Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 14:10:22 GMT -5
I am not even going to talk content and why the subscribers are lower than expected because I cannot get it and it would be silly to even speculate but why is it costing them so much money?
Netflix has been going quite a while now, Amazon is a big player, Hulu is.... something America gets. Surely there was enough market material for WWE to see what the cost would be - so how have they made a service that requires 1.4m subscribers in the US alone to break even?
Do you think Netflix costs that much to run? Surely Netflix, getting off the ground as a trail blazing type of service on such a scale, would have been even worse, in a time with slower internet speeds and thus less interest in paying for content online yet they managed it but it seems WWE is botching it completely.
I don't understand but I am a moron so I have no idea about business stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 14:11:54 GMT -5
A majority of wrestling fans are casual watchers, and only watch it if it's on TV. WWE did not take this into consideration.
Also if their audience was still 18-49 year old males, they would probably have more subscribers, but they still aim it towards kids, and most kids don't have the credit card info needed to buy the network.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jul 12, 2014 14:13:25 GMT -5
Because WWE isn't worth paying for.
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jul 12, 2014 14:13:42 GMT -5
Because their expectations were unrealistic
|
|
Steveweiser
Dalek
Mickie Mickie You're So Fine... Hey Mickie!
THE GRAPS
Posts: 50,249
|
Post by Steveweiser on Jul 12, 2014 14:15:29 GMT -5
The reality is that the majority of people who watch RAW only see it as the TV show they watch every week, and are satisfied by that, and don't feel they should pay for more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 14:16:23 GMT -5
But I am asking more about the costs and practicalities of the service itself, not why people are not buying it, as I said in the first message, lol.
Should it be costing WWE so much to run the Network that they need 1.4m to break even? Surely it shouldn't cost that much? You'd have thought they'd be able to run it cheaper. It's like they are paying premium bandwidth rates or something. If this is the cost of it all, I can see why they wanted their own TV channel.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,528
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jul 12, 2014 14:17:30 GMT -5
I expect it took a while for the services you mentioned to become profitable. I assume WWE's figures include all the costs of getting it up and running which includes things like digitalising footage and marketing, over time the number of subscribers required to break-even should drop.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 14:24:18 GMT -5
I expect it took a while for the services you mentioned to become profitable. I assume WWE's figures include all the costs of getting it up and running which includes things like digitalising footage and marketing, over time the number of subscribers required to break-even should drop. Exactly, except Netflix does not have "Netflix" T-shirts and DVD's it can sell to cover it's business but it managed to survive. The transfer to digital will be a one-off deal so that will be a cost that disappears. So why the major panic, cost cutting and stock dives for the Network? I don't see why everyone is panning it as a failure because it hasn't doubled their money in 6 months. It's a total over-reaction. I just find the cost to be a bit unusually high that it needs 1.4m uptake.
|
|
|
Post by g1megatronfan on Jul 12, 2014 14:25:16 GMT -5
People realized better things to do with $10 bucks Honestly I cannot understand why they (WWE) hasn't figured this out for themselves? They produce many hrs of subpar programming every week on TV. The last thing most want to do is pay for more. Even if it is better than the current shit...people are so burnt out they don't want to pay for more.
|
|
Perd
Patti Mayonnaise
Leslie needs to butt out for fear of receiving The Bunghole Buster
Posts: 31,965
|
Post by Perd on Jul 12, 2014 14:27:38 GMT -5
You have to take into account all the PPVs being on there. If that wasn't the case, I know I certainly wouldn't be a subscriber.
Don't get me wrong. They have quality content, just nothing that would be essential viewing for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 14:31:34 GMT -5
I sense people are just reading the title and not my actual question but nevermind, let's have it be a "Network Shortcomings" thread instead, lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 14:32:22 GMT -5
I expect it took a while for the services you mentioned to become profitable. I assume WWE's figures include all the costs of getting it up and running which includes things like digitalising footage and marketing, over time the number of subscribers required to break-even should drop. Exactly, except Netflix does not have "Netflix" T-shirts and DVD's it can sell to cover it's business but it managed to survive. The transfer to digital will be a one-off deal so that will be a cost that disappears. So why the major panic, cost cutting and stock dives for the Network? I don't see why everyone is panning it as a failure because it hasn't doubled their money in 6 months. It's a total over-reaction. I just find the cost to be a bit unusually high that it needs 1.4m uptake. People are saying that it's a failure because they don't think that the market is there for it. Only the most hardcore of hardcore's are going to want that much wrestling content. The WWE doesn't seem to realize that most fans aren't obsessed with wrestling and need to watch it all day every day. If the live PPV's weren't on it, I damn sure wouldn't waste my time with it. That's probably the only thing that's saving it at the moment. Once they jack the prices up or have the current PPV's cost extra or something, which they will, I'm out.
|
|
Fiddleford H. McGucket
El Dandy
My Mind's been gone for 30-odd years! Can't Break what's already broken!
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by Fiddleford H. McGucket on Jul 12, 2014 14:33:49 GMT -5
Ok.....The Thread Title asks one question and your post posits a separate one...so I'll TRY to answer both (With some speculation and conjecture on both)......
1. Why is the WWE Network struggling? Well.....It's "not", it IS however not living up to expectations as far as subscriber base is concerned. This is because initial estimates were GROSSLY over-inflated. That said...I'll admit I got it day one and have MAYBE 100 hours logged in it total. This is on (Live)PPVs, NXT, and The occasional episode of Countdown, Legends of Wrestling, and Legends House. The debut of Monday Night War has also gotten me re-interested. But the issue is.....The "Original" programming touted by the Network at release has been.....not so much lacking, as limited. I LOVE the availability of PPVs, but a good....1/3 have no context since Nitro is not being streamed. If WWE wants to stick by this narrative of "Continuous Storytelling" presenting the climaxes/big moments devoid of context hurts that.....and limits the already committed fans from wanting to see the content presented.
2. Netflix IS expensive to run. The bandwidth they require from ISPs has gotten to the point that in order to get some of the "Netflix Money" the providers are throttling, and/or providing the equivalent of a Through-lane to Netflix and similar services. The fact that they CAN do this, and limit the access to the network and the speed at which it CAN be accessed is part of the "net Neutrality" debacle being fought right now. The REASON they succeeded was they started small, Netflix was originally Just mail-order rental of DVDs, when High-speed became prevalent THEN they started the streaming portion.....and it was DIRE, with no selection and moderately abysmal speed.......but then you had 3.5 major advancements: (1) Newer game systems (i.e the most recent "last Gen of PS3/360/Wii) were Online capable and Signed deals to have Netflix available on the systems, (2) Networks like Fox, Starz, and Disney signed deals to get new content on the service, and finally (3) a spike in Cellular/Smartphone/Mobile Device usage as well as a HUGE leap in the data speeds available allowed for more people to see the content anywhere....leading to (3.5) the death of "Big" Video/Movie Rental stores (Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, Movie Gallery) because the content was available elsewhere at a better price......with no physical media to damage in some cases, and in others with reliability of multiple service centers and no late fees.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2014 14:34:58 GMT -5
Many thanks for your post Doctor. I did say I was a moron and my brain turns to mush when talking business stuff, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jul 12, 2014 14:57:14 GMT -5
Something else on the numbers that WWE has thrown around, those are worst case scenario I believe. The 1.4 million subs needed to break even is based on absolutely no PPV money coming in among other things which is far from the case. They may lose money but it won't be the absolute disaster people think because WWE is only looking at worst possible thing happening. A lot of the panicking we see WWE doing is them realizing they aren't going to hit their target of 1 million people and that means a loss of potential revenue they are trying to make up with the releases and cutbacks.
The reason the cost are so huge is WWE is looking at losing 100% of their PPV money while taking on the costs of running the Network, programming it and things like that. Where as on traditional PPV WWE could run a show and get about $10 in profit, with the Network they run that PPV, broadcast it, then program the Network, and do up keep on it. So while they only might have needed 100k buys on traditional PPV to break even, they many, many more people to subscribe to the Network to reach that point.
|
|
JDviant
Unicron
XB1 username: lil giant robot
Posts: 3,103
|
Post by JDviant on Jul 12, 2014 14:57:35 GMT -5
Doc's post covered what I was going to say about Netflix. Streaming movies was not much of an option when I started using their services.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Jul 12, 2014 22:24:28 GMT -5
I've mentioned this elsewhere but there are too many hoops someone has to do to get the Network if you haven't got a set up for such a thing. For instance I had to get a Roku box. Others already have gaming consoles but the level of bandwidth needed for WWE is way more and as such some people need a whole new router to handle it. The scary notion isn't for the B list PPVs, but what happens next year at WM if the PPV companies dry up and then those people don't bother migrating over to the Network?
I was always baffled at the 1 million subscribers bit. WWE 24/7 on Demand had a lot of the same stuff you see on the Network (Legends stuff, Monday Night War stuff, etc.) and it bombed horribly. And it was on cable too.
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jul 12, 2014 22:49:42 GMT -5
I've mentioned this elsewhere but there are too many hoops someone has to do to get the Network if you haven't got a set up for such a thing. For instance I had to get a Roku box. Others already have gaming consoles but the level of bandwidth needed for WWE is way more and as such some people need a whole new router to handle it. The scary notion isn't for the B list PPVs, but what happens next year at WM if the PPV companies dry up and then those people don't bother migrating over to the Network? I was always baffled at the 1 million subscribers bit. WWE 24/7 on Demand had a lot of the same stuff you see on the Network (Legends stuff, Monday Night War stuff, etc.) and it bombed horribly. And it was on cable too. They never really promoted 24/7, did they? I can't remember a single time it was ever promoted on TV. But the "1 million subscribers" thing is really all that's hurting WWE Network, imo. It was always going to be a slow burn until it went global and the kinks got worked out, but Vince claiming they were going to get such a huge number so soon just put more magnifying glasses on it than they were ready for and now stockholders expect success that isn't happening and everyone's saying it's failing because it hasn't met a goal that shouldn't have been set.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Jul 12, 2014 23:49:41 GMT -5
Three reasons:
1. The aforementioned fanbase being composed of casuals and children, who don't want, can't afford it or are unable to order things like this due to their age.
2. The mystique of the PPV is lost in translation. Their big grabber, the "free" PPVs, are great and all, but there's something lost there. It doesn't feel as gradiose in scale or nature. I still don't think society's collective subconscious can equate "big PPV show" with "live streaming event" yet. That's going to take a while.
3. Let's face it: At the end of the day, when all is said and done, the WWE Network is, at its core, a fancy Youtube channel.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Jul 13, 2014 9:55:41 GMT -5
I don't think they promoted 24/7 enough, no. But they did mention it on Raw in some passing way, but it would usually be "Hey, check out the Chamber of Horrors match this October on 24/7 to see how stupid WCW was!" Not exactly an enticement to shell out $$.
|
|