phen0m2112
Trap-Jaw
Advocating for the Devil since 1968.
Posts: 309
|
Post by phen0m2112 on Oct 31, 2014 7:26:49 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. I think it has the potential to bring in fans that want to see the Rumble,Wrestlemania, possibly Summerslam, but don't want to pay the six-month commitment (which equals the cost of one PPV.) If i were Vince, I'd rather get 10 bucks three times a year from subscribers than nothing at all.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 31, 2014 7:43:29 GMT -5
Never underestimate the power of the "might as well"/passive purchase.
Survivor Series is good. Has a good angle coming out of it. "Might was well" just get December to see how it ends.
You enjoyed December's PPV. It's Rumble next. "Might as well" just let it carry over to see that.
Rumble was good. You're not that excited by the Febrary PPV but it's Wrestlemania the month after. "Might as well" just let it tick over, saves all the fuss of going online to cancel it and re-order it again.
etc.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Oct 31, 2014 10:39:56 GMT -5
I legitimately would love to hear the reasoning on why some people are calling this desperate and the network is doomed to failure. There's 4 1/2 pages already of discussion about why this doesn't appear to be a desperate act but an extremely smart move.
Would love to have some opinion on the subject other than just a word word response, on either side of the equation.
|
|
|
Post by Gravedigger's Biscuits on Oct 31, 2014 11:15:54 GMT -5
I legitimately would love to hear the reasoning on why some people are calling this desperate and the network is doomed to failure. There's 4 1/2 pages already of discussion about why this doesn't appear to be a desperate act but an extremely smart move. Would love to have some opinion on the subject other than just a word word response, on either side of the equation. .....desperation!
|
|
|
Post by Sponsored by Groose Wipes on Oct 31, 2014 11:21:11 GMT -5
$9.99 for Rumble and $9.99 for Mania? AHHHHH HELLLLL YEAAAAAAAH!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2014 11:35:49 GMT -5
Point #1: From day 1 you've been able to cancel your service at any time. Not even by fiddling with credit card cancellations or chargebacks. You could simply call and ask to have it cancelled and it'd be cancelled.
Point #2: WWE charging $50 for a ppv doesn't mean they get $50 if you buy it. More like $15-20 depending on which provider you bought the PPV from. The provider gets over half of that PPV money regardless.
If people want to get it for a month just to watch Wrestlemania, WWE is completely fine with that. Being right up front about it will probably mean a few million people do just that and watch Mania that way now. AND they'll still end up selling half a million standard PPV buys on top of that.
This isn't desperation, this is simple business sense, unless you call a company choosing to make more money completely downside free an act of desperation. There's no reason NOT to offer it month to month and should have been advertised as such from day 1.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 31, 2014 12:49:27 GMT -5
I think this is the kick in the pants the Network needed. It's better someone buys one month to see what it has to offer and hopefully get them hooked than scaring the poor bastards off with a long-term commitment.
It's too late this time around as it's in a few days but it'll be nice for them to bring back the UK PPVs (Rebellion and Insurrection) and make them Network specials. They can also do stuff with them too given that it'll be for a global audience and not just people in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Oct 31, 2014 14:23:15 GMT -5
I legitimately would love to hear the reasoning on why some people are calling this desperate and the network is doomed to failure. There's 4 1/2 pages already of discussion about why this doesn't appear to be a desperate act but an extremely smart move. Would love to have some opinion on the subject other than just a word word response, on either side of the equation. Fair enough. If they say to their stockholders that they "promise" a million buys, then come in at 60% of that number, then that they NEED 1 million buys, but only go up by 30,000 viewers, then that's a problem. Those numbers came in, and then, only then, did we see the 6-month block taken out of the mix. That doesn't speak to revision, that speaks directly to "we're responding to gaining 0.3% of the total number of subscribers we need in a fiscal quarter.
|
|
|
Post by Mikoto Misaka on Oct 31, 2014 14:34:25 GMT -5
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. I just feel that some people can take advantage and get 2 PPV for one price. Take this year's PPV schedule for example. Royal Rumble to Elimination Chamber - only 25 days apart from each other. 1 payment for both Wrestlemania to Extreme Rules - 27 days apart. 1 payment for both Payback to Money in the Bank - 27 days apart. 1 payment for both Battleground to Summerslam - 27 days apart. 1 Payment for both Night of Champions to Hell in a Cell - 34 days apart. 2 payments Hell in a Cell to Survivor Series - 27 days apart. Survivor Series to TLC - 20 days apart. My argument is that they need to space their PPVs out a little more. However, the Survivor Series to TLC one will always be the same because of holidays
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Oct 31, 2014 15:23:04 GMT -5
I legitimately would love to hear the reasoning on why some people are calling this desperate and the network is doomed to failure. There's 4 1/2 pages already of discussion about why this doesn't appear to be a desperate act but an extremely smart move. Would love to have some opinion on the subject other than just a word word response, on either side of the equation. Fair enough. If they say to their stockholders that they "promise" a million buys, then come in at 60% of that number, then that they NEED 1 million buys, but only go up by 30,000 viewers, then that's a problem. Those numbers came in, and then, only then, did we see the 6-month block taken out of the mix. That doesn't speak to revision, that speaks directly to "we're responding to gaining 0.3% of the total number of subscribers we need in a fiscal quarter. Thank you for that. I do counter that with some of the things already mentioned in this thread. When the 1 million to break even number was announced there wasn't the ad revenue factored into that equation. That additional source of income is what I believe is enabling them to go to this one size fits all pricing structure. Also this is a less intimidating pricing structure for the average person. No more is a person locked into having to pay for 6 months, they can pick and choose. This has the potential for what you could call "found money". Subs that you might get for a month or 2 but would have never committed for a 6 month period. That's just a plus. Also the whole promise of subscriptions, that the dirt sheets have been saying in terms of the initial rollout it's just not there. corporate.wwe.com/news/2014/2014_1_9.jsp scroll down to the "OTT Network Business Model Section." No promises there, just a goal. Also says in there that they expect losses this year due to the network. corporate.wwe.com/news/2014/2014_4_7.jsp The announcement of the post Wrestlemania sub numbers. Again, stating they are "on their way to their goal" again no promises. I don't think switching to a less restrictive pricing structure with the purpose of drumming up more business desperation. I call that smart business. This is honestly something they should have done alot sooner. Think it was a case then of just over valuing the network. Now they have a set price point for everyone and it's true ala carte programming, the way it should be.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Oct 31, 2014 15:36:40 GMT -5
Fair enough. If they say to their stockholders that they "promise" a million buys, then come in at 60% of that number, then that they NEED 1 million buys, but only go up by 30,000 viewers, then that's a problem. Those numbers came in, and then, only then, did we see the 6-month block taken out of the mix. That doesn't speak to revision, that speaks directly to "we're responding to gaining 0.3% of the total number of subscribers we need in a fiscal quarter. Thank you for that. I do counter that with some of the things already mentioned in this thread. When the 1 million to break even number was announced there wasn't the ad revenue factored into that equation. That additional source of income is what I believe is enabling them to go to this one size fits all pricing structure. Also this is a less intimidating pricing structure for the average person. No more is a person locked into having to pay for 6 months, they can pick and choose. This has the potential for what you could call "found money". Subs that you might get for a month or 2 but would have never committed for a 6 month period. That's just a plus. Also the whole promise of subscriptions, that the dirt sheets have been saying in terms of the initial rollout it's just not there. corporate.wwe.com/news/2014/2014_1_9.jsp scroll down to the "OTT Network Business Model Section." No promises there, just a goal. Also says in there that they expect losses this year due to the network. corporate.wwe.com/news/2014/2014_4_7.jsp The announcement of the post Wrestlemania sub numbers. Again, stating they are "on their way to their goal" again no promises. I don't think switching to a less restrictive pricing structure with the purpose of drumming up more business desperation. I call that smart business. This is honestly something they should have done alot sooner. Think it was a case then of just over valuing the network. Now they have a set price point for everyone and it's true ala carte programming, the way it should be. I'll agree with you that the less restrictive pricing is actually a good idea, and something they SHOULD have done from the outset. Hell, I'll go so far as to say, if I can get 700,000 people to pony up 10 bucks every month, I'll take 7 million guaranteed dollars every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Honestly, what could doom WWE's network is the same thing that drives me nuts about the company as a whole. It's "We're not that rasslin' crap, we're ENTERTAINMENT, damn it!" while still clinging to carny bullshit like a life preserver. If Vince said, as many CEO's would, "We're hoping for X number of buys, but given the economy, we're projecting a window in Y range, with some fluctuation in either direction", then the "They got just over half of what they guaranteed" wouldn't be so damned glaring. But Vince can't do that. Instead he PT Barnum's his ass into the boardroom and starts bellowing like "Mister Mack-Man" about how this is set in stone and that is an absolute, when the simple truth that he and his creative team have alienated, intentionally, and continue to mock, a sizable portion of those fans who would be directly interested in the archival or "behind the scenes" programming available on the network. The network isn't, outside of PPV's, aimed at the casual fan who watches from time to time and owns a few Cena and Orton shirts. It's aimed at people who are long time fans, who will pay to watch the old Nitros, the old PPV's, the ECW Hardcore TV episodes that you used to have to dig out rabbit ears at 2 a.m. on a Saturday just to watch, the documentaries and round table discussions. That's us old bastards who watch a match and go "Damn it, that's the finish from a match at Starcade '87" and then smile because we can go back and watch that too, then cheer a little for the guys who did the finish now. I'm getting on a tangent, sorry, but point is there. The "live crowd audience" and the "network audience" are two different things, but none of them can or want to see that.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Oct 31, 2014 15:43:57 GMT -5
Thank you for that. I do counter that with some of the things already mentioned in this thread. When the 1 million to break even number was announced there wasn't the ad revenue factored into that equation. That additional source of income is what I believe is enabling them to go to this one size fits all pricing structure. Also this is a less intimidating pricing structure for the average person. No more is a person locked into having to pay for 6 months, they can pick and choose. This has the potential for what you could call "found money". Subs that you might get for a month or 2 but would have never committed for a 6 month period. That's just a plus. Also the whole promise of subscriptions, that the dirt sheets have been saying in terms of the initial rollout it's just not there. corporate.wwe.com/news/2014/2014_1_9.jsp scroll down to the "OTT Network Business Model Section." No promises there, just a goal. Also says in there that they expect losses this year due to the network. corporate.wwe.com/news/2014/2014_4_7.jsp The announcement of the post Wrestlemania sub numbers. Again, stating they are "on their way to their goal" again no promises. I don't think switching to a less restrictive pricing structure with the purpose of drumming up more business desperation. I call that smart business. This is honestly something they should have done alot sooner. Think it was a case then of just over valuing the network. Now they have a set price point for everyone and it's true ala carte programming, the way it should be. I'll agree with you that the less restrictive pricing is actually a good idea, and something they SHOULD have done from the outset. Hell, I'll go so far as to say, if I can get 700,000 people to pony up 10 bucks every month, I'll take 7 million guaranteed dollars every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Honestly, what could doom WWE's network is the same thing that drives me nuts about the company as a whole. It's "We're not that rasslin' crap, we're ENTERTAINMENT, damn it!" while still clinging to carny bullshit like a life preserver. If Vince said, as many CEO's would, "We're hoping for X number of buys, but given the economy, we're projecting a window in Y range, with some fluctuation in either direction", then the "They got just over half of what they guaranteed" wouldn't be so damned glaring. But Vince can't do that. Instead he PT Barnum's his ass into the boardroom and starts bellowing like "Mister Mack-Man" about how this is set in stone and that is an absolute, when the simple truth that he and his creative team have alienated, intentionally, and continue to mock, a sizable portion of those fans who would be directly interested in the archival or "behind the scenes" programming available on the network. The network isn't, outside of PPV's, aimed at the casual fan who watches from time to time and owns a few Cena and Orton shirts. It's aimed at people who are long time fans, who will pay to watch the old Nitros, the old PPV's, the ECW Hardcore TV episodes that you used to have to dig out rabbit ears at 2 a.m. on a Saturday just to watch, the documentaries and round table discussions. That's us old bastards who watch a match and go "Damn it, that's the finish from a match at Starcade '87" and then smile because we can go back and watch that too, then cheer a little for the guys who did the finish now. I'm getting on a tangent, sorry, but point is there. The "live crowd audience" and the "network audience" are two different things, but none of them can or want to see that. Oh I'll agree the old man was carnying it up before launch. He way overestimated the network's worth to the casual fan. To the casuals it's the PPV's on the cheap and maybe...maybe the original shows like countdown and NXT (if it's not on their minds it should be). I think cutting down the commitment barriers to those fans is only a good thing. Lets face it the hardcores are going to get it or not for whatever reasons they have. This just lets the Monday Night RAW that's it fans have a chance to throw down 10 bucks to catch a ppv they might be interested in, and be honest...how many people sign up for something like Netflix, use the crap outta it for 2-3 months then might not use it for another 2 months but paid for it the whole time. I've used this phrase before "Tempered Optimism". Just wish more would use this when it comes to something new or something they hope comes to pass. In this case, wish Vince used it with his network launch.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 31, 2014 15:48:30 GMT -5
I think there'll be a dramatic up-turn in the quality of the TV shows now too. I'm anticipating something shocking/dramatic/unexpected in coming weeks as if they get people hooked on the Network now then they're fine until April as very few people won't want to stay for Rumble and Mania.
I'm going to guess either Vince returns to smash the Authority Cena turns heel Someone returns/debuts or, etc.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Oct 31, 2014 15:53:16 GMT -5
I'll agree with you that the less restrictive pricing is actually a good idea, and something they SHOULD have done from the outset. Hell, I'll go so far as to say, if I can get 700,000 people to pony up 10 bucks every month, I'll take 7 million guaranteed dollars every day of the week and twice on Sundays. Honestly, what could doom WWE's network is the same thing that drives me nuts about the company as a whole. It's "We're not that rasslin' crap, we're ENTERTAINMENT, damn it!" while still clinging to carny bullshit like a life preserver. If Vince said, as many CEO's would, "We're hoping for X number of buys, but given the economy, we're projecting a window in Y range, with some fluctuation in either direction", then the "They got just over half of what they guaranteed" wouldn't be so damned glaring. But Vince can't do that. Instead he PT Barnum's his ass into the boardroom and starts bellowing like "Mister Mack-Man" about how this is set in stone and that is an absolute, when the simple truth that he and his creative team have alienated, intentionally, and continue to mock, a sizable portion of those fans who would be directly interested in the archival or "behind the scenes" programming available on the network. The network isn't, outside of PPV's, aimed at the casual fan who watches from time to time and owns a few Cena and Orton shirts. It's aimed at people who are long time fans, who will pay to watch the old Nitros, the old PPV's, the ECW Hardcore TV episodes that you used to have to dig out rabbit ears at 2 a.m. on a Saturday just to watch, the documentaries and round table discussions. That's us old bastards who watch a match and go "Damn it, that's the finish from a match at Starcade '87" and then smile because we can go back and watch that too, then cheer a little for the guys who did the finish now. I'm getting on a tangent, sorry, but point is there. The "live crowd audience" and the "network audience" are two different things, but none of them can or want to see that. Oh I'll agree the old man was carnying it up before launch. He way overestimated the network's worth to the casual fan. To the casuals it's the PPV's on the cheap and maybe...maybe the original shows like countdown and NXT (if it's not on their minds it should be). I think cutting down the commitment barriers to those fans is only a good thing. Lets face it the hardcores are going to get it or not for whatever reasons they have. This just lets the Monday Night RAW that's it fans have a chance to throw down 10 bucks to catch a ppv they might be interested in, and be honest...how many people sign up for something like Netflix, use the crap outta it for 2-3 months then might not use it for another 2 months but paid for it the whole time. I've used this phrase before "Tempered Optimism". Just wish more would use this when it comes to something new or something they hope comes to pass. In this case, wish Vince used it with his network launch. I get you, and you know what, I'd LOVE to be optimistic instead of glass half emptying it up. Problem is, I saw Vince carny his ass off for the WBF, then overestimate its appeal, then hurt his business because of it. I saw him do the same thing with the XFL, almost an exact carbon copy of his behavior. I saw the same with the Network. I get the hype, and I actually would like to subscribe, but I have much of the old stuff on VHS and DVD (original or transfer) from its first airing. If I want to watch those shows, I can get the tape and watch it as it originally aired, not spending money for the privilege of watching an "altered version". The hardcore wrestling fan will or won't get the network for a myriad of reasons. You're right. The casual fans may subscribe to catch a PPV (I see it happening around Mania and that hurting the company very badly), but in terms of a long term business model it almost seems like they're counting on "They'll forget they signed up and we're set".
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 31, 2014 15:55:17 GMT -5
The WBF was genuis. Launching a body building fed the same time the government are investigating you for steroid distribution charges. It's literally the funniest business idea ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2014 1:00:38 GMT -5
I think there'll be a dramatic up-turn in the quality of the TV shows now too. I'm anticipating something shocking/dramatic/unexpected in coming weeks as if they get people hooked on the Network now then they're fine until April as very few people won't want to stay for Rumble and Mania. I'm going to guess either Vince returns to smash the Authority Cena turns heel Someone returns/debuts or, etc. Their response to the initial run of subscriptions expiring was to do nearly the exact same card as SummerSlam. In this case, I'd figure they'll do every match taking place at Survivor Series over and over again in the weeks leading up to it then the actual show will have basically nothing of interest happening on it outside of hoping the tag match that every year fails to sell it this time miraculously will just because there isn't a title match to go with it, and the show will basically the next night be instantly non-canon.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Nov 2, 2014 17:57:08 GMT -5
Raised this in another thread maybe it's best suited here though.
Last year: 190,000ish world wide watched/purchased the Survivor Series
This year: with existing subscribers, plus the UK rollout plus the number of new subscribers who'll be tempted by the freebie - it's probably that in excess of 800,000 people will sign-up to watch the same event. Yes the amount per subscriber is lower (in some cases $0) but just think of how much they can make from sponsors and advertisers with that interest - over four times what it was at the same time last year.
What matters is audience. You hve an audience and sponsors will throw money at you.
In fact Survivor Series is probably going to be the most watched WWE PPV in history. Even if 5% of the 3m Raw viewers who have so far resisted are sucked into the stunt it would have been well worth their while
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,009
|
Post by nate5054 on Nov 2, 2014 20:07:03 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". It's only terrible due to the dumbass unrealistic expectations they set for themselves which then influenced their stock.
|
|