WWE as a brand, and the precedence of performers

[Deleted]

I saw some discussion on here last night that WWE's biggest draw isn't any particular wrestler--it's WWE as a collective entity, and that the totality of the performers is what most fans are attracted to rather than a few specific wrestlers. That is to say that John Cena, for example, is only as popular as he is via the engine that is WWE; him jumping to TNA would not provide a proportionate jump in their ratings (or decline in those of WWE) despite how much merchandise he sells and how popular he is with the WWE fanbase.

If this is true, this would be a serious departure from the mid-90's when wrestlers changing their brands was a big deal and could mean the difference between life and death for a company. If this is true, it also means that boosting the collective popularity of all wrestlers on the roster will make the difference between what the company's ratings are now, and what they could be if every single wrestler became more (or less) popular with the audience; because nothing can be static in terms of popularity.

So bearing all of this in mind, what's the best approach to building up a roster to make it more popular? Simply saying "Give TV time to everyone" isn't what I mean. How is it set up? What differentiates the lower card guys, from the mid-card guys, from the main eventers? What differentiates the tag teams and the divas? In other words, if you were booking a show, how would you deal with the dilemma of making sure the potential of every worker is maximized?

[Greer]

This is a long one and only really encapsulates not even HALF of how I would do things. I didn't wanna type a novel though so these are a few ideas. They are a bit scattered so forgive me.

Well I would kinda take it back to the way things were in previous eras.

Main eventers very rarely wrestling on TV and house shows. Save them for ppv.

They can have segments building up to ppvs on tv, and maybe a brawl here or there, but keep them from doing too much wrestling. Main eventers need to be a special attraction.

When I was a kid and they announced Bret Hart wrestling on Sunday Superstars or Saturday Challenge, it was a HUGE deal to me because the WWF Champion was wrestling on free tv which was a rarity. It made them all the more special and larger than life.

I think RAW and Smackdown need to showcase the mid card, while PPV's are saved for the big time matches.

That being said, the mid card needs to have meaningful feuds and likeable faces against heels you hate. How do you do that? Well you need to give the fans a reason to hate the heel and like the face. The heel needs to do horrible despicable things and the face needs to either be a tough dude to take the heel out, or a sympathetic character people can get behind.

The lower card guys are used for the opening of the show, as jobbers for the mid card guys. Since there are no more true jobber matches, these lower card guys with less charisma or mic ability can showcase how good they are in the ring, almost squeaking out wins against mid card guys, but never standing a chance against main event talent.

You simply need to have a jobber group, a real mid card with talent that wins consistently, and main eventers that dominate the card.

This 50/50 booking doesn't work. Nobody gets over and nobody looks strong because everybody is beating eachother from week to week. There's no consistency.

In the end all of this comes down to writing and characters. You need interesting gimmicks and characters for people to latch on to.

You need to keep up with the times and be a reflection on society. That's what made Rock and Wrestling,and the Attitude era so popular. They felt like they were "with it". They weren't behind the times, they were ahead of the times.

[Djm Doesn't Find You Funny]

I agree with all of the things Greer504 said.

That said, it harkens back to WWF Superstars on Saturdays, and I DO NOT want the wrestling business to go in that direction, because I don't believe WWE Creative is capable of making compelling weekly television that consisted of the talents that aren't already established main eventers taking up the bulk of the time, alleviating the pressure of working to get people to care.

[Deleted]

I agree with everything that you said. I think another thing to help elevate the main eventers, and the midcarders at the same time, is to make the two singles titles on each brand the centerpieces of "storyline arcs." Someone made a WWE/Game of Thrones thread and it made me think, what if Raw handled the WWE title the same way HBO handles the Iron Throne? Every major subplot in that show is, somehow, a satellite of that big metal chair. And the smaller subplots are related to those larger ones. All in all, most of the stuff is based around people's ambitions in becoming King (or Queen) of Westeros. Yet they're able to handle it in hour-long episodes that are mostly dialogue.

Would it be so unfeasible, then, for WWE to use a three-hour show based around action as the anchor for that title? Make it something that everyone is gunning for. If they're not in immediate contention, they sure want to be. And whatever gets them in that position, they'll do it. Why to they turn into hyenas for the MITB but neglect challenging for the title at any other point over the year? In that situation, the champion wrestling isn't necessary, because his very presence is the catalyst for many of the events that are taking place over the course of the show. He's still the most important character on TV, but he can do it without even having to lift a finger.

[BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps]

Really, Cena wouldn't provide a proportionate jump for Impact's ratings because of TNA's craptacular promotion and lack of name brand value. That's more an issue with them than with Cena himself or WWE's marketing- it'd be the same reason as to why Hogan nearly doubled Impact's ratings on his debut show before the numbers leveled out again.

But- and this might sound nuts- "making the midcard matter" probably won't do much because judging by reading a lot of old internet wrestling talk, there's NEVER been a period when the midcard was healthy. Nobody can agree to that.

I think the best approach would be to have multiple "company faces" at a time, maybe 3/4 faces and 2/3 heels that can be counted on to headline a card and serve as the company "ambassador" the way Cena does, so nobody's carrying the entire workload and becoming old news too quickly.

[Deleted]

Aug 13, 2013 9:28:03 GMT -5 @mightykretzler said:

I agree with everything that you said. I think another thing to help elevate the main eventers, and the midcarders at the same time, is to make the two singles titles on each brand the centerpieces of "storyline arcs." Someone made a WWE/Game of Thrones thread and it made me think, what if Raw handled the WWE title the same way HBO handles the Iron Throne? Every major subplot in that show is, somehow, a satellite of that big metal chair. And the smaller subplots are related to those larger ones. All in all, most of the stuff is based around people's ambitions in becoming King (or Queen) of Westeros. Yet they're able to handle it in hour-long episodes that are mostly dialogue.

Would it be so unfeasible, then, for WWE to use a three-hour show based around action as the anchor for that title? Make it something that everyone is gunning for. If they're not in immediate contention, they sure want to be. And whatever gets them in that position, they'll do it. Why to they turn into hyenas for the MITB but neglect challenging for the title at any other point over the year? In that situation, the champion wrestling isn't necessary, because his very presence is the catalyst for many of the events that are taking place over the course of the show. He's still the most important character on TV, but he can do it without even having to lift a finger.

It's really tough to compare the WWE to other scripted shows. Using your example, Game of Thrones would suffer greatly if it had to build up to a big battle for the throne once per month and basically start over immediately after. I agree with your basic point about using non-maineventers better but modern day WWE doesn't really have the luxury of long, overarching plots, they have PPVs to sell.

[Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!!]

Cena wouldn't boost TNA's ratings but I wouldn't blame him for that.