|
Post by The Curmudgeon on Oct 23, 2007 17:08:44 GMT -5
When Wrestlemania doesn't sell out in 3 seconds, then we'll talk.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,125
|
Post by Mozenrath on Oct 23, 2007 17:19:15 GMT -5
When Wrestlemania doesn't sell out in 3 seconds, then we'll talk. Seriously. Any of what people seem to think would end the company can be countered by WWE if they wanted to. People stop buying many PPVs? They simply cut a few out. Revenue lower? They play more shows. They can fire literally dozens of guys if they want that wouldn't hurt things much. Their tape libraries are monstrous. They can sell them for millions.
|
|
|
Post by Cooler Than Sliced Bread on Oct 23, 2007 17:20:40 GMT -5
Oh yeah it's on its death bed.
They keep having the same people fight every week.
How many times can HBK fight Orton?
How many times can Batista fight Khali?
I swear Finlay has feuded with every face on SD.
|
|
|
Post by molson5 on Oct 23, 2007 17:29:21 GMT -5
This is a pretty interesting debate. I'm curious as to what molson5 meant when he said: [WCW] created a promotion that REQUIRED the popularity of the wrestling boom years to survive. How did they do this? Just curious. Sure, here's a metaphor - Let's say you're making a ton of money in the stock market in the late 90s, when the market is great. Instead of planning for the future and realizing it won't always be that good, you buy a huge house, a fancy car, and a boat. One the market dries up, you still have all those financial commitments - and no way to pay for them. Even if you're still making a decent living, you go bankrupt because you can't pay your debts. Same thing happened with WCW. When the market went nuts, the tied themselves to financial committments that they couldn't possibly maintain once the wrestling industry inevitably declined. Most notably, of course, was the insane talent contracts, but I'm sure there was other mismanagement beyond that. So a 1.4 TV rating and equivalent PPV buyrates aren't really that bad, but when you have to pay Hulk Hogan and Kevin Nash a billion dollars, now you have a big problem, and you're not economically viable.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Oct 23, 2007 17:30:21 GMT -5
Making a no profit = no danger of collapse.
When they start losing money, not just making less than a few years ago but actually being in the red, then these threads will make sense
|
|
|
Post by TRUTH TELLER on Oct 23, 2007 17:45:42 GMT -5
I think a lot of people get on the kick of WWE going out of business because they truly believe there has to be some sort of ramifications for the terrible booking decisions they make and some of the worst writing since the mid 90's.
However, WWE is a strange entity. Creatively, they're pretty terrible right now. But on a whole they're a money-making dynasty. Hell, even if they did close up shop as far as promoting live wrestling goes, they could still flourish for YEARS on their fantastic DVD library. The irony is that despite a lot of people hating today's product, the one's who don't watch RAW, Smackdown and ECW often still buy the DVDs and order WWE 24/7 to see the wrestling they love...which of course still lines WWE's pockets.
They're also the best marketed company out there. Their merchandise flies off the shelves. Merchandise isn't everything, but it sure pads their income.
As for International market. That's the one that will ultimately change. That's where people fool themselves. People in other countries want wrestling and WWE there is infrequent, so tours draw huge money. However, if WWE gets too greedy and sets up shop permanently with a territory, eventually they risk the market burning out. It's just basic economics. Everything runs its course after flooding a market.
That all said, WWE will never go under. But there are a couple of things that can light a fire under their asses and force some change.
1) Lack of Ad revenue. If Wrestling maintains its current pariah status, more and more advertisers will stray from the company, and they could potentially be moved from a timeslot. A lot of people don't realize that ratings only matter because of advertisers. More viewers equals more money for WWE and/or the networks because they can then demand more money from these advertisers who want their products seen by as many people as possible. If no one buys ad time, though, the show becomes worthless. Ratings mean nothing if there's no ad revenue coming in. It's most likely the reason ECW on Sci-Fi fell apart.
2) Injuries. WWE's insane schedule is shelving wrestlers left and right. While it won't cripple the company, if WWE loses say HHH, and a few other top tier guys again, I think they would seriously think of *unofficially* ending the brand split. That being everyone would appear on all TV shows, but touring would continue as usual. That way, they'd have star power on all 3 shows, but still have the roster depth overall to run two or maybe 3 shows a night.
In closing, WWE will continue is some form for years to come. It may eventually be different than we see it today (and boy do I hope that's the case), but they have way too many money-making avenues within to keep their product from ever dying.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,125
|
Post by Mozenrath on Oct 23, 2007 17:51:42 GMT -5
Other than Hornswoggle related nonsense, the booking isn't half bad right now.
|
|
|
Post by Citizen Snips Has Left on Oct 23, 2007 18:01:57 GMT -5
And not pushing the midcard has been a problem for a while...when was the last time there was an IC title match at WrestleMania? Wrestlemania X8, Rob Van Dam defeats William Regal to win the IC belt.
|
|
audace12
Trap-Jaw
Harris is God
Posts: 261
|
Post by audace12 on Oct 23, 2007 18:27:38 GMT -5
Yes,very soon.
|
|
Agent P
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wooo
Posts: 18,180
|
Post by Agent P on Oct 23, 2007 18:41:32 GMT -5
Vince McMahon would have to go bankrupt. And considering WWE has turned a profit every single year since 1998, I don't see it happening any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by robferatu on Oct 23, 2007 18:45:46 GMT -5
I think they are kinda in the same position as they were in 95-96, where times have become a bit difficult. The big difference now is that the WWE has soo many different sources of revenue that they really have alot to fall back on when the buyrates and ratings slip, but hopefully they will hit on something to cause another boom again.
|
|
HRH The KING
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS
Posts: 15,079
|
Post by HRH The KING on Oct 23, 2007 19:03:49 GMT -5
No.
I doubt that will occur until Vince dies.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Schlapowitz on Oct 23, 2007 19:06:45 GMT -5
People who think so are not functioning on the same plane of reality as the rest of us. Just because they aren't turning Attitude Era numbers doesn't mean that they are in any danger of going under.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 23, 2007 19:32:34 GMT -5
No. But I think that WCW had them on the ropes at one time. And to be truthful the only thing that saved the WWE was when they resorted to shock television. Right now the WWE as someone alluded to earlier is the only mainstream player in the game so by default they will have a large enough audience to maintain the status quo.
|
|
|
Post by skillz on Oct 23, 2007 19:39:07 GMT -5
They were probably close to one during the Nash/Michaels days (1995-96), but certainly not now. They have a monopoly over the business and have more avenues to generate revenue than ever before (DVD's, more PPV's, international shows, etc). Not to mention they have a fanbase that has stagnated for half a decade despite the quality dipping dramatically.
As much as I would love to have them go out of business (I've hated the company since the Attitude Era), but it's not going to happen any time soon.
|
|
|
Post by tarheelfan on Oct 23, 2007 19:49:55 GMT -5
They were probably close to one during the Nash/Michaels days (1995-96), but certainly not now. They have a monopoly over the business and have more avenues to generate revenue than ever before (DVD's, more PPV's, international shows, etc). Not to mention they have a fanbase that has stagnated for half a decade despite the quality dipping dramatically. As much as I would love to have them go out of business (I've hated the company since the Attitude Era), but it's not going to happen any time soon. Although I hated how the WWE treated the "Invasion" it was ok for awhile until 2003. But since then it is like going from a roster full of major leaguers to minor leaguers.
|
|
|
Post by joeman on Oct 23, 2007 19:59:06 GMT -5
Hate the creativity all you want but you can't say that their marketing is crap.
PS..I do wonder if there is a group of smarks that evaluate WWE's financial product rather than its creative product.
|
|
|
Post by skillz on Oct 23, 2007 20:01:41 GMT -5
They were probably close to one during the Nash/Michaels days (1995-96), but certainly not now. They have a monopoly over the business and have more avenues to generate revenue than ever before (DVD's, more PPV's, international shows, etc). Not to mention they have a fanbase that has stagnated for half a decade despite the quality dipping dramatically. As much as I would love to have them go out of business (I've hated the company since the Attitude Era), but it's not going to happen any time soon. Although I hated how the WWE treated the "Invasion" it was ok for awhile until 2003. But since then it is like going from a roster full of major leaguers to minor leaguers. I loved the WWF in 1997. Shawn Michaels single-handedly made me stop watching it in 1996, but the company made a HUGE comeback in my eyes post-WM 13. Then it turned into Jerry Springer in a wrestling ring from 1998 onwards, which I didn't particularly care for (though I loved The Rock). I thought WCW from 1996-1998 was a lot better, personally. I did like the early part of 2002 (Hogan/Rock being the main reason), but it was still lacking for me. By late-2002/2003 though, it became unwatchable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2007 20:36:23 GMT -5
While I wouldn't bet on it. It's not as far fetched as people think.
WCW's problems started small, then everything compounded and within 2 years they were screwed.
WWE is losing stars faster than they can build new ones, ratings are declining, the economy is in bad shape.
If things continued on this path, in 3 years the company could be a disaster.
There's been cooperations and global conglomerates much bigger than WWE that have crash and burned.
|
|
|
Post by rrm15 on Oct 23, 2007 21:23:48 GMT -5
It's not imminent, but its headed that way real, real, REAL fast.
Benoit made it stop being fun. Plain and simple. I just can no longer fully enjoy a business where human beings do this to themselves...it just doesn't feel right anymore. A LOT of changes are gonna have to take place, and Vince won't let them.
|
|