Jump to content

#32: Interfering PPV Carriers and TV Networks (Adam?)


Recommended Posts

[QUOTE=Adam Ryland;389693]#32: Interfering PPV Carriers and TV Networks Both Carriers and Networks are now equipped with a risk level, an indication of what level of content they will find acceptable. New to the game is the fact that both can now actually block you from running content that they are unhappy with. For example, if you try to book a barbed wire death match on a mainstream TV station, or an offensive angle on PPV, you will likely get a message from the network \ carrier liaison blocking you from continuing. This adds a little extra realism and strategy, particularly when dealing with multiple networks per TV show.[/QUOTE] ok maybe i'm reading this wrong (sorry if I am) but i'm sure if your doing a live ppv the tv company wont know what your gonna do, so how can they stop you doing something they know nothing about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=DannyDemon;390406]ok maybe i'm reading this wrong (sorry if I am) but i'm sure if your doing a live ppv the tv company wont know what your gonna do, so how can they stop you doing something they know nothing about?[/QUOTE] Maybe it's like having a network rep at the show, and they'll go over your script/booking for the show before it goes to air.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you try to do something bad on TV, your Network might have something to say. If you do something bad on PPV, your carrier might have something to say. That's all that it says, and all that it is. I don't foresee a Network getting all fussy about what you do OFF their network.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=Moe Hunter;390452]If you try to do something bad on TV, your Network might have something to say. If you do something bad on PPV, your carrier might have something to say. That's all that it says, and all that it is. I don't foresee a Network getting all fussy about what you do OFF their network.[/QUOTE] Oh, yeah. That's right. I misunderstood the question. Yeah, DannyDemon probably just misread it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=Michael Wayne;390514]perhaps with ppv, you do it, and the "backlash" comes after the fact.[/QUOTE] Read what Adam has written: [quote=Adam Ryland] [B]For example, if you try to book a barbed wire death match on a mainstream TV station, or an offensive angle on PPV, you will likely get a message from the network \ carrier liaison blocking you from continuing.[/B] [/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=ritwik;390778]Read what Adam has written:[/QUOTE] I'm aware of that. However what I suggested is instead of networks stopping you, you could choose to ignore them and face the "consequences" of doing so. Such as getting pulled, fined etc. And if you lose your network, perhaps even a "reputation" could be added so that it carries over. If you apply to another network, they might not like finding out that you went against another network and did what you wanted anyways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=Michael Wayne;392173]I'm aware of that. However what I suggested is instead of networks stopping you, you could choose to ignore them and face the "consequences" of doing so. Such as getting pulled, fined etc. And if you lose your network, perhaps even a "reputation" could be added so that it carries over. If you apply to another network, they might not like finding out that you went against another network and did what you wanted anyways.[/QUOTE] Why would you want to "suffer the consequences", though? I'm sure there are plenty of ways to get around this, by running a slightly different angle or match. I realize that you might say realism, but sometimes there's a line between that and stupidity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=Akki;392175]but sometimes there's a line between that and stupidity.[/QUOTE] tell that to Heyman.. He was notorious for doing "whatever he wanted". Their first show on TNN for example, they wanted a fresh tv show. What'd he do? They sent them a show they had already done just to rub it in their face. ECW was constantly getting kicked off tv and ppv. WWE plugged the piss out of their move to USA during RAW when they were on Spike. WWE has done numerous times, having girls remove their tops and stuff. Like, remember when Mae Young did it at the 2000 Rumble? Sure they censored it (although they failed to censor it fast enough). They censored it when Stacy Carter did it, yet in both cases the live crowd still saw it. At the time they were still pushing it to the limit. Pillman/Austin gun segment anyone? Is it stupid? Sure. But people should have that choice whether they want to "break the rules" or not. Just like they can ignore owner goals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[QUOTE=Michael Wayne;392177]tell that to Heyman.. He was notorious for doing "whatever he wanted". Their first show on TNN for example, they wanted a fresh tv show. What'd he do? They sent them a show they had already done just to rub it in their face. ECW was constantly getting kicked off tv and ppv. WWE plugged the piss out of their move to USA during RAW when they were on Spike. WWE has done numerous times, having girls remove their tops and stuff. Like, remember when Mae Young did it at the 2000 Rumble? Sure they censored it (although they failed to censor it fast enough). They censored it when Stacy Carter did it, yet in both cases the live crowd still saw it. At the time they were still pushing it to the limit. Pillman/Austin gun segment anyone? Is it stupid? Sure. But people should have that choice whether they want to "break the rules" or not. Just like they can ignore owner goals.[/QUOTE] Actually, ECW shot a crap TV pilot and instead of compromising the nature of the promotion, he sent matches he knew would draw ratings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote=Michael Wayne;392177]tell that to Heyman.. He was notorious for doing "whatever he wanted". Their first show on TNN for example, they wanted a fresh tv show. What'd he do? They sent them a show they had already done just to rub it in their face. ECW was constantly getting kicked off tv and ppv.[/quote] Aside from what Nick said, I would probably eat my words if ECW was still around. But in what rational mind is "getting kicked off tv and ppv" a good business strategy? I understand that Heyman was trying to do his own thing, but once again, there's a line. [quote=Michael Wayne;392177]WWE plugged the piss out of their move to USA during RAW when they were on Spike. WWE has done numerous times, having girls remove their tops and stuff. Like, remember when Mae Young did it at the 2000 Rumble? Sure they censored it (although they failed to censor it fast enough). They censored it when Stacy Carter did it, yet in both cases the live crowd still saw it. At the time they were still pushing it to the limit. Pillman/Austin gun segment anyone? Is it stupid? Sure. But people should have that choice whether they want to "break the rules" or not. Just like they can ignore owner goals.[/quote] The whole Spike/USA censorship was pretty much the fault of paranoid Spike censors, and when Vince talked to Spike execs, they told the censors to back off. Is there even a way to simulate this in TEW? It's not actually a risky angle per se, more of a business thing. The nudity thing... Once again, I don't see the point in any rational mind. It was just shock for shock's sake, and I don't think it really did anything, so what's the point? I don't remember there being an actual problem with the network in the gun angle. It was more a few "outraged" people. I understand that having the feature might make things more realistic, but this is just another case of realism for realism's sake. It's like putting two choices in front of you, neither with any prerequisites or consequences. First choice is making thousands of dollars every week, second is making $10 every week. Why take the second one? Just because you can?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why this isn't a valid question. I'd like network rep's saying "I don't think this is a good idea," but at the same time, if you want to, why shouldn't you be able to go ahead with it? I'd like a slightly more intuitive version of EWR's old system: if you do something outside of your carrier's risk level, you should get a warning. But if you're the top-rated show on your network in a prime-time position, you probably wouldn't get pulled after a few weeks of slightly too risky television. On the other hand, a middle of the road promotion pulling mediocre ratings at 11 at night probably isn't in a position to negotiate when they get in trouble with the network. But this also brings back the strategy from EWR that sometimes you actually want your show to get pulled for one reason or another. If it's bankrupting me to run a weekly show and the network won't let me cancel out of the deal, it makes a lot of sense to show stuff that I know the network would object to, just to get them to release my promotion from the deal. It's a valid, sensible strategy that is somewhat similar to what happened in real-life. How is this not a real concern?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...