Vern
Hank Scorpio
Almighty Malachi.
Posts: 5,215
|
Post by Vern on Jul 21, 2015 22:34:04 GMT -5
Just like Crackle, only you have to pay for it..... I don't know... I watched Joe Dirt 2 and I'd say pretty much every original WWE Network show is leaps and bounds better than that piece of shit. And this is coming from a guy who was pretty okay with the first one.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,014
|
Post by nate5054 on Jul 22, 2015 2:12:12 GMT -5
Netflix and Hulu are streaming services. WWE network is a streaming service. Yeah there are similarities in how they deliver content so why is this really a problem or are we just looking for things to bitch about because there's enough without nitpicking No kidding. It's far less cringe worthy than "just like Netflix only better." In this case they are just telling the rubes who don't grasp that it's a streaming service that it's a streaming service.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 2:14:28 GMT -5
Don't you think this is a little nitpicky?
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,014
|
Post by nate5054 on Jul 22, 2015 2:14:30 GMT -5
Netflix and Hulu are streaming services. WWE network is a streaming service. Yeah there are similarities in how they deliver content so why is this really a problem or are we just looking for things to bitch about because there's enough without nitpicking Ok, imagine if Pepsi's slogan was: "Pepsi; it's just like Coke" You don't see a problem with that? Do something, anything to differentiate yourself from the competition. It's terrible marketing. That's not a great analogy. For one, they aren't quite competition. I have both. WWE for wrestling content, and Netflix for movie/tv show content. In one sense I guess they are competition for one's entertainment dollar, but WWE Network is so specific that unless someone has an extremely limited budget I doubt that factor would ever come into play if they had both an interest in movies and WWE PPVs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 2:15:10 GMT -5
It's better than their two previous slogans:
"It's like Netflix and Hulu, except with way less stuff to watch!"
and
"All the stuff you could watch on youtube and dailymotion, except you have to pay for it!"
|
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,524
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Jul 22, 2015 2:16:17 GMT -5
Netflix and Hulu are streaming services. WWE network is a streaming service. Yeah there are similarities in how they deliver content so why is this really a problem or are we just looking for things to bitch about because there's enough without nitpicking No kidding. It's far less cringe worthy than "just like Netflix only better." In this case they are just telling the rubes who don't grasp that it's a streaming service that it's a streaming service. Pretty much this. I work with people who think it is literally just a channel with no streaming content. Totally understand why WWE is telling people it is like netflix. Don't see this issue with it.
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Jul 22, 2015 2:20:48 GMT -5
I think they're saying that mostly for casual fans and/or less tech savvy people who might think you can only watch WWE Network on your computer or that it's a stand-alone cable network.
|
|
|
Post by Hobby Drifter on Jul 22, 2015 5:22:13 GMT -5
Just like Netflix and Hulu...except with fewer viewing options...and more expensive!
|
|
Lt. Palumbo
Hank Scorpio
On again off again watcher of a wrestling TV show
Posts: 6,067
|
Post by Lt. Palumbo on Jul 22, 2015 5:22:27 GMT -5
Ok, I can get what people are saying about making it clear that it's a streaming platform. That's fine. Then call it "Netflix for Wrestling" or "Netflix for Sports Entertainment".
It's what's called a unique selling point.
To the question of them "not really competing with Netflix". They do. I had both for a bit, but when I needed to cut out unnecessary spending, the €11 or so that WWE was costing didn't make the cut, the €7.99 for Netflix did. They're both streaming services competing for my entertainment "dollar". Just because you have both and don't have a limited budget doesn't mean they're not competition either, it just means it's not an issue for you, you could even apply that back to the Coke/Pepsi analogy, if I had the money and the palette for both, I'd buy both. Doesn't mean they're not competing.
And to address anyone viewing this as nitpicky, Network hating for the sake of it, it's not. Not on my part anyway. I enjoyed the network while I had it. If I had money to burn I'd still have it, but for the amount of use we'd get out of it in our household Netflix made more sense at the moment.
If it's picking at anything it's bad marketing for a good product. Which annoys me. You have a unique, awesome product with a library of content you won't find anywhere else. Why make it sound like an also-ran or an inter-changeable service?
|
|
|
Post by héad.casé on Jul 22, 2015 5:55:50 GMT -5
A poster suggested they should say it's "the Netflix of Sports Entertainment". I think that would be a good way to market it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2015 5:56:24 GMT -5
Ok, I can get what people are saying about making it clear that it's a streaming platform. That's fine. Then call it "Netflix for Wrestling" or "Netflix for Sports Entertainment". It's what's called a unique selling point. To the question of them "not really competing with Netflix". They do. I had both for a bit, but when I needed to cut out unnecessary spending, the €11 or so that WWE was costing didn't make the cut, the €7.99 for Netflix did. They're both streaming services competing for my entertainment "dollar". Just because you have both and don't have a limited budget doesn't mean they're not competition either, it just means it's not an issue for you, you could even apply that back to the Coke/Pepsi analogy, if I had the money and the palette for both, I'd buy both. Doesn't mean they're not competing. And to address anyone viewing this as nitpicky, Network hating for the sake of it, it's not. Not on my part anyway. I enjoyed the network while I had it. If I had money to burn I'd still have it, but for the amount of use we'd get out of it in our household Netflix made more sense at the moment. If it's picking at anything it's bad marketing for a good product. Which annoys me. You have a unique, awesome product with a library of content you won't find anywhere else. Why make it sound like an also-ran or an inter-changeable service? "The network: It's semi decent. Pretty much like the other stuff out there except it's wrestling. I mean you can take it or leave it really" (tm)
|
|