particular) were in numeruos sports magazines debating whether wrestling, baseball or the NFL was the favourite pastime in the US, presting Saturday Night Live, being at MTV awards etc.......

All of the other reasons above contribute IMO, but this for me is a big big reason.

 

[Gabbo]

I don't agree. I fail to see how the WWE getting extra publicity from SNL, magazines or film jobs would increase the quality of programming.

Depends what you mean by slump if you're talking about ratings and ppv buys being down, you may have a semblance of a point but the fact is ratings and ppv buys are dropping. The fans were there originally and they're switching off, it has nothing to do with a lack of awareness of the product.

The talent is there and it's being run by the same guy it was during the Golden Era or the Attitude Era, it's just the lack of competition that breeds complacency and laziness. The Golden Era forced Vince to be the best to destroy the AWA, NWA and the territory system in general. When that was accomplished and the WWF was the biggest they slacked off into a mediocre 'New Generation'. Then Turner's millions, Bischoff and the nWo forced Vince into higher quality programming again.

Guys like Foley, Michaels, Jacobs, Calaway, McMahon, Austin etc were around in the New Gen but it was the Attitude Era that they all raised their game.

I feel dirty banging on about Eras and whatnot, but when Vince is pushed he can produce good tv.

 

[airvar]

The new stars being pushed.
It will ultimently be good for the product but right now they are trying to establish new stars who have no credibility, or past fame to draw people in. With the old guys retiring they waited far to long to establish a new crop of main eventers, and while they have done a decent job pushing them all at once , there is a distinct lack of "big names" to really draw ratings. That's probably why they put the belt back on orton, to help salvage the recent turn in ratings. Untill guys like sheamus, barrett , the miz, ect. Start to establish themselves outisde the wwe, and draw big on there own its going to continue to do poorly. It takes more than 6 months to develop this much young talent, but because they hav e ignored the issue for so long they are going to and will take a hit in ratings ppv buys , ect. While these guys continue to get big enough outside the wwe to draw.

 

[Sheabob]

it's got to be the pg rating, i mean back in the attitude era u could turn on wwe programs and u couldn't know what was goin to happen on raw or even smackdown, now wwe is to praditable, no chair shots no blood and no star power, i personly think thats y ppl have started watchin more tna because they miss the wwe attitude era

 

[hunterXhunter21]

I think WWE does enough when it comes to public awareness. Seems like they are always plugging a star on something. I think the reason The Rock and Stone Cold seem like bigger stars is because the WWE was bigger.

I think the problem things may be at a low point is the target audience they are trying to reach. 14 year olds don't have jobs. So they don't have money for PPVs or other things. They are not in charge of what comes on the family tv. When an older audience is your target they have more money and more say in what happens in the house.

Also I think the lack of any real heels is another problem. Yeah Sheamus gets boos and so does Nexus. But the get cheers too. Make a heel no one could ever cheer for. DON'T sell t-shirts for them. Make people hate him so much they don't even want to buy his action figure. Just everyone seems to be kinda a tweener. No one is get a whole arena full of boos. There is always someone wearing a heels shirt that is cheering. You need better heel vs face story lines. Have the heel be a dick out side of the ring also. Have him show up on The Late Show or Regis and Kelly and play a heel.

 

[LokiCobain]

There's one thing you're missing that I have been saying for quite some time is the problem, and it's what Paul Heyman said was going to be TNA's problem:

"I also explained how we would make this thing move and an acknowledgment that wrestling is a diminishing market and it's not perceived as cool."

Everything has been steadily declining for a decade. Perhaps this is the long term effect of Vince admitting it's fake and moving it more to the realm of "traveling circus" than "sporting event", or maybe it's just that times change. Hockey is a diminishing market as well (in the United States). It doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong, it just means that the demand isn't there.

With that said, WWE (or TNA) don't help try to revitalize it. I would've voted for two things: the PG rating and the 0 competition.

I don't care about the PG rating from a product perspective, meaning now it's for kids so the product will be bad. But what the PG rating does on a global scale is say "this is for kids". When the kids grow up, when all those kids who are decked out in John Cena wristbands and Jeff Hardy armbands age a few years, they're going to stop watching. Even in the 90s, wrestling got the rep of being "for kids", and that was the Attitude Era. I remember being in elementary school and having to defend it as being entertaining. Imagine what kids today have to try defending. Business-wise, WWE is going to make a boatload off of merchandise, but long term, they won't have a market. Maybe this is Vince's plan, the first and last Emperor of Wrestling.

The 0 competition has lead WWE to focus on merchandise sales and the kids. When a company has a monopoly, the product always suffers. You don't do a heel turn because you'll lose money, not because it doesn't work. TNA is doing the opposite, and it's ridiculous. They're just turning everyone for "shock", but it's not shocking if it's all you do. They're not being competitive. They were being more competitive before they started getting "cocky" (not the best word) and started changing up from their original format of TOTAL NONSTOP ACTION. It's not TOTAL NONSTOP ACTION RIGHT AFTER 25 MINUTES OF BABBLING ABOUT DECEPTION. Action is what they should have always been focusing on. Guys like Jeff and Rob can deliver matches. Don't give them a mic. Let Flair talk for AJ, and let AJ go out there and be phenomenal. Focus on the action, and you will compete. I enjoyed watching the few episodes of the AAA Lucha Libre show and random NWA and ROH shows because it's action. They're doing it right. TNA, although I greatly prefer them to WWE, has been slowly moving away from the one thing it had going for itself, and that keeps WWE with no competition.

 

[Calderownz]

Transition is never going well. It only went well.

What I mean by that is that transition hardly ever feels goood, looks good and you doubt it at times, almost all the way through. However, in the end, you often times realize how good it was for whatever you are trying to advance. In hindsight, in past-tense, you realize how good it was.

Right now, transition is happening. You see it with the new direction (good or bad), you see the new superstars coming on board. (Mostly good, some awful.) It takes time, however. People seem to forget that once Steve Austin entered WWF at the time, it took him two hard years of pushing before he actually made any real noise. And two things factored into that. He was a special kind of performer and he had several years of WCW experience.

These things take time. You are going to find more duds then studs in this sport. But, once you find the two or three guys to take you to the next level, you're golden.

Some things to keep in mind.

I never considered WWE to be in a slump. Yes, buy-rates are down and ratings are down. But from phenomenal highs. Most boxing and MMA companies that sell PPV would LOVE to get those PPV numbers. Not a Pacquiao fight, and not the biggest UFC bout. But, your average show has numbers that pale in comparison to the average WWE pay-per-view.

As far as the ratings, WWE is still the king of cable. They are essentially competing with themselves, in terms of the ratings. American Idol can't win a battle against themselves from their previous highs, we shouldn't expect WWE to be able to. And I doubt anyone considers American Idol a ratings failure.

 

[RupertPupkin]

I'll go with "None Of The Above".

I think their biggest problem is taking some of their stars to the next level. I agree with elevating stars to Main Event status----but they need go to even higher with some of these guys ( Sheamus, Punk, Miz). Sure Sheamus had 2 title reigns, but they were short lived and almost forgotten. Miz is on his way up, and Punk is fading.

They have lost too many stars this past year (HBK, Batista, Jericho?) and haven't been able to elevate any of this mid-stars to GIGANTIC status.

 

[WunNightStan619]

I think the problems lie in a couple of areas. The first being creative. The creative team is not providing compelling storylines or making any new characters (any good wuns anyway). Back in the old days EVERYWUN had a storyline from Stone Cold, to Crash Holly. Now the focus goes to the main eventers. there is no tag team division worth pissing on, above all else, the quality of the matches are in the toilet. They dont even wrestle anymore, it looks more like they are dancing a routine that they've practiced over andd over, its just not believable.

The second, is the pg rating factor. People are naturally drawn to vulgarity. IF you watch wrestling, you cant be expecting them to make nice with each other. U wanna see, blood, u wanna hear a real confrentation between 2 ppl, u wanna see something happen. Pple can turn wwe on today and swear its the corniest thing in the world and then change the channel....which brings me to my next point

3rd is, the talent. The talent is nowhere near the caliber of what fans from the attitude era are used to. The guys now cant even cut a decent, believable promo. This could partically be due to the fact that they are somewhat limited by the pg rating, but that should not be an excuse for a TRUE ENTERTAINER. Then u have a guy like the Miz who is nice on the mic, but like 5years ago this guy was on the damn real world running around like a little kid. Soooo im now im spose to believe that he can actually get in the ring and wrestle somewun like randy orton or HHH or the Undertaker? gimmie a break. They are not realistic enough

4th, no competition.....

5th, linda mcmahon's running for senate. They have to dumb down the product considerably

the last reason is probably the biggest reason in my opinion. the simple fact that the WWE is not concerned about ratings. This is evidant, by the fact that they moved smackdown to sci-fi. there are a TON of ppl who dont even gett sci-fi so why would they move it there? Same reason they went pg, same reason the characters are more like comic book cartoon characters, same reason they are all about merchandise sales. THEY ARE ABOUT MAKING MONEY.....

Nowun is gonna tell me that the WWE CANT come up with new storylines n characters n whatnot. They could very easily do it. And it was proven to me last year when they had Raw in MSG and put on wun of the GREATEST shows ive ever seen from wrestling...and it came from the pg era btw. its just the fact they are about making money, and im not gonna knock their hustle, but it just sucks that us older fans are suffering from it

 

[Rasha]

I don't agree. I fail to see how the WWE getting extra publicity from SNL, magazines or film jobs would increase the quality of programming.

I agree with this point. The extra publicity from SNL, Larry King Live, and even ESPN at one point was a result, not a cause, of the Attitude Era. When wrestling was at its peak these other entities tapped in to benefit themselves. Now that wrestling's in a slump they've gone back to ignoring it.

The talent is there and it's being run by the same guy it was during the Golden Era or the Attitude Era, it's just the lack of competition that breeds complacency and laziness. The Golden Era forced Vince to be the best to destroy the AWA, NWA and the territory system in general. When that was accomplished and the WWF was the biggest they slacked off into a mediocre 'New Generation'. Then Turner's millions, Bischoff and the nWo forced Vince into higher quality programming again.

... I feel dirty banging on about Eras and whatnot, but when Vince is pushed he can produce good tv.

Jerry Jones was the GM when the Dallas Cowboys won three Super Bowls from 1992-1995, but that doesn't mean he's still a great GM today. The game changes and many times older owners, GMs, coaches, etc. are left behind by the new age. I'm not saying Vince isn't capable of correcting the course of the WWE, but his past success means very little.

As far as the OP goes, I think the answer is pretty simple; 1996-2000 spoiled wrestling fans to the point that there's little the WWE, TNA, or anyone else can do to get past it. I voted for the "Austin/Rock" option in the poll, but I think it goes beyond that. Throw in the Hogan heel turn and the NWO. Throw in Sting. Throw in Goldberg's early run. Throw in DX. Throw in the Ministry of Darkness. Throw in the days when guys like Eddie Guerrero and Chris Jericho were opening acts on Nitro, or Kurt Angle was competing for the European Championship.

Two things have happened; the talent level has dropped and most of the good ideas have already been used. You can't form a stable anymore without it getting compared to the NWO, Horsemen, DX or something else. You can't have a cocky trash-talker who isn't called the "poor man's Rock," or a never-say-die badass who isn't an "Austin wanna-be." And what's worse, the average wrestler today simply isn't as good as what he was 10-15 years ago. It happens; the NBA today was way more talented than the NBA 10 years ago. But the NBA in the 80s was also more talented. There are rises and falls in all industries, and this is simply a low time for wrestling.

The WWE's success should be measured, not by if they restore the glory days, but how they adjust to the current drought. They can't control the quality of the talent pool or the nature of the modern audience; they can only adapt to them. Perhaps the greatest move Vince can make now is recognizing that his product, like gas-guzzling cars or oversized clothing, is no longer fashionable and scaling back to survive. Maybe it's time to kill the brand split; focusing on RAW and using Smackdown as a B-Team show more like Sunday Night Heat used to be. Whatever the move, the objective should not be to bring back past glory but rather to survive in a new market.

 

[Funkydr79]

Sheabob - I couldn't disagree with you more. I have never been wow-ed by chair shots. It doesn't say anything to me about someone's talent that they can take a shot to the head. Sure they're tough as nails, but being tough alone does not a wrestler make. Arn Anderson is my favorite wrestler of all-time and what made him great was that he was tough (legit) AND could go in the ring with anyone in the business.

Also, you should read Lance Storm's latest comments on his website about the difference between an angle and a storyline. WWE SHOULD be predictable. I should want to buy Bound for Glory because I know Rob Van Dam is going to beat Abyss and I just HAVE to see it! That's how you get buy rates. I don't pay good money to see something I can't see coming. If I could....it wouldn't be an effective swerve.

I think the biggest problem is the storytelling. The feuds today are either completely absurd or completely uninteresting. They don't find the balance. I remember the Jake the Snake vs. Macho Man feud where they had the snake bite macho man in the ring. It was rediculous, but I remember being riveted to the TV. After that though, you had two great wrestlers who each could go in the ring.

I guess my point is that it's the combination of great stories and great talent, and WWE just can't seem to get the right mix today.

 

[Funkydr79]

As far as the OP goes, I think the answer is pretty simple; 1996-2000 spoiled wrestling fans to the point that there's little the WWE, TNA, or anyone else can do to get past it. I voted for the "Austin/Rock" option in the poll, but I think it goes beyond that. Throw in the Hogan heel turn and the NWO. Throw in Sting. Throw in Goldberg's early run. Throw in DX. Throw in the Ministry of Darkness. Throw in the days when guys like Eddie Guerrero and Chris Jericho were opening acts on Nitro, or Kurt Angle was competing for the European Championship.

Two things have happened; the talent level has dropped and most of the good ideas have already been used. You can't form a stable anymore without it getting compared to the NWO, Horsemen, DX or something else. You can't have a cocky trash-talker who isn't called the "poor man's Rock," or a never-say-die badass who isn't an "Austin wanna-be." And what's worse, the average wrestler today simply isn't as good as what he was 10-15 years ago. It happens; the NBA today was way more talented than the NBA 10 years ago. But the NBA in the 80s was also more talented. There are rises and falls in all industries, and this is simply a low time for wrestling.

The WWE's success should be measured, not by if they restore the glory days, but how they adjust to the current drought. They can't control the quality of the talent pool or the nature of the modern audience; they can only adapt to them. Perhaps the greatest move Vince can make now is recognizing that his product, like gas-guzzling cars or oversized clothing, is no longer fashionable and scaling back to survive. Maybe it's time to kill the brand split; focusing on RAW and using Smackdown as a B-Team show more like Sunday Night Heat used to be. Whatever the move, the objective should not be to bring back past glory but rather to survive in a new market.

I usually don't post twice to the same thread but Rasha brought up a really good point. One of the options on this poll should be "The Developmental System." Guys are coming into the business training for a very short time and being pushed onto primetime TV too soon. Take guys like Jericho and Guerrero, they were in the business for years traveling around the country honing their craft before getting breaks to the "big leagues" The territory system and the different international markets gave the WWE the opportunity to weed out the diamonds from the coal and you ended up with a much stronger roster from top to bottom.

I loved the promo on season 2 of NXT between Kaval and Cody Rhodes because Kaval made the point that he has been working for over a decade improving his skills to the point that he was READY for WWE. He proved himself. These younger guys just don't have to sacrifice as much to get to the main show. I know I'm just a wrestling mark and probably shouldn't say that because I haven't made any sacrifices myself, but that doesn't make the point any less true.

What's killing wrestling in general....the system itself.

 

[DeathClutch]

I'll bullet point my opinions for quickness.

1. Smackdown not live, last weeks live episode I was hooked on it, I enjoyed 100x more then I do when it taped, IMO this hurts WWE a lot more then their willing to accept or consider.

2. Roster splits, it's 8+ years old now and it's been beating to death, END the roster split, and release the deadwood talent and use the shows to showcase the younger guys and have the champs revolve around each like the early 2000s.

3. The PG Rating has nothing to do with the slump the problem is WWE doesn't know how to push the limits, the attitude era edgyness would be a god send but we'll never get that kind of era back.

4. To many worthless PPV's, cut them down to 7-8 and bring back a tournament style PPV and use PPV's for their actual meaning TOURNAMENT, SERVIVOR SERIES ELIMINATION MATCHES etc, Night of Champions, MANIA, Rumble & Slam and use the other 2 as gimmick events but swap and change them yearly.

5. Unify the belts and bring back the Hardcore/Extreme "ECW" belt or European/Light heavyweight title for the lighter guys, go back and see what worked and what didn't and revamp it.

6. Quit having super human wrestlers, it's boring pointless and downright insulting to the fans and the other wrestlers when the only way you can win against certain guys is cheating.

7. Cut out the crap.

8. Bring back factions, heels and faces their fun and it gives guys something to do.

9. WWE IS ABOUT THE MONEY... SOO they'll do NOTHING to revamp their current situation.

 

[natlee75]

Ok, we have all given reasons in various threads as to why the WWE seems to be in a slump at the moment, but what I want to know is which is the biggest reason.

From looking at various threads these are the main reasons that seem to be thrown around:

PG Rating
Having split rosters
No Undisputed World title
No marque star on the level of Austin or The Rock
Too many PPV's
Smackdown isn't live so people read spoilers and then don't watch (I am guilty of this)
Lack of competition

For me the biggest reason is not having a star on the level of The Rock or Austin. Yes John Cena is the face of the WWE, but he aint nowhere near the level of Rock or Austin. These two (Rock in particular) were in numeruos sports magazines debating whether wrestling, baseball or the NFL was the favourite pastime in the US, presting Saturday Night Live, being at MTV awards etc.......

All of the other reasons above contribute IMO, but this for me is a big big reason.

I think most of those choices don't hold very much water:

a) The PG rating excuse is just that - an excuse. PG simply means no blood, no overly graphic violence (like realistically choking someone out with a tie or ring rope as opposed to just pulling the bottom rope against the neck), no nudity, and no foul language. Those are just details - they don't make or break a storyline. And PG movies do exponentially better at the box office than R rated movies do.

b) Split rosters? While I'll agree that the whole concept of two separate brands is inane, one can't make a valid argument for this because this has been the way things have been for almost a decade now in both good times and bad times.

c) Similarly, there hasn't been a single unified top championship in the company for quite some time. The creation of the World Heavyweight Championship title occured only about five months after the brand split.

d) Too many PPV's is yet another unsubstantiated reason for the company's woes. There has been one PPV per month for over a decade now, starting when they held the first In Your House PPV in May 1995 after Wrestlemania XI. How can this be the cause for all of WWE's problems now when the situation was exactly the same when WWE was doing remarkably well through not only the past decade but also during the Attitude Era?

e) Has Smackdown ever been live? I don't think it has aside from maybe a once off special or something along those lines. Why would it suddenly be a problem now?

f) Lack of competition? Again, this has been the situation since WCW folded, and one could make a near infallible argument that this was the situation for some time even before WCW folded.

I'm starting to see a pattern with many of these reasons. They sound more like people simply complaining about things they don't like - and maybe haven't liked for a long time. One can't reasonably blame any of these things - or even a culmination of these things - for WWE's current woes with any viable logic.

The only good choice listed above is the one the OP himself chose to support. John Cena is a mega star who sells merchandise probably just as well, if not better, than The Rock, Steve Austin, Hulk Hogan, etc., but he hasn't broken into the mainstream in the same way as those superstars did.

On the other hand, one could make the argument that those guys were really only popular because wrestling was popular at the time. The industry on a whole seems to be on a down right now mainly because the finicky public's tastes have changed.

Or maybe it's because the product has simply gone stale. I think ultimately this is the reason no wrestling organizations are doing exceptionally well right now. The reason WWF started slipping back in the "circus days" was because eventually people got tired of the same damn thing over and over again. WCW revolutionized things with the NWO, then WWF fought back with the Attitude Era gimmicks and angles which truly put wrestling in the mainstream (the NWO was big in the hardcore wrestling fan market but never really broke out into the mainstream).

Those things were a complete 180 from the "wholesome" wrestling product people had grown bored of. The question now is what could WWE possibly do to "revolutionize" the product again? What kind of storyline could shock people so much without crossing the line to offensiveness to revitalize people's interest in what's basically an athletic soap opera?

 

[LigerBomb]

Wrestling isn't "cool". Hasn't been for a while. MMA has overtaken it in that department. Thus demand for the product in general is down. You can make the best product in the world—which WWE isn't doing mind you—but if no one wants to buy it then it doesn't really matter much now does it?

 

[natlee75]

I think the problem things may be at a low point is the target audience they are trying to reach. 14 year olds don't have jobs. So they don't have money for PPVs or other things. They are not in charge of what comes on the family tv. When an older audience is your target they have more money and more say in what happens in the house.

On the contrary, most people spend more on their children than on themselves. There's a reason companies in all different sorts of industries target children. There's a reason movies aimed at children always do better than those aimed solely at adults.

Look at the video game industry: the Wii and DS, both mainly targeted towards children, families and casual (decidedly non-hardcore) gamers, have been trouncing the 360, the PS3 and the PSP.

From a purely business perspective, targeting children is probably one of the smartest things WWE can do.

 

[natlee75]

The new stars being pushed.
It will ultimently be good for the product but right now they are trying to establish new stars who have no credibility, or past fame to draw people in. With the old guys retiring they waited far to long to establish a new crop of main eventers, and while they have done a decent job pushing them all at once , there is a distinct lack of "big names" to really draw ratings. That's probably why they put the belt back on orton, to help salvage the recent turn in ratings. Untill guys like sheamus, barrett , the miz, ect. Start to establish themselves outisde the wwe, and draw big on there own its going to continue to do poorly. It takes more than 6 months to develop this much young talent, but because they hav e ignored the issue for so long they are going to and will take a hit in ratings ppv buys , ect. While these guys continue to get big enough outside the wwe to draw.

That's an interesting point, and one I think pretty much craps all over Eric Bischoff's contention that companies should only focus on the established veterans at the expense of building up younger stars. Bischoff posted a while back on his website that TNA was the smarter company backing guys like Hogan, Nash, Sting, etc. because "established stars rate well" or some similar quote.

While it may be true that having an established veteran can possibly help with the ratings since it's a familiar face, it's ultimately a short sighted tactic because like you said eventually those veterans are going to leave the company and when they do you're stuck with a bunch of young guys with no credibility.

 

[mjtilley]

I don't think too many PPV's is the reason, as UFC is running just as many if not one or fewer PPV's now. The difference is UFC is using old school pro wrestling promotion to build up their shows. Put Lesnar in there with Mir for example, it's 2 guys going for the biggest prize in MMA, and they cut promos on the other to build the hype. Dana has put the guys in position to be built up & credible main eventers. Also with UFC, you don't have to worry aboot Cain Velasquez running in to lay out the other guy. UFC gives u a winner & a loser either by a decision or ko/tapout. WWE has some run in or bs finish that gets old. I think what would hepl WWE long term is stop putting PPV main events on free tv, start going with a clean finish only policy, with the rare exception of a run in for a mega turn or major development. A screwjob ending once in a blue moon for the right reasons is ok, not every 3rd match on RAw/Smackdown. Save the mega names for house shows/PPV, with a rare apperance on Raw/Smackdown. Especially the Champ, do like they used to do with Hogan as champ, they saved his wrestling appearnces for SNME, & on Superstars he would wrestle on 4th of July weekend or Labor Day weekend. Say Orton is Unified Champion, & it was a Labor Day night coming in 4-6 weeks. Hype Orton's match on that episode for the time mentioned, & have him wrestle a mid card guy who needs a bump up the card by having a solid match with Orton winning or surprise ppl if the guy is ready for main events, have him pin Orton clean in a non-title match. I think these few things would help out tremendously in the long run.

 

[Chadmw]

1. OK First of all will people get over the PG Ratings, while I loved the Attitude era myself, an era that was just as big if not bigger was the Rock n Wrestling era of the 80's and that was PG. If your going to continue to watch wrestling hoping the Attitude era will come back to the WWE you might as well quit watching as it is gone (Or go and watch TNA as it is trying to mix the Attitude era and the NWO era together)

2. Split Rosters- While I don't think this is a reason for the decline, I would love to see it end

3. Another theory I have is they lost lots of viewers when RAW went to Spiketv, as that seems to be when the ratings declined. As I beleive in the States Spike does not have the same viewership as the USA Channel. The rating decrease started around that time, and then when they went back to the USA channel all those viewers they lost just never came back

 

[kryptomoose]

Obviously the internet has changed things quite a bit. You used to have to watch to see what happened, but now you can just look at results (sometimes even before they air) and decide if you want to watch. If you think something sounds good, you can catch it on youtube or another site. How many things were really that awesome during the attitude era? Were you blown away by all of it or did you sit through much of it to see the good stuff?

WWE and TNA have not done a great job gripping fans with the quality of their product. I got into wrestling b/c a friend told me "You gotta see Flair." "You gotta see these guys, Deisel and Razor, they used to be in WWF but now they are . . . " What one thing would you tell someone they had to see lately? "You missed Edge trashing a laptop" or going back "You missed Chavo fight Hornswoggle twenty times" People haven't tuned out b/c UFC is the new thing, they've tuned out b/c there's nothing to keep them tuned in. Give them a reason to come back or give fans a reason to urge them to come back and they will.

 

[natlee75]

Transition is never going well. It only went well.

What I mean by that is that transition hardly ever feels goood, looks good and you doubt it at times, almost all the way through. However, in the end, you often times realize how good it was for whatever you are trying to advance. In hindsight, in past-tense, you realize how good it was.

Excellent point!

Right now, transition is happening. You see it with the new direction (good or bad), you see the new superstars coming on board. (Mostly good, some awful.) It takes time, however. People seem to forget that once Steve Austin entered WWF at the time, it took him two hard years of pushing before he actually made any real noise. And two things factored into that. He was a special kind of performer and he had several years of WCW experience.

Actually, it took less than a year. He debuted as The Ringmaster in December 1995. He cemented his name in history with the Austin 3:16 speech after beating Jake Roberts at the King of the Ring in June 1996 in a victory that was originally supposed to be Triple H's (really that is the bottom line core reason why he rose to stardom... imagine what WWF and hell the whole industry would have been like had Levesque not participated in that MSG breaking kayfabe incident).

In less than one year after his debut, Austin had already won King of the Ring, coined an immensely popular catchphrase, participated in a shocking bit (breaking into Pillman's house where Pillman fired a gun at Austin), and wrestled Bret Hart at a major PPV. I'd say that was making quite a bit of noise.

Just over a year after his debut, he won the Royal Rumble with Bret Hart as the last remaining man to be eliminated.

A month later, Austin was in a WWF Championship in a match against Bret Hart, Vader *and* The Undertaker.

A month after that, he was in the famous submission match against Bret at Wrestlemania where he passed out from bleeding instead of submitting.

Etc. and so forth.

True, he didn't win the top belt until Wrestlemania XIV, two years and four months after he debuted, but he was a mega star long before that.

But like you said, he had something special *AND* he was in the right place at the right time. It's unrealistic to expect many people to be able to have such a meteoric rise to stardom.

These things take time. You are going to find more duds then studs in this sport. But, once you find the two or three guys to take you to the next level, you're golden.

Some things to keep in mind.

I never considered WWE to be in a slump. Yes, buy-rates are down and ratings are down. But from phenomenal highs. Most boxing and MMA companies that sell PPV would LOVE to get those PPV numbers. Not a Pacquiao fight, and not the biggest UFC bout. But, your average show has numbers that pale in comparison to the average WWE pay-per-view.

As far as the ratings, WWE is still the king of cable. They are essentially competing with themselves, in terms of the ratings. American Idol can't win a battle against themselves from their previous highs, we shouldn't expect WWE to be able to. And I doubt anyone considers American Idol a ratings failure.

EXCELLENT points. Cheers.

 

[natlee75]

I agree with this point. The extra publicity from SNL, Larry King Live, and even ESPN at one point was a result, not a cause, of the Attitude Era. When wrestling was at its peak these other entities tapped in to benefit themselves. Now that wrestling's in a slump they've gone back to ignoring it.





Jerry Jones was the GM when the Dallas Cowboys won three Super Bowls from 1992-1995, but that doesn't mean he's still a great GM today. The game changes and many times older owners, GMs, coaches, etc. are left behind by the new age. I'm not saying Vince isn't capable of correcting the course of the WWE, but his past success means very little.

As far as the OP goes, I think the answer is pretty simple; 1996-2000 spoiled wrestling fans to the point that there's little the WWE, TNA, or anyone else can do to get past it. I voted for the "Austin/Rock" option in the poll, but I think it goes beyond that. Throw in the Hogan heel turn and the NWO. Throw in Sting. Throw in Goldberg's early run. Throw in DX. Throw in the Ministry of Darkness. Throw in the days when guys like Eddie Guerrero and Chris Jericho were opening acts on Nitro, or Kurt Angle was competing for the European Championship.

Two things have happened; the talent level has dropped and most of the good ideas have already been used. You can't form a stable anymore without it getting compared to the NWO, Horsemen, DX or something else. You can't have a cocky trash-talker who isn't called the "poor man's Rock," or a never-say-die badass who isn't an "Austin wanna-be." And what's worse, the average wrestler today simply isn't as good as what he was 10-15 years ago. It happens; the NBA today was way more talented than the NBA 10 years ago. But the NBA in the 80s was also more talented. There are rises and falls in all industries, and this is simply a low time for wrestling.

The WWE's success should be measured, not by if they restore the glory days, but how they adjust to the current drought. They can't control the quality of the talent pool or the nature of the modern audience; they can only adapt to them. Perhaps the greatest move Vince can make now is recognizing that his product, like gas-guzzling cars or oversized clothing, is no longer fashionable and scaling back to survive. Maybe it's time to kill the brand split; focusing on RAW and using Smackdown as a B-Team show more like Sunday Night Heat used to be. Whatever the move, the objective should not be to bring back past glory but rather to survive in a new market.

I wholly agree with your point about fans having been "spoiled" (although I don't think the term is necessarily appropriate).

I'm afraid I can't think of any way WWE could ever climb back up to that peak again. I mean, really, what could WWE or TNA do that would shock the fans and even mainstream to the same degree that NWO, DX, Austin, Rock, etc. did?

And forget the Hogan heel turn - NOTHING will ever be like that again because in today's wrestling world turns can happen so readily and with people at any level that it just wouldn't be much of a shock anymore.

A John Cena heel turn wouldn't shock most at all, and a lot of people probably WANT to see that since they're so tired of his "I'm the goody two shoes who respects everyone's opinion" character.

Plus, Cena was heel for quite some time early on... most WWF fans didn't see or don't remember the heel Hogan since a lot of fans jumped on board after McMahon decided to put the fate of his company on Bollea's beefy shoulders.

 

[MeerPat]

I think it's because of the UFC.

People who grew up in the attitude era wanting more, they get it in the UFC. And pro wrestling has always been seen negatively because its 'fake.' Since MMA is real, it draw more attention, and quite possibly, away from the WWE

 

[izzardceo]

huh slump ....... ok i guess wwe is doing the same it normally does. The biggest problem is simple and one they cant solve MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL 6 mnf games and the 1 bad football game raw had normal ratings. smackdown is to soap-opera based which it has been 4 a while and nxt is pure crap in other words nothing really changed its the same. people just want 2 complain about the pg era and rant about the good ol days of a decade ago well news flash there will be no more rock,scsa,goldberg,dx,nwo,etc its all done with stop comparing the 2

 

[The Big Cheese]

I think the main reason that the WWE is in the slump that it is in is the PG rating. Theres nothing that really shocks and awws me anymore plus they have matches that call for some blood and hardcore action like HIAC which bombed. I mean sure they entertaining the kids but what about everyone else the fans that want to some blood. This is the causes of low rating and PPV buy rates in my opinion.