Post by AriadosMan on Dec 29, 2009 15:24:21 GMT -5
On "time to end the brand split", most of the rationale given for maintaining what remains of the split was along two paths.
1. Smackdown would turn into RAW.
2. Alot of people would be fired.
There's not much of a rebuttal I can give to #1 except say that the SD main events are more like RAW's now than most people would like to admit (Batista/Taker=2 established guys, DX on both shows. However, I have a very strong rebuttal to #2.
In 1999, before the brand split and the acquisition of most WCW/ECW talent during Pax McMahon, the WWE still had a larger overall male roster than it now has. And much more of its midcard talent was over.
What logical reason would there be for a conpmany with less airtime to have more talent than it now posseses?
Economics. Both micro and macro.
In 1999, not only was WWE itself a great deal more popular than in 2009 (micro), but the overall economy itself was MUCH stronger than it now (macro). This was the tail end of the 1990s Internet-related economic boom, which brought America prosperity and $ not heard of since the 1920s.
Fast forward to 2001, victory over WCW, and the beginning of Pax McMahon. The economy is beginning to tank as the first of two recessions begins.Wrestling's popularity is also beginning to diminish somewhat, but the individuals who made Attitude popular (Rock/Austin) and the ethos are still there. The contraction of the overall size of the fanbase is countered by the fact that WWE is now the ONLY game in town, which means ALL wrestling fans now watch it. As a result, WWE can afford to hire ex WCW and ECW talent en masse and ends up with a HUGE block of wrestlers for the InVasion.
Fast forward to 2003, as Pax McMahon continues. The InVasion has been botched and has driven away some of WWE's viewers, but most WWE fans remain. The Rock/Austin era ends with Rock's final departure, so ratings are down somewhat anyway, and WWE begins the push of its Next Big Things-Cena and Batista-at a slow pace. Even with Rock gone, WWE is overloaded with main eventers from every wrestling league it has conquered. A small league that will eventually become modern TNA comes into existence, but its impact is negligible. WWE's roster size is at its zenith, so it begins the Brand Split as a means of creating new superstars to replace Rock and Austin.
Fast forward to 2008. The worst recession in US history since the 1930s begins, affecting all businesses and doing massicve damage, both monetary and psychological, to businesses. WWE is maintaining the "brand split" as a means to maximize its profits by creating different "properties" and has even introduced a third property, ECW. In response to the economic crisis, WWE has began cutting "dead weight" (mainly leftover employees from Attitude and earlier) from its roster. The rosters of each individual brand start to become thing, resulting in predictable matches, feuds, and a lack of tag teams.
Fast forward to beginning of 2010. The recession has done more damage than even the most negative predictions anticipated. In 2009, the WWE DID make a profit. However, it was not due to increased revenue, but due to cost-cutting, which included even MORE firings. A number of trends suggest that WWE will do this again. The fact that the nation has not entered a true period of increased economic growth and increased spending, as well as several potentially unfavorable renegotiations of contracts for its TV properties (Smackdown possibly forced to WGN America, ECW cancelled or rebranded into "Heat") suggest that WWE will fire even more people, regardless of whether the brand split is maintained or not.
In short, WWE will only maintain its roster size if it thinks it can benefit from it. Whether WWE thinks it can benefit from it depends on the conditions of the broader US/World Economy and the professional wrestling/TV industries. Not on making either brand look "good".
1. Smackdown would turn into RAW.
2. Alot of people would be fired.
There's not much of a rebuttal I can give to #1 except say that the SD main events are more like RAW's now than most people would like to admit (Batista/Taker=2 established guys, DX on both shows. However, I have a very strong rebuttal to #2.
In 1999, before the brand split and the acquisition of most WCW/ECW talent during Pax McMahon, the WWE still had a larger overall male roster than it now has. And much more of its midcard talent was over.
What logical reason would there be for a conpmany with less airtime to have more talent than it now posseses?
Economics. Both micro and macro.
In 1999, not only was WWE itself a great deal more popular than in 2009 (micro), but the overall economy itself was MUCH stronger than it now (macro). This was the tail end of the 1990s Internet-related economic boom, which brought America prosperity and $ not heard of since the 1920s.
Fast forward to 2001, victory over WCW, and the beginning of Pax McMahon. The economy is beginning to tank as the first of two recessions begins.Wrestling's popularity is also beginning to diminish somewhat, but the individuals who made Attitude popular (Rock/Austin) and the ethos are still there. The contraction of the overall size of the fanbase is countered by the fact that WWE is now the ONLY game in town, which means ALL wrestling fans now watch it. As a result, WWE can afford to hire ex WCW and ECW talent en masse and ends up with a HUGE block of wrestlers for the InVasion.
Fast forward to 2003, as Pax McMahon continues. The InVasion has been botched and has driven away some of WWE's viewers, but most WWE fans remain. The Rock/Austin era ends with Rock's final departure, so ratings are down somewhat anyway, and WWE begins the push of its Next Big Things-Cena and Batista-at a slow pace. Even with Rock gone, WWE is overloaded with main eventers from every wrestling league it has conquered. A small league that will eventually become modern TNA comes into existence, but its impact is negligible. WWE's roster size is at its zenith, so it begins the Brand Split as a means of creating new superstars to replace Rock and Austin.
Fast forward to 2008. The worst recession in US history since the 1930s begins, affecting all businesses and doing massicve damage, both monetary and psychological, to businesses. WWE is maintaining the "brand split" as a means to maximize its profits by creating different "properties" and has even introduced a third property, ECW. In response to the economic crisis, WWE has began cutting "dead weight" (mainly leftover employees from Attitude and earlier) from its roster. The rosters of each individual brand start to become thing, resulting in predictable matches, feuds, and a lack of tag teams.
Fast forward to beginning of 2010. The recession has done more damage than even the most negative predictions anticipated. In 2009, the WWE DID make a profit. However, it was not due to increased revenue, but due to cost-cutting, which included even MORE firings. A number of trends suggest that WWE will do this again. The fact that the nation has not entered a true period of increased economic growth and increased spending, as well as several potentially unfavorable renegotiations of contracts for its TV properties (Smackdown possibly forced to WGN America, ECW cancelled or rebranded into "Heat") suggest that WWE will fire even more people, regardless of whether the brand split is maintained or not.
In short, WWE will only maintain its roster size if it thinks it can benefit from it. Whether WWE thinks it can benefit from it depends on the conditions of the broader US/World Economy and the professional wrestling/TV industries. Not on making either brand look "good".