PG Era and Linda McMahon? - Page 3 - Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums
Reply

Old 10-09-2012, 05:01 AM   #21 (permalink)
Learning to break kayfabe
 
Bolanboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 203
Bolanboy is an after thought
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

People of today are way too PC on matters, oversensitive, and overprotective. Which I think is just ridiculous when it comes to parents. When I was a kid, there wasn't facebook and five year olds didn't have phones; if you went out to play bam, no contact until you went back home. You learnt about stuff by doing stuff, and now kids can easily just google /anything/.

This overprotective and oversensitive bullshit manages it's way into a shit ton of media and apparently gives parents the right to bitch and moan about anything that even slightly differs in their values to what entertainment should be. Wrestlers should just stick puppets on their hands and start teaching the timetables and the alphabet.

Just look at TNA. They've been an AE rip-off since they started, and for the majority of it's life it has been shit. Tits, ass and swearing don't make a good TV show but actual competent and consistent writing, but kids have zero care about competent or consistent writing. You have a favourite wrestler, you want to watch him beat up the bad guys. I loved the white Power Ranger, couldn't give a shit about the others. I loved Leonardo, didn't give a shit about the other turtles. As much as some people dislike and hate him, Punk was made for us. The other side of the happy-go-lucky PC Cena to the tattoo-filled nerd who relates to what more older fans want. But until this hive-like protection of kids fucks off, I sincerely doubt WWE will change it's model unless something completely drastic happens, like the ratings slipping even more the more they bring back legends to try and get a cheap ratings pop.
__________________
Who I mark/have marked for: Randy Savage, Roddy Piper, Razor Ramon, Bret Hart, Stone Cold, The Rock, Kurt Angle, Chris Jericho, Christian, Undertaker, Jeff Hardy, Eddie Guerrero, CM Punk, Daniel Bryan, Kevin Steen, El Generico, Eddie Edwards, William Regal, Road Dogg, Al Snow, Mankind, Terry Funk, Rob Van Dam, Bobby Roode, Sting, Arn Anderson, Kane, Val Venis, Jim Duggan, Ricky Steamboat, Tatanka.
Bolanboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 10-09-2012, 02:08 PM   #22 (permalink)
Moron
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Up
Posts: 408
Superior Quality needs to take rep more seriousSuperior Quality needs to take rep more seriousSuperior Quality needs to take rep more seriousSuperior Quality needs to take rep more seriousSuperior Quality needs to take rep more seriousSuperior Quality needs to take rep more seriousSuperior Quality needs to take rep more serious
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

I mean I think when tna was ripping off of the attitude era I believe that it was ..... who was trying to recreate it. Like what some people say you cannot recreate the attitude era because what worked back then won't work now. WWE just needs to put on a good product and they need to stop our insulting our intelligence. Like I said earlier they don't need to be tv14 to put on a good product, they should use early wcw as an example on how to put on a good product.
Superior Quality is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 12:03 PM   #23 (permalink)
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 800
fiftyonepercent should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsfiftyonepercent should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsfiftyonepercent should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

But of course, itís not pornography

http://courantblogs.com/colin-mcenro...t-pornography/
fiftyonepercent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 12:20 PM   #24 (permalink)
Acknowledged by SCOTT STEINER
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,010
kopitelewis should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postskopitelewis should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postskopitelewis should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postskopitelewis should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postskopitelewis should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiftyonepercent View Post
But of course, itís not pornography

http://courantblogs.com/colin-mcenro...t-pornography/
Jesus Christ that is an awful hatchet job.
kopitelewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 01:42 PM   #25 (permalink)
Carrying SCOTT STEINER's bags
 
DetroitRiverPhx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,947
DetroitRiverPhx needs to make some friendsDetroitRiverPhx needs to make some friendsDetroitRiverPhx needs to make some friendsDetroitRiverPhx needs to make some friendsDetroitRiverPhx needs to make some friendsDetroitRiverPhx needs to make some friendsDetroitRiverPhx needs to make some friendsDetroitRiverPhx needs to make some friendsDetroitRiverPhx needs to make some friends
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

Also a pg program is likely helluva lot easier to get into international market - especially China most recently.
DetroitRiverPhx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2012, 02:38 PM   #26 (permalink)
Learning to break kayfabe
 
bigcobra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3
bigcobra is an after thought
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystical View Post
I mean I think when tna was ripping off of the attitude era I believe that it was ..... who was trying to recreate it. Like what some people say you cannot recreate the attitude era because what worked back then won't work now. WWE just needs to put on a good product and they need to stop our insulting our intelligence. Like I said earlier they don't need to be tv14 to put on a good product, they should use early wcw as an example on how to put on a good product.

Im not trying to be a troll, but what specifically should they do to put on a good product? Ive thought of it, and i can only come up with making it edgier/tv14. The old WCW would never work either btw. That was like 90% technical wrestling. no way thats gonna fly in this day and age. Besides the pg rating, my biggest beef with wwe is their marketing. Im so sick of meaningless twitter statistics. Also, this may sound strange, but the sets are too bright and colorful. It gives the feel that you are watching a stage production, which takes the feel out of it.
bigcobra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2012, 09:20 PM   #27 (permalink)
Asking SCOTT STEINER for Wrestling Advice
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 339
Toad84 is an after thoughtToad84 is an after thought
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

The problem with the "PG" product is that it is hardly PG. It is borderline "G" rated. You find edgier programming on ABC Family and Nickelodeon.

The cartoonish nature(Hornswoggle drawing a hole on a wall, R-Truth's imaginary friend, Santino donning a pipe and a newsboy hat to search for the GM, etc.) is decent to draw in children, children who would watch anyway. But it is insulting to older members of the fanbase and makes it very difficult to bring in fans in new fans from the 18-45 demographic.
Toad84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 07:16 AM   #28 (permalink)
Acknowledged by SCOTT STEINER
 
Defei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,471
Defei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsDefei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsDefei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsDefei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsDefei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by holt_hogan View Post
My own personal belief, aside from the PG thing is they have in the last year began giving a lot more air time to newer talent and younger stars. They are literally in a building for the future stage at the moment for the majority of the talent. It's my belief that's why they agreed to USA's requests about moving to 3 hours. They knew they would get lower ratings whilst showcasing new and younger talent however the 3rd hour makes up for any losses in revenue from a drop in ratings on a standard 2 hour show.

Although the ratings have gone down in the last 10 weeks, they still have 3-4 million people watching an extra hour of Raw they wouldn't usually be there for.

The following breaks down how they make more money now (or did do in 2009-2010) compared to the attitude era.

Between 1998 and 2001, WWF ran 835 shows. Between 2006 and 2009, WWE ran 1,269 shows which is a 52% increase.

I was surprised to see that 1995 had 347 events, especially knowing that wasn't a financially great year for them. They were small shows compared to the boom period or even this modern era.

The average attendance in 1995 was 3,352.
The average attendance in 2001 was 11,556.
The average attendance in 2005 was 4,975.
The average attendance in 2009 was 6,933.

An interesting fact is that the total attendance in 2009 for live events is approximately around what it was in 1999-2001 years (2.3 million people annually). However, since they're touring a lot more internationally (70+ events in the past three years), so it's clear that a much smaller portion of that live audience is domestic. (This is an improvement from mid-decade numbers. By 2005, the live attendance had dipped to about 1.61 million. 2005 was still an improvement from a decade prior to that by about half a million better than 1995's numbers.)

In terms of total pro-wrestling live attendance in North America, let's not forgot that during the 90's, there was WCW live attendance that was also drawing domestically. Today, we're down to one major company which is barely drawing on a worldwide basis the same number of people it had mostly domestically in 1999.

In total, they make about the same amount of money on live event & TV revenues - costs in 2009 as they did in 2001 (about $99k/event profit). However, that number was almost halfed in 2005 ($57k/event).

Observation Two: While PPV revenues are up on a per-buy basis, PPV costs have risen as well. International buys continue to rise.

2009: $80.0 million PPV revenue with $32.5 million in PPV costs. Total PPV buys (domestic+int'l) = 4,490,200 buys.
2005: $85.5 million PPV revenue with $36.3 million in PPV costs. Total PPV buys (domestic+int'l) = 5,280,800 buys.
2001: $128.2 million PPV revenue with $41.6 million in PPV costs. Total PPV buys (domestic+int'l) = 8,010,400 buys.

Revenue per PPV buy
2009: $17.82/buy
2005: $16.19/buy
2001: $16.00/buy

This would suggest that the price increases on the PPVs have offset the fact that a larger percentage of buys is coming from international sources. Remember that the average PPV in 2001 was only $29.95 (WM was $39.95). The average PPV in 2005 was $34.95 (WM was $49.95) and the average PPV in 2009 is $39.95 (WM was $54.95 plus more for HD). A little less than 50% of the average PPV price was received per buy in 2005 & 2009, and a little more than half was received per buy in 2001.

Cost per PPV buy
2009: $7.24/buy
2005: $6.87/buy
2001: $5.19/buy

Revenues - Cost per PPV buy:
2009: $10.58/buy x 4.49 million buys = $47.5 million
2005: $9.31/buy x 5.28 million buys = $49.2 million
2001: $10.81/buy x 8.01 million buys = $86.6 mililon

So, WWE is keeping their head above water on the PPV front on a per-PPV basis - but they've had to increase PPV prices by 33% since 2001 to do that. They're not even close to making as much money over-all on the PPV front as they were in the boom period, once you factor in increased costs.

Observation Three: Overall, the increase in TV rights fees and the loss of advertising money resulted in a slight gain.

2009: $72.8 domestic TV rights fees + $39.1 int'l TV rights fee + $7.7 advertising = $119.6 million net revenue (with $68.3 in cost)
2005: $52.3 domestic TV rights fees + $24.8 int'l TV rights fee + $43.7 advertising = $120.8 million net revenue (with $68.5 in cost)
2001: $20.9 domestic TV rights fees + $14.3 int'l TV rights fee + $90.3 advertising = $125.5 million net revenue (with $78.3 in cost)

2009: $51.3 million in profit
2005: $52.3 million in profit
2001: $47.2 million in profit

It's been an interesting trade-off. Obviously, they seem to be underpaid in TV rights fees at the turn of the century, but they were able to make a lot of money selling ads. Now, they get a lot more for the TV rights (especially in the int'l market) but they barely do more ads. Considering the lower ratings (though the same number of viewers, as was discussed in the newsletter this week), I think they're probably better off not trying to sell ads.

To recap points 1 through 3:
(a) Overall, Live Event Attendance is about the same. Even profit per event is about the same. But by running more events, 2009 has about $13MM more in profit in compared to 2001.
(b) PPV profits are $40MM lower in 2009 than the peak period (2001).
(c) They're been a shift in the allocation of profit from TV Rights + Advertising money, but overall things are about the same (+$4MM in 2009 vs 2001).

Live Events & Televised Profit: down about $22MM in 2009 compared in 2001

2009: $308 - $175 = +$133MM
2005: $285 - $165 = +$120MM
2001: $336 - $181 = +$155MM
1997: $63.9 - $54.6 = +$9.3MM

Branded Merchandise

Observation Four: Profit from Licensing Fees, Merchandise and Home video are up!

Licensing Fees: $44.7 - $11.0 = +$33.7MM (2009)
Licensing Fees: $20.9 - $6.4 = +$14.5MM (2005)
Licensing Fees: $35.6 - $13.8 = +$21.8MM (2001)

I believe this money is coming from better deals with the licensees - toys, video games, etc.

Merchandise: $35.8 - $22.7 = +$13.1MM (2009)
Merchandise: $17.3 - $12.1 = +$5.2MM (2005)
Merchandise: $28.9 - $23.9 = +$5.0MM (2001)

I'm putting WWEShop and Venue Merchandise into one bucket so I can compare the different years.

Home Video: $39.4 - $17.7 = $21.7MM (2009)
Home Video: $20.1 - $9.2 = $10.9MM (2005)
Home Video: $12.2 - $6.2 = $6.0MM (2001)

Licensing/Merchandise/Home Video combined: $33.7 + $13.1 + $21.7 = $68.5MM (2009)
Licensing/Merchandise/Home Video combined: $14.5 + $5.2 + $10.9 = $30.6MM (2005)
Licensing/Merchandise/Home Video combined: $21.8 + $5.0 + $6.0 = $32.8MM (2001)

The increase in these three categories from 2009 compared to 2001 (+$35.7MM) completely offsets the decrease in the Live & Televised Profit (-$22MM).

Observation Five: WWE makes more on publishing and WWE.com than they did previously.

It's not a big surprise that WWE understands how to effectively make money using the internet better today than they did a decade ago.

WWE.Com/Internet Advertising: $16.8 - $6.9 = $9.9MM (2009)
WWE.Com/Internet Advertising: $7.8 - $3.5 = $4.3MM (2005)
WWE.Com/Internet Advertising: $5.6 - $4.9 = $0.7MM (2001)

Publishing: $13.5 - $11.1 (2009) = +$2.4MM
Publishing: $12.2 - $8.4 (2005) = +$3.8MM
Publishing: $17 - $23.9 (2001) = -$6.9MM (I believe it was things like WWE magazine and WWE Music were not making money)

2009 vs 2001: +$18.6MM higher profits on these two categories.

To recap points 4 and 5:
(a) WWE made almost $36MM more in licensing/merchandise/home video in 2009 than they did in 2001.
(b) WWE made almost $19MM more through WWE.com/Publishing in 2090 than they did in 2001.
(c) The additional $54MM in Branded Merchandise profit offsets the -$22MM less from the Live & Televised Event category.

Revenues - Cost: 458 - 244 = $214 (2009)
Revenues - Cost: 363 - 203 = $160 (2005)
Revenues - Cost: 435 - 240 = $195 (2001)
Revenues - Cost: 81.8 - 68.9 = $13 (1997)

In short, how did WWE make more money in 2009 than they did in 2001? They ran more events at about the same profit/event as they did a decade earlier, they made a lot more money on their licensing fees and expanded their ability to use WWEShop to move merchandise, they became much more profitable at producing home video units, they figured out how to make more money using their website and they shuttered some of the unprofitable elements of their publishing business.

Now, this isn't taking into account inflation or other factors such as The World, WWE Films, XFL costs, IPO costs, etc, but it gives a good grounding on how things have changed over the past ten years.

Dude if ya gonna post someone else' research work on a forum, do give that person the credit for it.
__________________

Defei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2012, 09:42 AM   #29 (permalink)
Getting over in the mid-card
 
bigdog40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6,697
bigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missed
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

WWE has been PG before Linda started going into politics and it was a business move for them to go PG and WWE is a business FIRST. The only people complaining about it are smarks, but smarks complain about everything and that going back to tv-14 is a lot easier said than done. What people don't get that the talent is what made the attitude era, not the content. You had the Rock, Stone Cold, DX, Undertaker, Kane, and Mankind. 1998 was very good, but 1999 was absolute shit as far as storylines went. WWE begin to officially be tv-14 toward the end of 1999 when the talent up and down the card was good and it had depth. People forget that with TV-14, there was also a lot of shit that came with it too so it wasn't all good all the time. People look at that time with rose tinted glasses, but fail to realize a lot of what's wrong with today's product started back during the Attitude Era. The hot potating of the WWE title, the mid card belts not meaning anything. Two up and coming wrestler's wrestling each other when it doesn't help either superstar get over.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by new_guy View Post
People complain about newer talent not getting over, but what they mean is that their favourite isn't getting over, everyone else can go to hell. I'm for as many people getting over as possible, it would improve the show and the more over people there are, the more avenues there are to push new talent, yes, your favourites are more likely to get pushed if there are more over people to feud with.
bigdog40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums
Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Powered by vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios