Did WWE(F) shoot themselves in the foot in this aspect?

[THE FVNKER]

I'd like to preface this by saying I am not starting this discussion with the intent to flame WWE or create some sort of WWE hate fest.  Not a fan myself, just wondering what others think.

All the time, listening to podcasts, shoot interviews and all that, you always hear people asking someone involved about what is going wrong with WWE right now. Most of the internet fans will want to bring up the PG stuff, the long promos, etc.  While those two aspects are a possible explanation,  I really do think that the following could really be the culprit on why ratings and attendance have been down for so long.

They have eliminated the possibility of current and potential stars by too strongly enforcing the WWE brand.

Anymore when you watch WWE, all you see is that logo plastered on everything.  Everything shown on TV is covered in the WWE logo.  Of course it has to be somewhere, but I believe that by doing this, they have lessened the importance of who is wrestling, and made the Brand the focal point.  Also, I do believe that this was done in a direct effort to make sure that something like the Monday Night Wars can never happen.  Stars moving to a different promotion (see TNA) doesn't make NEAR the amount of waves as it did back then, because they don't really try to sell the stars as larger than life.  The "WWE" is larger than life, the athletes just work for them.  This comes all the way down to calling the crowd the "WWE Universe".  By simply attending a show, you are considered part of the WWE brand. Now obviously this is a safe and secure business tactic on the WWE's behalf.  However, I would like to think that most people aren't exactly interested in consuming or participating in such a homogenized product.

I do understand that the latest TV deal is a huge win for them, that contracts are now bigger than ever, and the Network is a big success.  An argument could be made that WWE are in a better place financially than ever before, but think about the scene from Behind The Mat.  At one point, WWE and South Park were head to head in licensing and main steam popularity.  That is INSANE.  WWF was a household name at the time because you had guys like Austin, Rock, Taker and the rest.  WWE presented them as larger than life stars.  They didn't constantly cram down the consumers throat that they were "WWF Superstars" and all that.

I could be way off base here, but I thought if nothing else it would provide an interesting discussion.

[carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army)]

The truth is, the WWE has had one (1) star in its entire existence: Hulk Hogan. One of the things that stood out about the Last Week Tonight segment is that it was clearly written in large part by current fans, and yet their parody commercial was straight out of the 80s. That's wrestling to people.
A few years ago, Rock was on SNL and he did a wrestling sketch, and they weren't giving modern promos. They weren't even giving ROCK promos. They were yelling at the camera like Road Warrior Hawk. I bet lots of people could tell you "that's a wrestler" if you say "stone cold Steve Austin" to them. Maybe they know he's bald. But there's one wrestler most people would recognize on sight, and it's Hulk Hogan, and no one's in second place. And so "creating stars" really just means "endless attempts to recreate Hogan," and we have long, long since moved on from that kind of thing as a culture. We don't watch action movies starring weight-lifters anymore.

The second thing is, "stars" are very difficult to book on a weekly show. Because if you just show them winning all the time, people will (reasonably) start to root for their opponents as underdogs. And you can't go weeks and weeks without your star wresting; that doesn't work anymore. So it's just this big inherent challenge to the whole thing.

[OVO 40 hunched over like he 80]

Apr 5, 2019 18:21:05 GMT -5 carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) said:

The truth is, the WWE has had one (1) star in its entire existence: Hulk Hogan. One of the things that stood out about the Last Week Tonight segment is that it was clearly written in large part by current fans, and yet their parody commercial was straight out of the 80s. That's wrestling to people.
A few years ago, Rock was on SNL and he did a wrestling sketch, and they weren't giving modern promos. They weren't even giving ROCK promos. They were yelling at the camera like Road Warrior Hawk. I bet lots of people could tell you "that's a wrestler" if you say "stone cold Steve Austin" to them. Maybe they know he's bald. But there's one wrestler most people would recognize on sight, and it's Hulk Hogan, and no one's in second place. And so "creating stars" really just means "endless attempts to recreate Hogan," and we have long, long since moved on from that kind of thing as a culture. We don't watch action movies starring weight-lifters anymore.

The second thing is, "stars" are very difficult to book on a weekly show. Because if you just show them winning all the time, people will (reasonably) start to root for their opponents as underdogs. And you can't go weeks and weeks without your star wresting; that doesn't work anymore. So it's just this big inherent challenge to the whole thing.

You do realize that everybody and their mother had the Austin 3:16 shirt right? He also made Vince a billionaire despite the company almost going bankrupt. I’m pretty sure he’s just as recognizable as Hogan.

Regarding the OP, I think they value more the brand than individual stars because Austin and Rock left pretty much at the same time without leaving any successor.

[Pushed to the Moon]

Apr 5, 2019 18:21:05 GMT -5 carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) said:

The truth is, the WWE has had one (1) star in its entire existence: Hulk Hogan. One of the things that stood out about the Last Week Tonight segment is that it was clearly written in large part by current fans, and yet their parody commercial was straight out of the 80s. That's wrestling to people.
A few years ago, Rock was on SNL and he did a wrestling sketch, and they weren't giving modern promos. They weren't even giving ROCK promos. They were yelling at the camera like Road Warrior Hawk. I bet lots of people could tell you "that's a wrestler" if you say "stone cold Steve Austin" to them. Maybe they know he's bald. But there's one wrestler most people would recognize on sight, and it's Hulk Hogan, and no one's in second place. And so "creating stars" really just means "endless attempts to recreate Hogan," and we have long, long since moved on from that kind of thing as a culture. We don't watch action movies starring weight-lifters anymore.

The second thing is, "stars" are very difficult to book on a weekly show. Because if you just show them winning all the time, people will (reasonably) start to root for their opponents as underdogs. And you can't go weeks and weeks without your star wresting; that doesn't work anymore. So it's just this big inherent challenge to the whole thing.

Nobody has come close since but Stone Cold and the Rock are world superstars and I don't think that's even up for debate. You say we don't watch action movies with weight lifters but Forbes said Rock literally made more money than ANY ACTOR EVER in from June 2017 to June 2018 with 124 million dollars.

[THE FVNKER]

Apr 5, 2019 18:21:05 GMT -5 carp (SPC, Itoh Respect Army) said:

The truth is, the WWE has had one (1) star in its entire existence: Hulk Hogan. One of the things that stood out about the Last Week Tonight segment is that it was clearly written in large part by current fans, and yet their parody commercial was straight out of the 80s. That's wrestling to people.
A few years ago, Rock was on SNL and he did a wrestling sketch, and they weren't giving modern promos. They weren't even giving ROCK promos. They were yelling at the camera like Road Warrior Hawk. I bet lots of people could tell you "that's a wrestler" if you say "stone cold Steve Austin" to them. Maybe they know he's bald. But there's one wrestler most people would recognize on sight, and it's Hulk Hogan, and no one's in second place. And so "creating stars" really just means "endless attempts to recreate Hogan," and we have long, long since moved on from that kind of thing as a culture. We don't watch action movies starring weight-lifters anymore.

The second thing is, "stars" are very difficult to book on a weekly show. Because if you just show them winning all the time, people will (reasonably) start to root for their opponents as underdogs. And you can't go weeks and weeks without your star wresting; that doesn't work anymore. So it's just this big inherent challenge to the whole thing.

Eh yeah, along with the guy above me, I'd have to put Austin in there.  The 3:16 shirt and the McMahon/Austin angle transcended wrestling. I do sort of disagree with the underdog thing.  Yeah, apparently Bryan nailed it but in every facet of sports, people cheer for the winner or the dynasty.  Earnhardt in Nascar, Yankees in basball, Cowboys or Patriots in NFL, Alabama in college ball.  The underdog this is a rough argument to this because it takes a special person to lose consistently and still get over.  You could see Bryan winning eventually in his story arc, so it was obvious, people where just waiting on when.

[Deleted]

I don't think they have, no. Reason? Their goal all along has been to make the WWF/E name the draw. Several guys have spoken about it. The brand being primary is their long term vision with ambassadors for the brand rather than stars.

[David-Arquette was in WCW 2000]

WWE has slowly shifted to this concept over the last few years. They still have their top guy and girls, but more than anything they promote the brand itself and everything that comes with it. They don't want anybody to be bigger or more popular than the company. With it you know that there will never be a big breakout transcending star in the same way The Rock or Austin were.

It certainly explains constantly pushing the wrong people or not pulling the trigger on people when they are white hot, sabotaging angles and storylines that literally write themselves, and of course the huge, gaudy, over the top look of the main shows and PPVs. Just from a purely visual point, it's hard for these guys to stand out.

[nisidhe]

WWE's longterm "Brand uber Alles" strategy has worked in its adherence to late-stage capitalism - by making the brand its focus at the expense of its talent, it has been able to derive more value from TV deals and influxes of cash from questionable governments than from its stated enterprise, actually presenting entertainment. WWE has become little more than lazy television content created relatively cheaply to sell advertising space. And Vince will destroy pro wrestling as a craft in order to maintain his stranglehold on the pie.

[Mid-Carder]

It's probably a good idea not to put so much importance on one guy considering he could let them down at any time. But it's not quite as exciting.

[THE FVNKER]

See, I think they take away from all this, and it's a dangerous reality, is that as long as WWE pursues this ideal at all costs.. you'll never see another mega star again. They cant have both. With what they're doing, it will never truly matter who's on TV. As long as the WWE show comes on on Mondays, itll never really be important who is on the show.

[SAJ Forth]

Apr 6, 2019 8:06:35 GMT -5 THE FVNKER said:

See, I think they take away from all this, and it's a dangerous reality, is that as long as WWE pursues this ideal at all costs.. you'll never see another mega star again. They cant have both. With what they're doing, it will never truly matter who's on TV. As long as the WWE show comes on on Mondays, itll never really be important who is on the show.

Sadly.

[Bo Rida]

The weird thing is they go to all this effort to make the WWE brand the draw.
Yet the company itself and those running it have been the top heel for most of the last 20ish years.

Seems counter productive.

Even stranger NXT ended up being the brand that's a draw in its own right.

[Allie Kitsune]

The die was cast when Austin and Rock left, and the Nail in the Coffin was when Brock left the first time.

Vince didn't want anybody getting big enough to leave him in the lurch after he built them up to feature the shows around.

The brand had to become the focus, so that nobody has a big enough fanbase that if they were to walk away, their fans would walk away with them.

WWE's just a clunky machine running on autopilot, and the wrestlers, agents, etc. are all interchangeable spare parts so that when one stops working, they can just plug another one in to keep it running.

[The Summer of Muskrat XVII]

Honestly, NXT is a good template for how they should be doing things. The NXT brand is more important than any one wrestler they have, but when a Samoa Joe or a Nakamura shows up they run with it and enjoy the increase in business.

Establishing the brand as #1 isn’t the issue, that’s smart and establishes a baseline audience to help prevent a total crash, but not allowing talent to rise above the brand is a mistake.


EDIT: WWE doesn’t even need to promote the wrestler above the brand, but don’t stand in their way if they get hot. If Becky gets an offer to do a real (non WWE Films) movie or tv, let her! It only helps your brand