|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Feb 25, 2019 10:50:26 GMT -5
With all the discussion about AEW starting up, signing all this talent and potentially providing competition to WWE, I've heard people mention them wanting to see another boom period on the level of the late 1990's, the ten million viewer mark of Attitude. Is that even possible in this era of media?
WWE didn't have to compete with YouTube, Twitch and the easy availability of non-WWE wrestling products streaming online back in 1999. Online video was of poor quality those days. Video games weren't as cinematic and detailed twenty years ago, and online gaming/e-sports (big business today) were in early stages. There was no widespread DVR, no Netflix or easy phone streaming, let alone the increasingly high-quality shows available on services like YouTube Originals, Hulu, Amazon, etc. IMO. Wrestling's got way more entertainment competition to contend with now.
I'm not trying to make excuses for WWE's product issues. Yes, Raw sucks more often than not. There's plenty of things they can do to grow their business and get better crowds. I agree they need to let the wrestlers be more spontaneous in promos, they have to cut an hour off RAW because it can get tedious. They do need to push younger talent stronger and not overproduce them or the camera work, and be less tone-deaf in their narratives. But even if WWE does all those things, improves Raw vastly and catches fire with screaming crowds every week, I don't know if Attitude-level numbers can be reached with how people consume TV these days.
If AEW gets hot, and WWE responds in kind with better booked Raws/Smackdowns and well-pushed new stars, I'm starting to believe the new boom number is 5,000,000 viewers- if that. It's not that wrestling is dying, it's a diverse entertainment form that's cost-effective to produce. I think WWE and the business as a whole will be fine- in spite of WWE's stagnation, it IS growing outside of Titan Towers. But all of the entertainment world and pop culture is gradually becoming more "niche" in the same way pro wrestling is, so I'm starting to think there might be a ceiling of viewership that wouldn't necessarily be an indictment on their creative process.
|
|
|
Post by ANuclearError on Feb 25, 2019 12:31:35 GMT -5
WWE have also had to sorta shoot themselves in the foot at this juncture by the need to upload stuff to Youtube as well for engagement. Why on earth would a fan like me in the UK bother paying for Sky Sports when all the good bits are on Youtube?
Media is going through a somewhat uncomfortable period across the board really, the landscape in 5-10 years will likely be unrecognisable to now, but god knows how.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Feb 25, 2019 12:39:58 GMT -5
It's a mixed bag; I think the way entertainment works definitely creates a situation where the numbers of 20 years ago are unattainable and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. To the hard numbers end of things, the stronger indicator would be an actual spike in ratings rather than a steady annual decline. But at the same time, the modern entertainment landscape has a lot going for it in WWE's favour than it did 20 years ago, albeit in other ways. Television is being taken seriously more and more as something mainstream and capable of top quality. Movie stars try to get major TV roles because they're seen as equally high-profile. When a show can become a phenomenon, even if it doesn't have ALL THE WORLD WATCHING, it gets the kind of buzz people say nothing has right now. Wrestlng has a strong built-in fanbase already talking about it, something most other shows would kill for; if it could put out a stronger product that conversation would turn even larger and create the kind of buzz that draws people in.
A boom period for WWE would look very different to what happened during the Attitude Era, but in so many ways the landscape is better equipped to handle it and to make capitalizing on that success possible.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Feb 25, 2019 13:26:08 GMT -5
It's a mixed bag; I think the way entertainment works definitely creates a situation where the numbers of 20 years ago are unattainable and I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. To the hard numbers end of things, the stronger indicator would be an actual spike in ratings rather than a steady annual decline. But at the same time, the modern entertainment landscape has a lot going for it in WWE's favour than it did 20 years ago, albeit in other ways. Television is being taken seriously more and more as something mainstream and capable of top quality. Movie stars try to get major TV roles because they're seen as equally high-profile. When a show can become a phenomenon, even if it doesn't have ALL THE WORLD WATCHING, it gets the kind of buzz people say nothing has right now. Wrestlng has a strong built-in fanbase already talking about it, something most other shows would kill for; if it could put out a stronger product that conversation would turn even larger and create the kind of buzz that draws people in. A boom period for WWE would look very different to what happened during the Attitude Era, but in so many ways the landscape is better equipped to handle it and to make capitalizing on that success possible. This is pretty much how I see it. AEW would obviously benefit from a strong TV deal, as would WWE if they could bring an exciting Smackdown product to Fox. But even if everything goes right, I'm saying that due to how media operates in this period, it wouldn't be a mark of failure if the peak numbers didn't equal past periods where the WWE wasn't among such a vast sea of entertainment choices. And as of now, they're above their early/mid 90's lows in terms of visibility due in part to that built-in fanbase. It's easy to look at the chart showing Raw's yearly declines and armchair-book all sorts of what-ifs to reverse the trend, but I still believe there are external factors beyond creative efforts dragging the line down. There are plenty of opportunities in this landscape for the business to keep expanding as it has the past few years, but there is a 90% chance the peak will look different, yes.
|
|
|
Post by David-Arquette was in WCW 2000 on Feb 25, 2019 15:42:51 GMT -5
It all seems a bit contradictory. Yes, streaming will have affected viewership, yet somehow WWE can still get massive money for what seems like a more and more archaic way of watching TV.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Feb 25, 2019 15:48:34 GMT -5
It all seems a bit contradictory. Yes, streaming will have affected viewership, yet somehow WWE can still get massive money for what seems like a more and more archaic way of watching TV. Well, the easiest way of answering that is looking at the channels paying them that much. USA are losing Mr. Robot and Suits this year so the only thing they really have to carry the Network, and arguably have for years, is WWE Raw on Mondays. And since nobody else really wants to take it off their hands, USA is willing to pay WWE high amounts to keep it. FOX are about to lose the rights to a big chunk of their programming with the Disney deal, along with their spin off channels, to retain the stuff that does make more money (FOX Sports and FOX News) along with stuff like Legion ending this year so they need content to have as their own. They ended the UFC deal (to Disney with ESPN) and need something they see as DVR Proof And has a consistent audience. Enter WWE Smackdown. tl;dr - This is two networks with desperate reasons to keep their spots or to gain a side audience from advertising that they can actually have instead of on shows they don’t own anymore.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,604
|
Post by cjh on Feb 25, 2019 15:55:31 GMT -5
It all seems a bit contradictory. Yes, streaming will have affected viewership, yet somehow WWE can still get massive money for what seems like a more and more archaic way of watching TV. Well, the easiest way of answering that is looking at the channels paying them that much. USA are losing Mr. Robot and Suits this year so the only thing they really have to carry the Network, and arguably have for years, is WWE Raw on Mondays. And since nobody else really wants to take it off their hands, USA is willing to pay WWE high amounts to keep it. FOX are about to lose the rights to a big chunk of their programming with the Disney deal, along with their spin off channels, to retain the stuff that does make more money (FOX Sports and FOX News) along with stuff like Legion ending this year so they need content to have as their own. They ended the UFC deal (to Disney with ESPN) and need something they see as DVR Proof And has a consistent audience. Enter WWE Smackdown. tl;dr - This is two networks with desperate reasons to keep their spots or to gain a side audience from advertising that they can actually have instead of on shows they don’t own anymore. Fox doesn't have to own things to continue airing them. They renewed Family Guy and The Simpsons for the 2019-2020 season even though Disney is buying 21st Century Fox.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Feb 25, 2019 15:56:58 GMT -5
Well, the easiest way of answering that is looking at the channels paying them that much. USA are losing Mr. Robot and Suits this year so the only thing they really have to carry the Network, and arguably have for years, is WWE Raw on Mondays. And since nobody else really wants to take it off their hands, USA is willing to pay WWE high amounts to keep it. FOX are about to lose the rights to a big chunk of their programming with the Disney deal, along with their spin off channels, to retain the stuff that does make more money (FOX Sports and FOX News) along with stuff like Legion ending this year so they need content to have as their own. They ended the UFC deal (to Disney with ESPN) and need something they see as DVR Proof And has a consistent audience. Enter WWE Smackdown. tl;dr - This is two networks with desperate reasons to keep their spots or to gain a side audience from advertising that they can actually have instead of on shows they don’t own anymore. Fox doesn't have to own things to continue airing them. They renewed Family Guy and The Simpsons for the 2019-2020 season even though Disney is buying 21st Century Fox. That’s what I mean, worded it weirdly so apologies. They can screen it but unless the terms of the deals are good, they can’t make much from it.
|
|
Lt. Palumbo
Hank Scorpio
On again off again watcher of a wrestling TV show
Posts: 6,067
|
Post by Lt. Palumbo on Feb 26, 2019 10:00:10 GMT -5
I dunno. Streaming, etc. should surely cut into other shows too. But top viewed shows like Young Sheldon, Roseanne, Bull (I don't know what that is), Big Bang Theory, etc. still got substantial viewership in 2018 Roseanne may be the best example to look at as it aired in both the pre-widespread internet era and now. Average viewership for the final 90's season of the show was about 15.9 million. Average viewership for the reboot was about 13.5 million. I'm using en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roseanne_episodes to arrive at these averages. Granted, both pale in comparison to peak Roseanne which regularly drew 30 million+, but for those sort of numbers you're looking at late 80's/early 90's, the early seasons. Granted you could chalk some of the success of the reboot up to novelty, nostalgia, etc. But then you could point to other big shows drawing those numbers. Maybe it's not fair to compare WWE to those show, I dunno. Although in WWE's mind that's their competition so maybe it's fair. Edit: Then again, I'm only looking at shows with high viewership. It occurred to me after to take a look at modern Simpsons viewership and it seems Raw does only marginally worse than modern Simpsons. Which seems about right. Two shows that have been around forever and have been going through the motions since the early 2000's
|
|
beefy
Trap-Jaw
OHHH YESSSSSSS
Posts: 450
|
Post by beefy on Feb 26, 2019 12:31:30 GMT -5
It occurred to me after to take a look at modern Simpsons viewership and it seems Raw does only marginally worse than modern Simpsons. Which seems about right. Two shows that have been around forever and have been going through the motions since the early 2000's Yeah, the Simpsons and WWE are both "TV fossils" compared to other properties. Staying even mildly relevant and consistent seems to be the biggest concerns to both. Wrestling is never going to have a stranglehold on pop culture again, but it's just relevant enough to get the attention of around 2-4 million people per week. It's no longer a struggle against buyrates and tickets; it's a struggle to maintain relevancy in the age of easily-consumable media. To their end, WWE is doing okay. I don't think a "new boom period" is coming, unless there's a major format change to wrestling and it's television programming--and even then, the "boom" would be to the tune of "X million tweets and views on YT" rather than any ratings boost.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Feb 26, 2019 16:20:26 GMT -5
I dunno. Streaming, etc. should surely cut into other shows too. But top viewed shows like Young Sheldon, Roseanne, Bull (I don't know what that is), Big Bang Theory, etc. still got substantial viewership in 2018 Roseanne may be the best example to look at as it aired in both the pre-widespread internet era and now. Average viewership for the final 90's season of the show was about 15.9 million. Average viewership for the reboot was about 13.5 million. I'm using en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roseanne_episodes to arrive at these averages. Granted, both pale in comparison to peak Roseanne which regularly drew 30 million+, but for those sort of numbers you're looking at late 80's/early 90's, the early seasons. Granted you could chalk some of the success of the reboot up to novelty, nostalgia, etc. But then you could point to other big shows drawing those numbers. But that's the thing. TV, like movies and music, is becoming gentrified. You have mega-successful stuff at the top and then nothing in the middle and then everything that either only exists online or doesn't get watched and tanks. Movies are making more money than every, but it's like four movies a year that do that while shitloads of others barely break even. Drake is having Number 1 after Number 1, but in a time where any #2 single from 1994 would have sold enough to top the charts for weeks these days.
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Feb 26, 2019 16:37:25 GMT -5
I dunno. Streaming, etc. should surely cut into other shows too. But top viewed shows like Young Sheldon, Roseanne, Bull (I don't know what that is), Big Bang Theory, etc. still got substantial viewership in 2018 Roseanne may be the best example to look at as it aired in both the pre-widespread internet era and now. Average viewership for the final 90's season of the show was about 15.9 million. Average viewership for the reboot was about 13.5 million. I'm using en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roseanne_episodes to arrive at these averages. Granted, both pale in comparison to peak Roseanne which regularly drew 30 million+, but for those sort of numbers you're looking at late 80's/early 90's, the early seasons. Granted you could chalk some of the success of the reboot up to novelty, nostalgia, etc. But then you could point to other big shows drawing those numbers. Maybe it's not fair to compare WWE to those show, I dunno. Although in WWE's mind that's their competition so maybe it's fair. Edit: Then again, I'm only looking at shows with high viewership. It occurred to me after to take a look at modern Simpsons viewership and it seems Raw does only marginally worse than modern Simpsons. Which seems about right. Two shows that have been around forever and have been going through the motions since the early 2000's I'm not sure it's a fair comparison really. Wrestling is weird because you can not watch Raw but then see what Balor or Becky did on youtube the next day. I'm not saying it's costing them 10 million viewers or anything but on those other shows you really need to watch the whole thing to enjoy it rather than like a 3 minute edit of what Moe was up to the night before. Also things like the Simpsons are only 22 minutes long anyway and not 3 f***ing hours so people might be more inclined to tune in.
|
|
Lt. Palumbo
Hank Scorpio
On again off again watcher of a wrestling TV show
Posts: 6,067
|
Post by Lt. Palumbo on Feb 26, 2019 17:20:39 GMT -5
I dunno. Streaming, etc. should surely cut into other shows too. But top viewed shows like Young Sheldon, Roseanne, Bull (I don't know what that is), Big Bang Theory, etc. still got substantial viewership in 2018 Roseanne may be the best example to look at as it aired in both the pre-widespread internet era and now. Average viewership for the final 90's season of the show was about 15.9 million. Average viewership for the reboot was about 13.5 million. I'm using en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roseanne_episodes to arrive at these averages. Granted, both pale in comparison to peak Roseanne which regularly drew 30 million+, but for those sort of numbers you're looking at late 80's/early 90's, the early seasons. Granted you could chalk some of the success of the reboot up to novelty, nostalgia, etc. But then you could point to other big shows drawing those numbers. Maybe it's not fair to compare WWE to those show, I dunno. Although in WWE's mind that's their competition so maybe it's fair. Edit: Then again, I'm only looking at shows with high viewership. It occurred to me after to take a look at modern Simpsons viewership and it seems Raw does only marginally worse than modern Simpsons. Which seems about right. Two shows that have been around forever and have been going through the motions since the early 2000's I'm not sure it's a fair comparison really. Wrestling is weird because you can not watch Raw but then see what Balor or Becky did on youtube the next day. I'm not saying it's costing them 10 million viewers or anything but on those other shows you really need to watch the whole thing to enjoy it rather than like a 3 minute edit of what Moe was up to the night before. Also things like the Simpsons are only 22 minutes long anyway and not 3 f***ing hours so people might be more inclined to tune in. That's fair. But it also brings up another ratings perennial. American football, which strictly speaking you could just catch the highlights of too. Again, not quite the same but similar
|
|
Pushed to the Moon
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Tony Schiavone in Disguise
Working myself into a shoot
Posts: 15,819
|
Post by Pushed to the Moon on Feb 26, 2019 17:59:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure it's a fair comparison really. Wrestling is weird because you can not watch Raw but then see what Balor or Becky did on youtube the next day. I'm not saying it's costing them 10 million viewers or anything but on those other shows you really need to watch the whole thing to enjoy it rather than like a 3 minute edit of what Moe was up to the night before. Also things like the Simpsons are only 22 minutes long anyway and not 3 f***ing hours so people might be more inclined to tune in. That's fair. But it also brings up another ratings perennial. American football, which strictly speaking you could just catch the highlights of too. Again, not quite the same but similar Yeah I guess but again it's the weird thing about wrestling compared to "real" sports where it's live but it's still like a regular TV show in the sense that you don't feel like you're missing out if you don't watch as it airs. At least I don't anyway. Maybe I'm used to it since I'm in England and watch the majority of wrestling the next day anyway since it's on in the dead of night but I don't feel like it lessens the experience. There's something about real sports that makes you feel you need to watch it as it happens. If I was American I'd always record Raw if there was another sporting event at the same time I wanted to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Feb 28, 2019 9:00:28 GMT -5
That's fair. But it also brings up another ratings perennial. American football, which strictly speaking you could just catch the highlights of too. Again, not quite the same but similar Yeah I guess but again it's the weird thing about wrestling compared to "real" sports where it's live but it's still like a regular TV show in the sense that you don't feel like you're missing out if you don't watch as it airs. At least I don't anyway. Maybe I'm used to it since I'm in England and watch the majority of wrestling the next day anyway since it's on in the dead of night but I don't feel like it lessens the experience. There's something about real sports that makes you feel you need to watch it as it happens. If I was American I'd always record Raw if there was another sporting event at the same time I wanted to watch. The pro wrestling audience and the football audience are remarkably different in that regard, which is why I never understood why the NFL was always the measuring stick for WWE’s ratings. Wrestling fans enjoy the sporting aspects as well as the characters and stories. We practically all know it’s a pre determined show but we like to lose ourselves in the narratives and simulated competition anyway. Both fans consume their products very differently, and more so than ever today.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Feb 28, 2019 9:07:43 GMT -5
Yeah I guess but again it's the weird thing about wrestling compared to "real" sports where it's live but it's still like a regular TV show in the sense that you don't feel like you're missing out if you don't watch as it airs. At least I don't anyway. Maybe I'm used to it since I'm in England and watch the majority of wrestling the next day anyway since it's on in the dead of night but I don't feel like it lessens the experience. There's something about real sports that makes you feel you need to watch it as it happens. If I was American I'd always record Raw if there was another sporting event at the same time I wanted to watch. The pro wrestling audience and the football audience are remarkably different in that regard, which is why I never understood why the NFL was always the measuring stick for WWE’s ratings. Wrestling fans enjoy the sporting aspects as well as the characters and stories. We practically all know it’s a pre determined show but we like to lose ourselves in the narratives and simulated competition anyway. Both fans consume their products very differently, and more so than ever today. Also to mention that even during the Monday Night Wars, neither WWF or WCW came anywhere near peak Monday Night Football ratings which both says that a substantial audience stayed with the shows but also that, especially at the time, this audiences were different like you said.
|
|
|
Post by thegame415 on Feb 28, 2019 13:15:59 GMT -5
We live in a weird time where I think wrestling is more popular than it was ten years ago, but the ratings and attendance don't really reflect it.
|
|
|
Post by CertifiedBA on Feb 28, 2019 18:46:03 GMT -5
We live in a weird time where I think wrestling is more popular than it was ten years ago, but the ratings and attendance don't really reflect it. The independents are better and more popular than 10 years ago, but WWE is still the bastard of the entertainment industry. Try sitting through a 3 hour show with a non-fan and don't cringe....it's impossible, and mildly embarrassing.
|
|
|
Post by prichardmark on Feb 28, 2019 19:54:25 GMT -5
How do you explain declining house show attendance/weekly TV show attendance and declining merch sales? The product is subpar at best. No one is drawing. Theres no "must see" guy. No one is remotely interested in the WWE except mainly diehard fans that will watch no matter how crappy the product gets.
If there was any remote interest in the product, they would be GLUED to RAW/Smackown live and WWE would be the "water cooler" talk.
There probably will never be a boom period again. There really aren't any superstars being made anymore. Its even more apparent in WWE.
The OVW Class of 2002 is still headlining for god sakes. They haven't made a superstar since those guys. LOL. Bryan/Punk were the closest but they boogered their runs all up with booking idiocy. Punk was probably the closest to taking them into the next popular period as the New Austin going up against McMahon but that was ruined with booking changes (Taking out Vince and throwing HHH/Nash in there)
I don't care how much money gets pumped into NXT and attempting to create new superstars. NONE are being created (Its why after almost 20 years theres still relying on Cena, Batista, Lesnar, etc. Even and HHH, Taker etc. as "headlines" for Mania at 50 years old).
To have a popular TV product, you need SuperStars. There aren't any now.
They're getting by on Saudi and TV deals. (For now) Not based on the quality of the product or creating new superstars.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Feb 28, 2019 21:45:45 GMT -5
How do you explain declining house show attendance/weekly TV show attendance and declining merch sales? The product is subpar at best. No one is drawing. Theres no "must see" guy. No one is remotely interested in the WWE except mainly diehard fans that will watch no matter how crappy the product gets. If there was any remote interest in the product, they would be GLUED to RAW/Smackown live and WWE would be the "water cooler" talk. There probably will never be a boom period again. There really aren't any superstars being made anymore. Its even more apparent in WWE. The OVW Class of 2002 is still headlining for god sakes. They haven't made a superstar since those guys. LOL. Bryan/Punk were the closest but they boogered their runs all up with booking idiocy. Punk was probably the closest to taking them into the next popular period as the New Austin going up against McMahon but that was ruined with booking changes (Taking out Vince and throwing HHH/Nash in there) I don't care how much money gets pumped into NXT and attempting to create new superstars. NONE are being created (Its why after almost 20 years theres still relying on Cena, Batista, Lesnar, etc. Even and HHH, Taker etc. as "headlines" for Mania at 50 years old). To have a popular TV product, you need SuperStars. There aren't any now. They're getting by on Saudi and TV deals. (For now) Not based on the quality of the product or creating new superstars. You’re forgetting the rise of the three Shield members, Styles and most recently the women’s division revival. Rousey, Charlotte and Becky are new main eventers at this point. Yes, Lesnar and Orton are still around, but Cena, HHH and Taker are special attractions who show up rarely. I’d say that era has been over. Also, repeating myself: “I’m not trying to make excuses for the issues with WWE’s product”. And there’s a huge difference between the business WWE is doing now and the absolute pits of WCW’s dying days, or TNA throughout much of its run. They’re losing the race in terms of buzz in the wrestling world today, but they’re not in danger of going out of business. No company that can get over 40,000, 60-70,000 people in a building at any point in a year is suffering that much. The boom NJPW, ROH, RevPro, AEW and everything else are enjoying is more a reflection of how amazing the independent scene had become than WWE’s issues. (And in retrospect, there are a lot of things about WWE’s product today that’s far better than Attitude, but that’s for another thread) Getting WWE’s buzz back up to the level of “water cooler talk” to a degree equal to Rock ‘n Wrestling or Attitude would require a titanic shift in how media in this country, rather the whole world, is produced. Like other posters mentioned, the video clips that WWE upload to YouTube are an easy way for fans to catch up with what’s going on storyline wise quick and easy. Which is why I do definitely think Raw should go back to two hour shows, because as much as wrestling fans love wrestling three hours is too much over saturation. But even if they convinced USA to forget about that ad revenue and shorten the show, there probably isn’t going to be a “new Austin” for a while (this includes Becky, and I don’t believe Punk would have hit that mark) regardless of who they push or book well because combat sports period is becoming more of a niche market, and all of those sports are trying to find themselves in this new media landscape. It’s not just pro wrestling, MMA is off from its commercial peak from a few years back. Boxing’s still looking for a new Tyson-level star in the wake of Mayweather winding down.
|
|