ChrisPMWBenoit

Re: Dynamic Product Styles True, it may be hard to implement and maybe nigh on impossible. However, I’d love it as a feature. For instance, Vince Russo didn’t just swap to a preset attitude entertainment product, no - he booked what he felt worked and the product evolved into it organically. I’m guessing it’d be far too complicated to implement into TEW2020 but I’d love for it to be in the next instalment.

Yeah but it would be a lot more organic for the product to change to what you’re actually booking.

Exactly. I really like the idea of products and it being what the fans want/expect to see. But if I start booking 30 minute main event matches instead of the perceived product of 15 then the fans will eventually grow to accept it. I may get poorer ratings for a while and lose popularity whilst the fans adjust, however, the fans that remain should see it as the new norm. Basically, if you book the same way for any sustained period of time (6-18 months) then that should be your perceived product and you should no longer get punished for it. You may lose a lot of popularity (bad ratings) and sponsorship money (too risky) but at least it will be your own style of product you’d be putting out.

Re: Iron Man Match Gimmick match positive bump which would negate the longer than usual match (until you overuse the gimmick match)?

Hmm I’m unsure. The Ironman matches should get a penalty for being too long for the average WWE fan. Otherwise, the WWE would do them all the time. I love longer matches but I love them more than the average WWE fan. It’s the quality of the matches which drags the overall rating up (or down if you lack psychology/stamina). As for Rumbles, that’s a hard one. The prestige of winning the event drags the overall rating up as does the star power and all the different angles involved. However, it’s still an hour-ish long so it should be penalised as it’s longer than the average fan is used to. For instance, imagine a battle royal going an hour with nothing on the line. Too long. However, the Royal Rumble gets away with it because of the prestige of winning it. You need to balance the positives with the negatives. Sometimes it’s actually beneficial to get a negative. I bring to you Steiner vs HHH, Royal Rumble 2003. At 18 mins it went the going rate for a WWE main event match. However, this showed up Steiner’s lack of stamina. Thus, a 5-10 minute match would have been better, although it would have been perceived to have been too short. Like self says, maybe the positives need to be shown a little bit more to balance the negatives.

Interesting discussion about the two different 60 min matches (Hart/HBK & Lesnar/Goldberg). I see the time length in what the average fan of your product enjoys/expects. So for Hart/HBK in 96 you would still get a penalty because the match is longer than expected from a WWF main event. You’d get the same penalty no matter the competitors. However, the positives (Hart/HBK can tell a better story over a slow burning long match and they have the stamina to pull it off) outweigh the negatives of the time penalty so it results in an incredible rating. Goldberg/Lesnar however gets a crappy rating as their stamina and psychology can’t hold a 60 min match so the match falls apart. On top of that, with the time penalty, it gets a terrible rating. On the other side of the coin, a 3 minute Lesnar/Goldberg match ala Survivor Series 2016 should get a time limit penalty for going too short. However, this short match brings out their strong points, and it scores an incredible rating despite the short duration. So it works both ways. Take the time limit penalty if it’s worth the positives.

Let’s use WWF as an example for where dynamic product style would work. 1996: WWF is losing their audience to WCW. Russo comes in and the WWF throughout the next couple of years gradually change their product and WWF 1999 is quite a different product to 1996. Its risker, bloodier and shorter matches in general geared towards brawls (Austin as their main star had to change his style to brawling due to injuries and his character etc so it made sense from an in-ring style to favour brawling). That’s one change. But then... Austin retires and Angle, Benoit, Guerrero etc take centre stage and I’d argue that their style was geared a little more to technical wrestling and longer matches in 2004. There’s still a bit of t&a but not as much as 1999. Hell, even 2000 was slightly different to 1998/1999 due to the booker Russo leaving, PTC and the more technical midcard. Cena then takes centre stage and they decide to go a bit more PG dropping certain risqué things. Get to today and women are featured more in-ring as to where a women’s match main evented their major show. These weren’t straight changes, the WWF conditioned their fans over time to adjust to the changes.

Regarding product style and it being preset... Shouldn’t it be ‘perceived product’ just like perceived push for your workers? So you are perceived by your core audience to put on 15 minute main events and you get penalties at first for offering 30 minute main events, however, after doing 30 minute main events for weeks on end the audience will now be conditioned for 30 minute main events and you will no longer get penalties for it. Would add a nice dynamic to product styles. Take punishment at first whilst you condition your audience to a slightly different product and then after a while it becomes the norm. You can do it for risk as-well. Not perceived as being risky? Smack first blood matches on all the time and your perceived risk goes up. Not seen as t&a? Bra and Panties every week will left that category up. With greater risqué comes harder sponsorship so be careful with one. A schmozz ending every week and the fans will soon get conditioned to no clean finishes and vice versa, you get my point. Dynamic Product Styles would be so much more flexible.