Wrestling Forum banner

81 - 91 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,772 Posts
I honestly don't understand why the network doesn't do better #'s Unless you have a shitty internet connection there is no reason not to be subscribed especially if you watch more then one ppv a year..it legit pays for itself
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,324 Posts
I honestly don't understand why the network doesn't do better #'s Unless you have a shitty internet connection there is no reason not to be subscribed especially if you watch more then one ppv a year..it legit pays for itself
I won't pay when I don't feel I'm being entertained. "but you watch every week". No, I don't. But there are classics on there. Yeah, but they're elsewhere for free. Put out a good current product that makes me want to spend $10 on a ppv and I'll buy it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,628 Posts
Why do people look at this as some big accomplishment? The Network is cheap as hell, why wouldn't you get it? Even if you hate 90% of the product. the 10% you like would still make it worth it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,227 Posts
Ok well if WM is the draw, why didn’t they get to 2M before in other years? Obviously something or someone made them want to subscribe this year. If it was just WM, they would have hit 2M before
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
778 Posts
I know comparing the WWE of today to the boom years is comparing apples and oranges due to the roster and the climate, but it still stands. If we wants to use the entertainment metric then that is how other genres compare their industries.

For example, the music business with streaming and the new rules they had to incorporate for ranking records as gold, platinum, and diamond. Newer fans like to compare sales today to that of yesteryear and it really shouldn't be the same. It is the same free and subscription based model that had to be used because of lack of actual sales in comparison to the past.

Cardi B I will use as an example. She went gold rather quickly on Friday of last week when she dropped her album. This on the surface seems quite the feat and had some new fans comparing her to legends like Lauryn Hill. The reality is there really isn't a fair comparison because during Lauryn's hey day people actually had to go out to the stores and physically buy the album. At the store when people would pre-listen that would not count to the total of the sales, but in today's market it does get counted when someone previews as a stream.

This is from Forbes Magazine.
"This is from Forbes magazine. “Bodak Yellow,” which topped the Billboard Hot 100 last September and is certified 5x Multi-Platinum (5 million units) by the RIAA. As Chart Data recently noted, 10 track units equal one album sale, which means Invasion of Privacy has moved 500,000 units on the strength of “Bodak Yellow” alone, enough to earn a Gold certification".

Now you might say what does this have to do with what I was saying about comparing to boom periods. In 1996, the hip hop genre was in a boom state with legends all dropping classics that year. So because that was not a norm it still doesn't eliminate that it happened.

The rule the artists know is that tangible sales are superior to tangible streams. . The Score sold more than 17mil worldwide...The Miseducation of sold 20mil worldwide at $15 a pop. Cardi B's number are inferior no matter how you slice it.

Do you remember when the WWE did all those cuts with workers and even stuff like pyro and less ppv shows because they said it was to cover costs from running The Network?

http://whatculture.com/wwe/8-potential-consequences-of-wwe-39-s-rumoured-budget-cuts?page=1

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2017/1127/634469/backstage-news-on-why-wwe-is-cutting-down-the-number-of-pay-per/

http://www.mandatory.com/wrestlezone/news/867989-wwe-reportedly-looking-to-cut-costs-in-an-attempt-to-boost-2017-profits-updates-on-brand-specific-ppvs-uk-expansion-pyro-more#/slide/1

As I said the WWE accountants are most likely suggesting things to create a positive outlook for shareholders to not view The Network as a failure. Back to my music comparison. WWE giving away ppv shows to potential future subscribers and deals that some here are saying WWE hands out is not the same as the WWE having house shows being bought and ppv shows being purchased upwards to $60 a show and so on.

WWE are giving away for example this month 2 ppv shows to people who may turn out to be subscribers after the trial is up. They are doing this to also increase the stream numbers in view counts as well.

As some have stated let's wait and see when the WWE stops giving away shows and time periods are stopped for trails how well the numbers really are in sustaining.

There is a reason why they have the conference calls and give Mania away the same weekend. People were willing to pay for WM at escalated prices, but now they are having problems getting record numbers without gimmicks at the low cost of $10US?

A worldwide organization that the technology trumps the past with ppv households and availability and closed circuit television at arenas? This is why I compared the boom periods to now. You put that WWF with today's financial backing and structure it would blow it out of the water.
Post like this are why I really hate the internet.


Netflix has over 100 million subscribers and they offer a 30 day trial to sell their $10 network, so what's your point?

You have 0 insight into how much the Network costs or how much they make (expect for what the WWE are required to provide by LAW) yet instead of using that as a source, you choose to ramble on about Cardi B, Tidal and some other irrelevant shit. The WWE is now worth 3 billion dollars and are on track to cross $1 billion dollars this year.

Why does the IWC have this obsession that they're lying? 5 million people watch watch in the US and millions of others worldwide, what's so hard to believe that a fraction of that want to pay to $10 to watch the Pay Per Views for the shows they watch?

I won't pay when I don't feel I'm being entertained. "but you watch every week". No, I don't. But there are classics on there. Yeah, but they're elsewhere for free. Put out a good current product that makes me want to spend $10 on a ppv and I'll buy it.

If you don't want to spend $10 then you have no right to watch. If its entertaining enough for you to pirate or stream then its entertaining enough for you to pay for it.


Stop trying to justify stealing. You're a hypocrite and a thief.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,176 Posts
It's just a number to wow investors.
All those 33 cents per month subscriptions will surely add a HUGE profit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: promoter2003

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,611 Posts
(I don't see how you can call someone who accesses the Network for free a "subscriber". In any normal English usage, subscribing to something means paying in return for a service/product)


Post like this are why I really hate the internet.


Netflix has over 100 million subscribers and they offer a 30 day trial to sell their $10 network, so what's your point?

You have 0 insight into how much the Network costs or how much they make (expect for what the WWE are required to provide by LAW) yet instead of using that as a source, you choose to ramble on about Cardi B, Tidal and some other irrelevant shit. The WWE is now worth 3 billion dollars and are on track to cross $1 billion dollars this year.
Can you counter my post? Go ahead and try. I already said I know how STREAMING business works. You are assuming I am being an anti WWE person when in truth it is the opposite. I actually think WWE is taking solace in things and putting on blinders to make themselves feel they are not screwing up with their core product with its audiences. WWE was worth a billion dollars almost 2 decades ago what point are you making?

You know what I hate? When people can't comprehend when someone is using simple relation to get a point across. You say it is irrelevant stuff which tells me you just can't comprehend what I am actually saying.

You comparing Netflix giving out free trials to the WWE giving away it's flagship show illustrates my point you aren't understanding the dynamics I speak of. They did not do that when they launched the Network and it was struggling and then they decided to have that marketing of "WrestleMania For Free".

You are saying I don't know how much it costs or how much it makes. That was not the point I was making. I was speaking about the 2 MILLION SUBS number and how they got it.

When I say that stream sites don't make money I'm talking overall they don't and they do things like what WWE do to bring awareness to the core product.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,140 Posts
Post like this are why I really hate the internet.


Netflix has over 100 million subscribers and they offer a 30 day trial to sell their $10 network, so what's your point?

You have 0 insight into how much the Network costs or how much they make (expect for what the WWE are required to provide by LAW) yet instead of using that as a source, you choose to ramble on about Cardi B, Tidal and some other irrelevant shit. The WWE is now worth 3 billion dollars and are on track to cross $1 billion dollars this year.

Why does the IWC have this obsession that they're lying? 5 million people watch watch in the US and millions of others worldwide, what's so hard to believe that a fraction of that want to pay to $10 to watch the Pay Per Views for the shows they watch?




If you don't want to spend $10 then you have no right to watch. If its entertaining enough for you to pirate or stream then its entertaining enough for you to pay for it.


Stop trying to justify stealing. You're a hypocrite and a thief.
It’s really that will have more people in this section looking to discredit WWE with made up facts at every turn instead of objective fans that can give credit when it’s due and constructive criticize when wrong. I’m glad you spoke on the bias around here. I’m willing to bet if it was another fed problem among the marks the numbers would have been great.
 
81 - 91 of 91 Posts
Top