PeterHilton
-
Posts
4,281 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by PeterHilton
-
-
http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/149618/Eric-Bischoff-Attacks-WWE-Youth-Movement.htm
Eric Bischoff Attacks WWE Youth Movement
Posted by Larry Csonka on 08.18.2010
Says facts hurt…
- Eric Bischoff posted the following blog entry on his website…
FACTS HURT!
On the heels of the big "youth push" in WWE during the past several weeks, here are some facts from this week in the business:
"Raw's demographic ratings among males 18-34 and 18-49 were the lowest in seven weeks."
"Raw scored a 1.86 rating among males 18-34, which was down from a 2.03 rating last week."
And during this months conference call to investors Vince McMahon admitted that:
"Basically, we had a lousy quarter," and then when on to pin the loss of Shawn Michaels, Batista, Triple H, and Undertaker (all 40 + years old) as the reason for the hit to PPV and live event revenue.
Now one could suggest that McMahon is insane enough to be intentionally misleading Wall Street with excuses that are not substantiated by financials that wouldn't hold up under either SEC or Sarbanes Oxley Act 404 scrutiny, or maybe that he has no idea what he's talking about despite the massive success of his business model.
Or one could recognize the direct connect between what TV ratings, PPV buy rates, and ticket sales have proven time and time again, as well as what legitimate focus groups conducted by credible media companies in the business of such have clearly identified: the TV audience (including 18-34 males) rate with ESTABLISHED (and yes older) stars!
Admittedly, these facts are kind of dry compared to the subjective opinion of those with their own agenda or the inflamed rhetoric that appeals to those perpetually pre-pubescent, parasitic internet "experts" who neither have any legitimate experience or success as executives in the television or wrestling industry, and the rants of the terminally irrelevant trying desperately to hold on to their last 200 fans.
But they are facts non-the-less.
In my opinion Vince Russo, Dixie Carter and the team at TNA have done a great job of utilizing veteran stars to help elevate some of the young emerging talent in TNA and at the same time gaining awareness and credibility within the media industry.
That's just my opinion. And my opinion is backed up by facts.
OUCH!
Sorry.
Is the youth movement really hurting the WWE?
-
http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/149618/Eric-Bischoff-Attacks-WWE-Youth-Movement.htm
Eric Bischoff Attacks WWE Youth Movement
Posted by Larry Csonka on 08.18.2010
Says facts hurt…
- Eric Bischoff posted the following blog entry on his website…
FACTS HURT!
On the heels of the big "youth push" in WWE during the past several weeks, here are some facts from this week in the business:
"Raw's demographic ratings among males 18-34 and 18-49 were the lowest in seven weeks."
"Raw scored a 1.86 rating among males 18-34, which was down from a 2.03 rating last week."
And during this months conference call to investors Vince McMahon admitted that:
"Basically, we had a lousy quarter," and then when on to pin the loss of Shawn Michaels, Batista, Triple H, and Undertaker (all 40 + years old) as the reason for the hit to PPV and live event revenue.
Now one could suggest that McMahon is insane enough to be intentionally misleading Wall Street with excuses that are not substantiated by financials that wouldn't hold up under either SEC or Sarbanes Oxley Act 404 scrutiny, or maybe that he has no idea what he's talking about despite the massive success of his business model.
Or one could recognize the direct connect between what TV ratings, PPV buy rates, and ticket sales have proven time and time again, as well as what legitimate focus groups conducted by credible media companies in the business of such have clearly identified: the TV audience (including 18-34 males) rate with ESTABLISHED (and yes older) stars!
Admittedly, these facts are kind of dry compared to the subjective opinion of those with their own agenda or the inflamed rhetoric that appeals to those perpetually pre-pubescent, parasitic internet "experts" who neither have any legitimate experience or success as executives in the television or wrestling industry, and the rants of the terminally irrelevant trying desperately to hold on to their last 200 fans.
But they are facts non-the-less.
In my opinion Vince Russo, Dixie Carter and the team at TNA have done a great job of utilizing veteran stars to help elevate some of the young emerging talent in TNA and at the same time gaining awareness and credibility within the media industry.
That's just my opinion. And my opinion is backed up by facts.
OUCH!
Sorry.
Interesting post by Eric..the be-all end-all of running a successful wreslting company..
-
They turned Sting and Joe, sure, but those turned failed, didn't they?
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.
I'm not a huge fan of the idea. Basically I think if you've got a guy with a genuine connection to the fans in spite of booking (RVD didn't get over in WWE because he was meant to, he just did) you shouldn't try to turn him. It's making more work for yourself. You might as well choose the path of least resistance. and just let the fans like him. RVD. Sting. AJ. Jeff Hardy. Ric Flair. These are men who are beloved. In my book, they should only be turned if it's going to be a MASSIVE deal.weird to see you say that because normally you're a fan of obtuse, sublte writing.
... but I can see it working with RVD now more than ever before. RVD used to be cool. Now, not so much. His moves aren't as unique as they used to be. His laconic attitude isn't as refreshing. Maybe it could work. I just get the feeling that if he starts being more arrogant, the crowd are just going to cheer him. People are attracted to confidence. It's human nature.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.
-
Also of note in the shoot was the fact that TNA does have a drug policy in place, including fines for mary jane. Still as Stennick pointed out you have to take it with a pinch of salt but I would believe her in that setting over any dirtsheet.
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.
-
I like midcard belts as long as the guidelines are clear. Cruiserweight? Awesome. We've got a weight limit. Women's? Fantastic, there's a gender limitation. Some kind of 'Young Gun' belt with an age limit would also float my boat considerably. Belts "just for midcarders" really bother me though, because card position is an 'inside' thing in my mind.
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.
-
Man, midcard titles grind my gears. Belts should mean something; the best fighter within a specific set of guidelines. What are the guidelines for the US Title? "Midcarder"? That's the fakest thing I've ever heard. I'm glad they treat it as a joke. It deserves it.
Personally I'd toss the belt in the trash, along with the Intercontinental title.
All belts are props. It's just some props are treated with importance. The One Ring in Lord of the Rings, for example, is an awesome prop (or MacGuffin to go all hitch**** on y'all) because it's treated with importance. It has clear rules and guidelines, and everyone wants it (for varying reasons). The WWE titles should strive to be that important.
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.
My point stills stands, though. All of them are just props now. Hell, one of them is even just an overblown overblinged giant piece of jewelry.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 probably correct, but, on a somewhat related note, what do you think of UFC having different titles for different weight classes? That's MMA though, so....You are f'n baffling sometimes...
-
True they have put alot of time into him to just let him leave.
I think its just the simple case of joe being lost in the shuffle. With the influx of new talent and only 2 hours of tv a week some were bound to make way for the newer talent.
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.
-
London and Kendrick but unless I missed something London has not only said he won't go to TNA he has openly mocked them on Youtube. I get the impression Paul has saved his money well. The guy has an apartment in Sherman Oaks, CA (very very rich neighborhood).
Sherman Oaks is actually not that nice. Its very lower middle income especially for LA
-
When was Rob Conway ever given that kind of push? I'm not being smarky or sarcastic; I really don't remember him ever having any sort of sustained push as a singles guy. The closest was probably during his days as a Rick Rude knockoff, but I wouldn't classify that as anything close to the opportunity given to Masters or Gunn. But maybe my memory is foggy.
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.
Although that's a fair counter-argument, consider this... if they DIDN'T hold Cena back, the only other logical conclusion is they screwed up.I rather believe they are actually controlling, rather than being incompetent, because that would mean some people claming that WWE is being run by morons is actually correct. I DO NOT want to believe 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)
Isn't the other conclusion that John Cena, while a very nice draw, is not on the level of SCSA and the Rock?This. Cena isn't as talented.
He doesn't have to bhe Rock/Stone Cold/Flair/Hogan level, but he can be just RIGHT under it. But he isn't. Not even close.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.
-
I think it's a massive problem because they present their PPVs like its some awesome blow-out to a huge arc of episodes on TV. They try to go all out on PPV and present a good product, but to what audience? I don't care that their primary revenue doesn't come from PPV buys - I never disputed any of that. I just think its a problem when you've been working towards a big show and to have 1% of your audience care about it? It means you aren't relevant and nobody cares.
It's a problem that goes beyond PPVs.
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.
-
Hang on, that seems to suggest that we shouldn't discuss things that don't hurt TNA (like the lack of buys), yes?OK. So if (keyword) they ever reach 50k+ buys lets not talk about that either (still not close to WWE). Nobody talks about WWE buys because everybody knows on average how they do for their OK PPVs and then the big ones. When TNA doesn't release any type of information (not that they have to) it leaves many questions to be answered. This is a forum to discuss TNA and therefore I think it's fair game to talk about the massive PPV problem they have.
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.
-
If you say so Pete. WWE has been just as bad, but i don't recall them Ending a show with a striptease angle or doing a Falsely accused of rape leading to "owning" the Women for a month because she "deserved it for crying wolf" angle in the last 3 months.
Pretty much the only booking I've liked is RVD's title run and some of the Tag team fueds. Oh, and Jay lethal, because he's GOLD
"Good" meaning it hasn't been Vas bad as the stuff directly after Hogan and Bischoff took over.
-
Why? Even though the numbers aren't from TNA themselves its worth talking about. If its even close to what's being reported then they're still not even getting 1% of the weekly viewing audience to purchase the monthly show. Why should that be ignored in a thread specifically made for discussion on all things TNA?
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.
-
Don't dismiss out of hand just because you think I'm wrong. I'm not dismissing anything YOU are saying, so you shouldn't dismiss anything I am saying, either. I just disagree with your opinion, and some of your conclusions (and some of facts, or at least your usage).
No..that's fine....because what you're saying ...
In any, it's pretty darn obvious that Cena CAN be bigger. I once that too, but that doesn't seem to be ever the case, if you look what the WWE can do and has done. The WWE can't push crap... but they can push averages. Look, people thought that they could have never pushed Triple H. They did. People thought they couldn't push Batista. They did. Heck, people thought the Rock couldn't get over. Need I say more?..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.
-
Would this TNA-produced PPV have clips of the moments of the past of the original ECW? And could they sell PPVs when WWE money maker Jeff Hardy hasn't brought in increased viewers on Thursday or Monday night for that matter. And it appears their buy rates the last two PPVs with RVD as a champion is mind boggling.
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.
Granted, the booking doesn't helpThe booking has been pretty damn good for like 3 months now.
-
What about Favre, the guy has done everything how he's wanted to and the Vikes are willing to wait forever on the guy. The point is star athletes may cause problems but the good outweighs the bad.
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.
-
Is it silly? What teams are interested in T.O? Perhaps it's due to age considering he hasn't really had any personality problems recently... but to say that the massive ego problems are "silly" is a silly way to just write it off. Whether anybody wants to admit it or not, John Cena is the epitome of a 'company man' and Vince never has to worry about his ego getting massive. Cena would be at the level of Rock/Austin if Vince could get him there, but the crowd just doesn't buy that Cena/Hogan fan favorite character anymore. It's a new day in age.
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.
-
I am a smark. And yes, I do have ideas. But that's beyond the point. It's not what MY ideas should be... it's how WWE should do it the right way. They have done some things these few months... but we need more of that, not less.
lolwut
Yes, yes...it's not just my opinion it's the truth.
whatever
-
I've read stories that label Austin as big of a whiny superstar as HBK was back in the 90's. And from what I've read Austin was as humble as can be in ECW and anything before WWF. I think you guys are underestimating a massive ego.
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.
-
Actually booking him correctly?
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.
-
Vince let them get to that level because he needed it. He needed Hogan to get to level. He CAN let Cena get to that level... but he does he believe he needs it? Mark my words, if wrestling hasn't gone further if or because nothing new is implemented, then you will see how, not if, correct I am.
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>
The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*
in The Dog Pound
Posted
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."