Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 22:13:30 GMT -5
It's their own fault. If Raw and Smackdown were must-see tv, people would watch it live.
In the 90's during the boom period the Internet existed, people played video games, and people could still record something on tv with a VCR and watch it later. People didn't want to though. People CHOSE to watch Raw and Nitro live because it was exciting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Mar 1, 2019 1:25:03 GMT -5
It's their own fault. If Raw and Smackdown were must-see tv, people would watch it live. In the 90's during the boom period the Internet existed, people played video games, and people could still record something on tv with a VCR and watch it later. People didn't want to though. People CHOSE to watch Raw and Nitro live because it was exciting. The idea of “Must see TV” in the 90’s and 2010s aren’t the same thing, and neither are people’s priorities in terms of TV viewing. It’s impossible for pro wrestling not to be impacted by that in some fashion, and I think it impacts it in a manner beyond booking or workrate. As much as video distribution helped wrestling in the 80s/90s, the VCR isn’t a good example to debunk that theory because it’s nowhere as convenient or reliably easy a method for most people to use today to record weekly shows than digital technology, which has changed everything. Also, gaming is a much, much bigger and more influential industry than it was twenty, thirty years ago, as is the internet’s influence on everyone’s viewing habits. They’ve help to re-alter the landscape of entertainment, period. |
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 41,949
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Mar 1, 2019 1:31:14 GMT -5
Well of course, why would I waste 3 hours watching something as tedious as Raw when I can just watch Youtube and anything remotely important is going to be on there? If it makes Youtube, it's probably important to WWE. So just watch that way.
I mean, I don't watch much at all of Raw or Smackdown, but if I did, why not Youtube?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Mar 1, 2019 2:47:23 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. Wrestling as a concept/genre is more popular than its been since anytime post Attitude Era, at least in the UK. I honestly see wrestling (usually Bullet Club) t-shirts at least weekly, no matter where in the country I might be. WWE however is not, and I think a big part is definitely streaming and media changing entertainment to mean everything has less of a share but more visibility/accessibility, but I also think a big part is WWE's "no stars, just the brand" philosophy. People have heard of WWE sure, some people watch WWE because WWE and pro-wrestling are practically synonyms given the lack of readily available alternatives for nearly 20 years, but the WWE brand name carries no real weight or prestige or must-see aura about it. When people talk wrestling, they talk about wrestlers. The only wrestlers who get brought up by non-fans are John Cena, The Rock, and Batista, and pretty much all because they've branched into acting now. If you don't have stars you allow to be larger than life and risk leaving your little bubble, then you also don't have stars that can get people outside of the bubble to notice you. And streaming makes entertainment harder to get big but have a great platform for access, if you engage with consumers it's a goldmine but if you remain insular it will only help keep you in a bubble. WWE's a victim of their fear of failure. |
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Mar 2, 2019 14:42:22 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. Wrestling as a concept/genre is more popular than its been since anytime post Attitude Era, at least in the UK. I honestly see wrestling (usually Bullet Club) t-shirts at least weekly, no matter where in the country I might be. WWE however is not, and I think a big part is definitely streaming and media changing entertainment to mean everything has less of a share but more visibility/accessibility, but I also think a big part is WWE's "no stars, just the brand" philosophy. People have heard of WWE sure, some people watch WWE because WWE and pro-wrestling are practically synonyms given the lack of readily available alternatives for nearly 20 years, but the WWE brand name carries no real weight or prestige or must-see aura about it. When people talk wrestling, they talk about wrestlers. The only wrestlers who get brought up by non-fans are John Cena, The Rock, and Batista, and pretty much all because they've branched into acting now. If you don't have stars you allow to be larger than life and risk leaving your little bubble, then you also don't have stars that can get people outside of the bubble to notice you. And streaming makes entertainment harder to get big but have a great platform for access, if you engage with consumers it's a goldmine but if you remain insular it will only help keep you in a bubble. WWE's a victim of their fear of failure. Exactly. That’s why I pointed out that I did believe WWE was partially to blame for why other companies are currently hotter than they are now. The “brand first” philosophy hasn’t been productive for them, and it would help them tremendously if they booked a main eventer in a fashion that would allow them to cross over. The purpose of this thread was to detail exactly what’s been going on with broadcast television over time, and why the key word is “partially.” |
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Mar 2, 2019 15:03:10 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. For me, there's an obvious difference between real sports and pro wrestling (i.e. WWE): Real sports have seasons, which means for a few months of the year, they're not on TV. When was the last time WWE wasn't on cable or network TV? I honestly can't even remember such a time. I can't miss wrestling if it doesn't go away for a while. Whereas real sports, football fans can hype themselves up for a new season if a few rookie athletes have been signed, the coach has been replaced, the QB matures into a team leader, etc. All of this can be said for other sports. There's enough downtime between seasons that fans do a lot of the work to get themselves emotionally and psychologically (re-)invested in their team/sport of choice. But wrestling is always there. Sure, there are the same changes that impact wrestling like those in real sports. Someone gets injured and is off TV. Maybe someone moves up or down the card as required. A solid veteran is given the chance to step up and take charge. Yet it doesn't mean as much because fans aren't allowed to get passionate about wrestling because they never have to worry about 'missing' it. Streaming culture impacts this because it's incredibly easy to not watch Raw, SmackDown, or a PPV, but turn to Twitter immediately after a show is done or to check out YouTube the following day to catch the most important stuff. The apathy fans have about wrestling is supported by a media and entertainment culture that doesn't encourage live watching of the TV show itself. If Tony Schiavone's "that'll put a lot of butts in seats" comment happened today, for example, most people wouldn't turn on USA to check out Mankind's title win; they'd simply stay on Twitter or YouTube comment sections to complain about it. |
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Mar 2, 2019 15:22:25 GMT -5
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. For me, there's an obvious difference between real sports and pro wrestling (i.e. WWE): Real sports have seasons, which means for a few months of the year, they're not on TV. When was the last time WWE wasn't on cable or network TV? I honestly can't even remember such a time. I can't miss wrestling if it doesn't go away for a while. Whereas real sports, football fans can hype themselves up for a new season if a few rookie athletes have been signed, the coach has been replaced, the QB matures into a team leader, etc. All of this can be said for other sports. There's enough downtime between seasons that fans do a lot of the work to get themselves emotionally and psychologically (re-)invested in their team/sport of choice. But wrestling is always there. Sure, there are the same changes that impact wrestling like those in real sports. Someone gets injured and is off TV. Maybe someone moves up or down the card as required. A solid veteran is given the chance to step up and take charge. Yet it doesn't mean as much because fans aren't allowed to get passionate about wrestling because they never have to worry about 'missing' it. Streaming culture impacts this because it's incredibly easy to not watch Raw, SmackDown, or a PPV, but turn to Twitter immediately after a show is done or to check out YouTube the following day to catch the most important stuff. The apathy fans have about wrestling is supported by a media and entertainment culture that doesn't encourage live watching of the TV show itself. If Tony Schiavone's "that'll put a lot of butts in seats" comment happened today, for example, most people wouldn't turn on USA to check out Mankind's title win; they'd simply stay on Twitter or YouTube comment sections to complain about it. One big reason wrestling doesn’t have off-seasons is because it’s been an industry so reliant on live gates since its inception pre-broadcast TV. So promotions aren’t too keen on the idea of leaving potential ticket money on the table even if there were long term benefits in terms of letting the talent rest, unfortunately. That’s why I feel the effective way to ward off said apathy is for WWE and other companies to incorporate more long term booking with programs, as opposed to how WWE’s been overkilling certain matches for TV ratings to where they don’t feel as special. Note how Styles/Nakamura went from a dream match to fans wanting for both guys to move on within two-three months. It’s not a booking decision that paid off for them in the end, a big reason because it’s a product of a booking mentality from the late 1990’s that’s still geared towards getting more instant ratings pops than their competitors. That doesn’t work anymore because WCW is dead, Impact is barely relevant if at all due to even worst creative, AEW is a baby, and NJPW/ROH are doing well but still well behind WWE in terms of the mainstream. And that’s a problem that’s likely to become more complicated as media consumption becomes more insular and specified towards particular tastes. Wrestling will continue to make money, but it’ll be the companies who can adjust to the changing times that will make the most money. My main point is that WWE’s creative choices, be they good ones or poor decisions, are all going up against the headwind of said changes. |
|
|
|
Post by "Cane Dewey" Johnson on Mar 2, 2019 17:30:14 GMT -5
For me, there's an obvious difference between real sports and pro wrestling (i.e. WWE): Real sports have seasons, which means for a few months of the year, they're not on TV. When was the last time WWE wasn't on cable or network TV? I honestly can't even remember such a time. I can't miss wrestling if it doesn't go away for a while. Whereas real sports, football fans can hype themselves up for a new season if a few rookie athletes have been signed, the coach has been replaced, the QB matures into a team leader, etc. All of this can be said for other sports. There's enough downtime between seasons that fans do a lot of the work to get themselves emotionally and psychologically (re-)invested in their team/sport of choice. But wrestling is always there. Sure, there are the same changes that impact wrestling like those in real sports. Someone gets injured and is off TV. Maybe someone moves up or down the card as required. A solid veteran is given the chance to step up and take charge. Yet it doesn't mean as much because fans aren't allowed to get passionate about wrestling because they never have to worry about 'missing' it. Streaming culture impacts this because it's incredibly easy to not watch Raw, SmackDown, or a PPV, but turn to Twitter immediately after a show is done or to check out YouTube the following day to catch the most important stuff. The apathy fans have about wrestling is supported by a media and entertainment culture that doesn't encourage live watching of the TV show itself. If Tony Schiavone's "that'll put a lot of butts in seats" comment happened today, for example, most people wouldn't turn on USA to check out Mankind's title win; they'd simply stay on Twitter or YouTube comment sections to complain about it. One big reason wrestling doesn’t have off-seasons is because it’s been an industry so reliant on live gates since its inception pre-broadcast TV. So promotions aren’t too keen on the idea of leaving potential ticket money on the table even if there were long term benefits in terms of letting the talent rest, unfortunately. That’s why I feel the effective way to ward off said apathy is for WWE and other companies to incorporate more long term booking with programs, as opposed to how WWE’s been overkilling certain matches for TV ratings to where they don’t feel as special. Note how Styles/Nakamura went from a dream match to fans wanting for both guys to move on within two-three months. It’s not a booking decision that paid off for them in the end, a big reason because it’s a product of a booking mentality from the late 1990’s that’s still geared towards getting more instant ratings pops than their competitors. That doesn’t work anymore because WCW is dead, Impact is barely relevant if at all due to even worst creative, AEW is a baby, and NJPW/ROH are doing well but still well behind WWE in terms of the mainstream. And that’s a problem that’s likely to become more complicated as media consumption becomes more insular and specified towards particular tastes. Wrestling will continue to make money, but it’ll be the companies who can adjust to the changing times that will make the most money. My main point is that WWE’s creative choices, be they good ones or poor decisions, are all going up against the headwind of said changes. But it's a catch-22 of wrestling's own making. Yes, WWE can't take time off because the company relies on live gates for revenue, which include live and taped TV shows. But for the past 7 years, WWE has been locked into producing 5 hours a week of TV content. More, even, when we add in PPV shows that happen every 3-6 weeks. And we've seen a significant drop-off of viewers over this time. And I'm doubtful that WWE has been able to replace these lapsed fans with newer and younger fans in any significant number. The streaming era of media content works well because people like 'satisfying chunks'. Do you want to watch a whole Netflix season or read a trade paperback collection of the hottest new comic book? Here you go, something you can do in one sitting. When it comes to WWE, Twitter and YouTube videos are better satisfying chunks than a 3 hours TV show. It's faster to read the results on Tuesday morning or to check out YouTube. I think this connects back to what I suggested about the difference between real sports and wrestling. Real sports go away. But once the NFL starts its new season, you have to follow it week to week to see how a team is doing. You wouldn't binge a team's whole season at the end. Well, you could, but I think this is much more uncommon when it comes to narrative fiction TV shows. You don't miss anything by skipping an entire football season when you sit down to watch the Superbow. More and more narrative fiction TV shows, however, are either being released all at once, a la the Netflix model, or seasons themselves are having smaller episode orders. Today's audiences find it easier and faster to consume content than to follow it week to week. I think binge-watching and week-to-week storytelling both have positives and negatives, and I wouldn't want one to become the dominant model; some shows work better as a binge, others work better week-to-week. Pro wrestling suffers because it's neither real sports nor properly narrative fiction. Because of binge-watching and the desire for satisfying chunks, 3 hours of Raw and 2 hours of SmackDown work against contemporary audience expectations. But because it is like real sports, in which there are winners and losers of matches, nothing about Raw and SmackDown lend themselves to go back and follow a month's worth of programming (or more). I don't know if WWE needs more long-form storytelling because the company already decompresses so many matches and angles for the reason that 5 hours of content need to be filled every week. And fans turn to Twitter and YouTuber videos because very little that is important happens in those 5 hours. If anything, feuds and matches need to be shorter, in order to feature newer talent, unused talent, and to organize talent where they are needed given a 1-to-3 month booking cycle. WWE doesn't have enough 'jumping on' points, but plenty of 'jumping off' points. Streaming allows for both: stay on long enough to get what you want, but then jump off quickly so you don't waste your time. Again, being stuck between real sports and narrative fiction TV, WWE kind of sucks at both. I think people would miss wrestling and get excited for it were it to take time off like other narrative fiction TV seasons. But WWE has signed TV deals with channels that cannot and will not allow that to happen. WWE itself stays financially viable because of this, but cannot staunch the bleeding of viewers. So WWE will continue to wring out every dollar of an ever-decreasing fanbase, at approximately 400,000 viewers per year, while convincing (lying to?) TV channel execs that live wrestling is DVR-proof. But we know it's not. It's much more susceptible to DVR-ing than regular narrative fiction TV shows. And I think the assumed success of All In and AEW suggest the contraction of the overall wrestling scene than any outreach to new viewers of professional wrestling. It's less of a matter of how much wrestling has grown but how far WWE has shrunk that now indies are thinking they are within spitting distance. If WWE is niche within the overall pop culture system, then All In and AEW are a niche of a niche. I certainly want them to succeed, but wrestling itself is a form of entertainment that preaches to the converted (and disaffected, in some cases, if you buy AEW tickets when you stopped paying for WWE). |
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Mar 3, 2019 14:46:49 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. Their problem is, you can't create a superstar in a few months, or even a year. Neither Austin nor Rock were just delivered handmade into stars. Austin had to go through years of development before even reaching the WWE, and even then he needed the right storylines and right circumstances to break out. Even Punk couldn't just become a megastar on his first few years, he needed years of development. No one denies Brock Lesnar being a huge star practically upon arrival into the company, but...he didn't spark no boom period. Looking for a way to engineer the next 'boom' is pointless imo, but WWE can grow their audience and keep viewer interest high by delivering a top product. The actual 'boom' will likely start to happen by accident, and then requires smart handling to fully utilise and fuel it. All these people saying "lol y watch WWE live, just youtube highlights"....They're forgetting when a tv show is hot, you don't want to miss it. You wanna watch it when it airs to discuss and react right away. No one said just watching Jakked or Metal for the highlights makes watching Raw live pointless. |
|
