Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Jan 6, 2017 16:06:25 GMT -5
When the company isn't providing you a product that you want, period, that's a reason to voice displeasure. When the company actually DOES give people the product they want after they demand it for months and make it clear how badly they want it...and in response to getting that product, the fans merely say "Great. Now, I'm moving to the NEXT item on my list", and do it over and over again until it's painfully clear the REAL thing that the fans want is "your time as makers of this product is over. Give ME (not even the fans, but ME, PERSONALLY) the book and all power, and let me make this product MY WAY"...that's entitlement. No, it isn't. Because again, this is a company trying to make money. They aren't some benevolent force or government agency or charity. Fans or consumers don't 'owe' them anything. Yes. They ARE a company trying to make money. And by the same token, if you're a company trying to make money and there's certain members of the fanbase who make so many demands, one after the other, that they make it painfully clear what they REALLY want is to RULE your company- then eventually you can say "okay, you played your card, now it's time to tune you out. If you won't be happy unless I give away MY company and literally hand the reins over to you, personally, then maybe I can LIVE with you having a widdle frowny face while I handle making money."
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 6, 2017 16:14:32 GMT -5
No, it isn't. Because again, this is a company trying to make money. They aren't some benevolent force or government agency or charity. Fans or consumers don't 'owe' them anything. Yes. They ARE a company trying to make money. And by the same token, if you're a company trying to make money and there's certain members of the fanbase who make so many demands, one after the other, that they make it painfully clear what they REALLY want is to RULE your company- then eventually you can say "okay, you played your card, now it's time to tune you out. If you won't be happy unless I give away MY company and literally hand the reins over to you, personally, then maybe I can LIVE with you having a widdle frowny face while I handle making money." Never said they couldn't do that if they chose. My first quoted post simply had to do with the bizarre idea that customers should somehow be grateful for the product they were being provided. That's silly. Any company has the right to run their business how they see fit. I have no argument there. But again, the idea that somehow makes consumers beholden to them, come what may and engenders some form of gratitude is just not true. And this idea that a company can spite their own consumer base is odd frankly, because they creators and sellers of a product NEED the consumers, not the other way around. Sure they, or anyone else can do that. They just run the risk of losing a significant amount of money. Again, I'm not saying that endless complainers are 'right'. But I'm not the one selling something either. But the idea of people tuning out having 'widdle frowny faces' being entitled when they should be grateful to someone SELLING them something is just weird.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pigwell on Jan 6, 2017 17:01:13 GMT -5
No, it isn't. Because again, this is a company trying to make money. They aren't some benevolent force or government agency or charity. Fans or consumers don't 'owe' them anything. Yes. They ARE a company trying to make money. And by the same token, if you're a company trying to make money and there's certain members of the fanbase who make so many demands, one after the other, that they make it painfully clear what they REALLY want is to RULE your company- then eventually you can say "okay, you played your card, now it's time to tune you out. If you won't be happy unless I give away MY company and literally hand the reins over to you, personally, then maybe I can LIVE with you having a widdle frowny face while I handle making money." Hypothetical or not your message and intent are clear, I'm gonna have to ask you right there to not get condescending like that again.
|
|
trollrogue
Hank Scorpio
Nashville City of Music!!
Posts: 5,605
|
Post by trollrogue on Jan 6, 2017 22:39:30 GMT -5
There's a lot of gaping holes in your logic. Take Miz losing the belt for example. People really like Miz, and think Miz is on fire. Maybe one match outcome didn't go "our way", but that doesn't say that the rest of the show is bad. When there's a lot of things going on in WWE at one time, lots of acts being given time and stories, people can find what they want and enjoy that. Sometimes this is just "My guy didn't win in this match, but did in these other three on the show". I don't know what this idea of my subscribing to the network is "enough of a consent" for WWE's bad things is even close to an issue. I really hate part-timers being the focus of the show, and my subscription is not saying "Yes, good, Brock Lesnar is the logical focal point of everything". I'm watching for everything else on the show, and subscribing to help throw some money into supporting a company employing many of my favorite wrestlers. Wrestlers subjecting themselves to some real shit for my entertainment. Wrestling has a built-in system of feedback that virtually any other form of entertainment would kill for, on top of all the conventional ways of measuring fan interest already there. There's no excuse to claim the asinine belief that WWE would just assume if someone is buying a ticket that they're approving of everything about the show. And with how much content WWE is putting out every week and the whole subscription service thing, that's more ludicrous a position than ever before. Reread what I said. I said "enough of a consent", not (quoting you misquoting me) "approving everything about the show". Indeed that would be ludicrous if that's actually the position I and Heyman said. It wasn't. Look, even on Talking Smack Daniel Bryan brought up how a lot of people in the lockeroom and buying tickets for 'Mania get hot about your part time Rocks and your Goldberg's getting to main event with your Takers, and meanwhile the Ambroses and Kevin Owenses are breaking their backs wrestling RAW/SDLive/house shows for 200+ days a year and never get their 'Mania moment (Zack Ryder JUST got his last year after over a decade of this treatment). So yes, they do address it and several other issues. But he addressed it on a NETWORK show. Just like Heyman's counterpoint (stop paying for the product if you whine and bitch more than enjoy it) was on a NETWORK show. That was my point. It's valid no matter how much you've attempted to put inaccurate words in my mouth, broski. You go to McDonald's and order a McChicken. They give you a McChicken, are you then going to bitch and moan about how your sammich, while a perfectly valid and even tasty McChicken sammich, that you would have rather them wrapped it in a Blue Wrapper with sparkles on it? Rather than a plain white wrapper? That is what your argument sounds like right now-- you paid for a wrestling show and WWE Network programming, and you received exactly what you've purchased (and I'd argue at 9.99 the amount of WWE content you get is more than worth the price). But because some parts that aren't up to you as the viewer (i.e. booking decisions, contract negotions and other behind-the-scenes stuff only SMARKS give a damn about in all honesty) are things you disagree with, you feel entitled (that is indeed the correct term for your bitching and moaning here) it allows you to say that you aren't happy with your purchase. Even though it came exactly as advertised (card is always subject to change). Now THAT is ludicrous to me. Just take the damn white wrapper and enjoy the damn sammich, for Daisy's sake! Oh, so let me ask you since it's "dumb" to openly insult the WWE Univwrse... are you also calling the fan's "dumb" when they chanted "You Suck!" literally EVERYTIME Kurt Angle (who demonstrably did not suck, was a legit Gold Medalist in Olympic Wrestling, and perhaps the best wrestler on the planet alive today) came out to his entrance theme? Are fans "dumb" for chanting "ass-hole" whenever a heel cute a vicious promo against a babyface? Is it okay for fans to insult the wrestlers they've paid money to see, but not vice versa? Sounds like a classic hypocritical argument a smark would make to me, again Heyman is a heel and does things to get people to chant "ass-hole" at him, which he's done brilliantly in your case it would seem. Heyman isn't speaking for the WWE board of directors, I don't know where you get the impression he is "the WWE" whenever he cuts a heel promo on fans. He is, as he says nearly every time he talks, merely an advocate. I hope this clears up some things for you, it seems like you weren't following my logic at all.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Jan 6, 2017 23:27:47 GMT -5
There's a lot of gaping holes in your logic. Take Miz losing the belt for example. People really like Miz, and think Miz is on fire. Maybe one match outcome didn't go "our way", but that doesn't say that the rest of the show is bad. When there's a lot of things going on in WWE at one time, lots of acts being given time and stories, people can find what they want and enjoy that. Sometimes this is just "My guy didn't win in this match, but did in these other three on the show". I don't know what this idea of my subscribing to the network is "enough of a consent" for WWE's bad things is even close to an issue. I really hate part-timers being the focus of the show, and my subscription is not saying "Yes, good, Brock Lesnar is the logical focal point of everything". I'm watching for everything else on the show, and subscribing to help throw some money into supporting a company employing many of my favorite wrestlers. Wrestlers subjecting themselves to some real shit for my entertainment. Wrestling has a built-in system of feedback that virtually any other form of entertainment would kill for, on top of all the conventional ways of measuring fan interest already there. There's no excuse to claim the asinine belief that WWE would just assume if someone is buying a ticket that they're approving of everything about the show. And with how much content WWE is putting out every week and the whole subscription service thing, that's more ludicrous a position than ever before. Reread what I said. I said "enough of a consent", not (quoting you misquoting me) "approving everything about the show". Indeed that would be ludicrous if that's actually the position I and Heyman said. It wasn't. Look, even on Talking Smack Daniel Bryan brought up how a lot of people in the lockeroom and buying tickets for 'Mania get hot about your part time Rocks and your Goldberg's getting to main event with your Takers, and meanwhile the Ambroses and Kevin Owenses are breaking their backs wrestling RAW/SDLive/house shows for 200+ days a year and never get their 'Mania moment (Zack Ryder JUST got his last year after over a decade of this treatment). So yes, they do address it and several other issues. But he addressed it on a NETWORK show. Just like Heyman's counterpoint (stop paying for the product if you whine and bitch more than enjoy it) was on a NETWORK show. That was my point. It's valid no matter how much you've attempted to put inaccurate words in my mouth, broski. You go to McDonald's and order a McChicken. They give you a McChicken, are you then going to bitch and moan about how your sammich, while a perfectly valid and even tasty McChicken sammich, that you would have rather them wrapped it in a Blue Wrapper with sparkles on it? Rather than a plain white wrapper? That is what your argument sounds like right now-- you paid for a wrestling show and WWE Network programming, and you received exactly what you've purchased (and I'd argue at 9.99 the amount of WWE content you get is more than worth the price). But because some parts that aren't up to you as the viewer (i.e. booking decisions, contract negotions and other behind-the-scenes stuff only SMARKS give a damn about in all honesty) are things you disagree with, you feel entitled (that is indeed the correct term for your bitching and moaning here) it allows you to say that you aren't happy with your purchase. Even though it came exactly as advertised (card is always subject to change). Now THAT is ludicrous to me. Just take the damn white wrapper and enjoy the damn sammich, for Daisy's sake! Oh, so let me ask you since it's "dumb" to openly insult the WWE Univwrse... are you also calling the fan's "dumb" when they chanted "You Suck!" literally EVERYTIME Kurt Angle (who demonstrably did not suck, was a legit Gold Medalist in Olympic Wrestling, and perhaps the best wrestler on the planet alive today) came out to his entrance theme? Are fans "dumb" for chanting "ass-hole" whenever a heel cute a vicious promo against a babyface? Is it okay for fans to insult the wrestlers they've paid money to see, but not vice versa? Sounds like a classic hypocritical argument a smark would make to me, again Heyman is a heel and does things to get people to chant "ass-hole" at him, which he's done brilliantly in your case it would seem. I don't know where line of distinction between "I bought a ticket so I consent to whatever you put on the screen" and "I bought a ticket so I do whatever you want, my ticket is proof of approval of that" is drawn but okay fine. Seems like weird empty semantics to me but let's roll with it. Your metaphor about chicken wrappers falls apart on a whole lot of levels, but the big one I'd point out is that the wrapper is not the product. I am buying a sandwich and the wrapper is there. It's inconsequential. It's not part of the sandwich I am putting in my mouth. But in a wrestling show, the storylines being told, which people are treated well and which people are just there to get beaten up, and the abominable state of three hour Raws being full of drawn out segments and empty filler are all definitely a part of the product I'm buying. Let me posit something to you, with your McChicken idea. Say McDonalds decided they were going to use more of the lettuce in their sandwiches, and decided to start throwing shreeded lettuce root into their burgers. Say each time you bought a sandwich there, you were pretty likely to get some pieces of thick, brown lettuce root in your chicken burger. Say every now and then, you bought a McChicken and you had almost nothing but shredded root in there. You took a big ol' bite and gnawed down on bread, a breaded chicken patty, and a generous helping of that stuff. Do you think McDonalds, liking money, would tell people "Well you bought a McChicken. You got what you paid for, don't complain you entitled whiner"? Or, if they were to be told by everyone to maybe cut the lettuce root out because the rest of the sandwich has some good shit in there, but sometimes you get a mouthful of nothing but nasty, unchewable lettuce root and you can't even take another bite of the sandwich, McDonalds might smarten up and stop putting it in there? Even if McDonalds just said "Don't buy our sandwiches anymore then, you baby," at some point the sales would dip low enough that they'd stop using f***ing lettuce roots. That's where this all really falls apart, I think; companies want to make money, they want their customers to be happy. And sometimes, a really terrible episode of Raw or a Wrestlemania 32 is liking biting into a nice, big sandwich full of f***ing lettuce root. I never said anything about contract negotiations and behind the scenes stuff, which I bring up only because of how much of a sticking point you made of me apparently putting words into your mouth. There are things about WWE that I like. I watch it for those. Like I said. But there are parts that drag, there are things they do that are not good, and like any other piece of media, I fail to see why it isn't open to people having problems with those things. "I like it in spite of its flaws but I wish it wasn't SO MUCH about these flaws sometimes". And I can't stress this enough; WWE has lost millions of viewers over the past decade or so. They have driven people away with these problems and the attrition rate is rapidly outpacing the new fans they create. As for the differences in "company insult" versus "fan insult"... Well, let's see here. Kurt Angle first got the "You suck" chant to his theme when he was a heel, and from there it continued as a sign of affection, the same way "Let's go Cena/Cena sucks" is done by crowds that are much more okay with Cena than ever before and know he can wrestle, will pop for his moves, but it's all just a part of the show now. When the crowds chant "asshole" at a heel that is literally doing the thing that wrestling audiences are supposed to do and I am bolding this sentence to emphasize this as hard as I can because yikes, dude.But the audience is made up of paying customers at a show that emphasizes audience participation. They're interacting with characters and are made a part of the show in so many different ways both audio and visual. Nobody thinks that The Miz in real life is an ass hole for playing one on TV, but if someone were to post here that they hope Miz gets run over by a truck and we never have to see him again he would be told "Dude no" by about two dozen posters before a mod chimed in to say never to publicly wish harm on a wrestler again. On the other hand, WWE saying it out of kayfabe or wrestlers saying it out of characer in interviews or on twitter is the person selling something to you telling you "Don't buy this product if you don't accept it unconditionally". Which is not a good thing to do when you are a business and rely on customers. Straight-up, in any field of business, it is not. In kayfabe? Well, if the insult is "Boy people here tonight in Armpit, Wyoming sure don't shower enough", that's not what I take issue with. Heyman I'll call an asshole because of his actual out of kayfabe behavior, so not a great example there, but Heyman isn't the only one who's done it by far. I don't know where "Sounds like a classic hypocritical argument a smark would make to me" is coming from, but if you're coming in this with a preconceived notion of hivemindery or inherent hypocrisy in people who complain on the internet about wrestling and paint what I have to say with the broad strokes of same then I wonder what more can really be said to illustrate that point. Sounds like a classic hypocritical argument an anti-smark would make, to me.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,540
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jan 7, 2017 4:07:45 GMT -5
I think when you watch documentaries on anything really successful, including WWE at it's peak(s), that those behind it admit they didn't know everything.
It was luck, hard work, creativity due to budget restraints, a chance conversation, a last minute change, a small tweak, heated arguments, a burst of inspiration, a break from tradition, a last roll of the dice... a great big combination of factors they successfully managed to make something special. Or even just being lucky enough to capture lightening in a bottle.
These days so many in wrestling seem to talk like they have all the answers and Piper isn't about to change the questions. Hell they go further than that and change the narrative after the event, the biggest example being the way they didn't just salvage Bryan's rise to the top at WM but acted like it was meticulously planned all along (broke Big Show and The Wyatts included).
Thankfully when HHH talks about NXT he's more like those that admit they don't know everything, hopefully that will continue to influence the rest of the company.
|
|
trollrogue
Hank Scorpio
Nashville City of Music!!
Posts: 5,605
|
Post by trollrogue on Jan 8, 2017 5:04:05 GMT -5
I appreciate you reading and responding to my comments Stone Cold Jane, I won't continue to beat a dying horse thread aside to say your opinion ain't wrong and I do get now that you are not a typical smarky smark who just wants their fantasy booking adhered to or bust.
I still agree with Hey man and still believe he was cutting a heel promo for entertainment purposes, not trying to intentionally piss off serious fans with serious concerns about a product they pay for. I made that McChicken wrapper analogy as most of the time, smarks are only concerned with the "gift wrapping" aka the presentation of pro-wrestling (I.e. who goes 'over' who) and not the actual gift (entertainment). It's all predetermined, so I just always laugh when smarks think any pro-wrestler actually cares if they job or squash someone in a match. Trust me, Titus O Neal doesn't care laying down every Monday Night RAW he only cares of the crowd is silent (luckily he got a huge response in his New Day feud last Monday).
Anyways, good talk
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Jan 8, 2017 22:26:46 GMT -5
Yes. They ARE a company trying to make money. And by the same token, if you're a company trying to make money and there's certain members of the fanbase who make so many demands, one after the other, that they make it painfully clear what they REALLY want is to RULE your company- then eventually you can say "okay, you played your card, now it's time to tune you out. If you won't be happy unless I give away MY company and literally hand the reins over to you, personally, then maybe I can LIVE with you having a widdle frowny face while I handle making money." Never said they couldn't do that if they chose. My first quoted post simply had to do with the bizarre idea that customers should somehow be grateful for the product they were being provided. That's silly. Any company has the right to run their business how they see fit. I have no argument there. But again, the idea that somehow makes consumers beholden to them, come what may and engenders some form of gratitude is just not true. And this idea that a company can spite their own consumer base is odd frankly, because they creators and sellers of a product NEED the consumers, not the other way around. Sure they, or anyone else can do that. They just run the risk of losing a significant amount of money. Again, I'm not saying that endless complainers are 'right'. But I'm not the one selling something either. But the idea of people tuning out having 'widdle frowny faces' being entitled when they should be grateful to someone SELLING them something is just weird. It's about respect. Yes there is nothing wrong with being grateful to wrestlers who put on a good product. Nor is it wrong to be grateful to the company for delivering compelling television at times. What you pay for it, so they don't deserve no thank you for doing a good job? No one is saying worship them and never hold them to account. It's the same with people who complain about wrestling. There are many valid complaints but all too often people here think that it's better for them to pour hate on anything they don't like and exaggerate calling it's the worst thing ever. Because it's their opinion and they seemingly lack the ability to look at things objectively. I dislike Randy Orton. I will pick a 100 wrestlers over him. Yet I would watch a match of his objectively and give credit where credit is due. I'd look at the good points as well as the bad, even if I think otherwise personally. I try to see the bigger picture rather than focus purely on my own petty grievances. Now if you ask me what I'd rather see, I will tell you because it's a direct question. But I don't go in ready to hate. If I watch a Randy Orton match with someone who can't look at Randy objectively, they will slate him for everything wrong and totally be against everything he does. Again like what you like and dislike what you dislike. But if you are against wrestling as a whole why am I going to rely on your opinion on it? I don't ask a vegetarian to judge McDonald's burgers and I don't take seriously the opinions of jaded fans who think cm punk and Daniel Bryan sucked only because the attitude era was perfect. I hear more unreasonable comments from wrestling fans then I do actual westlers. I know it's cool to rebel against the product and desire something different, as it always seems to be throughout history.perhaps people think I am advocating us to be mindless sheeple cheering Katie Vick and Stephanie McMahon never getting true comeuppance anymore. To lové big brother, for he knows what is Best for our poor confused erratic brains! I'm just saying, is it the end of the world if aspects of the product suck? Tell us how annoyed you are and how they should do things better. But just remember that you aren't always right, nor is the WWE created purely for your specific desires. Because to outsiders, all they hear is a different group each week screaming about what sucks and it can turn them away or at the least, less willing to participate in this message board.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Jan 8, 2017 22:37:23 GMT -5
They should be thankful for fan complaints. Feedback is how they know what isn't necessarily working and what needs to be changed. Sometimes massive change isn't even needed. Things may need to be tweaked in order to work. They are lucky in the sense they have live, real time feedback every week. "We are still making money" isn't a good enough defence. They could be earning even more if they listened to complaints, especially when they are part of a pattern, when it's not just some random kid saying "you suck!" but rather a frequent backlash to what they are doing. In any case, they've encouraged complaints from the fans. They botched the shit out of Daniel Bryan. The fans complained. WWE kicked and screamed but eventually changed their plans (and yes they did. There was no masterplan for Daniel Bryan), and the fans were proven right. They've had their top star for years praise the fans for expressing their feelings towards him. They've rewarded loud and reactive crowds with Slammy Awards. They've interminably pitched and shilled an online network directly towards the most opinionated and vocal fans.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 8, 2017 22:41:33 GMT -5
If you feel like someone deserves a good job, sure you can express that.
But again that =/= gratitude.
That idea is just strange to me.
On the flipside, I don't think wrestlers or celebrities owe fans anything beyond the performance either. You like to see guys go above and beyond, but to my mind, the performance is the end of the transaction as far as what is owed.
|
|
fw91
Patti Mayonnaise
FAN Idol All-Star: FAN Idol Season X and *Gavel* 2x Judges' Throwdown winner
Tribe has spoken for 2024 Mets
Posts: 38,994
Member is Online
|
Post by fw91 on Jan 8, 2017 23:16:47 GMT -5
i mean I get the WWE's defense. What do we REALLY know about the business side of things? We're on the outs.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Jan 8, 2017 23:35:30 GMT -5
On the flipside, I don't think wrestlers or celebrities owe fans anything beyond the performance either. You like to see guys go above and beyond, but to my mind, the performance is the end of the transaction as far as what is owed. First off, if I was condescending before, I apologize in advance to continue- but since he has gotten closer to my point with this one, it is a little bit different. I do agree with that part, and that is closer to the issue. The bigger thing that the fans don't accept is that it's more than just a company providing a product, but rather "a company providing an ENTERTAINMENT product." This is a problem for live TV, since honestly- on its core, the fans would be happiest if the people they like win every single match, forever. The only problem with that is that sometimes- you have to give people MORE THAN JUST THAT. Sometimes, in writing a longstanding show like WWE (which is the product), you have to realize that if you're trying to make a good episodic television show (and that's your product), then sometimes, you have to break the fans' hearts in order to make them want something THAT MUCH MORE when they finally get it (or prove, once and for all, that the fans didn't REALLY want it as badly as they SAY they want it- in which case you can realize "okay, I don't have to put that plot point or loose end tied up after all".) The fans don't owe gratitude to the company for it- but at the same time, there is a point where the company also shouldn't do exactly what the fans want them to do, every single time they do it, forever.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Jan 8, 2017 23:39:08 GMT -5
Eh, I didn't notice.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. No big deal.
|
|
segaz
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,381
|
Post by segaz on Jan 9, 2017 7:36:40 GMT -5
i mean I get the WWE's defense. What do we REALLY know about the business side of things? We're on the outs. To a point it makes sense. I don't really know how to make a movie but I still know when one sucks. Like Sharknado. But wait, some people love that movie. Perhaps the truth is I know when I don't like something. But wait, I thought Ric Flair was bad when I first saw him. Yet I changed my opinion on him mighty quick. I guess all we can say is that we know when we are watching something for a long period of time whether or not it sucks. Like with Roman, very few people dislike him as a person here. They dislike the current direction with him. At the same time its easy to sit back and play armchair booker thinking you'd draw millions with your ideas. When someone laughs because I am struggling with furniture, the first reaction for me is to say, you want to give it a go? I don't expect them to reply "lol I don't need to be able to lift chairs to laugh and run you down for struggling with one." Genius is not easy to create. The WWE is simply adequate at the moment and thats not enough for people who have seen better and want better. However running a business doesn't always mean doing whatever the fans demand. Turning Cena heel is a good example of this.
|
|