Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2014 9:58:04 GMT -5
2. The mystique of the PPV is lost in translation. Their big grabber, the "free" PPVs, are great and all, but there's something lost there. It doesn't feel as gradiose in scale or nature. I still don't think society's collective subconscious can equate "big PPV show" with "live streaming event" yet. That's going to take a while. Doesn't help that most of these PPVs aren't worth paying for let alone watching for free.
|
|
Mr T L Wolf
Hank Scorpio
He has the looks of Andre the Giant, and the strength of Barry Windham. Not to mention he's a hero to a few armadillos, a kangaroo and a small herd of bison.
Posts: 5,319
|
Post by Mr T L Wolf on Jul 13, 2014 10:04:47 GMT -5
I know I barely ever use the Network and I'm unsubscribing, and I'm one who binge watched Royal Rumbles off of YouTube one week.
I don't know if the WWE thought everyone would stop watching anything else and just watch wrestling if they put it all out there or what.
|
|
|
Post by tonyftony716 on Jul 13, 2014 10:28:22 GMT -5
I would only say it's struggling based on the over the top projections by the WWE.
|
|
|
Post by Milkman Norm on Jul 13, 2014 11:21:31 GMT -5
Because Wrestling has been a business that exist from dollar to dollar it has always needed to market the current product and talent as the best thing ever even when the statement was false. So promoting a network that is built upon the past by and large goes against the nature of the business has worked. Yeah they air what were formerly pay per views, yes they air NXT and Main Event but really isn't the draw for the fans that WWE thought would buy the Network all of the old tape collections from WCCW,Mid-South,WCW, etc.? Or was that supposed to be the cherry for the current content sundae? I'm not even sure WWE knows.
|
|
Shazam
Mephisto
And then there's this ***hole...
Posts: 727
|
Post by Shazam on Jul 13, 2014 11:56:19 GMT -5
For me personally:
I got my free trial. I wanted to start watching WCW Nitro Episodes starting from '98 (I already have 95-97) on my XBox. That couldn't be done for a VARIETY of reasons. 1) No Nitros are up en masse. 2) They didn't appear to have anything in order. You could look things up alphabetically, but not chronologically. 3) The Xbox thing no worky, and to my knowledge, still doesn't work very well.
The biggest thing for me and why I never continued the trial was the chronological issue. If I want to gorge wrestling, I want to watch it as it unfolded. There should be a serious option to set up a queue given a timeperiod, and watch EVERYTHING associated. (i.e. If you want to choose September 1997, then it will play in succession every Raw, Nitro, Thunder, Smackdown, ECW, PPV, etc.) and you could choose what to leave in and out (no WCW, no Smackdown, etc.)
They make that feature, I'm on board.
|
|
|
Post by RowdyRobbyPiper on Jul 13, 2014 11:57:11 GMT -5
Because Wrestling has been a business that exist from dollar to dollar it has always needed to market the current product and talent as the best thing ever even when the statement was false. So promoting a network that is built upon the past by and large goes against the nature of the business has worked. Yeah they air what were formerly pay per views, yes they air NXT and Main Event but really isn't the draw for the fans that WWE thought would buy the Network all of the old tape collections from WCCW,Mid-South,WCW, etc.? Or was that supposed to be the cherry for the current content sundae? I'm not even sure WWE knows. There's hardly anything from the territories on the network. Where are the older fans from that era?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jul 13, 2014 12:19:49 GMT -5
The WWE is built around Raw and the WWE network doesn't have that so like the PPV business that was dismantled to make it, it's seen as an optional add-on so will always be bought by a tiny fraction of the audience. With 5 hours of WWE programming on free tv, the majority of PPVs aren't vital to the WWE viewing experience, NXT isn't either and is available elsewhere to boot so that just leaves the Archive, the best of which has already been released on DVD.
|
|
|
Post by steamboat1 on Jul 13, 2014 12:21:11 GMT -5
I think things will turn around when it is launched internationally. However, when it comes to the value of the library, truth is that 85% of the older ppv's don't hold a candle work rate wise to the stuff that they put out today.
My wife is a casual viewer that is just starting to watch some of the older stuff with me. We were watching the Ultimate Warrior collection and the Boston Garden match with Savage came on. She said wow for the first time when he did the clothesline with the top rope and when he did the double ax off the top. She then said to me, "He'd do pretty good today if he was wrestling Seth Rollins or Daniel Bryan." You can't really say that about too many guys from that era. Fact of the matter is the guys today wrestle faster, longer and take more bumps then the guys of yesterday. So, you start watching stuff from the network and most of the time you get bored with it because we are conditioned to today's style.
The other aspect of the network that I think is the reason why they can't sell it is because it isn't necessary to have the network to follow WWE. It isn't like back in 1997 where all you got the night after a ppv is a couple of still shots. You get a rematch of every PPV match within a month of the PPV. Alot of the times they are given away on Raw. The main event of some PPV's in the 90's were tag team matches. Could you imagine if the WWE tried to sell a ppv on a tag match between Cena and Reigns against Orton and Rollins? Nobody would buy it, because they see it every day. When people mention Lesnar getting the title, I'm excited because it could mean a throw back to when main eventer's didn't wrestle all the time on tv. When Hulk Hogan wrestled, it was a big freaking deal. When Ric Flair defended his title, it was a big freaking deal. Shoot, Sting didn't wrestle a match for a year. Why in the world would I ever pay for something when I'm given it for free every other week?
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jul 14, 2014 9:20:58 GMT -5
I can tell you for sure that I'd use Network a lotttt more if all of the Attitude Era Raws were up. Royal Rumble and WrestleMania aside, I don't really care much about every PPV being up.
|
|
|
Post by lookout on Jul 14, 2014 12:37:13 GMT -5
For me personally: I got my free trial. I wanted to start watching WCW Nitro Episodes starting from '98 (I already have 95-97) on my XBox. That couldn't be done for a VARIETY of reasons. 1) No Nitros are up en masse. 2) They didn't appear to have anything in order. You could look things up alphabetically, but not chronologically. 3) The Xbox thing no worky, and to my knowledge, still doesn't work very well. The biggest thing for me and why I never continued the trial was the chronological issue. If I want to gorge wrestling, I want to watch it as it unfolded. There should be a serious option to set up a queue given a timeperiod, and watch EVERYTHING associated. (i.e. If you want to choose September 1997, then it will play in succession every Raw, Nitro, Thunder, Smackdown, ECW, PPV, etc.) and you could choose what to leave in and out (no WCW, no Smackdown, etc.) They make that feature, I'm on board. I was looking forward to going back and watching nitro too and it's been a real dissappointment that nitro is MIA. And I like your idea about grouping the shows in order. The other is the search feature. A lot of times when I look up something I want to see, I get no results or just a few unrelated results and it's really frustrating. The amount of new content is an issue for me personally as well because it doesn't take long at all to go through all their newer programs like countdown. I was hoping a lot that when this took off they would have more programs like the legends of wrestling, which were sooo much fun to watch and listen to. I could literally watch a show like that for hours on end and not get tired of it because it's really cool to hear the stories, background of angles, and the opinion of people who are actually in the business or were around/involved at the time. And they did it without insulting their viewers intelligence. So that has been a real disappointment for me and I would think a lot of hardcore fans feel the same way. It's still well worth it though, just based on the ppvs alone. I think eventually though they might have to sell them separately, or have a package where you get all the video content but if you want to see the monthly ppvs you will have to pay 5 dollars more a month or something. I think though if the wwe and mcmahon had not put out those unrealistic numbers and instead kept expectations a lot lower, we would not really be having this conversation. If they had kept expectations lower, then the number of subscribers would have been looked at totally differently and as a big success. But since they over hyped and over sold it, those very same numbers are looked at through a negative light. It's really quite remarkable when you think about it because it seems like common sense not to over estimate the number of subscribers expected for this very reason. Even someone who isn't business savvy can see that.
|
|
|
Post by Nickybojelais on Jul 14, 2014 13:00:11 GMT -5
I just looked at the $ to £ conversion rate and it works out at £5.86 per month....Seriously if you go anywhere in England you can get almost nothing for £5. For the package WWE are offering and the price it is available for I seriously cant work out why any wrestling fan who is not living on near the poverty line is not buying the Network.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Jul 14, 2014 13:25:21 GMT -5
I just looked at the $ to £ conversion rate and it works out at £5.86 per month....Seriously if you go anywhere in England you can get almost nothing for £5. For the package WWE are offering and the price it is available for I seriously cant work out why any wrestling fan who is not living on near the poverty line is not buying the Network. I think it's because, as far as RAW & SD viewers go, only 1/6th of them are what would be considered "actual wrestling fans." They just watch the free shows, the same way my grandmother watches stupid shit like Dancing with the Stars. Put all reality TV on a paid streaming service, and even if it was dirt cheap, the majority of its "giant fanbase" would be arsed to buy it, too. The same for almost any TV property. That audience is just happy with their freeloading and the shows are just something to distract them like a bug light. That's why TV ratings should be a barometer for NOTHING as far as pushes go. For all intents and purposes, they're simply a giant commercial watched by millions, but to whom only thousands of those millions ever actually buy. So, ergo, it's worthless as any sort of gauge.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jul 14, 2014 13:41:57 GMT -5
Again its the PPVs and everything else is kinda icing on the cake value added.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 14:02:06 GMT -5
Well, I think the fact that their flagship shows NOT being live on thier own Network is an issue for some. That'd be like having "the Walking Dead" Network that played Talking Dead, Walking Dead behind the scenes and blooper reels, but couldn't actaully show The Walking Dead until a week later.
There is a lot of money that goes into server space, streaming, dealing with various platforms, developing and re-fining the cross-platform apps for nonstop streaming of 3-4 hour long PPVs (old and new) that add up quicker than they probably originally thought. On top of that their fanbase is super narrow, where as Netflix/Hulu/Amazon all draw from several different fanbases/demographics to comprise their users.
WWE RAW sets out to capture the super casual viewer and pretty much casts off the hardcore fans because they'll always be there. The hardcore fans are the ones that wll buy the Network because casual fans don't have the time/inclination to watch that much content in a month. What ends up happening is that even some of the hardcore fans, put off by not being catered to on the main show, feel disenfranchised and don't get the Network.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jul 14, 2014 14:07:13 GMT -5
Well, I think the fact that their flagship shows NOT being live on thier own Network is an issue for some. That'd be like having "the Walking Dead" Network that played Talking Dead, Walking Dead behind the scenes and blooper reels, but couldn't actaully show The Walking Dead until a week later. There is a lot of money that goes into server space, streaming, dealing with various platforms, developing and re-fining the cross-platform apps for nonstop streaming of 3-4 hour long PPVs (old and new) that add up quicker than they probably originally thought. On top of that their fanbase is super narrow, where as Netflix/Hulu/Amazon all draw from several different fanbases/demographics to comprise their users. WWE RAW sets out to capture the super casual viewer and pretty much casts off the hardcore fans because they'll always be there. The hardcore fans are the ones that wll buy the Network because casual fans don't have the time/inclination to watch that much content in a month. What ends up happening is that even some of the hardcore fans, put off by not being catered to on the main show, feel disenfranchised and don't get the Network. The NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB networks don't show the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, NBA Finals or World Series live either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 14:12:10 GMT -5
Well, I think the fact that their flagship shows NOT being live on thier own Network is an issue for some. That'd be like having "the Walking Dead" Network that played Talking Dead, Walking Dead behind the scenes and blooper reels, but couldn't actaully show The Walking Dead until a week later. There is a lot of money that goes into server space, streaming, dealing with various platforms, developing and re-fining the cross-platform apps for nonstop streaming of 3-4 hour long PPVs (old and new) that add up quicker than they probably originally thought. On top of that their fanbase is super narrow, where as Netflix/Hulu/Amazon all draw from several different fanbases/demographics to comprise their users. WWE RAW sets out to capture the super casual viewer and pretty much casts off the hardcore fans because they'll always be there. The hardcore fans are the ones that wll buy the Network because casual fans don't have the time/inclination to watch that much content in a month. What ends up happening is that even some of the hardcore fans, put off by not being catered to on the main show, feel disenfranchised and don't get the Network. The NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB networks don't show the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, NBA Finals or World Series live either. True, but I wouldn't put WWE and pro-sports in the same category. Sports fans are generally MUCH more fanatical and obsessive than WWE fans on the whole. If the WWE Network had everything (RAW,SD, small PPVs) live EXCEPT Wrestlemania then it would be a more apt comparision...maybe.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jul 14, 2014 14:26:03 GMT -5
The NFL, NHL, NBA and MLB networks don't show the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, NBA Finals or World Series live either. True, but I wouldn't put WWE and pro-sports in the same category. Sports fans are generally MUCH more fanatical and obsessive than WWE fans on the whole. If the WWE Network had everything (RAW,SD, small PPVs) live EXCEPT Wrestlemania then it would be a more apt comparision...maybe. I just think that having RAW live isn't a prerequisite as long as they have PPVs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 14:43:06 GMT -5
True, but I wouldn't put WWE and pro-sports in the same category. Sports fans are generally MUCH more fanatical and obsessive than WWE fans on the whole. If the WWE Network had everything (RAW,SD, small PPVs) live EXCEPT Wrestlemania then it would be a more apt comparision...maybe. I just think that having RAW live isn't a prerequisite as long as they have PPVs. For sure, I was just saying its more of an aggregate thing. On the whole, all these single things add up to whether or not people percieve it as a value purchase. The PPVs alone are worth the $10/month if you're into the show, but if you just want to watch RAW & SD plus the occasional PPV (not necessarily EVERY PPV, but just WM and RR for example) then its probably not worth the price/hassle. Add in the fact that even weekly RAW watchers don't have the drive to watch old or ancillary shows and NOT featuring the flagship show live does become a factor - though not just by itself like you said. On top of that, digital streaming services are still not ideal to some people, be it due to poor internet connections or simply unfamiliarity with legit, paid streaming.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,477
|
Post by metylerca on Jul 14, 2014 15:03:56 GMT -5
Because WWE isn't worth paying for. And yet you watch.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,477
|
Post by metylerca on Jul 14, 2014 15:07:32 GMT -5
They blew it from the get-go by hotshotting and probably losing favor with PPV distributors. They were probably counting on domestic PPV buys to help keep profits stable and now that it's gone, they're left with just online. The content they threw on was cool in the beginning, but they need more original content to drive in viewers, and they simply aren't providing it.
Big thing, after listening to Wrestling Observer Live, it was revealed that a single account could be simultaneously logged into numerous times (5 was listed) with no repercussion. This is huge. How many people are doing this and getting 4/5 viewers to one account? That's lost subscriptions right there.
|
|