Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Nov 2, 2012 2:11:52 GMT -5
Only way it works is if you slowly shift your entire PPV schedule over to the WWE Network. I can't imagine this will get a lot of subscribers if it's just WWE 24/7 On Demand with stupid reality shows. where's the joke? This is a Lancers post and I can't find the joke! help! There's only two topics I take seriously.... 1. Analyzing David Lynch films 2. Debating the merits of developing a cable channel that focuses on a specific concept.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,014
|
Post by nate5054 on Nov 2, 2012 2:23:59 GMT -5
Yup, pretty much. I guess something like $15 a month or something like that. Can't imagine a ton of people wanting to pay that. I doubt the NFL could pull this off, and they are way more popular than WWE.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,014
|
Post by nate5054 on Nov 2, 2012 2:25:04 GMT -5
They might be better off just doing a Netflix-type thing. £20 a month and you can watch any show whenever you want. I'd sign up. Netflix is $8 a month for much more content, I wouldn't ever pay $26 a month for that (converting Euro to US dollars). Pounds, baby, pounds!
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjames on Nov 2, 2012 2:29:55 GMT -5
Yup, pretty much. I guess something like $15 a month or something like that. Can't imagine a ton of people wanting to pay that. I doubt the NFL could pull this off, and they are way more popular than WWE. Time Warner held out on the NFL Network for years, until recently, and a hell of a lot more people care and need the NFL than WWE. To me, the WWE Network seems a lot like the WWE Hotel & Casino, and we all know how big a success that was.
|
|
|
Post by wvmelinafan on Nov 2, 2012 9:51:26 GMT -5
They may be becoming more diligent about policing their content on YouTube. I just got notification that my "Maryse/Kozlov/Santino Dance Off part 1" video was removed by request of the WWE. It has been up for what, 3 years? I highly doubt my video would make anyone say, "Hey, I can watch Maryse dance for free....I don't have buy WWE Network!" They're certainly within their rights to do it, but stuff like that just comes off as petty to me and makes me less interested in their products, like the WWE Network. If it's even possible to be less interested than I have been lately, that is.
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Nov 2, 2012 11:38:25 GMT -5
Can't imagine a ton of people wanting to pay that. I doubt the NFL could pull this off, and they are way more popular than WWE. To me, the WWE Network seems a lot like the WWE Hotel & Casino, and we all know how big a success that was. To be fair, WWE sold that off for a good profit so it was a success.
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Nov 2, 2012 15:40:10 GMT -5
Can't imagine a ton of people wanting to pay that. I doubt the NFL could pull this off, and they are way more popular than WWE. Time Warner held out on the NFL Network for years, until recently, and a hell of a lot more people care and need the NFL than WWE. To me, the WWE Network seems a lot like the WWE Hotel & Casino, and we all know how big a success that was. "When they said there was gonna be some slots, I thought they meant Sable." - Confused, horny Vegas resident
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjames on Nov 2, 2012 18:23:51 GMT -5
To me, the WWE Network seems a lot like the WWE Hotel & Casino, and we all know how big a success that was. To be fair, WWE sold that off for a good profit so it was a success. Except the hotel & casino never opened. They sold the property (formerly the Debbie Reynold's Hotel & Casino) were it was to be located.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2012 18:25:51 GMT -5
WWE would be much better off just setting up a streaming service akin to Netflix and Hulu. I'd gladly pay for that. $15 for a network though... Yeah, no.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Nov 2, 2012 18:26:57 GMT -5
Did anyone expect anything less?
Good thing I work for the cable company.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Nov 2, 2012 18:43:42 GMT -5
where's the joke? This is a Lancers post and I can't find the joke! help! There's only two topics I take seriously.... 1. Analyzing David Lynch films 2. Debating the merits of developing a cable channel that focuses on a specific concept. So what you're saying is Jim Jimirro, the founding CEO of The Disney Channel, killed Laura Palmer?
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Nov 2, 2012 18:45:46 GMT -5
Having the network as a subscription including PPVs, with lots and lots of exclusive content, could work. Keep the big four PPV only (maybe with discounts for the other three apart from Mania if you're a subscriber), and you're set.
|
|
MiLB Fan
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,414
|
Post by MiLB Fan on Nov 2, 2012 20:50:55 GMT -5
It's better than just throwing the channel onto a digital tier, which would force me to pay for a bunch of channels I'll never watch. At least this way, I'm paying for something I actually want. If WWE keeps it at roughly the same price as WWE Classics and if the programming sounds promising, I'll consider subscribing.
It's safe to say this will mean the end of Classics on Demand, but I hope that WWE's on-demand presence won't vanish completely. Channels like HBO and Showtime offer VOD content for free to subscribers, so WWE should do that. Just change the name from "WWE Classics" to "WWE Network." They could keep some of the current programming buckets (TV Classics, Big Events) in addition to any original content.
Boy, remember when we were all wetting our pants over the first ad for WWE Network?
|
|
|
Post by Trout Stratus on Nov 2, 2012 21:55:35 GMT -5
I'm sure there wont be a WWE Network. We were told it was gonna be here in 2012 and its almost over. They should've just re-vamped the classics on demand with new programming, raw and smackdown replays and once a month or so play an old PPV
|
|