Why the WWE TV Deal Didn't Work: A Non-Expert's Observation

[TM Punk]

I'm writing this now, because I am completely dumbfounded. A few month's back WWE execs promised investors that their new deal would be 3 times the amount of their current tv deal. Why in the holy fuck would they do that without testing the market first? I am in NO WAY and expert in ANYTHING financial or otherwise. I do however watch TV. There was NO OTHER PLACE THAT THEY COULD GO!!! I'm NBC Universal, I know there is no other place that you (wwe) can go. I'm not going to offer you three times the amount of money that you're making just because you want it. That makes no sense. But that is basically what the WWE wanted. It's as if they have people running the company who have no idea what they're doing...(HHH and Stephanie? No, I don't want to get into that.)

Side note: I work for a local medical supply company in southeast Michigan. We have been a steadily growing company for about 15 years. We're going through some new management things right now (including my promotion to assistant manager!) to kind of sure up processes, and brainstorm some way's to save money. We came up with the idea of leasing a third truck to deliver supplies instead of using freight trucking companies. We did research and found that doing this would save our company $50,000 a year. My boss say's to me "We really have to prepair for this meeting, because the owner of the company would rather get rid of local delivery trucks, than add a 3rd one." So the owner of the company i work for would rather pay 100,000 additional dollars, than lease another truck to save $50,000. It's this kind of failure to properly research your financials, and this kind of lack of attention to detail that could put what should be a growing, and thriving company out of business. Lucky for me, our owner has very little control over this kind of thing, and has the ability to leave this kind of thing to smarter, better equipped people. In my opinion, higher ups within the WWE are too arrogant, and think that they can just say "We're going to get 3 times the revenue than on our current deal." That's not the case.

Let's look at their other options shall we? (absolutely no research was done in putting this list together. Any corrections are welcome):

First of all, let me say that you will never see Monday Night Raw on network television. So, CBS is out. From what i can think of, they do not have a basic cable network.

CW - They would never be able to pay for the kind of deal WWE wanted.

MTV - This would have been the perfect place for WWE. They have long had a working relationship together. Sunday Night Heat was even aired on MTV for a while. Not to mention the Rock N' Wresling connection. The problem again is the dollar amount. Also, there is no way that MTV (a basic cable original programming juggernaut) would want 5 hours of wrestling on its network. Couple that with the fact that a move to MTV would mean WWE would have to adjust programming to appeal to the MTV audience.

Fox - Fox has UFC. You won't see UFC and WWE on the same network.

TimeWarner - This would have been a great place for WWE to go. Monday Night Raw could have been on TNT. With Smackdown on TBS. It would have been exactly like WCW. But, exactly like with WCW; Time Warner has no intrest in wrestling being on its stations.

Disney - Disney owns ESPN. Disney owns ABC. Disney basically owns the entertainment world. I believe WWE wanted Disney to make them an offer. I don't think it happened. The only channel that would make sense for WWE to go to is ABC Family. ABC Family has a well established Monday night lineup that appeals mostly to teenaged girls. In fact, ABC Family is basically Teenage Lifetime Network. Wrestling will not fit on this channel. Not to mention a little program entitled Monday Night Football. Disney is not going to pay WWE to compete with one of their programs. (not that its competition)

So, all roads then lead us back to NBC Universal. Feeling absolutely no competition, they undercut WWE's desired number and got it. That's what happens when you overestimate your companies value. I see it all the time on Shark Tank (which i highly doubt would be replaced by Friday Night Smackdown). If there are any aspiring young entrepreneurs on this site, please heed WWE's warning. Do not be afraid to surround yourself with people that may be smarter than you. Research your market. Study your competition. Don't assume that people are going to sacrifice 5 hours of original programming for a 1.5 - 3.0 television rating. Don't assume. Because when you assume, you lose $350 million.

 

[SoulTrain4]

I wouldn't make that assumption. I believe they could have gone to other places but we don't know what particulars would have come with taking that deal. A network could have wanted to control more of the product or something like that, we just don't know.

Staying with NBC was a good deal though because they have a really long and prosperous relationship with that series of networks and they support WWE a lot in their endeavors.

To assume they couldn't go anywhere else based on no knowledge whatsoever isn't intelligent.

That said I don't believe they were ever going to double their deal anyway without selling out totally to a conglomerate like Disney who would then own everything and make massive changes to the product.

Taking less money but keeping control over what you are doing is a winning strategy.

 

[TM Punk]

Losing $350 million isnt a winning strategy to me, honestly. There's no spinning that into a positive. I laid out their options, they had nothing.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

While there's no way for me to know for absolute certainty, I'd be extremely surprised if WWE didn't talk to other networks once the time period of exclusive negotiation rights for NBC Universal expired. For instance, there were reports that Viacom was extremely interested in signing a deal with WWE.

There are people within the entertainment industry that look down their noses at pro wrestling and always will. Even though WWE is a proven, long term ratings heavyweight that would be a benefit to any cable network, there's still this sort of tongue-in-cheek reaction some people have in regards to pro wrestling ranging from your average person to network executives. It's a perception that's been around for decades and will almost certainly always be around no matter how much money or ratings WWE programming brings in. It's entirely possible that if WWE talked with other networks, which I'd be they did, some probably weren't interested while some probably were but felt WWE was asking for too much or they simply weren't able to pay that much.

Are any of the various network executives going to come straight out and state their disdain for pro wrestling? Almost certainly not because it wouldn't be politically correct to do so. I'm wondering if Vince didn't take into account the negative perception people have regarding pro wrestling in general and, as a result, overestimated what he feels that WWE is worth to the eyes of some of these networks. Personally, I feel Vince made the exact same miscalculation when it came to the WWE Network. The reason no television providers optioned the network is that they didn't have faith that an entire network made up of pro wrestling or pro wrestling related content would be a consistent draw, so WWE decided to the streaming route as Netflix has. It was really the only option left to them.

 

[Nada]

The simple explanation is that pro wrestling is not a new thing.

Meaning, the worth of advertising slots for wrestlings shows, regardless if its Jim Crockett, Vince, WCW, Verne, Mid South, Memphis, whatever, it was *never* regarded highly, nor did advertisers paid much money for it.

So this idiotic idea that WWE pushed that their expectations through the roof is just that: idiotic. For some reason, decades of research, decades of deals and decades of contract negotiations was somehow null and void, because WWE was now "sports"??!?

Just because WWE parades around their make a wish, and John Cena hugging poor struggling kids does not erase the fact that they are PRO WRESTLING.

WWE can certainly fool their fans with anything, their propaganda and bullshit knows no bounds, they can claim that Raw is the most watched show of all time and skew stats to claim anything they want. The fans will believe whatever the machine claims, they can and will drastically change the history of various promotions and promoters to make WWF and Vince look in the best light, you have all seen the fraudulent and embarrassing documentaries they have produced.

They can do this with their fans, but they cannot do this with any outsiders, who do not have affection for WWE or "rasslin" they cannot be brain washed.

Alvarez from the Observer nailed it, WWE can present the Ultimates Warrior death as a sendoff of a legend, how he finally made the Hall of Fame and finally made peace with Vince, but the outsiders who do not care about that crap only see another jacked wrestler who died before his time. Mainstream can be very ignorant and hateful of wrestling, but let us not pretend how ignorant the hardcore wrestling fans can be too. Ignorance is not a one way street here. Pro wrestling has a terrible reputation, its regarded as low brow entertainment for the lowest common denominator. We have to learn to accept the stereotype.

Ultimately, you can only fool people who believe in you, fooling everyone else is a altogether different ordeal.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Apparently none of you have been paying attention. Numerous articles in the press when the TV deal first expired pointed to the fact that WWE generates poor Ad revenue, too many years of "controversial" programing (IE Attittude Era stuff) has lead Advertisers to shy away from being associated with their product (combined with bad publicity of early wrestler deaths linked to drugs and Benoit). Despite being one of it's highest rated programs RAW brings in some of the lowest ad revenue for USA, re runs of NCIS generate more ad revenue than RAW. That is why NBC/Universal was so casual about letting the last deal expire, it's not a huge loss to them.

Now WWE may have over estimated the value of their product (not smart considering ratings are lower than at any point since the Pre NWO days of the Monday Night Wars) but other networks did not. They saw the disparity in what advertisers would pay to be associated with the product, these people aren't stupid after all. There were several major chains involved including Disney, Spike TV, etc. Spike even held up renewing TNA because they thought they could get WWE. In the end with the trouble they have with advertisers they weren't getting a mega deal. They did quite well in fact basically doubling their last deal and staying on one of the most visible and popular cable channels on TV.

As for the networks, RAW simply doesn't generate enough ratings even if it's better times to justify a two hour block of prime time programming, especially on the prime nights (MON-THUR). It might not be a bad idea for WWE to see if they can get some specials on NBC however this summer since most original programming is in re runs during the summer and NBC is so far below ABC & CBS in ratings they have nothing to lose. NBC gave a prime time Sat slot to an NHL Game a few months back and even the biggest NHL Games draw less viewers typically than your average RAW.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

Everything said makes sense... however I would go further with the Disney side in that it's pretty clear what Vince really wants is a Disney buyout in the same way they bought Lucas out... pocket the cash and get kept as the "consultant. That isn't beyond the realms but the biggest issue other than Benoit's memory being held at the House of Mouse is that they would struggle to house the TV in it's current format as the OP mentioned.

Monday night, is MNF... Friday won't work on network for a recorded show and ABC have just given Tuesdays over to Marvel for the forseeable future with the Agents of Shield/Carter shows. AoS has similar numbers to a Smackdown or RAW, so moving a 3 hour Smackdown live to Tuesdays isn't gonna work... Marvel has a proven track record under their ownership and is a hit with the WWE's hated demographic... teen-early adult males... the kind who want Attitude back and for Cena to vanish... So replacing a successful or improving formula with kids TV isn't gonna work.

I still see the upshot of all this being either a major buyout or Vince somehow manages to get it private again... Shane is very cash rich so could perhaps supply a good portion of the needed funds and access to the Chinese market in exchange for the keys to the kingdom outright... Vince retires as head honcho and Steph and Hunter are below Shane... Shane doesn't need WWE but WWE could REALLY use him right now...so if he was gonna come back in, it'd have to be a very good deal for him.

 

[d_henderson1810]

I'm writing this now, because I am completely dumbfounded. A few month's back WWE execs promised investors that their new deal would be 3 times the amount of their current tv deal. Why in the holy fuck would they do that without testing the market first? I am in NO WAY and expert in ANYTHING financial or otherwise. I do however watch TV. There was NO OTHER PLACE THAT THEY COULD GO!!! I'm NBC Universal, I know there is no other place that you (wwe) can go. I'm not going to offer you three times the amount of money that you're making just because you want it. That makes no sense. But that is basically what the WWE wanted. It's as if they have people running the company who have no idea what they're doing...(HHH and Stephanie? No, I don't want to get into that.)

Side note: I work for a local medical supply company in southeast Michigan. We have been a steadily growing company for about 15 years. We're going through some new management things right now (including my promotion to assistant manager!) to kind of sure up processes, and brainstorm some way's to save money. We came up with the idea of leasing a third truck to deliver supplies instead of using freight trucking companies. We did research and found that doing this would save our company $50,000 a year. My boss say's to me "We really have to prepair for this meeting, because the owner of the company would rather get rid of local delivery trucks, than add a 3rd one." So the owner of the company i work for would rather pay 100,000 additional dollars, than lease another truck to save $50,000. It's this kind of failure to properly research your financials, and this kind of lack of attention to detail that could put what should be a growing, and thriving company out of business. Lucky for me, our owner has very little control over this kind of thing, and has the ability to leave this kind of thing to smarter, better equipped people. In my opinion, higher ups within the WWE are too arrogant, and think that they can just say "We're going to get 3 times the revenue than on our current deal." That's not the case.

Let's look at their other options shall we? (absolutely no research was done in putting this list together. Any corrections are welcome):

First of all, let me say that you will never see Monday Night Raw on network television. So, CBS is out. From what i can think of, they do not have a basic cable network.

CW - They would never be able to pay for the kind of deal WWE wanted.

MTV - This would have been the perfect place for WWE. They have long had a working relationship together. Sunday Night Heat was even aired on MTV for a while. Not to mention the Rock N' Wresling connection. The problem again is the dollar amount. Also, there is no way that MTV (a basic cable original programming juggernaut) would want 5 hours of wrestling on its network. Couple that with the fact that a move to MTV would mean WWE would have to adjust programming to appeal to the MTV audience.

Fox - Fox has UFC. You won't see UFC and WWE on the same network.

TimeWarner - This would have been a great place for WWE to go. Monday Night Raw could have been on TNT. With Smackdown on TBS. It would have been exactly like WCW. But, exactly like with WCW; Time Warner has no intrest in wrestling being on its stations.

Disney - Disney owns ESPN. Disney owns ABC. Disney basically owns the entertainment world. I believe WWE wanted Disney to make them an offer. I don't think it happened. The only channel that would make sense for WWE to go to is ABC Family. ABC Family has a well established Monday night lineup that appeals mostly to teenaged girls. In fact, ABC Family is basically Teenage Lifetime Network. Wrestling will not fit on this channel. Not to mention a little program entitled Monday Night Football. Disney is not going to pay WWE to compete with one of their programs. (not that its competition)

So, all roads then lead us back to NBC Universal. Feeling absolutely no competition, they undercut WWE's desired number and got it. That's what happens when you overestimate your companies value. I see it all the time on Shark Tank (which i highly doubt would be replaced by Friday Night Smackdown). If there are any aspiring young entrepreneurs on this site, please heed WWE's warning. Do not be afraid to surround yourself with people that may be smarter than you. Research your market. Study your competition. Don't assume that people are going to sacrifice 5 hours of original programming for a 1.5 - 3.0 television rating. Don't assume. Because when you assume, you lose $350 million.

You say that WWE have nowhere to go?

What about "WWE Network"?

I predict the end-game on this is that all WWE material will one day be exclusive to WWE Network. If you want subscribers, you dry up any other avenue for them to buy elsewhere, to force them to get it from you- or miss out.

WWE hold the whip hand here. I suspect that TV won't pay as much, because they know that they will have it for one term, and once WWE Network goes worldwide, they will lose the rights. So, TV stations won't pay as much unless they get exclusivity to the product. That means that it can't also be shown live on WWE Network at the same time. Vince won't agree to that, so we have a stalemate.

 

[whoopin' ass]

You all bring up interesting points. I think the biggest issue is that Vince/wwe overestimated how important they were and what the fans wanted. They like to advertise that they have the top ratings on cable and how long they have been on tv but forget that ultimately it is how the network sees you that matters. 3 hours of Raw may bring in good ratings for the money it costs them but is it enough to justify what wwe is asking for? It's like buying something - you may be willing to spend $250 but even $275 is too much. NBC knows what they want to spend based off of what they get from wwe in ratings and ad revenue and also knows there is little chance of them going elsewhere since very few channels are showing wrestling right now so they made them an offer they thought was good for them. Problem is the offer wasn't what wwe wanted. wwe also seems to have overestimated the value of their network to the fans. Apparently subscriptions are low and there is already talk of raising the price. wwe wants to compare that to Netflix raising its price but forgets that wwe network is less than a year old - I have had Netflix for 3 years and my price won't go up for another 2. wwe is simply believing its own hype too much and it bit them in the ass.

 

[justinept]

This is a ridiculous and flawed argument. There are plenty of places the WWE could have gone. Hell, in the past, the WWE HAS gone to different networks. Viacom could've purchased the rights and put WWE back on Spike TV or MTV. Fox could've purchased the rights and placed the WWE on FX or FXX. Disney could've purchased the rights and placed the WWE on any number of their TV properties. The list of potential suitors wasn't the problem - the problem was the offers.

The reason the WWE felt their TV deal would quadruple is because they've seen an explosion in television revenue in baseball, football and basketball over the last 5 years. The WWE felt that they could capitalize on this and see similar returns - but their logic was flawed. The reason that professional sports earn such ludicrous TV contracts is because professional sports has become one of the only television shows that has to be watched live. People don't DVR a sporting event and skip through the commercials. They watch it live, and they deal with commercial breaks. When a network is able to guarantee advertisers that their commercials will be seen by the audience, the commercial space becomes more valuable ... that's why networks are willing to pay higher costs to obtain the rights to that programming. It makes them more money in the long run.

That isn't the case with the WWE. They've tried to go this route. That's why you keep seeing them push WWE Interactive and their Twitter account. It's because they want to make Raw an event that must be watched live. Despite their best efforts, that hasn't happened. Most people have no issue recording Raw and watching it later - or even starting 30 minutes later, and just skipping through commercials until they catch up. Thus, their programming isn't worth as much to the advertisers - and in turn, it isn't worth as much to the networks.

 

[laodaron]

WWE only needs TV for a few more years. After that, don't be surprised to see their content produced exclusively on the Network. Netflix produces their own episodic television. Amazon produces their own episodic television. The WWE is not far away from having Network only wrestling. And they don't need NBC, which is why they would have settled for a loss in the short term, because in the long term, WWE will be 100% in control of their own content.

$350 million in the short term just doesn't matter. None of it matters, until Vince gets his product on a media outlet that he completely owns. That's the end game, and that's why this deal doesn't matter.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

WWE only needs TV for a few more years. After that, don't be surprised to see their content produced exclusively on the Network. Netflix produces their own episodic television. Amazon produces their own episodic television. The WWE is not far away from having Network only wrestling. And they don't need NBC, which is why they would have settled for a loss in the short term, because in the long term, WWE will be 100% in control of their own content.

$350 million in the short term just doesn't matter. None of it matters, until Vince gets his product on a media outlet that he completely owns. That's the end game, and that's why this deal doesn't matter.

You have to explain to me how this works. While TV may not have brought in the amount of money that they wanted, how does moving to the Network exclusively replace that lost revenue? Are you assuming that enough of the current Raw audience is going to pay to watch something they are currently getting for free? Are advertisers going to shell out as much money for advertising on a program that runs on a computer? How do you think Network watchers are going to feel about having to sit through commercials while they are already shelling out a monthly fee? How do you grow your young fan base if there is no free product out there to get them hooked and beg their parents to pay ten dollars a month? Are Sunday Special Events really that special if they are viewed the same way as every Raw and Smackdown?

And what happens to all the other media connections WWE has once they start living on an island?

On topic, the OP makes some interesting speculation but I think justinept kind of nailed it. WWE is not DVR proof like the NFL and doesn't have the room to advertise like every camera angle on NASCAR. They aren't in those leagues and the TV industry let them know that.

 

[laodaron]

So, right now, advertisers are fleeing regular television. Television viewers in GENERAL are dropping. Being a television network that is carried by cable and satellite only makes your network a dinosaur. Advertisers know this, and they are going to get into more and more digital content.

The WWE doesn't care about economic profit right now, and they shouldn't. They are breaking ground and revolutionizing the way that digital content gets into your house. THAT is the mission. In the mean time, they'll take whatever money is offered by regular networks to keep revenue coming in. But the days of having PPV events and weekly shows on television stations are dwindling.

Soon, very soon, I would imagine, I think that WWE programming will only be available live on the Network. I also wouldn't be surprised to see that they have a day or two delay before hosting the recorded live event on the network. That would basically strong arm viewers that aren't technogeeks into watching it live, when it happens. It is at that point that WWE will have advertisers eating out of their hand. Millions of viewers, and a basically DVR proof show. The ads will probably be exactly like watching on Hulu+ or on NBC.com or on FOX.com.

But this discussion of their short term profits and losses is a silly notion. The WWE doesn't mind losing money now, as most monopolistic firms will only ever care about long term.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

So, right now, advertisers are fleeing regular television. The viewers in GENERAL are dropping. Being a television network that is carried by cable and satellite only makes your network a dinosaur. Advertisers know this, and they are going to get into more and more digital content.

Please provide numbers to support your "fleeing" statement. Everything I've seen online states that while cable subscriptions may be down from five years ago, cable television is still in the homes of about 85% of Americans.

While cable may not be around forever, with outlets like ESPN, Disney, MTV, Nickelodeon, FX, USA, AMC, and E! I'd say cable has some legs and will be around and profitable for more than three, five, or even ten years.

The WWE doesn't care about economic profit right now, and they shouldn't.

Actually they do and they should. They wouldn't have blown so much smoke up Wall Street asses with talk of double and triple the TV revenue if they didn't care. They don't care about the loss this quarter because the Network is a sunk cost but they do care what kind of money they will get from the recently negotiated TV deal.

They are breaking ground and revolutionizing the way that digital content gets into your house. THAT is the mission. In the mean time, they'll take whatever money is offered by regular networks to keep revenue coming in. But the days of having PPV events and weekly shows on television stations are dwindling.

PPV yes, but TV no.

Again, who is going to spend $10 a month for Raw and SD when they've been getting it for free for so long and they haven't already been motivated enough to buy it for the PPVs? WWE doesn't have fan loyalty that NFL has. Look how many people jumped ship in the mid 90's for WCW or how many abandoned the product all together in the 2000's. Weekly wrestling just isn't worth the money to most. People who spend money on something generally want to get some utilization out of it. Five hours of Raw and SD just isn't that appealing to most fans otherwise you would have seen more than 670,000 of Raws 4 millionish fans buy the network already.

Soon, very soon, I would imagine, I think that WWE programming will only be available live on the Network. I also wouldn't be surprised to see that they have a day or two delay before hosting the recorded live event on the network. That would basically strong arm viewers that aren't technogeeks into watching it live, when it happens.

That's actually a pretty good way to piss people off and encourage them to look for an alternative.

It is at that point that WWE will have advertisers eating out of their hand. Millions of viewers, and a basically DVR proof show. The ads will probably be exactly like watching on Hulu+ or on NBC.com or on FOX.com.

But this discussion of their short term profits and losses is a silly notion. The WWE doesn't mind losing money now, as most monopolistic firms will only ever care about long term.

Except the WWE is not a monopoly. There are millions of other alternative entertainment products out there.

 

[laodaron]

I'll take my education in economics and business over your gut feelings regarding the situation. The WWE is acting EXACTLY like a smart firm would act economically.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I'll take my education in economics and business over your gut feelings regarding the situation. The WWE is acting EXACTLY like a smart firm would act economically.

Please share with me where you got this education so I don't waste my savings sending my kids to a school where they teach:

1) businesses to charge for a product they've given away for free for twenty years
2) charge for a product that needs children to replenish a fan base
3) that an industry that has grown tremendously over the past 30 years is going to disappear in a short time because it had now contracted somewhat
4) that companies that miss their earnings projections by a significant portion have things exactly where they want them
5) WWE can exist on their own island and expect people to find them and swim over
6) WWE is a monopoly

 

[laodaron]

First of all, I said monopolistic.
Second of all, almost none of what you are talking about is considered, economically speaking, as it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Like I said, your grasp of economics is tenuous at best, not that that's a bad thing, or unlike most people, but you shouldn't discuss economics when you don't understand them.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

First of all, I said monopolistic.
Second of all, almost none of what you are talking about is considered, economically speaking, as it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Like I said, your grasp of economics is tenuous at best, not that that's a bad thing, or unlike most people, but you shouldn't discuss economics when you don't understand them.

You can control all the means of production and distribution that you want. If your product, marketing, cost, and platform don't work for your consumer you are stupid to cut out of a major stream of revenue in the short term and long term.

I think your economics professors have given you an "invisible hand" up your bunghole. Best ask for your money back.

 

[laodaron]

Good lord, man. A quick Google search would give you a better understanding of economics than what you're talking about. I realize that what you're talking about might make sense to you, but it is not relevant in a discussion about actually making economic decisions.

In addition, speaking in non-economics, VKM has a history of doing things his way, regardless of the outcome. The WWE is in extremely comfortable positioning right now with the way that the Network is taking over. The Network is probably well over 800k subs right now, and about to open in the UK. This in the era in which you can watch about anything you want for free on the internet, including streams of live PPVs. Vince and WWE know that they are sitting on a cash cow, but it is revolutionary, and so they are waiting for the people to catch up to appreciating the technology.

BTW, 2013 was a complete year of cable subscriber decline. As the Millennials and younger generations get older, we are unwilling to pay for full cable service, and instead opt for $10 Netflix, $10 Amazon, etc. HBO just signed a major deal with Amazon to offer their ENTIRE HBOGo collection on Amazon Prime. It's obvious if you're not bullheaded that companies want to get away from the big handful of media companies and instead want to distribute on their own. That's where the future money is at. That is being shown in the numbers.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Good lord, man. A quick Google search would give you a better understanding of economics than what you're talking about. I realize that what you're talking about might make sense to you, but it is not relevant in a discussion about actually making economuns.

Not if the Google search linked me to your posts.

In addition, speaking in non-economics, VKM has a history of doing things his way, regardless of the outcome. The WWE is in extremely comfortable positioning right now with the way that the Network is taking over. The Network is probably well over 800k subs right now, and about to open in the UK. This in the era in which you can watch about anything you want for free on the internet, including streams of live PPVs. Vince and WWE know that they are sitting on a cash cow, but it is revolutionary, and so they are waiting for the people to catch up to appreciating the technology.

To replace the PPV model not weekly programming.

BTW, 2013 was a complete year of cable subscriber decline. As the Millennials and younger generations get older, we are unwilling to pay for full cable service, and instead opt for $10 Netflix, $10 Amazon, etc. HBO just signed a major deal with Amazon to offer their ENTIRE HBOGo collection on Amazon Prime. It's obvious if you're not bullheaded that companies want to get away from the big handful of media companies and instead want to distribute on their own. That's where the future money is at. That is being shown in the numbers.

Except cable is still enormous and will be for a long time just like cable hurt broadcast free TV but they still exist and are still a powerful medium. Just because cable is declining isn't the same thing as disappearing.

Also how can you compare HBO, Netflix, and Hulu to WWE? Pro wrestling is a niche entertainment product. HBO has movie content and a reputation for top TV programming. Netflix carries movie and TV content. Hulu draws from popular television as well. WWE has none of this unless you think Legends House is the next Breaking Bad and The Marine 3 got robbed at the Oscars.

If WWE doesn't care about the short term, the Network is a cash cow, and they aren't getting what they want from cable under this contract - why don't they just scrap cable now? What will be different in the "short" time-table?

You can now respond with comments about your education and use the word "economics" without actually saying anything that shows you have said education.

1. Collect underpants
2. ?
3. Profit

 

[laodaron]

I made a mistake continuing a conversation with a basement dweller with zero grasp of what terms actually mean.

On the Wrestlezone front page there's a good article on why the WWE is not in financial trouble.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I made a mistake continuing a conversation with a basement dweller with zero grasp of what terms actually mean.

On the Wrestlezone front page there's a good article on why the WWE is not in financial trouble.

When did I say WWE was in financial trouble? They got big bucks from NBCU, it just wasn't what they wanted. You seem to think WWE is going dump those big bucks soon for something that still hasn't recovered their PPV losses. I think the idea that in the next five years WWE is going to dump TV as an outlet for their two main weekly shows is ludicrous.

This really didn't have to be such an abortion of a conversation but your inability to answer my questions and continuation of saying nothing relevant is unfortunate. I probably would have better luck with someone who lives in their parent's basement.