wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 31, 2015 17:33:41 GMT -5
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. Not a strawman whatsoever. I swear when I started watching again and looked at this forum just after the Royal Rumble last year, I couldn't move for people saying how Raw in 2013 has sucked. Booooo Authority opened the show again. Boooooooo Big Show taking Bryan's heat. So we have to go back to at least 2012 right? Booooooo Punk's the champ but Cena still main events. 2011? Booooooo Kevin Nash. 2010? Boooooo Sheamus. 2009 boooooo Guest Hosts. Point should be clear - you saying Raw was awesome in 2013 did not chime with the majority opinion on here at all. If I take the majority opinion on here as fact, Raw has never, ever been putting out good content consistently.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 31, 2015 17:53:23 GMT -5
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. Not a strawman whatsoever. I swear when I started watching again and looked at this forum just after the Royal Rumble last year, I couldn't move for people saying how Raw in 2013 has sucked. Booooo Authority opened the show again. Boooooooo Big Show taking Bryan's heat. So we have to go back to at least 2012 right? Booooooo Punk's the champ but Cena still main events. 2011? Booooooo Kevin Nash. 2010? Boooooo Sheamus. 2009 boooooo Guest Hosts. Point should be clear - you saying Raw was awesome in 2013 did not chime with the majority opinion on here at all. If I take the majority opinion on here as fact, Raw has never, ever been putting out good content consistently. I'm pretty sure this still qualifies as a strawman.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 31, 2015 18:09:15 GMT -5
Not a strawman whatsoever. I swear when I started watching again and looked at this forum just after the Royal Rumble last year, I couldn't move for people saying how Raw in 2013 has sucked. Booooo Authority opened the show again. Boooooooo Big Show taking Bryan's heat. So we have to go back to at least 2012 right? Booooooo Punk's the champ but Cena still main events. 2011? Booooooo Kevin Nash. 2010? Boooooo Sheamus. 2009 boooooo Guest Hosts. Point should be clear - you saying Raw was awesome in 2013 did not chime with the majority opinion on here at all. If I take the majority opinion on here as fact, Raw has never, ever been putting out good content consistently. I'm pretty sure this still qualifies as a strawman. I really don't think it does. I'm being slightly facetious in my first paragraph but the main thrust of my point isn't strawman. If you take the majority opinions at the time from this forum on years of Raw, there has never been a good consistent year. I'm stunned that I've seen someone try and tell me Raw 2013 was 'awesome'.
|
|
|
Post by Redbeard's Ghost on Jan 31, 2015 19:10:14 GMT -5
Take that goddamn vest off of Reigns and instantly he will get 20% more cheers. Also, you can't promote a t-shirt when you are dressed like you are invading Fallujah.
|
|
kevin
El Dandy
Posts: 7,501
|
Post by kevin on Jan 31, 2015 19:14:12 GMT -5
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. Not a strawman whatsoever. I swear when I started watching again and looked at this forum just after the Royal Rumble last year, I couldn't move for people saying how Raw in 2013 has sucked. Booooo Authority opened the show again. Boooooooo Big Show taking Bryan's heat. So we have to go back to at least 2012 right? Booooooo Punk's the champ but Cena still main events. 2011? Booooooo Kevin Nash. 2010? Boooooo Sheamus. 2009 boooooo Guest Hosts. Point should be clear - you saying Raw was awesome in 2013 did not chime with the majority opinion on here at all. If I take the majority opinion on here as fact, Raw has never, ever been putting out good content consistently. I started following this forum in 2010 and almost did not join because it seemed most people here thought Raw and the PPVs sucked and I could not disagree more and felt I might come off like a troll if I came in here and said WWE was amazing. I mean there are times I Disliked Raw I quit watching in 2002 using the network I saw some stuff in 2005 that was just horrendous. But really since I became a full time viewer again in 2010 while almost every show has something I dislike I almost never see a show and think that was bad. I really enjoy watching WWE not out of obligation or duty but because I think it has been the best thing on tv for the 5 years I have been watching it. That the show is terrible right now is an opinion I completely disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 31, 2015 19:29:47 GMT -5
Not a strawman whatsoever. I swear when I started watching again and looked at this forum just after the Royal Rumble last year, I couldn't move for people saying how Raw in 2013 has sucked. Booooo Authority opened the show again. Boooooooo Big Show taking Bryan's heat. So we have to go back to at least 2012 right? Booooooo Punk's the champ but Cena still main events. 2011? Booooooo Kevin Nash. 2010? Boooooo Sheamus. 2009 boooooo Guest Hosts. Point should be clear - you saying Raw was awesome in 2013 did not chime with the majority opinion on here at all. If I take the majority opinion on here as fact, Raw has never, ever been putting out good content consistently. I started following this forum in 2010 and almost did not join because it seemed most people here thought Raw and the PPVs sucked and I could not disagree more and felt I might come off like a troll if I came in here and said WWE was amazing. I mean there are times I Disliked Raw I quit watching in 2002 using the network I saw some stuff in 2005 that was just horrendous. But really since I became a full time viewer again in 2010 while almost every show has something I dislike I almost never see a show and think that was bad. I really enjoy watching WWE not out of obligation or duty but because I think it has been the best thing on tv for the 5 years I have been watching it. That the show is terrible right now is an option I completely disagree with. No one can really trust their own sense that "most" people disagree with them, because it's really, really easy to notice opinions you disagree with, and because the way this system is set up, one person saying the same thing over and over can feel like a hundred people all saying it. You don't have real information about what the "majority" opinion is, and I hesitantly suggest that perhaps your subjective sense of it is not necessarily accurate. But even if it was... like... what's your point? If most people disagree with you and will create arguments supporting their side when you say something they disagree with, how is that hurting you? What do you want, people to not have the opinions that they have?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Jan 31, 2015 19:43:58 GMT -5
His point is the same as any of ours, and that's to discuss something he enjoys and likes, and feels comfortable enough here to share his opinion, be it in-majority or not. I'm not even going to start trying to read through the rest of this thread at the moment, so I'm not going to go on regarding any other parts of the argument being held here, but when one person says that they like something, "you're wrong" type responses are not called for, needed or wanted.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 31, 2015 19:52:29 GMT -5
His point is the same as any of ours, and that's to discuss something he enjoys and likes, and feels comfortable enough here to share his opinion, be it in-majority or not. I'm not even going to start trying to read through the rest of this thread at the moment, so I'm not going to go on regarding any other parts of the argument being held here, but when one person says that they like something, "you're wrong" type responses are not called for, needed or wanted. Fair enough, but the line between "you're wrong" and "I disagree" is thin. The rule of thumb I have is just to avoid personal insults, but this place is really good about that, for the most part. I don't like the idea of anyone not feeling comfortable to express their opinion, but when the only thing causing them to feel that way is the knowledge that most people disagree, what are people supposed to do? And that ties in to what I said before about "majority opinion" being hard to gauge subjectively. No one likes to feel bullied, but people DO like to feel like an underdog, and that is dominating the narrative enormously about this Reigns thing on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by bmfjules on Jan 31, 2015 19:56:13 GMT -5
All due respect but there is a world of difference between saying you enjoy something personally and making the declarative statement that something is good and everyone who says otherwise is incorrect (which admittedly inspired some regrettable snarkyness). That is all that irked a few of us. No one as far as I can see here is a big enough douchenozzle to tell someone they are wrong for enjoying something anymore than someone else could be wrong for not enjoying something.
Apoligies to anyone with ruffled feathers.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Jan 31, 2015 20:00:49 GMT -5
I started following this forum in 2010 and almost did not join because it seemed most people here thought Raw and the PPVs sucked and I could not disagree more and felt I might come off like a troll if I came in here and said WWE was amazing. I mean there are times I Disliked Raw I quit watching in 2002 using the network I saw some stuff in 2005 that was just horrendous. But really since I became a full time viewer again in 2010 while almost every show has something I dislike I almost never see a show and think that was bad. I really enjoy watching WWE not out of obligation or duty but because I think it has been the best thing on tv for the 5 years I have been watching it. That the show is terrible right now is an option I completely disagree with. No one can really trust their own sense that "most" people disagree with them, because it's really, really easy to notice opinions you disagree with, and because the way this system is set up, one person saying the same thing over and over can feel like a hundred people all saying it. You don't have real information about what the "majority" opinion is, and I hesitantly suggest that perhaps your subjective sense of it is not necessarily accurate. But even if it was... like... what's your point? If most people disagree with you and will create arguments supporting their side when you say something they disagree with, how is that hurting you? What do you want, people to not have the opinions that they have? This entire forum, in general, will be very obviously negative towards the WWE or direct thinly veiled negativity towards the WWE. There is a very definite 'LOLWWE' vibe to the forum, a very definite 'Raw usually sucks' vibe to the forum, a very definite 'Vince is senile and deliberately does things to annoy his own fans' vibe to the forum, just like there is a very obvious 'Roman Reigns is not ready and all the fans prefer Bryan' vibe to this forum. It's not a stretch to say any of those things, or to feel that someone that goes against this vibe immediately has people go against them. And the reason I bring this up is simply to challenge some of the accepted notions that go around on here that lead to discussions never progressing. Apparently the last 6-8 months of Raw have sucked...and 2013 was awesome, according to this thread. I was reading this forum when it was discussing 2013 (as well as when it was discussing 2008, 09, 10 and 11) and I KNOW what the general vibe of this place was. This Forbes article tries to say WWE has been putting out bad content as if that is a fact, when it's a completely subjective opinion. But it's an opinion that most people on here will use as a fact, and that the fact that 'most fans' agree with. Just like 'most fans' want Bryan, Ziggler and Ambrose to be pushed and think Reigns isn't ready. We simply don't have all the metrics available to us that WWE can use to decide who is a star they want to push and who isn't. But we've already seen today that very simple ones can show why certain guys are pushed more than others, in terms of quarter hour ratings and PPV buys. And those very simple metrics challenge the 'LOLWWE' and 'Vince is senile' type posts very well. But other wise it's just a complete circklejerk with everyone stating their own opinions as facts and believing them more and more strongly because most people on here agree with them too.
|
|
|
Post by bmfjules on Jan 31, 2015 20:13:36 GMT -5
Maybe it is just that people are more vocal toward what they dislike rather than what they like. There is still far too much generalising here for productive discussion.
Also we are fans, relying on our own senses. I do not need any set of external metrics to tell me whether I like or dislike something. I cannot recall year for year but from the mid 90s on there have been stretches of Raw I have loved and some I loathed for various reasons. The ones I loved often had elements I disliked and vice versa. It is all subjective opinion. I do not begrudge anyone for enjoying what I do not for the most part.
|
|
|
Post by carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) on Jan 31, 2015 20:17:13 GMT -5
This entire forum, in general, will be very obviously negative towards the WWE or direct thinly veiled negativity towards the WWE. There is a very definite 'LOLWWE' vibe to the forum, a very definite 'Raw usually sucks' vibe to the forum, a very definite 'Vince is senile and deliberately does things to annoy his own fans' vibe to the forum, just like there is a very obvious 'Roman Reigns is not ready and all the fans prefer Bryan' vibe to this forum. It's not a stretch to say any of those things, or to feel that someone that goes against this vibe immediately has people go against them. And the reason I bring this up is simply to challenge some of the accepted notions that go around on here that lead to discussions never progressing. Apparently the last 6-8 months of Raw have sucked...and 2013 was awesome, according to this thread. I was reading this forum when it was discussing 2013 (as well as when it was discussing 2008, 09, 10 and 11) and I KNOW what the general vibe of this place was. This Forbes article tries to say WWE has been putting out bad content as if that is a fact, when it's a completely subjective opinion. But it's an opinion that most people on here will use as a fact, and that the fact that 'most fans' agree with. Just like 'most fans' want Bryan, Ziggler and Ambrose to be pushed and think Reigns isn't ready. We simply don't have all the metrics available to us that WWE can use to decide who is a star they want to push and who isn't. But we've already seen today that very simple ones can show why certain guys are pushed more than others, in terms of quarter hour ratings and PPV buys. And those very simple metrics challenge the 'LOLWWE' and 'Vince is senile' type posts very well. But other wise it's just a complete circklejerk with everyone stating their own opinions as facts and believing them more and more strongly because most people on here agree with them too. Well.... there's a couple of things packaged in here, I think. Making up masses of people who agree with you to feel like your opinion is more true or valid ("EVERYONE thinks Reign sucks!!") is bad. But making up masses of people who DISAGREE with you to feel like you're thinking for yourself ("EVERYONE thinks Reigns sucks!") is no better. The fact that you want to "challenge accepted notions" seems to imply that you think it's necessary; it wouldn't occur to most people around here to think anything else. I don't know if that's how you mean it, but it's important to remember that groups of people can just agree: it isn't necessarily groupthink. One thing about the Forbes article I think is related to what you said: they aren't necessarily comparing wrestling to wrestling. Raw ain't Breaking Bad, and we all know it. In one way, it's a "subjective opinion" that Raw's writing sucks, but if we dug into things like dramatic rise and fall, character consistency, giving characters clear motivations, etc., you're on more solid ground. "Good writing" being subjective doesn't mean we all have to just throw our hands up in the air and that's the end of that.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Feb 1, 2015 5:30:35 GMT -5
This entire forum, in general, will be very obviously negative towards the WWE or direct thinly veiled negativity towards the WWE. There is a very definite 'LOLWWE' vibe to the forum, a very definite 'Raw usually sucks' vibe to the forum, a very definite 'Vince is senile and deliberately does things to annoy his own fans' vibe to the forum, just like there is a very obvious 'Roman Reigns is not ready and all the fans prefer Bryan' vibe to this forum. It's not a stretch to say any of those things, or to feel that someone that goes against this vibe immediately has people go against them. And the reason I bring this up is simply to challenge some of the accepted notions that go around on here that lead to discussions never progressing. Apparently the last 6-8 months of Raw have sucked...and 2013 was awesome, according to this thread. I was reading this forum when it was discussing 2013 (as well as when it was discussing 2008, 09, 10 and 11) and I KNOW what the general vibe of this place was. This Forbes article tries to say WWE has been putting out bad content as if that is a fact, when it's a completely subjective opinion. But it's an opinion that most people on here will use as a fact, and that the fact that 'most fans' agree with. Just like 'most fans' want Bryan, Ziggler and Ambrose to be pushed and think Reigns isn't ready. We simply don't have all the metrics available to us that WWE can use to decide who is a star they want to push and who isn't. But we've already seen today that very simple ones can show why certain guys are pushed more than others, in terms of quarter hour ratings and PPV buys. And those very simple metrics challenge the 'LOLWWE' and 'Vince is senile' type posts very well. But other wise it's just a complete circklejerk with everyone stating their own opinions as facts and believing them more and more strongly because most people on here agree with them too. Well.... there's a couple of things packaged in here, I think. Making up masses of people who agree with you to feel like your opinion is more true or valid ("EVERYONE thinks Reign sucks!!") is bad. But making up masses of people who DISAGREE with you to feel like you're thinking for yourself ("EVERYONE thinks Reigns sucks!") is no better. The fact that you want to "challenge accepted notions" seems to imply that you think it's necessary; it wouldn't occur to most people around here to think anything else. I don't know if that's how you mean it, but it's important to remember that groups of people can just agree: it isn't necessarily groupthink. One thing about the Forbes article I think is related to what you said: they aren't necessarily comparing wrestling to wrestling. Raw ain't Breaking Bad, and we all know it. In one way, it's a "subjective opinion" that Raw's writing sucks, but if we dug into things like dramatic rise and fall, character consistency, giving characters clear motivations, etc., you're on more solid ground. "Good writing" being subjective doesn't mean we all have to just throw our hands up in the air and that's the end of that. I think there's a definite amount of groupthink when it comes to something like 'They are pushing Reigns rather than Bryan even though Bryan is more popular, therefore they don't know what they are doing' and it just becomes accepted, like the only possible explanation is the company is stubborn and is knowingly doing something against what is better for business. I like to challenge things like that because otherwise it perpetuates this tiresome stereotype that WWE is a company with a personality defect, and it also perpetuates the stereotype that we all know more about their business than they do, despite having far less information to work with. I'm also quite obviously not making up loads of people that think Reigns sucks, am I? A cursory glance over the front page would tell you that I'm on the money there. If someone really wants to get into actual writing techniques than yeah, that would be more solid ground. But no-one ever does. I'd be pretty confident that if you take the majority opinion of this forum at given times throughout the last decade, Raw will have always sucked. I'm just challenging this idea that the content has been bad for the last 8 months, because 8 months ago I heard that 2013 was full of Authority promos and a Big Show push that no-one wanted, and it sucked. I haven't done a statistical analysis on it, but if I did, the majority opinion on here would be that Raw always sucks, that the content is always bad, and I'm simply saying that it's a ridiculous notion that a company's flagship TV programme is always so bad.
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Feb 1, 2015 7:30:16 GMT -5
I'd happily get into writing technique, and the logic of story. I've done and do, screenwriting jobs, admittedly at a FAR lower level of exposure than WWE. One in particular had a huge number of requirements and prerequisites that I imagine is not dissimilar to what Creative have to put up with. But there's still ways of working with at times contradictory requirements, and dragging a decent story out of it, while WWE seem to struggle to drag decent stories or narratives out of what should be straightforward. But, as Forbes point out, the thing is a lot of people don't analyse it to that degree. And casual fans might cheer Daniel Bryan, but if they see Roman Reigns going up against designated bad guys (Big Show etc.), and winning, they may just go "Oh so he's the good guy now, and he's doing cool things. Ok." and go along with that. But I'd like to know how much casuals translate to actual profit- as going to a show live isn't cheap, merch isn't cheap, so you'd think such income is mostly dictated by the more passionate fans, or fans with a bit more disposable income, such as family groups (Hence Cena's collosal merch sales). I'm genuinely not sure who Roman Reigns is being targeted towards. It's certainly not the committed fans. The casuals? Um, ok but then why is he being given material that he plainly sucks at and isn't suited to (I know it's Vince, I mean why from a business standpoint/why would this work). Even casuals, if they see a guy being unfunny and awkward, they're not gonna find him cool. He can appeal to casual fans if he has the silent badass thing going down, he can be an instant villain to a casual fan if he does his obnoxious entitled kid thing. But as it is, WWE want a brooding, silent badass....who's completely off-the-wall goofy with funny promos for the kids. Oh and he makes it known he should win things because of who his family is. There's 3 different characters there which are all incompatible with each other, and 1 is incompatible with Reigns' performing skills. Ricky Gervais is good as a comic actor, or as an obnoxious presenter. He's not a guy you'd cast as Hamlet because that doesn't play to his strengths. 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? Well, from what I'd gathered the answer to this was largely yes- OK, Mania is Mania and will always draw well but Bryan headlined the best-selling Mania in history, his other PPV headlines I don't know about but I gathered they did well. TV ratings did indeed increase when he was onscreen. He sold very good numbers of merch. House shows I don't know about. But remember, the guy started getting actually built to Mania post-Rumble when they realised it was a disaster, and was healthy and on top for barely a month after Mania- the window of time we're looking at is very short, which means isolated peaks or slumps in numbers will distort the picture a lot more. So honestly, it's hard to say if Bryan conclusively translated into a money-draw, but a lot of the indicators suggested he did, or was going to. Reigns is being pushed without those indicators existing at all, it's WWE banking on the fans accepting what's being forced upon them, or suddenly coming round of their own accord to liking the guy, and either way showing this through ratings and merch. Reigns is a far bigger gamble right now for the same reward as Bryan. But again as Forbes touch on- the fans often DO seem to accept whatever WWE tells them to accept, so even if as a product a lot of people think it sucks, people will go with it. Particularly because there's not an alternative- people will think on some level that things aren't what they want, but because there's nothing else, it's better than nothing so they'll stick with it. And yet this of course raises the question- if Bryan had the machine behind him in the same way, to try and appeal to casual fans in the same way, just how popular could HE be? Because, unless he also started getting dumb Rock-lite promos and squashing everybody, I don't think you can say the hardcore fans would turn on him. That usually happens if the wrestler is doing something the fans don't want to see or is doing something they're not suited to. Bryan as Bryan is something fans want to see, just give them more Bryan as himself, make him the star focus, but without turning him into Storytime Guy or an unstoppable superman- you have the same likeable underdog on top, ACTUALLY defying the odds, actually being put in peril and threat, then overcoming it. With the exception of the handful of people who just want to be contrarian (similar I suspect to some who defend everything about the Rumble/Reigns), people don't turn on a guy just because he's the star now. They turn on him cause he's doing something the fans don't want to see him doing. A good example would be if you hotshotted Mizdow to the main event- fans would turn on him quick, because yeah, the crowd love Mizdow, the crowd want to see him turn on Miz and get some revenge, they want to see him do his thing....but they don't want Mizdow to be the star of the show. So yeah, they'd turn on Mizdow if he suddenly became WWE champion, because you'd have to change his character from the current one in order to do that. But Bryan you wouldn't be changing by booking him as champion, if you can still remember how to actually book an underdog main eventer, not "How will Cena overcome these odds"? Plus, people saying "any publicity is good publicity" or "at least people are talking about WWE which can only be good" is, as already stated, the EXACT same logic as "Let's put the WCW title on David Arquette", or any number of booking decisions that people love to mock Russo over. Even if you DO believe any publicity is good publicity, you better make sure your product is as good top-to-bottom, and as well-recieved as possible, the very next time out. Because all those extra eyes will see, and first impressions matter a lot. You've got that chance to get them interested, or you've got a chance to alienate them and have them LESS likely to tune in next time there's a buzz, even if the buzz then is over something positive. People won't immediately be tuned out by negative publicity, there's a traincrash element that people bizarrely love to watch unfold, but a traincrash rapidly becomes unpleasant to watch. But bad publicity can still put some people off tuning in, you get a lot more interest through good publicity than bad publicity. If WWE's plan is to use the bad publicity and turn that increased exposure into an increased audience, they HAVE to follow it up with something that is definitively good- from a storytelling/logical standpoint, from a consumer satisfaction standpoint, from the standpoint of playing to their performers' strengths, from a standpoint of having plenty to offer beyond "Hey, here's This Guy". It's the same reason Punk's mainstream attention didn't last- because apart from Punk, WWE didn't have that much in the way of quality product, so people heard things were good in WWE, tuned in, saw a bit, went "eh some of it was cool but not enough to watch again" and tuned out. It's the same reason Arquette winning the World Title made WCW into a laughing stock- because he won the title, but the product did not up its game when it got this increased attention, and so didn't keep the increased attention. To return to the Ricky Gervais comparison, Gervais playing Hamlet may get a buzz because "RICKY GERVAIS is playing Hamlet? This sounds so unlikely, I'm morbidly curious". But then if he sucks, even if his Hamlet run gets a lot of traincrash views and publicity, it will be a disaster for any future serious acting attempts, unless you CHANGE the presentation, and instead of passing it off as a serious venture, present it ironically. WWE, in this context, would need to change the presentation of Reigns, from a beloved hero to an UNWANTED hero. From Rock-lite to golden-boy entitled heel. IF they do that they can salvage this. If not, any mainstream publicity they've got from this, will reamin as purely negative publicity, and will not translate into an upswing in business. You cannot insist that negative publicity is actually good publicity, unless it actually is. Unless you actually make it into good publicity. Simply saying "this is actually good publicity" is what Russo did with WCW and is what WWE are doing if they don't actually adapt, or change, or improve, anything. tl;dr: Stories can have plenty of problems provided they either still make sense, or actually match the narrative presented with the marketing and the performing strengths of the characters involved. Translating a wrestler's popularity into profit relies on using them in a way the fans will want to see, and pay to see, so on some level giving them "what they want", but particularly giving it them in the WAY they want it. Negative publicity is only any good, if you produce something positive to respond to the people drawn in by the negative publicity and actually do turn it into a positive.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Feb 1, 2015 7:39:53 GMT -5
Well.... there's a couple of things packaged in here, I think. Making up masses of people who agree with you to feel like your opinion is more true or valid ("EVERYONE thinks Reign sucks!!") is bad. But making up masses of people who DISAGREE with you to feel like you're thinking for yourself ("EVERYONE thinks Reigns sucks!") is no better. The fact that you want to "challenge accepted notions" seems to imply that you think it's necessary; it wouldn't occur to most people around here to think anything else. I don't know if that's how you mean it, but it's important to remember that groups of people can just agree: it isn't necessarily groupthink. One thing about the Forbes article I think is related to what you said: they aren't necessarily comparing wrestling to wrestling. Raw ain't Breaking Bad, and we all know it. In one way, it's a "subjective opinion" that Raw's writing sucks, but if we dug into things like dramatic rise and fall, character consistency, giving characters clear motivations, etc., you're on more solid ground. "Good writing" being subjective doesn't mean we all have to just throw our hands up in the air and that's the end of that. I think there's a definite amount of groupthink when it comes to something like 'They are pushing Reigns rather than Bryan even though Bryan is more popular, therefore they don't know what they are doing' and it just becomes accepted, like the only possible explanation is the company is stubborn and is knowingly doing something against what is better for business. I like to challenge things like that because otherwise it perpetuates this tiresome stereotype that WWE is a company with a personality defect, and it also perpetuates the stereotype that we all know more about their business than they do, despite having far less information to work with. I'm also quite obviously not making up loads of people that think Reigns sucks, am I? A cursory glance over the front page would tell you that I'm on the money there. If someone really wants to get into actual writing techniques than yeah, that would be more solid ground. But no-one ever does. I'd be pretty confident that if you take the majority opinion of this forum at given times throughout the last decade, Raw will have always sucked. I'm just challenging this idea that the content has been bad for the last 8 months, because 8 months ago I heard that 2013 was full of Authority promos and a Big Show push that no-one wanted, and it sucked. I haven't done a statistical analysis on it, but if I did, the majority opinion on here would be that Raw always sucks, that the content is always bad, and I'm simply saying that it's a ridiculous notion that a company's flagship TV programme is always so bad. You know there is a handy feature on these boards where they archive things by year. officialfan.proboards.com/board/41/wrestling-boards-archives-2013While you may have only looked at the negative, probably people crapping on what you liked, there was a general positive vibe up until the Rumble debacle, people hated Orton/the Authority but were holding out for Bryan's eventual payoff. Hell, the first page there has people up in arms because there were too many good matches and that Mania 30 could be epic. I love John Cena. Have since I realized his ascension meant an end to Triple H's title stranglehold. It's an opinion I know a lot of people don't share. Most times I just avoid Cena threads that look like deprecation. Sometimes I drop in and drop my two cents in, but I highly doubt I've changed anyone's opinions on why they don't like him, I just post why I like him or why I think he was good. Whiteknighting is just as bad as constantly complaining and all it does is feed the hate machine. When you clicked on thread themed Forbes craps on WWE you should kind of expect the people with a negative opinion to chime in. It's not a hivemind, it's people reading what interests them and avoiding what doesn't. It's why the WWE forums get more hits then the TNA forums.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Feb 1, 2015 7:44:22 GMT -5
I don't think there's a contradiction. I think the TV-taping constituent of the audience may be unhappy with certain elements of the direction but given that they turn up each week and pay top $ to pay for it still, there's really little need to pander to them just yet.
What matters is what'll help them stay afloat or better in the ratings and drive Network subs. They won't be playing either by ear, they'll have numbers, ticket sales, week-by-week Network net gain/loss figures, facts and merchandise sales evidence coming out of their ass. It doesn't mean to say everything they do will be right but they'll likely have reasons for doing it, at least at the top of the card.
Underneath kinda sucks but that's almost irrelevant to the important financials, unfortunately.
|
|
wcc2
AC Slater
Posts: 159
|
Post by wcc2 on Feb 1, 2015 7:57:39 GMT -5
I think there's a definite amount of groupthink when it comes to something like 'They are pushing Reigns rather than Bryan even though Bryan is more popular, therefore they don't know what they are doing' and it just becomes accepted, like the only possible explanation is the company is stubborn and is knowingly doing something against what is better for business. I like to challenge things like that because otherwise it perpetuates this tiresome stereotype that WWE is a company with a personality defect, and it also perpetuates the stereotype that we all know more about their business than they do, despite having far less information to work with. I'm also quite obviously not making up loads of people that think Reigns sucks, am I? A cursory glance over the front page would tell you that I'm on the money there. If someone really wants to get into actual writing techniques than yeah, that would be more solid ground. But no-one ever does. I'd be pretty confident that if you take the majority opinion of this forum at given times throughout the last decade, Raw will have always sucked. I'm just challenging this idea that the content has been bad for the last 8 months, because 8 months ago I heard that 2013 was full of Authority promos and a Big Show push that no-one wanted, and it sucked. I haven't done a statistical analysis on it, but if I did, the majority opinion on here would be that Raw always sucks, that the content is always bad, and I'm simply saying that it's a ridiculous notion that a company's flagship TV programme is always so bad. You know there is a handy feature on these boards where they archive things by year. officialfan.proboards.com/board/41/wrestling-boards-archives-2013While you may have only looked at the negative, probably people crapping on what you liked, there was a general positive vibe up until the Rumble debacle, people hated Orton/the Authority but were holding out for Bryan's eventual payoff. Hell, the first page there has people up in arms because there were too many good matches and that Mania 30 could be epic. I love John Cena. Have since I realized his ascension meant an end to Triple H's title stranglehold. It's an opinion I know a lot of people don't share. Most times I just avoid Cena threads that look like deprecation. Sometimes I drop in and drop my two cents in, but I highly doubt I've changed anyone's opinions on why they don't like him, I just post why I like him or why I think he was good. Whiteknighting is just as bad as constantly complaining and all it does is feed the hate machine. When you clicked on thread themed Forbes craps on WWE you should kind of expect the people with a negative opinion to chime in. It's not a hivemind, it's people reading what interests them and avoiding what doesn't. It's why the WWE forums get more hits then the TNA forums. Again, it's not really white knighting to try and offer some sort of factual basis behind some of these opinions. For instance, everyone assumes Ryder was buried because he 'got over without the company' and so they callously shunted him down the card. Only yesterday someone put the viewing figures up that showed clear drops whenever there was a Ryder segment, despite the live crowd getting behind him. So there's actual analysis being put forward there to challenge accepted notions that are just repeated constantly with no basis behind them. I really can't believe that people can suggest with what I assume is a straight face that this place or most other wrestling forums aren't in the main negative. I just find it interesting that a Forbes article will try and use 'bad content for the last 6-8 months' as an actual point, because I've never seen any point where in the main this place is positive on Raw over a consistent period. I'm just trying to use actual facts where we can, and not just fall into buying too much into the on screen characters of the McMahon family as reasons that they aren't pushing who a certain group of people want. If they didn't want Punk main eventing PPVs, maybe there is a business reason behind that we don't know about. If they sent Ryder back down the card again, maybe it was based on actual analysis. If they didn't want Bryan main eventing Mania, maybe they had good reason for it, beyond just burying IWC favourites because they are determined to push who 'they' like because they get a kick out of it, or whatever the reason is assumed to be.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Feb 1, 2015 8:30:18 GMT -5
Well when I started coming to this forum back when we were associated with the crap, I always thought of it as a positive experience. I mean we ragged on a lot of stuff but it was all in good fun in the spirit of a forum born from WRESTLECRAP. It was what I expected. FAN is admittedly a different beast but it feels a lot of the same spirit. Every once in awhile some guy shows up who thinks they need to guilt trip us into not ragging on crap, that he didn't think was crap though. That's what I call white knighting. Maybe it isn't your intent but like I said if I venture into a Cena thread I know what I am getting into and don't really take it to seriously. I mean if everything is negative to your perception maybe the internet just isn't for you or you need to find something you can enjoy besides the comment sections and forums. I've seen plenty of positive things because that's what I read and avoid the things that end up pissing me off. If you haven't seen consistent positivity I'd say that's on you. I read NXT happenings mainly these days because I just don't care about The Authoriteh!!! and those threads seem to be pretty positive.
As for your "facts". How factual are they really? I mean you can point to a number showing Hulk Hogan got higher ratings then Zack Ryder but does that number show how they were presented on screen. Fans of Hogan would probably turn the channel if he was booked terribly, just ask TNA. I mean Ryder was cuckolded by Cena and manhandled by the already stale Kane. The other thing to think about in regards to Ryder is how much time does WWE spend in a broadcast mentioning "trending". Ryder had the most twitter followers. He was an easy gateway for WWE to get those beloved hashtags. Maybe he couldn't carry a show but he could definitely hold a position like what they want of Bryan and Ziggler, the old Jericho, Foley role of top guy to elevate the next heel. Zack Ryder is supposed to wrestle and get his character over. He did that. It's their job to make money off of it. It's their job to capitalize on what he brings not expose his weakness just to say they were right.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Feb 1, 2015 8:46:29 GMT -5
I don't think there's a contradiction. I think the TV-taping constituent of the audience may be unhappy with certain elements of the direction but given that they turn up each week and pay top $ to pay for it still, there's really little need to pander to them just yet. What matters is what'll help them stay afloat or better in the ratings and drive Network subs. They won't be playing either by ear, they'll have numbers, ticket sales, week-by-week Network net gain/loss figures, facts and merchandise sales evidence coming out of their ass. It doesn't mean to say everything they do will be right but they'll likely have reasons for doing it, at least at the top of the card. Underneath kinda sucks but that's almost irrelevant to the important financials, unfortunately. No they don't use number crunchers. They never have, and nobody has ever claimed that. There are tons of ex-writers, bookers etc. who have spoken on what they did behind the scenes and none of them ever mentioned getting a numbers rundown on who to push. Pushes are determined in a much more old school manner. They had no idea what Batista would bring in but they took a chance it would be positive press and they could get him accepted back into the fold. It failed. They brought back Lesnar and it worked better. It was argued originally when Bryan was being held down last year that he wasn't a seller, then it came out that he was behind only Punk and Cena in sales, and people changed the goal post again. Reigns isn't selling better then Bryan they are taking a chance on him. The thing that people argue is that it is bad timing and they have a proven draw, a proven fan connection, a proven crossover star just sitting there waiting still. I mean Daniel Bryan fires on all cylinders when they decide to let him run but they just don't want to. Cena leads the world in make-a-wish, but it was Daniel Bryan's make-a-wish that crossed over into mainstream news headlines. Why not take the good press, the easy way into mainstream graces, instead of the controversy creates (temporary) cash Bischoff route and look for ways to spin it. Jesus they just needed to send Bryan onto a news show, have him pluck a nose hair before he goes out, to get the eyes a little watery and say he wanted to recapture his belt for The Crusher and then let the money and free press roll in.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Feb 1, 2015 9:17:33 GMT -5
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. I thought Bryan's merch was selling pretty well. Not as well as Cena's, and I could be wrong, but I thought he was in the top 5 when they were pushing him, and never droppe ou of the top 10 even when he was long-off tv. But as far as merch goes, I think a lot of it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we use T-Shirts as the normal metrics (because I doubt things like piggy banks and lamps are ever going to be sold in numbers that make up the difference), then of course a guy with 12+ shirt designs like Cena is going to sell more at live shows than people with 2 or 3 shirts. They pump out more designs and merch for one guy, then use the fact that that guy sold more as proof that he deserves to be pushed. But when you think about it... yeah, no shit a guy with more shirts is going to have his fans buy more shirts. That's not to say Cena is a bad choice as the face of the company. On the contrary, he's a fantastic choice, but things like merch sales really depend as much on WWE's willingness to get off their asses to make designs as it is for fans to buy it, because fans aren't buying 12 copies of the same shirt no matter who it is for and we've seen situations where people will overtake them when they have new shirts out. I wasn't a big fan of Ryder, but the dude had a lot of merch that sold well. WWE used him as a tool to boost Cena, and now he has a single shirt. They left money on the table, and all they really had to do was make him into a normally used midcarder. All these metrics are similarly easy to manipulate or alter, and the biggest flaw with them is that WWE and many fans seem to assume that the guy on top is the only reason for ticket sales or PPV buys, rather than the quality of the entire card. It's the old boxing model of looking at it, but in the case of a company like WWE, that model really doesn't fit.
|
|