|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jun 16, 2015 23:13:27 GMT -5
California is the most expensive state in terms of taxes. Levi's Stadium has an ultra expensive rental rate. That's why they lost money. Except they didn't charge WWE any rental as part of the agreement to bring Wrestlemania there. Wrestlemania to a lesser extent is like the Super Bowl where cities will bid and give sweethart deals to the WWE for the event because it means 10s of thousands coming in to the city renting hotels and eating out. No way is the WWE paying any thing close to an expensive rental fee for it. |
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,545
|
Post by Dub H on Jun 16, 2015 23:15:21 GMT -5
Here is a list of things they could have cut that would have made no difference in the end and costs a lot: Musician Guest Ronda The Rock Triple H entrance Triple H Buddy,Arnold Rusev Tank Undertaker(Lets be honest,i doubt anyone cared now) Andre Battle Royale(It had no effect on anything) Agreed with everything except the last two. Without Taker you gotta find some other way to shoehorn Bray on to the card because no way is he getting left off. And Without the Battle Royal, you gotta find some other way to get Mark Henry, Big Show, Kane, Ryback, and The Miz on the card, because none of those guys are getting left off the show either (although honestly, I would've chosen three of those guys for the IC Ladder match over R-Truth, Harper, and Stardust) Honestly i WANTED these guys you said to appear but overall neither helped sell Wrestlemania and neither helped build anything or anyone |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 23:17:11 GMT -5
I am interested in seeing a breakdown to see what exactly was the tipping point that made this particular Mania the first to lose money since last year's Mania made money despite being on the Network. Last year was also on all major PPV companies in the States (got like several hundred thousand buys) and "only" available on PPV outside of the US. This year the Network was basically worldwide and not on many PPV providers in the States. It absolutely comes down to Network subscriptions. I wonder how many people watched for free because either WWE offered it, or because they found a loophole? WWE didn't offer it for free. Feb. was free, Mar. was paid and then April onward has been free. |
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jun 16, 2015 23:20:38 GMT -5
For the record I don't believe this it feels like a book keeping thing
|
|
|
|
Post by Oh Cry Me a Screwball on Jun 16, 2015 23:20:57 GMT -5
I am interested in seeing a breakdown to see what exactly was the tipping point that made this particular Mania the first to lose money since last year's Mania made money despite being on the Network. Last year was also on all major PPV companies in the States (got like several hundred thousand buys) and "only" available on PPV outside of the US. This year the Network was basically worldwide and not on many PPV providers in the States. Not to mention that there was many concerns as to whether the stream could hold up, especially after the NXT Arrival fiasco. I know there were many people who had Network subscriptions that still purchased the PPV to ensure they saw the whole show. |
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Jun 16, 2015 23:23:26 GMT -5
I am interested in seeing a breakdown to see what exactly was the tipping point that made this particular Mania the first to lose money since last year's Mania made money despite being on the Network. Last year was also on all major PPV companies in the States (got like several hundred thousand buys) and "only" available on PPV outside of the US. This year the Network was basically worldwide and not on many PPV providers in the States. Ah, good point. I wasn't even thinking about that. That certainly would make sense. |
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Jun 16, 2015 23:36:22 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong. I love the Network, and it's definitely undervalued as a service. But the way they built the marketing for the thing around $9.99 is going to make for quite a fanbase reaction when they finally do raise the price. Or they could totally embrace the marketing hook of 9,99 as an entry point to the Network and introduce tiered pricing. One price for all you can eat (20/month), another price for every PPV except the big four (14.99) and then an introductory/basic access costs with 4 ppvs (of your choosing, except big 4) for 9.99. The problem is, WWE Network is way too niche to change their pricing. I mean, the fact that WWE Network is $9.99 is really the hook to get people since parents will see how much money they're saving on PPVs/their cable bill and sign up because $9.99 is right along with what other streaming sites offer. But if you raise that price to $15 or $20 a month for a straight wrestling streaming service, the value is a lot harder to see. It's still way cheaper than buying PPVs every month, but $20 is a huge amount of money for a streaming service when people are trained from other services like Hulu, Netflix, and Spotify to expect around $10. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2015 23:57:03 GMT -5
While I'm not exactly looking forward to paying more for the Network, I will have lots of laughs at WWE's expense when they do raise the price. I'd happily pay $20 a month for the content that I get from the Network. A price increase doesn't bother me at all as long as WWE maintains its commitment to original programming, airing all ppvs and keeps uploading classic content. Oh, and I'm a baller so idgaf. I haven't subscribed to the Network for more than a month at a time without using the free trial since, like, November, but I think $20 a month would be the point where I never came back to it. Can see where some people could get use out of that, but personally even when I do have my account active I don't actually bother using it; $10 is easy enough to chuck some money at just for one PPV I otherwise wouldn't watch, but $20 is too rich for my blood. I think that'd be an issue you'd run into with a lot of people with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Captain & Diet on Jun 17, 2015 0:06:40 GMT -5
Or they could totally embrace the marketing hook of 9,99 as an entry point to the Network and introduce tiered pricing. One price for all you can eat (20/month), another price for every PPV except the big four (14.99) and then an introductory/basic access costs with 4 ppvs (of your choosing, except big 4) for 9.99. The problem is, WWE Network is way too niche to change their pricing. I mean, the fact that WWE Network is $9.99 is really the hook to get people since parents will see how much money they're saving on PPVs/their cable bill and sign up because $9.99 is right along with what other streaming sites offer. But if you raise that price to $15 or $20 a month for a straight wrestling streaming service, the value is a lot harder to see. It's still way cheaper than buying PPVs every month, but $20 is a huge amount of money for a streaming service when people are trained from other services like Hulu, Netflix, and Spotify to expect around $10. Maybe it's just me. I get Netflix and Hulu for my kids but the movies on it are so horribly bad that there's no real reason for me to watch those services. To me they have zero value. I watch something on the WWE Network every day. When I compare what I pay if I bought all the PPV the traditional way, then it's a tremendous bargain. I'll tell you how bad Netflix is. I'm watching Sharknado 2 right now. Because my kids asked me to. Kill me now. |
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jun 17, 2015 0:22:50 GMT -5
Or they could totally embrace the marketing hook of 9,99 as an entry point to the Network and introduce tiered pricing. One price for all you can eat (20/month), another price for every PPV except the big four (14.99) and then an introductory/basic access costs with 4 ppvs (of your choosing, except big 4) for 9.99. The problem is, WWE Network is way too niche to change their pricing. I mean, the fact that WWE Network is $9.99 is really the hook to get people since parents will see how much money they're saving on PPVs/their cable bill and sign up because $9.99 is right along with what other streaming sites offer. But if you raise that price to $15 or $20 a month for a straight wrestling streaming service, the value is a lot harder to see. It's still way cheaper than buying PPVs every month, but $20 is a huge amount of money for a streaming service when people are trained from other services like Hulu, Netflix, and Spotify to expect around $10. You beat me to it. The fallout from this news is potentially tremendous, depending on how WWE reacts. WWE had to know going into this year that expanding the Network meant a lower payout for WrestleMania. The only three shows a year they're all but guaranteed a solid buyrate for are the Rumble, SummerSlam, but particularly WrestleMania; one of the driving factors behind the Network being online only was that they could ensure they'd get monthly payouts from fans even in traditionally low PPV-buyrate months, and cut out the cable/satellite middle man in the process, so they had to know that they were sacrificing RR/WM/SS revenue to make up some of the difference for, say, a month where the only big card is something like TLC or whatever. On the surface, it's a shrewd move, and a forward thinking one; entertainment content is increasingly moving in an online-centric direction, with even the NHL now being forced to offer an expanded amount of content in their online format thanks to a lawsuit (sports leagues regularly black out local team broadcasts as part of an a agreement with team-owned networks and cable companies). However, WWE is held back by the reality that pro wrestling, despite becoming a mainstream phenomenon in the mid-1980s and a having a brief resurgence (with largely the same audience, just having grown up a bit) in the late 1990s, has increasingly become a niche product, with the number of regular viewers and PPV buyers steadily dropping in recent years. Given that reality, can WWE get enough subscribers to WWE Network to compensate for their move away from the traditional PPV market? And would it be a huge overreaction next year if they drop WM entirely from the Network and make it PPV-only again, given that WM is a key reason why many people sign up for the Network at all? Will this introduce tiered pricing? Will this become a trend, forcing WWE to realize that they are now limited by the finite number of people out there who are willing to dish out a monthly fee for pro wrestling (and only WWE pro wrestling)? Does this mean no more WMs in huge football stadiums? Smaller fanfest activities? Or does WWE decide "Hey, keeping it big is good for our image", and they decide to just eat the loss and hope it balances out on the rest of the calendar in those B-PPV months? There's a ton of ways this can go, really fascinating stuff. |
|
Sam Punk
Hank Scorpio
Own Nothing, Be Happy
Posts: 6,322
|
Post by Sam Punk on Jun 17, 2015 0:24:22 GMT -5
If they're going to charge $20/month, they need to fix the constant buffering issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jedi-El of Tomorrow on Jun 17, 2015 0:45:26 GMT -5
I'll tell you how bad Netflix is. I'm watching Sharknado 2 right now. Because my kids asked me to. Kill me now. Sharknado 2 is a fantastic awesome movie. That movie is a national treasure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2015 0:53:36 GMT -5
If they're going to charge $20/month, they need to fix the constant buffering issues. Seriously, I try to watch WCW and I have to wait forever to get it to load. And half the time it's a struggle to watch PPV's. MITB is the first one to work flawlessly for me. |
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 28,325 
|
Post by chazraps on Jun 17, 2015 1:05:24 GMT -5
Wrestlemania 19 had a terrible build-up. Wrestlemania 26 had probably the best Build-Up since 17. It turned out great, but WM19 had a better build sans the awful Booker/H build. Nah, 19's build was pretty terrible all around. The show was a success in spite of its booking. Michaels/Jericho, while polarizing to some at the time, over all was really good. Hogan/McMahon was as good of a build as that spectacle could be. As was the build to los Guerreros/Team Angle/Benoit&Rhyno with the story of how Benoit and Rhyno had their careers derailed with injury and missed the last Mania, although ultimately the wrong decision was made to keep the belts on Team Angle, but that's a story for another thread. Angle/Brock was not a good build as they kept teasing it wouldn't happen/would be given away for free early. Knowing now that's because of the uncertainty of Angle's neck injury, but it doesn't change the weird week-to-week build. Jazz had no business in the Trish-Victoria match and was shoe-horned in at her most uninteresting. While we all remember and love The Rock concert and Hollywood Rock at the time, Austin really didn't bring a whole lot to this build and it was kind of a waste of both Rock in his best ever and Austin's final match to have them together, especially with the lacking build. Hardy/Mysterio was nothing of a build compared to how both were two of the most consistent and powerful Smackdown talents at the time. Taker/Jones - Show/A-Train was a non-event, especially with Taker disposing of both already early on. And while Storm/Morley vs. Kane/RVD actually did have a great build, it was bumped to the pre-show. Plus, the aforementioned Triple H-Booker T having the single worst Mania build of all time. That's why Mania 19 did terrible with such a staked card. 8 weeks of outright bad television preceded it, 8 weeks of bad television followed. That's why people didn't really jock it until about 2010 or so when enough time had passed and the show could be appreciated in a vacuum on its own as something of a triumph for overcoming week-after-week of bad booking. |
|
chazraps
Wade Wilson
Better have my money when I come-a collect!
Posts: 28,325
|
Post by chazraps on Jun 17, 2015 1:10:01 GMT -5
The problem is, WWE Network is way too niche to change their pricing. I mean, the fact that WWE Network is $9.99 is really the hook to get people since parents will see how much money they're saving on PPVs/their cable bill and sign up because $9.99 is right along with what other streaming sites offer. But if you raise that price to $15 or $20 a month for a straight wrestling streaming service, the value is a lot harder to see. It's still way cheaper than buying PPVs every month, but $20 is a huge amount of money for a streaming service when people are trained from other services like Hulu, Netflix, and Spotify to expect around $10. Maybe it's just me. I get Netflix and Hulu for my kids but the movies on it are so horribly bad that there's no real reason for me to watch those services. To me they have zero value. I watch something on the WWE Network every day. When I compare what I pay if I bought all the PPV the traditional way, then it's a tremendous bargain. I'll tell you how bad Netflix is. I'm watching Sharknado 2 right now. Because my kids asked me to. Kill me now. I just finished watching Amadeus on Netflix. I think you need to take a better look around Netflix. |
|
Madagascar Fred
El Dandy
TAFKA roidzilla and SUFFERIN' SUCCOTASH SON!
Posts: 8,784
|
Post by Madagascar Fred on Jun 17, 2015 2:32:43 GMT -5
WM32 featuring HHH, The Rock, Shawn Michaels, Brock Lesnar, Sting, Undertaker, Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin, Kurt Angle, Ric Flair, Mick Foley, Bret Hart, Chris Jericho, Booker T, Edge, Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, Big Show, Kane and Larry Zbyszko!
|
|
|
|
Post by StormanReigns on Jun 17, 2015 3:42:14 GMT -5
Wrestlemania losing money was always going to be a consequence if the WWE Network was profitable.
The show itself is very expensive to run.
PPV is still far from dead. Pacio/Mayweather drew the biggest PPV buyrate ever
|
|
543Y2J
Patti Mayonnaise
Seventh level .gif Master
Posts: 38,794
|
Post by 543Y2J on Jun 17, 2015 4:08:04 GMT -5
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone.
Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 24,269
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jun 17, 2015 4:50:37 GMT -5
I think I'm right in saying they've relied on foreign audiences and particularly the UK for a large chunk of their revenue in recent years?
They did everything possible to piss those fans off around that time, maybe a lot of them thought enough is enough it's time for a change.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 48,545
|
Post by Dub H on Jun 17, 2015 5:06:41 GMT -5
I think I'm right in saying they've relied on foreign audiences and particularly the UK for a large chunk of their revenue in recent years? They did everything possible to piss those fans off around that time, maybe a lot of them thought enough is enough it's time for a change. I think it is safe to say WWE books with only USA in their minds And sometimes "Hey we have an Mexican Wrestler!". |
|
