Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 30, 2014 13:40:06 GMT -5
Agreed on the price hike. That's a long way off. Feel like the ad revenue has helped out the bottom line, but they are in zero position to contemplate raising, or as I said earlier, lowering the price. Think it's in about as good a spot as they can get it for now. The PPV's honestly are their #1 selling point so they will always be there for the foreseeable future. They just need to work on programming to entice the people in. Screwing with the pricing right now would just blow up in their faces. Ad revenue could be very important. The demographic they have is like goldust (no pun) for sponsors. Young men between the ages of 14-35 - momma! I think they're going to have to carry proper commercials between shows. Two or three minutes of ads on the live stream and maybe Hulu-style ads throughout the VOD content too in the long run. it won't be popular but inevitable I think. PPVs are the biggest draw and they need to add to that selling point. I think there really does need to be wreslting every day of the week. Monday - Raw (pre/post show Network Exclusives) Tuesday - Main event (Network Exclusive) Wednesday - NXT (Network Exclusive) Thursday - House-show recording (Network Exclusive) Friday - Smackdown (pre/post show Network Exclusives) Saturday - Revisit Shotgun Saturday Night format matches in a nightclub/bar/street/gimmicky (Network Exclusive) PPV - (pre/post show Network Exclusives) Also on non-PPV weeks sometimes have 'specials' in the guise of old Saturday Night's Main Event (but on Sundays) - sporadic once every 6 weeks or so but a PPV-quality show just not an official PPV.
|
|
|
Post by froggyfrog on Oct 30, 2014 13:41:47 GMT -5
So that means they're making $7.2m per month plus whatever the limited sponsors are paying with a much higher profit margin than when they were exclusively on PPV. I fail to see how that is "terrible". You know they have overhead right? Income isn't the same as Profit
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 30, 2014 13:46:20 GMT -5
They're waaaaaay off even contemplating a price rise. That's guaranteed not to happen for a long way off yet. They're struggling to get it going at 9.99 as it is. I'd say that'll be the base for at least another 12 months with special offers and gimmicks made along the way to entice people in. I'm not saying it is going to happen in the next few months, but I do think they are going to see how dropping the commitment does in terms of bringing people in. Should it not go well, I have no doubt they already have a target in mind ($12.99) and time as well (Summerslam 2015). They cannot keep up the pace they are at and expect Wall Street to stay happy. I'd doubt it. They're not going to make Wall Street happy by jacking up the price and losing subscribers. I don't think the model works like that - that you don't do well so hike the price up. That'll increase slightly the amount per subscriber but will be more than counter-balanced by a reduction in numbers of those subscribing They'd sooner have more subscribers paying less than fewer subscribers paying more. For one if you've got the numbers you can sell your subscriber base to sponsors and advertisers. Moreover within a year, if not already, it'll stop being viewed as a 'vs the PPV' prices as a product and move into being considered alongside things like Netflix. That's its new competition now. However much PPVs were in the past will fast become irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by friendship frog on Oct 30, 2014 14:01:15 GMT -5
So that means they're making $7.2m per month plus whatever the limited sponsors are paying with a much higher profit margin than when they were exclusively on PPV. I fail to see how that is "terrible". You know they have overhead right? Income isn't the same as Profit I am well aware of this, hence me saying "profit margin". It's something I work with everyday. Their profit margin is up, income may be down I'm not sure but their costs won't come to $7m a month so they are not "losing money". On a different note, I recently read the Simpsons are looking to launch a subscription library with all their episodes on. I love the Simpsons but it's on about 5 times a day as it is!
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Oct 30, 2014 14:27:58 GMT -5
$9.99 with no commitment? People can now (during various times in the year) get two PPVs for $9.99 if they time it right. It seems like they will lose a ton of money on WrestleMania since you can buy the Network for one month and then quit.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 30, 2014 14:30:30 GMT -5
$9.99 with no commitment? People can now (during various times in the year) get two PPVs for $9.99 if they time it right. It seems like they will lose a ton of money on WrestleMania since you can buy the Network for one month and then quit. They could but it doesn't impact on Hulu/Netflix etc. Their biggest problem is having the Jan-March/April period and then the rest of the year that doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Oct 30, 2014 14:39:02 GMT -5
$9.99 with no commitment? People can now (during various times in the year) get two PPVs for $9.99 if they time it right. It seems like they will lose a ton of money on WrestleMania since you can buy the Network for one month and then quit. Do you mean the same thing that everyone is doing now? Quiting payment or cancelling when they feel like it and that's it? All this was doing is removing the *with a 6 month commitment from their literature and advertising. They were in no way enforcing it anyway. You know they have overhead right? Income isn't the same as Profit I am well aware of this, hence me saying "profit margin". It's something I work with everyday. Their profit margin is up, income may be down I'm not sure but their costs won't come to $7m a month so they are not "losing money". On a different note, I recently read the Simpsons are looking to launch a subscription library with all their episodes on. I love the Simpsons but it's on about 5 times a day as it is! While it's true that yes they are turning a higher profit margin in reference to a PPV, as a whole the number of 1 million subs to break even on the network per month comes directly from them. 2 separate departments on the financials. The network is operating at a loss right now, but it's not at the doom and gloom omg panic numbers some have posted about today, and it's certainly nothing the WWE didn't budget for. Their financials are actually outperforming their own forecastered numbers at this point and next quarter introduces the network ad revenue stream which to this point is unaccounted for in any projections. You can be sure they will keep it this way for next quarterly conference, makes everything look so much better and honestly, every business does that kinda thing.
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Oct 30, 2014 14:44:46 GMT -5
$9.99 with no commitment? People can now (during various times in the year) get two PPVs for $9.99 if they time it right. It seems like they will lose a ton of money on WrestleMania since you can buy the Network for one month and then quit. Do you mean the same thing that everyone is doing now? Quiting payment or cancelling when they feel like it and that's it? All this was doing is removing the *with a 6 month commitment from their literature and advertising. They were in no way enforcing it anyway. Yes, but now they are up front telling subscribers they can do it. Unless you live in an area without access to high-speed internet, why in the world would you ever order a PPV any more? At least with the six month commitment WWE was getting $59.94 from subscribers who wanted to sign-up primarily for WrestleMania. Now WWE is telling everyone they can just order the Network for one month for $9.99 and then cancel. Now those who only really wanted Mania pay $9.99 instead of $59.94.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 30, 2014 14:48:00 GMT -5
I still think they're missing out with a lot of older viewers by not having TV-14 new content on the Network. They have it on the archive so what difference does it make to sponsors? Make PPVs TV-14. Blur, freeze-frame or edit when you replay it on TV but if I think it needs to be more accessible and 'adult' too rather than being what is essentially a children's product with an adult archive, that doesn't even make sense.
If you want to make the stuff available only on stream after 9pm and then PIN protected at other times - fine but to have mature content on there but just refuse to make any of the NEW stuff TV-14 seems like a dumb rule for the sake of having a dumb rule. They don't have to push the envelope Attitude style but give adults something they're happy to consider 'theirs' that's part of the current product rather than an archive.
Did all the violence and gratuity of the Attitude era really stop kids watching anyway?
If they want to keep the TV PG then great - do so, to attract sponsors but on the Network I've never got why it mattered, especially when adult content is on there anyway.
The whole "you can have TV-14 on-demand but not in terms of new content" doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever. it's like if Netflix announced it was only going to add PG movies from this point on but retain its library of 15/MA content. It'd be ridiculously pointless.
|
|
|
Post by friendship frog on Oct 30, 2014 14:53:45 GMT -5
$9.99 with no commitment? People can now (during various times in the year) get two PPVs for $9.99 if they time it right. It seems like they will lose a ton of money on WrestleMania since you can buy the Network for one month and then quit. Do you mean the same thing that everyone is doing now? Quiting payment or cancelling when they feel like it and that's it? All this was doing is removing the *with a 6 month commitment from their literature and advertising. They were in no way enforcing it anyway. I am well aware of this, hence me saying "profit margin". It's something I work with everyday. Their profit margin is up, income may be down I'm not sure but their costs won't come to $7m a month so they are not "losing money". On a different note, I recently read the Simpsons are looking to launch a subscription library with all their episodes on. I love the Simpsons but it's on about 5 times a day as it is! While it's true that yes they are turning a higher profit margin in reference to a PPV, as a whole the number of 1 million subs to break even on the network per month comes directly from them. 2 separate departments on the financials. The network is operating at a loss right now, but it's not at the doom and gloom omg panic numbers some have posted about today, and it's certainly nothing the WWE didn't budget for. Their financials are actually outperforming their own forecastered numbers at this point and next quarter introduces the network ad revenue stream which to this point is unaccounted for in any projections. You can be sure they will keep it this way for next quarterly conference, makes everything look so much better and honestly, every business does that kinda thing. The way I see it though (and I admit it's pure speculation on my part, I really haven't followed it from day one so you'll be able to tell me otherwise) this "break even" sub goal will include the initial set-up costs that were paid before the network ever went live? What I mean by that is, they needed 1 million subs to make the network 'pay for itself' in the first year essentially? Not hitting 1m would just draw out the process a bit longer but if they have the exact same number of subs this time next year, or the year after they will have paid that off and be making a healthy profit?
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Oct 30, 2014 14:54:48 GMT -5
Do you mean the same thing that everyone is doing now? Quiting payment or cancelling when they feel like it and that's it? All this was doing is removing the *with a 6 month commitment from their literature and advertising. They were in no way enforcing it anyway. Yes, but now they are up front telling subscribers they can do it. Unless you live in an area without access to high-speed internet, why in the world would you ever order a PPV any more? At least with the six month commitment WWE was getting $59.94 from subscribers who wanted to sign-up primarily for WrestleMania. Now WWE is telling everyone they can just order the Network for one month for $9.99 and then cancel. Now those who only really wanted Mania pay $9.99 instead of $59.94. They weren't getting the 59.94 from subscribers that just signed up for wrestle-mania. If people wanted out they got out with absolutely zero issue. This isn't some great loss of income.
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Oct 30, 2014 14:58:49 GMT -5
Yes, but now they are up front telling subscribers they can do it. Unless you live in an area without access to high-speed internet, why in the world would you ever order a PPV any more? At least with the six month commitment WWE was getting $59.94 from subscribers who wanted to sign-up primarily for WrestleMania. Now WWE is telling everyone they can just order the Network for one month for $9.99 and then cancel. Now those who only really wanted Mania pay $9.99 instead of $59.94. They weren't getting the 59.94 from subscribers that just signed up for wrestle-mania. If people wanted out they got out with absolutely zero issue. This isn't some great loss of income. Good grief! In practice, no. There were subscribers who found a way to quit the Network. What I was saying, and I don't think I was ambiguous, is that WWE's initial stated policy was that subscribers agreed to a six month commitment. I am not saying they held people to it. I'm not saying people didn't find a way around it. Now they are up front with it.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Oct 30, 2014 14:59:52 GMT -5
Do you mean the same thing that everyone is doing now? Quiting payment or cancelling when they feel like it and that's it? All this was doing is removing the *with a 6 month commitment from their literature and advertising. They were in no way enforcing it anyway. While it's true that yes they are turning a higher profit margin in reference to a PPV, as a whole the number of 1 million subs to break even on the network per month comes directly from them. 2 separate departments on the financials. The network is operating at a loss right now, but it's not at the doom and gloom omg panic numbers some have posted about today, and it's certainly nothing the WWE didn't budget for. Their financials are actually outperforming their own forecastered numbers at this point and next quarter introduces the network ad revenue stream which to this point is unaccounted for in any projections. You can be sure they will keep it this way for next quarterly conference, makes everything look so much better and honestly, every business does that kinda thing. The way I see it though (and I admit it's pure speculation on my part, I really haven't followed it from day one so you'll be able to tell me otherwise) this "break even" sub goal will include the initial set-up costs that were paid before the network ever went live? What I mean by that is, they needed 1 million subs to make the network 'pay for itself' in the first year essentially? Not hitting 1m would just draw out the process a bit longer but if they have the exact same number of subs this time next year, or the year after they will have paid that off and be making a healthy profit? They haven't made the startup costs available as a seperate line item nor given a "18 months to pay startup costs" estimate for example(which I think they should) but yeah that's pretty much on point. My guess is they haven't made the 2 things I spoke of available is that the startup isn't complete yet as it still has to launch in UK and the far east. Just depends on how much is left on the initial cost and how long the have deferals in their budget for. Without that info, it really is just relying on their sub numbers. This is why so many analysts have said if this network makes it a couple years it would be huge for the company because their profit per sub will be extremely high.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 30, 2014 15:01:31 GMT -5
The commitment, IMO, was a bigger problem for attracting new subscribers as one-time-Charlies will be with the zero commitment. People are fundamentally lazy. If you get to Mania and get subscribers whilst some will cancel right away if you give the rest a hook for he next PPV most will probably be too lazy to bother cancel or tempted just to see how happens at the next show in a "might as well" reasoning
With the 6-month commitment I think too many people felt daunted by that and they thought "great, I can cancel now without having to pay for the rest of the 5 months" - with non-commitment service I don;'t think that'll be a problem. The number of people who subscribe to Netflix each month on a rolling basis without ever really paying attention to it is huge. I do it myself. I don't cancel it because I think I might want to watch something one day and every so often I do. If they announced a 6 month commitment for Netflix - I'd cancel it tomorrow because I don't wnt to be tied in. I'll more than likely stay subscribed on a month to month basis for longer but know I HAD TO pay for 6 months and was locked in, changes things for me and I suspect a lot of people - maybe most people.
|
|
|
Post by Lance Uppercut on Oct 30, 2014 15:04:12 GMT -5
This is really scary. Yeah, they'll get a few new subscribers from people who didn't like the 6-month commitment, but they are going to lose a whole lot more subscribers who now will only cherry pick 2 or 3 months out of the year to subscribe. Not good at all. Very desperate. Or it could force them to make the every month matter again.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Oct 30, 2014 15:07:14 GMT -5
They weren't getting the 59.94 from subscribers that just signed up for wrestle-mania. If people wanted out they got out with absolutely zero issue. This isn't some great loss of income. Good grief! In practice, no. There were subscribers who found a way to quit the Network. What I was saying, and I don't think I was ambiguous, is that WWE's initial stated policy was that subscribers agreed to a six month commitment. I am not saying they held people to it. I'm not saying people didn't find a way around it. Now they are up front with it. I understand what you are saying. Instead of trapping them for apx. 60 bucks they can just get out for 10. I get that. This would be an issue if U.S. subscriber numbers were dropping (using U.S. as they've been there since day 1). If there was some dropoff in subs when renewal time came around I would have tended to agree with you but there's not. Sub numbers have increased since WM. Therefore instead of looking at it like $50 lost because of locking people in you look at it as $10 found. Now if when they switch to this plan they lose 100K subs for next quarter then yes this was a mistake. As of now though, no the numbers don't add up. If they were seeing declining numbers of subscriptions the Netflix model is not what they would have switched to as they would have anticipated a decrease in revenue.
|
|
|
Post by Lance Uppercut on Oct 30, 2014 15:11:57 GMT -5
Wait a minute, the entire November free? If it was 1 week, I'd understand, but the entire month kind of screw over the entire subscriber base out of $10.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 30, 2014 15:12:54 GMT -5
The ability to cancel at any time is much more appealing than having to now, in October, decide that you're going to be in the position to afford/want the Network in April 2015. It's the beauty of Netflix. Many people have Netflix almost forgetting about it with the monthly subscription coming out of their account. Introduce a minimum 6/12/18 month commitment and it changes the proposition entirely. It might be the same price, it might even be slightly cheaper ($2 off a month for minimum-term commitment deals) but psychologically its a much less appealing prospect than having the freedom to jump off a any time.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Oct 30, 2014 15:16:18 GMT -5
Wait a minute, the entire November free? If it was 1 week, I'd understand, but the entire month kind of screw over the entire subscriber base out of $10. When you sign up for Netflix you get the first month free don't you?
|
|
|
Post by sonofblaine on Oct 30, 2014 15:21:57 GMT -5
When you subscribe to something that's commitment-free and pay-as-you-go like that, you're far more prone to just keep your subscription and not think about it. Exactly. Mrs. SOB and I got HBOs service specifically for the Game of Thrones season and just kept it, even though we rarely watch it. I get my WWE fix from Hulu or online for Raw and PPVs, but now, I'd pay a month, knowing that I could cancel anytime. Usually, if we're short on money or have to tighten the budget for a month or two, the streaming apps are first to go.
|
|