Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,385
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Jan 30, 2015 21:12:31 GMT -5
I love these threads so much the people who blindly defend WWE despite a thousand replies destroying their defense Many of those people blindly attack WWE and nothing WWE does will ever be right. Goes both ways.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Jan 30, 2015 21:18:40 GMT -5
Personally, I think there needs to be some kind of major overhaul in the way that booking is operated. We need to get it back to a stage where WWE can have their absolute top guy, but it's still OK to not be that guy (if that makes sense).
I mean, look at my favourite year in WWF history, 2000. They had their absolute top guys in The Rock and Triple H, but the vast majority of the card, be it the guys in the IC division like Chris Jericho and Eddie Guerrero, or the guys in the tag division like The Hardy Boyz, Edge and Christian and Too Cool, or even the guys in the hardcore division like Crash and Steve Blackman... they were booked to their strengths and they were all over, and people were happy with that without clamoring for one or all of them to be in the main event.
The issue today is that, outside of the main event, consistently strong booking is a crapshoot. The IC/US division is a punchline at this point. The tag division is going around in circles, which has damaged the reputation of the one actually strong booked team in the division (The Usos). And if you're not in either of those right now, your next appearance is more likely to be on a milk carton than on Monday Night RAW. I feel like Bryan is in a similar position in the company that someone like Guerrero was ten years ago, even to the point that their WrestleMania appearances seem to be following the exact same trajectory, but over that ten years that's seemingly become a bad thing because of WWE being careless in booking their midcard divisions. To quote Ricky Bobby, it has seemingly become so that "If you're not first, you're last".
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Jan 30, 2015 21:22:05 GMT -5
Just a gentle plea of "Let's not get into oh yeah well you...arguments". Please and all that good stuff.
Yes, there are arguments on both sides, extremes in viewpoints, but I don't think that this newz, fact or not, really falls into it. The argument isn't over "WWE always does this" or "Those fans are never happy", it's more that we have a story that says the following. A performer who is getting near universal reactions in both "smark towns" and with less "in the know" fanbases will not be used in the main event of the biggest show of the year strictly to prove that the fans do not dictate whom the company pushes.
The irony, of course, is that the paying customer absolutely dictates what is purchased, what is profitable, and what, theoretically, would be offered. This isn't about Bryan, it isn't about Reigns either, really. This is a story claiming that WWE is trying to NOT use someone who makes them money strictly because they want someone else to make that money for them. They've done this before, they will do this again.
|
|
Mochi Lone Wolf
Fry's dog Seymour
Development through Destruction.
Posts: 23,998
|
Post by Mochi Lone Wolf on Jan 30, 2015 23:33:01 GMT -5
Good. Let their plans fail if that's what it takes for them to learn their lesson. If it takes the main event of WrestleMania getting booed to hell and back for them to finally listen to their fans and actually work on developing talent to make them ready for the big pushes their going to get, then so be it. let the fans boo the f*** out of it.
And I'll echo what some others have said, if you're mad at how WWE does business, find an alternative. They've got no reason to change and their are other options for wrestling out there.
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Jan 30, 2015 23:39:16 GMT -5
Even -if- it's more or less true, it's still smark bait.
|
|
HBL
Unicron
This is what yoga does to you.
Posts: 3,196
|
Post by HBL on Jan 31, 2015 3:10:07 GMT -5
"With that said, there was a rumor that Ziggler vs. Bryan could open WrestleMania 31"
I actually laughted out loud at this, pretty damn tragicomic.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Jan 31, 2015 4:05:31 GMT -5
Just a gentle plea of "Let's not get into oh yeah well you...arguments". Please and all that good stuff. Yes, there are arguments on both sides, extremes in viewpoints, but I don't think that this newz, fact or not, really falls into it. The argument isn't over "WWE always does this" or "Those fans are never happy", it's more that we have a story that says the following. A performer who is getting near universal reactions in both "smark towns" and with less "in the know" fanbases will not be used in the main event of the biggest show of the year strictly to prove that the fans do not dictate whom the company pushes. The irony, of course, is that the paying customer absolutely dictates what is purchased, what is profitable, and what, theoretically, would be offered. This isn't about Bryan, it isn't about Reigns either, really. This is a story claiming that WWE is trying to NOT use someone who makes them money strictly because they want someone else to make that money for them. They've done this before, they will do this again. Here's the thing that I still want to know, which is part of the reason why I wanted to see the quarterly ratings in that other thread. There are many other sources of "is this guy good for us" besides "overness" on tv. There are merchandise sales, ratings performance, draw power for live events, and other things like that. I know that WWE has a lot more of this information than I do, so there has to at least be some benefit of the doubt in that regard. It doesn't mean that they're always right, but I think some people here do seem to 100% allocate cheers at Raw/SD/PPVs to being the only indicator of performance and deservedness of being pushed. House show numbers aren't reported all that much anymore and merchandise sales are reported on a very broad spectrum, but we used to get the quarter hour reports that helped show if anyone on a regular basis gained or lost viewers. This website right here has a summary of average gains and losses for 2011, 2012, and 2013 (up until October) for Raw. sites.google.com/site/chrisharrington/mookieghana-prowrestlingstatistics/wwe_raw_ratings_2011_2013Just a couple interesting points here. In 2011, aka the year that Zack Ryder was at his peak in terms of being over, had the second highest amount of average viewership loss when he was on tv. Throughout the year, all segments that included Zack Ryder on average lost a total of 323,981 viewers. The only person to perform worse that year was Michael McGillicutty. Now this does have some flaws such as who else is in the segment, the time of the segment, and things like that, but the majority of the "normal candidates" you'd expect to be on the "good" list are all there. Now let's take a look at 2013. Daniel Bryan's rise to big things as a babyface started off in 2013. He was definitely pretty over at live events and stuff, however when looking at the quarter hour segments that he was in, he was only 14th in terms of viewership gains of anyone on the WWE roster. Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns, and The Big Show all had average higher viewership gains in the quarter hours that they had segments in for 2013. Again, there are some caveats and Bryan wasn't in the title picture for the whole year, but it is at the least one indicator of not performing as well as others. Guys like Dolph Ziggler, Alberto Del Rio, Jack Swagger, and Cesaro are nowhere to be found on the 2013 lists, implying that they hovered around breaking even for all of their segments. Unfortunately, there is no data for 2014 or 2015 and the few quarter reports I can find only dwell into the 18-34 demo so I can't speak on those numbers. The overall point I'm trying to make here is that I think people do sometimes forget that there are other variables besides the simple concept of "Being over" and that WWE probably has a better grasp on those variables than we do. It doesn't mean that they're always right or that they always push the most deserved guy, but that there may be other factors out there that causes Vince and management to be hesitant with going with one guy over another.
|
|
|
Post by TWERKIN' MAGGLE on Jan 31, 2015 5:02:56 GMT -5
What a crappy way to treat people. Honestly, I hope they don't even give the people what they want. I'm enjoying all the bad mainstream press WWE is getting.
|
|
4real
Wade Wilson
Posts: 27,399
|
Post by 4real on Jan 31, 2015 5:07:56 GMT -5
I can understand if WWE has reservations about pushing Bryan because they are worried about his injury or whatever that's fine but you can't tell the fans who they want. The fans don't want Reigns they want Ambrose, Ziggler, Rollins etc etc. Brock heck even Mizdow but not Reigns.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 5:12:48 GMT -5
I love these threads so much the people who blindly defend WWE despite a thousand replies destroying their defense Many of those people blindly attack WWE and nothing WWE does will ever be right. Goes both ways. This argument is invalid because pretty much everyone was happy after Wrestlemania last year.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball☝🏻
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,797
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball☝🏻 on Jan 31, 2015 5:13:40 GMT -5
Please let this be true......please.......I wanna hear 4 hours of WrestleMania with non-stop Daniel Bryan chants. Might be time to call Punk and see if he'll accept infinity dollars to return. This is shaping up to be a glorious car crash.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,575
|
Post by Dub H on Jan 31, 2015 5:31:14 GMT -5
Just a gentle plea of "Let's not get into oh yeah well you...arguments". Please and all that good stuff. Yes, there are arguments on both sides, extremes in viewpoints, but I don't think that this newz, fact or not, really falls into it. The argument isn't over "WWE always does this" or "Those fans are never happy", it's more that we have a story that says the following. A performer who is getting near universal reactions in both "smark towns" and with less "in the know" fanbases will not be used in the main event of the biggest show of the year strictly to prove that the fans do not dictate whom the company pushes. The irony, of course, is that the paying customer absolutely dictates what is purchased, what is profitable, and what, theoretically, would be offered. This isn't about Bryan, it isn't about Reigns either, really. This is a story claiming that WWE is trying to NOT use someone who makes them money strictly because they want someone else to make that money for them. They've done this before, they will do this again. Here's the thing that I still want to know, which is part of the reason why I wanted to see the quarterly ratings in that other thread. There are many other sources of "is this guy good for us" besides "overness" on tv. There are merchandise sales, ratings performance, draw power for live events, and other things like that. I know that WWE has a lot more of this information than I do, so there has to at least be some benefit of the doubt in that regard. It doesn't mean that they're always right, but I think some people here do seem to 100% allocate cheers at Raw/SD/PPVs to being the only indicator of performance and deservedness of being pushed. House show numbers aren't reported all that much anymore and merchandise sales are reported on a very broad spectrum, but we used to get the quarter hour reports that helped show if anyone on a regular basis gained or lost viewers. This website right here has a summary of average gains and losses for 2011, 2012, and 2013 (up until October) for Raw. sites.google.com/site/chrisharrington/mookieghana-prowrestlingstatistics/wwe_raw_ratings_2011_2013Just a couple interesting points here. In 2011, aka the year that Zack Ryder was at his peak in terms of being over, had the second highest amount of average viewership loss when he was on tv. Throughout the year, all segments that included Zack Ryder on average lost a total of 323,981 viewers. The only person to perform worse that year was Michael McGillicutty. Now this does have some flaws such as who else is in the segment, the time of the segment, and things like that, but the majority of the "normal candidates" you'd expect to be on the "good" list are all there. Now let's take a look at 2013. Daniel Bryan's rise to big things as a babyface started off in 2013. He was definitely pretty over at live events and stuff, however when looking at the quarter hour segments that he was in, he was only 14th in terms of viewership gains of anyone on the WWE roster. Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns, and The Big Show all had average higher viewership gains in the quarter hours that they had segments in for 2013. Again, there are some caveats and Bryan wasn't in the title picture for the whole year, but it is at the least one indicator of not performing as well as others. Guys like Dolph Ziggler, Alberto Del Rio, Jack Swagger, and Cesaro are nowhere to be found on the 2013 lists, implying that they hovered around breaking even for all of their segments. Unfortunately, there is no data for 2014 or 2015 and the few quarter reports I can find only dwell into the 18-34 demo so I can't speak on those numbers. The overall point I'm trying to make here is that I think people do sometimes forget that there are other variables besides the simple concept of "Being over" and that WWE probably has a better grasp on those variables than we do. It doesn't mean that they're always right or that they always push the most deserved guy, but that there may be other factors out there that causes Vince and management to be hesitant with going with one guy over another. I think Merch Sales is also a great data.Better than ratings
|
|
|
Post by brackus on Jan 31, 2015 6:17:36 GMT -5
Dear WWE,
I accept your challenge.
It is obvious you want to provoke your customers and see how ugly things can get. You got it.
I went to WrestleMania 29(or NY/NJ). Even though it was my first Mania I witnessed live in person I never felt "hyped" during the event and was underwhelmed while whitnessing a lackluster Main Event which got boring-chants from the crowd. WrestleMania (>) will be my second WM I will go to. Yes, I wasted vacation days and a big chunk of money to fly over from Germany again... to witness f***ing Roman Reigns in the Main Event!!?? (And you are probably shoving Reings down my throat again at the Houseshow in Dortmund in April again).
If you think the crowd was vicious at the Raw after Mania NJ/NY just wait till this years edition.
I hate you! I hate you so much right now!!!!
Sincerely,
brackus
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 31, 2015 7:37:09 GMT -5
Just a gentle plea of "Let's not get into oh yeah well you...arguments". Please and all that good stuff. Yes, there are arguments on both sides, extremes in viewpoints, but I don't think that this newz, fact or not, really falls into it. The argument isn't over "WWE always does this" or "Those fans are never happy", it's more that we have a story that says the following. A performer who is getting near universal reactions in both "smark towns" and with less "in the know" fanbases will not be used in the main event of the biggest show of the year strictly to prove that the fans do not dictate whom the company pushes. The irony, of course, is that the paying customer absolutely dictates what is purchased, what is profitable, and what, theoretically, would be offered. This isn't about Bryan, it isn't about Reigns either, really. This is a story claiming that WWE is trying to NOT use someone who makes them money strictly because they want someone else to make that money for them. They've done this before, they will do this again. Here's the thing that I still want to know, which is part of the reason why I wanted to see the quarterly ratings in that other thread. There are many other sources of "is this guy good for us" besides "overness" on tv. There are merchandise sales, ratings performance, draw power for live events, and other things like that. I know that WWE has a lot more of this information than I do, so there has to at least be some benefit of the doubt in that regard. It doesn't mean that they're always right, but I think some people here do seem to 100% allocate cheers at Raw/SD/PPVs to being the only indicator of performance and deservedness of being pushed. House show numbers aren't reported all that much anymore and merchandise sales are reported on a very broad spectrum, but we used to get the quarter hour reports that helped show if anyone on a regular basis gained or lost viewers. This website right here has a summary of average gains and losses for 2011, 2012, and 2013 (up until October) for Raw. sites.google.com/site/chrisharrington/mookieghana-prowrestlingstatistics/wwe_raw_ratings_2011_2013Just a couple interesting points here. In 2011, aka the year that Zack Ryder was at his peak in terms of being over, had the second highest amount of average viewership loss when he was on tv. Throughout the year, all segments that included Zack Ryder on average lost a total of 323,981 viewers. The only person to perform worse that year was Michael McGillicutty. Now this does have some flaws such as who else is in the segment, the time of the segment, and things like that, but the majority of the "normal candidates" you'd expect to be on the "good" list are all there. Now let's take a look at 2013. Daniel Bryan's rise to big things as a babyface started off in 2013. He was definitely pretty over at live events and stuff, however when looking at the quarter hour segments that he was in, he was only 14th in terms of viewership gains of anyone on the WWE roster. Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns, and The Big Show all had average higher viewership gains in the quarter hours that they had segments in for 2013. Again, there are some caveats and Bryan wasn't in the title picture for the whole year, but it is at the least one indicator of not performing as well as others. Guys like Dolph Ziggler, Alberto Del Rio, Jack Swagger, and Cesaro are nowhere to be found on the 2013 lists, implying that they hovered around breaking even for all of their segments. Unfortunately, there is no data for 2014 or 2015 and the few quarter reports I can find only dwell into the 18-34 demo so I can't speak on those numbers. The overall point I'm trying to make here is that I think people do sometimes forget that there are other variables besides the simple concept of "Being over" and that WWE probably has a better grasp on those variables than we do. It doesn't mean that they're always right or that they always push the most deserved guy, but that there may be other factors out there that causes Vince and management to be hesitant with going with one guy over another. Sensational post, something I've been trying to articulate for a while but you've done it much better than I could. I've always maintained that the WWE isn't in the business of lighting money on fire, and deliberately setting out to piss off their audience. When I maintain this, and say that they have access to metrics that we as fans do not, the argument always comes back to me that of course they don't, we can judge just as well, and let's all laugh because Vince is crazy and senile and has no idea about what he is doing. The metrics are there. They are facts. Not absolutes, and there will be others to judge. But viewership gains or drops are absolutely something they will base their decision making on. There is this massive section of fans that think because they are making the most noise, they are the most monetarily important. And I've always wondered if that was the case, because unlike most people here I don't think that a PLC is in the business of making decisions just to screw with a certain section of their fan base. So viewership gains or drops are a good one. Another is PPV buy rates. Let's check the Summerslam buy rates for the years in the lead up to Daniel Bryan's first main event, and understand why they weren't so hot on him main eventing Mania until their hand was totally forced: As released by WWE in its monthly business report, the show did roughly 298,000 buys breaking down to 186,000 domestic (North America) and 112,000 international. Here's how that compares to the past five years: SummerSlam 2012: 358,000 buys (Triple H vs. Brock Lesnar) (also CM Punk vs Cena vs Big Show)SummerSlam 2011: 296,000 buys (John Cena vs. CM Punk) SummerSlam 2010: 350,000 buys (Team WWE vs. Nexus) SummerSlam 2009: 369,000 buys (CM Punk vs. Jeff Hardy) (also Cena vs Orton)SummerSlam 2008: 470,000 buys (Undertaker vs. Edge) (also Cena vs Batista)What is that showing? Daniel Bryan in the main event did the worst Summerslam buy rate since 1996. So you can understand why they didn't feel comfortable handing him the main event of the biggest show of the year, because despite the crowd getting loud for him, it doesn't necessarily respond with people shelling out their money. It would be interesting to see how WM30 did for buy-rates this year, although I haven't gone into them in detail because it would be muddied by the network launch, which would be for another discussion. Also I understand that some of these SS figures would be updated with a latter figure, but all would still be relative making 2013 still the lowest. Long story short...point is, it isn't always senile, bat shit crazy Vince and his corporate ass kissers laughing at his own fan base. They have metrics that we don't know about. They do what makes them the most money. They identify the traits in their talent that they think will draw. (Ironically, when CM Punk had been put into that absolute main event, he also had the second lowest out of all that data above...maybe a slight reason why they always wanted to prominently feature Cena even when Punk was champion? Cena is the draw...maybe? This was after what most considered to be some of the best story and most hyped promo in a fair few years at the time, but it didn't translate into buys. They bring Brock Lesnar back though and look what happens. The difference between a draw and a cool talent that people like)
|
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,385
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Jan 31, 2015 7:48:59 GMT -5
Many of those people blindly attack WWE and nothing WWE does will ever be right. Goes both ways. This argument is invalid because pretty much everyone was happy after Wrestlemania last year. There were a ton of people unhappy last year after Mania. There were complaints that Cena went over Wyatt, Bryan feuding with Kane, Cesaro's theme song. Not to mention there was a good amount of people who didn't like that Taker had lost. So no, it is not an invalid argument. There are a good deal of legit complaints against WWE, many that I also agree with. The mid card's lack of direction and the handling of Reigns have both been abysmal. With that said, there are positives. NXT, some tremendous matches over the last 12 months, Brock Lesnar and the fact that they appear to at least be trying to establish a tag division among the positives. Yet, with that, there are some that will crucify WWE no matter what they do while some will defend WWE no matter what, goes both ways. No matter what period you look at there have been complaints mixed in with the praise. Comes with the territory. In my opinion, one of the biggest things is that many people seem to have trouble grasping that Vince on camera is not the same as Vince, head of WWE. By all reports, yes Vince does have an ego, but him backstage and in the office, while having a commanding presence, is nothing like the Mr. McMahon character. He isn't as crazy or out of touch as people make him out to be. Not saying he's perfect but decisions become a lot different when you have millions of dollars and investors to answer to. At the end of the day, mistakes aside, WWE is still a very profitable company that has an enormous following, incredible live attendance and the biggest wrestling event in the world with Wrestlemania.
|
|
|
Post by TheSchattenjager on Jan 31, 2015 7:52:59 GMT -5
The fact that arena overness and ratings and buyrates are not in sync is one of the most interesting things about the current era. I've been wondering about it for a long time. It could be that streams and torrents and what not are just so prevalent these days that the popularity of certain performers just doesn't translate into money.
In which case the people streaming PPVs and whatnot have no one to blame but themselves, since they are the ones not financially supporting their favourites.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,575
|
Post by Dub H on Jan 31, 2015 7:53:48 GMT -5
Here's the thing that I still want to know, which is part of the reason why I wanted to see the quarterly ratings in that other thread. There are many other sources of "is this guy good for us" besides "overness" on tv. There are merchandise sales, ratings performance, draw power for live events, and other things like that. I know that WWE has a lot more of this information than I do, so there has to at least be some benefit of the doubt in that regard. It doesn't mean that they're always right, but I think some people here do seem to 100% allocate cheers at Raw/SD/PPVs to being the only indicator of performance and deservedness of being pushed. House show numbers aren't reported all that much anymore and merchandise sales are reported on a very broad spectrum, but we used to get the quarter hour reports that helped show if anyone on a regular basis gained or lost viewers. This website right here has a summary of average gains and losses for 2011, 2012, and 2013 (up until October) for Raw. sites.google.com/site/chrisharrington/mookieghana-prowrestlingstatistics/wwe_raw_ratings_2011_2013Just a couple interesting points here. In 2011, aka the year that Zack Ryder was at his peak in terms of being over, had the second highest amount of average viewership loss when he was on tv. Throughout the year, all segments that included Zack Ryder on average lost a total of 323,981 viewers. The only person to perform worse that year was Michael McGillicutty. Now this does have some flaws such as who else is in the segment, the time of the segment, and things like that, but the majority of the "normal candidates" you'd expect to be on the "good" list are all there. Now let's take a look at 2013. Daniel Bryan's rise to big things as a babyface started off in 2013. He was definitely pretty over at live events and stuff, however when looking at the quarter hour segments that he was in, he was only 14th in terms of viewership gains of anyone on the WWE roster. Seth Rollins, Roman Reigns, and The Big Show all had average higher viewership gains in the quarter hours that they had segments in for 2013. Again, there are some caveats and Bryan wasn't in the title picture for the whole year, but it is at the least one indicator of not performing as well as others. Guys like Dolph Ziggler, Alberto Del Rio, Jack Swagger, and Cesaro are nowhere to be found on the 2013 lists, implying that they hovered around breaking even for all of their segments. Unfortunately, there is no data for 2014 or 2015 and the few quarter reports I can find only dwell into the 18-34 demo so I can't speak on those numbers. The overall point I'm trying to make here is that I think people do sometimes forget that there are other variables besides the simple concept of "Being over" and that WWE probably has a better grasp on those variables than we do. It doesn't mean that they're always right or that they always push the most deserved guy, but that there may be other factors out there that causes Vince and management to be hesitant with going with one guy over another. Sensational post, something I've been trying to articulate for a while but you've done it much better than I could. I've always maintained that the WWE isn't in the business of lighting money on fire, and deliberately setting out to piss off their audience. When I maintain this, and say that they have access to metrics that we as fans do not, the argument always comes back to me that of course they don't, we can judge just as well, and let's all laugh because Vince is crazy and senile and has no idea about what he is doing. The metrics are there. They are facts. Not absolutes, and there will be others to judge. But viewership gains or drops are absolutely something they will base their decision making on. There is this massive section of fans that think because they are making the most noise, they are the most monetarily important. And I've always wondered if that was the case, because unlike most people here I don't think that a PLC is in the business of making decisions just to screw with a certain section of their fan base. So viewership gains or drops are a good one. Another is PPV buy rates. Let's check the Summerslam buy rates for the years in the lead up to Daniel Bryan's first main event, and understand why they weren't so hot on him main eventing Mania until their hand was totally forced: As released by WWE in its monthly business report, the show did roughly 298,000 buys breaking down to 186,000 domestic (North America) and 112,000 international. Here's how that compares to the past five years: SummerSlam 2012: 358,000 buys (Triple H vs. Brock Lesnar) (also CM Punk vs Cena vs Big Show)SummerSlam 2011: 296,000 buys (John Cena vs. CM Punk) SummerSlam 2010: 350,000 buys (Team WWE vs. Nexus) SummerSlam 2009: 369,000 buys (CM Punk vs. Jeff Hardy) (also Cena vs Orton)SummerSlam 2008: 470,000 buys (Undertaker vs. Edge) (also Cena vs Batista)What is that showing? Daniel Bryan in the main event did the worst Summerslam buy rate since 1996. So you can understand why they didn't feel comfortable handing him the main event of the biggest show of the year, because despite the crowd getting loud for him, it doesn't necessarily respond with people shelling out their money. It would be interesting to see how WM30 did for buy-rates this year, although I haven't gone into them in detail because it would be muddied by the network launch, which would be for another discussion. Also I understand that some of these SS figures would be updated with a latter figure, but allw would still be relative making 2013 still the lowest. Long story short...point is, it isn't always senile, bat shit crazy Vince and his corporate ass kissers laughing at his own fan base. They have metrics that we don't know about. They do what makes them the most money. They identify the traits in their talent that they think will draw. (Ironically, when CM Punk had been put into that absolute main event, he also had the second lowest out of all that data above...maybe a slight reason why they always wanted to prominently feature Cena even when Punk was champion? Cena is the draw...maybe? This was after what most considered to be some of the best story and most hyped promo in a fair few years at the time, but it didn't translate into buys. They bring Brock Lesnar back though and look what happens. The difference between a draw and a cool talent that people like) 298.000 total buys ,more than Cena vs Punk,so not since 1996.But don't forget to count the people that had the network.I'm sure a good chunk of people that went to watch it,had it.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Jan 31, 2015 7:54:46 GMT -5
The Network wasn't available at the time.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,575
|
Post by Dub H on Jan 31, 2015 7:56:04 GMT -5
The Network wasn't available at the time. Ah my mistake then.I didn't sleep ,so i blame that :PArgument stands. Interesting to note to the Punk vs Cena one: The ppvs buyrate was already in a decline. It is probably something to consider.(One could argue it wasn't enough to raise buys as much as Brock Lesnar)
|
|
|
Post by TheSchattenjager on Jan 31, 2015 7:58:19 GMT -5
CM Punk did outsell John Cena, so a fanbase was definitely there. But why didn't those people buy the PPVs he headlined?
|
|