Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]
FANatic
Writer, Lover of all things Wrestling. Analytical, Critical, Lovable (hopefully). Lets all have fun!
Posts: 236,134
Member is Online
|
Post by Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] on Mar 10, 2024 2:28:13 GMT -5
You can’t have Eddie Kingston or Yuta, they’re *my* punching bags. Damn, That's the 2 I want as my own punching bags but you called dibs first. I just gotta be quicker next time. 😂 Ya'll need to leave my man Eddie alone lmfao
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Mar 10, 2024 8:58:17 GMT -5
If by casual fans we mean lapsed fans, I think it would be difficult to get lapsed fans to watch AEW, except for the return of a major nostalgic talent - a la Punk when he debuted. I’m not sure that person even exists anymore that could come in to get lapsed fans. We’ll see how much of an impact a debuting Mone will have shortly.
If by casual fans we mean the fans that watch WWE now that didn’t before their hot period, I don’t think there’s much AEW could do to get that fan to watch AEW while WWE is still hot. Traditionally, the number 2 company will struggle when the number 1 company is hot.
|
|
Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]
FANatic
Writer, Lover of all things Wrestling. Analytical, Critical, Lovable (hopefully). Lets all have fun!
Posts: 236,134
Member is Online
|
Post by Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] on Mar 10, 2024 9:21:24 GMT -5
If by casual fans we mean lapsed fans, I think it would be difficult to get lapsed fans to watch AEW, except for the return of a major nostalgic talent - a la Punk when he debuted. I’m not sure that person even exists anymore that could come in to get lapsed fans. We’ll see how much of an impact a debuting Mone will have shortly. If by casual fans we mean the fans that watch WWE now that didn’t before their hot period, I don’t think there’s much AEW could do to get that fan to watch AEW while WWE is still hot. Traditionally, the number 2 company will struggle when the number 1 company is hot. This makes no sense to me on either end and I'll elaborate as to why. AEW touted when they first started stated one of the biggest things they wanted to reel in was the lapsed fan who wanted alternative programming to WWE. That is still an ideal want, and we had people on this site even talking about how they'd stopped watching most mainstream wrestling and then AEW happened. I have to heavily dispute that they're the same, given AEW has publicly stated from the beginning one of the fans they wanted the most were those fans who potentially stopped watching years ago or even when WCW folded, and they had seemingly succeeded in reeling fans back into wrestling, it didn't have everything to do with nostalgia, it had very much a lot to do with being a mainstream alternative product. I also don't get "The number 2 company will struggle while number 1 is hot". They aren't competing against one another, this isn't the Monday Night Wars. These companies co-exist, they can both be watched freely, together, and independent of one another. I don't understand this logic that WWE being hot means no matter what AEW does, it runs cold, all wrestling should be doing well, not being further weighed down by WWE being successful especially when, again, there's not direct competition for viewers. I think when people say "Casual Fan", being very honest, they don't even know what it means. It's been used as a strawman for years now to state why a company isn't appealing to an audience when in most arguments it just sounds like a scapegoat to just have them say why a company isn't performing to a set standard in their opinion and it's because it's not what's working for them. Which would be fair if they didn't put it behind a veil of an imaginary fan almost in a "Won't somebody please think of the children!?" sense, but that's what happens a lot of the time, and it's why people at this point roll their eyes when it's brought into these discussions.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Mar 10, 2024 9:30:17 GMT -5
If by casual fans we mean lapsed fans, I think it would be difficult to get lapsed fans to watch AEW, except for the return of a major nostalgic talent - a la Punk when he debuted. I’m not sure that person even exists anymore that could come in to get lapsed fans. We’ll see how much of an impact a debuting Mone will have shortly. If by casual fans we mean the fans that watch WWE now that didn’t before their hot period, I don’t think there’s much AEW could do to get that fan to watch AEW while WWE is still hot. Traditionally, the number 2 company will struggle when the number 1 company is hot. This makes no sense to me on either end and I'll elaborate as to why. AEW touted when they first started stated one of the biggest things they wanted to reel in was the lapsed fan who wanted alternative programming to WWE. That is still an ideal want, and we had people on this site even talking about how they'd stopped watching most mainstream wrestling and then AEW happened. I have to heavily dispute that they're the same, given AEW has publicly stated from the beginning one of the fans they wanted the most were those fans who potentially stopped watching years ago or even when WCW folded, and they had seemingly succeeded in reeling fans back into wrestling, it didn't have everything to do with nostalgia, it had very much a lot to do with being a mainstream alternative product. I also don't get "The number 2 company will struggle while number 1 is hot". They aren't competing against one another, this isn't the Monday Night Wars. These companies co-exist, they can both be watched freely, together, and independent of one another. I don't understand this logic that WWE being hot means no matter what AEW does, it runs cold, all wrestling should be doing well, not being further weighed down by WWE being successful especially when, again, there's not direct competition for viewers. I think when people say "Casual Fan", being very honest, they don't even know what it means. It's been used as a strawman for years now to state why a company isn't appealing to an audience when in most arguments it just sounds like a scapegoat to just have them say why a company isn't performing to a set standard in their opinion and it's because it's not what's working for them. Which would be fair if they didn't put it behind a veil of an imaginary fan almost in a "Won't somebody please think of the children!?" sense, but that's what happens a lot of the time, and it's why people at this point roll their eyes when it's brought into these discussions. Right I know casual fan is a nebulous term, that’s why I broke it down further. As to lapsed fans, I’m talking about now moving forward. Obviously a ton of AEW’s fans are actually lapsed fans that stopped watching WWE long ago. I think at this point the lapsed fans that have not become avid AEW watchers are unlikely to do so at this point, outside of like I said a big nostalgia act coming in. As to the number 1 being hot meaning number 2 won’t be, I’ll go with Meltzer as to this being the case throughout the history of the business.
|
|
Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]
FANatic
Writer, Lover of all things Wrestling. Analytical, Critical, Lovable (hopefully). Lets all have fun!
Posts: 236,134
Member is Online
|
Post by Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] on Mar 10, 2024 9:44:23 GMT -5
This makes no sense to me on either end and I'll elaborate as to why. AEW touted when they first started stated one of the biggest things they wanted to reel in was the lapsed fan who wanted alternative programming to WWE. That is still an ideal want, and we had people on this site even talking about how they'd stopped watching most mainstream wrestling and then AEW happened. I have to heavily dispute that they're the same, given AEW has publicly stated from the beginning one of the fans they wanted the most were those fans who potentially stopped watching years ago or even when WCW folded, and they had seemingly succeeded in reeling fans back into wrestling, it didn't have everything to do with nostalgia, it had very much a lot to do with being a mainstream alternative product. I also don't get "The number 2 company will struggle while number 1 is hot". They aren't competing against one another, this isn't the Monday Night Wars. These companies co-exist, they can both be watched freely, together, and independent of one another. I don't understand this logic that WWE being hot means no matter what AEW does, it runs cold, all wrestling should be doing well, not being further weighed down by WWE being successful especially when, again, there's not direct competition for viewers. I think when people say "Casual Fan", being very honest, they don't even know what it means. It's been used as a strawman for years now to state why a company isn't appealing to an audience when in most arguments it just sounds like a scapegoat to just have them say why a company isn't performing to a set standard in their opinion and it's because it's not what's working for them. Which would be fair if they didn't put it behind a veil of an imaginary fan almost in a "Won't somebody please think of the children!?" sense, but that's what happens a lot of the time, and it's why people at this point roll their eyes when it's brought into these discussions. Right I know casual fan is a nebulous term, that’s why I broke it down further. As to lapsed fans, I’m talking about now moving forward. Obviously a ton of AEW’s fans are actually lapsed fans that stopped watching WWE long ago. I think at this point the lapsed fans that have not become avid AEW watchers are unlikely to do so at this point, outside of like I said a big nostalgia act coming in. As to the number 1 being hot meaning number 2 won’t be, I’ll go with Meltzer as to this being the case throughout the history of the business. That's a more fair sum up, thanks I think AEW could still get new or even lapsed viewers, what will bring that in is insanely random, we see it week to week. Some acts just get over on their own and spike a number, others people don't think will, do, and then others who think will move the needle, don't as much At this point I don't think AEW is signing people to pop insane ratings, I think that peaked with Punk's return because it was a complete moment in time, at this point they need to just focus on signing the talent they are, building the insane roster they are, and pushing forward. Maybe the aesthetic changes will catch some interest as well, we'll see what a show like Big Business does, it's stacked with talent, and Mone will almost certainly debut as you said. Hoping that turns a positive.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Mar 10, 2024 10:36:25 GMT -5
Putting on my serious hat for a minute: what we’re actually meaning to ask is, “how does AEW attract new fans who’ve never watched wrestling before?”
Personally speaking I feel they *could* make more of an effort to push beyond the hardcore fan bubble (I don’t want them to do a Dynamite Guest Host era but they haven’t featured as many non-wrestling personalities on the show as much lately), but again that’s just my individual preference.
To me, WWE getting their cards listings out faster, plus their visibility advantage and the lapsed Vince Creative-hating fans “coming home” to Hunter’s more serious shows are AEW’s largest hurdles right now.
Getting another super-ace heated up while MJF’s out couldn’t hurt IMO, they’ve got plenty of good candidates. Granted, AEW is doing what they need to do to be that feasible alternative and keep the network happy obviously. Sadly, as far as overtaking WWE again, the company’s in a situation that doesn’t have an easy quick fix.
Unless TK comes up with a storyline wild enough to really steal those Smackdown viewers, or Hunter’s creative goes over a cliff or we get more crazy backstage twists like last year, AEW may be stuck under this formidable #2 ceiling for a while.
|
|
Zone Was Wrong
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Currently living off the high that AEW brings every Wednesday and Friday
Posts: 16,200
|
Post by Zone Was Wrong on Mar 10, 2024 16:22:17 GMT -5
Putting on my serious hat for a minute: what we’re actually meaning to ask is, “how does AEW attract new fans who’ve never watched wrestling before?” Personally speaking I feel they *could* make more of an effort to push beyond the hardcore fan bubble (I don’t want them to do a Dynamite Guest Host era but they haven’t featured as many non-wrestling personalities on the show as much lately), but again that’s just my individual preference. To me, WWE getting their cards listings out faster, plus their visibility advantage and the lapsed Vince Creative-hating fans “coming home” to Hunter’s more serious shows are AEW’s largest hurdles right now. Getting another super-ace heated up while MJF’s out couldn’t hurt IMO, they’ve got plenty of good candidates. Granted, AEW is doing what they need to do to be that feasible alternative and keep the network happy obviously. Sadly, as far as overtaking WWE again, the company’s in a situation that doesn’t have an easy quick fix. Unless TK comes up with a storyline wild enough to really steal those Smackdown viewers, or Hunter’s creative goes over a cliff or we get more crazy backstage twists like last year, AEW may be stuck under this formidable #2 ceiling for a while. One think I think limits AEW cards being out is their roster are not as sequestered as WWE's. You have three different rosters for three different shows with WWE and one roster for three shows in AEW. So usually a show has to end before you get the card for the next. They've done better lately of advertising a few matches ahead of time but only so much they can do.
|
|
r.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bye
Posts: 16,480
|
Post by r. on Mar 10, 2024 17:56:35 GMT -5
I think the threads can help people accept this is the best AEW is going to do. Myself included I think there is a notion they will eventually step into some amazing surge. If they can't people to care with the incredible roster they have now, they never will and neither could any other company. I thought you were leaving the forums. ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️Your love brought me back.
|
|
r.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bye
Posts: 16,480
|
Post by r. on Mar 10, 2024 18:10:22 GMT -5
I think the threads can help people accept this is the best AEW is going to do. Myself included I think there is a notion they will eventually step into some amazing surge. If they can't people to care with the incredible roster they have now, they never will and neither could any other company. Dude, this has been said to you many times by many people other than me but... seriously, this isn't healthy. It's never healthy to consistently think this way and make this your entire mindset about wrestling and especially one about a wrestling companies success or failure, constantly effecting your actual life like this. If anything you've just advocated further as to why these should end. Respectfully I disagree. My mental status has no bearing on AEW's ratings. I'm only pointing out I think this is their best, It's an opinion only but I don't think folks should get hung up on thinking about some fabled better time. I have no doubt Monet will pop their rating on Wednesday before they ease into their average. Their Happy, TBS is happy, I'm happy (Not entirely I did stub my toe yesterday).
|
|
jb80
AC Slater
Enter your message here...
Posts: 141
|
Post by jb80 on Mar 10, 2024 19:33:00 GMT -5
Dot has come to terms with Aew's ratings as we all should.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 10, 2024 21:56:10 GMT -5
I think there *is* one way that AEW and WWE are more directly in competition with one another than we think: while they don't directly go head-to-head except for nights when there are PLEs on at the same time as Collision, the difference with today vs. the 90s is that dedicated fans of either company are expected to watch, at minimum, about 5 hours of content a week.
Granted, WCW was doing that for awhile circa 1998-1999 (3 hour Nitro, 2 hour Thunder), but both companies have three main shows, none of which are straight-up syndicated-style squash match shows ala Superstars or Worldwide. I'm going to guess there are at least some fans who basically say "I've got time for one of these promotions, not both", and I'm going to guess WWE benefits more from that given the built-in audience/history they have going for them versus a company that's not five years old yet.
|
|
|
Post by stoptheclocks on Mar 11, 2024 2:51:54 GMT -5
I think there *is* one way that AEW and WWE are more directly in competition with one another than we think: while they don't directly go head-to-head except for nights when there are PLEs on at the same time as Collision, the difference with today vs. the 90s is that dedicated fans of either company are expected to watch, at minimum, about 5 hours of content a week. Granted, WCW was doing that for awhile circa 1998-1999 (3 hour Nitro, 2 hour Thunder), but both companies have three main shows, none of which are straight-up syndicated-style squash match shows ala Superstars or Worldwide. I'm going to guess there are at least some fans who basically say "I've got time for one of these promotions, not both", and I'm going to guess WWE benefits more from that given the built-in audience/history they have going for them versus a company that's not five years old yet. I think the point about how much wrestling one person is capable of watching per week is valid. However, why would how long the company has been in existence be the deciding factor rather than how much they enjoy the shows? Like, when I'm deciding what to watch, I'm not swayed by which company was putting out content in the 80s. In fact, in many areas of entertainment being the hot new thing is a significant advantage.
|
|
Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-]
FANatic
Writer, Lover of all things Wrestling. Analytical, Critical, Lovable (hopefully). Lets all have fun!
Posts: 236,134
Member is Online
|
Post by Xxcjb01xX [PIECE OF: SH-] on Mar 11, 2024 3:11:05 GMT -5
I think there *is* one way that AEW and WWE are more directly in competition with one another than we think: while they don't directly go head-to-head except for nights when there are PLEs on at the same time as Collision, the difference with today vs. the 90s is that dedicated fans of either company are expected to watch, at minimum, about 5 hours of content a week. Granted, WCW was doing that for awhile circa 1998-1999 (3 hour Nitro, 2 hour Thunder), but both companies have three main shows, none of which are straight-up syndicated-style squash match shows ala Superstars or Worldwide. I'm going to guess there are at least some fans who basically say "I've got time for one of these promotions, not both", and I'm going to guess WWE benefits more from that given the built-in audience/history they have going for them versus a company that's not five years old yet. I think the point about how much wrestling one person is capable of watching per week is valid. However, why would how long the company has been in existence be the deciding factor rather than how much they enjoy the shows? Like, when I'm deciding what to watch, I'm not swayed by which company was putting out content in the 80s. In fact, in many areas of entertainment being the hot new thing is a significant advantage. CMLL being like 100 years old I'd say hasn't been a factor in if more people watch them over AAA (And it certainly hasn't made them any smarter...)
|
|
|
Post by daaave on Mar 11, 2024 3:11:41 GMT -5
I think AEW did benefit from being the hot new thing (along with WWE be utter garbage) when the ratings were a lot closer. But that period has passed now.
|
|
zacsr
Mike the Goon
Posts: 5
|
Post by zacsr on Mar 11, 2024 3:29:32 GMT -5
I think the point about how much wrestling one person is capable of watching per week is valid. However, why would how long the company has been in existence be the deciding factor rather than how much they enjoy the shows? Like, when I'm deciding what to watch, I'm not swayed by which company was putting out content in the 80s. In fact, in many areas of entertainment being the hot new thing is a significant advantage. That's a good question because I don't care about the age of the company either. If they're showing good content today, what difference does it make that they weren't 20 years ago?
|
|
zacsr
Mike the Goon
Posts: 5
|
Post by zacsr on Mar 11, 2024 3:32:21 GMT -5
I think AEW did benefit from being the hot new thing (along with WWE be utter garbage) when the ratings were a lot closer. But that period has passed now. Sure, it's not the hot new thing now, but it's still hot.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 11, 2024 5:56:34 GMT -5
I think there *is* one way that AEW and WWE are more directly in competition with one another than we think: while they don't directly go head-to-head except for nights when there are PLEs on at the same time as Collision, the difference with today vs. the 90s is that dedicated fans of either company are expected to watch, at minimum, about 5 hours of content a week. Granted, WCW was doing that for awhile circa 1998-1999 (3 hour Nitro, 2 hour Thunder), but both companies have three main shows, none of which are straight-up syndicated-style squash match shows ala Superstars or Worldwide. I'm going to guess there are at least some fans who basically say "I've got time for one of these promotions, not both", and I'm going to guess WWE benefits more from that given the built-in audience/history they have going for them versus a company that's not five years old yet. I think the point about how much wrestling one person is capable of watching per week is valid. However, why would how long the company has been in existence be the deciding factor rather than how much they enjoy the shows? Like, when I'm deciding what to watch, I'm not swayed by which company was putting out content in the 80s. In fact, in many areas of entertainment being the hot new thing is a significant advantage. Couple of factors, but a main one would likely be what viewing habits they've developed; to a lot of people, Monday is simply "wrestling night" at this point, so some will be inclined to follow WWE since they're already committed to 3 hours of Raw. Meanwhile, two of AEW's three shows are in time slots or nights where fewer people tend to be around watching live TV (Smackdown's obviously doing just fine on Fridays, but prime time network TV is a different beast, especially compared with a 10pm show). Plus, there's also the point that both companies are distinct from one another in terms of storytelling style, in-ring product, and overall presentation; while AEW being different from WWE has made it the "alternative" brand, you don't get that label unless there's an established brand out there that many consider the "norm". As such, the "alternative" is most likely to draw people in during times when the established company is in a downswing or in the midst of making poor business/creative/product decisions, but when that "norm" company rights the ship to some degree many will go back to it because, well, again...it's the norm. WWE's hit on some strong characters in the last year-plus, and I don't doubt that it's drawn some people back to watching it with regularity; some of the people who gravitated back were, I'm guessing, people who might have been giving AEW a try during the doldrums at the end of the Vince years, but who ultimately prefer WWE's overall presentation and would watch it as long as the product's hotter.
|
|
Brood Lone Wolf Funker
Ozymandius
Got fined anyway. Possibly a Moose
James Franco is the white Donald Glover
Posts: 62,163
|
Post by Brood Lone Wolf Funker on Mar 11, 2024 6:18:23 GMT -5
My wife is the definition of a casual fan, she'll watch it if I'm watching it mostly because her TV is bigger even though my TV is three feet to the right of hers. She'll make random comments here and there and ask who so and so is and tends to make fun of stuff like Kyle Fletcher and his flesh pants that one night. During Fletcher/Ospreay she was asking who Will was because she had no idea and her only exposure to Kyle was his horrible fashion sense. A little hype video here or there may make a casual fan more interested
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Mar 11, 2024 9:02:30 GMT -5
I think there *is* one way that AEW and WWE are more directly in competition with one another than we think: while they don't directly go head-to-head except for nights when there are PLEs on at the same time as Collision, the difference with today vs. the 90s is that dedicated fans of either company are expected to watch, at minimum, about 5 hours of content a week. Granted, WCW was doing that for awhile circa 1998-1999 (3 hour Nitro, 2 hour Thunder), but both companies have three main shows, none of which are straight-up syndicated-style squash match shows ala Superstars or Worldwide. I'm going to guess there are at least some fans who basically say "I've got time for one of these promotions, not both", and I'm going to guess WWE benefits more from that given the built-in audience/history they have going for them versus a company that's not five years old yet. Time is definitely a factor for me. I watch Raw and Smackdown every week so that’s 5 hours (or 3.5 really because of DVR). Then I really only have time for Dynamite and rarely will have time to watch Collision, Rampage or NXT. When I enjoyed Dynamite more and Raw a lot less (late era Vince), I would skip more of Raw and watch Dynamite, Smackdown, NXT.
|
|
|
Post by stoptheclocks on Mar 11, 2024 9:03:21 GMT -5
I think the point about how much wrestling one person is capable of watching per week is valid. However, why would how long the company has been in existence be the deciding factor rather than how much they enjoy the shows? Like, when I'm deciding what to watch, I'm not swayed by which company was putting out content in the 80s. In fact, in many areas of entertainment being the hot new thing is a significant advantage. Couple of factors, but a main one would likely be what viewing habits they've developed; to a lot of people, Monday is simply "wrestling night" at this point, so some will be inclined to follow WWE since they're already committed to 3 hours of Raw. Meanwhile, two of AEW's three shows are in time slots or nights where fewer people tend to be around watching live TV (Smackdown's obviously doing just fine on Fridays, but prime time network TV is a different beast, especially compared with a 10pm show). Plus, there's also the point that both companies are distinct from one another in terms of storytelling style, in-ring product, and overall presentation; while AEW being different from WWE has made it the "alternative" brand, you don't get that label unless there's an established brand out there that many consider the "norm". As such, the "alternative" is most likely to draw people in during times when the established company is in a downswing or in the midst of making poor business/creative/product decisions, but when that "norm" company rights the ship to some degree many will go back to it because, well, again...it's the norm. WWE's hit on some strong characters in the last year-plus, and I don't doubt that it's drawn some people back to watching it with regularity; some of the people who gravitated back were, I'm guessing, people who might have been giving AEW a try during the doldrums at the end of the Vince years, but who ultimately prefer WWE's overall presentation and would watch it as long as the product's hotter. People talk about generalising 'casual fans' as a hivemind (which I agree with is a mistake) but surely it's the same thing to generalise people who watch WWE as predominantly doing so purely out of habit. The idea you're suggesting there - that people are conditioned to watch wrestling on a Monday and so watch Raw for three hours (regardless of quality) and then follow WWE from there - what's any of that based on? I think you have to afford people a certain amount of credit for liking what they like because they like it. I know I certainly wouldn't watch anything for six hours a week (and buy tickets, merch etc.) for something I'm only watching out of habit or because I liked it 20 years ago. So why would I assume anyone else would? It's getting away from AEW, but I think any realistic appraisal of where the wrestling market is and has been, has to at least be open to the idea that WWE has the fans it does because people like it. And they've by and large done a decent job of satisfying what they want out of wrestling. Not habit or luck or simple having existed for 50 years.
|
|