WWE Network subscriber #s; 6-month commitment dropped

[Boo!]

Exactly, people probably won't want to cancel but like the idea that they can.

You might go into your favourite restaurant twice a month for the next five years but if you went in one day and they said 'If you order food you're going to have to commit to ordering something here every month until at least April' - you're going to feel uneasy about that.

[Boo!]

They should get WWE Network gift cards in the stores for Christmas though.

2/4/6 month options. Be good for lazy aunts and uncles for Christmas.

[bluemeii]

Also in B4 the July 2015 conference call that shows the dip in post Wrestlemania subscriber numbers and every copy paste website has the clickbait "Massive Subscriber Losses for WWE Network" articles posted. Hell you could probably write one now and it would be pretty close to what they will put in it.

[kevin]

Oct 30, 2014 15:33:35 GMT -5 bluemeii said:

Also in B4 the July 2015 conference call that shows the dip in post Wrestlemania subscriber numbers and every copy paste website has the clickbait "Massive Subscriber Losses for WWE Network" articles posted. Hell you could probably write one now and it would be pretty close to what they will put in it.

I am sure some of those stories are allready written just waiting for the figures to come out so they can finalize it and put it up on their site.

[BRV]

Oct 30, 2014 9:40:00 GMT -5 paywindah said:

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.

This reason is why the WWE needs to change its on-screen model of "the only months that matter are January through April and July through August." Because now people will get the idea, and sure, they might see a dramatic increase in Network subscriptions in January for the Royal Rumble and April for WrestleMania and Extreme Rules, but they'll also watch those numbers absolutely plummet in September through December, because it's been patently obvious for years now that WWE does not care about Night of Champions, Hell in a Cell, Survivor Series, or TLC.

Maybe now they'll actually try to create a watchable and worthwhile product 12 months a year instead of riding four months around WrestleMania season and two months around SummerSlam, then hoping for the best from May through July and September through December.

[Boo!]

Absolutely the post-April product needs to stop sucking. A good thing about this change is that it might make them go back to how they were during the ratings war - fighting for every subscriber they can and making their shows as good as they can be.

I think Summerslam needs a makeover and needs to be a stadium show now rather than just being an ordinary PPV but with a more familiar name, which is all it is. Rumble has a gimmick, Mania is Mania - Summerslam needs to mean something other than the name.

[Dean-o]

Oct 30, 2014 17:00:55 GMT -5 Boo! said:

Absolutely the post-April product needs to stop sucking. A good thing about this change is that it might make them go back to how they were during the ratings war - fighting for every subscriber they can and making their shows as good as they can be.

I think Summerslam needs a makeover and needs to be a stadium show now rather than just being an ordinary PPV but with a more familiar name, which is all it is. Rumble has a gimmick, Mania is Mania - Summerslam needs to mean something other than the name.

They had their chance for next year with Red Bulls Stadium but instead decided to run the dump Izod Center.

[Boo!]

Oct 30, 2014 17:17:54 GMT -5 Dean-o said:

Oct 30, 2014 17:00:55 GMT -5 Boo! said:

Absolutely the post-April product needs to stop sucking. A good thing about this change is that it might make them go back to how they were during the ratings war - fighting for every subscriber they can and making their shows as good as they can be.

I think Summerslam needs a makeover and needs to be a stadium show now rather than just being an ordinary PPV but with a more familiar name, which is all it is. Rumble has a gimmick, Mania is Mania - Summerslam needs to mean something other than the name.

They had their chance for next year with Red Bulls Stadium but instead decided to run the dump Izod Center.

Still time to change. Summerslam was set for Washington in 92 until well after Wresltemania that year, I think. Maybe the latest news will spurn a rethink on a number of things.

[Mid-Carder]

I'm sure I'm alone in this but I'm sorry this hasn't worked out for them. It was an ambitious idea.

[Deleted]

Oct 30, 2014 10:40:07 GMT -5 Boo! said:

Oct 30, 2014 10:35:16 GMT -5 @lovehater said:

I was really psyched for the tape library, but now I'm bored of that, so it's basically just buying PPVs for 10 bucks a month. Great price, but still the Network has lost it's luster already.

It's why they need Network 'special events', like a random Wednesday night house show taping, an episodic 'big deal' TV programme maybe on Saturday nights etc.

If you think about the number of live events they do, maybe to perk up interest in the Network they need to bring a camera along to a few of them. Not have the same production levels/crew as they do for TV but in the style of the old MSG televised house shows. I agree the archive, as much as there is of it, is soon exhausted from a subscribers stand point. They really need to produce a 'new' wrestling show every non Raw/SD/PPV night of the week. Even if it's just random matches with occasional backstage promos, interview segments and tour promotions.

They do have NXT, and their quarterly specials, which I do enjoy a lot. Then there's Main Event and Superstars. But yeah, it'd be cool for them to show house shows or something like that.

However, there's SO MUCH WRESTLING on TV already. 5 hours of WWE a week is more than enough, then if I watch Impact (which is almost impossible these days), NXT, and a PPV, we're getting up towards 10 hours. That's a god damn part time job. So I see how putting more new content would be good, but it doens't solve the problem of WWE's product being crazy over-exposed. Unless they created a whole new brand/sub-sect of the product, I remember you suggesting some things in that regard that were interesting like a more adult oriented Rated R type show. Or, they could make Smackdown Network-exclusive.

[kidglov3s]

WWE is going to be fine but I can't see this as good news for anyone that might be deemed harvest for the budget cutter.

[angryfan]

They expand internationally, and add 30,000 subscribers outside the US? That's...that's not even a "bad" number, that's make sure the windows on the top floors can't be opened numbers.

[Tony Schiavontay]

It's completely their own fault.

[SenorCrest]

I was not going to pay 60 bucks to watch Dean vs Seth at HIAC + other thrown together matches. You know why? Because I don't want to or can't spend 60 dollars a month. However I can pay 10 bucks for a damn good quality stream that I can watch anywhere I want. Hell last time I was watching the preshow and wanted to go get some food before the show started so I put it on my phone and heard it on the way to the drive thru.

I get the product is weak and won't get any better soon but to say that 10 bucks a month for this network is not worth every penny is wrong. I'm no shill for this company but I enjoy this deal and I am willing to keep my subscription so they can make money and make it better. I hope that it doesn't fail, I hope they add more content, and not edit the hell out of their past programs. Paying 10 bucks for a ppv is not bad and I can watch it right after it airs.


ALso I think they should buy tna and put their crap on the network for lulz. Maybe sign ROH to a tv deal. haha

[Mikoto Misaka]

This isn't going to end well.

[Boo!]

Oct 31, 2014 0:01:43 GMT -5 Mikoto Misaka said:

This isn't going to end well.

Why not? Rolling, non-committal contracts are what services like this are founded on pretty much. The 6-month committal probably put a hell of a lot of people off because many people aren't in a position of knowing in August if their finances will still be able to absorb a cost in the following January.

I've had Netflix rolling for ages and barely watch it but I like to know it's there. If they emailed me tomorrow and said as of next month it's a minimum 6-month commitment I'd cancel it in a second. Whereas if there wasn't no commitment the chances are I'd just let my subscription roll on through 6 months and beyond.

It's an al a carte world. People like to know they can choose what they want, when they want for how long they want. Use scary words like 'minimum term commitment' and a lot run for the hills. 

[sonofblaine]

Oct 31, 2014 5:51:13 GMT -5 Boo! said:

Oct 31, 2014 0:01:43 GMT -5 Mikoto Misaka said:

This isn't going to end well.

Why not? Rolling, non-committal contracts are what services like this are founded on pretty much. The 6-month committal probably put a hell of a lot of people off because many people aren't in a position of knowing in August if their finances will still be able to absorb a cost in the following January.

I've had Netflix rolling for ages and barely watch it but I like to know it's there. If they emailed me tomorrow and said as of next month it's a minimum 6-month commitment I'd cancel it in a second. Whereas if there wasn't no commitment the chances are I'd just let my subscription roll on through 6 months and beyond.

It's an al a carte world. People like to know they can choose what they want, when they want for how long they want. Use scary words like 'minimum term commitment' and a lot run for the hills. 

And you know, and this a really optimistic Pollyanna view, but it might.... might.... make the product and/or contents better. Low ratings on TV? Oh well. They still have a slot on USA, SYFY, and tons of casual fans and kids tune in. But, if there's the threat that people paying money might stop because they're not getting their money's worth, perhaps WWE will try harder.

Right?

[Boo!]

Oct 31, 2014 6:05:53 GMT -5 sonofblaine said:

Oct 31, 2014 5:51:13 GMT -5 Boo! said:

Why not? Rolling, non-committal contracts are what services like this are founded on pretty much. The 6-month committal probably put a hell of a lot of people off because many people aren't in a position of knowing in August if their finances will still be able to absorb a cost in the following January.

I've had Netflix rolling for ages and barely watch it but I like to know it's there. If they emailed me tomorrow and said as of next month it's a minimum 6-month commitment I'd cancel it in a second. Whereas if there wasn't no commitment the chances are I'd just let my subscription roll on through 6 months and beyond.

It's an al a carte world. People like to know they can choose what they want, when they want for how long they want. Use scary words like 'minimum term commitment' and a lot run for the hills. 

And you know, and this a really optimistic Pollyanna view, but it might.... might.... make the product and/or contents better. Low ratings on TV? Oh well. They still have a slot on USA, SYFY, and tons of casual fans and kids tune in. But, if there's the threat that people paying money might stop because they're not getting their money's worth, perhaps WWE will try harder.

Right?

It definitely makes making each PPV 'must see' an imperative, which'll kind of reverse a trend of the last few years where practically all but the big 3 were treated as throw away events that you could reverse, repeat or ignore the following night on TV. I expect there to be a huge 'OMG!' moment at Survivor Series so they end the month free-trial with the beginning of something people can't help but stay and pay in December for.

[audiencewatching]

Desperation.

[Session Moth is over]

Oct 30, 2014 17:27:09 GMT -5 Mid-Carder said:

I'm sure I'm alone in this but I'm sorry this hasn't worked out for them. It was an ambitious idea.

I think most people are hoping this works out.