Wrestling Forum banner

2781 - 2800 of 2946 Posts

·
The EST of NXT
Joined
·
28,849 Posts
5 months ago 2 million viewers was the norm. Now we're arguing about whether or not someone can hold onto 1.6m.

You stop.

Nobody is making a difference. But ultimately, it doesn't matter. All I have to do is wait. Have fun talking about whomever is a draw with the sub 1.5m viewer averages come October and November.
No, I won't stop when you make completely wrong claims that she only draws 10,000 viewers to push your bullshit agenda.
 

·
THE MAN has come around to collect her debts.
Joined
·
10,024 Posts
WWE hasn't blamed anyone as far as I can see. It's the fans who are blaming people. I'm saying it doesn't even matter anymore. From top to bottom the brand is too damaged for anyone to make a difference. This isn't about who has been champion, it's just years upon years of creating an unappealing product that has turned away viewers and losing their trust.

Once a big company loses the trust of their consumers, it's a hard road trying to get it back, if ever.
They blamed CM Punk for low ratings back when he was WWE Champion. (Not on his hottest pipe bomb run but on an earlier run) Vince also recently told shareholders that Lesnar not being on the show is why ratings were down, thereby burying his whole roster as non-draws lol.

But yeah, things are so far gone that good booking won’t even help. They need a complete restructuring from the ground up and no single talent will turn things around. There is nothing they can do right now to get out of this hole. Goldberg can still pop a rating though so they can call him if they want to get a 1.7 one week. But what about the following weeks lol? Truly scary times for advertisers and shareholders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,109 Posts
Doesn't matter, this show is headed for sub 1.5 million totals soon enough regardless of whether or not one person can move the needle by a piddly 10k or not. At that point, I don't envy whomever is champion.

Autumn is gonna be UGLY. A bloodbath. Good luck to the champions of the fall period.
The challenge for WWE is that absent real crowds it is going to be really, really difficult to build new stars. And the pandemic caught them right in the midst of what was probably a 2 year rebuild mode. They’re essentially frozen in place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,109 Posts
I totally agree with you. Its very WCW summer 1999 onwards. The big names have been brought back and burnt through and dont move the needle, the other guys who should have been elevated have been given the 50/50 treatment and flipped between face/heel that no one cares, ratings are tumbling. Ahh its all so familiar. I'm not hopeful for the future, the company is dead cold, even if say a Rock or Austin or HBK came back full time they wouldnt move the ratings after the 1st month because the entire roster has 0 credibility. Say Orton wins at SS, whats next? whos a decent face to go against, say Drew wins, same issue but in reverse. Baad Bad times to be a shareholder.
Exactly. How do you build your next top babyface without any organic fan reaction? Its not impossible, but very difficult.

What is truly needed is a complete rethink on how characters are created and how the show is presented.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
The challenge for WWE is that absent real crowds it is going to be really, really difficult to build new stars. And the pandemic caught them right in the midst of what was probably a 2 year rebuild mode. They’re essentially frozen in place.
Even with Becky, they lost a million viewers in ONE year during her time as the top girl. She's the best "star" they made in the last 3 years and she couldn't stop the bleeding one iota. That shows there's a bigger problem than just star making, it means that whatever they've been doing lately, is happening in a vacuum. Why is this? Because consumers have just tuned out. It's kinda like the con man who suddenly goes straight for a year. They'll always be the con man in everyone else's eyes. One year of making a big star won't change anything at this point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,109 Posts
WWE hasn't blamed anyone as far as I can see. It's the fans who are blaming people. I'm saying it doesn't even matter anymore. From top to bottom the brand is too damaged for anyone to make a difference. This isn't about who has been champion, it's just years upon years of creating an unappealing product that has turned away viewers and losing their trust.

Once a big company loses the trust of their consumers, it's a hard road trying to get it back, if ever.
There are other factors, but a good analogy to that statement is the Video Game Crash of 1983. It nearly ended the industry, and was spearheaded by two disastrous major releases by Atari that shook the confidence of consumers. Atari was sold off and became a minor player for the remainder of its existence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
There are other factors, but a good analogy to that statement is the Video Game Crash of 1983. It nearly ended the industry, and was spearheaded by two disastrous major releases by Atari that shook the confidence of consumers. Atari was sold off and became a minor player for the remainder of its existence.
True, there are other comparisons as well--generally large established companies tend to decline when there is a distinct lack of innovation for too long a period, so that the product gets stale. Since nobody else has really stepped up and had the money, resources and risk taking to do something different from the WWE, it's not getting killed by an up and comer (AEW is fine, but they aren't reinventing wrestling) the result is really just a gradual decline for the industry as a whole.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
No, I won't stop when you make completely wrong claims that she only draws 10,000 viewers to push your bullshit agenda.
When did I say she only drew 10k? I'm just saying that most people in the WWE really don't make a difference in their segments by much more than an extra 10-40k most weeks. Including Sasha.

But whatever. Have fun talking "draws" as we're doing sub TNA numbers now. Hopefully for your arguments Sasha will still be the highest rated segments when RAW is doing 900k a week a year from now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,821 Posts
And even if they fall below todays ratings, as long as they are in the top 3 for the "demo" each week, why should anyone remove them from that day or even completely kicking them?.
But only 1 hour makes it consistently into the top 3 for demo now for a bunch of wrestling shows. It used to be the WWE had 1,2,3 locked up on Mondays, now it's something like 3, 5 and 7. Slowly but surely even their demo rating is slipping.

RAW is getting thwapped by 90 day fiance every week, which never would have happened even 5 years ago.

Not only does 90 Day Fiance kickass in the demos of their females WAY more than WWE does with males, it also hits 3m a week.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
There are other factors, but a good analogy to that statement is the Video Game Crash of 1983. It nearly ended the industry, and was spearheaded by two disastrous major releases by Atari that shook the confidence of consumers. Atari was sold off and became a minor player for the remainder of its existence.
That's a good comparison, but at the same time Atari was more of a startup. There was Cannon Group, which had success in the 1980's before filing for bankruptcy in the 1990's. Like Atari both a success and victim of its era. There was Hammer Film Productions, which boomed in the 50's and 60's and then got left behind by the edgy horror movies of the 1970's.

I'm really struggling to think of another long established media brand/publicly listed company partaking in such obvious self harm and potential crash and burn, like WWE has been doing. I suppose it's actually quite rare for such a company to have one man holding so much power.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,109 Posts
True, there are other comparisons as well--generally large established companies tend to decline when there is a distinct lack of innovation for too long a period, so that the product gets stale. Since nobody else has really stepped up and had the money, resources and risk taking to do something different from the WWE, it's not getting killed by an up and comer (AEW is fine, but they aren't reinventing wrestling) the result is really just a gradual decline for the industry as a whole.
AEW has potential. Just establishing a alternative base in year 1 that leaves them profitable removes the immediate pressures that TNA had under Dixie Carter and Jerry Jarrett before her. I’m hoping that they can innovate. The key to overtaking a creatively dying, bloated hegemon is innovation. AEW has to do what WWE will not or cannot do. WWE is about quantity of content...AEW should be about quality. Perfection for each show and long term continuity that rewards the viewer are paramount.

I can think of other analogies of dominant companies that burned their consumers and were ultimately overtaken as they arrogantly flailed about - GM in the 1980s being the most immediate example.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,090 Posts
You are actually incorrect mate. Bret was the largest international draw outside of the US between 1993-1997 if you check the tour info for Germany/UK/South Africa ect.

And to say he didnt draw in the US is also factually incorrect. When he took the belt from Nash after his long run ratings and house shows went up. When he took the belt at the start of '97 after Shawn and Sid flipped it ,guess what ratings and house show attendence went up. Survivor series 96 where he and Austin was the biggest built match did the best WWF buy rate of the year.

He was the top merch seller by metrics in the company between 1994-1996. The US-Canada feud in '97 did the best house shows/ratings WWF had done for quite some time when they were crossin over the border each week. But yes he wasnt a draw.
You must not have seen the documentary up above that I posted. It clearly states in there that business wise under Bret Hart was in the gutter from attendance going down, PPV buys going down, and tv ratings and viewership going down. All of this happened when Bret Hart was the top guy in the WWF and thats the reason Vince McMahon wanted to go in a different direction and he did with Steve Austin and The Rock and business picked up big time for the company.

Yeah Bret Hart was a draw in Canada but the U.K had its largest attendance when Hulk Hogan was still the top guy for WWF in 1992.

It is true, or very close to it. WWE was in financial peril at one point in 1997, but the latest information out there (including the recent book Titan Screwed) places that period in June. Vince made his play to renegotiate Bret’s deal at the Sep RAW in MSG. He began negotiations with Hogan in August.

that doesn’t mean you are wrong - I used to believe the Sep financial peril story and did so until this summer. At one point Bret’s contract was a huge burden for him, but more importantly it guaranteed salary inflation for Shawn and Taker at a time of business uncertainty. Vince told Hall that he could not match WCW’s deal in the spring of 1996 for that very reason, yet felt cornered enough in Oct 1996 to do that very thing.
Yeah WWF couldn't match WCW's offers to Kevin Nash and Scott Hall but they left a year earlier than Bret Hart did.

In the documentary I posted Bret Hart himself said Vince told him to go to WCW because they'll pay him more money.

Bret Hart's contract according to Bret and Vince had nothing to do with Undertake and Shawn Michaels. It was all about financials that WWF couldn't pay him that salary for 20 years.

And it took a company wide change in format to TV-14 and Attitude marketing blitz to help Austin and Rock become household names...

July 1993 to March 1994 was Lex Luger. November 1994 to October 1995 was Diesel. Bret was the fall back guy.
And Bret Hart became the guy in 1995 after kevin Nash and Scott Hall signed with WCW so yeah you have to put the blame on him for why WWF's business was in the gutter.

Doesn't matter Steve Austin and The Rock drew people in and made them buy tickets and tune in to see them. Bret Hart didn't do that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,640 Posts
I'm really failing to see what the point of derailing this thread into a pointless "Bret Hart: Draw or Not?" debate was. Take that shit to the Classic Wrestling section.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
669 Posts
And Bret Hart became the guy in 1995 after kevin Nash and Scott Hall signed with WCW so yeah you have to put the blame on him for why WWF's business was in the gutter.

Doesn't matter Steve Austin and The Rock drew people in and made them buy tickets and tune in to see them. Bret Hart didn't do that.
Only for 4 months so they could get the title on Michaels via a face vs. face main event. Much of 1996 was the Shawn Michaels Show. I think it's common knowledge Bret, Lex, Kevin and Shawn failed to be the next Hogan level megastar. But they weren't without merit and your argument negates the cyclical nature of business and ageing platform.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
84 Posts
You must not have seen the documentary up above that I posted. It clearly states in there that business wise under Bret Hart was in the gutter from attendance going down, PPV buys going down, and tv ratings and viewership going down. All of this happened when Bret Hart was the top guy in the WWF and thats the reason Vince McMahon wanted to go in a different direction and he did with Steve Austin and The Rock and business picked up big time for the company.

Yeah Bret Hart was a draw in Canada but the U.K had its largest attendance when Hulk Hogan was still the top guy for WWF in 1992.



Yeah WWF couldn't match WCW's offers to Kevin Nash and Scott Hall but they left a year earlier than Bret Hart did.

In the documentary I posted Bret Hart himself said Vince told him to go to WCW because they'll pay him more money.

Bret Hart's contract according to Bret and Vince had nothing to do with Undertake and Shawn Michaels. It was all about financials that WWF couldn't pay him that salary for 20 years.



And Bret Hart became the guy in 1995 after kevin Nash and Scott Hall signed with WCW so yeah you have to put the blame on him for why WWF's business was in the gutter.

Doesn't matter Steve Austin and The Rock drew people in and made them buy tickets and tune in to see them. Bret Hart didn't do that.
Sorry mate i didnt look at the doc, i gave you facts. Bret - bulldog did 93k in the uk, yes lots on the bulldog but thats the biggest none "massaged" attendence WWF did for years.

Please link the metrics where Bret wasnt drawing in the US and also worldwide when he had the belt. I will wait as he was.
WWF claimed they were in dire straights and said they would break Brets contract, then 5 months later signed Tyson.

Sorry Vince struggling for cash is bollox. Taker ad Shawn were also on incremental contracts - hence Bret got X and they got a bump. Again look at history its well documented.

Nash & Hall has nothing to do with Bret - it was about timing of contracts. At that time Vince didnt give guaranteed deals - he broke that with Mero & Pillman 3 months after Hall & Nash left.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
But only 1 hour makes it consistently into the top 3 for demo now for a bunch of wrestling shows. It used to be the WWE had 1,2,3 locked up on Mondays, now it's something like 3, 5 and 7. Slowly but surely even their demo rating is slipping.

RAW is getting thwapped by 90 day fiance every week, which never would have happened even 5 years ago.

Not only does 90 Day Fiance kickass in the demos of their females WAY more than WWE does with males, it also hits 3m a week.
But will it do in 25 years? That WWE is consistently with all three hours in the top 7 is nothing to ignore. And 90 day fiancé will lose steem in a few years, but RAW will still be up there.

I could pull up these posts since I joined ages ago and each year there were 3 „when will WWE go down“ „once the tv contract is up they are fucked“. And now here we are, billion $ contracts and no one complained publicly from the networks.

And in three months time there will be the next thread from some AEW mark about this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,109 Posts
That's a good comparison, but at the same time Atari was more of a startup. There was Cannon Group, which had success in the 1980's before filing for bankruptcy in the 1990's. Like Atari both a success and victim of its era. There was Hammer Film Productions, which boomed in the 50's and 60's and then got left behind by the edgy horror movies of the 1970's.

I'm really struggling to think of another long established media brand/publicly listed company partaking in such obvious self harm and potential crash and burn, like WWE has been doing. I suppose it's actually quite rare for such a company to have one man holding so much power.
Ford Motors under Henry Ford. He became rigid in his later years and refused to shift production from the Model T, allowing GM to pass him.
 
2781 - 2800 of 2946 Posts
Top