Vince McMahon's reason for going PG

[I Like Your Poetry]

Things have to evolve. Take South Park, for example.

South Park was immensely popular back in 1998, but we can all agree that the show completely changed course and became its own entity over time.

However, it is no longer the immense merchandising giant it was once, and no longer features the characters cursing or pushing the envelope, at least in the ways it used to.

Would you all argue that having the South Park characters curse more would bring back its popularity as a cultural phenomenon? This argument of "Making it like it used to be" is extremely short sighted, and not efficient at all.

Instead of trying to make the product like it used to be, why not concentrate on making it something significantly different? TNA isn't rated PG and they're not exactly the belle of the ball right now.

[The Deadly Snake]

The problem isn't PG. If you ask me, I find ROH "PG", but they focus on wrestling.

What is WWE exactly on focusing on? Trying to became Mainstream. But Vince fails to see that Mainstream Entertainment doesn't want anything to do with the WWE at all, because 1) they are wrestling, and 2) they aren't good at wrestling, and 3) they aren't good as "Mainstream" entertainment.

Even if they didn't like wrestling, they could at least you RESPECT you for being good at what you do, like during the 80's and the Attitude Era. And there attempts of becoming "Mainstream" have lead absolutely nowhere, except to Wrestlecrap. Mainstream Entertainment now ridicules WWE for being wrestling, AND being bad at it, along with not being good at Mainstream Entertainment.

When it comes to Wrestling, "A is A" or "A = A". Wrestling is Wrestling is Wrestling is Wrestling. Vince is trying to morph Wrestling, or through wrestling, morph the WWE, into something WWE or wrestling can not be. There's nothing "new" in this aspect. Wrestling will always be wrestling, no matter how hard anyone tries to get away from it.

As for trying something different, no one argues against it. The problem is HOW Vince is trying to do it, and wther Vince is actually tring something truly different. Because, 1., I think the way Vince is trying to sucks and doesn't work, and 2., it's not really something different or new, but is actually what his IDEAL of what wrestling should be.

[HMARK Center]

Let's take a step back and really review exactly what made wrestling popular at various times.

In the 80's/early 90's, admittedly my early time as a fan (so I'll have some nostalgic thoughts for it), what Vince did to separate himself from the pack was that he gave the audiences a spectacle to see.

Yes, larger than life characters have always existed in wrestling, but Vince also knew that technological advances and marketing techniques that hadn't existed in the 50's-70's were gaining momentum, and he could use those mediums to present a unique product that the rest of the wrestling world had never seen.

So, Vince hitched his reigns onto the shooting stars of cable and pay TV, with shows that could actually be seen nationally, that could appeal to a much larger audience.

Now, the product back then was decidedly aimed at a younger generation, but not to the exclusion of the older audience. There was still a strong place in those days for technical matches featuring the Bulldogs against the Harts, or Savage and Steamboat, etc. And while Hogan and others were given sometimes silly gimmicks or over the top personas, it was still such a new and eye-popping way of watching wrestling that it was impossible not to take notice.

By the by, don't forget something else: children of my generation, who were born in the 80's, were really one of the first generations in America to have excessive amounts of advertising dollars aimed DIRECTLY at them. We were a ripe audience, and, again, unlike many other promotions, Vince knew the marketing tides were shifting towards the kids watching the Saturday morning cartoons, the kids who wanted action figures and comic books, video games and TV shows aimed directly at them. Vince targeted us, and we responded, like we did to so many other fads (GI Joe, Ghostbusters, Turtles, Transformers, Power Rangers, Nintendo, Sega, etc.).

I can remember being a fan in those days, with my parents making it a special event whenever we'd order a PPV. Of course, there were only four back then, and they ran you maybe $30 to watch each...more expensive back then than $30 is now, but you get the idea, it was a palatable thing for my parents to deal with. Hell, for them, they enjoyed watching sometimes too, even with my aunts and uncles popping in sometimes to watch with us. My dad LOVED listening to Heenan and Monsoon on commentary, while my aunt loved the Bushwackers, etc. There was also the simple appeal of watching a big show with big characters, in big venues with big audiences. Again, the key word is "spectacle".

Vince hit a lull after that, until the Internet and "XTREEEME!" culture really started to pick up steam in the late 90's. Don't forget, those 80's kids, the first who had all of those advertising dollars thrown their way to get their parents to buy things for them? They (we) were now 12-17 years old. We were hitting puberty, we were getting some disposable income of our own, but now we all wanted to be hip/cool/whatever teens. So, Vince responded, and catered to our every whim after observing how ECW did it.

Violence? Here's Mick Foley falling 20 feet, nearly to his death. "Extreme" moments? Here's a ring surrounded by fire (inferno match). Internet smart fans? Here's Vince stating on live TV about the Montreal Screwjob, or somebody calling the Undertaker "Mark". Sex? Here's Sable in her lingerie, or Debra undoing her too-tight business jacket, or Val Venis making another "movie".

Here's the problem, though. The 80's/90's kids that Vince has done such a great job appealing to have officially grown up now. You won't get their attention by parading women around in their underwear; my God, we can go online and have gigs of porn at our fingertips, FOR FREE, in seconds. You can't get our attention with overly gimmicked violence and stunts, because we've really seen most of them before. And now that we're grown up, we're less inclined toward allowing our intelligence to be insulted.

So, Vince has a choice; either continuing catering to the same group he's catered to for the past 25+ years, or shift focus.

But here's another problem: how do you get the attention of the young ones now the same way we all got hooked back in the 80's? Again, back then, Vince was taking advantage of new mediums and marketing techniques. He took advantage of nationally-viewed cable channels, of pay per view, of prime time network specials, etc. Are there really any more TV frontiers there to be conquered? Any new ways to present his "spectacle" so that mass audiences will want to be a part of it? Marketing techniques that uniquely cater to a new demographic?

Unfortunately for Vince, I think he's far too out of touch now to replicate what he did with my/our generation. The game has changed, but Vince and Co. haven't really altered their approach. Just putting out more toys aimed at kids of the 2000's won't suddenly turn WWE back into the phenomenon it was with Hulkamania and 3:16.

To sum it all up, I think the "frontiers" have been exhausted. Yes, in the future there will be new mediums to attempt, but for now, it is what it is, wrestling has gone about as far to the extremes as it can go.

So how do you deal with that? Answer, in my opinion, is to get back to basics. Get back to what works. Simple-yet-convincing and strong storylines acted out by characters allowed to develop their own unique personas, with the bulk of the story being told with sound, solid performance within a ring.

Eventually, an opening will appear that will allow you to cater directly to a new generation of potential viewers, but until then, just present a strong show. Don't rely on gimmicks, don't force feed your audience anything, just stick with what's worked for generations, keep things fresh as best as possible, throw some surprises in there, etc.

On a side note: somebody posted about Cena/Orton main eventing 4 straight PPV's. In my opinion, this SHOULDN'T be a problem, but it is because there's not much reason for these two men, as best as I can tell, to wrestle a different style of match than they've wrestled for the past three months.

That's a discussion on psychology, though, not about demographics and advertising.

[Rorschach]

Oct 11, 2009 19:56:02 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

Let's take a step back and really review exactly what made wrestling popular at various times.

In the 80's/early 90's, admittedly my early time as a fan (so I'll have some nostalgic thoughts for it), what Vince did to separate himself from the pack was that he gave the audiences a spectacle to see.

Yes, larger than life characters have always existed in wrestling, but Vince also knew that technological advances and marketing techniques that hadn't existed in the 50's-70's were gaining momentum, and he could use those mediums to present a unique product that the rest of the wrestling world had never seen.

So, Vince hitched his reigns onto the shooting stars of cable and pay TV, with shows that could actually be seen nationally, that could appeal to a much larger audience.

Now, the product back then was decidedly aimed at a younger generation, but not to the exclusion of the older audience. There was still a strong place in those days for technical matches featuring the Bulldogs against the Harts, or Savage and Steamboat, etc. And while Hogan and others were given sometimes silly gimmicks or over the top personas, it was still such a new and eye-popping way of watching wrestling that it was impossible not to take notice.

By the by, don't forget something else: children of my generation, who were born in the 80's, were really one of the first generations in America to have excessive amounts of advertising dollars aimed DIRECTLY at them. We were a ripe audience, and, again, unlike many other promotions, Vince knew the marketing tides were shifting towards the kids watching the Saturday morning cartoons, the kids who wanted action figures and comic books, video games and TV shows aimed directly at them. Vince targeted us, and we responded, like we did to so many other fads (GI Joe, Ghostbusters, Turtles, Transformers, Power Rangers, Nintendo, Sega, etc.).

I can remember being a fan in those days, with my parents making it a special event whenever we'd order a PPV. Of course, there were only four back then, and they ran you maybe $30 to watch each...more expensive back then than $30 is now, but you get the idea, it was a palatable thing for my parents to deal with. Hell, for them, they enjoyed watching sometimes too, even with my aunts and uncles popping in sometimes to watch with us. My dad LOVED listening to Heenan and Monsoon on commentary, while my aunt loved the Bushwackers, etc. There was also the simple appeal of watching a big show with big characters, in big venues with big audiences. Again, the key word is "spectacle".

Vince hit a lull after that, until the Internet and "XTREEEME!" culture really started to pick up steam in the late 90's. Don't forget, those 80's kids, the first who had all of those advertising dollars thrown their way to get their parents to buy things for them? They (we) were now 12-17 years old. We were hitting puberty, we were getting some disposable income of our own, but now we all wanted to be hip/cool/whatever teens. So, Vince responded, and catered to our every whim after observing how ECW did it.

Violence? Here's Mick Foley falling 20 feet, nearly to his death. "Extreme" moments? Here's a ring surrounded by fire (inferno match). Internet smart fans? Here's Vince stating on live TV about the Montreal Screwjob, or somebody calling the Undertaker "Mark". Sex? Here's Sable in her lingerie, or Debra undoing her too-tight business jacket, or Val Venis making another "movie".

Here's the problem, though. The 80's/90's kids that Vince has done such a great job appealing to have officially grown up now. You won't get their attention by parading women around in their underwear; my God, we can go online and have gigs of porn at our fingertips, FOR FREE, in seconds. You can't get our attention with overly gimmicked violence and stunts, because we've really seen most of them before. And now that we're grown up, we're less inclined toward allowing our intelligence to be insulted.

So, Vince has a choice; either continuing catering to the same group he's catered to for the past 25+ years, or shift focus.

But here's another problem: how do you get the attention of the young ones now the same way we all got hooked back in the 80's? Again, back then, Vince was taking advantage of new mediums and marketing techniques. He took advantage of nationally-viewed cable channels, of pay per view, of prime time network specials, etc. Are there really any more TV frontiers there to be conquered? Any new ways to present his "spectacle" so that mass audiences will want to be a part of it? Marketing techniques that uniquely cater to a new demographic?

Unfortunately for Vince, I think he's far too out of touch now to replicate what he did with my/our generation. The game has changed, but Vince and Co. haven't really altered their approach. Just putting out more toys aimed at kids of the 2000's won't suddenly turn WWE back into the phenomenon it was with Hulkamania and 3:16.

To sum it all up, I think the "frontiers" have been exhausted. Yes, in the future there will be new mediums to attempt, but for now, it is what it is, wrestling has gone about as far to the extremes as it can go.

So how do you deal with that? Answer, in my opinion, is to get back to basics. Get back to what works. Simple-yet-convincing and strong storylines acted out by characters allowed to develop their own unique personas, with the bulk of the story being told with sound, solid performance within a ring.

Eventually, an opening will appear that will allow you to cater directly to a new generation of potential viewers, but until then, just present a strong show. Don't rely on gimmicks, don't force feed your audience anything, just stick with what's worked for generations, keep things fresh as best as possible, throw some surprises in there, etc.

On a side note: somebody posted about Cena/Orton main eventing 4 straight PPV's. In my opinion, this SHOULDN'T be a problem, but it is because there's not much reason for these two men, as best as I can tell, to wrestle a different style of match than they've wrestled for the past three months.

That's a discussion on psychology, though, not about demographics and advertising.

Great, great post there.

*Applauds*

I think that speaking for myself, just the fact that there are so many MORE hours of wrestling, so many MORE PPVs and events...that exhausts feuds far faster than they used to be exhausted. Back in our heyday (the very time frame you just described) a face and a heel met what, maybe five times a year on TV/PPV? We didn't see them going at it twice a week for four weeks, and once or twice a month on PPV. Therefore, the feud had more time to run before it was played out, and fans were ready for the champ to face a new challenger. You could run with Hogan/Bundy, or Hogan/Andre, or Hogan/Savage for damn near a year before the fans started to get tired of it. Now, John Cena and Randy Orton (and Orton/HHH for that matter)have met so many times over the course of a month that we fans feel like we're gonna curl into a ball and keel over if we see it ONE MORE GOD DAMN TIME.

I think oversaturation has a lot to do with this current slump in the quality of WWE programming. Granted, dumbing down the product and consciously beating us over the head with the "PG"-ness of it all doesn't help....but overall, there are bigger factors as to why RAW isn't as entertaining as it used to be, and why the numbers keep dropping.

[seamonsters]

Oct 11, 2009 18:49:48 GMT -5 The Deadly Snake said:

like during the 80's and the Attitude Era. And there attempts of becoming "Mainstream" have lead absolutely nowhere, except to Wrestlemania

Fixed.

The "Rock n Wrestling" concept was fundamental in McMahon's vision, and without it (or without it working), we're unlikely to have seen Wrestlemania. You even had a SNME pop an 11.6 rating, as it was the last SNME before Wrestlemania III, and Hogan and Andre were in a battle royal together. The WWE claimed on the SNME DVD that the battle royal segment did even better than that (15? maybe as high as 21?), but I don't have it to hand.

Those two right there are the reasons that Vince has continued to court the mainstream, and why he's always tried to build up a big hero, so he can subsequently build a monster to throw at them. Warrior was batshit crazy, the fans wouldn't take to Luger, Diesel jumped to WCW, Austin was too much of an anti-hero and The Rock jumped to Hollywood. He's now got SuperCena, and tried to make records and films with him. The kids love him, and the adults don't.

As for PG not working? Well it worked until 1998 didn't it? It works on Smackdown, doesn't it? What are we actually missing in the PG era? Blood? Happy to live without that. I didn't see blood in my first four years watching WWF, and the first time was both hardway and in a hogpen match. (Huge graze down HHH's back). And he still ended up in the hopgen post-match, which is even more asinine than Katie Vick, considering the health risks involved in that. What else is missing? Man on woman violence? Good. Especially face men attacking heel women. The resulting cheers make wrestling fans as a whole look like morons.

I mean, can you tell me that this Orton-Cena fued would be more interesting with the red stuff? Really? The rivalry's not intense, it's not even personal, the only reason they've had I Quit and HIAC matches is because some bright spark decided to try and pop a buyrate on a new PPV name.

Besides, on the blue brand, they don't seem to have any troubles writing a good product. And do you want to know why, what the real problem is? It's the writing teams. One team is trying to be kid friendly by not offending anyone, and essentially dumbing down the product, the other team is doing it by avoiding using the one thing that gets you a TV14 rating. It's curbed the language, and pretty much nothing else.

Why is that?

Raw's head writer is Stephanie McMahon, and she's surrounded by what Pat Patterson calls "Hollywood types". They have no wrestling business experience. They are writers, not bookers. They're all trying to make a mark without crossing the boss. They're writing for TV, not for wrestling.

Smackdown has the same types, but the head writer is Michael Hayes. Now, as far as I'm concerned he shouldn't have a job over the Mark Henry situation, but Hayes has been in the business for over 30 years. For the first 20 years he was involved with wrestling companies that put on PG TV shows. The important difference is that Hayes knows what you can and can't put on a PG wrestling show.

PG wrestling isn't all "JBL is poopy" and Hornswoggle and crappy guest hosts. PG wrestling saw Jake Roberts become the most hated man in the wrestling world for slapping Miss Elizabeth then having his snake bite Randy Savage. It's not the rating of the product. It's the writing, but to write effectively, especially in a PG era, you need to understand the wrestling fanbase, and you have to understand wrestling, and right now on Raw, I dodn't see how the writers understand either.

[Rorschach]

"PG wrestling saw Jake Roberts become the most hated man in the wrestling world for slapping Miss Elizabeth then having his snake bite Randy Savage."

You're glad man on woman violence is gone, though you trumpet this as one of the greatest PG moments? I don't understand your line of logic. I'm not going to even get into the blood debate again with you, as that's down to personal tastes, but bringing back two of the most traditionally violent, hardcore match types they have....and tiptoeing around the bloody violence....is about as smart as WCW trying to have not only a First Blood match without showing blood, but without even SAYING the word "blood".

I mean, I can accept that we're never going to see a drop of blood again....but if that's the case, permanently retire Hell In A Cell, Hardcore, and I Quit matches, and stick with regular matches then. I loved the classic NWA type matches....and they were hardly bloody, brutal, or extreme on a regular basis. But at the same time, they weren't afraid to go there ONCE in a while either.

[seamonsters]

Oct 11, 2009 19:56:02 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

Unfortunately for Vince, I think he's far too out of touch now to replicate what he did with my/our generation. The game has changed, but Vince and Co. haven't really altered their approach. Just putting out more toys aimed at kids of the 2000's won't suddenly turn WWE back into the phenomenon it was with Hulkamania and 3:16.

An excellent point in an excellent post.

Vince has allegedly nixed ideas because he's not heard of the Blair Witch Project and the Pirates of the Caribbean, and considering how much time Stephanie spends on the road and in creative meetings, one wonders how she finds time to be in tune with popular culture, hence we get people like ZZ Top and Cedric the "Entertainer" as Raw guest host, who are no longer relevant in the US, and often unknown outside of it. (I mean, who are these two women hosting tomorrow night? I don't know them, as we don't get their show over here)

"So how do you deal with that? Answer, in my opinion, is to get back to basics. Get back to what works. Simple-yet-convincing and strong storylines acted out by characters allowed to develop their own unique personas, with the bulk of the story being told with sound, solid performance within a ring."

Unfortunately as my later post says, what works for Vince is trying to latch onto the mainstream and an unstoppable number one babyface. This is him going back to basics.

On a side note: somebody posted about Cena/Orton main eventing 4 straight PPV's. In my opinion, this SHOULDN'T be a problem, but it is because there's not much reason for these two men, as best as I can tell, to wrestle a different style of match than they've wrestled for the past three months.

But when you present two shows in a row where the triple main events are the same matchups with different gimmicks, and the previous PPV was also identical save for the guy facing CM Punk, and and a barely pushed undercard, it doesn't help the product feel anything but stale. The only difference in the next PPV is Jerishow instead of Legacy. That's 27th July to 25th October with three main event programs with just two minor tweaks (because the stipulations sure have't been reflected in the build ups to any real extent).

[HMARK Center]

I really rarely see any WWE programming, but I can comment on that a bit:

I saw a few minutes of a Smackdown episode this past summer, during the Punk/Hardy feud, and I heard one Punk promo, then saw the beatdown that lead to Punk saying "Fix him, so I can break him again!".

To be, THAT'S what's been missing from the WWE for ages. Most of that Smackdown that I saw seemed kind of "sanitary"; it was good, but nothing about it made me feel like I had to record it or keep too much abreast of it.

But Punk and Hardy put on an angle that was very simple, but very effective, and got your interest in their feud upped by ten times. It wasn't a shocking swerve or surprise return, it was just two wrestlers furthering an angle by telling that story within a ring, and allowing it all to feel very personal and real, despite your brain telling you "no, this is all scripted."

That's what I mean by WWE going back to basics, really. Now, I can't say I've watched SD since then (or really much of any WWE), so no, it didn't hook me, but I also just am not much of a WWE fan, and haven't really been a big WWF fan on the whole since 1994, so, meh, that shipped sailed by for me ages ago.

[seamonsters]

Oct 11, 2009 20:25:55 GMT -5 Rorschach said:

"PG wrestling saw Jake Roberts become the most hated man in the wrestling world for slapping Miss Elizabeth then having his snake bite Randy Savage."

You're glad man on woman violence is gone, though you trumpet this as one of the greatest PG moments? I don't understand your line of logic.

Well, Jake was the HEEL, and Miss Elizabeth was the BABYFACE. Man on women violence was the big no-no. It was the ultimate in heinous acts. It was a one-off. The reaction reflected society - Men should never hit women.

Over the last few years almost too often it's been a BABYFACE male hitting a HEEL woman, and the crowds have whooped it up Think Cena FUing Lita after the Live Sex show - think the crowds turning the Dudleys face because they repeatedly put women through tables. All of a sudden it's no longer a no-no. It happened all too often, and the fans regularly cheered a guy hitting a woman less than half his size. It made wrestling fans look like morons and wannabe wife beaters.

If you don't see the difference between the two, well... I've learned to expect that of you by now.

I'm not going to even get into the blood debate again with you, as that's down to personal tastes, but bringing back two of the most traditionally violent, hardcore match types they have....and tiptoeing around the bloody violence....is about as smart as WCW trying to have not only a First Blood match without showing blood, but without even SAYING the word "blood".

So don't bring back the matches, then. Get creative to live up their name, and get them to create. Although, as others have pointed out, last year's Edge v Undertaker HIAC had no blood and didn't suffer.

I mean, I can accept that we're never going to see a drop of blood again....but if that's the case, permanently retire Hell In A Cell, Hardcore, and I Quit matches, and stick with regular matches then. I loved the classic NWA type matches....and they were hardly bloody, brutal, or extreme on a regular basis. But at the same time, they weren't afraid to go there ONCE in a while either.

We will see blood again. Wrestling is cyclical. It has boom periods and quiet periods. Times when the industry goes with the blood and extra violence (like ECW, Attitide era, mid 80s NWA).

[HMARK Center]

Oct 11, 2009 20:25:55 GMT -5 Rorschach said:

"PG wrestling saw Jake Roberts become the most hated man in the wrestling world for slapping Miss Elizabeth then having his snake bite Randy Savage."

You're glad man on woman violence is gone, though you trumpet this as one of the greatest PG moments? I don't understand your line of logic. I'm not going to even get into the blood debate again with you, as that's down to personal tastes, but bringing back two of the most traditionally violent, hardcore match types they have....and tiptoeing around the bloody violence....is about as smart as WCW trying to have not only a First Blood match without showing blood, but without even SAYING the word "blood".

I mean, I can accept that we're never going to see a drop of blood again....but if that's the case, permanently retire Hell In A Cell, Hardcore, and I Quit matches, and stick with regular matches then. I loved the classic NWA type matches....and they were hardly bloody, brutal, or extreme on a regular basis. But at the same time, they weren't afraid to go there ONCE in a while either.

Well, let's differentiate a little bit.

Jake Roberts hitting Elizabeth was simulated man-on-woman violence, but it also served to get Jake Roberts over as the nastiest, cruelest, most sadistic heel in the entire industry. Gorilla Monsoon responded to it by all but screaming "HE SHOULD BE BANNED FOR LIFE!", and even full-on heel Bobby Heenan couldn't justify it, and come off as shocked.

Now, sure, Hogan atomic dropped Sensational Sherri, but Sherri was a wrestler and it was mostly done in a comedic way; not in a "making light of man on woman violence" way, but in such an unrealistic, not very brutal way that it didn't come off as overly misogynistic.

Some Attitude Era man-on-woman violence, however, came off as thoroughly brutal, and deep down it came off as condoned and meant to be cheered on. Funny, though; Terri getting put through a table with a top rope powerbomb didn't bring with it NEARLY the reaction or impact that a simple slap from Jake Roberts to Elizabeth garnered. Go figure.

As for blood, I'm all for allowing blood. Let's face it, it increases drama when used properly (i.e. not overused, not used unless it looks like there was a good reason, etc.). Bret Hart blading at WM VIII (and telling Vince afterward he had done it hardway, haha) really took his match with Piper to another dramatic level, I think it's hard to refute that.

[Andrew is Good]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I'll put this in.

The problem I have with PG, is they can't be as dramatic. Back in the day, in the 70s and such, pro wrestling was thought to be something for the whole family. There wasn't anything particularly raunchy, but, there was a lot of drama involved.

There can be things that go on that can touch base into adult territory. Take swearing for example. I'm not saying cut CZW style promos, but when someone is really mad, sometimes they swear.

And of course, the blood thing is something that's bitched about sometimes. And it's because it adds drama, and that's what pro wrestling is. I've watched match after match with blood, before I was 13 years old. One in particular that I remember was the Bret Hart/British Bulldog match where Bret got cut open really bad (it may've been a blade job, but he also hit the steps pretty badly, and it looked like a vicious gash). And of course, Cena obviously had a blade with him at the pay per view. Blood adds to drama. Ric Flair knows this best, though sometimes he over does it.

Same with TNA. They over do it I feel. They also have a lot of brawls too, but TNA's problem has always been, they put 10 pounds of shit into a 5 pound bag. WWE's problem is they put 1 pound of shit into a 5 pound bag.

There has to be that medium. Going back to the attitude era would be bad, because while they gained a huge audience, they lost potential new audience members in kids who weren't allowed to watch anymore. And doing what they're doing now is obviously bad, due to ratings, buyrates, house shows, etc. And that's what they need to find.

As far as WWE being more sophisticated then UFC, well, I guess it's pretty easy to say Vince is behind the times, and someone needs to level with Vince and tell him he should never do interviews, because he always looks foolish. UFC is more sophisticated, because it's based on reality. Now, people will say, oh, you can't make WWE real. You can in certain aspects. In the drama, it can be more realistic. A guy dressing up as a cow, fighting a midget, isn't sophisticated, and isn't based in reality. It's stupid. This stuff may've gotten over in Memphis in the 70s and 80s, but it doesn't get over now. I leveled this critique on TNA with the Turkey Bowl. Yeah, the heel shows his ass in the end and is made to look stupid, but, it's not something that's with the times.

And that's what it's about. The PG rating doesn't matter that much, because I'm sure there can still be blood, still some violence, hell, it's a wrestling show. Obviously, violent things are going to happen, but that doesn't mean a kids mind is going to be warped. But, we also don't need to have one of the divas having miscarriages on television, or those dumb pudding matches. They need to find that middle ground.

[Fade]

Oct 11, 2009 19:56:02 GMT -5 HMARK Center said:

Let's take a step back and really review exactly what made wrestling popular at various times.

In the 80's/early 90's, admittedly my early time as a fan (so I'll have some nostalgic thoughts for it), what Vince did to separate himself from the pack was that he gave the audiences a spectacle to see.

Yes, larger than life characters have always existed in wrestling, but Vince also knew that technological advances and marketing techniques that hadn't existed in the 50's-70's were gaining momentum, and he could use those mediums to present a unique product that the rest of the wrestling world had never seen.

So, Vince hitched his reigns onto the shooting stars of cable and pay TV, with shows that could actually be seen nationally, that could appeal to a much larger audience.

Now, the product back then was decidedly aimed at a younger generation, but not to the exclusion of the older audience. There was still a strong place in those days for technical matches featuring the Bulldogs against the Harts, or Savage and Steamboat, etc. And while Hogan and others were given sometimes silly gimmicks or over the top personas, it was still such a new and eye-popping way of watching wrestling that it was impossible not to take notice.

By the by, don't forget something else: children of my generation, who were born in the 80's, were really one of the first generations in America to have excessive amounts of advertising dollars aimed DIRECTLY at them. We were a ripe audience, and, again, unlike many other promotions, Vince knew the marketing tides were shifting towards the kids watching the Saturday morning cartoons, the kids who wanted action figures and comic books, video games and TV shows aimed directly at them. Vince targeted us, and we responded, like we did to so many other fads (GI Joe, Ghostbusters, Turtles, Transformers, Power Rangers, Nintendo, Sega, etc.).

I can remember being a fan in those days, with my parents making it a special event whenever we'd order a PPV. Of course, there were only four back then, and they ran you maybe $30 to watch each...more expensive back then than $30 is now, but you get the idea, it was a palatable thing for my parents to deal with. Hell, for them, they enjoyed watching sometimes too, even with my aunts and uncles popping in sometimes to watch with us. My dad LOVED listening to Heenan and Monsoon on commentary, while my aunt loved the Bushwackers, etc. There was also the simple appeal of watching a big show with big characters, in big venues with big audiences. Again, the key word is "spectacle".

Vince hit a lull after that, until the Internet and "XTREEEME!" culture really started to pick up steam in the late 90's. Don't forget, those 80's kids, the first who had all of those advertising dollars thrown their way to get their parents to buy things for them? They (we) were now 12-17 years old. We were hitting puberty, we were getting some disposable income of our own, but now we all wanted to be hip/cool/whatever teens. So, Vince responded, and catered to our every whim after observing how ECW did it.

Violence? Here's Mick Foley falling 20 feet, nearly to his death. "Extreme" moments? Here's a ring surrounded by fire (inferno match). Internet smart fans? Here's Vince stating on live TV about the Montreal Screwjob, or somebody calling the Undertaker "Mark". Sex? Here's Sable in her lingerie, or Debra undoing her too-tight business jacket, or Val Venis making another "movie".

Here's the problem, though. The 80's/90's kids that Vince has done such a great job appealing to have officially grown up now. You won't get their attention by parading women around in their underwear; my God, we can go online and have gigs of porn at our fingertips, FOR FREE, in seconds. You can't get our attention with overly gimmicked violence and stunts, because we've really seen most of them before. And now that we're grown up, we're less inclined toward allowing our intelligence to be insulted.

So, Vince has a choice; either continuing catering to the same group he's catered to for the past 25+ years, or shift focus.

But here's another problem: how do you get the attention of the young ones now the same way we all got hooked back in the 80's? Again, back then, Vince was taking advantage of new mediums and marketing techniques. He took advantage of nationally-viewed cable channels, of pay per view, of prime time network specials, etc. Are there really any more TV frontiers there to be conquered? Any new ways to present his "spectacle" so that mass audiences will want to be a part of it? Marketing techniques that uniquely cater to a new demographic?

Unfortunately for Vince, I think he's far too out of touch now to replicate what he did with my/our generation. The game has changed, but Vince and Co. haven't really altered their approach. Just putting out more toys aimed at kids of the 2000's won't suddenly turn WWE back into the phenomenon it was with Hulkamania and 3:16.

To sum it all up, I think the "frontiers" have been exhausted. Yes, in the future there will be new mediums to attempt, but for now, it is what it is, wrestling has gone about as far to the extremes as it can go.

So how do you deal with that? Answer, in my opinion, is to get back to basics. Get back to what works. Simple-yet-convincing and strong storylines acted out by characters allowed to develop their own unique personas, with the bulk of the story being told with sound, solid performance within a ring.

Eventually, an opening will appear that will allow you to cater directly to a new generation of potential viewers, but until then, just present a strong show. Don't rely on gimmicks, don't force feed your audience anything, just stick with what's worked for generations, keep things fresh as best as possible, throw some surprises in there, etc.

On a side note: somebody posted about Cena/Orton main eventing 4 straight PPV's. In my opinion, this SHOULDN'T be a problem, but it is because there's not much reason for these two men, as best as I can tell, to wrestle a different style of match than they've wrestled for the past three months.

That's a discussion on psychology, though, not about demographics and advertising.

Great post and though I agree with alot of it, it makes me feel as if me-being-21-is-the-problem and that the WWE is simply devoted on catering to this new generation (80s/90s one-be-damned) despite the loss of other fans.

But again, that still makes me wonder about the quality

[darthpipes]

Oct 10, 2009 17:48:31 GMT -5 Krimzon said:

Oct 10, 2009 17:42:50 GMT -5 metylerca said:

Moral of the story: cater to the IWC?

The moral is: KIDS DON'T HAVE MONEY! Cater to the people that do.

That's always been my problem with the WWE's censoring of WWE Classics on Demand. Classics on Demand is a channel that clearly caters to the older fan. You need a credit card to purchase it. I doubt there are many eight-to-twelve-year-old John Cena fans out there who give a **** about wrestling that's more than a year old.

Same thing with the DVDs. 9 times out of 10, it's adults who are buying them. Or adults buying them for their kids so they'll get to determine if their kid is going to watch it.

[darthpipes]

Oct 11, 2009 18:29:32 GMT -5 I Like Your Poetry said:

Things have to evolve. Take South Park, for example.

South Park was immensely popular back in 1998, but we can all agree that the show completely changed course and became its own entity over time.

However, it is no longer the immense merchandising giant it was once, and no longer features the characters cursing or pushing the envelope, at least in the ways it used to.

Would you all argue that having the South Park characters curse more would bring back its popularity as a cultural phenomenon? This argument of "Making it like it used to be" is extremely short sighted, and not efficient at all.

Instead of trying to make the product like it used to be, why not concentrate on making it something significantly different? TNA isn't rated PG and they're not exactly the belle of the ball right now.

When was the last time you actually watched South Park? South Park is more profane and raunchy and risque that ever before. If they're not cursing (there have been a few times where they don't beat the S word), they're literally crapping on each other, masturbating, or having offensive jokes or storylines. And it's funnier than ever.

After the initial buzz died away, the creators just decided to do their own thing. That led them to pushing the envelope even further than they did before. It still does well in the ratings and is in its 13th season.

[corndog]

Oct 11, 2009 18:29:32 GMT -5 I Like Your Poetry said:

Things have to evolve. Take South Park, for example.

South Park was immensely popular back in 1998, but we can all agree that the show completely changed course and became its own entity over time.

However, it is no longer the immense merchandising giant it was once, and no longer features the characters cursing or pushing the envelope, at least in the ways it used to.

Would you all argue that having the South Park characters curse more would bring back its popularity as a cultural phenomenon? This argument of "Making it like it used to be" is extremely short sighted, and not efficient at all.

Instead of trying to make the product like it used to be, why not concentrate on making it something significantly different? TNA isn't rated PG and they're not exactly the belle of the ball right now.

South Park is still the top rated show on Comedy Central and a very very popular show. It also generates alot of money with DVD sales, but it certainly isn't printing itself cash like the late 90s. However South Park did something that Vince just can't seem to figure out, it grew up with it's audience. Now the show has more current event references and more complex storylines, it's still got the dick and fart jokes so it doesn't allienate it's fans, but they also brought social and political humor that the fans who watched it as kids and teenagers in the 90s can appreciate it in their 20s and 30s. Vince McMahon did this once with the attitude era. In the 80s the business exploded and drew a very broad audience with an array of different characters, but most of all Hulk Hogan. Vince realizing that Hogan was very popular with kids started marketing stronger to children in the later part of the 80s and early 90s. He toned done blood and made more child friendly characters(Ultimate Warrior, Red Rooster, Doink the Clown), had less cussing and less racey storylines. This caused ratings to drop, because it alienated the adult audience just to cater to children. In the end Vince ended up saving the company along with Steve Austin by starting the attitude era. Most of the fans during this era grew up during the Hulk Hogan era, but outgrew wrestling since Vince didn't keep their interest. It also brought in many of the kids raised on South Park and Beavis and Butthead with it's violence, swearing, dick/fart jokes, and scantly clothed women. However when the era ended did Vince try to keep their attention? No, he went back to children and bastardized the rest of us. Okay he did give us ECW for a little bit, and Smackdown is pretty good, but Raw is the flagship show and the face of the company. Vince can still try to bring in the kiddies, that is just smart business, but he should also try to keep the other wrestling fans too, there aren't too many of us. I guess I am just being bitter, but it sucks because unlike in the 90s and 80s you can't flip on WCW, or ECW. Well I guess there is TNA, but there is a reason me and most of us didn't watch WCW in 2000.

[Rorschach]

"Well, Jake was the HEEL, and Miss Elizabeth was the BABYFACE. Man on women violence was the big no-no. It was the ultimate in heinous acts. It was a one-off. The reaction reflected society - Men should never hit women.

Over the last few years almost too often it's been a BABYFACE male hitting a HEEL woman, and the crowds have whooped it up Think Cena FUing Lita after the Live Sex show - think the crowds turning the Dudleys face because they repeatedly put women through tables. All of a sudden it's no longer a no-no. It happened all too often, and the fans regularly cheered a guy hitting a woman less than half his size. It made wrestling fans look like morons and wannabe wife beaters.

If you don't see the difference between the two, well... I've learned to expect that of you by now."

*Sigh*

And I don't know why I expected YOU to respond with anything other than a personal attack. If you would have come out and said just this to begin with, it would have been much clearer to me.

Thanks for explaining your statement, though.

[takahiro87]

My theory is that Vince wants to expand to more countries and some countries probably would not accept the WWE if they were not family friendly.

[fg76]

I think Vince's "reasons" for PG is stupid, but I respect him if he wants to go that way.

The whole point is, that PG isn't the problem. Their "talent" is . . .

We all remember real talent like Hogan, Hall, Nash, HBK, Steve Austin, Jim Duggan, Andre the Giant, The Rock, Val Venis, etc.., etc..

And we miss it because instead of unique, indivudal characters - everybody is the same.

John Cena - Vanalia good guy.

Randy Orton - Generic Bad guy.

Kofi Kingston - Without his accent, he's a generic flippy-floppy guy.

CM Punk - Tiny midget, but at least he has the HBK 1995 attitude of "I'm great because . . ." So I actually like Punk a little. Of course, he was booked to be a Raven clone in TNA and therefore he probably hung out with Scott Levy a little bit. And found his personality that way.

Triple H - Married the bosses daughter, but has the Ultimate Warrior look down. Wrestles like him too.

Undertaker - At least they gave him the title, and he's from the old school - where real talent like Hulk Hogan, Tito Santana, Honky Tonk Man, Randy Savage, etc.. existed.

Legacy - Vanalia midgets named Cody Rhodes and Ted Dibisie Jr. - Generic guys that look like Randy Orton, and Dibise talks just like him. Cody actually has some personality, being who his father is - but WWE has guidelines and therefore he's a bland heel. Hopefully, someday Cody gets a Main Event break . . . and not just as another washout in TNA.

Dolph Ziggler - Boring, generic surfer dude.

(The most talented person in the WWE was Ken "Anderson" Kennedy and they fired him for either injury or drugs, but at least he had talent on the mic and didn't bore me to tears.)

Batista - Not generic, but he came from the school before the WWE writers just wrote the same s*** over and over again.

Edge - Another person with character, but his injury has him out for a long time. Hopefully PG or not, Edge can do something from his 1999-2001 days that made me like him in the first place.

The Miz: Actually he's not Vanalia, but you can tell he was a fan before he joined the WWE - but is it a good idea to act like Michael Weatherly? Well Mike Mizarelli thinks so. If they actually push him now, and not have him just drop the strap back to Coffee - then maybe we have someone not as bland as dishwater. Although, if Miz was around ten, twenty years ago - he'd been turfed to WCW Pro because real talent like Hogan, Austin, and Rock were still around.

["Dashing" Dr.VonPhoenix]

Oct 10, 2009 13:29:09 GMT -5 Drillbit Taylor said:

Im happy with the current stuff. Way better then Attitude raunch.

I respectfully disagree.

[HMARK Center]

CM Punk - Tiny midget, but at least he has the HBK 1995 attitude of "I'm great because . . ." So I actually like Punk a little. Of course, he was booked to be a Raven clone in TNA and therefore he probably hung out with Scott Levy a little bit. And found his personality that way.

Incorrect on a number of counts: Punk is actually somewhat tall (as in, 6'1 - 6'2, thereabouts, taller than guys like Guerrero or Jericho), and Punk's personality, especially his "straight edge means I'm better than you" heel persona, predates his appearances with Raven by quite awhile.

That said, it's not like Punk didn't learn anything from Raven, considering they were in a stable together in TNA, and had a vicious blood feud in ROH.