Fire Marshall Bill
Let me show ya somethin!!!
42.
Why are people not getting the Network?
- Thread starter A11oftheLights
- Start date
I honestly don't know how someone can claim to be a wrestling fan and not have it (outside of those where it isn't available, of course). Anyone who can afford cable/internet/wifi/whatever service should be able to afford to tap on an extra $9.99 to the bill each month.
Anyways, I think the main problem has been kids convincing their parents it's only $9.99 a month and that you don't have pay $60 up front. It sounds too good to be true for a parent to believe, thinking their kids are being duped and not bothering to look for themselves. And also, WWE has done a piss poor job promoting the Network outside of the "WWE Universe." The Network should attract those who used to watch wrestling as much as the current fan, but how can old fans know about the Network when it's only promoted on a show they no longer watch or pay attention to?
Anyways, I think the main problem has been kids convincing their parents it's only $9.99 a month and that you don't have pay $60 up front. It sounds too good to be true for a parent to believe, thinking their kids are being duped and not bothering to look for themselves. And also, WWE has done a piss poor job promoting the Network outside of the "WWE Universe." The Network should attract those who used to watch wrestling as much as the current fan, but how can old fans know about the Network when it's only promoted on a show they no longer watch or pay attention to?
How long to I have to wait before you send me a link to subscribe. Do I have to start throwing dollar bills tied to rocks? Take my money dammit!
Барбоса;4971219 said:
Well that is just fantastic.
I would assume if they shelled out a bit of cash to advertise the Network on ESPN or on another channel during football season, they could pull in some more subscribers. Especially those that used to watch WCW & no longer watch at all. Use Sting & the old video library as a selling point.
The Butcher
ð¶
Perhaps people who used to watch wrestling have moved on from it.
If we're going to do the whole who's a real fan and who's not thing, then that means there aren't enough professional wrestling fans out there to make this whole WWE Network thing viable. Which, follow the math through, means there aren't enough professional wrestling fans out there to make this whole WWE thing work, at least in its present state. (Casual readers- I'm referring to their status as an international multimedia company, not if your favorite performer is getting a push or not.)
The casual fan gets RAW, Smackdown, Main Event, and ancillary programs like Total Divas for free right now. That's way less then the low, low cost of $9.99 a month. The slightly more internet savvy fan gets all of the PPV's for free within a half-hour after they're finished. "You aren't a real fan if you don't" isn't a reason to send someone money. If you weren't buying the PPV's already, what's the point in getting the WWE Network?
That's a question for the WWE executives to answer, because there's no going back on this WWE Network thing. The PPV model for content distribution is breathing out its last dying gasps. The WWE Network is going to be the lynchpin for WWE Corporate in the near and foreseeable future, for better or for worse.
George Steele's Barber
Advertise Here $9.95/month
What Rayne said and to add that the old fans are not coming back for old content. Advertising elsewhere would be an expense with no return. Those fans left for a reasons that have not changed (they out grew the product and their lives went another direction) and are not coming back.
It is good to know I am not a wrestling fan. I don't have to lie to people any more.
It is good to know I am not a wrestling fan. I don't have to lie to people any more.
Yep; Rayne pretty much covered it. I did some groundless mathematical speculation the other day going back and forth with KB and came to the conclusion that the network is not going to be a success.
Leaving aside the fact that every publicly listed company since the dawn of time has low-balled their targets to protect against shareholder unrest - the WWE announced at the beginning of this experiment that they required 1,000,000 subscribers to the network to make up for lost PPV revenue.
Now presently the network is getting close to 700,000 subscribers, but what needs to be realized is that this is basically peak capacity for North America. We're nearly six months in, so everybody's contract is still running, and we're post Wrestlemania and have experienced one of the hardest sells in the history of network television, so the vast majority of people who are going to sign up have already done so. Signup rates have slowed exponentially, with 500k in the first month, 150k in the second, 30k in the third and barely 10k is the forth. There might be another wave of domestic subscriptions when Mania or the Rumble come around again, but outside of extenuating circumstances, domestic subscriptions are as high as they're going to get in the short term.
There are two things that make me confident that 1,000,000 subscribers is unattainable or unsustainable. People in international markets are considerably less likely to piss their money away that North Americans. Domestic WWE PPV buy-rates commonly double those garnered from the entire rest of the planet. I see no reason why this will be different for the network. So if peak US subscribers is ~700,000, then the network is going to need an approximately 90% retention rate for the numbers to balance.
I don't believe that 90% of network subscribers are going to resubscribe when their contracts expire, for a number of reasons, starting with the network not offering value for money (more on this later) but finishing with the fact that every major subscription service in history has suffered a significant drop off after the first wave of subscribers expire.
The second reason I don't believe WWE are going to get to a million subscribers off of the international market is based on PPV buy-rates. Now obviously domestic buy-rates are in the toilet since the roll out of the Network - we knew that was going to happen. What was unexpected is that international numbers have also taken a very significant hit since it was launched. Now it's not hard for someone with a little technical know-how to get the Network outside its launch zone via flicking their IPs (very common practice in parts of the world) I am pushed towards the conclusion that a not insignificant portion of the hard core international wrestling fans who could be relied upon to sign up to the network are already doing so.
I think when assessing the value of the network you're either looking at it as wrestling fans, or as logisticians, neither of which is representative of how most ordinary people will look at it.
When you offer someone a service their first reaction is to compare it to other similar services to assess value. When people look at WWE PPVs they will compare it to UFC or boxing PPV broadcasts, which makes the frankly outrageous sum of money the WWE charge appear more reasonable than it is.
When confronted with the WWE network, a large portion of people are instead going to compare it with other subscription VOD services, namely Netflix, which makes the WWE's offering look like a sick joke. Whoever in the WWE's advertising department suggested the sales line "like Netflix - but better" should be fired, as it's promoting the very comparison that the E needs to get away from.
Now mathematically the Network is acceptable value for money if you buy more than two PPVs a year, and good value is you buy more than that. The vast majority of people don't buy more than that. There's a reason the buy-rates are so warped in favor of the big shows.
Oh; but if you subscribe to the network you get all the other shows as well - is what I hear you saying to yourself, which brings us at last to the fundamental misunderstanding when considering how most people view the network as a prospective purchase.
This isn't how people look at it. When visiting a pizza place I buy a medium pizza because that's what I can eat. I don't buy a triple-extra-large and throw half of it away just because it has a better cost to size ratio. People are going to consider how much content they want when contemplating the service, not how much content then could conceivable get by pinning their eyes open and binding themselves in front of the television.
This doesn't even touch upon the fact that most people don't even want to watch every WWE PPV. I'm a wrestling fan and I could barely stomach 1 PPV a month when I was following TNA. Most people want them occasionally, and paying a subscription for an occasional service doesn't sound attractive for many people - especially outside North America where, as I said, that kind of practice is much less common. The US has one cable subscription for every three people alive; the UK still has most people contenting themselves with the freely available channels.
I suspect that the comical levels of schilling happening on the typical RAW broadcast at the moment are indicative of the fact that WWE are arriving at similar conclusions, and realizing that for financial profitability they need the number of domestic subscribers to grow at a time when all indications are that its going to start shrinking.
The WWE's PPV model was not sustainable - anyone could work that out - but they should have kept it anyway. They had a system going where significant numbers of people were legitimately willing to drop $50+ on a mediocre three hour television broadcast that didn't need to cost in excess of "fuck all" to produce.
When you've got the goose that lays golden eggs, you don't force feed it Viagra and make it fuck itself to death in the name of breeding for the future - you just collect the damn eggs for as long as you can and keep your mouths shut.
Leaving aside the fact that every publicly listed company since the dawn of time has low-balled their targets to protect against shareholder unrest - the WWE announced at the beginning of this experiment that they required 1,000,000 subscribers to the network to make up for lost PPV revenue.
Now presently the network is getting close to 700,000 subscribers, but what needs to be realized is that this is basically peak capacity for North America. We're nearly six months in, so everybody's contract is still running, and we're post Wrestlemania and have experienced one of the hardest sells in the history of network television, so the vast majority of people who are going to sign up have already done so. Signup rates have slowed exponentially, with 500k in the first month, 150k in the second, 30k in the third and barely 10k is the forth. There might be another wave of domestic subscriptions when Mania or the Rumble come around again, but outside of extenuating circumstances, domestic subscriptions are as high as they're going to get in the short term.
There are two things that make me confident that 1,000,000 subscribers is unattainable or unsustainable. People in international markets are considerably less likely to piss their money away that North Americans. Domestic WWE PPV buy-rates commonly double those garnered from the entire rest of the planet. I see no reason why this will be different for the network. So if peak US subscribers is ~700,000, then the network is going to need an approximately 90% retention rate for the numbers to balance.
I don't believe that 90% of network subscribers are going to resubscribe when their contracts expire, for a number of reasons, starting with the network not offering value for money (more on this later) but finishing with the fact that every major subscription service in history has suffered a significant drop off after the first wave of subscribers expire.
The second reason I don't believe WWE are going to get to a million subscribers off of the international market is based on PPV buy-rates. Now obviously domestic buy-rates are in the toilet since the roll out of the Network - we knew that was going to happen. What was unexpected is that international numbers have also taken a very significant hit since it was launched. Now it's not hard for someone with a little technical know-how to get the Network outside its launch zone via flicking their IPs (very common practice in parts of the world) I am pushed towards the conclusion that a not insignificant portion of the hard core international wrestling fans who could be relied upon to sign up to the network are already doing so.
I think when assessing the value of the network you're either looking at it as wrestling fans, or as logisticians, neither of which is representative of how most ordinary people will look at it.
When you offer someone a service their first reaction is to compare it to other similar services to assess value. When people look at WWE PPVs they will compare it to UFC or boxing PPV broadcasts, which makes the frankly outrageous sum of money the WWE charge appear more reasonable than it is.
When confronted with the WWE network, a large portion of people are instead going to compare it with other subscription VOD services, namely Netflix, which makes the WWE's offering look like a sick joke. Whoever in the WWE's advertising department suggested the sales line "like Netflix - but better" should be fired, as it's promoting the very comparison that the E needs to get away from.
Now mathematically the Network is acceptable value for money if you buy more than two PPVs a year, and good value is you buy more than that. The vast majority of people don't buy more than that. There's a reason the buy-rates are so warped in favor of the big shows.
Oh; but if you subscribe to the network you get all the other shows as well - is what I hear you saying to yourself, which brings us at last to the fundamental misunderstanding when considering how most people view the network as a prospective purchase.
KB a few weeks ago said:
This isn't how people look at it. When visiting a pizza place I buy a medium pizza because that's what I can eat. I don't buy a triple-extra-large and throw half of it away just because it has a better cost to size ratio. People are going to consider how much content they want when contemplating the service, not how much content then could conceivable get by pinning their eyes open and binding themselves in front of the television.
This doesn't even touch upon the fact that most people don't even want to watch every WWE PPV. I'm a wrestling fan and I could barely stomach 1 PPV a month when I was following TNA. Most people want them occasionally, and paying a subscription for an occasional service doesn't sound attractive for many people - especially outside North America where, as I said, that kind of practice is much less common. The US has one cable subscription for every three people alive; the UK still has most people contenting themselves with the freely available channels.
I suspect that the comical levels of schilling happening on the typical RAW broadcast at the moment are indicative of the fact that WWE are arriving at similar conclusions, and realizing that for financial profitability they need the number of domestic subscribers to grow at a time when all indications are that its going to start shrinking.
The WWE's PPV model was not sustainable - anyone could work that out - but they should have kept it anyway. They had a system going where significant numbers of people were legitimately willing to drop $50+ on a mediocre three hour television broadcast that didn't need to cost in excess of "fuck all" to produce.
When you've got the goose that lays golden eggs, you don't force feed it Viagra and make it fuck itself to death in the name of breeding for the future - you just collect the damn eggs for as long as you can and keep your mouths shut.
Good Golly It's Ollie
Magical Girl
It's times like this when I think the PPV, as a concept, might die. Unless WWE started doing iPPVs or something.
There's increasing emphasis on paid monthly streaming services now. Scheduled TV might well be on the way out in the next 25 years. It's a case of the newer more convenient thing taking over so that the old obsolete thing is unused and thus unsustainable. No more scheduling and checking the Radio Times to see when your show is on or set it up to record. You just log on and watch at the time that you choose.
So I think either PPVs or Network will have to go when crunch time comes. Still totally getting the Network when it comes out though.
There's increasing emphasis on paid monthly streaming services now. Scheduled TV might well be on the way out in the next 25 years. It's a case of the newer more convenient thing taking over so that the old obsolete thing is unused and thus unsustainable. No more scheduling and checking the Radio Times to see when your show is on or set it up to record. You just log on and watch at the time that you choose.
So I think either PPVs or Network will have to go when crunch time comes. Still totally getting the Network when it comes out though.
Some worrying maths
The WWE created a problem for themselves when they set the whole thing up. The WWE made roughly $80 million on Pay-Per-View in 2013 and 2012. They have managed to hold on to roughly 40,000 domestic buys which will be bars etc. who won't ever carry the network for the last three shows. As carriers drop them as time goes on, lets conservatively say this will half to 20,000 for a non-Mania PPV, and based on previous uptake for WrestleMania compared to normal shows, about 100,000 at Mania.
That means that there will be (11x20,000x$45) + (100,000x$55) = $15 million.
So, the WWE needs to find $65 million to remain stable. 65/12 =$5 million a month so they need half a million subscribers to offset the PPV cost.
However, in order to make a product attractive enough for that, they have to put every old PPV on there too. The WWE make $35 million from DVD sales, a good chunk of which will go in the toilet, even if we say half, that will put them down $17.5 million or so, which is another 150,000 subscribers.
Ok, done right? Wrong. So we are up to 650,000 already needed to break even. That's assuming that the WWE makes all $9.99 of that purchase, which of course, it doesn't. The WWE made $19.4 million from 700,000 subscriptions in Q2, but the combined overheads of PPV and Network increased by $15,000,000. So they make about 25% off each subscription. You might think this seems low,but Netflix lose money on each subscription with the difference being in their price to buy the rights. Fortunately, netflix have othe ways of making money, the WWE network doesn't. This means that for the Network to truly be cost effective, as opposed to avoiding total disaster which is where the WWE's optimistic (and dramatically reduced from their initial 1.4 million number) value of 1 million subscribers, the WWE need to have about 2.4 million global subscribers.
On the face of it, that sounds feasible. In reality that means doubling the amount of people that bought the most successful wrestling premium event ever - WrestleMania 28. They are charging twice the price of that event. While they may have more content, they don't have anything that fairweather WrestleMania only purchasers would want.
In short, with their current model they will never come closeto paying for it. If they increase the price, it becomes even less attractive,so their one and only solution is to cut costs. Expect the production values of Smackdown to tank, expect more layoffs and in time, expect a reduction in content all for $9.99.
The WWE created a problem for themselves when they set the whole thing up. The WWE made roughly $80 million on Pay-Per-View in 2013 and 2012. They have managed to hold on to roughly 40,000 domestic buys which will be bars etc. who won't ever carry the network for the last three shows. As carriers drop them as time goes on, lets conservatively say this will half to 20,000 for a non-Mania PPV, and based on previous uptake for WrestleMania compared to normal shows, about 100,000 at Mania.
That means that there will be (11x20,000x$45) + (100,000x$55) = $15 million.
So, the WWE needs to find $65 million to remain stable. 65/12 =$5 million a month so they need half a million subscribers to offset the PPV cost.
However, in order to make a product attractive enough for that, they have to put every old PPV on there too. The WWE make $35 million from DVD sales, a good chunk of which will go in the toilet, even if we say half, that will put them down $17.5 million or so, which is another 150,000 subscribers.
Ok, done right? Wrong. So we are up to 650,000 already needed to break even. That's assuming that the WWE makes all $9.99 of that purchase, which of course, it doesn't. The WWE made $19.4 million from 700,000 subscriptions in Q2, but the combined overheads of PPV and Network increased by $15,000,000. So they make about 25% off each subscription. You might think this seems low,but Netflix lose money on each subscription with the difference being in their price to buy the rights. Fortunately, netflix have othe ways of making money, the WWE network doesn't. This means that for the Network to truly be cost effective, as opposed to avoiding total disaster which is where the WWE's optimistic (and dramatically reduced from their initial 1.4 million number) value of 1 million subscribers, the WWE need to have about 2.4 million global subscribers.
On the face of it, that sounds feasible. In reality that means doubling the amount of people that bought the most successful wrestling premium event ever - WrestleMania 28. They are charging twice the price of that event. While they may have more content, they don't have anything that fairweather WrestleMania only purchasers would want.
In short, with their current model they will never come closeto paying for it. If they increase the price, it becomes even less attractive,so their one and only solution is to cut costs. Expect the production values of Smackdown to tank, expect more layoffs and in time, expect a reduction in content all for $9.99.
George Steele's Barber
Advertise Here $9.95/month
I am seeing a future with Safe Direct Auto Insurance on the wrestling apron.
The Butcher
ð¶
That or Triple H giving a "Cure for the Common Show" promo.
Nate DaMac
Fuck erbody but me
I was someone who bought maybe 2 or 3 PPVs a year and it always wrecked me financially for a couple of months. The Network was a no-brainer for me.
I think nostalgia will always sell well. It's why we see so many remakes in Hollywood these days and why they always do well financially despite everyone on the internet constantly bitching about it (myself included).
You put out some old school commercials, making grown men watching football feel like a kid again, a good portion of them would check it out I believe.
It's not a reason but it doesn't make what I said any less true. I'm sorry, but if someone is still streaming WWE pay-per-views, then they're a piece of shit in my mind. Just order the damn Network, SUPPORT the business. Why wouldn't someone do that other than they're a cheapskate, or simply just want to leech off WWE while still watching it despite claiming to hate it (thus proving they're not a real fan... just a cynical piece of shit)?
MrHashasheen
Enjoying Wrestling
The only time I've watched wrestling live in the past four years was in the summer after university finished up. Besides that, I've watched clips and segments while using KB as a summary and the occasional full-length episode or event when I've had time. All online, all free. Or at the Gym, which had Raw on the bicycle television most nights.
Can I afford 6 pounds a month come October? Sure? Will I have time to use the Network, while going into a Masters? Nope. Not at all.
Can I afford 6 pounds a month come October? Sure? Will I have time to use the Network, while going into a Masters? Nope. Not at all.
OK, they're a piece of shit in your mind. What they aren't is $9.99 a month on the WWE's balance sheet. Which matters more?
The WWE is not UNICEF. People don't buy products to support a business; businesses shrink or become insolvent when they fail to deliver a product people want to buy. People buy something because it fills a specific need or desire that they have. What's the reason for the casual viewer to increase the amount of WWE they consume for $9.99- they're a cheapskate if they don't? They aren't a real fan if they don't? That seems like a difficult sell.
Why can't we just agree it is somewhere in the middle? Subscription implies a commitment that casual fans might not be comfortable with given they don't watch much wrestling in the first place. And also there are those hardcore fans that are too cheap to pay for content.
Explain to me how someone can claim to be a fan of WWE, but not have the WWE Network when they can easily afford it? Like, it seriously makes zero sense to me.
Plus, to actually be a fan of something, you have to actually support it too. You're not a true fan if you don't. Anyone who claims so and so is their favorite musician or band, yet they never buy their music or go to their concerts, nor support them in any way, just downloads all their shit, is not a real fan of that person or band. It's the same thing here with the WWE Network.
Hollywood Naitch
The current reigning and defending
That's a very good point. WWE need to get billboards, pages in magazines, banners on websites that lapsed fans use, adverts during popular TV shows, espcially NFL, UFC etc, bringing the Network to the attention of people who used to watch wrestling and are unaware of the Network and may be convinced to get back into it if they can re-watch the shows they loved a few years ago.
Are they not doing this? I'd have thought a marketing machine like WWE would have done this right away as they knew they needed a huge number of people to sign up.
It's very simple: Someone decides that they are quite happy with the amount of WWE that they are consuming, and do not feel like the low low price of $9.99 a month is a purchase that would have value for them. The WWE isn't a charity, and being a 'real fan' is worth shit-all beyond your personal congratulations. It's Capitalism 101, and does not require your personal understanding and approval. People do not buy a product that they do not feel they need or want, and historically, changing your product offering to create demand has proven a better tactic than stomping your feet and telling people they aren't real customers.
So if people aren't interested in watching professional wrestling reruns, haven't been buying the PPV's previously, and are comfortable with jmt225 not seeing them as a 'real fan', I ask again- what is the reason, to the customer, to buy more product?
If youre a fan of the spectacle of raw rather than the inring action, you know the party people, storylines and celebrities, then you have no reason to get the network.
Wwe network offers a fantastic selection of inring wrestling but it doesnt matter to that kind of fan
Wwe network offers a fantastic selection of inring wrestling but it doesnt matter to that kind of fan
JohnJohnson
aka JuanJuanson
I have a subscription to the WWE Network. I've had it since it came out. I hardly watch it. I've watched a couple PPVs on there, and things here and there on occasion. I was previously only buying one PPV a year, if that. I also have pretty much all Nitros and all Raws between 96-02 already. That being said, I will still continue to subscribe to the WWE Network. For one, $10 is nothing. Two, I pay for the convenience of being able to go back and watch good quality videos of older events. Three, it is nice to be able to watch PPVs live instead of waiting several hours after to watch it, especially since my phone and facebook are blowing up about it and can give spoilers. Plus I like to gamble on matches. Four, the WWE has provided me with many joyous occasions throughout my life. I remember, as a teenager, I had imagined something similar to the Network, and thought to myself I'd pay thousands of dollars to watch this kind of stuff. So I have no problem supporting this company with what I consider a very reasonable price.
Also, I have a question. To those of you that don't have smart TVs. Do you guys really not have any current game consoles? Or...an HDMI cable? Not trying to be sarcastic, I just assumed that everyone had some sort of Xbox or Playstation.
Also, I have a question. To those of you that don't have smart TVs. Do you guys really not have any current game consoles? Or...an HDMI cable? Not trying to be sarcastic, I just assumed that everyone had some sort of Xbox or Playstation.
Dr. Mantis Toboggan, M.D.
Dog The Bounty Hunter
I purchased it the day of Wrestlemania 30. Enjoyed the event, watched all the old PPVs I wanted to see, loved Legend's House, finished the classic ECW tv episodes, etc. I've watched all I wanted really. I think I'm going to let my subscription end after this last payment is due until something else happens, like the Royal Rumble. The lack of original content bugs me a little bit. I don't care about specials or pre shows or post shows enough to stay.
Bockwinkel's Class
An Entity Of Existence
Never had one and never will. I did have an Atari 2600 back in 1982 though does that count?
JohnJohnson
aka JuanJuanson
Never had one and never will. I did have an Atari 2600 back in 1982 though does that count?
I don't think it's fast enough to support the network.
That's all fine, IF you aren't illegally streaming pay-per-views. But we both know most of these jackasses are.
"haven't been buying the PPV's previously"
I hadn't bought a WWE pay-per-view since 2007, outside of DVD purchases. I ordered the WWE Network because it made the pay-per-views affordable. And that's why people should buy it as long as they enjoy watching the pay-per-views, because it's now affordable to watch each one live. And if someone refuses to do that because of illegal streams or torrent sites are affordable, then they're a scumbag.
Similar threads
