|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Jan 30, 2015 19:33:18 GMT -5
I wonder how WWE feels about getting mainstream publicity about getting publicity from outlets like Time Magazine and Forbes, telling people how bad the company's writing is.
Even if they aren't getting mass cancellations on the Network, I still wouldn't want these places writing about #CancelWWENetwork being a worldwide trend.
|
|
Johnny B. Decent
Patti Mayonnaise
Had one once
Everybody's Favorite Arizonian.
Posts: 31,072 
|
Post by Johnny B. Decent on Jan 30, 2015 20:05:35 GMT -5
I'm begenning to think Vince saw what happened last year and this year manufactured the situation and we all bought it hook line and sinker. I mean he's a wrestling promoter, he knows how to work people. And his working is bunch of people shitting on his product and his golden boy and himself, which very little, if any, positive outlook on Reigns or the future, and many people's beliefs of him being a senile, stubborn fool cemented. Mission Accomplished? |
|
Sicho100
Hank Scorpio
Easily Confused.
Posts: 5,962
|
Post by Sicho100 on Jan 30, 2015 22:25:20 GMT -5
people fail to realise WWE knew what would happen when they booked that rumble, twitter would meltdown, WWE would trend (actually trend, not just when they check their own personal trends and claim that tyson kidd is the number one trend worldwide during raw) some curious lazyt journalists would see the trend and write an article. It's worked wonder, each time theres been a controversial PPV ending in the last year they've had mainstream articles (the kind of coverage they only used to get by bringing in The Rock - they combined the power of these two thing at the rumble) and they got alot of hits, hell last years rumble and an article on it was one of the top 10 most read pages on the BBC's website for a day. And the other sites must be getting hits because most the major newspapers in the UK now cover every PPV and major news stories online. Rolling Stone has a wrestling section on their website, Vince has constant wrestling references and articles and have done some docs, huff post covers it. hell even Time magazine covered the Rumble. And they're all talking about Roman Reigns, it creates interest in the product and reigns. Vince doesn't care if you cheer or boo reigns, fact is if he elicits a huge response either way he will make money and garner attention. I'm begenning to think Vince saw what happened last year and this year manufactured the situation and we all bought it hook line and sinker. I mean he's a wrestling promoter, he knows how to work people. Or, to put it another way: "Bro, when David Arquette won the WCW World Title, ok, WCW was on the front page of the USA Today. Bro, you can't buy that kind of publicity!" |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 30, 2015 22:35:11 GMT -5
The media coverage has been based on how WWE have once again angered their fans by refusing to push the much more popular and talented guy in favour of a far inferior wrestler who happens to have the support of out-of-touch management.
Hardly glowing publicity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 22:38:13 GMT -5
The media coverage has been based on how WWE have once again angered their fans by refusing to push the much more popular and talented guy in favour of a far inferior wrestler who happens to have the support of out-of-touch management. Hardly glowing publicity. Which makes it worse since this is the second time. At least last year we had the fact we hadn't see anything like that before going for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Jan 30, 2015 23:09:03 GMT -5
Never have truer words been written.
|
|
|
|
Post by sodapopwalters on Jan 31, 2015 0:13:42 GMT -5
It was a fascinating read. This current storyline with Reigns and the Authority blurs the lines and makes it difficult to decipher the intent and true feelings from Vince. Everyone resonates with the story, and they seem determined to tell the story the want to no matter if they alienate a percentage of their current fan base.
|
|
|
|
Post by madness50 on Jan 31, 2015 1:05:34 GMT -5
The thing is that a lot of casual viewers like guys like Bryan as well. The core audience should mean more to WWE. I don't give a shit what anyone says, when you f*** with your loyal fans, then you deserve absolute scorn and apathy from your "universe".
|
|
|
|
Post by Evilution E5150 on Jan 31, 2015 1:15:21 GMT -5
do you think that if the company didnt go public they wouldnt be faced with mainstream reactions like this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 2:52:26 GMT -5
do you think that if the company didnt go public they wouldnt be faced with mainstream reactions like this? If the company stayed private, a lot of things wouldn't have happened. Also, the fact the company is public doesn't mean anything in regards to whether a mainstream publication comments on what they're doing. Before WWE went private, they had a lot of mainstream attention with Tyson and Austin in '98. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 31, 2015 14:48:51 GMT -5
do you think that if the company didnt go public they wouldnt be faced with mainstream reactions like this? If the company stayed private, a lot of things wouldn't have happened. Also, the fact the company is public doesn't mean anything in regards to whether a mainstream publication comments on what they're doing. Before WWE went private, they had a lot of mainstream attention with Tyson and Austin in '98. That said, it's fair to say you wouldn't hear much about them in Forbes if the publicly-traded factor wasn't there. |
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jan 31, 2015 14:51:47 GMT -5
If the company stayed private, a lot of things wouldn't have happened. Also, the fact the company is public doesn't mean anything in regards to whether a mainstream publication comments on what they're doing. Before WWE went private, they had a lot of mainstream attention with Tyson and Austin in '98. That said, it's fair to say you wouldn't hear much about them in Forbes if the publicly-traded factor wasn't there. The stock price plummet after its over inflation wouldn't be a story so you wouldn't have heard those bizarre is the WWE going to die stories you heard after Mania last year |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2015 15:18:00 GMT -5
The thing is that a lot of casual viewers like guys like Bryan as well. The core audience should mean more to WWE. I don't give a shit what anyone says, when you f*** with your loyal fans, then you deserve absolute scorn and apathy from your "universe". But what does that scorn actually consist of? If it means people continuing to spend their money on WWE merchandise, shows, etc. they won't care and for good reason. |
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jan 31, 2015 15:18:28 GMT -5
I think the main stream press is good for the WWE bad for fans.
Good for wwe because now more people are talking...
Bad because a lot of the press make wwe fans look doofy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Jan 31, 2015 17:08:28 GMT -5
The thing is that a lot of casual viewers like guys like Bryan as well. The core audience should mean more to WWE. I don't give a shit what anyone says, when you f*** with your loyal fans, then you deserve absolute scorn and apathy from your "universe". But what does that scorn actually consist of? If it means people continuing to spend their money on WWE merchandise, shows, etc. they won't care and for good reason. Sure, I might not like Roman Reigns winning the Rumble, and I may not be canceling the Network or Ebaying my Wrestlemania travel package. However, I also wasn't in a big hurry to buy tickets to the house show last month, or go onto WWE Shop and buy merch. Sure, the core fanbase will still watch, but I won't be talking glowingly about the company to my lapsed friends or I might think twice when they come out with new merch. It's still leaving money on the table. |
|
|
|
Post by bmfjules on Jan 31, 2015 17:10:03 GMT -5
The idea that the content is terrible is just wrong. It is very good content. Every Raw for the past 6 to 8 months invalidates this statement. |
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 31, 2015 17:23:03 GMT -5
The idea that the content is terrible is just wrong. It is very good content. Every Raw for the past 6 to 8 months invalidates this statement. Yeeeeeah people say this, but 6 to 8 months ago people would make the exact same statement about the previous 9 months. And then 9 months before that, people would make the exact same statement about how Raw sucked for the last year. And then the year before that, apparently Raw had barely had a good run since the Summer of Punk, and before that, we probably have to go back to Triple H drugging Stephanie into marriage to be a good Raw. But maybe that was too much sports entertainment and not enough wrestling...maybe we go back to 1994? Maybe there's never been a good Raw? Frankly this idea that Raw is consistently poor is just nonsense. Every single week people make that absolute statement as if it is fact, and if it was true, we genuinely would have never had a good run of Raws. Apparently the content over the last month has been terrible, but I could have sworn loads of people loved Rollins almost curb stomping Edge. We've had Sting showing up. We always have loads of stuff interspersed with not so good stuff, because it's a roster with varying proven talent having to fill 3 hours. This Forbes article is weird, because on the one hand it talks about facts, completely objective measurements that can't be denied, and yet it tries to provide balance to the article with the subjective opinion that the content is terrible. |
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 31, 2015 17:26:34 GMT -5
The media coverage has been based on how WWE have once again angered their fans by refusing to push the much more popular and talented guy in favour of a far inferior wrestler who happens to have the support of out-of-touch management. Hardly glowing publicity. Does Bryan demonstrate his popularity in terms of ratings increases when he is on screen? In PPV buy-rate increases? In merch? In house show revenue? We've seen in other threads today that there is clear proof, even if looking at a number of very basic metrics that fans have access to rather than the deep analysis that a business the size of WWE would be able to conduct, that there is a difference between the reaction of the crowd and the money spent on the company. It doesn't always correlate. WWE has angered a certain section of fans, but this out of touch management is looking at who is more likely to generate money for the business. |
|
|
|
Post by bmfjules on Jan 31, 2015 17:28:09 GMT -5
Every Raw for the past 6 to 8 months invalidates this statement. Yeeeeeah people say this, but 6 to 8 months ago people would make the exact same statement about the previous 9 months. And then 9 months before that, people would make the exact same statement about how Raw sucked for the last year. And then the year before that, apparently Raw had barely had a good run since the Summer of Punk, and before that, we probably have to go back to Triple H drugging Stephanie into marriage to be a good Raw. But maybe that was too much sports entertainment and not enough wrestling...maybe we go back to 1994? Maybe there's never been a good Raw? Frankly this idea that Raw is consistently poor is just nonsense. Every single week people make that absolute statement as if it is fact, and if it was true, we genuinely would have never had a good run of Raws. Apparently the content over the last month has been terrible, but I could have sworn loads of people loved Rollins almost curb stomping Edge. We've had Sting showing up. We always have loads of stuff interspersed with not so good stuff, because it's a roster with varying proven talent having to fill 3 hours. This Forbes article is weird, because on the one hand it talks about facts, completely objective measurements that can't be denied, and yet it tries to provide balance to the article with the subjective opinion that the content is terrible. Strawman. Raw has strong periods and slumps like any program. Raw has been awful since The Shield split (with a few bright spots) before it had been hit and miss. 2013 was an awesome year for Raw as you had the Shield in amazing six mans carrying the show. |
|
|
|
Post by arrx on Jan 31, 2015 17:33:14 GMT -5
No one denies they are a successful company, but like Punk said, they could be even more successful if they wanted to be. I say the same about Apple and Starbucks all the time. |
|
