|
|
Post by 2coldMack is even more baffled on Feb 28, 2018 15:57:55 GMT -5
A sustainable business model is one that looks to be sturdy and ready to meet the future. It has nothing to do with what they're making now or what they made last year or five years ago. A business model making money now is not indicative of anything resembling sustainability. Lizuka's right; their ratings are slowly creeping off, the Network has at best plateaued into their seasonal highs and is just going to cycle around those here and there, and attendance is way down. Right out of their 2017 financials: "Live Event revenues decreased to $35.2 million from $38.6 million in the prior year quarter primarily due to a 7% decline in average attendance that was partially offset by a 5% increase in the average effective ticket price." That's by design not sustainable math. Business is about year-on-year growth and right now WWE is in a position where they're stagnating and their numbers are dwindling. Maybe not on the financial level yet, as they try to squeeze more money out of the people who do stick around and still have enough brand power to push for a more TV rights money and licensing, but all of the money WWE makes is dependent on having an audience, and if in four years' time Raw is lucky to get two million viewers and they're playing smaller venues, those narrow profit margins they're getting will vanish. Everything WWE does, whether directly out of our pocket or not, is dependent on us as an audience, because we give value to their brand that they sell to other companies, who only want to air their show, buy their show, make their toys, make their games, because they expect that we as fans will give them our business too. WWE can't make money without an audience, and a model that sees their audience shrink year on year is by definition not a sustainable model. From what I've gathered, it's being suggested in this thread that WWE has a poor business model and lack sustainability because of their booking decisions. If I'm misunderstanding that point, please correct me. To support this claim, some are citing ratings. However, to me, it seems as though some are being hyperbolic in the number of declining viewers to exaggerate the point, while also ignoring the overall decline in all television viewership because of other variables such as cord-cutting. The same general idea can be applied to attendance, as other live sporting events are having decreased attendance. It's fine if people dislike the booking decisions of the company, and I've always been a fan of speaking with your wallet, so let your voice be heard. That said, I think there's a great deal of confirmation bias that happens with wrestling fans because they feel so passionately about booking. But whatever, that's just my opinion on the topic. He was not being "Hyperbolic" in the least. He gave you hard numbers. From the company's own financial reports. How in the WORLD is that hyperbole? |
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Feb 28, 2018 16:09:34 GMT -5
A sustainable business model is one that looks to be sturdy and ready to meet the future. It has nothing to do with what they're making now or what they made last year or five years ago. A business model making money now is not indicative of anything resembling sustainability. Lizuka's right; their ratings are slowly creeping off, the Network has at best plateaued into their seasonal highs and is just going to cycle around those here and there, and attendance is way down. Right out of their 2017 financials: "Live Event revenues decreased to $35.2 million from $38.6 million in the prior year quarter primarily due to a 7% decline in average attendance that was partially offset by a 5% increase in the average effective ticket price." That's by design not sustainable math. Business is about year-on-year growth and right now WWE is in a position where they're stagnating and their numbers are dwindling. Maybe not on the financial level yet, as they try to squeeze more money out of the people who do stick around and still have enough brand power to push for a more TV rights money and licensing, but all of the money WWE makes is dependent on having an audience, and if in four years' time Raw is lucky to get two million viewers and they're playing smaller venues, those narrow profit margins they're getting will vanish. Everything WWE does, whether directly out of our pocket or not, is dependent on us as an audience, because we give value to their brand that they sell to other companies, who only want to air their show, buy their show, make their toys, make their games, because they expect that we as fans will give them our business too. WWE can't make money without an audience, and a model that sees their audience shrink year on year is by definition not a sustainable model. From what I've gathered, it's being suggested in this thread that WWE has a poor business model and lack sustainability because of their booking decisions. If I'm misunderstanding that point, please correct me. To support this claim, some are citing ratings. However, to me, it seems as though some are being hyperbolic in the number of declining viewers to exaggerate the point, while also ignoring the overall decline in all television viewership because of other variables such as cord-cutting. The same general idea can be applied to attendance, as other live sporting events are having decreased attendance. It's fine if people dislike the booking decisions of the company, and I've always been a fan of speaking with your wallet, so let your voice be heard. That said, I think there's a great deal of confirmation bias that happens with wrestling fans because they feel so passionately about booking. But whatever, that's just my opinion on the topic. The raw number of viewership isn't the only indication. WWE's ratings share, which is their cut of the percentage of people watching, has also slipped down. In 2010, their average share was 3.28. 2016 saw 2.26. Cord cutting as a reason for WWE's ratings has been talked to death, and while the overall numbers for all of TV may be down, WWE's descent has been deeper than that. If WWE were losing people in rough proportion, then we would see negligible differences in their share, not a year-on-year downward trend. Their decline in viewership is outpacing the television industry on the whole. Which means their product doesn't look as attractive. Then, combine that with the bit about 7% decrease in attendance and now Network figures seem to have peaked and aren't really breaking through to new heights, and you find yourself in a situation where even outside of television--which is the focal point of their product--they're seeing at best stagnation and at worst a decline everywhere else. These matter to everyone, including anyone looking to buy commercial air time on WWE programming, networks who want to air their programming, brands who want to do partnered ads with WWE like KFC and Rocket League. The product isn't appealing to people right now and they're losing viewers faster than they gain them. The show is stone cold right now and even passionate fans are having a hard time getting excited at times. If the fanbase dwindles down lower then not only will those revenue streams dry up, but the revenue streams contingent on them being a recognized and successful brand will begin to dry up. Roman Reigns having a two year title run wouldn't make KFC bail on WWE, but if by 2020 there's 500,000 fewer people watching WWE, KFC might not see them as such an attractive or valuable partner anymore. |
|
|
|
Post by 2coldMack is even more baffled on Feb 28, 2018 16:10:58 GMT -5
He was not being "Hyperbolic" in the least. He gave you hard numbers. From the company's own financial reports. How in the WORLD is that hyperbole? I wasn't referring to SCJA's post. That's why I used the qualifier "some" when talking about the hyperbolic reactions: So you see hard numbers from the company admitting to the loss of viewers, but then...call the reports of them losing viewers hyperbole? That doesn't make....any sense whatsoever. They are literally hemorrhaging viewers. That's what that "7% loss" means. And a shrinking audience, even an incrementally shrinking one, is not good for a business on the scale of WWE. "7%" on the scale WWE works on, is actually a pretty huge number. |
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Feb 28, 2018 16:11:12 GMT -5
He was not being "Hyperbolic" in the least. He gave you hard numbers. From the company's own financial reports. How in the WORLD is that hyperbole? I wasn't referring to SCJA's post. That's why I used the qualifier "some" when talking about the hyperbolic reactions: Gaze upon the face of my hyperbole and know fear  |
|
Perd
Patti Mayonnaise
Leslie needs to butt out for fear of receiving The Bunghole Buster
Posts: 32,474
|
Post by Perd on Feb 28, 2018 16:25:18 GMT -5
It Vince had the same mindset in 1997, that he does now, we’d all be gearing up for WCW: Gluttony.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Feb 28, 2018 16:48:19 GMT -5
It varies, but the point is that if he made the necessary adjustments to WWE he'd be richer and the product would be better. Meh. "Necessary" and "better" are highly subjective. The possibility of him being richer is only speculative. No, they really aren't. That's been shown by their ratings decline since they decided on the post Attitude Era booking strategy of making their top face a guy who is hated by at least half their remaining audience. |
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Feb 28, 2018 17:15:59 GMT -5
"He hears but doesn't want to listen"
-Happiness in Slavery (1992)
|
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Feb 28, 2018 17:55:06 GMT -5
So you see hard numbers from the company admitting to the loss of viewers, but then...call the reports of them losing viewers hyperbole? That doesn't make....any sense whatsoever. They are literally hemorrhaging viewers. That's what that "7% loss" means. And a shrinking audience, even an incrementally shrinking one, is not good for a business on the scale of WWE. "7%" on the scale WWE works on, is actually a pretty huge number. Not going to discuss semantics. Gaze upon the face of my hyperbole and know fear As I mentioned, I wasn't referring to your post as a source of hyperbole. The "my hyperbole" thing was just for the sake of dramatic flair, but the post you were referring to is one I was backing up, and am now presenting the actual numeric evidence to support, because what Lizuka said isn't hyperbole, it's backed up by every metric available to us. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2018 19:30:29 GMT -5
The thing with TV ratings is everything is down. A sitcom that airs today, would've been canceled in the 90s. Overall the money the WWE gets from tv rights is higher than ever. Right now, they're in talks with FOX which could create a bidding war.
If I were booking for myself, I would rehire CM Punk, make him the champ and have Roman be a midcarder. But I'm under no delusion, that this would somehow set the business on fire and create a new boom period. Maybe it would be better, maybe ratings would go up a bit, but there's no way to tell either way. Even with the WWE'd constant flaws in booking, they'll still be selling out a football stadium in a month and millions will watch. WWE might suck, but they don't suck as much as people think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Susan "Poison" Candy on Feb 28, 2018 21:05:36 GMT -5
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Feb 28, 2018 21:28:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Nickybojelais on Feb 28, 2018 21:41:05 GMT -5
I always get a kick out of seeing Mr K Dilkington make an appearance  |
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Feb 28, 2018 21:52:50 GMT -5
The thing with TV ratings is everything is down. A sitcom that airs today, would've been canceled in the 90s. Overall the money the WWE gets from tv rights is higher than ever. Right now, they're in talks with FOX which could create a bidding war. No but again it's not how much everything is down in terms of raw viewers; it's about how much WWE specifically is down further than the general downward trend of everyone else. WWE is getting more from TV rights, but there's a limit to how far things can slide before that stops being the case; this can't be hard to get. WWE right now still holds value to networks because of what the rating they're pulling means for their numbers, but if WWE's ratings continue to sink and slip further down as viewers tune out, then the bottom will fall out. WWE is right now excelling at squeezing a dollar out of each individual fan/viewer/attendee, and making the audience they do have worth a lot of money to outside parties, and they can keep that going because they're not a dead and dying brand. But if they continue on a downward trend where they lose interest, lose viewers, lose ticket sales, then one day it will reach a point where their audience isn't worth that kind of dollar. Every time someone points out how much they're making right now on their TV deal or how much profit they made this quarter, it's a statement ignoring that the bigger picture of what this continued trend means for the future. Vince's bad ideas aren't going to kill his company overnight, but there's no excuses for the way numbers are slowly bleeding them to death over time. |
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Feb 28, 2018 23:15:29 GMT -5
The thing with TV ratings is everything is down. A sitcom that airs today, would've been canceled in the 90s. Overall the money the WWE gets from tv rights is higher than ever. Right now, they're in talks with FOX which could create a bidding war. No but again it's not how much everything is down in terms of raw viewers; it's about how much WWE specifically is down further than the general downward trend of everyone else. WWE is getting more from TV rights, but there's a limit to how far things can slide before that stops being the case; this can't be hard to get. WWE right now still holds value to networks because of what the rating they're pulling means for their numbers, but if WWE's ratings continue to sink and slip further down as viewers tune out, then the bottom will fall out. WWE is right now excelling at squeezing a dollar out of each individual fan/viewer/attendee, and making the audience they do have worth a lot of money to outside parties, and they can keep that going because they're not a dead and dying brand. But if they continue on a downward trend where they lose interest, lose viewers, lose ticket sales, then one day it will reach a point where their audience isn't worth that kind of dollar. Every time someone points out how much they're making right now on their TV deal or how much profit they made this quarter, it's a statement ignoring that the bigger picture of what this continued trend means for the future. Vince's bad ideas aren't going to kill his company overnight, but there's no excuses for the way numbers are slowly bleeding them to death over time. Indeed, also some people also leave out things like. Advertisers DO NOT want to be associated with Wrestling, so networks get less money for ads running during the show. The only trade off is if Wrestling does well enough that it pushes them up a few slots in the weekly ratings. If the WWE dips so low that it is no longer helping them out... they are either A. dropping it completely or B. paying them considerably less when it's time for contracts to be negotiated. and with the really low profit margin they made last year that could be pretty disastrous. |
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Feb 28, 2018 23:24:45 GMT -5
For what it’s worth, Meltzer’s take...
|
|
|
|
Post by Nickybojelais on Feb 28, 2018 23:32:59 GMT -5
Well if the numbers continue their downward spiral eventually there'll be no reactions for Vince to hear!
|
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Feb 28, 2018 23:40:37 GMT -5
Well if the numbers continue their downward spiral eventually there'll be no reactions for Vince to hear! The issue that they’re not spiralling hard enough or fast enough for WWE to be unable to cover for it somehow and still make profit. They probably need to be losing money, not just not making a lot of profit, but actively losing it, before the kind of drastic change they need gets made. |
|
Gus Richlen: Ruffian
Patti Mayonnaise
Metal Maestro: Co-winner of the FAN Idol Throwdown!
BAU BAU
Posts: 39,273 
|
Post by Gus Richlen: Ruffian on Feb 28, 2018 23:49:42 GMT -5
Well if the numbers continue their downward spiral eventually there'll be no reactions for Vince to hear! The issue that they’re not spiralling hard enough or fast enough for WWE to be unable to cover for it somehow and still make profit. They probably need to be losing money, not just not making a lot of profit, but actively losing it, before the kind of drastic change they need gets made. And hoping that it does happen just because one doesn't like Vince or how he does things is being horribly unfair to everyone else who works in WWE because they don't deserve to have to worry about their jobs because someone doesn't like a couple of people on TV. |
|
|
|
Post by bootytea on Mar 1, 2018 0:08:39 GMT -5
WWE is performing well doing the least they can so it makes sense to continue that way. The alternative is attempting to please a fickle portion of the audience.
The funny thing is that WWE's biggest critics are usually in attendance on a weekly basis as a form of protest.
|
|
schma
El Dandy
Who are you to doubt me?
Posts: 7,639
|
Post by schma on Mar 1, 2018 0:58:00 GMT -5
Thanks I was too lazy to include the actual video in my post. |
|
