Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Jul 26, 2014 16:53:12 GMT -5
I was part of the class action suit that demanded reparations for having to endure WWF programming in 1993. Didn't win.
|
|
|
Post by The Shareholder is nude on Jul 26, 2014 16:56:01 GMT -5
I cashed most of my shares out and became a millionaire, the only member of my family to ever achieve that.
let it crash and burn i will buy some on the cheap!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Jul 26, 2014 23:35:30 GMT -5
I cashed most of my shares out and became a millionaire, the only member of my family to ever achieve that. let it crash and burn i will buy some on the cheap!!!!!!!!! Hey, don't get too attached to those millions, because life and several other things could put a stop to those good times cold in its tracks.
|
|
|
Post by RowdyRobbyPiper on Jul 27, 2014 0:01:30 GMT -5
Here's the truth, unlike the Network hype, which was based off of pure carny bullshit projections from an absurd and completely untrue 'poll' that stated that domestically there were 60 million WWE fans, the TV rights fee projections were actually fair. WWE's TV viewing audience is actually larger than almost every sport that doubled and even tripled their TV rights numbers recently. Ergo, they should have been given the same or even higher rates based on the fact that they have a larger and more loyal and consistent audience. HOWEVER, the problems were in that A) the stink of Vince McMahon's prior brain farts and current flawed presentation soured TV execs to the content (the same way , despite having equal viewers at one time, Springer never got Oprah money or clout due to the low-brow reputation of the programming), and B) despite being such a large audience, wrestling fans, despite WWE's hyperbole, are actually on the whole economically insignificant. That's why outside of a few toy ads, they don't get the truly big time NFL-esque ad's courting them. WWE's audience does not spend their money, (as the Network has also revealed) or in many cases, does not have it to spend. So in a world wherein you have 4 million people who won't buy what's being advertised, because they won't, or can't, they become inherently worthless to ad exes and TV execs. And that's where WWE found themselves. But luckily USA gave them a bump if only to maintain their cable average. The thing that I don't understand is that if the core audience is so cash poor (and cash poor enough to be irrelevant to advertisers), how does one explain how Wrestlemania does big business as a live event both for WWE and the cities that host the event? How much, typically, do Wrestlemania tickets cost as well as Axcess tickets? That's a lot of cash to be throwing around if you are considered "too poor" to matter to Madison Avenue.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 27, 2014 0:03:23 GMT -5
Wrestlemania may be a one-off. People paying for a once in a lifetime experience, or simply saving up all year to go.
|
|
Tony Schiavontay
Dennis Stamp
This is the greatest post in the history of this board!
Posts: 4,083
|
Post by Tony Schiavontay on Jul 27, 2014 0:04:53 GMT -5
I cashed most of my shares out and became a millionaire, the only member of my family to ever achieve that. let it crash and burn i will buy some on the cheap!!!!!!!!! Will The Shareholders getting rich off of Vince's carnie BS and then suing him for that very same carnie BS ruin The Shareholders gimmick?
|
|
willyjakes
Don Corleone
Dingleberry Don
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 1,646
|
Post by willyjakes on Jul 27, 2014 1:04:17 GMT -5
This week on RAW there will be a 40 minute in ring segment devoted to Vince crapping on every single page of this Class Action Lawsuit. He's at PF Changs as we speak preparing.
|
|
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Jul 27, 2014 2:48:25 GMT -5
This week on RAW there will be a 40 minute in ring segment devoted to Vince crapping on every single page of this Class Action Lawsuit. He's at PF Changs as we speak preparing. Yet somehow he still managed to order a steak sandwich doused in ketchup.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jul 27, 2014 3:50:21 GMT -5
WWE's fine because some analyst independent of the company said they could double their rights and that's when the stock went up
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Jul 27, 2014 3:56:58 GMT -5
Those who didn't sell their shares for $31.84 or whatever only have themselves to blame for not cashing in when they had the chance. And even then, assuming they bought low at like $8-something to begin with, they didn't lose any real money and are probably still making a (albeit smaller) profit now.
|
|
MiLB Fan
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,375
|
Post by MiLB Fan on Jul 27, 2014 7:54:38 GMT -5
Expect Damian Sandow to appear on Raw this week as Robin Saroyo, Attorney at Law.
Vince McMahon then appears and berates him for five minutes.
|
|
amaron
Samurai Cop
I yam what I yam.
Posts: 2,212
|
Post by amaron on Jul 27, 2014 10:13:21 GMT -5
Here's the truth, unlike the Network hype, which was based off of pure carny bullshit projections from an absurd and completely untrue 'poll' that stated that domestically there were 60 million WWE fans, the TV rights fee projections were actually fair. WWE's TV viewing audience is actually larger than almost every sport that doubled and even tripled their TV rights numbers recently. Ergo, they should have been given the same or even higher rates based on the fact that they have a larger and more loyal and consistent audience. HOWEVER, the problems were in that A) the stink of Vince McMahon's prior brain farts and current flawed presentation soured TV execs to the content (the same way , despite having equal viewers at one time, Springer never got Oprah money or clout due to the low-brow reputation of the programming), and B) despite being such a large audience, wrestling fans, despite WWE's hyperbole, are actually on the whole economically insignificant. That's why outside of a few toy ads, they don't get the truly big time NFL-esque ad's courting them. WWE's audience does not spend their money, (as the Network has also revealed) or in many cases, does not have it to spend. So in a world wherein you have 4 million people who won't buy what's being advertised, because they won't, or can't, they become inherently worthless to ad exes and TV execs. And that's where WWE found themselves. But luckily USA gave them a bump if only to maintain their cable average. The thing that I don't understand is that if the core audience is so cash poor (and cash poor enough to be irrelevant to advertisers), how does one explain how Wrestlemania does big business as a live event both for WWE and the cities that host the event? How much, typically, do Wrestlemania tickets cost as well as Axcess tickets? That's a lot of cash to be throwing around if you are considered "too poor" to matter to Madison Avenue. A family with little money can save up for the WM experience and that may be the only money they spend on WWE all year.
|
|
bob
Salacious Crumb
The "other" Bob. FOC COURSE!
started the Madness Wars, Proudly the #1 Nana Hater on FAN
Posts: 78,294
|
Post by bob on Jul 27, 2014 11:09:21 GMT -5
don't get too attached
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jul 27, 2014 11:14:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Jul 27, 2014 12:43:37 GMT -5
Here's the truth, unlike the Network hype, which was based off of pure carny bullshit projections from an absurd and completely untrue 'poll' that stated that domestically there were 60 million WWE fans, the TV rights fee projections were actually fair. WWE's TV viewing audience is actually larger than almost every sport that doubled and even tripled their TV rights numbers recently. Ergo, they should have been given the same or even higher rates based on the fact that they have a larger and more loyal and consistent audience. HOWEVER, the problems were in that A) the stink of Vince McMahon's prior brain farts and current flawed presentation soured TV execs to the content (the same way , despite having equal viewers at one time, Springer never got Oprah money or clout due to the low-brow reputation of the programming), and B) despite being such a large audience, wrestling fans, despite WWE's hyperbole, are actually on the whole economically insignificant. That's why outside of a few toy ads, they don't get the truly big time NFL-esque ad's courting them. WWE's audience does not spend their money, (as the Network has also revealed) or in many cases, does not have it to spend. So in a world wherein you have 4 million people who won't buy what's being advertised, because they won't, or can't, they become inherently worthless to ad exes and TV execs. And that's where WWE found themselves. But luckily USA gave them a bump if only to maintain their cable average. The thing that I don't understand is that if the core audience is so cash poor (and cash poor enough to be irrelevant to advertisers), how does one explain how Wrestlemania does big business as a live event both for WWE and the cities that host the event? How much, typically, do Wrestlemania tickets cost as well as Axcess tickets? That's a lot of cash to be throwing around if you are considered "too poor" to matter to Madison Avenue. We're talking different economies here. On the city-level, Wrestlemania is a one-time event that doesn't require any new construction. Hosting these types of events is good for a city, whether they be a convention or a symposium or something like Wrestlemania. It's when new construction is required, such as with pro sports franchises or the Olympics, that the city begins to lose money on the whole thing. But this sort of thing doesn't influence ad dollars, only whether it's logical for a city to lobby to host a Wrestlemania. For the company perspective, they made WM their Superbowl, so they draw people from around the world to come and see it. It's a big event, one that people can save for. It'd be like basing how much money a person has solely on what they do during vacation. You may live it up on a cruise ship for a week, but that doesn't mean you have the income to lounge around sipping brandy at home all day. From a TV exec's standpoint, WM is a PPV event, so it's ultimately irrelevant to them. It shows WWE's full potential audience, but what matters more is how many people watch on a regular basis and what those people spend their money on, and we're not talking WWE products either. They don't care if people buy the videogames, because they don't benefit from videogame sales, they care about pleasing advertisers, since that's where they make their money. And if advertisers aren't willing to pay higher rates, then tv networks don't have incentive to push more of a tv deal. For an advertiser's standpoint, it's purely cost-benefit. It doesn't matter if someone has all the money in the world, if the people you're targeting in your advertising aren't leading to an increase in sales, it's not worth advertising there. Advertisers are able to track their sales and the cost/timing of ads, so they know if they're not being particularly effective. That's what drives tv rates more than anything else. So you're right in that WM shows that wrestling's potential audience is huge, it's just that that doesn't really equate to more benefit for advertisers.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Jul 27, 2014 14:42:59 GMT -5
The only way WWE's TV deal projections were fair is if they were wholly ignorant of the difference in economic activity (and therefore sponsor interest) between their audience and a sports audience. Given the fact that people on a wrestling messageboard are aware of this to claim that WWE somehow weren't and therefore their projections reasonable, is not credible.
All they have is "sports shows do it", which really again isn't credible for a company that for the last 30 years have almost broken their spines to bend over backwards and remind everyone: 'sports we ain't!', including in terms of demographic and audience (who remembers "UFC don't have the same audience as we do" ?). They can't align themselves with sport when it suits to spuriously inflate TV deal expectations.
There was absolutely no reason to suddenly expect the WWE rights to mirror sports. None whatsoever. It'd look spurious in a claim made by a batshit crazy talk radio host let alone in official communication with investors.
What could also be WWE's undoing is if initial responses to the tendering process were indicating far less than what they later went on to claim was going to be achieved. These things take months and years of back and forth and I'd be very surprised if WWE hadn't got an indication from all likely bidders, including USA, of the network's general intentions months and months before the deal was finalised, if not much longer.
|
|
RIHT
Hank Scorpio
Wanted a title with "YOU'RE WELCOME!" Close enough.
Hey-yo.
Posts: 5,897
|
Post by RIHT on Jul 27, 2014 15:03:44 GMT -5
Expect Damien Sandow to appear on Raw this week as Robin Saroyo, Attorney at Law. Vince McMahon then appears and berates him for five minutes. Vince would probably rather have Sandow dress up as him again and take his place in court.
|
|