Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Apr 7, 2014 23:41:02 GMT -5
What this says to me is...this is the time to buy WWE stock.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Apr 8, 2014 4:07:18 GMT -5
What this says to me is...this is the time to buy WWE stock. As someone who has, and luckily sold half my shares before this number got out, it really isn't. The entire bump was based on Wall Street buying into non-WWE hyperbole that their vast cable outreach could be converted into paying network customers. The truth is, the same people who were freeloaders before, pretty much still are, and if the TV rights deal falls below Wall St. expectations/projections too, that stock is going to plummet HUGE. The entire gain was based on speculation and spins. The reality is scaring people though, even if, for a streaming service, it's still not terrible. But the stock market doesn't bank and invest on moderate success.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Apr 8, 2014 15:02:20 GMT -5
They have nearly 670k subscribers, they apparently needed 400k to turn a profit...and people are saying these numbers are terrible?
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Apr 9, 2014 15:12:18 GMT -5
They have nearly 670k subscribers, they apparently needed 400k to turn a profit...and people are saying these numbers are terrible? Again I thought it was a million to make more money then the current PPV system.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Apr 9, 2014 15:24:55 GMT -5
They have nearly 670k subscribers, they apparently needed 400k to turn a profit...and people are saying these numbers are terrible? Again I thought it was a million to make more money then the current PPV system. When you take PPV loss into account it is. You can google the early presentation and conference call stuff where Vince and George Barrios flat out say they need 1 to 1.5 to make up for loss the Network would cause in other areas.
|
|
Hawk Hart
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sold his organs.
The Best There Is, the Best There Was, and the Best That There Ever Will Be
Posts: 15,296
|
Post by Hawk Hart on Apr 9, 2014 17:28:08 GMT -5
They have nearly 670k subscribers, they apparently needed 400k to turn a profit...and people are saying these numbers are terrible? Again I thought it was a million to make more money then the current PPV system. Didn't say it was making more money than the PPV model, I said it made them more money than it cost. Either scenario is good for them but they're shitting because apparently some people didn't expect to see a, let's face it, relatively small dip in business because nearly 700k are paying $40 less a month for PPV.
|
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Apr 9, 2014 17:36:47 GMT -5
The truth is, the same people who were freeloaders before, pretty much still are I do genuinely feel like this will change with time. I used to be one of those freeloaders but I bought into the Network when Bryan was given a title match, I have friends that did the same as well, only one hasn't bought into it and that's only because he's Australian. I'm expecting Extreme Rules to see a decent bump in Network subs now people know the Network can handle a live PPV and that it's a quality service.
|
|
|
Post by The Trashman on Apr 9, 2014 17:40:55 GMT -5
The truth is, the same people who were freeloaders before, pretty much still are I do genuinely feel like this will change with time. I used to be one of those freeloaders but I bought into the Network when Bryan was given a title match, I have friends that did the same as well, only one hasn't bought into it and that's only because he's Australian. I'm expecting Extreme Rules to see a decent bump in Network subs now people know the Network can handle a live PPV and that it's a quality service. We dont even know how many buys Wrestlemania had so I dont know how anyone would know either way what effect the network has had on "freeloaders".
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Apr 9, 2014 19:22:34 GMT -5
I do genuinely feel like this will change with time. I used to be one of those freeloaders but I bought into the Network when Bryan was given a title match, I have friends that did the same as well, only one hasn't bought into it and that's only because he's Australian. I'm expecting Extreme Rules to see a decent bump in Network subs now people know the Network can handle a live PPV and that it's a quality service. We dont even know how many buys Wrestlemania had so I dont know how anyone would know either way what effect the network has had on "freeloaders". Freeloaders (poor choice of words perhaps) are those remaining 4 million (U.S.) TV viewing fans who only watch the show (for free) on the regular, but never spend a dime on WWE otherwise. The reason in part that the stock rose was the belief that WWE, through this amazing deal, would convert at least a decent portion of this enormous non-paying difference into actual paying customers. But so far, they haven't budged, leading some to believe that these people are simply casual fans who only watch WWE RAW & SD as a TV show, and are not interested in anything more than that.
|
|
|
Post by mcmahonfan85 on Apr 9, 2014 19:49:13 GMT -5
Again I thought it was a million to make more money then the current PPV system. Didn't say it was making more money than the PPV model, I said it made them more money than it cost. Either scenario is good for them but they're shitting because apparently some people didn't expect to see a, let's face it, relatively small dip in business because nearly 700k are paying $40 less a month for PPV. 700,000 x $40 = $28,000,000
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Apr 9, 2014 19:56:50 GMT -5
Again I thought it was a million to make more money then the current PPV system. Didn't say it was making more money than the PPV model, I said it made them more money than it cost. Either scenario is good for them but they're shitting because apparently some people didn't expect to see a, let's face it, relatively small dip in business because nearly 700k are paying $40 less a month for PPV. WWE never got $40 per PPV buy, they got $9-$16 before expenses. The rest went to the cable companies and inDemand, thus the brickshitting by Dish and Direct when WWE made this move.
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Apr 9, 2014 19:58:57 GMT -5
The WWE gets about $15 per PPV buy. So if you exclude Wrestlemania, the estimated buyrate for a WWE PPV is listed in this nifty little page. Theoretically, the non-major PPVs will get a big bump in viewership. But the cost of this Network is still very expensive for the WWE so it's quite possible that next year's Wrestlemania may cost something much more than just $10 for the Network stream.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Apr 10, 2014 9:15:23 GMT -5
We dont even know how many buys Wrestlemania had so I dont know how anyone would know either way what effect the network has had on "freeloaders". Freeloaders (poor choice of words perhaps) are those remaining 4 million (U.S.) TV viewing fans who only watch the show (for free) on the regular, but never spend a dime on WWE otherwise. The reason in part that the stock rose was the belief that WWE, through this amazing deal, would convert at least a decent portion of this enormous non-paying difference into actual paying customers. But so far, they haven't budged, leading some to believe that these people are simply casual fans who only watch WWE RAW & SD as a TV show, and are not interested in anything more than that. However, the Network is having an effect on the freeloaders (using a better definition than the...casual fans): Two separate wrestling-based sites that shall remain nameless, but do cater to...how we'll say, the most blatant "freeloaders", usually expect to get around 20,000 people who "freeloaded" for Wrestlemanias in the past, per site. In the 24 hours since Wrestlemania 30, the primary time most of those "freeloaders" will "freeload", Wrestlemania 30 got about 3,000 total "freeloaders" between the two sites- over a 90% drop from what could have been expected for "freeloaders" for Wrestlemania. Even if WWE isn't getting all 4 million US TV viewers to watch on the regular, the Network can be proven to be nipping in the bud a huge portion of the more dangerous "freeloaders" to WWE, which is far better for WWE: $10 a month is better than, well, nothing.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Apr 10, 2014 15:14:20 GMT -5
Over half a million subscribers in the first month and that's considered bad? I am equally baffled by this. One million in the space of a month was a preposterously high expectation, and they have done phenomenally well.
|
|
Square
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Official Ambassador
Grand Poobah of Scavenger Hunts 2011
Square-Because he looks good at all the right angles.
Posts: 18,700
|
Post by Square on Apr 10, 2014 16:10:22 GMT -5
It was a game of Chinese whispers, the WWE said "a million by years end" and that went down and down until it became "WE WILL GET A MILLION IN OUR FIRST MONTH OR WE WILL SEND VINCE MCMAHON TO THE SUN!" and investors hopped on that. Buy rumours sell news
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Apr 11, 2014 1:18:29 GMT -5
Over half a million subscribers in the first month and that's considered bad? I am equally baffled by this. One million in the space of a month was a preposterously high expectation, and they have done phenomenally well. Not really. WrestleMania was the primary hook to grab subscribers for the six month commitment, and at the lower price they hoped (expected) to get a much higher subscription rate than their domestic PPV numbers, to offset the loss of revenue and the start up costs of the network itself. To break even domestically (that's just in the U.S.; International, when launched, will require them to need another half million or more to break even) they need one million subscribers by year's end. But, if WrestleMania didn't hook people at that amazing price, why is everyone so convinced that they'll suddenly get the other near 400,000 needed without that enormous hook from hereon out? What will be the draw? And this is not even counting that many people may have just signed on for the 10$ x 6 month commitment to get Mania, and may just cancel their subscription anyway when it expires in September.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2014 2:09:38 GMT -5
The Network always seemed like a risky proposition to me. The kind of person who's willing to drop 10 bucks a month to watch streaming wrestling probably overlaps heavily with the kind of person who obtains their wrestling through "alternative means"
|
|
|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Apr 11, 2014 4:02:13 GMT -5
What this says to me is...this is the time to buy WWE stock. I'd like to. I bought some stock two years ago when the price was much lower. But because I had other priorities to put my money towards, I could only buy a few shares at a time, not enough to really profit when the stock made that huge spike.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Apr 11, 2014 6:24:55 GMT -5
I am equally baffled by this. One million in the space of a month was a preposterously high expectation, and they have done phenomenally well. Not really. WrestleMania was the primary hook to grab subscribers for the six month commitment, and at the lower price they hoped (expected) to get a much higher subscription rate than their domestic PPV numbers, to offset the loss of revenue and the start up costs of the network itself. To break even domestically (that's just in the U.S.; International, when launched, will require them to need another half million or more to break even) they need one million subscribers by year's end. But, if WrestleMania didn't hook people at that amazing price, why is everyone so convinced that they'll suddenly get the other near 400,000 needed without that enormous hook from hereon out? What will be the draw? And this is not even counting that many people may have just signed on for the 10$ x 6 month commitment to get Mania, and may just cancel their subscription anyway when it expires in September. One obvious draw to help the Network out: WrestleMania was the primary hook to grab subscribers for a six month committment- but it was also the final test for the servers BECAUSE it was the primary hook for the network. The Wrestlemania feed was really WWE Network's last real test to make sure it's completely up and running- if Wrestlemania ran without a hitch, then it's safe to say the WWE Network has fully eliminated all of the early network jitters with their lag. Wrestlemania 30 went off without a hitch- a couple minor hiccups, but nothing dramatically bad. Right there, you do have a draw- any of the people who cancelled after their one-week free trial now can safely know "it's different now, the feed and the VOD are all set- NOW, I can order the WWE Network"- so that will give one big hook for them. The Network always seemed like a risky proposition to me. The kind of person who's willing to drop 10 bucks a month to watch streaming wrestling probably overlaps heavily with the kind of person who obtains their wrestling through "alternative means" Well, that's what I did try to hint at in my last post- all of the statistics going around from the few days after Mania say the amount of people who obtained through "alternate means" dropped dramatically for Wrestlemania- the first WWE Network-only PPV. If nothing else, that's one benefit for WWE. Now, throw in the thing that people don't mention for this: The Wrestlemania factor vs. other PPVs. Wrestlemania, on paper, had lower buyrates due to this. WWE could expect 1.2 million people to purchase Wrestlemania total. With 675,000 subscribers, that halved the Wrestlemania buyrate expected of 1 million the last two years (and not even as much as it seems like: Wrestlemania 29 had 662,000 North American subscribers (and since North America's the only place that has the Network, that's important)- so 667,287 is a slight, albeit imperceptible increase to what WWE could have expected for Wrestlemania subscribers in North America anyway. (And that's BEFORE you take people in North America who bought it on PPV instead of ordering the Network/to make sure the feed worked- which is a very good thing. However, you also have to look at it for next month too. Extreme Rules/One Night Stand North American buyrates, from the site linked to us: 2007: 124k 2008: 134k 2009: 136k 2010: 112k 2011: 108k 2012: 159k 2013: 137k Extreme Rules 2014: 667,287.BECAUSE THEY ALREADY BOUGHT IT, we know that Extreme Rules is already clinched, even assuming for some reason the WWE Network gets absolutely no new subscribers in the next month, Extreme Rules 2014 is still going to see the best Extreme Rules/One Night Stand PPV buyrate ever to this point (a buyrate they needed to debut Brock Lesnar for, at that) quadrupled. And it'll be the same for the rest of the PPVs for at least the next six months.
|
|
|
Post by laporta on May 13, 2014 20:01:58 GMT -5
That's assuming everyone with a subscription watches the current shows. I know some don't and only got the network for classics. they aren't happy, haven't watched in weeks, and say they will cut it even if new classics are added cause they don't like anything about it especially the tech problems.
|
|