|
Post by Ganon83 on Oct 19, 2021 12:00:23 GMT -5
Also to add (and I'm doing it a lot in these threads), I feel like we sort of need to realize a lot of this ratings talk is a self-inflicted prophercy. One of the biggest, most famous, periods in the history of the business had both sides constantly talking about ratings, the documentaries had talks about ratings, the interview narrative from those involved is about ratings, Russo's built a whole career telling people they need to do more for ratings, Cornette's the same way, Bischoff's the same way, Pritchard says ratings justify decisions the company he works for makes, Impact's own Monday Night War spent its time talking about ratings, I could go on. Like, you can't say "we shouldn't be talking about ratings" when it's the main thing that comes up from companies. And yes, there is a part of it on fans making big deals about it and also yes, this is a wider TV thing and not just pro wrestling (shows have been cancelled not because of viewership but demos on a consistent basis. It's stupid but it's an industry standard) but if a lot of the industry seperated itself from that narrative and not made that important...I'd say we'd be in a different situation. If anything, ratings mean so much more now than they did back even ten years ago, because the audience for TV has shrunk dramatically coupled with things exclusive to the wrestling business (PPV numbers are not given publicly by anybody except for AEW, obviously live attendance/live gate has taken a nose dive in meaning with no more house shows). At the end of the day, a $250 million WWE show with a two hour unopposed build featuring Sasha Banks, Romain Reigns, and Brock Lesnar lost head to head with a $45 million AEW show that featured three WWE alumni (one of whom was tossed in the trash can a few months ago). Even if it was a tied game overall, it’s still a big loss for WWE, who were already going to face an uphill battle to get renewed at the same rates in a few years.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Oct 19, 2021 12:24:04 GMT -5
It’s hard to stop talking about ratings when it seems to be bred into the fandom. And I get that ratings talk is annoying and this one particular case can be annoying on both sides. And I’m not gonna deny that I’m on AEW’s side in this matter, but at the same time, that’s because I came from the mid 90s as a fan and that was when ratings was the end all be all. And I was well aware of how shitty WCW’s ratings were in 2000, and I actually do remember feeling horrible about that. I shouldn’t have, hell WWE today and AEW would kill to have WCW 2000 ratings, but when you had WCW touting how they were number one because of ratings and when they couldn’t do that anymore, that was sad to me. But I think it’s bred into us as fans at this point. Some want to get out of that, but even they will get dragged into it because wrestling fans love to debate that stuff. Unless a show you love is getting close to be canceled, no one outside of TV executives and Advertisers care about that stuff outside the wrestling bubble. Yeah, you can't put the genie back in the bottle and it just is what it is at this point. WWE trained people to find the notion of a "war" more entertaining than actual storylines. I mean, heck, there's a tweet going around of a statement made in 2008 saying that they beat American Idol in the "important" (their words) 18-45 demo which was around the time they walked around puff chested and bragged about every minor thing they could so they were picking random fights even after the true war was over.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Oct 19, 2021 12:29:22 GMT -5
Yeah, you can't put the genie back in the bottle and it just is what it is at this point. WWE trained people to find the notion of a "war" more entertaining than actual storylines. I mean, heck, there's a tweet going around of a statement made in 2008 saying that they beat American Idol in the "important" (their words) 18-45 demo which was around the time they walked around puff chested and bragged about every minor thing they could so they were picking random fights even after the true war was over. Was that when they were running those "Did you know?" bumpers?
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Oct 19, 2021 12:30:07 GMT -5
I mean, heck, there's a tweet going around of a statement made in 2008 saying that they beat American Idol in the "important" (their words) 18-45 demo which was around the time they walked around puff chested and bragged about every minor thing they could so they were picking random fights even after the true war was over. Was that when they were running those "Did you know?" bumpers? Very much, yeah. Around the time when they bragged they had bigger followings on social media then all the sports leagues combined which...was a stretch.
|
|
Jonathan Michaels
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Archduke of Levity
Here since TNA was still kinda okay
Posts: 18,157
|
Post by Jonathan Michaels on Oct 19, 2021 13:12:22 GMT -5
I do agree with Bischoff that Tony’s comment about Ted Turner was out of line.
|
|
|
Post by Ganon83 on Oct 19, 2021 14:16:23 GMT -5
I do agree with Bischoff that Tony’s comment about Ted Turner was out of line. Ted liked Ric Flair and was loyal to wrestling for helping build his empire, but he didn’t pay attention to wrestling. If he had, Ric would not have been in-and-out so often with the company. He didn’t even know that RAW was on Monday when he green lit Nitro. Tony was 100% correct on that. Tony also prefaced that comment carefully by saying he probably isn’t overall smarter than Turner, and he probably isn’t considering it’s Ted Turner.
|
|
|
Post by stoptheclocks on Oct 19, 2021 14:32:44 GMT -5
Also to add (and I'm doing it a lot in these threads), I feel like we sort of need to realize a lot of this ratings talk is a self-inflicted prophercy. One of the biggest, most famous, periods in the history of the business had both sides constantly talking about ratings, the documentaries had talks about ratings, the interview narrative from those involved is about ratings, Russo's built a whole career telling people they need to do more for ratings, Cornette's the same way, Bischoff's the same way, Pritchard says ratings justify decisions the company he works for makes, Impact's own Monday Night War spent its time talking about ratings, I could go on. Like, you can't say "we shouldn't be talking about ratings" when it's the main thing that comes up from companies. And yes, there is a part of it on fans making big deals about it and also yes, this is a wider TV thing and not just pro wrestling (shows have been cancelled not because of viewership but demos on a consistent basis. It's stupid but it's an industry standard) but if a lot of the industry seperated itself from that narrative and not made that important...I'd say we'd be in a different situation. If anything, ratings mean so much more now than they did back even ten years ago, because the audience for TV has shrunk dramatically coupled with things exclusive to the wrestling business (PPV numbers are not given publicly by anybody except for AEW, obviously live attendance/live gate has taken a nose dive in meaning with no more house shows). At the end of the day, a $250 million WWE show with a two hour unopposed build featuring Sasha Banks, Romain Reigns, and Brock Lesnar lost head to head with a $45 million AEW show that featured three WWE alumni (one of whom was tossed in the trash can a few months ago). Even if it was a tied game overall, it’s still a big loss for WWE, who were already going to face an uphill battle to get renewed at the same rates in a few years. WWE aren't getting paid $250m for their show to be on FS1. When both AEW and WWE next sit down with their respective broadcasters, not a single part of the conversation will involve whatever ratings they got for half an hour on one Friday in October.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Oct 19, 2021 14:47:29 GMT -5
If anything, ratings mean so much more now than they did back even ten years ago, because the audience for TV has shrunk dramatically coupled with things exclusive to the wrestling business (PPV numbers are not given publicly by anybody except for AEW, obviously live attendance/live gate has taken a nose dive in meaning with no more house shows). At the end of the day, a $250 million WWE show with a two hour unopposed build featuring Sasha Banks, Romain Reigns, and Brock Lesnar lost head to head with a $45 million AEW show that featured three WWE alumni (one of whom was tossed in the trash can a few months ago). Even if it was a tied game overall, it’s still a big loss for WWE, who were already going to face an uphill battle to get renewed at the same rates in a few years. WWE aren't getting paid $250m for their show to be on FS1. When both AEW and WWE next sit down with their respective broadcasters, not a single part of the conversation will involve whatever ratings they got for half an hour on one Friday in October. They're getting similarly paid to be on USA, though, and that was before NXT entered the conversation. While Dynamite typically isn't beating Raw outright, the ratings are similar enough (hell, there were a couple of weeks where Dynamite edged out Raw in the key demo) where AEW can get a nice bump in cash when it comes to new negotiations for TV rights with WarnerMedia. Whether that adversely affects WWE or not remains to be seen, though I personally think WWE does enough damage to itself on its own without needing AEW to help it out either. It's not like the steady ratings decline only started in late 2019.
|
|
|
Post by blackwrestlingfan on Oct 19, 2021 15:02:13 GMT -5
Also to add (and I'm doing it a lot in these threads), I feel like we sort of need to realize a lot of this ratings talk is a self-inflicted prophercy. One of the biggest, most famous, periods in the history of the business had both sides constantly talking about ratings, the documentaries had talks about ratings, the interview narrative from those involved is about ratings, Russo's built a whole career telling people they need to do more for ratings, Cornette's the same way, Bischoff's the same way, Pritchard says ratings justify decisions the company he works for makes, Impact's own Monday Night War spent its time talking about ratings, I could go on. Like, you can't say "we shouldn't be talking about ratings" when it's the main thing that comes up from companies. And yes, there is a part of it on fans making big deals about it and also yes, this is a wider TV thing and not just pro wrestling (shows have been cancelled not because of viewership but demos on a consistent basis. It's stupid but it's an industry standard) but if a lot of the industry seperated itself from that narrative and not made that important...I'd say we'd be in a different situation. If anything, ratings mean so much more now than they did back even ten years ago, because the audience for TV has shrunk dramatically coupled with things exclusive to the wrestling business (PPV numbers are not given publicly by anybody except for AEW, obviously live attendance/live gate has taken a nose dive in meaning with no more house shows). At the end of the day, a $250 million WWE show with a two hour unopposed build featuring Sasha Banks, Romain Reigns, and Brock Lesnar lost head to head with a $45 million AEW show that featured three WWE alumni (one of whom was tossed in the trash can a few months ago). Even if it was a tied game overall, it’s still a big loss for WWE, who were already going to face an uphill battle to get renewed at the same rates in a few years. I bet WWE gets the same money in a few years. People get saying that they won’t but they will. AEW going to get a lot more bread too.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Oct 19, 2021 15:17:41 GMT -5
If anything, ratings mean so much more now than they did back even ten years ago, because the audience for TV has shrunk dramatically coupled with things exclusive to the wrestling business (PPV numbers are not given publicly by anybody except for AEW, obviously live attendance/live gate has taken a nose dive in meaning with no more house shows). At the end of the day, a $250 million WWE show with a two hour unopposed build featuring Sasha Banks, Romain Reigns, and Brock Lesnar lost head to head with a $45 million AEW show that featured three WWE alumni (one of whom was tossed in the trash can a few months ago). Even if it was a tied game overall, it’s still a big loss for WWE, who were already going to face an uphill battle to get renewed at the same rates in a few years. I bet WWE gets the same money in a few years. People get saying that they won’t but they will. AEW going to get a lot more bread too. Yeah it’s likely WWE’s rights stay generally the same or go up a bit and AEW’s rights should go up a ton.
|
|
|
Post by Ganon83 on Oct 19, 2021 16:08:47 GMT -5
If anything, ratings mean so much more now than they did back even ten years ago, because the audience for TV has shrunk dramatically coupled with things exclusive to the wrestling business (PPV numbers are not given publicly by anybody except for AEW, obviously live attendance/live gate has taken a nose dive in meaning with no more house shows). At the end of the day, a $250 million WWE show with a two hour unopposed build featuring Sasha Banks, Romain Reigns, and Brock Lesnar lost head to head with a $45 million AEW show that featured three WWE alumni (one of whom was tossed in the trash can a few months ago). Even if it was a tied game overall, it’s still a big loss for WWE, who were already going to face an uphill battle to get renewed at the same rates in a few years. I bet WWE gets the same money in a few years. People get saying that they won’t but they will. AEW going to get a lot more bread too. They sold themselves as a DVR proof live sport but instead of actual DVR proof live sports, which fell in 2020 but rebounded in 2021, they’ve lost half of the demo when it comes to Raw comparing this week to this week in 2019. That’s worse than traditional TV, let alone sports. The key with all of this is getting companies to bid on the shows. And I can’t imagine Fox jumping in again after their contract is up, considering the people they sold Smackdown as featuring (Brock and Rousey), the people they lost to AEW (namely Punk), and largely underperforming even without counting this last week.
|
|
|
Post by blackwrestlingfan on Oct 19, 2021 16:11:26 GMT -5
I bet WWE gets the same money in a few years. People get saying that they won’t but they will. AEW going to get a lot more bread too. They sold themselves as a DVR proof live sport but instead of actual DVR proof live sports, which fell in 2020 but rebounded in 2021, they’ve lost half of the demo when it comes to Raw comparing this week to this week in 2019. That’s worse than traditional TV, let alone sports. The key with all of this is getting companies to bid on the shows. And I can’t imagine Fox jumping in again after their contract is up, considering the people they sold Smackdown as featuring (Brock and Rousey), the people they lost to AEW (namely Punk), and largely underperforming even without counting this last week. I’m not going to argue with you. Fox going to give them another billion. Just watch.
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Oct 19, 2021 17:19:44 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm not going in expecting WWE to suddenly take a nosedive in terms of TV money. I've seen too many instances of "This'll be the one where it finally collapses on them" only for it not to be to think otherwise. Now is it more possible with AEW on the rise? Sure. I'm just not making any assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Oct 19, 2021 17:21:49 GMT -5
I mean, the worst case scenario in terms of WWE for new deals is, honestly, to be offered the same amount as they have now. Most of these deals have been reliant on them growing term by term and whilst another billion sounds good to us, the last time it happened that the money itself didn’t grow, it lead to a big talent cut because the shareholders flipped out.
Turner are basically obligated to offer more money to AEW, they’d be crazy not to at this point.
|
|
JoDaNa1281
Crow T. Robot
Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender. #BLM
Posts: 40,195
|
Post by JoDaNa1281 on Oct 19, 2021 17:27:07 GMT -5
Yeah competing. like look what happened to TNA when they did that. Hotshotting everything, stupid angles like Abyssmania or trolling the fanbase(the treatment of Nigel). Pretty sure he was referring to WCW, not TNA.
|
|
Allie Kitsune
Crow T. Robot
Always Feelin' Foxy.
Celestial Princess in Exile.
Posts: 46,106
|
Post by Allie Kitsune on Oct 19, 2021 17:29:45 GMT -5
I mean, the worst case scenario in terms of WWE for new deals is, honestly, to be offered the same amount as they have now. Most of these deals have been reliant on them growing term by term and whilst another billion sounds good to us, the last time it happened that the money itself didn’t grow, it lead to a big talent cut because the shareholders flipped out. Turner are basically obligated to offer more money to AEW, they’d be crazy not to at this point. I think that's the most likely scenario, though. Warner offers AEW a bigger deal, Comcast (USA) and FOX offer WWE the same amount they already are. WWE is just severely miserable and unlikeable, and if they want to put on a more attractive product, they're going to have to stop booking for an audience of one man who in 50+ years hasn't stepped one foot outside of his bubble.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,850
|
Post by Dub H on Oct 19, 2021 17:29:51 GMT -5
The first mistake you guys are doing is listening to anything Bischoff has to say.
Also yeh,none of this would be AS a big deal if WWE didnt try to use every underhanded tactic possible to stop AEW. TV quality be damned , I will cheer for WWE to take a hit every time they try something to just hurt someone or just doing something plain scummy.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Oct 19, 2021 17:52:26 GMT -5
I mean, the worst case scenario in terms of WWE for new deals is, honestly, to be offered the same amount as they have now. Most of these deals have been reliant on them growing term by term and whilst another billion sounds good to us, the last time it happened that the money itself didn’t grow, it lead to a big talent cut because the shareholders flipped out. Turner are basically obligated to offer more money to AEW, they’d be crazy not to at this point. Yeah, WWE's status as a publicly traded company means "don't worry, Fox/NBC gave us the same money as they gave us five years ago!" isn't going to cut it with investors. The batshit insane curse of Wall Street is the need to demonstrate perpetual growth, which is literally impossible to achieve for anybody, but all the MBAs running the show for a couple of years before jumping ship when things go south (hi, Nick Khan) have to put on the dog and pony show telling investors "don't you worry, we're only goin' up, up, up from here!" Then they don't, and tons of people lose their jobs despite the company being enormously profitable. AEW is going to see a massive spike in its rights fees, and they'll no doubt point to WWE's deals when arguing for said increase with networks. I'm not about to predict WWE's fees falling, I totally get the "I'll believe it when I finally see it" mind set, but we have to bear in mind that we haven't seen WWE negotiate a TV deal with any legitimate competition around since WCW was a thing; the terrain will be quite different this time. That could be to WWE's benefit: perhaps the perception of a "wrestling war" makes them a more desirable product. It could also be to their detriment: as has been said often, it might not serve them well if Fox and NBC are looking at AEW and thinking "wait, we could've had similar demo numbers at an over 80% discount?" Obviously the gap between the two companies won't be that large once AEW gets its next TV deal, but even if suddenly, hypothetically speaking, AEW goes from a $45 million deal to a $100 million deal that's still a big gap between the two. Granted, WWE retains an edge on actual content produced: Raw and SD are 5 hours combined, Dynamite and Rampage only 3 (I think NXT is technically on a separate deal?), so that'll account for some of the gap, for sure. But with Warner apparently already in talks with AEW for more content, who knows what that ends up looking like? I guess we can put Rhodes to the Top in the equation, at least indirectly, as well.
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjackezekiel on Oct 19, 2021 18:13:08 GMT -5
Knowing Eric, he's just blowing smoke up WWE's ass in hopes of having a job again.
|
|
kidkamikaze10
Dennis Stamp
Trying to think of a new avatar
Posts: 4,274
|
Post by kidkamikaze10 on Oct 19, 2021 18:19:42 GMT -5
Gotta add to the TV money talk, if I was in the AEW roster, I'd make it my mission to stay on the roster, and notable in the roster, when they get that new deal.
Because whoever is a star at that time? Is gonna be set for life.
|
|