PeterHilton

Bischoff forgot this part of the ratings report: "On the bright side, the 12-17 male rating was the second highest in the last six weeks. Raw's second hour drew a 4.09 rating in the male 12-17 demographic, the highest rating on cable last night."

Is the youth movement really hurting the WWE?

Interesting post by Eric..the be-all end-all of running a successful wreslting company..

Joe's been a heel a couple of times and sometimes it's worked, sometimes it hasn't. Sting...who frickin knows? His storyline has been so convoluted and badly written that it's hard to say whether or not it's worked or if it's just that the story sucks or that maybe fans are just sort of over it with Sting. weird to see you say that because normally you're a fan of obtuse, sublte writing. With TNA, there's a segment of that audience that's going to cheer the people they aren't "supposed to" just to show how smart they are, no matter what they do. Based on recent storylines, the easiest way to turn RVD would be for him to betray the ECW guys.

IMO RVD was at his utmost bets in ECW as an arrogant, ****y, somewhat flippant heel with Fonzie as his manager. The problem back then was that the fans wouldn't keep RVD heel because they wanted to cheer for his offense. And now..because of the nostalgia pop and because he has years in the E as a face...TNA fans have a pavlovian response to him where they cheer automatically. Honestly, if it's at all possible, they should turn RVD heel ..he could have a manager to work his promoos, he could play the "i'm too big for TNA" card, he could claim that all the X division guys are stealing the style he created in ECW..etc He'd be more entertaining, he'd have more guys to work with (Hardy, Anderson, Pope) and if they can run Sting as a heel I don't see how this could be any more difficult.

Not to be a jerk, but why? Why would you believe Dixie? Has she proven herself to be a straight shooter in some way that I'm not aware of... She's a 'wrestling promoter'..a corporate executive..(both occupations notorious for their willingness and ability to lie and frame the truth in their favor) and has ties to a company that has literally no legal or moral reason to tell the truth under any circumstance. again..no offense...but Dixie Carter is probably the least likely person to speak the truth about TNA's financial situation you could find.

Card position - in kayfabe terms - wasn't always what the belts were about. it was a logical extension of the fact that the "world" title was the most important title in a promotion, so the next step down would be the "u.s." or "intercontinental" And I'm sure you know all that and i get where you're coming from. but - going back to the prop idea - those secondary belts were great ways to add weight to feuds and to give fans a reason to come out to the arena (or watch the show in the case of TV titles ) when the main event players weren't involved Specific guidelines aside..the belts mean as much as the writers want them to mean...depending on how much work they put into creating an impression those belts are worth fighting for. no one seems to care about the US title right now, so it's meaningless. But based on the extended feuds that have gone on over the IC title on SD i would say that belt still has some prestige. At the moment, anyways.

The titles have lost importance over the years; right now the main problem is that the midcard is too thin to support a relevant midcard belt. If anything, they should unify the US and IC titles and then have the champion defend on both shows, using the prop as a tool to strengthen the shows when Raw and/or SD is having a lull in their midcard. Do you even understand what that statement "all titles are props" means? Do you? It's a tool used to tell stories. The appearance is relatively meaningless (did the WWE title lose credibility when Stone Cold put on a skull belt? Or when The Rock customised it? no..of course not) As long as you can run a storyline where the title is the object of desire, it's not a prop. The US and both women's titles are fairly useless at the moment...the tag belts were helped by having JeriShow and ShowMiz hold the belts but are pretty benign now..but both "world titles" have been booked well as of late and even with the multiple title switches are always kept in story times as the biggest prize(s) in the business. You are f'n baffling sometimes...

Right, but Joe's been 'lost in the shuffle' for quite a while now..even his push into the title match against AJ last year sort of came out of nowhere. They let go of Daniels. I'm sure if TNA didn't see Joe as a threat to go to the WWE they'd have let go of him by now as well.

Sherman Oaks is actually not that nice. Its very lower middle income especially for LA

He was given a noticeable amount of rn and fell flat on his face. he probably wasn't expected to be a superstar, but at least a midlevel heel and he didn't even acomplish that. No, it isn't. that isn't the only option. And again..your idea that the WWE has THAT MUCH CONTROL over the audience begs the question: if they can predict to such a degree how to make a star, why don't they just make more stars? (oh that's right beause they'll leave) This. Cena isn't as talented. He's the biggest star in the industry and one of the top 5 or 10 draws of all time. Your expectations are too high and you are mistaking YOUR personal bias for what is popular opinion. YOU don't like the way he's been booked, but quite a few people do John Cena is the biggest star in wrestling ans had been for years. Sure, he's not as popular as Rock or SCSA are -because he's not as talented or charismatic, not because of some paranoid scheme by the WWE - but he's a bigger star than 99.9999999% of anyone who's ever laced up a pair of boots.

Ah...I see. if that's your point then that's totally legit. my response would be that we've also discussed options to using PPVs as their method of ending big storyline arcs. And that if the PPvs are this bad, you might as well use live TV specials or extended episodes of Impacts. Honestly, they don't depend on the PPvs so at this point they might as well just 'go around them' as it were.

You guys are misunderstanding what I was saying..or I wasn't being clear: The problem i have is that people keep talking about the brutally low buy rates AS IF IT IS A HUGE PROBLEM. Or more commonly as if it's another sign the TNA is doomed or whatever. Talk about the low buys all you want, but the fact is, TNA doesn't depend on the PPVs, they get most of their revenue from TV, the low buy rates don't generally hurt them, high buy rates would only be 'icing on the cake,' and continuing to say things like it's a MASSIVE PROBLEM means you haven't been paying attention to the things that people have poste and quoted in this thread. Yes, yes, yes...it'd be great for them if TNA got massive PPV numbers. But fortunately their structure is such that it's not a life or death thing and the more constructive conversation would be what they can do otherwise since the numbers don't seme to be going up.

"Good" meaning it hasn't been Vas bad as the stuff directly after Hogan and Bischoff took over.

Because it's benn pointed out multiple times that TNA doesn't rely on buyrates at all, so even though that numbers are atrocious, it's not hurting them. It basically doesn't matter if the ECW guys bring in buys... Honestly, the smar things would be to push this ECW angle fo hardcore specific special edition of Impact since TV is where their audience is.

No..that's fine....because what you're saying ... ..doesn't make sense. The idea that the WWE would go out of it's way to keep someone from being TOO popular, yet somehow have some kind of magical formula to get someone JUST POPULAR ENOUGH to be the biggest star in wrestling is patendledly dumb, unrealistic, and mind-blowingly smarkish. Alo...the last comment implies "people" thought The Rock wouldn't get over, but somehow the E apllied some magic and BOOM he was the biggest star in wrestling. It ignores the fact that A)people are often wrong and B) the Rock had immense talent to go with opportunity. Do we have to list the dozens of guys like Chris Masters and Rob Conway and Billy Gunn who got the same type of exposure and push and fell on their faces. I'm sorry..but I just reject completely the notion that the WWE doesn't want to have Austin and Rock level stars, that Cena is somehow being nerfed, or that the WWE would've been able to keep Rock or Austin from blowing up as they did, while somehow turning them into top level stars. EDIT: i don't want to be insulting...I just reject that idea totally.

FFS...I'm starting to get tired of the buyrates thing in this thread. And no..they can't use any old ECW clips as the WWE owns them all. The booking has been pretty damn good for like 3 months now.

I'd actually extend that to every level of industry where the public is involved. Mel Gibson has always ALWAYS made insane statements, but he was a ginormous star. Now that his worth is on the decline, and the level of insanity on his statements has gone up, he's not worth it and he won't make movies for a while. DO we even need to talk about the music stars who are total d-bags but stay in the industry because they sell CDs? As long as the good outweighs the bad, people put up with it.

Those are two different arguments though. All teams/companies/etc are willing to deal with a certain amount of ego based on production. As has been pointed out, Orton and Trips (not to mention Batista) have had issues backstage but the WWE continued to push them Cena IS a company guy, but mainly because he knows he's not a big enough star or popular enough to leave the way Rock and Austin did. Now...if you want to say the product is a bit out of date, that's fine, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the E would want a massive star. I'm completely dismissing the idea that the WWE is purposely booking Cena incorrectly to nerf his popularity. It's retardedly smarkish. If the E could bring back or re-create another star on the level of The Rock and SCSA, they would. I just can't see how it could be otherwise.

lolwut Yes, yes...it's not just my opinion it's the truth. whatever

Big stars in every business that involves the public get massive egos No one is cutting off 50% of their business to deal with a bunch of 'nice guys' It would be crazy.

ohhhhhhh...you're one of THOSE people. ok smarky..nevermind. I don't want to debate your ideas on how you think Cena could be 'booked correctly' to make him a bigger star than he is now.

Again..this sounds ridiculous. Just laughably, stupidly improbable:rolleyes: THEY STARTED A MOVIE DIVISION FOR CENA... What exactly is left to do that Vince is keeping in his back pockets to prevent Cena from achieving the Rock level of fame?

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="LoganRodzen" data-cite="LoganRodzen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I understand. Bear with me though - booze has taken its toll on me today. I'm slower than usual (which isn't by much). <img alt=":o" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/redface.png.900245280682ef18c5d82399a93c5827.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /> Think of it as if it were TEW... when you build a massive star what are the downsides? He wants a massive pay check, merchandise cut, PPV cut, travel cut, creative control, etc. I understand that the PPV buys, merchandise, etc. are massive in real life and thinking of it like a video game is stupid... <strong>but is it all that different?</strong> These guys ego's become massive and all they want is bigger and better things. They become complacent in their lifestyles instead of being hungry for more.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> It's really different. </p><p> </p><p> You're talking about doubling the level of their current business. No one would say no to that just to keep from dealing with personality issues and ego problems</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Vince doesn't want to create a guy with 100 popularity throughout North America just to have him leave him out in the cold. I stick to my point about Austin not making anybody into a star... what did WWE ever gain from Austin beyond massive cash flow? I truly don't think he helped any wrestler... ever.<p> </p><p> Even if he did help Rock out... he ended up leaving too, so it didn't accomplish anything.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I think you're underrating massive cash flow. <img alt=":p" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/tongue.png.ceb643b2956793497cef30b0e944be28.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></p><p> </p><p> And it accomplished quite a lot because that incredible surge in popularity kept them successful and relevant for YEARS. There's quite a few fans around today (hell there might be members of the roster that wouldn't even be wrestlers) that probably wouldn't be following the E if not for guys like Rocky and Austin</p><p> </p><p> There's just no way to put a number to what having a star that big means.</p><p> </p><p> It's worth it. Totally worth it.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="LoganRodzen" data-cite="LoganRodzen" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That's what I meant. The positives to having a mega-star are endless, but the negatives far outweigh the positives.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> How so? not being argumentative..I'm being serious.</p><p> </p><p> How do the negatives (they leave) outweigh the positives ( years of massive buyrates, massive ratings, a giant surge in popularity and public awareness, millions of dollars in merchandise and DVD sales, an increase in the value of stock) of having a star of the Rock and Austin's level?</p><p> </p><p> EDIT: going back to this comparison...Lebron James left the Cleveland NBA franchise. Does anyone honestly believe that Cleveland team wouldn't draft another star of Lebron's level in a heartbeat if they had the chance?</p>