|
Post by ghettooverlord on Dec 28, 2007 23:08:32 GMT -5
I don't mean to make this in-any-way political, but let's face it: Vince's primary obligation is to make a profit for the shareholders that have purchased stock in his company. The dirty secret of capitalism has always been that making the most money doesn't mean putting out the best product, so I ask: why should Vince go out of his way to improve the product if the profit train is getting bigger, why should he jump ship? Cena may aggravate a great deal of people on this forum, but he sells t-shirts and title belts like no one else can.
|
|
|
Post by Lenny: Smooth like Keith Stone on Dec 28, 2007 23:26:39 GMT -5
Yep, WWE isn't going to truly improve or revamp its product until (or even IF) another promotion can come along and start luring away WWE viewers. WWE did not reinvent itself as Attitude until WCW started taking away their viewers, and the drastic change was a direct response to try to win people back.
And not to lean towards any sort of WWE vs TNA war, but TNA is barely putting a dent (if any dent at all) in WWE's profits and ratings. But if they do start to seriously start getting fans to quit watching WWE in significant numbers, then WWE will be forced to take a long look at their state of affairs and figure out how to improve.
|
|
|
Post by cartern923 on Dec 28, 2007 23:36:04 GMT -5
I think the wrestling world right now is set up to work exactly like the Monday Night Wars.
1. TNA is getting jumps from WWE, but they are mainly stars of yesterday. Same with WCW (Hogan, Savage, Lugar, etc.). Now, TNA needs an out-of-nowhere jump, much like Nash and Hall were main eventers when they left the WWE, TNA needs to take some CURRENT WWE MAIN EVENTERS.
2. ROH, much like ECW, is probably the "Number Three" promotion in the U.S. right now, and has a large underground fan base, mainly in the Northeast. They have pay-per-view, but their style will probably never cater to the masses. Instead, WWE and TNA will benefit, much like WWF and WCW benefitted, from the underground talent pool. This process has already begun (CM Punk, Samoa Joe, Homicide, Londrick, etc.)
3. Early in its life, WCW didn't make much of a dent in WWF's profits and goofy gimmick matches were all over the place (see Battlebowl/Thundercage).
Now, I'm not saying that I necesarily think that TNA will ever pose a huge threat to WWE (some huge pieces have to fall for that to happen), but I do think that just because TNA isn't a threat now doesn't mean that they can't be in the future.
Essentially, I just don't think a lot of people don't remember how WCW didn't just BURST onto the scene, so it is unreasonable to expect TNA to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by Bobby Womack on Dec 28, 2007 23:45:27 GMT -5
tna isnt even on wwe's radar, if anything theyre giving wwe more viewers with all the constant advertising of it
and as for the original topic, youre right they really dont need to change anything as long as the profits are rising it is a business after all, but every business can expand their fanbase and im sure with all the airtime they get every week they could fit in something to tap into the ever-growing 'disillusioned wrestling fan' market
edit: and to the person above, angle and booker t werent 'current' enough??
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 28, 2007 23:48:40 GMT -5
To make more money?
|
|
|
Post by ghettooverlord on Dec 28, 2007 23:56:16 GMT -5
But putting out a better product isn't necessarily going to mean making more money. Spider Man 3, Shrek 3, and Transformers were the highest-grossing movies of 2007. They're certainly far from the best.
|
|
The Lodger
Don Corleone
Wino is not pleased.
Posts: 1,394
|
Post by The Lodger on Dec 29, 2007 0:03:13 GMT -5
Just because something makes money doesn't mean it has to be bad. Money is just one factor of success.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Dec 29, 2007 0:06:24 GMT -5
A little company down south called....................
WCW. Now what is WCW doing these days? Nothing! Why? Because their main angle/gimmick/storyline was the same thing for 4 years. Sure, some new players would be added, and little variations would happen, but for the most part, it was Always WCW vs. nWo, with WCW always losing.
Now thats an extreme example.
|
|
|
Post by WWE Trademarked My Name on Dec 29, 2007 0:09:43 GMT -5
Just because something makes money doesn't mean it has to be bad. Money is just one factor of success. But it's THE main factor.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Dec 29, 2007 0:14:08 GMT -5
Just because something makes money doesn't mean it has to be bad. Money is just one factor of success. But it's THE main factor. But what WWE needs to focus on is building life-long fans, and not just worry about instant dollars and cents. I didn't become a regular PPV buyer until 4 and a half years after I became a fan(before that I had bought 4 WWE items: Rise and Fall of ECW, a Randy Orton Shirt, Summerslam 2002, and my ticket to SD!). Now I am a somewhat big contributor to WWE(I buy 2-5 PPVs each year, a couple DVDs, and anywhere from 3-10 action figures).
|
|
|
Post by WWE Trademarked My Name on Dec 29, 2007 0:23:17 GMT -5
But it's THE main factor. But what WWE needs to focus on is building life-long fans, and not just worry about instant dollars and cents. I didn't become a regular PPV buyer until 4 and a half years after I became a fan(before that I had bought 4 WWE items: Rise and Fall of ECW, a Randy Orton Shirt, Summerslam 2002, and my ticket to SD!). Now I am a somewhat big contributor to WWE(I buy 2-5 PPVs each year, a couple DVDs, and anywhere from 3-10 action figures). For every 1 dedicated fan there's about 50 ten year old Cena marks. As sad as it is most of their money comes from the kids. Go look at WWE.com's top selling items, it sure as hell isn't us smarks who buy those retarded Cena shirts.
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Dec 29, 2007 0:28:48 GMT -5
Keep in mind also that house show attendance and PPV buyrates are at a several year low, and have been on a reasonably steady decline for several years. When you say that the profit train continues to roll or something to the effect, you need to think that if things continue on an overall downturn, the profit train will stop rolling at all. It happened barely over a decade ago, so we shouldn't be so quick to assume it won't happen again.
|
|
|
Post by ghettooverlord on Dec 29, 2007 1:17:32 GMT -5
Keep in mind also that house show attendance and PPV buyrates are at a several year low, and have been on a reasonably steady decline for several years. When you say that the profit train continues to roll or something to the effect, you need to think that if things continue on an overall downturn, the profit train will stop rolling at all. It happened barely over a decade ago, so we shouldn't be so quick to assume it won't happen again. I just think that means that the WWE has found its way to sustain itself on a smaller fan base, one that isn't going to tune out until an alternative finally rises up to the task. In 2005, TNA looked ready to do that this coming year. But in my opinion, they've taken a huge step back towards achieving that goal, and it looks like the WWE can keep up what they're doing as long as that second banana doesn't come into play. I'm not saying I don't want the product to improve. I'm just saying that, under the current system of American economic laws, there's really no reason for them to try to.
|
|
|
Post by chunkylover53 on Dec 29, 2007 1:37:18 GMT -5
Improving the product? That's all a matter of opinon. And I guarantee you even if the WWE were getting Attitude Era-like ratings, this board would still be complaining about the product.
|
|
|
Post by skiller on Dec 29, 2007 1:52:34 GMT -5
1. TNA is getting jumps from WWE, but they are mainly stars of yesterday. Same with WCW (Hogan, Savage, Lugar, etc.). Now, TNA needs an out-of-nowhere jump, much like Nash and Hall were main eventers when they left the WWE, TNA needs to take some CURRENT WWE MAIN EVENTERS. Remember a guy named Kurt Angle?
|
|
Jack
Team Rocket
Posts: 903
|
Post by Jack on Dec 29, 2007 1:53:31 GMT -5
As far as the question "Why should WWE bother improving the product?" goes, the answer has to be that they, like every other corporation are always looking to improve/capitalise more and more on what they sell. You'd never hear the CEO of McDonald's say in the board room "You know guys, I'm satisfied, lets leave things as they are from now on" and you'll never hear Vince say that either.
The problem is that people's vision of an "improved product" will always differ from others and it's also not easy. You really cannot just say that you're going to improve something as unless the audience take to it, it won't be an improvement. We could walk in there tomorrow with 101 ideas of how to improve the product from our own personal tastes but unless it makes ratings go up and money fly in faster, then it's not an improvement. I could say to you that with a hammer, felt-top pen and a bucket of glue and another bucket of sparkles that I could "improve" your car but unless you like the end result and the value of the car increases, it's only really an improvement from one perspective - mine.
WWE's problem is that it is now struggling to get noticed as it doesn't have anyone who is current. Hogan taped into the public psyche in the 80's as did Austin in the 2000's. A company needs that in order to soar. WWE is big enough and ugly enough now that it'll always have an audience but it's never going to reach out and grab people from the mainstream as it did before until it creates a superstar/angle which can do that. But I don't see how WWE can be overly criticised for this, it isn't easy. You can't go up to a song writer and demand that he or she writes a number one song every time same as you cannot expect an author to have every book go to number 1 in the New York Times Best Seller's List. These things happen for most once in a life time. TV is a fickle business, you cannot always be on the pulse of what the audience wants and clearly WWE isn't. What it can be though and what in my view it is, is it can be a stand-alone product. Sure it's not tapping in to what makes the younger generation tick these days but on it's own it is still enough to attract a healthy audience. MTV is hardly as pivotal an institution as it once was but it's still there and going strong.
|
|
|
Post by The Booty Disciple on Dec 29, 2007 1:55:49 GMT -5
Keep in mind also that house show attendance and PPV buyrates are at a several year low, and have been on a reasonably steady decline for several years. When you say that the profit train continues to roll or something to the effect, you need to think that if things continue on an overall downturn, the profit train will stop rolling at all. It happened barely over a decade ago, so we shouldn't be so quick to assume it won't happen again. I just think that means that the WWE has found its way to sustain itself on a smaller fan base, one that isn't going to tune out until an alternative finally rises up to the task. In 2005, TNA looked ready to do that this coming year. But in my opinion, they've taken a huge step back towards achieving that goal, and it looks like the WWE can keep up what they're doing as long as that second banana doesn't come into play. I'm not saying I don't want the product to improve. I'm just saying that, under the current system of American economic laws, there's really no reason for them to try to. Agreed...the other part that we have to remember is that the investors likely aren't watching wrestling in teh same regard that we currently are. As long as Linda can spin a wierd bit of hyperbole about PPV buyrates and attendance on their quarterly financial call so that its not sounding like downturn, and there's still profit, I doubt we'll see much change.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Dec 29, 2007 8:36:27 GMT -5
I think the wrestling world right now is set up to work exactly like the Monday Night Wars. 1. TNA is getting jumps from WWE, but they are mainly stars of yesterday. Same with WCW (Hogan, Savage, Lugar, etc.). Now, TNA needs an out-of-nowhere jump, much like Nash and Hall were main eventers when they left the WWE, TNA needs to take some CURRENT WWE MAIN EVENTERS. 2. ROH, much like ECW, is probably the "Number Three" promotion in the U.S. right now, and has a large underground fan base, mainly in the Northeast. They have pay-per-view, but their style will probably never cater to the masses. Instead, WWE and TNA will benefit, much like WWF and WCW benefitted, from the underground talent pool. This process has already begun (CM Punk, Samoa Joe, Homicide, Londrick, etc.) 3. Early in its life, WCW didn't make much of a dent in WWF's profits and goofy gimmick matches were all over the place (see Battlebowl/Thundercage). Now, I'm not saying that I necesarily think that TNA will ever pose a huge threat to WWE (some huge pieces have to fall for that to happen), but I do think that just because TNA isn't a threat now doesn't mean that they can't be in the future. Essentially, I just don't think a lot of people don't remember how WCW didn't just BURST onto the scene, so it is unreasonable to expect TNA to do the same. Those gimmick matches weren't really all over the place as they were done probably 3 or 4 times, and unlike TNA, WCW had two stations and plenty of TV time to get their product over. Also they were running regular shows in big venues like the Omni, Georgia Dome, United Center and others. They were established and even at their worst, people still heard of them. TNA could put on all the 5 star matches they want, but if no one knows about them, they're not going to watch. As for WWE, they don't have to go all out as mentioned before, they don't have WCW breathing down their necks anymore, so they could put on any crap on TV and people will still watch. There's no sense of urgency, and as they are still turning a profit, McMahon can put it in cruise control.
|
|
|
Post by Loki on Dec 29, 2007 10:45:40 GMT -5
WWE don't need to kill themselves to "improve" the product, because it's working fine. They're the only show in town, ratings and buyrates are consistently good, fans are still there...
Let's face it: the current "concept" of booking has run its course and it's now starting to make more harm than good to the product, especially in the long run. Back at the peak of the MN Wars everything had to move at 200 mph because it was all about getting more people to tune in the next week.
WWE won the "war" but at what cost? Fans got either jaded or insatiable, angles start and finish in a matter of weeks because there's too much TV time available, older Superstars hang around forever as they got more cheers than the unexperienced and dull youngsters.
But despite all of that, WWE are, and will be for a long time, the only relevant pro wrestling company.
TNA lacks a clear direction: "pure" wrestling or S.E.? Hiring yesteryears Stars won't help much, even if their names are Kurt Angle or Booker T. TNA still reeks of Elephants' Graveyard.
ROH is for workrate "junkies" (no offense meant), and don't have a real chance, nor the desire I guess, to actually challenge WWE.
In the end: the 1000-2000 of us may wish for a "better" product, although we'd come up with 2000 different concepts of "better", but those who really count are the kids screaming for Cena and buying his shirts, or the proverbial fat girls in love with Jeff Hardy.
Kids and little girls will eventually grow out of wrestling one day, and a small minority will stay, but for those who leave, many new will come, so the most important source of income is always granted.
|
|