The WWE's star making problem.

[Mecca]

So I've been wondering this forever, seeing as I see this mentioned on a daily basis that they can't make any stars. The roster is more talented and deeper than ever before but at no other time has everyone mattered less than they do now. So are we really supposed to believe that a company that was always able to present acts, especially top ones, as stars and bigger than the product, just suddenly forgot how to do that?

I tend to think it's not that at all, I think it's being done on purpose. I think this company has realized with no competition in the field and after watching huge acts like Austin and Hogan who became difficult and Rock who got so big he just left them. They have made a conscious decision to make the WWE brand bigger than any one wrestler. No one is promoted as a megastar or as must see, it's all about the WWE brand. The guys who are considered maineventers drop way more matches than any of the guys who were huge stars back in the day ever did.

At this point it looks like Cena will be the last megapush star guy that they ever make and I have a hard time believing that isn't intentional. Seems like Vince and company aren't thrilled with the idea that anything they create could go on to be successful without them anymore. I also have theory that the last thing they want to do is make wrestling super popular again with a big time crossover guy like Austin because if that happens then more people are interested in wrestling...means more promotions happen and they don't want a competitor, especially one with money. I also think they especially don't want to be in a spot that they can't lose someone, in today's WWE machine no one is untouchable, there was a time when that wasn't true at all.

They're comfortable in their spot and honestly pushing anyone in a way that they should be pushed threatens the environment that they are trying to create. I refuse to believe the booking is this inept, I have to believe it's being done on purpose.

[Acrtress Flavor Saver]

WWE has more guys that they consider "main eventers" than they've had in any other era

[Hit Girl]

Building a star takes time and effort. They aren't willing to put in the hard work to create them anymore. They are also scared of losing guys like they did with Rock, and also are fixated on this idea of having "the guy", one dominant star who they feed everyone else to, which means no one else is permitted to reach the top level.

[Mecca]

Aug 16, 2017 15:46:47 GMT -5 Acrtress Flavor Saver said:

WWE has more guys that they consider "main eventers" than they've had in any other era

Yet fans buy far fewer of them than ever before, being a maineventer and being pushed as a top of the line star are not the same thing. They make no one feel like they matter is my point.

[MrElijah]

I say Brock leaving was the straw that broke the back. He was given everything. He goes over Taker, Hogan, Flair and The Rock in the same calendar year. Then he says, after 2 years, I'm done. That was your catalyst there.

["Cane Dewey" Johnson]

It's the problem of atrophy. WWE during 2005-2010 had a lot of guys who, after 2010, should have been the next generation of stars. But during that period, it was always the Cena-Orton-Batista show. And relatedly, Edge, Chris Jericho, the Big Show, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, and the Undertaker. And even when a lot of these guys weren't the go-to-talents, other guys like the Rock, Brock Lesnar, and Goldberg would show up to eat up TV time and fan attention.

Why does WWE smash guys over too fast and too soon? Because they've wasted so much time on guys who were over in the Attitude and Ruthless Aggression Eras that they have to play catch-up. And fans can't buy into a Jinder Mahal or Bray Wyatt title run, since they've been made to look like chumps for years. So WWE goes back to Cena or Orton since they're over, but the overall interest of fans wanes.

10 years ago, around this time of year, between 4.5 and 5 million people, approximately, watched Raw. Now the average is approximately 2.5-3 million people per week (on a good day). On the low end, that's about 30% of your viewership gone in a decade. On the high end, it's 50% of the regular viewing audience who have been lost. If often feels like WWE waited too long to pull the trigger on new stars, and now WWE is reaping what is has sown.

[Big Poppa Pumpkin]

I don't know, 'the brand is the draw' just sounds like an excuse for failure to me because I don't believe any major business would be that idiotic to adopt 'the brand sells itself' as a growth strategy. Then again, I guess you can't put anything past Vinnie Mac and co.

[Reflecto]

Aug 16, 2017 15:50:37 GMT -5 Mecca said:

Aug 16, 2017 15:46:47 GMT -5 Acrtress Flavor Saver said:

WWE has more guys that they consider "main eventers" than they've had in any other era

Yet fans buy far fewer of them than ever before, being a maineventer and being pushed as a top of the line star are not the same thing. They make no one feel like they matter is my point.

But that's also a problem as well: The fans are the last piece of the puzzle that makes new stars, after the booking and performance. The fans can MAKE a star, even if they're a subpar worker or their booking is subpar, just by how the fans react to them.

If the fans buy into a babyface and put their hope behind them- you have a superstar.
If the fans buy into a heel and boo themselves hoarse for them- you have a vile villain to build around.
If that villain is so good at their job eventually the fans grow to respect and love them- that ends up making an icon of the industry.

[Chiral]

I still can't believe they're so bad with the guys they desperately want to push the most. Jordan and Reigns in particular are getting royally screwed by their "THIS NEW FACE YOU LOVE HIM RIGHT???" booking.

[abjordans]

WWE is like 15 dudes deep with guys that could main event any show of the year at a moments notice.

[Starshine]

The problem is they don't have any. Except for the one they do, though he already has one foot out of the door.

[Nickybojelais]

I know the term "star" is subjective, but from reading the replies I think some people are making the mistake of thinking that somebody who is capable of main eventing a show is a "star".

[Sparkybob]

Aug 16, 2017 22:25:14 GMT -5 Nickybojelais said:

I know the term "star" is subjective, but from reading the replies I think some people are making the mistake of thinking that somebody who is capable of main eventing a show is a "star".

Wait was Stardust not a star?

[Starshine]

Aug 16, 2017 22:45:47 GMT -5 Sparkybob said:

Aug 16, 2017 22:25:14 GMT -5 Nickybojelais said:

I know the term "star" is subjective, but from reading the replies I think some people are making the mistake of thinking that somebody who is capable of main eventing a show is a "star".

Wait was Stardust not a star?

I never knew they had David Bowie under contract.

[Final Countdown Jones]

Aug 16, 2017 17:33:47 GMT -5 Big Poppa Pumpkin said:

I don't know, 'the brand is the draw' just sounds like an excuse for failure to me because I don't believe any major business would be that idiotic to adopt 'the brand sells itself' as a growth strategy. Then again, I guess you can't put anything past Vinnie Mac and co.

I think it's real only because of how hard Vince got burned on Brock leaving. He believes they can stop and start pushes whenever and people will remain as over, and it's not too absurd to believe he's so much of a mark for his own empire that he thinks WWE itself is the big selling point. When no full-timer but Cena can move the needle anymore, it sure as f*** looks like it anyway. I believe it is an excuse for failure, but the problem is that right now WWE is so incompetent and out of touch that they're super deep into believing their own excuses.

[Tea & Crumpets]

Aug 16, 2017 18:11:47 GMT -5 Reflecto said:

Aug 16, 2017 15:50:37 GMT -5 Mecca said:

Yet fans buy far fewer of them than ever before, being a maineventer and being pushed as a top of the line star are not the same thing. They make no one feel like they matter is my point.

But that's also a problem as well: The fans are the last piece of the puzzle that makes new stars, after the booking and performance. The fans can MAKE a star, even if they're a subpar worker or their booking is subpar, just by how the fans react to them.

If the fans buy into a babyface and put their hope behind them- you have a superstar.
If the fans buy into a heel and boo themselves hoarse for them- you have a vile villain to build around.
If that villain is so good at their job eventually the fans grow to respect and love them- that ends up making an icon of the industry.

Except this isn't really true. Daniel Bryan is a rare exception in that the reaction was SO overwhelming the WWE listened at WM30, but still never really went all in on him as we saw with everything that happened at the Rumble the next year.

The fans were super behind Cesaro after he won the first Andre Battle Royal, what happens? He, by Paul Heyman's own admission, is relegated to a prop for Heyman to come out and put over Lesnar. The fans got super behind him AGAIN with the Cesaro Section stuff, there were times he'd come out to huge reactions with a sea of those signs and people LOVED to watch him wrestle. What happened? Absolutely f***ing nothing. And sure you can say "Ah but he's a bad promo", and sure, he is, but I don't care because the fans didn't care. They bought into him as a guy who does his talking in the ring. And hell, that's the exact sort of guy you DO have people like Heyman around for to help but WWE and Heyman weren't interested in that.

The crowd have been itching to cheer Rusev, for nothing. The crowd used to be super behind Dolph Ziggler, Zack Ryder, what happened? WWE just kept teasing throwing the fans a bone, only to chump out the guys in question. Ryder was hot, he won the US Title, and then what? Kane happens, he's made to look like a total loser, and the fans give up on him. Ryder works hard, gets the fans invested in him AGAIN, wins the IC Title in a shock upset to a huge reaction, and then what? Immediately loses it again and relegated to Mojo f***ing Rawley's support act. Ziggler's had it happen time & again.

WWE tease giving fans a bone with their favourites, then immediately pull the rug out from under them once the guy gets his opportunity, make him look like a total f***ing loser, and crush the fans' optimism and investment in one move. And then do it again if the guy rallies the audience again. And again. I guarantee they'd have fed Bryan to Lesnar and that'd have been the end of him. They built the entire Rumble around his comeback and he got chucked halfway through. It's legitimately like they're goading the fans, BECAUSE they know that they have no competition, and that by doing this, no guy can become bigger than the system or become big enough to be a serious threat should he jump to a rival.

To give a current example, take New Japan's recent G1 tournament (keeping spoilers to a minimum in case anyody still hasn't seen it). WWE booking it would never have had the same winner, regardless of crowd support, because his face legitimately didn't fit for a long while. WWE would have probably had one of the old guard win because they live on nostalgia and 'dream matches' that we've often already seen multiple times on free TV. The shock upsets? No way would they have booked them, certainly not clean.

WWE pick the level any talent can or will rise to, and don't deviate from that, because the reality is they don't HAVE to. Sure, business is down on years ago, and will continue to drop, but they're unlikely to actually start losing money, because they ARE wrestling in America, for most people, and each time profits drop they can just scale back or cut talents and stabilise it.

[eJm]

The only thing I will disagree with the above post about is that...

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}Naito still would have won the tourney if WWE were booking it mostly because by all accounts, he's the biggest merch mover in the company so they probably would have gone with it.

besides that, complete agreement and it goes back to Bryan Alverez's heat argument from a month or so back.

[Tea & Crumpets]

Aug 17, 2017 4:37:08 GMT -5 eJm said:

The only thing I will disagree with the above post about is that...

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler}{Spoiler}Naito still would have won the tourney if WWE were booking it mostly because by all accounts, he's the biggest merch mover in the company so they probably would have gone with it.

besides that, complete agreement and it goes back to Bryan Alverez's heat argument from a month or so back.

Ahhh, see I thought

SPOILER: Click to show

{Spoiler} Bullet Club were the biggest merch movers, followed by LIJ, but Naito got the hottest live reactions

.

Also, further to the point about some guys being almost deliberately misused that I forgot to mention- you had Ric f***ing Flair offering to manage Cesaro for a program against Brock. Foley, Austin, crying out for WWE to push the guy to the main event, because of how hot he was. Right now, with Nakamura, you've got a lot of respected vets questioning what the hell WWE are doing with him and the way they're presenting him, and how this is just cooling him off something fierce. Respected industry veterans are in agreement that WWE tends to not book to what the audience wants, but what they want the audience to want. In that environment, you won't become a star if WWE don't want you to be, plain and simple. And it makes me desperately wish there was another WCW level threat because then maybe the fans wouldn't have to essentially hijack shows to get thrown a bone once in a while.

[The Thread Barbi]

Aug 16, 2017 17:33:47 GMT -5 Big Poppa Pumpkin said:

I don't know, 'the brand is the draw' just sounds like an excuse for failure to me because I don't believe any major business would be that idiotic to adopt 'the brand sells itself' as a growth strategy. Then again, I guess you can't put anything past Vinnie Mac and co.

I think it's the McDonald's model of business. The Big Mac is the star, but isn't bigger than the McDonald's name.

It isn't even beef in a large markets like India, but the brand is successful.

[Super Duper Dragunov]

Aug 16, 2017 16:03:33 GMT -5 MrElijah said:

I say Brock leaving was the straw that broke the back. He was given everything. He goes over Taker, Hogan, Flair and The Rock in the same calendar year. Then he says, after 2 years, I'm done. That was your catalyst there.

Yup, this is the exact thing I reference anytime this subject is brought up.

Brock did a psychological number on Vince. From not making anyone bigger than the product itself, to going to that "one end all be all" company guy that he knows won't leave him.

He's like a jilted ex-lover who never got over that time they had their heart broke for the last time.

Thus the birth of Cena, Super Cena, and wrestling has been stagnant (with small glimpses of greatness that soon get trampled out) ever since.

The roster they have now should easily be a new boom type period for them.