Sicho100
Hank Scorpio
Easily Confused.
Posts: 5,964 
|
Post by Sicho100 on Mar 31, 2017 13:24:39 GMT -5
Man am I glad I don't give WWE a single penny of my cash because I would be incredibly annoyed at this. WWE: F*** you Internet fans......Please pay us 9.99 a month for the internet network we provide The problem is, too many other internet fans will get insulted and keep giving their money to Vince. If the shows are sold out and business is good, of course Vince isn't going to care about crowd reactions. Stockholm syndrome. Seriously, that's the only thing I can think of with wrestling fans. The shows aren't sold out - and attendence is falling. Their TV audience has fallen by something like 25% in three years. The Network subscriptions have been disappointing. The whole "Well, stop giving them money then!" argument really falls apart when you realize that...people HAVE stopped giving them money. And Vince still acts like everything's fine. |
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Mar 31, 2017 13:25:43 GMT -5
Create an online network = Complain about internet fans.
lol
|
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Mar 31, 2017 13:26:45 GMT -5
The problem is, too many other internet fans will get insulted and keep giving their money to Vince. If the shows are sold out and business is good, of course Vince isn't going to care about crowd reactions. Stockholm syndrome. Seriously, that's the only thing I can think of with wrestling fans. The shows aren't sold out - and attendence is falling. Their TV audience has fallen by something like 25% in three years. The Network subscriptions have been disappointing. The whole "Well, stop giving them money then!" argument really falls apart when you realize that...people HAVE stopped giving them money. And Vince still acts like everything's fine. The thing is they are making money and are profitable... but they could be so much more so. and they can only continue insulting their fans until that pitfalls. |
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Mar 31, 2017 13:27:29 GMT -5
f*** you WWE
That's all
|
|
|
|
Post by ISO Mid Thigh Pull on Mar 31, 2017 13:28:56 GMT -5
Bring It To The Table has gotta be one of the worst things they've produced in ages. Like, if there's anything I want to spend my time watching, it's totally 10+ minutes of old men whingeing about the internet.
|
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Mar 31, 2017 13:29:27 GMT -5
Bring It To The Table has gotta be one of the worst things they've produced in ages. Like, if there's anything I want to spend my time watching, it's totally 10+ minutes of old mean whingeing about the internet. ... on the internet. |
|
ssdrivin
ALF
Claims to be squishy,
has yet to be proven.
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by ssdrivin on Mar 31, 2017 13:33:13 GMT -5
I'm buying the Network this month for WrestleMania, for three reasons: I've got nothing better to do this weekend, it's an excuse for a bit of party food and a drink, and I can't resist a high profile cluster. Also potentially Taker's last match. Maybe.
Having said that, the last thing I watched was Rumble, and I'm really not particularly inclined to watch anything post-WM, I've got bored with the product again.
(Edit: One other problem with "stop giving them money" is that the WWE Network is a fine place to watch all the old stuff we did actually enjoy, and there's no separation, we can't pay for the stuff we like without also paying for the stuff we don't like. I'm not saying that I'd want them to split the on-demand from the live stuff, that's what gives the Network its value, but I think doing that would go some way to showing that a portion of the subscriptions prefer the nostalgia and genuinely enjoyable stuff they've seen before. Obviously WWE have stats for this stuff behind the scenes, but if they've got the money already then who cares what you bought the Network for? As long as there's some content on there you like, you'll probably keep paying for it, right?)
But I agree, this is distasteful. As I mentioned in another thread, Reigns is just there, he's got no personality (as presented on the main shows), and I can't appreciate a cardboard cutout where a proper character needs to be. I'm absolutely sure he could do better, as a heel or a face, just something, anything, just as long as he's not a confused, 2-dimensional placeholder. I've heard all the stuff recently about "maybe he's really a heel in disguise, eh? eh?" and other weak WWE justifications for his position, but I don't care if this is some weird post-kayfabe era or whatever it's supposed to be. I don't care if it's a failed attempt to replace Cena. It's shitty storytelling, plain and simple. That's what I want from WWE, good stories, believable characters I can hate or root for (whether they're larger than life or not), and less one-sided horsecrap. It's not that hard, hundreds of other TV shows and movies get it right, even WWE themselves (and other promotions) have managed it before, why can't they now? It's not our fault they suck at writing solid characters and angles.
Oh, and for the record, I think Roman's got the body to be a powerhouse, but I agree that The Shield were far better as a unit, I didn't want them to split, and Ambrose was my guy, not Reigns.
|
|
Sicho100
Hank Scorpio
Easily Confused.
Posts: 5,964
|
Post by Sicho100 on Mar 31, 2017 13:33:22 GMT -5
The shows aren't sold out - and attendence is falling. Their TV audience has fallen by something like 25% in three years. The Network subscriptions have been disappointing. The whole "Well, stop giving them money then!" argument really falls apart when you realize that...people HAVE stopped giving them money. And Vince still acts like everything's fine. The thing is they are making money and are profitable... but they could be so much more so. and they can only continue insulting their fans until that pitfalls. Well yeah, but that's largely due to the TV deal, which they locked in right before their viewership collapsed. And if they continue the way they have the past three years, which seems likely based on things like this, we can expect their viewership to keep falling. And when that deal comes up, it's going to really hurt them. I'm just some schmuck on the internet and I can figure this out. You'd think a billion-dollar corporation might be able to have figured it out. |
|
|
|
Post by KofiMania on Mar 31, 2017 13:40:49 GMT -5
The thing is they are making money and are profitable... but they could be so much more so. and they can only continue insulting their fans until that pitfalls. Well yeah, but that's largely due to the TV deal, which they locked in right before their viewership collapsed. And if they continue the way they have the past three years, which seems likely based on things like this, we can expect their viewership to keep falling. And when that deal comes up, it's going to really hurt them. I'm just some schmuck on the internet and I can figure this out. You'd think a billion-dollar corporation might be able to have figured it out. Because of the trend of TV ratings as a whole, WWE still does quite well and so their next deal might not be any worse than the current deal. |
|
Rican
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
July 17, 2011 - HHHe called it
Posts: 16,477
|
Post by Rican on Mar 31, 2017 13:43:36 GMT -5
Something has to give at some point and it has to be soon. WWE can pretty much get away with this because the hardcore fans won't leave. Like so many people on here (myself included) will complain all day but still drop 10 bucks a month for the network for the old content and the PPV's. Going by this Vice article from a few months ago: sports.vice.com/en_us/article/breaking-kayfabe-an-inside-look-at-wwes-unlikely-business-empireThey're REALLY banking on the network for their current business model. The quickest way to send the message is cancelled subscriptions, but there's too much content they own that people aren't willing to part with. If this continues though I wonder what the breaking point will be. |
|
Rican
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
July 17, 2011 - HHHe called it
Posts: 16,477
|
Post by Rican on Mar 31, 2017 13:45:19 GMT -5
I firmly believe that Cena remaining a babyface and Reigns being the heir apparent is 100% attributable to their nature as a publicly traded company. They identify their "main character" to their investors and that is who they're committed to. Changing that position is dangerous for them, no different than if they committed to reducing operating expenses and realized halfway through that they no longer needed the same levels of reduction- they have to follow through. This is going to trickle down throughout the company, so with all due respect to JBL, I don't believe for a second that these are your independent thoughts for a second. Bottom line- if Reigns had gone over Batista at the end of the royal rumble, he would likely be perceived differently. Reigns going over Daniel Bryan a year later has likely permanently damaged this iteration of his character and someone over there should probably be the one to raise their hand and admit they have gotten it wrong. He's very good in the ring and has a great presence and look. He could even be the top guy, just needs to take a step or two back at this point. I think him winning at 30 would have backfired just as bad because the people would wanted Bryan. Where they messed it up beyond repair was the Rumble the following year. If they had just held off for one year they could have proceeded with their normal plans and done Reigns/Lesnar at WM32 to way less backlash. |
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,143 
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Mar 31, 2017 13:55:19 GMT -5
Is there a company that has such utter contempt for their customers then the WWE? Gamestop. |
|
Spider2024
Patti Mayonnaise
Dedicated 6,666th post to Irontyger
I believe in Joe Hendry.
Posts: 39,248
|
Post by Spider2024 on Mar 31, 2017 13:56:39 GMT -5
|
|
xCompackx
Wade Wilson
Posts: 27,262
Member is Online
|
Post by xCompackx on Mar 31, 2017 14:00:18 GMT -5
In terms of actually affecting their bottom line to the point where they have to listen, I doubt cancelling your WWE Network subscription means much, unfortunately. They've got their fingers in so many different pies that they're still making a lot of money. Now if there were some mass exodus of subscriptions for something I couldn't even think of (Vince dying?), then sure.
Honestly though, it's sad to see how this is what wrestling is now, where the company actively doesn't care what the fans do as long as they've got their wallets and even when they acknowledge that this isn't what fans want, it's only to criticize and ridicule them for not having the company's vision. Even worse, when the main piece of advice is to stop watching because they will never listen to what the fans want and will only continue to ridicule and criticize while pushing what makes Vince happy instead of the fans. I don't know, maybe it's better to stick with old shit.
|
|
Sicho100
Hank Scorpio
Easily Confused.
Posts: 5,964
|
Post by Sicho100 on Mar 31, 2017 14:11:09 GMT -5
Well yeah, but that's largely due to the TV deal, which they locked in right before their viewership collapsed. And if they continue the way they have the past three years, which seems likely based on things like this, we can expect their viewership to keep falling. And when that deal comes up, it's going to really hurt them. I'm just some schmuck on the internet and I can figure this out. You'd think a billion-dollar corporation might be able to have figured it out. Because of the trend of TV ratings as a whole, WWE still does quite well and so their next deal might not be any worse than the current deal. I'm skeptical. For a few reasons. One, a big part of their pitch was that WWE is must-see TV, like traditional sports. This is mostly meant in terms of live vs taped viewing for advertising purposes, but I'd suggest that the viewership collapse really hurts that argument - more and more people are deciding that, actually, it is missable. They also don't make nearly as much in ad revenue that a comparably-viewed non-wrestling show would, which means that WWE having viewership higher than replacement-level means they are actually much more comparable in ad revenues than the audience numbers would suggest (I'm now really wishing I knew how significant the difference is) - by which I mean, a replacement for WWE wouldn't need to have an audience nearly as big as Raw's in order to make the same ad revenues. And, USA's big reason for keeping them is to lift up USA's overall numbers. With WWE's numbers falling so precipitously, they are far less able to do that. Now, in theory, TVs overall decline may make other stations more likely to jump in for the next contract out of desperation, but I feel like the likeliest candidates - ESPN and FS1 - probably had some other reasons they didn't bid in earnest last time (in particular, that they don't want to have their brand tarnished by bringing on the fake redneck rasslin' show) that won't go away within the next couple of years. |
|
Perd
Patti Mayonnaise
Leslie needs to butt out for fear of receiving The Bunghole Buster
Posts: 31,996
|
Post by Perd on Mar 31, 2017 14:13:34 GMT -5
 "That's what killed Dennis Day - contempt for the audience." |
|
StuntGranny®
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Not Actually a Granny
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by StuntGranny® on Mar 31, 2017 14:13:39 GMT -5
If you've had the unfortunate tragedy of reading my posts, I don't think I need to rant anymore about how much I despise this company and the people who run it. But I guess I will anyway.
This is why competition was/is so important. When someone else is barreling down on you, you're forced to care about the fans because they'll go elsewhere if you don't. Whereas now, they have no incentive to care about their fans because they know most will watch regardless because it's readily available and easy to access. Like I've also said before, they are essentially Wal-Mart. They offer cheap, poorly put together garbage that everyone eats up because it's familiar and (again) easy to access. They are a giant, shitty corporation that couldn't be bothered to give a shit about most of its employees, much less their customers. They look at the customers as trash that will pay up no matter what. Also like Wal-Mart, yes, there are other options out there that offer a better selection/product, but you're gonna have to put in extra effort and money to get to them. Most people aren't going to do that, so they run back to what they know. I f***ing WISH people would put in that extra effort, but they're just not going to. Add in asking them to pay extra in some cases and they're definitely giving a pass to it.
To sum it all up, what I am trying to say is f*** Wal-Ma....er... WWE.
|
|
mcstoklasa
Hank Scorpio
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 6,944
|
Post by mcstoklasa on Mar 31, 2017 14:25:58 GMT -5
I'd just like to add that JBL is a c***
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2017 14:28:47 GMT -5
The problem is, too many other internet fans will get insulted and keep giving their money to Vince. If the shows are sold out and business is good, of course Vince isn't going to care about crowd reactions. Stockholm syndrome. Seriously, that's the only thing I can think of with wrestling fans. The shows aren't sold out - and attendence is falling. Their TV audience has fallen by something like 25% in three years. The Network subscriptions have been disappointing. The whole "Well, stop giving them money then!" argument really falls apart when you realize that...people HAVE stopped giving them money. And Vince still acts like everything's fine. Business has fallen but it's still profitable. WM still draws. Their PPVs still get sell outs (or damn close to it). There has to be close to a mass exodus for things to change and that doesn't appear close to happening. Revenue has to fall a lot more than it has. As long as he's making a lot of money, Vince won't change. |
|
ssdrivin
ALF
Claims to be squishy,
has yet to be proven.
Posts: 1,042
|
Post by ssdrivin on Mar 31, 2017 14:29:10 GMT -5
Thing is, surely it must be more profitable to make fans think you care, even just a little bit? It's good PR, and it keeps people engaged. More engagement = more sales, more viewers, more merch sold, more subscriptions and PPVs purchased, etc. So you'd think that it'd be worth putting in a bit of effort, or at least looking like you are, to keep fans on-side? Not just an occasional bone, enough to remind us that occasionally cool stuff happens, but actual ongoing engagement.
But hey, what do I know? I'm no corporate beancounter or suit, they obviously know what they're doing otherwise they wouldn't have a large international media corporation, I'm just some guy on a forum trying to use logic.
|
|
