|
Post by eJm on Jan 23, 2024 15:43:30 GMT -5
Yeah this line of thinking is baffling. It’s like a childless newlywed couple saying, “We plan to have 5 kids so until we do we’ll cook enough food for 7 people then throw out the rest.” In this case, it's not that crazy, at least as best as I understand it: very often larger venues can actually come cheaper than smaller ones (depending on market/location/other factors), AEW's set and gear are designed for a larger venue, etc. Odds are if they went more mid-sized they likely wouldn't save very much. Also, it makes sense on their end because 99% of the time, these bigger venues are only going to be used for sports and it's not like they can have sports every week because of schedules and rankings and such. So if the venue is being used and they can make a bit of extra income, they aren't going to say no to that.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Jan 23, 2024 15:54:42 GMT -5
Venues are tricky because these business relationships and locked-in bookings can be set way way ahead of any dramatic swings in success. If AEW gets hot in the next month, how far out do you think they've already got TV lined up? Because it's a lot further out than they announce on TV/sell for, and there's already a July 10th Dynamite lined up. Who knows where AEW is going to be by July, but I can promise you that there is tons of volatility in the space between now and then.
|
|
|
Post by KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! on Jan 23, 2024 15:58:05 GMT -5
In this case, it's not that crazy, at least as best as I understand it: very often larger venues can actually come cheaper than smaller ones (depending on market/location/other factors), AEW's set and gear are designed for a larger venue, etc. Odds are if they went more mid-sized they likely wouldn't save very much. Also, it makes sense on their end because 99% of the time, these bigger venues are only going to be used for sports and it's not like they can have sports every week because of schedules and rankings and such. So if the venue is being used and they can make a bit of extra income, they aren't going to say no to that. I think it’s easy to fall back on the line of thinking, “Renting bigger venues is better because it’s a better rate. You pay only a little more and you get all this extra space and a big time feel.” The problem is unless Tony opens up his books no one knows what, “a little more” is. Depending on the market it could be thousands, tens of thousands, or even more. Multiply that by how many shows a major company runs and it can be a huge waste and bad business. This isn’t a problem exclusive to AEW and I’ve seen it brought up way back when WCW was still around, with TNA, and even with WWE. Some non-wrestling companies who have done this are publicly traded so it’s easier to find out how much money this practice actually wastes. The problem is mentioned enough to where I don’t think it can be brushed off with, “Its a better rate, so renting the bigger building is always better.” It’s a commercial real estate issue and really depends market to market.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jan 23, 2024 16:02:02 GMT -5
Also, it makes sense on their end because 99% of the time, these bigger venues are only going to be used for sports and it's not like they can have sports every week because of schedules and rankings and such. So if the venue is being used and they can make a bit of extra income, they aren't going to say no to that. I think it’s easy to fall back on the line of thinking, “Renting bigger venues is better because it’s a better rate. You pay only a little more and you get all this extra space and a big time feel.” The problem is unless Tony opens up his books no one knows what, “a little more” is. Depending on the market it could be thousands, tens of thousands, or even more. Multiply that by how many shows a major company runs and it can be a huge waste and bad business. This isn’t a problem exclusive to AEW and I’ve seen it brought up way back when WCW was still around, with TNA, and even with WWE. Some non-wrestling companies who have done this are publicly traded so it’s easier to find out how much money this practice actually wastes. The problem is mentioned enough to where I don’t think it can be brushed off with, “Its a better rate, so renting the bigger building is always better.” It’s a commercial real estate issue and really depends market to market. I mean, we don't know the difference but we know historically that there is a difference. It's the reason why, for example, most new sports stadiums open themselves up to signing deals for major events for consistent flow (Tottenham Hotspur's new stadium signed a NFL deal because a) the novelty of the NFL works in London works and b) because it'll be used more as one off the top of my head). Whether it costs more by much or not is not something any of us can prove so it doesn't really make it something to be concerned about or to even not be concerned about. We just go from historical reference. Big venues will charge less to be used because they want to be used.
|
|
|
Post by KAMALARAMBO: BOOMSHAKALAKA!!! on Jan 23, 2024 16:16:21 GMT -5
I think it’s easy to fall back on the line of thinking, “Renting bigger venues is better because it’s a better rate. You pay only a little more and you get all this extra space and a big time feel.” The problem is unless Tony opens up his books no one knows what, “a little more” is. Depending on the market it could be thousands, tens of thousands, or even more. Multiply that by how many shows a major company runs and it can be a huge waste and bad business. This isn’t a problem exclusive to AEW and I’ve seen it brought up way back when WCW was still around, with TNA, and even with WWE. Some non-wrestling companies who have done this are publicly traded so it’s easier to find out how much money this practice actually wastes. The problem is mentioned enough to where I don’t think it can be brushed off with, “Its a better rate, so renting the bigger building is always better.” It’s a commercial real estate issue and really depends market to market. I mean, we don't know the difference but we know historically that there is a difference. It's the reason why, for example, most new sports stadiums open themselves up to signing deals for major events for consistent flow (Tottenham Hotspur's new stadium signed a NFL deal because a) the novelty of the NFL works in London works and b) because it'll be used more as one off the top of my head). Whether it costs more by much or not is not something any of us can prove so it doesn't really make it something to be concerned about or to even not be concerned about. We just go from historical reference. Big venues will charge less to be used because they want to be used. Given AEW’s financials and longterm sustainability, at the level their at, always comes up saying, “it doesn't really make it something to be concerned about or to even not be concerned about,” just seems like burying our heads in the sand rather than a fruitful discussion. Honestly I don’t care enough to deep dive into the topic, but it doesn’t mean there’s not enough to deep dive into. I’ve heard Wrestlenomics did an excellent break down of AEW’s projected financials in part using a comparative framework. Unfortunately it’s behind a paywall and I’m far too frugal to pay for that.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jan 23, 2024 16:20:07 GMT -5
I mean, we don't know the difference but we know historically that there is a difference. It's the reason why, for example, most new sports stadiums open themselves up to signing deals for major events for consistent flow (Tottenham Hotspur's new stadium signed a NFL deal because a) the novelty of the NFL works in London works and b) because it'll be used more as one off the top of my head). Whether it costs more by much or not is not something any of us can prove so it doesn't really make it something to be concerned about or to even not be concerned about. We just go from historical reference. Big venues will charge less to be used because they want to be used. Given AEW’s financials and longterm sustainability, at the level their at, always comes up saying, “it doesn't really make it something to be concerned about or to even not be concerned about,” just seems like burying our heads in the sand rather than a fruitful discussion. Honestly I don’t care enough to deep dive into the topic, but it doesn’t mean there’s not enough to deep dive into. I’ve heard Wrestlenomics did an excellent break down of AEW’s projected financials in part using a comparative framework. Unfortunately it’s behind a paywall and I’m far too frugal to pay for that. I'm not saying we can't have a discussion about it, it's just there isn't anything really to discuss. If they were publicly owned, it would be an entirely different story (and has both positives and negatives) and it's not like it has affected things that much (regardless of what we talk about with ratings etc, if they were an issue, WBD would make that very clear) and even Wrestlenomics, I'm sure, are just going by estimates and guesses just like any of us would because there's no good reason for TK to let us know the finances.
|
|
|
Post by kingoftheindies on Jan 23, 2024 16:25:53 GMT -5
FWIW I do think AEW should look into smaller venues more for a unique presentation. When they have ran smaller venues it looks cool on tv. That whole discussion started cause that's the reason SRS gave on why AEW doesn't book smaller venues in areas.
But again, I think when you see people constantly saying how Morffi was awful at his job, and AEW brings in a COO whose career is live event promoting, it's pretty easy to see where an issue was perceived to be
|
|
dpg
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,476
|
Post by dpg on Jan 23, 2024 17:21:11 GMT -5
The wrestling fan market size is significantly smaller than the last time we had two touring companies taping twice or more each week, with both getting large attendances. That was 1999 really, with 2000 being awful for WCW. That's why I don't see how RoH can tour as well, it'd be fishing in the same AEW pool which is already looking fished out at times.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,580
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jan 23, 2024 17:54:34 GMT -5
Aew is basically in the middle and the middle in any industry or area of life has issues these days.
So at one end wwe are the market leaders charging what they like and hoovering up everything. At the other you have indies where its cheaper, nearly all action, you can be closer to the ring and meet the wrestlers.
If you have a limited budget chances are you go to either extreme. To start with aew were priced with the indies and are now often closer to wwe. That's OK for bigger cards but paying big prices for weekly tv that could be full of Undisputed Kingdom promos and Jay Lethal matches is too big a risk for many.
FOMO drives sales, training people to wait isn't the idea.
|
|
|
Post by dweezy79 on Jan 23, 2024 18:19:13 GMT -5
Yes another negative thread topic about AEW 👏👏
|
|
|
Post by Lizuka #BLM on Jan 23, 2024 18:47:53 GMT -5
Yes another negative thread topic about AEW 👏👏 Kind of from multiple directions confused about this. 1), it's pretty damn relevant to the lifeblood of the company, why wouldn't people talk about it even if it is negative, 2), most people aren't really being negative at all in regards to AEW themselves and are pointing out economic issues and the logistics they're having to contend with with few people really going, "It's because the booking is bad!" or anything because it really isn't about that, and 3), why exactly are negative threads supposed to be a bad thing? It's a discussion board, not one just built around everything unanimously being praised.
|
|
Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]
FANatic
Writer, Lover of all things Wrestling. Analytical, Critical, Lovable (hopefully). Lets all have fun!
Posts: 236,075
|
Post by Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] on Jan 23, 2024 18:59:23 GMT -5
WWE also lost a lot of numbers because of Vince, like he actively dropped the numbers with his booking. HHH brought some of the viewers who dropped the product because of Vince McMahon, back into the fold, I think that's safer to say then saying because WWE was the objectively better program in you or others eyes it's why AEW did worse. Neither program directly compete against one another on any regular sort of basis. TV Ratings also don't correlate to live attendance gates, they don't always correlate to how a company is to the general public either because Nielson's not a finite system they're always an estimation, which is why a lot of people loathe the ratings discussion in the first place anymore. So, it's not reasonable to say that television viewers enjoyed the WWE product despite increasing viewership, but it is reasonable to say that television viewers disliked Vince McMahon's product based on declining viewership. Thanks for clearing that up. That's not what I was saying at all. Me saying that HHH brought viewers back actually is me inherently saying people enjoyed the product more. I was however saying it didn't correlate to people not liking/watching AEW more. There's no direct competition between either show to say that definitively. People can as easily watch RAW as they can Dynamite, and it's not really like RAW vs Nitro of the past where plenty of people watched one or the other live because they preferred that product. Those were in direct competition, so that made more sense. It's hard to even say how much viewership crossover there is because even when NXT and Dynamite were on the same night, it's not like all the NXT viewers magically appeared over to Dynamite when the nights moved as an example as well. WWE and AEW are on completely different nights, so I don't believe WWE's ratings increased and AEW's ratings decreased this year with a main reason being because people were down on AEW because well, one that's a subjective viewpoint depending on who you ask, but also to the above, I don't think it's a metric you can say for sure. And that does not mean WWE's product wasn't more enjoyable, but I do think it's much easier to say HHH's booking did help bring viewers back that Vince kept chasing off and that was a metric people did actively take notice of with WWE's ratings and why people wanted Vince gone for years.
|
|
bdon
Tommy Wiseau
Posts: 68
|
Post by bdon on Jan 23, 2024 19:31:44 GMT -5
So, who is going to be the one to add things up and realize Meltzer’s anti-AEW slant only started after Punk left. Put two and two together, and you’ll understand why that is.
Mf’er is still talking to Meltzer.
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bolty, Disaster Enby on Jan 23, 2024 19:35:31 GMT -5
So, who is going to be the one to add things up and realize Meltzer’s anti-AEW slant only started after Punk left. Put two and two together, and you’ll understand why that is. Mf’er is still talking to Meltzer. This...isn't a new or unique observation? I dunno, it's your first post so maybe you just got here, but this is well trod discussion ground hereabouts.
|
|
bdon
Tommy Wiseau
Posts: 68
|
Post by bdon on Jan 23, 2024 19:47:50 GMT -5
So, who is going to be the one to add things up and realize Meltzer’s anti-AEW slant only started after Punk left. Put two and two together, and you’ll understand why that is. Mf’er is still talking to Meltzer. This...isn't a new or unique observation? I dunno, it's your first post so maybe you just got here, but this is well trod discussion ground hereabouts. I’m used to Twitter where NO ONE believes Punk is still talking to Meltzer. My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by Denny Zen is Cooking™ on Jan 23, 2024 20:08:24 GMT -5
This...isn't a new or unique observation? I dunno, it's your first post so maybe you just got here, but this is well trod discussion ground hereabouts. I’m used to Twitter where NO ONE believes Punk is still talking to Meltzer. My apologies. Welcome and don’t worry about it. You’ll quickly find that this place is substantially more, shall we say…well adjusted than Twitter.
|
|
r.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bye
Posts: 16,479
|
Post by r. on Jan 23, 2024 20:30:03 GMT -5
It's nice to know my *knee-jerk, concern trolling and ridiculous* comments about AEW speed running WCW last year turned out to be wrong.
Oh.
|
|
Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]
FANatic
Writer, Lover of all things Wrestling. Analytical, Critical, Lovable (hopefully). Lets all have fun!
Posts: 236,075
|
Post by Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] on Jan 23, 2024 20:32:50 GMT -5
It's nice to know my *knee-jerk, concern trolling and ridiculous* comments about AEW speed running WCW last year turned out to be wrong. Oh. They aren't "speedrunning" WCW because Meltzer is making claims about their most recent numbers of attendance. I don't think people actually realize why WCW died and ALL of the shit that went into it getting that way, when they say stuff like this with a straight face.
|
|
|
Post by IgnahtaSempria on Jan 23, 2024 20:36:14 GMT -5
It's nice to know my *knee-jerk, concern trolling and ridiculous* comments about AEW speed running WCW last year turned out to be wrong. Oh. Why are you still here? Why do you do this to yourself? Do you enjoy being miserable? Seriously, you've let a wrestling company and its successes and failures absolutely destroy your mental health, and for what? Do you want AEW to go out of business, just so you can be "right"? Go outside, find a hobby that doesn't upset you like pro wrestling does, and GET. HELP.
|
|
jm
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,137
Member is Online
|
Post by jm on Jan 23, 2024 20:36:49 GMT -5
|
|