Unocal 76
King Koopa
Providing The Finest Oil
Posts: 12,687
|
Post by Unocal 76 on Sept 26, 2018 16:22:58 GMT -5
FitzMagic = Ratings
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Sept 26, 2018 16:26:35 GMT -5
See, there is a huge problem with Reigns. I can't really think of a decent match he has had all year. Maybe the one with Bob at the July PPV. The booking is something that WWE has themselves to blame however. They kept pulling the football away from Reigns over the past 3 years to the point where fans became conditioned to see him as a failure, but now he's supposed to be an unbeatable champion. There's really nothing in his work that justifies his push. What is scary is that the reactions to all of these guys are waning. The heated hate for Reigns has subsided but now he mostly just has lukewarm heat. Strowman has been killed off here, though that one is fixable by having him just destroy Ziggler and McIntyre one week and moving on. The big problem is I see nothing Raw is building to for the future. What is Raw's main WM match? Also Seth and Dean were getting hugely over away from this mess, now they're not really The Shield, they're just Roman's buddies, pretty clearly under him. Yep. Exactly what I said in the thread I made a week ago or so. I hate this version of the Shield with a passion. Ambrose & Rollins are so clearly beneath Reigns at this point that it just makes it look like “Reigns & Friends” not an actual equal group. I can’t stand the way they book Reigns with a passion. It’s even making me not like Rollins & Ambrose much anymore since they look so bad having to help Reigns all the time & looking like idiots in the process. I’ll still never understand why their characters don’t want the world title themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Toilet Paper Roll on Sept 26, 2018 16:27:26 GMT -5
One of the many problems is there’s no ending to any story. I mean guys start fueding, have some matches, do something else with somebody else that is pretty much the same thing they just did with the last guy and then they probably feud again somewhere down the line.
Nothing of consequence happens
Matches are meaningless because there’s always another shot
The WWE tell the fans what they’re going to like and not the other way around.
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Sept 26, 2018 16:36:41 GMT -5
One of the many problems is there’s no ending to any story. I mean guys start fueding, have some matches, do something else with somebody else that is pretty much the same thing they just did with the last guy and then they probably feud again somewhere down the line. Nothing of consequence happens Matches are meaningless because there’s always another shot The WWE tell the fans what they’re going to like and not the other way around. They don’t have to listen to the fans ever for at least the next 5 years due to all the money they’re getting from the FOX deal. There’s just no consequences that they’ll face if they do everything the way they want. It’ll be interesting to see what they do for their big shows 10-15 years though when they can’t rely on the older stars anymore. They won’t have Taker, Triple H, HBK, Rock or Lesnar to rely on anymore maybe even 5 years from now let alone 10-15.
|
|
Perd
Patti Mayonnaise
Leslie needs to butt out for fear of receiving The Bunghole Buster
Posts: 31,991
|
Post by Perd on Sept 26, 2018 16:58:29 GMT -5
I agree that they don’t have to listen to fans. But that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t. Wrestling has an advantage that most forms of entertainment do not, true instaneous feedback. The generally know, instantly, what their audience likes and what they don’t. I’d think you’d want to seize on that advantage. At the very least, you’d think they’d care about aesthetics. You’d think they’d want their chosen one to be cheered at the biggest shows of the year. But they clearly don’t care.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Sept 26, 2018 17:04:11 GMT -5
I think the reason stories never end anymore is because no one ever leaves. Seriously, doesn't it feel like WWE just keeps people around way past their sell by date? I think that's what makes old territory wrestling interesting to go back and watch, since guys are constantly coming in and leaving while a few key pieces remain. It really prevents the promotion from being stale.
|
|
|
Post by psychokiller on Sept 26, 2018 17:07:02 GMT -5
I agree that they don’t have to listen to fans. But that doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t. Wrestling has an advantage that most forms of entertainment do not, true instaneous feedback. The generally know, instantly, what their audience likes and what they don’t. I’d think you’d want to seize on that advantage. At the very least, you’d think they’d care about aesthetics. You’d think they’d want their chosen one to be cheered at the biggest shows of the year. But they clearly don’t care. They won’t listen ever at this point. If they did listen Reigns would have had a big change long ago. They’re just coasting along these days on their TV deals & the Saudi Arabia shows while everything else is secondary in terms of making money. It makes for a real terrible product most of the time but Vince is old now & doesn’t care to put in the effort like he did years ago since he doesn’t have to.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 26, 2018 18:02:51 GMT -5
Fox can't be looking at these ratings and going "Yeah...this will be a sound investment for us." Smackdown was #1 for the night in the 18-49 demo last night, as it is most weeks. I doubt Fox is sweating it too much. To reiterate something that comes up a lot in these threads, being #1 only counts for so much if it doesn't come with heavy duty advertising dollars, a problem that has historically dogged televised pro wrestling, WWE included. Perhaps WWE will enter into its new contracts, SD goes to Fox, and the type of market they draw ends up bringing in a viewership with higher than average disposable income, but there's just as much a chance that it doesn't quite get to that point. I always say that I don't think WWE's going to drop off TV any time soon or anything, any show that steadily draws +2 million people a week will have a place, but it's entirely possible that Fox will see which demographics they're drawing and say "Wait, this isn't worth what we paid", leading to a situation where the next TV contract is lower than what they're going to get now. WWE as you know it now exists in large part because of its current business structure of TV contracts; yes, the Network is a big factor going forward, but the TV contracts are a massive part of what allows WWE to be the enormous octopus with tentacles all over the place: the gigantic roster, the many smaller shows, etc. If that changes then WWE won't die, but WWE as you know it now will greatly change. So yeah, sheer numbers are good, and will likely guarantee them a spot on TV in some capacity, but who is watching is key to determining their value. Good point, and it's a problem that goes back to around the end of WCW, when WWF became the only big game in town. The "golden age" of the WWF, circa the mid 80s through early 90s, was an era where Hulk Hogan was on top of the heap for about eight years, a run where he only showed up on free TV every so often, only wrestling in the ring for big shows like Saturday Night's Main Event and pay per views. In today's era, John Cena was on top of the promotion for over a decade, and outside of injuries and an occasional TV/movie project he was on free TV giving long promos and wrestling long matches almost every week. Ultimate Warrior, one of the biggest stars in the promotion's history? Late 1987-1992. Jake Roberts? Circa 1986-1992. Mr. Perfect: about late 1988-1991, then about '92-'93. Ted DiBiase: around 1988-1994. Even Bret Hart, whose run was around 1985-1997, at least had major differences in his run, spending about half his time with Jim Niedhart and the other half singles, so he didn't get stale. These guys are among the biggest legends and most memorable characters in the promotion's history, yet by 1992 Vince was fretting that they were getting "old" (at least in terms of "TV age") and wanted to move toward the New Generation, shift people like DiBiase into tag teams and then into managerial roles, someone like Savage to the commentary table, etc. Obviously, it was a different era: these guys were already a bit older, having come out of the territory system before coming to New York, so their time on top was going to be limited, regardless. But these guys showed up less often on TV, wrestled fewer TV matches, usually did promos that were limited to only a couple of minutes at a time, maybe less, didn't have social media to keep people thinking about them all the time even off the air...and Vince still got to '92 saying "I've got to change the roster up", even beyond just the guys he was concerned about over steroids. Now? Again, Cena was on top of the promotion for over a decade. Roman's run at the top is already longer than the Ultimate Warrior's. Miz has been around forever. These guys aren't failures or anything, but they haven't come close to making the same type of impacts, they're not in the same type of rarified air and likely never really will be, not really through any major fault of their own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 18:21:38 GMT -5
Smackdown was #1 for the night in the 18-49 demo last night, as it is most weeks. I doubt Fox is sweating it too much. To reiterate something that comes up a lot in these threads, being #1 only counts for so much if it doesn't come with heavy duty advertising dollars, a problem that has historically dogged televised pro wrestling, WWE included. I'm sure Fox did their due diligence before throwing a billion dollars at WWE. If WWE reached a richer audience, they probably would have gotten an offer worth multiple billions of dollars. $200 million per year for two hours of year round content is still a pretty low amount compared to a lot of things on tv. There are sports teams getting close to that amount of money just for local broadcasts.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Sept 26, 2018 18:32:22 GMT -5
To reiterate something that comes up a lot in these threads, being #1 only counts for so much if it doesn't come with heavy duty advertising dollars, a problem that has historically dogged televised pro wrestling, WWE included. I'm sure Fox did their due diligence before throwing a billion dollars at WWE. If WWE reached a richer audience, they probably would have gotten an offer worth multiple billions of dollars. $200 million per year for two hours of year round content is still a pretty low amount compared to a lot of things on tv. There are sports teams getting close to that amount of money just for local broadcasts. Certainly, but what's their limit? Obviously we can't know the internal thinking of Fox, but given how steep the declines have been for WWE over the years and particularly recently, what happens if things get down to 1.5 million a week before the deal hits the midway point, with no sign of bounce back? The current deal still carries them through the end of its term, of course, but again does that value stay high for the next round of negotiations?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2018 18:57:55 GMT -5
I'm sure Fox did their due diligence before throwing a billion dollars at WWE. If WWE reached a richer audience, they probably would have gotten an offer worth multiple billions of dollars. $200 million per year for two hours of year round content is still a pretty low amount compared to a lot of things on tv. There are sports teams getting close to that amount of money just for local broadcasts. Certainly, but what's their limit? Obviously we can't know the internal thinking of Fox, but given how steep the declines have been for WWE over the years and particularly recently, what happens if things get down to 1.5 million a week before the deal hits the midway point, with no sign of bounce back? The current deal still carries them through the end of its term, of course, but again does that value stay high for the next round of negotiations? Everything is declining, that's how Raw and Smackdown are still among the most watched shows on their respective nights. If it gets to the point where networks have to significantly reduce their offers for popular shows, then the television industry as a whole will be in a lot of trouble. There's a reason WWE has been playing footsie with Facebook, their next "tv" deal may not be exclusively with a tv network as how people consume content continues to change. There are a lot of distribution platforms out there and they are all desperate for any vaguely popular DVR/ad block resistant content.
|
|
|
Post by benstudd on Sept 26, 2018 21:08:29 GMT -5
I think the reason stories never end anymore is because no one ever leaves. Seriously, doesn't it feel like WWE just keeps people around way past their sell by date? I think that's what makes old territory wrestling interesting to go back and watch, since guys are constantly coming in and leaving while a few key pieces remain. It really prevents the promotion from being stale. We still need Ted Turner, buddy.
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Sept 28, 2018 8:59:01 GMT -5
When I think about it, how many Raw shows could you not watch and still not have missed anything important?
The show is the opposite of must watch TV. I don't know how much of that is laziness, going public, the USA network, no competition, or some combination.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Sept 28, 2018 9:26:41 GMT -5
How long before they hit the eternal 1.2 everyone laughed at TNA for?
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Sept 28, 2018 9:27:55 GMT -5
*whispers gently into your ears* Their product and style of wrestling is terrible and they’ve ran away their audience. I wonder if the Braun turn that killed his crowd reactions drove a section of the viewing audience away. I haven't watched a Raw live since, though I think we can also put that down to me fixing my insomnia instead of watching the cure for it.
|
|
|
Post by lavelleuk on Sept 28, 2018 9:46:52 GMT -5
Smackdown was #1 for the night in the 18-49 demo last night, as it is most weeks. I doubt Fox is sweating it too much. To reiterate something that comes up a lot in these threads, being #1 only counts for so much if it doesn't come with heavy duty advertising dollars, a problem that has historically dogged televised pro wrestling, WWE included. Perhaps WWE will enter into its new contracts, SD goes to Fox, and the type of market they draw ends up bringing in a viewership with higher than average disposable income, but there's just as much a chance that it doesn't quite get to that point. I always say that I don't think WWE's going to drop off TV any time soon or anything, any show that steadily draws +2 million people a week will have a place, but it's entirely possible that Fox will see which demographics they're drawing and say "Wait, this isn't worth what we paid", leading to a situation where the next TV contract is lower than what they're going to get now. WWE as you know it now exists in large part because of its current business structure of TV contracts; yes, the Network is a big factor going forward, but the TV contracts are a massive part of what allows WWE to be the enormous octopus with tentacles all over the place: the gigantic roster, the many smaller shows, etc. If that changes then WWE won't die, but WWE as you know it now will greatly change. So yeah, sheer numbers are good, and will likely guarantee them a spot on TV in some capacity, but who is watching is key to determining their value. Good point, and it's a problem that goes back to around the end of WCW, when WWF became the only big game in town. The "golden age" of the WWF, circa the mid 80s through early 90s, was an era where Hulk Hogan was on top of the heap for about eight years, a run where he only showed up on free TV every so often, only wrestling in the ring for big shows like Saturday Night's Main Event and pay per views. In today's era, John Cena was on top of the promotion for over a decade, and outside of injuries and an occasional TV/movie project he was on free TV giving long promos and wrestling long matches almost every week. Ultimate Warrior, one of the biggest stars in the promotion's history? Late 1987-1992. Jake Roberts? Circa 1986-1992. Mr. Perfect: about late 1988-1991, then about '92-'93. Ted DiBiase: around 1988-1994. Even Bret Hart, whose run was around 1985-1997, at least had major differences in his run, spending about half his time with Jim Niedhart and the other half singles, so he didn't get stale. These guys are among the biggest legends and most memorable characters in the promotion's history, yet by 1992 Vince was fretting that they were getting "old" (at least in terms of "TV age") and wanted to move toward the New Generation, shift people like DiBiase into tag teams and then into managerial roles, someone like Savage to the commentary table, etc. Obviously, it was a different era: these guys were already a bit older, having come out of the territory system before coming to New York, so their time on top was going to be limited, regardless. But these guys showed up less often on TV, wrestled fewer TV matches, usually did promos that were limited to only a couple of minutes at a time, maybe less, didn't have social media to keep people thinking about them all the time even off the air...and Vince still got to '92 saying "I've got to change the roster up", even beyond just the guys he was concerned about over steroids. Now? Again, Cena was on top of the promotion for over a decade. Roman's run at the top is already longer than the Ultimate Warrior's. Miz has been around forever. These guys aren't failures or anything, but they haven't come close to making the same type of impacts, they're not in the same type of rarified air and likely never really will be, not really through any major fault of their own. Just want to say what you said is exactly what I've been saying for years. I see people on here saying Miz and Kofi should be getting title runs, and it's fair enough if you think that, but I haven't watched properly in 5 or 6 years yet even then I felt they'd been around forever. As stupid as it sounds, part of the problem is the very thing people praise, how talented the roster is. In the old days you had someone pretty crap in the ring who could come in as an entertaining character, do a few feuds, lose, then be gone. The gimmick never got old and no one was sad they'd left as they weren't that good. I was watching when miz did the diva search and when Kofi had vignettes on ecw. I couldn't imagine caring about them after so long. Frasier was the greatest tv show of all time, in my opinion, yet that was on tv for less time than them two have (if you think that was 22 episodes rather than every week)
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,070
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Sept 28, 2018 9:56:19 GMT -5
To reiterate something that comes up a lot in these threads, being #1 only counts for so much if it doesn't come with heavy duty advertising dollars, a problem that has historically dogged televised pro wrestling, WWE included. Perhaps WWE will enter into its new contracts, SD goes to Fox, and the type of market they draw ends up bringing in a viewership with higher than average disposable income, but there's just as much a chance that it doesn't quite get to that point. I always say that I don't think WWE's going to drop off TV any time soon or anything, any show that steadily draws +2 million people a week will have a place, but it's entirely possible that Fox will see which demographics they're drawing and say "Wait, this isn't worth what we paid", leading to a situation where the next TV contract is lower than what they're going to get now. WWE as you know it now exists in large part because of its current business structure of TV contracts; yes, the Network is a big factor going forward, but the TV contracts are a massive part of what allows WWE to be the enormous octopus with tentacles all over the place: the gigantic roster, the many smaller shows, etc. If that changes then WWE won't die, but WWE as you know it now will greatly change. So yeah, sheer numbers are good, and will likely guarantee them a spot on TV in some capacity, but who is watching is key to determining their value. Good point, and it's a problem that goes back to around the end of WCW, when WWF became the only big game in town. The "golden age" of the WWF, circa the mid 80s through early 90s, was an era where Hulk Hogan was on top of the heap for about eight years, a run where he only showed up on free TV every so often, only wrestling in the ring for big shows like Saturday Night's Main Event and pay per views. In today's era, John Cena was on top of the promotion for over a decade, and outside of injuries and an occasional TV/movie project he was on free TV giving long promos and wrestling long matches almost every week. Ultimate Warrior, one of the biggest stars in the promotion's history? Late 1987-1992. Jake Roberts? Circa 1986-1992. Mr. Perfect: about late 1988-1991, then about '92-'93. Ted DiBiase: around 1988-1994. Even Bret Hart, whose run was around 1985-1997, at least had major differences in his run, spending about half his time with Jim Niedhart and the other half singles, so he didn't get stale. These guys are among the biggest legends and most memorable characters in the promotion's history, yet by 1992 Vince was fretting that they were getting "old" (at least in terms of "TV age") and wanted to move toward the New Generation, shift people like DiBiase into tag teams and then into managerial roles, someone like Savage to the commentary table, etc. Obviously, it was a different era: these guys were already a bit older, having come out of the territory system before coming to New York, so their time on top was going to be limited, regardless. But these guys showed up less often on TV, wrestled fewer TV matches, usually did promos that were limited to only a couple of minutes at a time, maybe less, didn't have social media to keep people thinking about them all the time even off the air...and Vince still got to '92 saying "I've got to change the roster up", even beyond just the guys he was concerned about over steroids. Now? Again, Cena was on top of the promotion for over a decade. Roman's run at the top is already longer than the Ultimate Warrior's. Miz has been around forever. These guys aren't failures or anything, but they haven't come close to making the same type of impacts, they're not in the same type of rarified air and likely never really will be, not really through any major fault of their own. Just want to say what you said is exactly what I've been saying for years. I see people on here saying Miz and Kofi should be getting title runs, and it's fair enough if you think that, but I haven't watched properly in 5 or 6 years yet even then I felt they'd been around forever. As stupid as it sounds, part of the problem is the very thing people praise, how talented the roster is. In the old days you had someone pretty crap in the ring who could come in as an entertaining character, do a few feuds, lose, then be gone. The gimmick never got old and no one was sad they'd left as they weren't that good. I was watching when miz did the diva search and when Kofi had vignettes on ecw. I couldn't imagine caring about them after so long. Frasier was the greatest tv show of all time, in my opinion, yet that was on tv for less time than them two have (if you think that was 22 episodes rather than every week) I think it can be done though, as long as the characters don't stay the same. Taking your Frasier example, he was a midcarder for 9 years, then main evented for another 11. How long do various top level soap characters last? And they can have even more exposure per week than wrestlers. It's all about the storylines and how they're used.
|
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,174
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Sept 28, 2018 15:21:56 GMT -5
The thing to remember about the Fox deal is that $4 million dollars is a pretty cheap price for filling two hours of prime time programming.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Sept 28, 2018 15:48:07 GMT -5
I think the reason stories never end anymore is because no one ever leaves. Eight of the wrestlers from WM33 (2017) are no longer with the company, and that doesn't include the inactives or once-a-years.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Sept 28, 2018 15:50:19 GMT -5
The thing to remember about the Fox deal is that $4 million dollars is a pretty cheap price for filling two hours of prime time programming. $4 million? Dude, Fox paid over A BILLION for five years. That's $200 million a year, not $4.
|
|