Most Damaging to the WWE

[MrBRulzOK]

So we all know that WWE isn't doing too well in the buyrate department, after all I'm sure I've said that for so long that it's become a running joke in my threads by now. However that's the truth. Whatever the WWE is trying is simply not working right now.

Sure, they've had a few flashes of brilliance, the Nexus angle kickoff for one. In fact if that had been handled just a bit better booking wise than something tells me that the company might be in much better financial shape. Granted, it's not doomed by any means, after all they've got so much money that they could probably survive ten years of Russoesque booking and still manage to keep going.

But for the most part it seems that the WWE has kind of lost it's spark lately. True, they've been trying to fix it, at least sort of fixing it, but it doesn't seem to be working yet. Something tells me it may take a long while too for them to turn pay per view business back around.

The question I pose to you is this: what do you think was/were the main cause or causes of this decline booking wise over the years; which practice has bitten into the WWE's profits the most?

[Pervy Stone Cold]

I expand on Choice 2, which I voted for, in saying "title" wins and losses don't matter as much anymore.

[The Possum]

I think it's that they give away too much on free TV, and they don't fully get behind new stars. They put the belt on guys like CM Punk, Jack Swagger, and Sheamus, but they don't book them to look strong.

[Snowman]

Other - PG.

[Citizen Zero]

What's overall hurting the 'E the most is a mix of complacency due to a lack of credible competition and the fact that television itself is losing ground to the internet as an entertainment medium.

[Bake Or Die]

FCW muscleheads
Main eventers not jobbing cleanly
Midcard yo-yo pushes
Not letting heels keep heat for very long
Babyfaces not selling injuries

[dreamer75]

You forgot to add "Over Reliance on 2-3 Main Eventers"

[FUNK_US/BRODUS]

Cena.


It sounds haterish, but when the Nexus angle focussed solely on him, it came crashing down. He destroyed the Summerslam main event. His title win at Mania was a joke because his loss at the Chamber was set up purely for him to get a I WON THE TITLE moment at Mania.


The WWE relies on him way too heavily, and I think he is a blackhole on the WWE main event picture. Hell, the WWE Title has become a midcard belt due to him not being in the title picture. Its like theyre afraid fans will spit out a main event thta doesnt involve Cena, when they have no proof to suggest otherwise.

[BorneAgain]

WWE just does a poor job of making people care about anyone outside a select group of main eventers and upper-midcarders.

The funny thing about both the Rock and Wrestling era and the Attitude era is that for all their differences, they did have one thing in common. Every performer had a distinct character and was given some interview time to get over their motivations and characteristics.

What is the defining trait of guys like David Smith, Tyson Kidd, Trent Barreta, Curt Hawkins, Tyler Reks, Chris Masters, Darren Young, and any of the Nexus guys outside Punk and Barrett?

Heck even with people like DiBiase, the spoiled rich son gimmick is so poorly thought out and unfocused on, that were you to watch the show without the sound on, you'd have no idea he was even supposed to be wealthy. So much is WWE is informed attributes, with commentators and packages telling us about guys without them actually showing us anything definite.

Count the number of times you hear the term "making an impact" or "making a name for himself" on commentary to describe someone. Its the laziest character motivation to give, chiefly because you don't have to actually have the performer do anything except try and win matches. The only show that seemed to show people's personalities to any degree was NXT, and those are often just stripped away once they make it onto Smackdown and Raw anyway.

The point of all this is that no wrestler is an island. You cannot build up people and make feuds mean something if the people lack any interest or understanding of these individual's personalities. Even if you just use a lot of guys as JTTS, you still need the audience to reasonably care about the wrestlers the stars are beating, period.

[Fiddleford H. McGucket]

The Death of the Midcard and the slow stagnation of the uppercard, combined with an oversaturation of PPVs and Gimmick PPVs.


Essentially you can't do BOTH. If WWE still had monthly PPVs but had thier lower and midcard represented on PPV better it would grow interest organically rather than action/reaction pushes. If they cut BACK on PPVs they could focus on the smallish group of Upper Carders on PPV matches without requiring people to shell out $35-$55 every month and getting the same matches and non-finishes.

[Nuke is Good]

Other: Talent Relations and Creative

But those poll choices are a combo of whats really wrong with the direction of WWE.

[BigWill]

Other. Simply put pro-wrestling is no longer "cool". You can put on 5 star matches, have the best storylines, and amazing booking, and the ratings, and buyrates still won't go up much if the mainstream still thinks wrestling as something "dorky".

[FUNK_US/BRODUS]

Jan 18, 2011 16:32:53 GMT -5 BigWill said:

Other. Simply put pro-wrestling is no longer "cool". You can put on 5 star matches, have the best storylines, and amazing booking, and the ratings, and buyrates still won't go up much if the mainstream still thinks wrestling as something "dorky".

Unless they stop having a gigantic dork as their "star", get comedy writers who actually know that comedy isnt spelt with a K, and get a competent set of bookers, there will be no way of proving this.


Wrestling was cool in the mid 80's, and then became less cool, and then had a huge resurgence in the late 90's. There is no reason to suggest pro wrestling cant have another boom period. But we'll never know because things dont seem like they'll change.

[Fauxnaki]

not having any new main event baby faces

[Red Impact]

Meh, I don't think most of these have that much of a factor at all. We've always had muscleheads, we've always had goofy storylines, we've always a mix from serious and comedy. MitB hasn't hurt them at all. ME talent, at least at the top, has a history of rarely losing clean, even before this era. Audience choice isn't really being buried that much, because the audience as a whole wants John Cena and Randy Orton and Edge and Rey Mysterio and the Undertaker.

I think the biggest problem in the way they book the show is simply that they do the same matches over and over again, on TV and on multiple PPV's in a row. People can only see "Randy Orton vs. John Cena" so many times before they can do nothing else interesting.

That and the economy still hurts them.

[azz0r]

Cena NEVER losing clean.

[BigWill]

Jan 18, 2011 16:37:01 GMT -5 FUNK_US/BRODUS said:

Jan 18, 2011 16:32:53 GMT -5 BigWill said:

Other. Simply put pro-wrestling is no longer "cool". You can put on 5 star matches, have the best storylines, and amazing booking, and the ratings, and buyrates still won't go up much if the mainstream still thinks wrestling as something "dorky".

Unless they stop having a gigantic dork as their "star", get comedy writers who actually know that comedy isnt spelt with a K, and get a competent set of bookers, there will be no way of proving this.


Wrestling was cool in the mid 80's, and then became less cool, and then had a huge resurgence in the late 90's. There is no reason to suggest pro wrestling cant have another boom period. But we'll never know because things dont seem like they'll change.

Well then going by that pattern we'd have to wait a few years for another boom period. But I'm still not convinced that better booking and a better face of the company will create said boom. Was the attitude era so much better in booking and raising superstars than it is today? <- Serious question because I wasn't watching at the time so I would like to know what you think.

[Drink Up Me Cider]

Some one put together a list of main events since 2005 and there was only one that didn't include either Cena, Orton or HHH. That was Hardy Vs Edge, Royal Rumble.

Think about that, massive over saturation of certain guys is the reason I'd pick, so I picked Other.

[Deleted]

Internet.

I can watch every match ever - nearly.

Why pay for Cena vs Miz when I can go back and watch it youtube from a few months ago or wait 4 days and watch it illegally?

I'm not saying I do that, but its the same with movies.

That's why WWE was looking into 3D in hopes of upping thier buyrates the same way theaters did.

As technology changes WWE needs to learn to change with it rather than try to find a way around it.

Reduced prices on online PPVs anyone?

[Deleted]

-Guys from the developmental who are on NXT and a part of Nexus never needed to be brought up to the main roster. All they do is take up time that could be dedicated to fleshing out the mid-card more, with guys who are already on the roster, are better wrestlers, and in many cases are just as young as the NXT guys are.

-Main eventers never job clean. There's no excitement because there's no way they'll lose. The feuds between Sheamus/Morrison and Ziggler/Kingston were both very interesting to me because not only were the matches good, but there was reasonable possibility that either guy involved in each set of matches could win. Each guy got the upper hand at different points in the feuds, and even though the feuds have ended and there's clear-cut winners, I had a vested interest in each one the whole way through because nothing was too clear-cut. When John Cena was against CM Punk, I hardly paid any attention because I didn't think there was any way Cena was going to lose. I just thought there'd be a no contest or he'd win clean, as per usual with Cena matches.