Pay Per Ghost
What they f*ck happened in the thread section here
The OP is a great man. He's granting wishes for the Take-A-Piss foundation.
Wrestlemania failed on every level from a fans perspective.
- Thread starter Sedated
- Start date
- Status
The OP is a great man. He's granting wishes for the Take-A-Piss foundation.
George Steele's Barber
Advertise Here $9.95/month
It failed to reach Level 4-3 but that was because it found a short cut to Level 8-1.
#bethefirsttonamethereferenceforgreenrep
Fire Marshall Bill
Let me show ya somethin!!!
Mario 
I love randomly inserted references. Probably why I like Family Guy so much.
I love randomly inserted references. Probably why I like Family Guy so much.
I just noticed this thread, read the first post, and skipped down to here.
Everyone's got something to bitch about. But when they bitch because the results they personally wanted (but aren't necessary for the purpose of successful storylines) didn't happen, they think the event sucked.
I attended Wrestlemania and had floor seats. I couldn't see the ring because there were a dozen sasquatches sitting in front of me. So I paid almost $500 to watch the TV screens hung up at Metlife Stadium and to cheer along with the crowd. With all that being said, I still thought the show was incredible. Sure, some endings were predictable but did you expect anything less? Furthermore, did any of you see both the Shield AND Mark Henry winning their matches? Exactly.
It was one of the best Mania's in years, in my eyes.
Everyone's got something to bitch about. But when they bitch because the results they personally wanted (but aren't necessary for the purpose of successful storylines) didn't happen, they think the event sucked.
I attended Wrestlemania and had floor seats. I couldn't see the ring because there were a dozen sasquatches sitting in front of me. So I paid almost $500 to watch the TV screens hung up at Metlife Stadium and to cheer along with the crowd. With all that being said, I still thought the show was incredible. Sure, some endings were predictable but did you expect anything less? Furthermore, did any of you see both the Shield AND Mark Henry winning their matches? Exactly.
It was one of the best Mania's in years, in my eyes.
Mighty NorCal
SHALL WE BEGIN?
Its actually even better when you watch the tv broadccast. I watched in monday after RAW, and its certainley a solid "B"
The Butcher
ð¶
Is everyone done bitching about WrestleMania yet? Is it safe to post again?
Pay Per Ghost
What they f*ck happened in the thread section here
Mighty NorCal
SHALL WE BEGIN?
Well, fuckin AWA used to get a rating of 25 on a regular basis.
Damn that Hulk hOgan and Andre for only getting 11s and driving people away from wrestling. Its for no other reason AT ALL besides them not being over. Them and only them, and only that reason.
Damn that Hulk hOgan and Andre for only getting 11s and driving people away from wrestling. Its for no other reason AT ALL besides them not being over. Them and only them, and only that reason.
So had some time to look over these numbers some more.
This is the last time I'm going to say this: The Chris Benoit argument is absolute horse shit. A continual decline in ratings (and the business in general) has zero to do with something Benoit did almost 6 years ago at this stage.
As I've pointed out countless times ratings have been going down since 2009. Some of you can try to spin it however you want, the fact is that ratings and viewership are down.
Merchandise has ALSO been down since 2009. On a semi side note: for 2008 WWE had their highest reported revenue from merchandise AND total revenue and yet their net income was: 45,400,000. This is.. I believe their 6th lowest reported net income out of the 13 here. The point is that revenue is a pretty meaningless number and merchandise revenue is FAR from the factor that some of you want to make it out to be, there are A LOT of elements to the WWE's business model and all of them are important.
Aside from all that, I'm sure WWE treats merchandise very differently then they did even 10 years ago. I don't believe there was ever such a big focus on t-shirts even until around the time of DX/Austin/NWO. Austin had a new t-shirt to show off every couple of months, that wasn't really done before the AE era....sure there were t-shirts but they weren't as relevant.
Now? http://shop.wwe.com/
look for your self. There's fucking BBQ sauce and phone covers on the front page. They didn't use to have all this shit,. They keep expanding their merchandise offerings, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's a big part of the reason why merchandise continues to sell well. It's not due to Cena selling 100 million in T-shirts. Not to mention they sell DVD's of wrestling's past and video games to a fair number of people who don't even really keep up with the current product.
I mean c'mon, look at this shit http://shop.wwe.com/The-Rock-5-pack... Color&start=15&cgid=superstar-alumni-therock It's fucking The Rock socks!
Side question: Do the WWE's garbage movies fall under the merchandise category?
Now let's look at PPV sales, also since 2009 there has been a general decrease across all of the ppv buyrates with the exception of Wrestlemania. If you look at TLC year by year for instance you will see a general decline (Maybe you wont, I'm just using TLC as an example).
Now as a total buyrates aren't going down, they've actually been going slightly up since 2010 BUT the only reason for this is due to increased sales in Wrestlemania, some years the difference in Wrestlemania is equal to an extra PPV. That's pretty impressive actually! There are a couple exception PPV's in some years here and there but when you look at each individual ppv for it's month year by year the majority of them are down.
What does this tell us? One of two things (or perhaps even a little of both) are the likely answers 1. Wrestlemania has become its own draw, it's almost taken on a life of its own at this point, kinda how people who don't care that much about the NFL will watch the superbowl. 2. The Undertaker is selling these PPV's with the streak at this point.
There's no attendance numbers for 2011 or 2012 so it's not worth talking about the house shows aspect.
Net income (The part that really matters) has been down since 2010. When you compare 2010 to 2012 it's a difference of over 20 million dollars, that's a lot of fucking money.
Closing arguments:
Draws DO NOT lose Ratings. Draws DO NOT lose buy rates. Draws DO NOT lose the company profit. Draws DO NOT even simply keep the company coasting.
If you want to argue if Cena EVER was a draw, it's a completely different matter from is Cena a draw NOW. Saying Cena is a draw now is like saying Hogan is still a draw just because at one time he actually was (Okay it's a huge difference but the point still stands that once a draw doesn't = always a draw.)
The entire product is in general decline and Cena is the face of the company. Cena wins the championships, even when Cena isn't the champ he's usually headlining the show. He opens most shows, he closes most shows, to an extent he is supposed to be the show but the product is in decline.
Is Cena the ONLY reason? No. Like I said before in all circumstances, no matter the strength of the draw wrestling is still a team effort on at least some level, but to say none of this is Cena's fault? or that all these facts don't exist? That's nothing but being a nut gargling mark.
Now with all that being said: Bring on the lies and excuses!
This is the last time I'm going to say this: The Chris Benoit argument is absolute horse shit. A continual decline in ratings (and the business in general) has zero to do with something Benoit did almost 6 years ago at this stage.
As I've pointed out countless times ratings have been going down since 2009. Some of you can try to spin it however you want, the fact is that ratings and viewership are down.
Merchandise has ALSO been down since 2009. On a semi side note: for 2008 WWE had their highest reported revenue from merchandise AND total revenue and yet their net income was: 45,400,000. This is.. I believe their 6th lowest reported net income out of the 13 here. The point is that revenue is a pretty meaningless number and merchandise revenue is FAR from the factor that some of you want to make it out to be, there are A LOT of elements to the WWE's business model and all of them are important.
Aside from all that, I'm sure WWE treats merchandise very differently then they did even 10 years ago. I don't believe there was ever such a big focus on t-shirts even until around the time of DX/Austin/NWO. Austin had a new t-shirt to show off every couple of months, that wasn't really done before the AE era....sure there were t-shirts but they weren't as relevant.
Now? http://shop.wwe.com/
look for your self. There's fucking BBQ sauce and phone covers on the front page. They didn't use to have all this shit,. They keep expanding their merchandise offerings, there's nothing wrong with that, but it's a big part of the reason why merchandise continues to sell well. It's not due to Cena selling 100 million in T-shirts. Not to mention they sell DVD's of wrestling's past and video games to a fair number of people who don't even really keep up with the current product.
I mean c'mon, look at this shit http://shop.wwe.com/The-Rock-5-pack... Color&start=15&cgid=superstar-alumni-therock It's fucking The Rock socks!
Side question: Do the WWE's garbage movies fall under the merchandise category?
Now let's look at PPV sales, also since 2009 there has been a general decrease across all of the ppv buyrates with the exception of Wrestlemania. If you look at TLC year by year for instance you will see a general decline (Maybe you wont, I'm just using TLC as an example).
Now as a total buyrates aren't going down, they've actually been going slightly up since 2010 BUT the only reason for this is due to increased sales in Wrestlemania, some years the difference in Wrestlemania is equal to an extra PPV. That's pretty impressive actually! There are a couple exception PPV's in some years here and there but when you look at each individual ppv for it's month year by year the majority of them are down.
What does this tell us? One of two things (or perhaps even a little of both) are the likely answers 1. Wrestlemania has become its own draw, it's almost taken on a life of its own at this point, kinda how people who don't care that much about the NFL will watch the superbowl. 2. The Undertaker is selling these PPV's with the streak at this point.
There's no attendance numbers for 2011 or 2012 so it's not worth talking about the house shows aspect.
Net income (The part that really matters) has been down since 2010. When you compare 2010 to 2012 it's a difference of over 20 million dollars, that's a lot of fucking money.
Closing arguments:
Draws DO NOT lose Ratings. Draws DO NOT lose buy rates. Draws DO NOT lose the company profit. Draws DO NOT even simply keep the company coasting.
If you want to argue if Cena EVER was a draw, it's a completely different matter from is Cena a draw NOW. Saying Cena is a draw now is like saying Hogan is still a draw just because at one time he actually was (Okay it's a huge difference but the point still stands that once a draw doesn't = always a draw.)
The entire product is in general decline and Cena is the face of the company. Cena wins the championships, even when Cena isn't the champ he's usually headlining the show. He opens most shows, he closes most shows, to an extent he is supposed to be the show but the product is in decline.
Is Cena the ONLY reason? No. Like I said before in all circumstances, no matter the strength of the draw wrestling is still a team effort on at least some level, but to say none of this is Cena's fault? or that all these facts don't exist? That's nothing but being a nut gargling mark.
Now with all that being said: Bring on the lies and excuses!
Pay Per Ghost
What they f*ck happened in the thread section here
This is all well and good, so tell me, why is Cena still the face?
Lack of good full time talent. Cena is the most consistent person they have (As sad as that is.) a lot of his matches are lazy, he's capable of more than what he usually gives in a match but his overall work rate is impressive. The man is also almost never injured. Even when he does get injured he ends up coming back ahead of schedule it seems. Even though he's not exactly drawing he's still reliable as fuck and that does count for something.
I actually don't consider myself a big Cena hater, I was very high on him when he debuted as a heel, was I a huge fan of the rapper gimic? Ehhh The whole white rapper thing was kinda cheesy but it worked really well for him, it was a bad gimic that he managed to make a pretty good one.. if you get what I'm saying. I recognize when enough is just enough though and something has to change somewhere with him. I haven't been crazy about him for a very long time but I understood it a lot more. Now? Years later? They're just beating the dead horse that is Super Cena.
My favorite match of his to this day was him vs ... I don't even remember his name that guy who hung out with Carlito. Well Cena had a match with him, was no DQ and he just beat the piss out him up and down the arena. It reminded me so much of watching an Austin match, it didn't matter who he was beating the hell out of it was entertaining as fuck just watching him do it. I've only seen the match the once so I probably remember it a little differently in my head then how it might have actually went down but I just know at the time I sat there and watching it with a big smile on my face thinking "This guy has it, he's could easily be the next SCSA' but the Cena I saw that night and various other nights just wasn't the same Cena who ended up winning belts and headlining shows.. this goes deeper than just his gimic...his story telling and his in ring psychology somehow got worse..how the fuck does that happen? Hell he had one hell of a match with Undertaker early on in his Career..I think I even watched it again on youtube not that long ago and it was just sad how much potential he showed in that much compared to what he turned out to be.
So really my biggest gripe with Cena is how much wasted potential is there, blame it on WWE, blame it on Cena him self, whatever, he's actually a lot more talented than what he usually gives us.
As far as young talent goes there are two sides to it. On one hand the WWE doesn't have much but on the other hand they book their young talent poorly. Look at Daniel Bryan, love or hate his tag team with Kane it's pretty hard to say he couldn't be doing a lot more important things right now. Daniel Bryan also suffered from horrible booking followed by WHC MITB cash in wins... how the fuck does that make sense?
Look at how Ryback has been built up and then tore down... even if he goes on to become the most over mega draw EVER as a result of this angle he's about to have with Cena, these past however many months with Ryback have been atrocious booking.
Even Dolph Ziggler.. he hasn't been booked HORRIBLY like a lot of other cases but I wouldn't call his recent booking good and now he's WHC? He should have had more momentum coming into this, there's no real excuse for it. I'm not even a Dolph Ziggler believer (Yet at least, I'm hoping he can change my mind.) but even while I'd moan through his matches I'd still be annoyed by a lot of the outcomes because I know he's going to be a WHC soon and with that being the case he should be booked as someone on the cusp of greatness.
WWE fucks up what they have before it usually even begins. Also MITB needs to stop being given to younger up and comers, it just doesn't work and generally keeps resulting in bad title "reigns". CM Punk was booked like shit and then won a WHC off a MITB cash in too...it needs to stop.
The MITB idea is exciting but they need to stop building weak looking champions off of it who look like they are only champion because of the MITB. Let people like Cena, Orton, Sheamus, Big show etc. fight over it, people you already believe can be champion and keep it around for the novelty of it if anything. I'd also argue that it should be kept at 1 MITB briefcase, then the winner can cash in on any titlle he chooses, two of them floating around is just too much and if the winner can cash it in for any belt it would add to the excitement and drama of it all.
One more random recent example of bad booking of younger talent: Jack Swagger. He lost the match at Wrestlemania - fine, don't have a problem here. Was there any real reason to book Swagger losing the very next day to Del Rio again just for Ziggler to swoop in and cash in? Why couldn't this match have ended in DQ with Swagger beating up Del Rio's leg with one of Ricardo's crutches or some such? Why was that match even a handicap match? I don't think Coulter did a single thing?
Now Swagger looks like an evil, dastardly heel. Del Rio doesn't look any worse than he did with the way it actually went down. Ziggler is still champion.
They could then book a triple threat at extreme rules with Swagger, Del Rio, and Ziggler or something. Zeb Coulter could start bashing on Big E for being black or some shit, that should draw some mega heat. Ziggler can piss and moan about how he JUST won the title and his first defense is in a triple threat match (Typical heal shtick 101). I don't know, this all seems pretty obvious to me.
Now let's say Ziggler retains, you can phase out Swagger at this point if you want and have Del Rio vs Ziggler 1 on 1 at the next ppv with out it feeling like a total rehash, it's certainly better than the straight up rematch fests we usually get. It also keeps options open and gives everyone more of a chance imo.
Anyway, like I've already said Cena is far from the only problem with WWE. That doesn't make him blameless though.
*Edit* The fact that he's not really a draw isn't even that much of a direct knock on him, there's no real reason he still should be at this point. He's been using the exact same gimic for how many years? You can't do that shit anymore, you can't just keep going on and on and on with the exact same shtick like Hogan could at a time. Things are different now, you have to keep changing and evolving but Cena just stagnates.
I think WWE also has a misguided notion of "Cena gets heel heat as it is so why bother? It's the best of both worlds!" that's not true though, if only for the reason of mixing things up and trying to make it seem new and exciting.
That's all excluding that as someone else pointed out (and rightfully so) it doesn't even HAVE to be a heel turn. What I'll call Austin 3:16 was quite a bit different to Austin with the WHAT?! catch phrase, it was still Austin but it was different, it put a little bit of a new spin on things, and freshened stuff up some.
Fire Marshall Bill
Let me show ya somethin!!!
Fucking losers.
Off topic: http://www.wwe.com/classics/classic-lists/the-25-greatest-mic-moments-in-wrestling-history/page-6
Some good moments to rewatch here.
There's a surprising variety for a WWE list regardless if you actually agree with the list or not.
Some good moments to rewatch here.
There's a surprising variety for a WWE list regardless if you actually agree with the list or not.
The Butcher
ð¶
If this thread were a person I'd be in jail for assault.
Then this will be the last time I say this...you are unequivocally wrong.
1) Business hasn't declined in general
2)The ratings are effected by numerous other factors, but the audience which left after Benoit has not appeared to have come back.
Which would be three years, not 4. 2010, 2011 and 2012. 2009 actually marked an increase in ratings.
The bold is completely false and you've never even once tried to prove it.
Ratings do not equal viewership. Ratings equal percentage of viewership. If 6 people out of 10 watch something, then 60% are watching. If 100 out of 1000 are watching then only 10% are watching, but the viewership is much higher.
You cannot just make grand claims without any supporting evidence.
Yes, imagine that. As the worldwide economy has suffered staggering losses, which (at least in America) have hit those on the lower income levels much worse than the higher income levels, people have less money to spend on luxury items. Who would have thought?
No, they don't. The only real difference in merchandising are the DVDs, which certainly played a part in the larger merchandise sales back from 2005-2008. But now that the WWE has overplayed their hand with DVDs, that element of business has cooled off.
Uhh...that was MUCH longer than 10 years ago...
The nWo shirt is the best selling shirt of all time (at least, it was for a long time and I'd be surprised if it's not still true). The nWo's greatest times were from '96-98. That would be closer to 20 years ago than 10.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/417604-wwe-weirdest-merchandise-a-strange-top-10
Nostalgia is fun.
Merchandise only sells if there is a demand for it.
Good question. I would imagine they are included under the film division, which I don't believe is included with the merchandise division.
Again...global economic collapse...
By the way, this is wrong. 2012 was the strongest year for average PPV purchases since 2008 (remember that economic collapse thing?) and the best for revenue since 2002. And that's only if you include the standard definition price of Wrestlemania and not the $10 more HD.
I don't understand your point. So because John Cena main-events Wrestlemania every year, we cannot include it in looking at PPV business?
Yes, because Wrestlemania had never done that before John Cena...
Yes, because Undertaker never had the streak before 2010 and nobody cared about watching John Cena vs. The Rock. While I was disagreeing with what you were saying, this is the first time in this post you just said something incredibly stupid.
I suggest you apologize for such a ridiculous statement and regain a little of your self-respect.
And anyone who read the spreadsheets like you did (and dishonestly failed to mention) would know most of that money loss has been due to the WWE Films division, not the pro wrestling aspect. I very clearly mentioned that in 2011's row and the same is true for 2012.
You keep trying to argue in a vacuum and ignore the fact that nothing happens in a vacuum. You cannot look at a single factor and make a judgment, without looking at all the other factors as well.
And neither does John Cena. The WWE gets minute by minute breakdowns of each and every show. They get viewership trends by the minute. They read these reports and they put John Cena in the main-event of the biggest show every year.
You're wrong about this.
No, but global economic collapses do.
Which is why we're talking about how John Cena has gained them profit.
The WWE is a larger brand today than it was in the Attitude Era. They are starting their own television station, their wrestlers are on other shows on regular basis, a big name in Hollywood actively wrestles for them, a former UFC champion actively wrestles for them, they are posted on cereal boxes, covered on a weekly basis on ESPN.com, etc.
That's not simply coasting, that's progressing.
No, it is not. You can repeat this statement all you want, but it will never become true.
Fire Marshall Bill
Let me show ya somethin!!!
Sometimes I feel like Sly could argue that the Earth is flat and win.
Please feel free to explain how Benoit caused ratings to drop from 2011-2012.
1. The documentation you your self presented proves it has.
2. This doesn't matter, If they left and never came back how are they continuing to cause a decrease in viewership? The ratings aren't the same from the supposed loss in viewership that Benoit caused, they're still going down.
Fair enough.
Do you have the actual viewership numbers or are you just trying to counter what you're calling an unsubstantiated claim with one of your own?
I'll send 10 bucks to your paypal account if you can prove viewership was up in 2012 vs 2009 for Raw.
So at would point would you say it's fair to possibly lay some of the blame at the feet of Cena? The levels you're willing to go to defend his "drawing" power seem rather over the top to me. You know what these are? Excuses one after the next after the next. Some are a little more credible than others but at the end of the day that's all this is - excuses.
I never stated it wasn't. I stated that even if you compared now to 10 years ago I think you'd find that WWE has expanded their merchandise by quite a bit. That was a separate point from the T-shirt thing. You're just trying to argue for the sake of petty arguing now.
1. T-shirts didn't even become the huge deal they are today until NWO/AE
2. Even if you went back 10 years, to 2003 I think you'd find a lot of changes and evolution to WWE's merchandising.
Is that better? lol
I admit I could have worded it a little better but c'mon now let's try to avoid being this petty please.
Okay, WWE has always offered some funky products. I'd still say BBQ sauce is a lot more of a leap than the ultimate warrior frisbee....nevermind... hulk hogan had cheeseburgers.
No shit? lol
Fun and games aside though: Exactly. Jim Ross has been selling this BBQ sauce for years now, people must be buying it if he's continuing to sell it as compared to those Hogan cheeseburgers which I never knew existed.
Now? WWE has the internet to sell merchandise and I'd also imagine they also offer a larger variety at most shows than they did back in the day.
Well.. that aside, I'd imagine DVD's still fall into the category of merchandise sales? That's another example of a pretty big evolution of merchandising. WWE comes out with a cubic fuck ton of DVDs now between current ones for current wrestlers and all the stuff they do with their back catalog. The cost of making a lot of these DVD's are probably about as cheap as you can get since the footage is already there. I know you said that WWE over saturated their DVD market or whatever but it's still a good example of how merchandising has evolved regardless if WWE screwed the pooch on it or not.
Side note: I watch most the ones they toss up on Netflix, a lot of them are pretty fun. I just finished the top raw moments one.
I'm not saying that it's impossible that economic woes or various other things of the nature could cause issues. Why can't you admit though that at the least it's possible Cena getting stale has also played a role in this? To not at the very least entertain the theory or admit it's a possibility while throwing every excuse you can find at the situation is just playing ignorant.
Okay I checked it out again and you're correct about the PPV buy rates are stronger in 2012 than they are in 2011. It was a lot of data to sift through in a sitting so I'm not really surprised if I made an error here or there and I'm more than willing to admit to it even though I'm sure someone will jump all over me for it but whatever lol
I will say this though: The big difference in 2011 to 2012 is Extreme Rules and Summerslam. That's because Lesnar is actually still a draw and that's what draws do.
Also worth noting is the HIAC PPV in which Cena wasn't on the card also out drew HIAC 2011 and has the second highest buy rate for a non big 4 ppv in 2012. The highest one being Extreme Rules with Lesnar.
He's main evented the majority of PPV's for years and years, if people were buying PPV's because of John Cena to that extent there wouldn't be up to a million buy rate difference when comparing any other PPV that Cena headlines to Wrestlemania.
Yes, because Wrestlemania had never done that before John Cena...
Never said that. I'm just stating that Wrestlemania just keeps on becoming more and more of a big deal just because it's Wrestlemania.
Yes, because Undertaker never had the streak before 2010 and nobody cared about watching John Cena vs. The Rock. While I was disagreeing with what you were saying, this is the first time in this post you just said something incredibly stupid.
The streak part was actually sarcasm..I wasn't trying to knock the streak I was just saying it sarcastically because it's the one super consistent thing about Wrestlemania but I guess it didn't translate over, I'm kinda tired atm and I'm sure I could be wording a lot of what I'm saying better but whatever.
All that aside I'd say the streak has been a much bigger deal since the HBK matches... it's always been a deal but I think it's that much more of one now. This is really a whole other topic though and has nothing to do with what we're really talking about.
lol, calm down now, I didn't dishonestly fail to mention anything. It seemed reasonable enough that if you bothered to make a cliff note for 2011 you would do the same for 2012 if it was once again relevant and/or reflected.
You know I laugh to myself every time I see crap like ratings by segment. I also facepalm a little every time a ratings report comes in that is low and people comment "The show was shit, no duh ratings were low!"
Wrestling is a little different but ratings are a better indication of how good the show was the week before than how good the show you're already watching is. Now granted if ratings decrease every single time Santino is on TV you should take note but it's not like people can know if a show is going to be shit before it even happens. Ratings are a better indication of how much people liked what came before than how much people like what they're actually now watching.
Wrestling is a little different because you have matches advertised ahead of time and special appearances that are announced ahead of time. I think as a whole what I'm saying still stands true though.
Yea they're a larger brand today but that has more to do with the whole "WWE Universe" philosophy than it does with Cena.
Besides, just because the WWE has their hooks in more things doesn't make them a better company or a more profitable one (WWE fils for example.) it just means they're trying to expand. Almost all of the things you mentioned aren't a result of Cena except the fruity pebbles gig which is really more because of The Rock lol
Okay. This post took me a stupidly long time to create because I keep dozing off trying to type lol so I apologize and I apologize for all the extra shitty grammar and spelling that's likely in this post and poor wording.
Also my bad if I left out anything you said that you thought was important, you can point it out and I'll address it later when I've had some sleep. I think the only stuff I left out though were like one liners like you saying "global econmic crisis" a few more times..but I already addressed that at other times..if I missed something you want a response to feel free...nitey nite.
I already showed it caused a huge drop in 2007, taking a trend of rising ratings and having the bottom fall out. I've also explained how viewership has been diluted, especially with the rise of Internet streaming, piracy, DVR, etc.
No, it doesn't. Again, you seem to want to think everything exists in a vacuum. It doesn't.
I've combined these, because they all come to the same point.
I can't prove it, that's the point. With an increase in number of households watching television, the rise of Internet streaming (legal and illegal) and piracy, DVRs, etc. there's no accurate measure to determine ANYTHING about viewership.
You're trying to claim that since the WWE gets a lower percentage of television viewers today than they did 10 years ago, this shows that Cena is responsible for fewer people watching. Ignoring for a moment the absolute absurdity of claiming the company's biggest draw is the reason ratings go down, any person with a basic high school math education knows that percentage and total numbers are not the same thing. And an honest person would acknowledge programming is watched in ways today which were impossible to imagine even 10 years ago. Hulu Plus was nothing but a dream. Sites like justin.tv or ustream? Incredibly rare. Pirating entire shows? Much less common due to poorer internet connections. Even the revolutionary YouTube didn't exist until 2005.
Ratings are a quick and dirty way to assess something, we all do it. But once you are introduced to an in-depth discussion on a topic, you simply cannot use nothing but ratings to make an argument about viewership of the product.
The point where you can concretely prove any of the negatives you claim to exist (which most of the time really do not) only exist because of Cena.
If you think blaming a worldwide economic crisis for reduced luxury spending is "over the top" then I don't know what to tell you.
Do you really think it's a coincidence that the monetary streams to the WWE took a hit, starting in 2009? Do you think people said, "Well, we've given our money to watch John Cena and the WWE for years, but now that it's 2009, we're simply not going to do it anymore"? That's absurd. TRILLIONS of dollars were lost from the US economy during the financial crash of 2008. Unemployment reached over 10%, our government lost billions of dollars in expected tax revenue and business went out of business left and right.
For you to think what happened in 2008 had little to no effect on the WWE's business is incredibly ignorant.
Then your comment was stupid. You start your paragraph talking about merchandise from today compared to 10 years ago, and then to support it you talk about t-shirts from 15 years ago?
You need to organize your thoughts better.
Which has nothing to do with anything we've talked about. Unless you're trying to claim John Cena is not the same level of a draw as Steve Austin is, at which point I'd agree but point out the fact you're even comparing the two shows Cena IS a draw.
I kid you not. Which just goes to show the WWE could offer a million products, but if only fans only wanted to purchase one product, it wouldn't matter how many were offered.
As they did in 2003.
Why would you imagine that?
Not the DVDs of their movies, I'd imagine. The WWE would want their films division to look as financially attractive as possible, in order to draw investors to it and the company. The films division, as I noted in my last post, has taken a severe beating and has been bleeding money, which is totally expected for a major startup. Taking the money away from its films division to pad the merchandise sales just doesn't make much sense.
I could be wrong on this, as I don't know how the laws require revenue to be reported, but I imagine the WWE would much rather claim WWE movies as part of the film division.
Which is why you saw such a spike in merchandise sales for a few years. With the success of the Rise and Fall of ECW, the WWE saw a market which had previously been ignored, with the exception of half-hearted attempts to sell things (like HBK's Boyhood Dreams, which was a bunch of heavily cut matches). When the WWE saw the success they had, they started pumping out the DVDs, and you saw a huge increase in merchandising.
But once they played their initial hand, they didn't have much left. So today, you see a bunch of DVDs like "Ladder matches 2" which don't resonate with fans nearly as much.
I understand your claim that the WWE has pursued alternate forms of merchandising and that it has benefited merchandising. What I'm saying is merchandising is only effective if you have people who want to buy it. And the fact of the matter is John Cena has been reported on a couple of different occasions to be responsible for a ridiculous percentage of merchandise sales. If I'm not mistaken, back in 2004, it was over 20% of the merchandise sold (I'd source that, but since the source is so old, I'm not sure it even exists anymore or where...but it was once reported on the WWE's own website). Over 20% just for one midcarder. To argue it would have shrunk rapidly as Cena has become more important in pro wrestling would fly in the face of all pro wrestling logic.
Because there's nothing to suggest that. If Cena was getting stale, and fans were becoming turned off, why is the WWE still putting him at the top of the card? The Miz didn't draw as champion, so where is he now? How about Jack Swagger after his 2007 run? Chris Jericho?
Your position on this simply does not make sense. The WWE gets minute by minute breakdowns of viewership trends throughout their show. John Cena is regularly in segments which are 10-15 minutes long, so for each minute of those 10-15 minutes, the WWE can see if viewers are tuning in or tuning out. The WWE has exact breakdowns of which wrestler makes up what percentage of merchandise sales. Surveys are done all the time by marketing companies for advertisers to decide who they want marketing their stuff, and the WWE knows which of their performers are most attractive to advertisers, because the WWE wants the most money possible from the advertisers.
So why can't I admit it? Because it just doesn't make sense when you look at the reality of the WWE's business.
No it's not. It's understanding the WWE has far more refined and detailed analytics to determine which of their wrestlers are their moneymakers. It's understanding that ratings don't exist in a vacuum and two 3.5 ratings in different years don't represent the same number of viewers. It's understanding you cannot look at just one factor to support an argument.
It's not ignorant, it's the very opposite of ignorant.
If you think it's a lot of data to read, imagine what it was like to initially compile.Okay I checked it out again and you're correct about the PPV buy rates are stronger in 2012 than they are in 2011. It was a lot of data to sift through in a sitting so I'm not really surprised if I made an error here or there and I'm more than willing to admit to it even though I'm sure someone will jump all over me for it but whatever lol
7 of the 12 PPVs in 2012 did 17,000 or more buys than the 2011 version. Of the PPVs which lost buys from the previous year, Rumble lost 3,000, MITB lost 7,000 and TLC lost 4,000. Wrestlemania alone gained 158,000 buyers, which COMPLETELY covered the buyers lost from PPVs which lost (108,000).
No, contrary to your statement, the big difference wasn't Extreme Rules and Summerslam. The big difference was Wrestlemania, which was headlined by John Cena vs. The Rock.
By the way, who did Brock wrestle at Extreme Rules?
All of this is to say that as the economy has stabilized, unemployment has dropped and people are starting to have more money (and the WWE has found good opponents for Cena), the WWE has seen a rise in business.
Okay? I feel like you think you've made a point here, I just don't know what it is.
Of course Wrestlemania stands out, no one claims otherwise. But John Cena is main-eventing Wrestlemania. You cannot dismiss this. If Wrestlemania was headlining Funaki vs. Ian Rotten, do you think it would be getting 1.2 million buys? Do you think Antonio Cesaro vs. Christian draws 1.2 million buys?
Wrestlemania is certainly an event which draws spectacular interest. But part of that interest is John Cena.
The name means nothing. What makes Wrestlemania Wrestlemania is the fact the biggest stars are colliding. And John Cena is the biggest star right now.
I sure am glad to hear that.
You certainly made no attempt to clarify, because it definitely suited your argument better to not know.
It was, at the very least, slightly dishonest. But, now that you do know, are you willing to drop your claim about merchandise sales in the last two years?
I didn't claim ratings by segment, I claimed ratings by minute. Big difference.
That makes as much sense as saying the WWF exploded in the 80s, but it had more to do with the whole "Rock N Wrestling" philosophy than it did with Hulk Hogan.
In other words, it doesn't make sense. If I started my own promotion, I'd LOVE to have the exposure WWE has. But just because I WANT it, doesn't mean I can have it. The WWE has it because, in large part, of John Cena.
But it does mean they have a broader base to turn viewers onto the product. It does mean they have greater credibility to withstand extremely harmful incidents, like with what happened with Benoit (which, when coupled with the steroid scandal later that summer, is grossly misunderstood for just how destructive it could have been...the WWE could very easily have been decimated forever). These things are important to the business.
Of course they are. John Cena is an advertiser's dream. He appeals an extremely large demographic, most people can relate to him, he's incredibly good looking, isn't covered with tattoos, has never had a serious public mishap and plays the type of character parents love to have their children look up to. Do you think it's just a coincidence you can see Cena's face everywhere?
Cena has been an incredible ambassador for pro wrestling. It's silly to think John Cena has had nothing to do with the WWE's expansion into the mainstream.
One Punch Doug Crashin
I AM INVINSIBLE!
Trying to argue with Sly is like arguing with a single headed coin.
lol, this argument is getting silly. You might have the rest of these people believing the earth is flat but I'm not falling for it. I ask you to explain how Benoit causes decreased ratings from 2011-2012 and you move the goal posts.
No shit you can't prove it. I said viewership just to see if you would come back here and continue to harp on the one thing that can't be proven and low and behold you did. All the evidence shows a general decrease in interest but you'll decry it all for the one statistic we don't have. You'll then say the business isn't down, but then defend the business is down due to Benoit, Piracy, Economic woes, DVR etc. Which is it? Is the business perfectly fine or not? Like usual you just appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
For starters DVR doesn't mean fuck all to a network or to advertisers. Who is going to sit there and watch most of the commercials when they can fast forward it? As far as piracy goes is it an issue? Yes. Is hulu an issue? No because the WWE is well of aware of what's happening on hulu. Are people more likely to pirate something if they continually feel ripped off by it? Yes. You can easily attribute increases in piracy to a partial result of a poor product. Look at how the music industry pissed and moaned and whined about piracy because the consumer felt ripped off paying 15 dollars for artists that were one hit wonders. What good did pissing and moaning and filing lawsuits against little girls do them? Zero good. Finally the music industry started changing how it operates and evolved and things improved for them, the same is true of the movie industry to an extent.
We're way past the point of arguing just ratings. We're arguing basically everything there is to argue at this point. Please at least try to keep the conversation moving forward and let's not take up time saying shit for the sake of saying shit. These posts are just getting ridiculously long.
You sure do have a lot of defenses for negatives that don't exist.
You're continually grasping at straws and either put your head in the sand when the over whelming majority of hard numbers just don't support what you're saying on a multitude of levels or you concoct an array of excuses. This isn't just about your economic crisis claims, this is about the general stances you've taken.
What the fuck... it's absurd that after years and years interest in Cena would start to decrease? People even stopped giving as much of a shit about Hogan until his heel turn. How many times do I have to say that I'll buy into things like economic crisis having an effect but it still doesn't magically clear Cena of any responsibility or liability.
I never pretended it's impossible it had an effect. I remain open to possibilities, the one thing I am not at all open to is that somehow Chris Benoit is a rotting corpse of 6 years that's causing ratings in 2011-2012 to continue to decline. I also understand that there are a lot of factors wrong with WWE programming to bring us to this discussion, but I'm not such a mark that I don't think Cena plays a hand in some of it. You pin all the good to Cena like a badge of honor and come up with excuses to absolve him of all the bad. This is acting like a mark 101.
Again, it was two separate points and I already told you that. You keep beating that dead horse that was misunderstanding though. You've made it abundantly clear how much you enjoy the beating of dead horses in general so I'm not at all surprised.
We're not comparing Cena to Austin because there is no comparison. The fact of the matter is that WWE tries their best to portray Cena in that light and sometimes it's worth pointing out how untrue it is just for the lulz of it.
I meant their wrestling based DVD's, I should have specified, like I said I started falling asleep typing out that last post earlier.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Slyfox696;4416813 But once they played their initial hand said:Not saying this is wrong either. Regardless of how well they currently do is still shows a change in the evolution of the WWE's merchandising. Like I said before though, low sales or not it's probably pretty hard for WWE to not turn some form of profit on these things or at least break even.
I'm not trying to discredit all of John Cena's merchandising accomplishments. I've simply pointed out that WWE's success doesn't rely solely on merchandising and that there have been other changes to the merchandising business model to increase revenue beside John Cena. Beyond all that if merchandise translated over to being a draw than Zack Ryder was at one point a draw, I think we all know that's not true.
I can still give credit where it's due though and I admit that John Cena has done some impressive things when it comes to sales of her merchandise.
I addressed my feelings on all this in a rather lengthy post a couple of posts back, I'm not going go back over it all again.
If WWE is THAT worried about viewers who are so fickle they change the channel each time a segment or character airs that they don't like they'd be doing it wrong, that's not an audience really worth chasing if they're THAT easy to lose. If you think ratings are actually a better indication of what's happening at that exact moment compared to the quality of the program in weeks leading into the current program I'm not sure what to say. Again, it's not like people know if a show is going to be shit until they watch it.
Anyone who actually watches WWE knows there's going to be at least a couple of bad segments, that's just the nature of it with how often WWE is on the air and all that sorta thing.
You're not looking at things very objectively then.
Nobody said ratings exist in a vacuum. I even linked a post from this site that stated the ratings this year were higher for the post WM raw vs last years post WM raw and last years Raw had higher viewership. That's the rating system working in the WWE's favor compared to last year so don't pretend it can only possibly work to their detriment.
We're way past the point of looking at one factor, we're now arguing every single factor available to us haha
Sorry but when it walks like a duck, talks like a duck....
Semi jokes and ribbing aside - I feel you're 100% claiming ignorance on this matterl. I'm not saying this to try to rip on you or anything, I don't know your general opinions on wrestling or the business but when it comes to Cena this seems like the kind of scenario that the term "blind fan boy" comes from.
Basically you're too big of a Cena fan that it prevents you from looking at all of the evidence in a completely rational and level headed manner. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with it. I don't agree with your feelings on Cena that you simply have as a fan. More power to you, if you enjoy Cena you're getting a lot more overall enjoyment out of the current product than those of us who don't care for him so much. The result of this is you being all too eager to make excuses for him while ignoring any possibility of laying blame at him for basically anything. I'm a self admitted Austin mark, I'm also a Kane mark just because of how much I loved the original gimic. When arguing things about Austin I -try- to be as open minded as possible but it's hard because the 10 year old wrestling fan in me just wants to sit here and go "Lalalalala Austin is the best evah!!!" I can at least admit when I have a bias though and while I'm not a Cena fan I have no real bias against him. I have a much bigger bias with the product as a whole than I do with Cena.
You can try to say how regardless of being a Cena fan it hasn't clouded your judgment when it comes to him but I'm not going to believe you, it's human nature to defend the things we care about and if none of us cared about wrestling we wouldn't post here ever.
If you think it's a lot of data to read, imagine what it was like to initially compile.
Again, credit where it's due: Nicely done. On a side note I wish WWE would release more information about buy rates from before they went public. Arguing purposes aside, it's fun stuff to look at as a fan.
Honestly, all the 2012 numbers show to me is there's a decent case that could be made that Lesnar is a bigger draw than The Rock in wrestling currently..makes their booking of him that much more infuriating but that's a whole other story I suppose.
I wasn't counting Wrestlemania because it's well Wrestlemania, I already stated this when I initially talked about buy rates declining that it was with the exception of Wrestlemania.
Brock being a draw doesn't mean Cena is a draw. This is like saying Vince McMahon is a huge draw because Austin was feuding with him so much at that time. You keep trying to give credit to Cena for The Rock and Lesnar being draws just because they were in the same ring as him. That doesn't mean that Cena is a huge draw, that means he's a passable main event caliber wrestler. Summerslam saw about the same level of increased buys as Extreme Rules did and Lesnar fought HHH, I think we all know by now that regardless of your opinion of HHH he was never really a draw.
A rise in buyrates, not an overall rise in business.
Your ignorance is showing again
You damn well know the point being made that HIAC had the 2nd highest non big 4 buy rate in 2012 (2nd only to a Brock Lesnar PPV) and Cena wasn't on it. This is a solid example of Cena not being draw you think he is.
You realize that pointing out how cancerous a Funaki headlined Wrestlemania would be does not make Cena a draw, right? This is a BAD argument. I was expecting more at this stage.
Part of? Sure, for a niche audience. People like Undertaker, The Rock, Brock Lessnar, appeal to almost the entire audience.
The name Wrestlemania means nothing...?You're arguing for the sake of arguing again and saying things I don't even think you truly believe. You can't sell a Wrestlemania card with nothing but jobbers just like you can't sell the super bowl with two high school teams playing. That doesn't mean that Wrestlemania or the Superbowl as names don't mean anything. I'll chalk this up to just being in the mindset of arguing and hope you don't really believe this.
Why would I attempt to clarify something I had no idea existed? I see we've reached the conspiracy theories part of our discussion
Huh? You honestly lost me here, what does net income or WWE films have to do with us arguing over merchandise? Either I'm just not following or you got mixed up in what you were trying to say here.
I know. Ratings by minute sounds even more ridiculous than ratings by segment which is why I didn't even touch ratings by minute. I don't think either of us knows how they really value such over analyzed data such as minute by minute ratings...I won't say there's anything wrong with taking note of it, but you certainly have to be careful with how much you value such data and the kind of changes you could possibly make based on such data. Really think about this one before you respond...I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be in agreement on this..
Except wrestling is far from exploding right now and we all know there's been a huge shift in WWE for how they try to go about business. From the "Be a star" crap to Raw trying to have guest hosts. Vince craves mainstream media acceptance like it's crack.
A theoretical broader base to turn viewers onto the product. As of now this broader base has yet to actually materialize into increased viewership. The only two arguments that can be made for any increased viewership is The Rock and Brock. From what I've seen numbers generally change when these guys are around.
I really don't want to keep going back and forth on the benoit thing because it's a dead horse. The steroid scandal certainly wasn't good but they've become very common in sports and even the olympics has them now. Not to mention this isn't the first scandal WWE has endured centered around steroids, the one other they had was a lot more of a threat than this one. Plus if you couldn't take one look at Scott Steiner and tell he was roided out of his fucking mind than you're just not paying attention or you suffered brain damage somewhere along the line (The general sense of the word you, not you specifically.)
The point is steroids in wrestling wasn't exactly a SURPRISE! moment just because proof of it came to light.. to anyone with a brain it was already very obvious just like it's also very obvious that if wrestlers are still juicing they're not anywhere near as juiced overall in current times.
This is actually the best point you've made but just for a different reason than you intended. Cena is clean cut, no tattoos...idk about "incredibly good looking" but I'll take your word for it
Now Cena being a good ambassador for pro wrestling in the mainstream doesn't mean he's a draw. You will get zero argument from me that he's probably the best ambassador the WWE has ever had. He's never been accused of steroids, he's very clean cut, no tattoos, it's hard to find much of any dirt on the guy.. the biggest thing he's had is his divorce. None of this actually means an increase in business though and in practice none of this has resulted in anything from a profit stand point.
Let's look at it another way, for whatever reason your goal is mainstream acceptance, you're not as worried about your product as a whole because of this focused in on main stream acceptance mindset. Now let's say CM Punk is a slightly bigger draw than John Cena (This is a made up example, play along.) who do you continue to use as your poster boy? The guy who is a slightly better draw, and even has a straight edge message, but he is covered head to toe in tattoos. Oh, and he has bags under his eyes that makes it look like he just finished a week long bender regardless if it's true or not. Or John Cena? I would stick with John Cena for my poster boy too. This doesn't mean John Cena is a bigger draw, it means he's a better choice for my current agenda.
Fuck! that was long even by my standards..A lot of it was quoting but fuck.
I'm just letting you know now that I don't think I'm going to continue this with you much longer, at the very least not on this scale because this is just getting stupid.
It's to the point where I have to check back and look at a previous post to remember what the fuck we're even arguing about for some of my responses lol
I'm just letting you know now that I don't think I'm going to continue this with you much longer, at the very least not on this scale because this is just getting stupid.
It's to the point where I have to check back and look at a previous post to remember what the fuck we're even arguing about for some of my responses lol
Your stupid believe that Wrestlemania was bad. Which, after I watched it, do not believe. The show while lacking major surprises had 4 straight high quality main event matches. Sounds like a success from one end. The show set a new attendance record in Metlife Stadium. Sounds like a second success. Presumed high buyrates. It's Wrestlemania. It would be stupid to think it would have low buyrates.
Lets face it. You simply did not like who won or lost and are pissing about it rather than watching and enjoying the rather good matches the show had.
Lets face it. You simply did not like who won or lost and are pissing about it rather than watching and enjoying the rather good matches the show had.
- Status
