|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Aug 2, 2014 0:27:19 GMT -5
It's fallacious to say, "Well, a successful company is doing it, so these practices must be part of what makes them successful." We have no way of knowing how successful they'd be if they didn't do these things. Personally, I cannot think of a way that this could possibly be a good strategy. They're hiring people knowing that a certain number of them are going to get weeded out? WANTING them to get weeded out? How on earth does the math work out to have that be worth it? They don't hire a given individual knowing they won't use them, but they do know they won't use some of the people they hire, so how is that not throwing money down the drain? (This is even leaving aside whether it's a moral way to treat your employees or not. It's not.) I gotta say, I've had a number of these kinds of conversations here myself, and I find it really interesting that people often, when taking this point of view, use terms like "the strong survive" almost as value statements. It's like people WANT it to be some kind of dog-eat-dog competition. I wonder if it just goes along with a particular way of seeing the world. It's one that makes no sense to me, but it might just be a fundamental thing. I think your last point is it really, I have strong feelings about making things fair and all my ideologies tend to sit behind that, often to the point where my hardline beliefs of workers rights and skills makes me feel a bit down for the guys who get cut down (even if I dislike the people it's happening to) even though I realize the current system won't allow 60% of the roster to be what they could be given a better environment. Sometimes I think some of us talk about the bigger picture (/Barrett) instead of the current state of the business/systems in place, we want better things for people overall even if that may not be best for profit lines in the companies eyes. I don't believe anyone on here is ever saying they want people to fail or be sacked for the sake of it, I think they're just the other side of the coin to those of us who talk about things when we believe they'd be better if they changed the damn system somewhat. Nobody is wrong, it's just it, long term possibilities vs short term reality. In a typical organization, fairness is good because you have a corporate culture to worry about. Team morale, etc. But in the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, this is simply what it is. All the time. And has always been the case. Forever. Wrestling is no exception. It's not about being "fair." Yes, it IS dog-eat-dog because it's a competitive business. It's about being #1 and making the most money. You can have those ideologies in your life and there's nothing wrong with that. But you would never be able to run a successful entertainment business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2014 0:31:44 GMT -5
I think your last point is it really, I have strong feelings about making things fair and all my ideologies tend to sit behind that, often to the point where my hardline beliefs of workers rights and skills makes me feel a bit down for the guys who get cut down (even if I dislike the people it's happening to) even though I realize the current system won't allow 60% of the roster to be what they could be given a better environment. Sometimes I think some of us talk about the bigger picture (/Barrett) instead of the current state of the business/systems in place, we want better things for people overall even if that may not be best for profit lines in the companies eyes. I don't believe anyone on here is ever saying they want people to fail or be sacked for the sake of it, I think they're just the other side of the coin to those of us who talk about things when we believe they'd be better if they changed the damn system somewhat. Nobody is wrong, it's just it, long term possibilities vs short term reality. In a typical organization, fairness is good because you have a corporate culture to worry about. Team morale, etc. But in the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, this is simply what it is. All the time. And has always been the case. Forever. Wrestling is no exception. It's not about being "fair." Yes, it IS dog-eat-dog because it's a competitive business. It's about being #1 and making the most money. You can have those ideologies in your life and there's nothing wrong with that. But you would never be able to run a successful entertainment business. Oh I know, I was just expanding on the point carp made at the end. Ideological hope vs Short term profit/expansion. It's one of those things where you'd hope companies would be able to push forward in a way to entertain the notion of both, but as you said I would never run a national business with support from shareholders as it's just not possible to do both out of fear/paranoia of profit/deficit. Possible to do that on smaller scales in certain areas of entertainment certainly (as in I have done and thousands of others have done that), but not when having to answer to those with stock who want to see profit. As a fan, my ideologies matter more to me than the companies profits (as I have no money in the WWE so why should I care?) so that's the angle where I come from.
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Aug 2, 2014 0:35:12 GMT -5
I think your last point is it really, I have strong feelings about making things fair and all my ideologies tend to sit behind that, often to the point where my hardline beliefs of workers rights and skills makes me feel a bit down for the guys who get cut down (even if I dislike the people it's happening to) even though I realize the current system won't allow 60% of the roster to be what they could be given a better environment. Sometimes I think some of us talk about the bigger picture (/Barrett) instead of the current state of the business/systems in place, we want better things for people overall even if that may not be best for profit lines in the companies eyes. I don't believe anyone on here is ever saying they want people to fail or be sacked for the sake of it, I think they're just the other side of the coin to those of us who talk about things when we believe they'd be better if they changed the damn system somewhat. Nobody is wrong, it's just it, long term possibilities vs short term reality. In a typical organization, fairness is good because you have a corporate culture to worry about. Team morale, etc. But in the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, this is simply what it is. All the time. And has always been the case. Forever. Wrestling is no exception. It's not about being "fair." Yes, it IS dog-eat-dog because it's a competitive business. It's about being #1 and making the most money. You can have those ideologies in your life and there's nothing wrong with that. But you would never be able to run a successful entertainment business. Wrestling is different from other forms of entertainment. While other avenues of entertainment are competitive, and they do try to be #1 and make the most money, everyone is able to just "do their own thing". Actors and musicians can succeed and fail independently of each other. If an actor's character is written out of one TV show, he can just move on to another project. Wrestlers don't really have that option. Other entertainers aren't left out in the cold unable to ply their craft because X is the only game in town.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,990
|
Post by Sparkybob on Aug 2, 2014 0:42:21 GMT -5
Yep, this 100%. I feel like every other week I'm on fan debating with CATCH_US about treatment of talent. And this quote above sums it all up perfectly. It's how WWE works, period, end of story. It's a competitive business and the strong survive and every day they need to up their game. And we people who sit on our couches and watch WWE on TV or sit in our basement and surf the internet and read reports, we have NO clue what is going on behind the scenes. But rest assured, HHH & Co are watching. And based on their signings over the last 4-5 years, clearly they know what they're looking for. It's fallacious to say, "Well, a successful company is doing it, so these practices must be part of what makes them successful." We have no way of knowing how successful they'd be if they didn't do these things. Personally, I cannot think of a way that this could possibly be a good strategy. They're hiring people knowing that a certain number of them are going to get weeded out? WANTING them to get weeded out? How on earth does the math work out to have that be worth it? They don't hire a given individual knowing they won't use them, but they do know they won't use some of the people they hire, so how is that not throwing money down the drain? (This is even leaving aside whether it's a moral way to treat your employees or not. It's not.) Well I think it just comes down to you not believing in the competition improves performance theory, which I find is a unique viewpoint to me. To me and some other people it just makes sense that if a wrestler had to compete with another guy for 1 spot, both guys will work harder because they have the negative incentive of losing his spot to somebody else. There is a reason all sports coaches use survival of the fittest. I also think you underestimate how little knowledge Hunter and his scouts have on these lower key signings. Yea they can see how good of a hip toss he can do, but they don't know if he'll spend an extra hour in the gym after his body is worn out to get an edge. Or if he will be open to criticism and be willing to be coach up or if he'll always meet his deadlines when he needs to be somewhere or how much he will commit to a gimmick he may not even like. Again those are things the WWE will learn in the 1-3 month trial that these developmental guys are around. They will learn more about their makeup which will help judge who they think are guys good enough to present on TV. Onto the money aspect, it's just about 30,000 dollar downside which is a drop in a bucket for the E if it means all their development guys improve themselves due to the competition. Plus the WWE gains so much surplus value from top guys that it's a great incentive for them to get as many lottery ticket guys in the developmental system as possible and hope you hit on the next Reigns/Cena/Orton and make a fortune off of them. That's why it's a wise business decisions for the WWE to do this survival of the fittest model. You get a bunch of guys, let them fight for the limited spots and that improved performance leads them to being a potential top guy which means the WWE will make million off of them. Which in turn they used some of that surplus to pay for more lottery tickets. I don't see it as immoral, rather I see the WWE telling these guys all we will give you is an opportunity, but it's up to you personally to step up and seize it and grab the brass ring.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Aug 2, 2014 1:25:39 GMT -5
In future, I'm just gonna phone Sparkybob to get his answer. I can't say any of this stuff better than him.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Aug 2, 2014 9:13:56 GMT -5
It's fallacious to say, "Well, a successful company is doing it, so these practices must be part of what makes them successful." We have no way of knowing how successful they'd be if they didn't do these things. Personally, I cannot think of a way that this could possibly be a good strategy. They're hiring people knowing that a certain number of them are going to get weeded out? WANTING them to get weeded out? How on earth does the math work out to have that be worth it? They don't hire a given individual knowing they won't use them, but they do know they won't use some of the people they hire, so how is that not throwing money down the drain? (This is even leaving aside whether it's a moral way to treat your employees or not. It's not.) Well I think it just comes down to you not believing in the competition improves performance theory, which I find is a unique viewpoint to me. To me and some other people it just makes sense that if a wrestler had to compete with another guy for 1 spot, both guys will work harder because they have the negative incentive of losing his spot to somebody else. There is a reason all sports coaches use survival of the fittest. I also think you underestimate how little knowledge Hunter and his scouts have on these lower key signings. Yea they can see how good of a hip toss he can do, but they don't know if he'll spend an extra hour in the gym after his body is worn out to get an edge. Or if he will be open to criticism and be willing to be coach up or if he'll always meet his deadlines when he needs to be somewhere or how much he will commit to a gimmick he may not even like. Again those are things the WWE will learn in the 1-3 month trial that these developmental guys are around. They will learn more about their makeup which will help judge who they think are guys good enough to present on TV. Onto the money aspect, it's just about 30,000 dollar downside which is a drop in a bucket for the E if it means all their development guys improve themselves due to the competition. Plus the WWE gains so much surplus value from top guys that it's a great incentive for them to get as many lottery ticket guys in the developmental system as possible and hope you hit on the next Reigns/Cena/Orton and make a fortune off of them. That's why it's a wise business decisions for the WWE to do this survival of the fittest model. You get a bunch of guys, let them fight for the limited spots and that improved performance leads them to being a potential top guy which means the WWE will make million off of them. Which in turn they used some of that surplus to pay for more lottery tickets. I don't see it as immoral, rather I see the WWE telling these guys all we will give you is an opportunity, but it's up to you personally to step up and seize it and grab the brass ring. Yeah, that first thing is a big part of it. I find it dubious that sort of competition is really good generally, and I especially don't see how it applies here. It's just an individual difference, I guess. That "brass ring" thing, though, is CLEARLY nonsense given how stacked the system is against certain people and for others, and that's part of where I get hung up. A guy like Reigns was clearly chosen so early in his career to be a superstar, it's hard to see how he could have benefited from competition, and it's hard to see how his coworkers who AREN'T chosen are supposed to be inspired. It's related to the fundamental attribution error thing I see around here a lot: "Reigns is succeeding, so he must have worked hard!" "Zack Ryder failed, so he must just not be innately good in some way!" This "survival of the fittest" narrative perpetuates itself, and once it's locked in, it's hard to see the unfairnesses that are built in. The other thing, as SalineSolutions said, is that we ARE talking about slightly different things. I'm talking about that the SYSTEM is broken, and you're talking more about how their policies maximize returns within the system.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Aug 2, 2014 9:31:46 GMT -5
the brass ring is not the same for every person though. For some it may be the top spot in WWE, for some it may be a WWE contract and making it to WWE TV.
It's like that in any place there's a hierarchy and in any place where some skills may be more valuable than others. A pro football right guard on an offensive line will never make as much as the quarterback or left tackle and is unlikely to get an endorsement deal but he still makes a lot and can get a Super Bowl ring and a place in the Pro Bowl.
And most of the time in a business like WWE people enter knowing and planning on different goals and destinations than the person standing next to them.
That's not really the system being broken, it's the result of a limited system; constrained by time, money, talent and passion not being equal, and tons of people judging from the outside; versus an unlimited system; people's desires. And it's not just the desires of the person it's happening to.
In WWE tons of fans wanted Eddie Guerrero to be WWE champion. In the end, Eddie Guerrero didn't even want to be WWE champion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2014 9:37:00 GMT -5
I don't see the system being broken.
There's some information that there's no way to get about a wrestler until you've worked with him for a bit. They do their best to bring in people they think have the best shot of being useful, but there won't (and can never) be a guarantee that it's going to work out.
They can look at a guy, see "This guy can work pretty well". They can talk to him, ask him questions, ask others about him...and then there's nothing left to do but try him out or not.
This is no different than any other corporation on the planet. No company gets 100% success rate on their hires. A guy can do great in interviews, then just start not showing up for work. Or he shows up drunk sometimes. Or after he's been there for a bit he starts halfassing his work. Or he argues with people. Or he just plain isn't as skilled at the job you hired him for as he seemed like he was going to be. Or any of a million other things you can't know that someone is going to do until they are on the payroll.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 10,990
|
Post by Sparkybob on Aug 2, 2014 12:09:38 GMT -5
Well I think it just comes down to you not believing in the competition improves performance theory, which I find is a unique viewpoint to me. To me and some other people it just makes sense that if a wrestler had to compete with another guy for 1 spot, both guys will work harder because they have the negative incentive of losing his spot to somebody else. There is a reason all sports coaches use survival of the fittest. I also think you underestimate how little knowledge Hunter and his scouts have on these lower key signings. Yea they can see how good of a hip toss he can do, but they don't know if he'll spend an extra hour in the gym after his body is worn out to get an edge. Or if he will be open to criticism and be willing to be coach up or if he'll always meet his deadlines when he needs to be somewhere or how much he will commit to a gimmick he may not even like. Again those are things the WWE will learn in the 1-3 month trial that these developmental guys are around. They will learn more about their makeup which will help judge who they think are guys good enough to present on TV. Onto the money aspect, it's just about 30,000 dollar downside which is a drop in a bucket for the E if it means all their development guys improve themselves due to the competition. Plus the WWE gains so much surplus value from top guys that it's a great incentive for them to get as many lottery ticket guys in the developmental system as possible and hope you hit on the next Reigns/Cena/Orton and make a fortune off of them. That's why it's a wise business decisions for the WWE to do this survival of the fittest model. You get a bunch of guys, let them fight for the limited spots and that improved performance leads them to being a potential top guy which means the WWE will make million off of them. Which in turn they used some of that surplus to pay for more lottery tickets. I don't see it as immoral, rather I see the WWE telling these guys all we will give you is an opportunity, but it's up to you personally to step up and seize it and grab the brass ring. Yeah, that first thing is a big part of it. I find it dubious that sort of competition is really good generally, and I especially don't see how it applies here. It's just an individual difference, I guess. That "brass ring" thing, though, is CLEARLY nonsense given how stacked the system is against certain people and for others, and that's part of where I get hung up. A guy like Reigns was clearly chosen so early in his career to be a superstar, it's hard to see how he could have benefited from competition, and it's hard to see how his coworkers who AREN'T chosen are supposed to be inspired. It's related to the fundamental attribution error thing I see around here a lot: "Reigns is succeeding, so he must have worked hard!" "Zack Ryder failed, so he must just not be innately good in some way!" This "survival of the fittest" narrative perpetuates itself, and once it's locked in, it's hard to see the unfairnesses that are built in. The other thing, as SalineSolutions said, is that we ARE talking about slightly different things. I'm talking about that the SYSTEM is broken, and you're talking more about how their policies maximize returns within the system. I think we are both are arguing different things. It seems you are talking about how this relates to the main roster and I'm just talking strictly developmental system. It's well know getting a push to the top on the main roster is a combination of things that a wrestler can't really control so I leave that out. Ryder for example is a successful development guy. He made the roster, been there for a while, made some money and got over. And the goal of the development wrestler or their brass rings should probably be just to get on WWE tv wrestling matches. And there is nothing wrong with that. Do some guys want to be main eventers? Absolutely but I have a good feeling that most guys/gals just want a chance on the main roster. There are like 6 main event slots in the WWE and with the hundreds of thousands of wrestler in the world, it's extremely difficult to be a top dog and I can't scream unfair that not everybody with dreams of doing that doesn't get a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Heinz Doofenschmirtz on Aug 2, 2014 12:51:30 GMT -5
I think your last point is it really, I have strong feelings about making things fair and all my ideologies tend to sit behind that, often to the point where my hardline beliefs of workers rights and skills makes me feel a bit down for the guys who get cut down (even if I dislike the people it's happening to) even though I realize the current system won't allow 60% of the roster to be what they could be given a better environment. Sometimes I think some of us talk about the bigger picture (/Barrett) instead of the current state of the business/systems in place, we want better things for people overall even if that may not be best for profit lines in the companies eyes. I don't believe anyone on here is ever saying they want people to fail or be sacked for the sake of it, I think they're just the other side of the coin to those of us who talk about things when we believe they'd be better if they changed the damn system somewhat. Nobody is wrong, it's just it, long term possibilities vs short term reality. In a typical organization, fairness is good because you have a corporate culture to worry about. Team morale, etc. But in the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, this is simply what it is. All the time. And has always been the case. Forever. Wrestling is no exception. It's not about being "fair." Yes, it IS dog-eat-dog because it's a competitive business. It's about being #1 and making the most money. You can have those ideologies in your life and there's nothing wrong with that. But you would never be able to run a successful entertainment business. Yeah, this is pretty much false conjecture about the entertainment industry. You'd be surprised how many successful companies DON'T operate in a cut throat fashion. I've worked with some fairly successful people and companies who treat their employees with kindness and respect. Are there jackasses? Oh, god, yes. But no more so than any other area of employment.
|
|
|
Post by The Trashman on Aug 2, 2014 12:54:25 GMT -5
They have to trim the fat to sign guys like KENTA and Devitt.
|
|
mrjl
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,319
|
Post by mrjl on Aug 2, 2014 12:59:11 GMT -5
In a typical organization, fairness is good because you have a corporate culture to worry about. Team morale, etc. But in the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY, this is simply what it is. All the time. And has always been the case. Forever. Wrestling is no exception. It's not about being "fair." Yes, it IS dog-eat-dog because it's a competitive business. It's about being #1 and making the most money. You can have those ideologies in your life and there's nothing wrong with that. But you would never be able to run a successful entertainment business. Yeah, this is pretty much false conjecture about the entertainment industry. You'd be surprised how many successful companies DON'T operate in a cut throat fashion. I've worked with some fairly successful people and companies who treat their employees with kindness and respect. Are there jackasses? Oh, god, yes. But no more so than any other area of employment. firing someone doesn't have to mean no kindness and respect. For years WWE was mocked for having Hawkins and JTG on the roster and not using them. Now they're insulted for firing people they know they can't use. They're certainly not perfect but even if you removed all the egos and politics it is still possible to do something and decide it was the wrong thing to do. And then you need to correct it.
|
|
|
Post by Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal on Aug 2, 2014 13:11:10 GMT -5
As I always say, it's insanely easy to judge from your computer chair. Imagine being Vince McMahon or Triple H or JR or anybody who is managing or booking talent. It sounds SO easy when you watch on TV, moving human chess pieces in your head. Like, how easy is that? Really easy. But in reality, you manage NXT or Raw/Smackdown... and you have alpha males who are gunning to be the top dog so they can earn the most money they can. Then you have midcarders who wish they could do that but there's simply no room at the top. Then you have NXT development of hungry freaks. Then you have thousands upon thousands of talented people OUTSIDE the company who want to come IN. And then factor in that you can only put about 20 wrestlers on a PPV and feature about 30 wrestlers per week on TV.... Makes life a LITTLE bit more difficult for shuffling talent, keeping talent and making everything super FAIR, right? Clearly there's no room for fairness. It just doesn't make any sense. And here's another fun reason why a typical company is KINDA different from an entertainment company like WWE. Here's Prince Devitt talking about what it takes to be a wrestler. He's not speaking in tongues. Most top wrestlers relate to this. You tell me if a normal office worker in a standard business talks like this:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2014 13:16:52 GMT -5
I am not a capitalist minded person, I think all people who run big business are usually corrupt scum who likely have done numerous things to be jailed for but I think a good point was made here where people have different goals. A lot of people wanted Drake Younger to be signed and the majority wanted Sara Del Rey signed and they seem over the moon being a referee and lead female trainer respectively.
Funaki seemingly has been re-signed and he was a very solid wrestler but he's happy being KENTA's agent and translator. People are different and even people individually change as their life develops.
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Aug 2, 2014 15:16:49 GMT -5
Well I think it just comes down to you not believing in the competition improves performance theory, which I find is a unique viewpoint to me. To me and some other people it just makes sense that if a wrestler had to compete with another guy for 1 spot, both guys will work harder because they have the negative incentive of losing his spot to somebody else. There is a reason all sports coaches use survival of the fittest. I also think you underestimate how little knowledge Hunter and his scouts have on these lower key signings. Yea they can see how good of a hip toss he can do, but they don't know if he'll spend an extra hour in the gym after his body is worn out to get an edge. Or if he will be open to criticism and be willing to be coach up or if he'll always meet his deadlines when he needs to be somewhere or how much he will commit to a gimmick he may not even like. Again those are things the WWE will learn in the 1-3 month trial that these developmental guys are around. They will learn more about their makeup which will help judge who they think are guys good enough to present on TV. Onto the money aspect, it's just about 30,000 dollar downside which is a drop in a bucket for the E if it means all their development guys improve themselves due to the competition. Plus the WWE gains so much surplus value from top guys that it's a great incentive for them to get as many lottery ticket guys in the developmental system as possible and hope you hit on the next Reigns/Cena/Orton and make a fortune off of them. That's why it's a wise business decisions for the WWE to do this survival of the fittest model. You get a bunch of guys, let them fight for the limited spots and that improved performance leads them to being a potential top guy which means the WWE will make million off of them. Which in turn they used some of that surplus to pay for more lottery tickets. I don't see it as immoral, rather I see the WWE telling these guys all we will give you is an opportunity, but it's up to you personally to step up and seize it and grab the brass ring. Yeah, that first thing is a big part of it. I find it dubious that sort of competition is really good generally, and I especially don't see how it applies here. It's just an individual difference, I guess. That "brass ring" thing, though, is CLEARLY nonsense given how stacked the system is against certain people and for others, and that's part of where I get hung up. A guy like Reigns was clearly chosen so early in his career to be a superstar, it's hard to see how he could have benefited from competition, and it's hard to see how his coworkers who AREN'T chosen are supposed to be inspired. It's related to the fundamental attribution error thing I see around here a lot: "Reigns is succeeding, so he must have worked hard!" "Zack Ryder failed, so he must just not be innately good in some way!" This "survival of the fittest" narrative perpetuates itself, and once it's locked in, it's hard to see the unfairnesses that are built in. The other thing, as SalineSolutions said, is that we ARE talking about slightly different things. I'm talking about that the SYSTEM is broken, and you're talking more about how their policies maximize returns within the system. WWE is show business more than competition. Skill is just a portion of your popularity. You just have to get over , and fit what they are looking for. Reigns is both over with the crowd, and fits the big man image, there for he gets a push. That's what happens when you enter a predetermined sport.
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Aug 2, 2014 15:28:33 GMT -5
For example it's not fair that Mike Tyson got paid tons more money for the few dates he did than probably the whole roster, but it was the best business choice.
|
|
|
NXT Cuts
Aug 2, 2014 16:00:43 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Heinz Doofenschmirtz on Aug 2, 2014 16:00:43 GMT -5
Yeah, this is pretty much false conjecture about the entertainment industry. You'd be surprised how many successful companies DON'T operate in a cut throat fashion. I've worked with some fairly successful people and companies who treat their employees with kindness and respect. Are there jackasses? Oh, god, yes. But no more so than any other area of employment. firing someone doesn't have to mean no kindness and respect. For years WWE was mocked for having Hawkins and JTG on the roster and not using them. Now they're insulted for firing people they know they can't use. They're certainly not perfect but even if you removed all the egos and politics it is still possible to do something and decide it was the wrong thing to do. And then you need to correct it. I was speaking strictly to the idea that the entertainment industry is somehow worse than any other industry.
|
|
ededdneddy
Hank Scorpio
ededdandembed
Posts: 5,697
|
Post by ededdneddy on Aug 2, 2014 19:03:34 GMT -5
Yeah, this is pretty much false conjecture about the entertainment industry. You'd be surprised how many successful companies DON'T operate in a cut throat fashion. I've worked with some fairly successful people and companies who treat their employees with kindness and respect. Are there jackasses? Oh, god, yes. But no more so than any other area of employment. firing someone doesn't have to mean no kindness and respect. For years WWE was mocked for having Hawkins and JTG on the roster and not using them. Now they're insulted for firing people they know they can't use. They're certainly not perfect but even if you removed all the egos and politics it is still possible to do something and decide it was the wrong thing to do. And then you need to correct it. The problem is they could easily use those guys. Like team up Hawkins & Ryder again back when Ryders popularity was on the rise. Hell they could have made a whole stable with them and JTG and call them the New York Connection or something. JTG could have been used at TLC 2012 instead of having Brooklyn Brawler and have JTG. They can easily do something with these types of guys it just seems like they would rather do nothing.
|
|
ededdneddy
Hank Scorpio
ededdandembed
Posts: 5,697
|
NXT Cuts
Aug 2, 2014 19:04:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by ededdneddy on Aug 2, 2014 19:04:38 GMT -5
Yeah, this is pretty much false conjecture about the entertainment industry. You'd be surprised how many successful companies DON'T operate in a cut throat fashion. I've worked with some fairly successful people and companies who treat their employees with kindness and respect. Are there jackasses? Oh, god, yes. But no more so than any other area of employment. firing someone doesn't have to mean no kindness and respect. For years WWE was mocked for having Hawkins and JTG on the roster and not using them. Now they're insulted for firing people they know they can't use. They're certainly not perfect but even if you removed all the egos and politics it is still possible to do something and decide it was the wrong thing to do. And then you need to correct it. The problem is they could easily use those guys. Like team up Hawkins & Ryder again back when Ryders popularity was on the rise. Hell they could have made a whole stable with them and JTG and call them the New York Connection or something. JTG could have been used at TLC 2012 instead of having Brooklyn Brawler and have JTG. They can easily do something with these types of guys it just seems like they would rather do nothing.
|
|
Toates Madhackrviper
King Koopa
Is owed an Admin life-debt.
This avatar is so far out of date I might as well stick with it forever now.
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by Toates Madhackrviper on Aug 2, 2014 21:47:05 GMT -5
What do we know about the three names that aren't Shaun Ricker and Garrett Dylan, becuase I hadn't heard of them? Also The former Oliver Grey SPEAKS THE TRUTH~! What did this tweet say because it seems to be gone
|
|