Why WWE needs to book their PPV's towards the hardcore fans

[Da Solo]

WWE has a simple business model when it comes to the big 4 PPV's: use big names to draw in the casual/occasional viewers and hope they stick around. It's understandable and safe. But considering they've been doing it for years and Vince just lost millions of dollars in the past year, I question how smart it still is, both for the product and the finances of the company.

Face it: as a casual fan, PPV was just too expensive. Unless the marquee matchup was an absolute can't miss main event, $50-$60 for anything not Wrestlemania, the Rumble, Summerslam and Money in the Bank was seems ridiculous to me as a hardcore fan, so I imagine the casual viewer feels just as strongly. That being said, it's safe to hold the casual fan to similar limits. WWE thinks putting Orton and Cena at the top of the card every time will break that limit just because they're pretty much the only full time stars with true mainstream exposure on the card at the moment. It won't. And the repetitiveness of that cycle will alienate the ones who are most likely to buy that PPV: The weekly viewer.

The Network especially changes everything. Though it has it's problems, I'm sure they will resolve with the opening in international markets. But the lack of subscribers in the US shows that the E can't keep their hardcore fans tuned in, because they're the only ones paying for it, guaranteed (no casual fan is turning WWE into any kind of monthly expense unless it's for their kids or something).

So the remedy to this issue? Vince and Trips need to stop thinking about who is over in the mainstream media and use who is over in the crowd's hearts, period. That's also why they can't make any true stars recently either: they always buckle under the risk and fall back to Cena/Orton/HHH or they try to act like they are smarter than the crowd and try to manufacture their own star outside of who the crowd loves. If you want a star, they need to garner attention in the crowd before the brighter lights take notice, because it's the crowd reaction that draws them in. Expose your wrestlers to the limelight even though you think they are not known enough, because that is what will get them known, which is why keeping DB off the NBC special was immensely stupid and another attempt at catering to the casual market.

My point being here is to headline your shows with superstars the crowd loves and don't be scared of what the casual fan will think. Its better to give, say, Ziggler a better spot with some world title shots to guarantee the smark crowd than to go with Cena/Orton or something similar and hoping for an audience that might or might not tune in.

That was my thought with Lesnar v. Cena II coming up. I love it, don't get me wrong, but to do that you rendered MiTB and Battleground as predictable PPVs and turned off a lot of people who didn't care to see what wouldn't keep them suspended in awe due to predictions. Now Lesnar and Cena will draw, sure, but you know what would draw more? Something newer, edgier and riskier.

Take Wyatt, for instance. He was HOT going into Mitb, and though he cooled off a bit since, he was undoubtedly a dark horse pick for a winner. So why not let him win? The hardcore crowd will lose their shit in joy, he gets more exposure as champ and Battleground just got that much more interesting. Where does this leave Lesnar, you ask? Well they wanted Wyatt as a face according to dirt sheets, right? Well fuck it: why not do Wyatt/Lesnar? Both guys are hot, Lesnar has the casual crowd and Wyatt has the hardcore crowd. If they met, Bray could get some mainstream exposure just for being with Lesnar on a big 4 and both the casual and hardcore crowd has incentive to buy the Network to see this match. You could make a star and some money at the same time. I don't mean to play armchair booker, but it's just one scenario.

If you think I'm crazy for experimenting with a PPV main event, let me remind you that HIAC 2012 was the highest selling HIAC PPV since it's inception (if I recall correctly). Why? Hype: it was Punk, the hot champion and heel we loved to hate, against Ryback, a newbie to the scene who was dominating and fresh and getting in with the casual fan, plus it was his streak vs a title. Sure he was untested, but he was hot and the scenario was UNPREDICTABLE! That is what sells. His resulting failure is purely because they did what they always did and pulled back on him.

So off my soapbox, my point is: take more risks and excite your hardcore fan with their favorites instead of clamoring for mainstream attention with the same stars, because once you give the hardcore fan something they are guaranteed to pay for, THAT'S when the casual fan will be in the question as to whether they will buy.

(I jumped through a lot of topics at once, I know, forgive me)

 

[Барбоса]

Why exactly would you book your PPVs towards hardcore fans who are going to buy the event regardless of the card (although let's face it, hardcore fans probably have the Network), while potentially alienating the casual fan even more with an off the wall line up?

 

[Headman]

WWE has a simple business model when it comes to the big 4 PPV's: use big names to draw in the casual/occasional viewers and hope they stick around. It's understandable and safe. But considering they've been doing it for years and Vince just lost millions of dollars in the past year, I question how smart it still is, both for the product and the finances of the company.

Face it: as a casual fan, PPV was just too expensive. Unless the marquee matchup was an absolute can't miss main event, $50-$60 for anything not Wrestlemania, the Rumble, Summerslam and Money in the Bank was seems ridiculous to me as a hardcore fan, so I imagine the casual viewer feels just as strongly. That being said, it's safe to hold the casual fan to similar limits. WWE thinks putting Orton and Cena at the top of the card every time will break that limit just because they're pretty much the only full time stars with true mainstream exposure on the card at the moment. It won't. And the repetitiveness of that cycle will alienate the ones who are most likely to buy that PPV: The weekly viewer.

The Network especially changes everything. Though it has it's problems, I'm sure they will resolve with the opening in international markets. But the lack of subscribers in the US shows that the E can't keep their hardcore fans tuned in, because they're the only ones paying for it, guaranteed (no casual fan is turning WWE into any kind of monthly expense unless it's for their kids or something).

So the remedy to this issue? Vince and Trips need to stop thinking about who is over in the mainstream media and use who is over in the crowd's hearts, period. That's also why they can't make any true stars recently either: they always buckle under the risk and fall back to Cena/Orton/HHH or they try to act like they are smarter than the crowd and try to manufacture their own star outside of who the crowd loves. If you want a star, they need to garner attention in the crowd before the brighter lights take notice, because it's the crowd reaction that draws them in. Expose your wrestlers to the limelight even though you think they are not known enough, because that is what will get them known, which is why keeping DB off the NBC special was immensely stupid and another attempt at catering to the casual market.

My point being here is to headline your shows with superstars the crowd loves and don't be scared of what the casual fan will think. Its better to give, say, Ziggler a better spot with some world title shots to guarantee the smark crowd than to go with Cena/Orton or something similar and hoping for an audience that might or might not tune in.

That was my thought with Lesnar v. Cena II coming up. I love it, don't get me wrong, but to do that you rendered MiTB and Battleground as predictable PPVs and turned off a lot of people who didn't care to see what wouldn't keep them suspended in awe due to predictions. Now Lesnar and Cena will draw, sure, but you know what would draw more? Something newer, edgier and riskier.

Take Wyatt, for instance. He was HOT going into Mitb, and though he cooled off a bit since, he was undoubtedly a dark horse pick for a winner. So why not let him win? The hardcore crowd will lose their shit in joy, he gets more exposure as champ and Battleground just got that much more interesting. Where does this leave Lesnar, you ask? Well they wanted Wyatt as a face according to dirt sheets, right? Well fuck it: why not do Wyatt/Lesnar? Both guys are hot, Lesnar has the casual crowd and Wyatt has the hardcore crowd. If they met, Bray could get some mainstream exposure just for being with Lesnar on a big 4 and both the casual and hardcore crowd has incentive to buy the Network to see this match. You could make a star and some money at the same time. I don't mean to play armchair booker, but it's just one scenario.

If you think I'm crazy for experimenting with a PPV main event, let me remind you that HIAC 2012 was the highest selling HIAC PPV since it's inception (if I recall correctly). Why? Hype: it was Punk, the hot champion and heel we loved to hate, against Ryback, a newbie to the scene who was dominating and fresh and getting in with the casual fan, plus it was his streak vs a title. Sure he was untested, but he was hot and the scenario was UNPREDICTABLE! That is what sells. His resulting failure is purely because they did what they always did and pulled back on him.

So off my soapbox, my point is: take more risks and excite your hardcore fan with their favorites instead of clamoring for mainstream attention with the same stars, because once you give the hardcore fan something they are guaranteed to pay for, THAT'S when the casual fan will be in the question as to whether they will buy.

(I jumped through a lot of topics at once, I know, forgive me)

Actually the exact opposite is true. Due to the network the ppvs don't have to do incredible buys. It's all about TV ratings and new subscriptions to the network. The hardcores have the network. Odds are they're not going to cancel it either no matter how much they gripe. Hell, these are the same people who buy tickets to shows that they claim to hate. And they tune in every week despite the horrible pain it causes them to see anybody but Daniel Bryan or CM Punk on their screen at any given time. The WWE now has the flexibility to use the filler ppvs as a way to build up to the big four. And it hasn't been a bad ride either because the last few ppvs have featured some excellent matches. The last bad ppv was Wrestlemania XXX. Everything else with what on paper looked like a lackluster card turned out to be outstanding. So everybody wins. The hardcore fans get amazing matches and the casual fans get marquees with familiar stars. The only problem is the entitled attitudes of so called hardcore fans who believe the entire product should be catered to them.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

World Wrestling Entertainment is just why bother now.

If you can't be bothered with the program any more, then why post on the WWE section of a wrestling forum, which you only joined a couple of months ago?

There is plenty to be entertained by on WWE at the moment. The rise of Rollins, Reigns and Ambrose, the likelyhood of Lesnar winning the title, the company signing guys like Devitt, KENTA and Kevin Steen to NXT etc. I know if I couldn't be bothered with a show any more, I definitely wouldn't go on internet sites dedicated to it to moan. If you don't like whats being put out then don't watch. Simple.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I'm not sure that it's possible for WWE to cater its booking to the "hardcore" fans for any number of reasons.

1. Most fans are average/casual fans - It's fair to say that a very healthy number of "hardcore" fans are members of the IWC. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but WWE won't make money by catering to those fans as they make up only a small percentage of wrestling's audience. You cater to what makes you the most money and WWE's demographics are made up mostly of males over the age of 18 who aren't consumed by wrestling 'round the clock.

2. The whims of many "hardcore" fans changes like weather patterns - How often have we heard complaints from various internet fans about wanting to see something happen? Whether it's a certain match involving certain people, certain wrestlers getting pushed up the card, getting title shots, etc. only for said fans to continue griping even when they seem to get what they want? I see them all the times in the threads and these sorts of fans are almost impossible to satisfy.

3. A lot of "hardcore" fans are contrarians - This could apply to some fans who complain after getting what they want but, in a broader sense, it's fans who seem to find it cool to be outside of what the majority are into. For instance, look how much people wanted Daniel Bryan to be pushed, yet there'd always be a few who would constantly rag on the guy no matter what. In some situations, they just weren't fans of the guy, which is understandable and expected. In others, they just like to gripe about whomever is extremely over and getting pushed just for the sake that they're getting pushed. If someone is really popular, some "hardcore" fans will purposely want to dislike him/her because of that popularity. Again, with fans like that, you simply can't win.

4. Some "hardcore" fans have a sense of entitlement and unrealistic expectations - Again, a lot of it comes down to fans who're extremely difficult to please in which every match has to be a classic, every promo something to generate a lot of buzz, every feud to be one that's talked about for years, titles are never prestigious enough, every card has to be an epic, etc. If their standards aren't met, then they label it a failure. A "solid" show or a "good match" isn't enough for some "hardcore" fans. For instance, consider the complaints about ppv prices being too high, not that they don't have merit as they do, but the WWE Network offers a solution to that. A 6 month subscription for $10 a month allows you to watch every WWE ppv on your desktop, laptop, phone or tablet. Problem solved....except for the complaints that some of the ppvs feels like an episode of Raw.

For all the criticisms and complaints "hardcore" fans launch, it's surprising how many of them still watch week after week. As a result, it makes me wonder just how many of them are genuinely as dissatisfied as they claim to be.

 

[Mustang Sally]

A lot of "hardcore" fans are contrarians[/B] - This could apply to some fans who complain after getting what they want but, in a broader sense, it's fans who seem to find it cool to be outside of what the majority are into.

Still, a lot of hardcore fans aren't really contrarian....rather, they're managing to conform in their very non-conformity. The "hatred" of John Cena is one example: when it comes to the casual fan, I can see no reason for these good people to dislike him when at the arena except that they hear him roundly booed by the others in attendance and want to do what everyone else is doing.....so they boo, as well. We hear the jeers on our TV sets and think: Wow, they must really hate Cena"....when, in fact, much of the booing is simply people looking to fit in with other people.

Meanwhile, while you'd think the hardcore folks would appreciate Cena for what he is and what he means to the company, they claim to despise him (or rather, the character he's portraying). Still, if they're using their own minds to come to a conclusion, that's fine; they're certainly entitled.

The OP's thoughts are interesting, though. The Network really does change the equation as to whom PPVs should be catered to. As someone else said, most of the hardcore fans already have the Network and will watch the PPVs simply because they've paid in advance for them. Economically and logically, it makes no sense to boycott a PPV because you don't like who's in the main event.

As for the casual fans, I imagine they come in varying stages of "pro wrestling knowledge." Many of them know the names of the top wrestlers and have some idea of how the pro game operates.....while many others, in the immortal words of Gorilla Monsoon: "Wouldn't know a wristlock from a wristwatch."

With the latter group, WWE has to load the PPVs with "name" stars to get the casual fans to buy. They might not own the Network, instead responding only to big names, as is so in every other pro sport.

I imagine there's a lot of teeth-gnashing during WWE Creative meetings as the brass tries to figure out ways to get new stars on PPVs while still making sure they sell big numbers by featuring the stars the fans pay to see.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Still, a lot of hardcore fans aren't really contrarian....rather, they're managing to conform in their very non-conformity. The "hatred" of John Cena is one example: when it comes to the casual fan, I can see no reason for these good people to dislike him when at the arena except that they hear him roundly booed by the others in attendance and want to do what everyone else is doing.....so they boo, as well. We hear the jeers on our TV sets and think: Wow, they must really hate Cena"....when, in fact, much of the booing is simply people looking to fit in with other people.

Meanwhile, while you'd think the hardcore folks would appreciate Cena for what he is and what he means to the company, they claim to despise him (or rather, the character he's portraying). Still, if they're using their own minds to come to a conclusion, that's fine; they're certainly entitled.

The OP's thoughts are interesting, though. The Network really does change the equation as to whom PPVs should be catered to. As someone else said, most of the hardcore fans already have the Network and will watch the PPVs simply because they've paid in advance for them. Economically and logically, it makes no sense to boycott a PPV because you don't like who's in the main event.

As for the casual fans, I imagine they come in varying stages of "pro wrestling knowledge." Many of them know the names of the top wrestlers and have some idea of how the pro game operates.....while many others, in the immortal words of Gorilla Monsoon: "Wouldn't know a wristlock from a wristwatch."

With the latter group, WWE has to load the PPVs with "name" stars to get the casual fans to buy. They might not own the Network, instead responding only to big names, as is so in every other pro sport.

I imagine there's a lot of teeth-gnashing during WWE Creative meetings as the brass tries to figure out ways to get new stars on PPVs while still making sure they sell big numbers by featuring the stars the fans pay to see.

No it really is impossible to book more towards the "hardcore" fan. I think we can all agree that the majority on this site would fit into that category, yes?

1) Too many ideas from the "hardcore" are stupid, illogical and/or knee-jerk. Look at this quote about DZ:

I think this is completely wrong. The company truly wants him to NOT get over, and they keep him down. Last year Ziggler was THE most over babyface in the company, but after he got injured, management abandoned him and buried him completely upon his return. WWE does everything possible to make sure he stays as low on the totem pole as possible in fans' eyes, ignoring the thunderous "WE WANT ZIGGLER" chants he gets at nearly every event. Half the time they don't even book him at PPV events, just to spite the fans. By all rights Ziggler should be routinely headlining PPVs, and instead he's struggling to maintain a midcard position after being jobbed out constantly for the last year.

How much hyperbole can we pack into one quote? Apparently WWE has a conspiracy against Dolph Ziggler. Let's just completely ignore the fact that he's recently gotten over his 2nd concussion (something WWE tends to notice after Chris Benoit), or the fact that he sounds like he's still in puberty.

I read someone in the LD last night saying Lesnar should beat Cena and then Rollins should cash in on him What the hell kind of sense does that make?

Last week's LD had someone saying the Uso's should join Xavier Woods and company. Because that makes sense, right?

2) "Hardcore" fans are full of double standards.
Frankly, anyone who's been on here as long as you, Sally, has seen this multiple times. One guy does something: "THAT WAS AMAZING!!!" Swap out that guy for another guy: "HE JUST BURIED HIM!!!!!!" John Cena's name seems to come up a lot in those idiotic statements. I can't imagine what would've happened if he beat The Shield 3 on 1 instead of CM Punk.

3) "Hardcore" fans have absolutely no idea what they want.
(A) Wrestler X is low on the card - "PUSH WRESTLER X!!!"
(B) Wrestler X gets pushed - "WRESTLER X SUX!!! THEY'RE SHOVING HIM DOWN OUR THROATS!!!!"
(C) Rinse and repeat.


Of course not all of these statements apply to every "hardcore" fan. Just your stereotypical member of the IWC. But the biggest problem with stereotypes in this case? They're based on reality.

 

[laodaron]

When I was younger, I played an MMO. I had tons of free time, and I could dedicate large chunks of hours to playing this game with other people, constantly learning as much about the game as I could. We called ourselves "hardcore" players.

The game developers consistently ignored the pleas of players like me to add harder content, to create more challenging content, to remove the easy content, and to dissuade "casuals" from fucking my game up.

Then, as I got older, I realized that the group of people I was with and that I played with was a miniscule unimportant percentage of the population, but we were stuck inside of our bubble. We believed ourselves to be more important than the casual player, but the casual player often enjoyed much more of the content, spent more money on the content, and were a much larger group. We were still getting content, and at a rate that really did almost cater to us. But we were oblivious to it, because we believed that the developers were ruining the game by allowing the casuals to continue to get content, too.

In a nutshell, catering your entertainment product to the hardcore consumer of your entertainment product is the fastest way to failure possible. The hardcores are generally a small population, and while loud and obnoxious, they frequently spend the least amount of money possible on the entertainment product. On the other hand, casuals spend more money and are often the larger piece of the population.

 

[A11oftheLights]

I'd argue the fact that hardcore fans either torrent/stream the PPV or have the network. Living in Australia I cant understand why you wouldnt get the network if you were going to get any PPV?

 

[Da Solo]

Why exactly would you book your PPVs towards hardcore fans who are going to buy the event regardless of the card (although let's face it, hardcore fans probably have the Network), while potentially alienating the casual fan even more with an off the wall line up?

Because streaming.

I consider myself a hardcore fan, but I don't have the network - not out of spite, but because the struggle is real and Youtube is free. $10 a month is a steal, yes, but as bad as it is for the company, I admit that I've streamed more PPV's than I've ever bought. I've considered the network twice: for WMXXX and MiTB this year, but couldn't bring myself to do it (saved that $10 for tuition). Its going to take one remarkable yet unbelievable card to get my six month commitment, and Lesnar v Cena, though it rolls nice off the tongue, isn't it. However, if it was that Lesnar v. Wyatt I mentioned or Punk v Ryback fr HIAC 2012 or something of similar WTFness, I'd be inclined to buy because I'd lose my shit if a stream cuts out and I miss an unpredictable finish.

WWE's goal, like any company, is to create hardcore fans from the crowd, and in this case that's especially true because A CASUAL FAN WILL NOT BUY THE NETWORK! Therefore, make sure the hardcore fans have a reason to buy or keep buying. Besides, they became hardcore for a reason, and they know what the casual fan wants to see because they themselves once saw something that earned their devotion. Analogy: If you keep the secured crowd fed, it's then that the onlookers will see how satisfied they are and want to eat for themselves. Instead, WWE are dangling the familiar foods in front of the casual crowd, not realizing that just because the people know what a cheeseburger is doesn't mean they will always want to eat it.

 

[laodaron]

You don't need a 6 month commitment, just a preloaded Visa prepaid card with $9.99 on it, which I understand might still be more than someone is willing to spend. And I am a GIANT proponent of free media and the destruction of Copyright and Intellectual Property laws.

 

[Барбоса]

WWE's goal, like any company, is to create hardcore fans from the crowd

No, WWE's goal is to make money.

And how do you create hardcore fans anyway?

Certainly not by catering to hardcore fans (many of whom haven't the first notion what they are talking about or what they want) and hoping that their love of the product filters to casuals through osmosis.

WWE must continue to make marketing to casual fans their primary concern. They are the biggest market. They are were you make your money from.

Hardcore fans are already converted and will remain largely loyal regardless of how much they think that the product for the causal fan is predictable or uninspired.

 

[Franchize1990]

WWE has a simple business model when it comes to the big 4 PPV's: use big names to draw in the casual/occasional viewers and hope they stick around. It's understandable and safe. But considering they've been doing it for years and Vince just lost millions of dollars in the past year, I question how smart it still is, both for the product and the finances of the company.

Face it: as a casual fan, PPV was just too expensive. Unless the marquee matchup was an absolute can't miss main event, $50-$60 for anything not Wrestlemania, the Rumble, Summerslam and Money in the Bank was seems ridiculous to me as a hardcore fan, so I imagine the casual viewer feels just as strongly. That being said, it's safe to hold the casual fan to similar limits. WWE thinks putting Orton and Cena at the top of the card every time will break that limit just because they're pretty much the only full time stars with true mainstream exposure on the card at the moment. It won't. And the repetitiveness of that cycle will alienate the ones who are most likely to buy that PPV: The weekly viewer.

The Network especially changes everything. Though it has it's problems, I'm sure they will resolve with the opening in international markets. But the lack of subscribers in the US shows that the E can't keep their hardcore fans tuned in, because they're the only ones paying for it, guaranteed (no casual fan is turning WWE into any kind of monthly expense unless it's for their kids or something).

So the remedy to this issue? Vince and Trips need to stop thinking about who is over in the mainstream media and use who is over in the crowd's hearts, period. That's also why they can't make any true stars recently either: they always buckle under the risk and fall back to Cena/Orton/HHH or they try to act like they are smarter than the crowd and try to manufacture their own star outside of who the crowd loves. If you want a star, they need to garner attention in the crowd before the brighter lights take notice, because it's the crowd reaction that draws them in. Expose your wrestlers to the limelight even though you think they are not known enough, because that is what will get them known, which is why keeping DB off the NBC special was immensely stupid and another attempt at catering to the casual market.

My point being here is to headline your shows with superstars the crowd loves and don't be scared of what the casual fan will think. Its better to give, say, Ziggler a better spot with some world title shots to guarantee the smark crowd than to go with Cena/Orton or something similar and hoping for an audience that might or might not tune in.

That was my thought with Lesnar v. Cena II coming up. I love it, don't get me wrong, but to do that you rendered MiTB and Battleground as predictable PPVs and turned off a lot of people who didn't care to see what wouldn't keep them suspended in awe due to predictions. Now Lesnar and Cena will draw, sure, but you know what would draw more? Something newer, edgier and riskier.

Just wanted to start here by asking what's wrong with predictability, especially in a case like this where predictability would make the most sense in this situation? SummerSlam is the pay per view where you showcase your biggest stars in the biggest matches. So, even though Cena/Lesnar isn't something relatively new, it's the first time they've met in two years and the way that match unfolded two years ago was certainly something "edgier" and "riskier" than normal.

Take Wyatt, for instance. He was HOT going into Mitb, and though he cooled off a bit since, he was undoubtedly a dark horse pick for a winner. So why not let him win? The hardcore crowd will lose their shit in joy, he gets more exposure as champ and Battleground just got that much more interesting. Where does this leave Lesnar, you ask? Well they wanted Wyatt as a face according to dirt sheets, right? Well fuck it: why not do Wyatt/Lesnar? Both guys are hot, Lesnar has the casual crowd and Wyatt has the hardcore crowd. If they met, Bray could get some mainstream exposure just for being with Lesnar on a big 4 and both the casual and hardcore crowd has incentive to buy the Network to see this match. You could make a star and some money at the same time. I don't mean to play armchair booker, but it's just one scenario.

To play devil's advocate, booking logic suggests that Lesnar is walking out of Los Angeles as the WWE World Heavyweight Champion since this is his first match after ending the Streak. Having Wyatt win would be great for him and the "hardcore" fans for two months. Then the realization that he was just a transitional champion for a part timer starts to set in and now the hardcore fans are back to criticizing WWE booking for placing Wyatt in that situation instead of a wrestler who could take it like a John Cena.

If you think I'm crazy for experimenting with a PPV main event, let me remind you that HIAC 2012 was the highest selling HIAC PPV since it's inception (if I recall correctly). Why? Hype: it was Punk, the hot champion and heel we loved to hate, against Ryback, a newbie to the scene who was dominating and fresh and getting in with the casual fan, plus it was his streak vs a title. Sure he was untested, but he was hot and the scenario was UNPREDICTABLE! That is what sells. His resulting failure is purely because they did what they always did and pulled back on him.

Three things: 1) While HIAC was a successful event in terms of numbers, it was the least improved ppv of 2012 compared to the year before. Switch to Extreme Rules of the same year, and you have a show that out did a Big 4 ppv and was the top selling ppv of the year when you take out SummerSlam, Royal Rumble, and WrestleMania. The main event for that Extreme Rules you ask? The Beast, Brock Lesnar against The Man, John Cena.

2) The mention of unpredictability. Again, while booking logic suggests that Lesnar is beating Cena at SummerSlam, who would be the one wrestler that would cast a slight shadow of a doubt? Hardcore fans can sometimes be quick to point out that Cena could have his body burned to a crisp in a plane crash, take a bullet to the head, and still kick out at two. So why not have that .5% of doubt in the back of everybody's mind instead of it being a 100% slam dunk that Lesnar would go over someone like Wyatt and completely ruin all that momentum (just using your scenario)?

Then 3) HIAC is the type of pay per view to experiment with those types of talents. Bray was hot going into MITB but unless you're going to book him over Lesnar, just getting exposure won't be enough for him. He got enough of that against Cena for 5 months.

 

[Alastor]

Why would a casual fan not buy the network if the casual fan was forking out $50 for a PPV in the past? The maths in their head probably tell them the network has more value to them if they want to purchase any single PPV now than in the past.

You consider yourself a hardcore fan yet isn't giving WWE money. Why should they cater to fans like you when the casual crowd is supporting them financially if they see things they like?

 

[Da Solo]

No, WWE's goal is to make money.

And how do you create hardcore fans anyway?

Certainly not by catering to hardcore fans (many of whom haven't the first notion what they are talking about or what they want) and hoping that their love of the product filters to casuals through osmosis.

WWE must continue to make marketing to casual fans their primary concern. They are the biggest market. They are were you make your money from.

Hardcore fans are already converted and will remain largely loyal regardless of how much they think that the product for the causal fan is predictable or uninspired.

And how do you make $$? The fans.
Who will shell out the most money? Hardcore fans. Only demo beating them in thst regard is probably parents of younger WWE fans. Hardcore fans take maintenance. If the show turns to shit, or the product gets less hot the fans will drift away. Sure, they are more likely to come back than a sometimes viewer, but they will only do so when they see something they like. I used to be a steady supporter of TNA until around 2010 where they lost me as a hardcore fan and couldn't keep my interest. Who's more likely to buy a product: a hardcore fan who left but likes the current Rusev/Swagger angle enough to tune into RAW weekly again or the guy who channel surfs, lands on RAW and watches for a bit but has no idea who Rusev is because he isn't that frequent of a viewer?

When I say hardcore, I don't automatically mean the IWC, so the inconsistency argument should not be universally applied. There are tons of hardcore fans who buy the network, watch weekly and get merch without coming to fourms because they genuinely enjoy the show in all its aspects.

 

[Headman]

Because streaming.

I consider myself a hardcore fan, but I don't have the network - not out of spite, but because the struggle is real and Youtube is free. $10 a month is a steal, yes, but as bad as it is for the company, I admit that I've streamed more PPV's than I've ever bought. I've considered the network twice: for WMXXX and MiTB this year, but couldn't bring myself to do it (saved that $10 for tuition). Its going to take one remarkable yet unbelievable card to get my six month commitment, and Lesnar v Cena, though it rolls nice off the tongue, isn't it. However, if it was that Lesnar v. Wyatt I mentioned or Punk v Ryback fr HIAC 2012 or something of similar WTFness, I'd be inclined to buy because I'd lose my shit if a stream cuts out and I miss an unpredictable finish.

WWE's goal, like any company, is to create hardcore fans from the crowd, and in this case that's especially true because A CASUAL FAN WILL NOT BUY THE NETWORK! Therefore, make sure the hardcore fans have a reason to buy or keep buying. Besides, they became hardcore for a reason, and they know what the casual fan wants to see because they themselves once saw something that earned their devotion. Analogy: If you keep the secured crowd fed, it's then that the onlookers will see how satisfied they are and want to eat for themselves. Instead, WWE are dangling the familiar foods in front of the casual crowd, not realizing that just because the people know what a cheeseburger is doesn't mean they will always want to eat it.

The fans the WWE or any company for that matter are interested in have $10 per month. Youtube is free. Youtube is also disorganized and filled with crappy VHS transfers. And streaming is just flat out stealing. Your argument once again is "Give the hardcore fans a reason to buy the network." Well they already have. Thousands of hours of content and every monthly ppv included in the $9.99 price. That's a huge reason. If you're a wrestling fan and that doesn't excite you you're probably not as hardcore as you think. Hardcore implies hard to lose, fanatical, obsessive. What you're describing is a hard to please casual fan who won't even fork over $10 per month and still expect the WWE to bend over backwards for you.

 

[Da Solo]

The fans the WWE or any company for that matter are interested in have $10 per month. Youtube is free. Youtube is also disorganized and filled with crappy VHS transfers. And streaming is just flat out stealing. Your argument once again is "Give the hardcore fans a reason to buy the network." Well they already have. Thousands of hours of content and every monthly ppv included in the $9.99 price. That's a huge reason. If you're a wrestling fan and that doesn't excite you you're probably not as hardcore as you think. Hardcore implies hard to lose, fanatical, obsessive. What you're describing is a hard to please casual fan who won't even fork over $10 per month and still expect the WWE to bend over backwards for you.

You are misunderstanding me. This is not me saying put all the IWC favorites in the main events or to give me what I WANT like I'm the only viewer, this is just business sense. I'm a weekly viewer, I've bought the shorts and go to most events as possible in my area and so on and so forth, so I consider myself a hardcore fan (plus the fact I'm wasting time here should add to that). But when it's time to cut costs, I said bump the magazine (which is dying anyway) and only buy the really enticing PPVS. Then the network came out, and while its a great deal, the back catalog is mostly matched by Youtube for whatever I want to see (quality featureless) so from my perspective the $10 is for the PPV really, and that's still a great deal. But just because someone is a hardcore fan does not mean they will buy/keep the network with all costs out of the question. Vince is rich enough so no sympathy. The product has to be on point, and since the one who's watching the most of your product are hardcore fans, then don't be afraid to give them what they want because of what's good for business. Most times what they want is the best for the business, because they are a big contributor in it. Case in Point: RR this year (face it, Bryan was over with everyone, but I doubt the kids and sometimes viewers would shit on a whole rumble for him under their own influence.) I'm not saying follow every waking trend, but pay attention to what's hot instead of trying to make it hot synthetically.

 

[Headman]

You are misunderstanding me. This is not me saying put all the IWC favorites in the main events or to give me what I WANT like I'm the only viewer, this is just business sense. I'm a weekly viewer, I've bought the shorts and go to most events as possible in my area and so on and so forth, so I consider myself a hardcore fan (plus the fact I'm wasting time here should add to that). But when it's time to cut costs, I said bump the magazine (which is dying anyway) and only buy the really enticing PPVS. Then the network came out, and while its a great deal, the back catalog is mostly matched by Youtube for whatever I want to see (quality featureless) so from my perspective the $10 is for the PPV really, and that's still a great deal. But just because someone is a hardcore fan does not mean they will buy/keep the network with all costs out of the question. Vince is rich enough so no sympathy. The product has to be on point, and since the one who's watching the most of your product are hardcore fans, then don't be afraid to give them what they want because of what's good for business. Most times what they want is the best for the business, because they are a big contributor in it. Case in Point: RR this year (face it, Bryan was over with everyone, but I doubt the kids and sometimes viewers would shit on a whole rumble for him under their own influence.) I'm not saying follow every waking trend, but pay attention to what's hot instead of trying to make it hot synthetically.

I think they do pay attention to what's hot, but every time they over react and jump on a trend it seems to bite them in the ass. If finances are a fans reason not to purchase the network better booking isn't going to change their minds. There is no scenario where I can see anyone on a tight budget saying to themselves "I need to eat but the WWE is so well booked right now! I can't decide!". My main point is this. The hardcore fans for the most part have their subscriptions already. Yes there are a few who don't for whatever reason, but the numbers in that category aren't what's hurting them. The WWE for whatever reason over estimated the demand within the United States. The fact remains they have a good product that will catch on if they're patient. Knee jerk booking changes will just piss fans off. If you want to see how a company works when it does nothing but react to the IWC or "Hardcore fans" look at TNA.

One last point I'd like to add. The WWE set the number at 1,000,000 because they estimated that they had 1,000,000 "Hardcore" WWE fans out there. That was the number they thought they had in the bag. As it turns out there are only 650,000 hardcore wrestling fans in the United States. There is now for the first time ever a reasonable estimate for how many smarks are out there. At least paying ones. And the number isn't even a third of their audience. I find that very interesting.

 

[Alastor]

The hardcore fans are the ones buying that shitty B-level PPV at $50 that contribute to 'wtf 200,000 people paid for this shit?' I am sure they are getting the network purely on the PPVs alone. Channel surfing/seasonal viewers like you and I and not what they would consider 'hardcore' fanbase. We are probably in the 'long time and potential returning viewers' portion. Sorry you might consider yourself 'hardcore wrestling fan' but to WWE they only consider hardcore as dedicated WWE fans.

For all PAYING fans, the WWE network is a steal, as you already mentioned. If a viewer simply ordered Wrestlemania + 2 other PPVs a year individually, he/she is already in the green compared to pre-Network days. For WWE that person is contributing year round instead of only for 3 PPVs. (cable companies get their cut too) It is win-win for the company and the fans if things work out. That is why they are so desperate in getting people to sign up because they based their estimates on Wrestlemania buys but there is still a lot of inertia in the fan base to adopt the network. I think it is due to habits or waiting for the technology to be stable or something and not really content wise. People streaming will still stream. Easy beats free as Apple has shown but easy cannot match up to free and easy.

To be honest I think you are just trying to justify your streaming of PPVs when the PPVs are much cheaper for 'hardcore cred' or whatever passes off as hardcore to you. No judgement here about streaming but it is hard for me to comprehend when you are willing to go to local shows but $60 for 6 months for 6 PPVs is somehow too expensive and not enough value. And honestly this just sound more and more like another thinly disguised rant about predictability being bad. You are just piggy-backing on WWE's current plight to make your case seem more legit. It isn't. Predictability has a lot of cons but it has its pros too but I won't waste time on 'hardcore' fans who don't get it. (Imagine booking a 51 consecutive TV show every year and everything being NOT PREDICTABLE)