The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[sheepy]

Exactly. They don't want to dip. I don't think anyone's worried about RAW. Would they like bigger ratings? Of course. But I don't think RAW is in any trouble. 3.0 is actually a pretty good rating in today's TV environment. Especially for a cable show. Lots of hit cable shows don't hit the 3.0 mark.

 

The problem for the WWE is thought that the perception of the audience is such that advertising revenues are fairly low.

 

If they aren't out performing other shows then the amount advertisers are willing to pay for the shows plummet as there become larger, more attractive avenues to put your adverts into.

 

Seeing as the WWE needs TV time to provide the brand exposure for PPVs I'd be worried if I was a top level exec there. Seeing your ratings go from 6.0 to 3.0 in the course of 10 years is worrying. Other shows get canned, actors / directors pursue other ventures. WWE isn't in that position. No TV = no PPV revenues = no company.

 

Course it won't get that bad but if Vince weren't the big controller and it was an exce like in the WCW management structure I'd be surprised if Vince would be still running things on his own at this point.

[Fantabulous]

The problem for the WWE is thought that the perception of the audience is such that advertising revenues are fairly low.

 

Precisely. The perception of the audience that watches wrestling is so low that a wrestling show that gets a 3.0 doesn't generate the same ad revenue of a show that might get just half of that number because the wrestling audience is seen as low income

 

It's another reason to be concerned about ratings sinking to below the 3.0 barrier. Wrestling needs to do far higher numbers than other shows to draw the same advertising revenue because it's the only way advertisers will sink the money in; if they think the product is hot, far hotter than it is now, they'll put more money the networks way.

[SaySo]

I found an interesting article here.

 

How Does WWE in 2009 make more money than 2001

 

Not sure how factual the numbers but they seem about right.

 

***

 

2009: $72.8 domestic TV rights fees + $39.1 int'l TV rights fee + $7.7 advertising = $119.6 million net revenue (with $68.3 in cost)

2005: $52.3 domestic TV rights fees + $24.8 int'l TV rights fee + $43.7 advertising = $120.8 million net revenue (with $68.5 in cost)

2001: $20.9 domestic TV rights fees + $14.3 int'l TV rights fee + $90.3 advertising = $125.5 million net revenue (with $78.3 in cost)

 

2009: $51.3 million in profit

2005: $52.3 million in profit

2001: $47.2 million in profit

[sheepy]

I found an interesting article here.

 

How Does WWE in 2009 make more money than 2001

 

Not sure how factual the numbers but they seem about right.

 

***

 

2009: $72.8 domestic TV rights fees + $39.1 int'l TV rights fee + $7.7 advertising = $119.6 million net revenue (with $68.3 in cost)

2005: $52.3 domestic TV rights fees + $24.8 int'l TV rights fee + $43.7 advertising = $120.8 million net revenue (with $68.5 in cost)

2001: $20.9 domestic TV rights fees + $14.3 int'l TV rights fee + $90.3 advertising = $125.5 million net revenue (with $78.3 in cost)

 

2009: $51.3 million in profit

2005: $52.3 million in profit

2001: $47.2 million in profit

 

Interesting read.

 

The problem they face is that good merchandising revenues are based upon high profile stars gaining lots of tv exposure. A shrinking TV audience, loss of big stars wouldn't have been felt over the last 10 years as they've done lots to make themselves more efficient.

 

This won't necessarily translate into future profits though which is why I imagine they'd be getting nervous.

 

You can already see their profits are dropping. As WCW showed, once profits start to drop they can quickly barrell into a fall collapse if you don't make the right moves to address it early on.

[SaySo]

WCW drop in profits were staggering and immediate. I don't think the WWE has a lot of fixed cost in terms of how WCW handled their contracts with their big stars. I assume the WWE pays their workers a certain amount based on how much they draw from live events and so on. Not exactly sure. But i know Bischoff talked about doing it in 2001 with WCW and make pay variable to how much people they are drawing in. WCW didn't manage it too well. WWE probably won't get a better contract on the next TV contract negotiations. But it's just going to make the top guys make even less than they did previously.

[bigtplaystew]

I think the message board using wrestling audience had a "low perception" of the WWE.

 

As Triple H said, some of us actually DO like it...

 

 

 

That said, there is one inarguable point. They do NOT sell live events like they used to. I was at the smackdown taping in philly and they blocked out the whole top level, and I've heard they do this everywhere now for smackdown. SD live events are getting bad numbers as well.

 

However, in the late 90s WWE came around to philly once a year MAYBE twice once it got really going. Nowadays, there's a taping every 4-6 months here, plus live events in between. And we get a PPV every two years or so. They hold live events in several of philadelphia's surround areas as well. So even though they get less numbers, they pump out more shows and they do it cheaper than they used to. So I can see that they make about the same money now.

[Fantabulous]

WCW drop in profits were staggering and immediate. I don't think the WWE has a lot of fixed cost in terms of how WCW handled their contracts with their big stars. I assume the WWE pays their workers a certain amount based on how much they draw from live events and so on. Not exactly sure. But i know Bischoff talked about doing it in 2001 with WCW and make pay variable to how much people they are drawing in. WCW didn't manage it too well. WWE probably won't get a better contract on the next negotiations. But it's just going to make the top guys make even less than they did previously.

 

WWE wrestlers have downside guarantees where they have a minimum they'll make but are sold on the idea they can make so much more if they hit it big because they make money on merchandise, etc. WCW wrestlers had the same sort of thing but they had way higher guarantees that were part of the reason their losses were so high; guys like Stevie Ray and Scott Norton were on $800,000 per year deals. Plus, they literally threw money away with some guys getting $150,000 per years deals, for two/three years and rarely getting used. In the case of Lanny Poffo, he got one such a deal and never wrestled a single match for them.

[Teh_Showtime]

and not to mention Bret Hart's HUGE contract and his amazing career in WCW

[angeldelayette]

Alright. I laughed out loud when CM Punk walked by Nash and said 'Best of luck in your future endeavors.'

[Teh_Showtime]

hotshotting the hell out of this angle.

 

they could have easily waited.before throwing in some stips.

[Tha Black Phenom]

WWE Network.. I guess it was a matter of time.

 

As for the angle, well maybe they have a set plan for NOC. Maybe it does look like hotshotting, but they have plenty to work with now and with Punk and HHH being promo kings, they'll make good use of it.

 

Going to Raw live next week, so I can't wait.

[Teh_Showtime]

I should be there right now... I totally crapped the bed on this one. Looks like I'll have to wait another year or so to go to a TV event.

[angeldelayette]

Where is CM Punk to ask what happened to the Anonymous Raw GM? lol.

[djthefunkchris]

When you were regularly doing 6's in your heyday, 3.0's don't look good to TV executives who only know numbers and not the reasoning behind them. Nobody should kid themselves that either side is happy with the numbers as they are right now.

 

Your only talking about four years... and really only around 3.5 years (1.5 actually averaging around 6.0). They have consistantly been around where they are outside of the first couple years of RAW (which was considerably lower).

 

You have to understand how ratings work as well. It is based on a percent of households, not based on how many households.... although you can figure that out. There are alot more TV's now then there were 20 years ago.

 

For example: There were 102.2 million TV households in 2000-2001 (Raw's heyday). Now there are 115.9 million households.

 

Each 1.0 represents 1%. So 1,022,000 households for 2000-2001, 1,159,000 viewers now.

 

A 6.0 in their Heyday would be 6,132,000 viewers, a 4.0 then would be 4,088,000.

 

A 4.0 today would mean 4,636,000 viewers, a 6.0 would be close to 7 Million (6,954,000).

 

EDIT: I meant to put something else here for an example. A 3.0 today is roughly the equivalent to a 3.5 in 2000-2001. So in all honesty, the viewership, according to the numbers (Which Neilson numbers are in question moreso then not), WWE is actually averaging more viewers on RAW outside of a very small time period.

 

There is alot more options now, then there were 20 years ago as well. All this stuff that people don't think matter's, really does.

 

Let me use an anology (although I often hate using them). IF you have two flavors of Ice Cream to choose from for desert, and you split it amoung 10 people, they are going to do quite well. Now, if you now have 15 people, but 10 flavors of ice cream to choose from, another five types of deserts on top of that (pie, cake, etc.), then your not going to expect the Vanilla and Chocolate to actually do as well as they did when the other's were not available, although they are still your two highest rated deserts.

 

In a nut shell, your crazy if you think the network is unhappy in the slightest.

[20LEgend]

I can't stand Kevin Nash, he really is so out of touch. Made WWE cool and exciting again, lol, Nash. Also poor explanation of the text (Nash to Nash) there is clearly more to this.

 

MizTruth were great again.

 

Also Mr. H's, just accepting the resign as COO stip was stupid, why would he, he has no need to.

 

Logically, this feud is getting worse. Started off with Punk being sharp, breaking all the cliches, now he is just falling into the traps (illustrated by his match with Cena when Nash came out. He had it won and then turned around.) And the whole HHH had something to do with it, I get he believes that, but to be so sure makes him look I don't know the word , I hope he's right though because if it's Nash and Johnny Ace, I'll be pissed.

[juggaloninjalee]

My opinion of last night mixed with some fantasy booking.

 

HHH fires Nash for real.

 

After the stipulation of losing his position as COO Nash feels he has to be there to help HHH win. Nash feels that if he helps Hunter win that he will get his job back.

 

Either way I think Nash will only be around until the Royal Rumble and then he will be no more.

[Carmichael]

CM punk has to take responsibility for this rubbishness, I think hes fantastic on the mic, like very entertaining, so i'll give him a pass on the weak segments with Nash and HHH.

 

However, last week his match with the miz was terrible and it got a low rating in the breakdown, last night his r truth match was boring again.

 

When you see what reaction Cena or Randy Orton are getting in the ring, you cant blame the booking for the lack of interest in CM Punks matches, hes so overrated in the ring by the IWC its unreal.

[Self]

I miss 'growing old gracefully, hanging out with cruiserweights, comedy' Kevin Nash, with all his grey haired glory.

[OldStingberg]

Well, they did nothing to address my major complaints last night. The HHH/Nash/Punk story is getting worse and Cole is still terrible (though he did good work during the Ryder segment). And I don't get the build up for the tag title match. Air Boom and Awesome Truth are two of the best/most popular things going right now, they really should have done a better job with this instead of "we challenge you, we accept on your behalf, I shall now lose to CM Punk". Why not have Awesome Truth 2-on-1 Punk one of these last two weeks and let Air Boom make the save?

 

Besides that, though, I really enjoyed Raw this week. Like I said, Air Boom and Awesome Truth are both great. I loved the Zack Ryder stuff. And I enjoyed the 8-man tag match, both the build up and the execution. Solid week, which is good considering Punk is still trapped in a storyline that's slowly sucking the life out of his character.

[Carmichael]

Solid week, which is good considering Punk is still trapped in a storyline that's slowly sucking the life out of his character.

 

I don't understand this mentality at all, CM punk is still part of this storyline, so if its not clicking he has to take responsibilty for it too. I like punk but he really has to take his share of the blame for this bombing.

 

I'm sick of the IWC just playing into the lazy stereotype of ragging on the old guys and pretending ROH guys are doing nothing wrong. I think sometimes thats true but in the real world you have to think, Punk's been stinking it up in the ring and involved in really boring promos. I'm will to give him the benefit of the doubt because hes obviously good but he has to take his fair share of the blame.

[20LEgend]

For me though, as average as Punk has been at times (calling Steph is getting boring) Nash has been a lot worse IMO, just insults that mean nothing and terrible references. That said the hilarity of Nash claiming he made the WWE exciting again was quite something.

[OldStingberg]

I don't understand this mentality at all, CM punk is still part of this storyline, so if its not clicking he has to take responsibilty for it too. I like punk but he really has to take his share of the blame for this bombing.

 

I'm sick of the IWC just playing into the lazy stereotype of ragging on the old guys and pretending ROH guys are doing nothing wrong. I think sometimes thats true but in the real world you have to think, Punk's been stinking it up in the ring and involved in really boring promos. I'm will to give him the benefit of the doubt because hes obviously good but he has to take his fair share of the blame.

 

I've got few issues with Punk's performances. He hasn't been good, per se, but I think that's because of the cards he's been dealt, not because of how he's played those cards.

 

I'm not even all that critical of Nash's performances. I think they're getting better and they're probably good enough for what he's supposed to do.

 

My problem isn't with the performances, it's with the story. My problems are with the idea of this dumb whodunnit, the idea that Nash is a credible heel at this point, the idea that Punk should be insulting Stephanie for seemingly no reason, the idea that Triple H should take the moral high ground and defend his wife, etc.

 

So unless Punk has become part of the WWE creative team, I'm not putting much blame for this mess on him.

[Carmichael]

I agree the storyline hes been put in, is dumb. However you cant credit CM Punk solely when he does a shoot that started this all off before MITB or the exemplarary booking at MITB which was a great show and then just absolve Punk of the blame and lay the blame at the creative team when the storyline hes in is not as interesting

 

To me it looks like this is all CM Punks work, these lines aren't being written for him at all. Im 90% confident of that.

 

Personally i think he got an incredibly fortunate hand dealt to him, by being allowed to shoot on the WWE that got us all interested and the luck that there was a short space of time for it to build up enough heat and then MITB being in chicago which helped tremendously because outside of chicago, hes been fairly meh in reception.

 

I just cant believe you can blame, Nash, HHH, the creative but nt give punk his fair share of the blame. Its been **** all round, Punks boring matches on raw in comparison to the other top guys, his promos have been whilst funny in places and rubbish in places they have been way too narrow in their appeal IMO.

 

Whilst its fair enough its been a dud storyline and its not all punks fault, hes played his part in it imo and i just dont think its fair to hate on everyone else but punk, just laziness continually laziness from the IWC, hate cena, hate the top echelons of the WWE and anyone whose been in ROH is god.

 

im massively generalizing and playing into stereotypes of the IWC myself with that last sentence but there is semblance of truth in this. If Austin or The rock were in punks segments they wouldnt have looked as **** imo

[OldStingberg]

Since you're obviously not talking to me anymore and instead just railing on your perception of the IWC, I think I'll back out. Take care.

[Tha Black Phenom]

Likewise, by that own merit, if Cena and Orton were in the storyline it would've soured long ago.

 

It's not that I disagree with you about his matches with Miz and Truth, but at the same time I wouldn't look at his Raw matches with a microscope. It's a weekly show so he'll be hit and miss at times, and clearly he has great chemistry with John Cena and made the best of it.

 

Also Mr. H's, just accepting the resign as COO stip was stupid, why would he, he has no need to.

 

Because he's confident in winning... and it was obviously the compromise. "I'll accept your stip if you accept mine"

 

When you see what reaction Cena or Randy Orton are getting in the ring, you cant blame the booking for the lack of interest in CM Punks matches, hes so overrated in the ring by the IWC its unreal.

 

Because Orton and Cena have been made ages ago.. Punk is being made right now. Well, rather that he's gotten made during his storyline with Cena, now it's his job to uphold his status and momentum.

 

I never expected Punk to stay consistently refreshing, the Steph jokes are getting a bit tiresome but I expected stuff like that. Those "pipebombs" can only go so far but hopefully he keeps it fresh, somehow.

 

Which ironically, it's probably a good thing they're hotshotting this angle. If they waited like previously said, who knows how much it could've dragged on the way we've seen it do. The IWC always wants the 'ultimate payoff' when there are other factors to consider.