Wrestling Forum banner

Reality behind the WWE's financial position

7K views 75 replies 39 participants last post by  The411 
#1 · (Edited)
Due to the amount if misinformation on this subject that has been spread (mostly by desperate Reigns marks) this requires it's own thread.

First, it was claimed that the 1 million subscriber figure that was announced after the Rumble was largely attributed to Reigns and his drawing power. This absurd claim was immediately debunked by WWE in their own press release:

driven primarily by a successful free November promotion, the launch of the service in the UK and significant additions for the Royal Rumble pay-per-view event.
http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2015/wwe-network-hits-1-million-subscribers

Second, some called into question the 1 million subscriber figure. The figure is real, but as this article states, 1 million is likely a gross number and there was some churn.

In the third quarter pay-per-view revenues were down 75%, or about $10.9 million, while subscription revenues totaled $22.4 million. At the end of that quarter the company had 723,174 average monthly subscribers. Churn was awesome: gross additions totaled 285,000 and churn totaled 254,000 subscribers.
http://247wallst.com/media/2015/01/28/world-wrestling-entertainment-cant-pin-down-subscribers/

In case you're unfamiliar with the terms "gross additions" and "churn,"

gross adds - The total number of new subscribers added by a company. Gross adds aren’t adjusted to include the number of customers that cancelled service. Typically gross add numbers are used in the telecom industry, however, they may be used in other industries and contexts as well.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/gross-adds

churn - The percentage of subscribers to a service that discontinue their subscription to that service in a given time period.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/churnrate.asp

So it appears that 1 million is the number of people that have ever subscribed to the Network since its inception and not the current amount of active paying subscribers.

Furthermore, the article states that financial analysts are forecasting an earnings per share loss for the company.

And from a glance at their financials:

-Net profit margins have underperformed in comparison to the industry.

-Return on Equity is under performing not only in comparison to the industry, but to the same quarter the previous year.

-Same thing for its net operating cash flow.

A lot of uneducated and uninformed individuals on this very forum have attempted to paint a rosy picture of the WWE's financial position, when in reality, that's not really the case. They are not on the brink of bankruptcy, but they certainly aren't performing to their potential. Not even close.
 
See less See more
#5 ·
A lot of uneducated and uninformed individuals on this very forum have attempted to paint a rosy picture of the WWE's financial position, when in reality, that's not really the case. They are not on the brink of bankruptcy, but they certainly aren't performing to their potential. Not even close.
Those uneducated and uniformed individuals are trolls and WWE apologists. They poison every thread they are in and provide unsubstantiated arguments. See: Stone Hot.

Thank you for providing these facts. Indeed, the number of 1 million does not represent their current active subsribers. Therefore, they have lied by claiming they have just hit 1 million. This will backfire right in their face. Be prepared to find WWE stock in boxes of cereal.
 
#7 ·
Subs have gone up 37% or something since the UK got the Network.. read that somewhere, I think at least, sounds right though.
 
#13 ·
Nice basic analysis.

What you could have pointed out is the NET additions (gross-churn) was 21000 subscribers. But these figures are going to be clouded the next quater because of the free month(s) they are giving away, and the UK network.

What is also important, is the churn time. I.E. how long do they sign up for? Cutting the six month commitment to month to month suggests churn time for the latest additional add ons is small (BAD).
 
#22 ·
They have had 1 million "gross subscribers" but you have to take out the "churn" of 254,000. This is also prior to the WWE Network cancellations which are rumored to be in the 50,000 ball park which would put churn over 300,000 and total subscribers at about 700,000.

Keep in mind that WWE has stated that they need 1 million current subscribers, not gross, but net current subscribers, to make money on the Network. They've been losing money out the ass as they are hundreds of thousands of people under their goal just to break even.

Don't let Vinny Mac and Triple H stick bananas in your tailpipe:
:vince3

The 1 million subscribers thing is technically true yet spiritually and ultimately factually it is a lie. They are closer to 700,000 than 1 million.
 
#29 ·
Only in business and politics can you make a lie a fact. It's hilarious. Could you imagine if you applied WWE logic to everyday life? "Honey, how are we on milk? I need a gallon to be sure we have enough for the cake I'm making and for all the guests.." *Spouse checks fridge* "Baby we got a full gallon!"
*Checks later on only to find out there is only half a gallon.*
 
#27 ·
Facts and logic are wasted on the RR marks and WWE trolls. All these new alt accounts etc aren't here for facts, wrestling or even discussion. They're here with an agenda and most of them aren't even RR fans, they'd be doing the same shit if Bryan won to antagonize people here.

Who really expects much from people who openly admit they like the hate, babble about stupid shit and Reigns puns every thread they can? It's obvious they just latch onto whoever is either hated or loved given the month.
 
#28 ·
:favre ugh just knock it off guys. Do you think if you keep saying WWE is struggling and no one wants to watch it will come true?

I've been coming here for a few weeks because my interest in wwe has grown, yet all I'm seeing is butthurt posting back and forth about the inner workings of the company.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other, I just want to follow the shows and enjoy whats going on with out an agenda. is there a place to discuss the program without this garbage?
 
#32 ·
If you don't care, why are you in this thread? Go find another forum but truth be told all forums are the same, even if you find a more "positive" one you'll get tired of the hardcore fans for whomever is FotM. Then you'll post in a thread there asking if there is another place to post at without all the cock riding and mark fighting.
 
#37 ·
Wwe has been doing financial bad since the start of the network last year. DB will not make wwe financially better
 
#43 ·
Thanks for making this thread, it's been so irritating to hear smug cynics laughing about how "#CancelWWENetwork was an epic failure, WWE's got more subscribers than ever!"

Even including all the cancelled memberships, the approximated total (as calculated by PWTorch's James Cauldwell based on percentage increases) is only 1,001,470. Considering you can cancel at any time, that number could have very easily fallen below 1m even without the resonse to the Rumble.

Aside from the obvious desire to counter bad press, it's not unreasonable to speculate that they publicised the number now because it may not be there to quote for too much longer.
 
#45 ·
1 little negative thing about cena and she would have essays on why we were wrong. Even when we gave Cena a compliment unless you were sucking cenas dick that compliment wasn't good enough.

There was another user named Frank Da Tank who was just as bad as her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LPPrince
#52 ·
So it appears that 1 million is the number of people that have ever subscribed to the Network since its inception and not the current amount of active paying subscribers.
nah. they clearly stated last quarter they had 971,000 unique subs during the quarter but only 75% were active at the time of writing

only adding an extra unique 29,000 subs when the network has:
* since been fully rolled out almost worldwide
* free month in november including survivor series and stings big debut
* the end of the 6 month committment
* the launch in their second biggest market uk/ireland
* their second most popular show of the year which normally averages 500k each year on ppv

A lot of uneducated and uninformed individuals on this very forum have attempted to paint a rosy picture of the WWE's financial position, when in reality, that's not really the case. They are not on the brink of bankruptcy, but they certainly aren't performing to their potential. Not even close.
wwe since the middle of 2013 have clearly stated they were taking a big loss in 2014 due to network and probably would just about break even in 2015. 2016 and beyond was where they were always looking toward.

as long as wwe can keep debt low they will be fine, which it is right now compared to everyone else in the entertainment industry e.g ufc have over $500 million in long term debt..wwes only debt is a $20 million loan they used to buy a new jet last year
 
#59 ·
What's funny is that the apologists try throwing these meaningless and flawed numbers out as a celebration. What are you celebrating? Do you work for WWE? No. You're just being moronic trolls, praising s terrible product just to be anti-IWC. You sound like imbeciles.

The Network is a borderline disaster in less than a year. WWE has to hand out freebies just to get anyone to subscribe. And that's while endlessly promoting it every Monday night for 3 hours. People still aren't buying it. Like I already pointed out in my threads on this matter, in WWEs target audience of America, the numbers suck dick. Even if people do subscribe, they don't stay subscribed. In reality, Vince had slaughtered his own PPV revenue, because charging people less than $100 a year for every PPV compared to $40 a month is going to kill him.
 
#60 ·
I a a Roman Reigns mark but I have personally never thought to stated that the apparent success of the networks was down to Roma Reigns. In fact I have not once seen anyone else write it either and if anybody did then surely they are either trolling for a reaction or saying it in jest.

I doubt anyone, even The Rock would increase the Network subs. I personally don't see why say for example The Rock wins the Rumble why thousands of people would suddenly subsrube to the Network. Because what relevance has the network got the day after the rumble and for the next month when all anybody is going to be able to do is watch old stuff.


Here. Is the real reason I believe the WWE has had some real success recently.

1. Road to Wrestlemania and Royal Rumble is the second or third most popular PPV.
2. Finally a year after everyone else arguably WWEs 2nd or 3rd highest audience in the UK can finally get the Network.
 
#61 ·
The free months are dumb. More subs? Sure. But then don't use those in your total subscriber counts unless they stick around and are actually paying for it.

Easy as shit to say "we have a million subs!" when you're not subtracting recent cancellations, people's months running out, and people that aren't actually paying you anything.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top