Greetings fellow WWE fans,
I'm a 30 year fan of the product. My preferred psychology in this industry is the realism of the Iron Man match in Wrestlemania 12. I appreciate the psychology of wrestling above all else.
At the 2015 Royal Rumble, I believe the rejection of Reigns (and subsequent decision to have Rollins cash in) was largely in response to a horrificly poor anticipation of the crowd by WWE creative in regards to Daniel Bryan. Then, the match was booked in the most bring manner possible (Kane/Big Show dominance with no believable alternative winners apart from Reigns).
As a result, the crowd booed the match.
The crow rejected the product.
Roman Reigns bore the brunt of it and became the symbol of everything fans were sick of behind the scenes (bad booking, unfair treatment of Daniel Bryan, and poor creative decisions made in commercial interests without paying attention to what the crowd wants).
Afterwards, the mud stuck - unfairly. The narrative became cool to stick it to Reigns and by extension they were sticking it to the bland decisions being made behind the scenes, rather than actively disliking Reigns himself.
Ever since, I strongly believe that (ahem) Reigns getting booed wasn't his fault.
The boos were toward the booking of the product. Reigns was caught in the crossfire. Months went by and these boos were misinterpreted...
To what extent was the temporary resistance to Reigns' rise really about the product in general and the way they initially thought they could tell us what we should like? I felt like the WWE insulted fans with the way they booked that Rumble and it cost them 11 months of nearly spoiling a perfectly good superstar before figuring out how to let him get over a little more organically.
I'm a 30 year fan of the product. My preferred psychology in this industry is the realism of the Iron Man match in Wrestlemania 12. I appreciate the psychology of wrestling above all else.
At the 2015 Royal Rumble, I believe the rejection of Reigns (and subsequent decision to have Rollins cash in) was largely in response to a horrificly poor anticipation of the crowd by WWE creative in regards to Daniel Bryan. Then, the match was booked in the most bring manner possible (Kane/Big Show dominance with no believable alternative winners apart from Reigns).
As a result, the crowd booed the match.
The crow rejected the product.
Roman Reigns bore the brunt of it and became the symbol of everything fans were sick of behind the scenes (bad booking, unfair treatment of Daniel Bryan, and poor creative decisions made in commercial interests without paying attention to what the crowd wants).
Afterwards, the mud stuck - unfairly. The narrative became cool to stick it to Reigns and by extension they were sticking it to the bland decisions being made behind the scenes, rather than actively disliking Reigns himself.
Ever since, I strongly believe that (ahem) Reigns getting booed wasn't his fault.
The boos were toward the booking of the product. Reigns was caught in the crossfire. Months went by and these boos were misinterpreted...
To what extent was the temporary resistance to Reigns' rise really about the product in general and the way they initially thought they could tell us what we should like? I felt like the WWE insulted fans with the way they booked that Rumble and it cost them 11 months of nearly spoiling a perfectly good superstar before figuring out how to let him get over a little more organically.