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

Old 10-08-2012, 05:28 PM   #1 (permalink)
Little Poppa Pump
 
JamesCurtis24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
Posts: 2,287
JamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new here
Default PG Era and Linda McMahon?

Now notably, I stopped watching WWE while it was TV-14 (can't remember if it ever got to TV-MA or not), and that was around 2004 or 2005. I honestly thought that the rating changed to PG back in like 06 but apparently it didn't happen until about 2008.

ANYWAYS

my question is: Are the PG Era and Linda McMahon directly related? By that I mean is the PG rating a result of trying to keep a clean image for Linda's campaign run?

To add to that, do you guys believe that when Linda decides she is finally done with politics that the rating will go back up to TV-14 or MA? Or will it perhaps take years before the Cena generation has grown up before they make the change?

I think it would be nice, assuming Linda stopped politics, to have the rating bumped back up but still have Saturday Morning Slam with stuff JUST for kids.

That way you could still have all the cusing, nudity and violence on the regular Raw and SD programs.

A similar thought to this, in my opinion, would be a show like Tales From The Crypt. It had an adult show with profanity, gore, nudity and sexual situations... which would be a TV-MA rating by todays standards. To reach out to the kids, however, they had Tales From The Crypt Keeper. This was just a animated kids show that was based around the same idea, just kid friendly.

So this way you could cater to your teenage/adult audience and still provide to the kids with Saturday Morning Slam. Evidentally, it would be up to the parents to let their kids watch Raw or SD.

I got kind of side tracked... so basically yeah, I'm wondering if the PG Era is as a direct result of what Linda is doing, and if you think the WWE would switch back immediatly after she retires from politics, or if it will take a few years to phase everybody back into it?
__________________

"I am the Devil himself, and all of you stupid mindless people fell for it"
JamesCurtis24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 10-08-2012, 05:36 PM   #2 (permalink)
Characters Welcome
 
holt_hogan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Manchester UK/Los Angeles
Posts: 1,335
holt_hogan needs to take rep more seriousholt_hogan needs to take rep more seriousholt_hogan needs to take rep more seriousholt_hogan needs to take rep more seriousholt_hogan needs to take rep more seriousholt_hogan needs to take rep more serious
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

The Benoit tragedy, Linda's campaign, better advertising opportunities and Vince wanting to hook a new audience whilst their young are the 4 main reasons they switched to PG.
__________________
"This is a lot better than lugging wrestlers around who farted in my car" - Jim Ross on starting his new podcast.
holt_hogan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 05:37 PM   #3 (permalink)
July 7, 2001
 
Créole Heat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 4,154
Créole Heat probably won't be missedCréole Heat probably won't be missedCréole Heat probably won't be missedCréole Heat probably won't be missedCréole Heat probably won't be missedCréole Heat probably won't be missedCréole Heat probably won't be missedCréole Heat probably won't be missedCréole Heat probably won't be missedCréole Heat probably won't be missedCréole Heat probably won't be missed
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by holt_hogan View Post
The Benoit tragedy, Linda's campaign, better advertising opportunities and Vince wanting to hook a new audience whilst their young are the 4 main reasons they switched to PG.
Pretty much.
__________________


Créole Heat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 05:39 PM   #4 (permalink)
Humbled
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,098
hardysno1fan should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postshardysno1fan should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postshardysno1fan should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

I dont think Linda winning/losing would change the direction of the WE.
hardysno1fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 05:39 PM   #5 (permalink)
Little Poppa Pump
 
JamesCurtis24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
Posts: 2,287
JamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new here
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

So in an essence is seems PG Era = lower ratings but greater revenue, TV-14+ era = better ratings but less revenue?

I mean if that is the case, I could see the WWE never changing back, unless Vince really cares about the ratings more than dollars. Then again, times have changed so much over even just the last four years.... it's hard to say how a TV-14+ rating show would do.
__________________

"I am the Devil himself, and all of you stupid mindless people fell for it"
JamesCurtis24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 05:41 PM   #6 (permalink)
Little Poppa Pump
 
JamesCurtis24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
Posts: 2,287
JamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new here
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardysno1fan View Post
I dont think Linda winning/losing would change the direction of the WE.
Perhaps not if she continued her career in politics, but if she retired from politics there is not really any incentive for the WWE to hold back other than to keep kids watching.

If you ask me, even in a TV-14+ era most kids would still end up watching. I, like I'm sure many of you did, watched from the earliest age I could remember, probably 2 or 3 years old.
__________________

"I am the Devil himself, and all of you stupid mindless people fell for it"
JamesCurtis24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 05:41 PM   #7 (permalink)
Vince gives me a comedy gimmick
 
Asenath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 6,439
Asenath needs to take rep more seriousAsenath needs to take rep more seriousAsenath needs to take rep more seriousAsenath needs to take rep more seriousAsenath needs to take rep more seriousAsenath needs to take rep more serious
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

And there is a vocal contingent of people (myself included) who don't want to go back to the worst excesses of the Attitude Era. Women in dog collars and wrestling in gravy, grossness for its own sake, swearing because it's oh so "adult". . . pass.
Asenath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 05:48 PM   #8 (permalink)
Characters Welcome
 
holt_hogan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Manchester UK/Los Angeles
Posts: 1,335
holt_hogan needs to take rep more seriousholt_hogan needs to take rep more seriousholt_hogan needs to take rep more seriousholt_hogan needs to take rep more seriousholt_hogan needs to take rep more seriousholt_hogan needs to take rep more serious
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

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.
__________________
"This is a lot better than lugging wrestlers around who farted in my car" - Jim Ross on starting his new podcast.
holt_hogan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 05:51 PM   #9 (permalink)
Asking SCOTT STEINER for Wrestling Advice
 
KnowUrRoleJabroni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 349
KnowUrRoleJabroni is in rep purgatory
Default Re: PG Era and Linda McMahon?

was it not due to recession?
KnowUrRoleJabroni is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2012, 05:54 PM   #10 (permalink)
Little Poppa Pump
 
JamesCurtis24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
Posts: 2,287
JamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new hereJamesCurtis24 better hope they're relatively new here
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.
So with everything you've said, do you think changing back to TV-14 with a three hour Raw would damage revenue, or increase it?
__________________

"I am the Devil himself, and all of you stupid mindless people fell for it"
JamesCurtis24 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