iso_55 Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 The Attitude Era was WWE's golden days. Look at the **** that was on last night involving the 2 midgets in that tag team match. I mean, then you add Emma, Santino & Fandango in garbage career killer matches. Even the demented masked Kane is crap. Last week he was Corporate Kane getting the crap kicked out of him by The Shield. Now, he's the unstoppable evil monster? That's why people don't watch... Last nite was not a hallmark evening for Vince McMahon and the WWE. Even Good "Ol Stephanie had something up her sleeve - trying to screw up Daniel Bryan's new wife, Brie Bella and having Kane do the old trick of coming up thru hell (aka the ring mattress). A throwaway episode if there ever was. Even the Austrian Strong Man taking on Jack Swagger for the 40th straight time. As bad as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 the attitude era was cool but at the same time, the amount of sponsors and the type of sponsors they get these days far outweight what they had in the attitude era. The attitude era didnt even last that long actually. Wrestling for as long as i have been watching, has generally been a pg product. You go back to the hogan days, that was pg, they then had that 5 year period (the attitude era) were it wasnt. now they are back to pg but recently, its been getting a little less pg, using more swears and stuff. I also am not under the impression that the rating of the show makes it better, its the storylines and the characters. Attitude era had austin rock dx, foley, taker in his prime, etc etc. It had excellent compelling stories, vince vs austin was huge... it also had competition from WCW and right now... well they have a few guys like cena bryan punk (when he was there), wyatt, the shield, but thats about it. They dont have good storylines and they dont have competition, when you dont have competition, why would you go all out. WWE is doing quite fine as is, they aint going anywhere anytime soon, will probably be around forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Fake Kane was also Drew Hankinson/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 I'd be curious to see how the ppv sales were back in the attitude era compared to today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 I'd be curious to see how the ppv sales were back in the attitude era compared to today... much better back then but the big 3 (rumble mania summerslam) generally stay the same, the other ppvs... they have always either done just average buys or done pretty awesome buys,depends on the event really. PPV is just a small portion tho of their revenue, its actually a tiny portion, so much so that the wwe network offers ppvs for free for just 9.95 a month. we cant get it here yet. 50$ is a lot to pay 12 times a year... just based on them offering ppvs tho as part of the 9.95 a month you pay for wwe network shows you how little ppv actually means in the big picture to them. Its all about advertising revenues for sure, and thats bigger now then it was back then. wwe makes most their money off house shows and advertising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted April 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 Well, as of 2013 PPV was the number two revenue generator for WWE. Live events was number three. The Network doesnt so much indicate that PPV revenue is less valuable so much as its a gamble that would never have a chance to succeed without the inclusion of PPV events being included for the base monthly price. Over-all PPV buys seem down in compared to years past. Its really cyclical in a way. Live events were the bread and butter of wrestling up until the late 90's. The Monday Night War made TV ratings far more important. WWE expects to double or triple their yearly TV contract revenue which is extremely important to their bottom line. The reason their stock price has gone from $7-ish to $30-ish is due to that belief plus inflated enthuesiasm in The Network. The Network number (around 700,000 subscribers) came in around average. Its actually "good" for conservative estimates but there was big time enthuesiasm that they would do even better. WWE is leveraging the inclusion of PPV's to get over 1 million Network subscribers by the end of 2014 and 2 million + next year. Its going to be a tough battle. There has been talk of keeping Wrestlemania as a traditional PPV and off the Network but I dont think that will fly. The next big tests are: August when the initial six month commitment of most of the Network subscribers comes up (will they opt to unsubscribe either for good or until Wrestlemania season next year) and when the Network becomes available Internationally (how many people who *want* the Network already have it, as its not difficult to get it outside of the US, including in Canada right now). If The Network is successful, then the gamble was worth it as it's a higher profit margin to WWE and something they more easily and efficiently control. If they top out at 1 million subscribers (or less) while canibalizing their PPV market, they have essentially shot themselves in the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 PPV is just a small portion tho of their revenue, its actually a tiny portion, so much so that the wwe network offers ppvs for free for just 9.95 a month. we cant get it here yet. 50$ is a lot to pay 12 times a year... we makes most their money off house shows and advertising. So in other words you have no idea what you are talking about lol. Back in the Attitude era most fans were shilling out for both WWE and wcw ppvs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 I'd be curious to see how the ppv sales were back in the attitude era compared to today... much better back then but the big 3 (rumble mania summerslam) generally stay the same, the other ppvs... they have always either done just average buys or done pretty awesome buys,depends on the event really. PPV is just a small portion tho of their revenue, its actually a tiny portion, so much so that the wwe network offers ppvs for free for just 9.95 a month. we cant get it here yet. 50$ is a lot to pay 12 times a year... just based on them offering ppvs tho as part of the 9.95 a month you pay for wwe network shows you how little ppv actually means in the big picture to them. Its all about advertising revenues for sure, and thats bigger now then it was back then. wwe makes most their money off house shows and advertising. I remember back nearly 20 years ago, a friend of mine bought a WWE PPV & I went to his house for a wrestling party. I gotta say that was the first & only time I ever been to one of those. About 20 people (all guys, of course) were there. That was back in the days when Owen Hart was the Blue Blazer. Matter of fact, I read later that it was the PPV where he got injured in the...ahem... wrong place when he landed awkwardly on the top rope but gutted it out to finish his match. It was a lot of fun.Ton of booze & food. Like a GC party. The testosterone was going big time that night... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 PPV is just a small portion tho of their revenue, its actually a tiny portion, so much so that the wwe network offers ppvs for free for just 9.95 a month. we cant get it here yet. 50$ is a lot to pay 12 times a year... we makes most their money off house shows and advertising. So in other words you have no idea what you are talking about lol. Back in the Attitude era most fans were shilling out for both WWE and wcw ppvs. not as much as you think they were. Google it. I mean really. Put in wwe ppv buy rates and the first thing that pops up shows you the numbers have been consistent for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 PPV is just a small portion tho of their revenue, its actually a tiny portion, so much so that the wwe network offers ppvs for free for just 9.95 a month. we cant get it here yet. 50$ is a lot to pay 12 times a year... we makes most their money off house shows and advertising. So in other words you have no idea what you are talking about lol. Back in the Attitude era most fans were shilling out for both WWE and wcw ppvs. not as much as you think they were. Google it. I mean really. Put in wwe ppv buy rates and the first thing that pops up shows you the numbers have been consistent for the most part. I was mostly directing that to the comment of PPV being a tiny portion of the revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted May 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 Wrestling went from being a live event business in the 70's and early 80's to a PPV business in the late 80's and early 90's to a PPV and TV business in the late 90's to now. When WCW was blowing up the way the business was run in late 90's, they actually barely ran live events. It was all PPV and TV revenue. The popularity of the TV led to increased live event business. WWE stock was up slightly yesterday after their first quarter financials were released show a smaller than expected loss. WWE will absorb losses this year with the intent of changing the business to a different model by mid to late 2015. It will be significantly profitable by then (or better be at least) on the back of a drastically increased TV package and the Network. Personally, my issue with the network is the confusion over what it is. I dont think WWE did a very good job of explaining it. And considering the people they hired to set up The Network, thats pretty mind blowing but it speaks to the "bubble" that some people live in. In wrestling we refer to living in the bubble in terms of people (like Vince) being so "in" the business that he doesnt understand what the average fan wants. It seems too that corporate people are in a bubble. To them, what The network is is obvious. That wasnt the case. Finally, in the last week or two, WWE simply went for broke and started tagging The Network as "Netflix for wrestling". I think the hardcore fans found it and got it. Even though The Network is only available in the US, the hardcore fans in Canada and Europe etc found it too. But I think there are casual fans who hear "Network" and assume its a traditional channel that isnt available in their area. I think there are some people who havent embraced the technology and I think there are older fans that havent heard enough about it to try it. All those things will change. Internet-based delivery is the future of television and entertainment. WWE also didnt explain that The Network was available on gaming systems very well. And its not yet available on smart devices (TV's, blu-ray players), which is a huge thing. If they are smart, they read the book Netflixed. By this Christmas, if Im WWE, Im including a "coupon" in every single Smart TV and Blu Ray player sold (if they can make those deals with manufacturers) for a free trial. Netflix did that and it was actually a big loss leader in they had trouble keeping up with demand but its what blew them up as a big time "network". WWE simply needs to reach the masses. I think the Network is something every wrestling fan who watches RAW and has at least mild interest in the PPVs would buy. Every fan who loved wrestling in the 80's or the Attitude era would buy. Every fan of ECW or WCW that turned away when those companies went out of business would buy. And even if you're a casual fan who buys the network, you likely keep it since the price isn't something that makes you turn it off. Much like Netflix, there are months I dont watch any Netflix content, but it's $8 or whatever so who cares? Those months where I watch 5 movies and 10 TV shows more than makes up for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 Well the UFC has a similar thing going and that is the way of the future. I remember reading an article about the UFC where they only pull in about 40% of the money when one pays for its ppv. Cut out the middle men and these businesses can rake in much more profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 Very interesting comments unknown poster. I am a very casual WWE fan and had no idea what the WWE network was at first. The only reason I know now is because my friend got it and explained to me what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted May 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2014 That's how ppv work. Ppv company gets 50-60 per cent. Wwe went to war with one of he big PPV providers a few years ago fighting to get a 50-50 split. Wwe lost. UFC won't switch to a network model like wwe for many years. But they certainly are watching this with great interest. Ring of honor is actually giving traditional ppv a try with the idea the ppv companies are mlre interested in content now that wwe is gone and that fans are mlre willing to pay now that they don't have wwe ppv's to buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted May 3, 2014 Report Share Posted May 3, 2014 I've never ordered a WWE PPV & never will but Canadians can still buy on their cable or satellite providers, I assume, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted May 3, 2014 Report Share Posted May 3, 2014 That's how ppv work. Ppv company gets 50-60 per cent. Wwe went to war with one of he big PPV providers a few years ago fighting to get a 50-50 split. Wwe lost. UFC won't switch to a network model like wwe for many years. But they certainly are watching this with great interest. Ring of honor is actually giving traditional ppv a try with the idea the ppv companies are mlre interested in content now that wwe is gone and that fans are mlre willing to pay now that they don't have wwe ppv's to buy. I wouldn't say that ... they have been actively trying to move the content from ppv to other means to collect the dollars. This is why they were one of the first on the xbox 360 "apps"..... As smart tvs really take over peoples living rooms I think all PPV's from all sports will be by passing the cable companies.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted May 4, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 UFC isn't moving to a network model anytime soon. Trust me. Their buys are too big. The deal with ppv companies is you can't market the content yourself and undercut them. So it's an all or none proposition. Wwe felt the gamble was worth it. It's not worth it for UFC yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 UFC much like wrestling is very cyclical too. UFC has been around for a long long time, it just never really got that big until a few years ago. Back in the ken shamrock, gracie, kimbo days, UFC wasn't doing too well. I'll bet there comes a time in the future when UFC isn't doing as well as they are now also, it just seems to trend that way at times. Much like wrestling, very very cyclical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigg jay Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 UFC much like wrestling is very cyclical too. UFC has been around for a long long time, it just never really got that big until a few years ago. Back in the ken shamrock, gracie, kimbo days, UFC wasn't doing too well. I'll bet there comes a time in the future when UFC isn't doing as well as they are now also, it just seems to trend that way at times. Much like wrestling, very very cyclical. The UFC is 21 years old... not my definition of a long long time by any stretch of the imagination. The reason why it seemed to peak a few years ago was because prior to Dana White & the Fertita brothers spending years and about 40 million to start changing perceptions about the sport, it was banned by most states and most ppv providers. They called it the "dark ages" of mma for a reason. It was next to impossible for most fans to watch the sport back then. Lumping Kimbo (UFC debut in late 2009) in with the Shamrock/Gracie era (both debuted at UFC 1 in 1993) is laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigg jay Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 Here's a good list of MMA ppv numbers since 2006. If you can find a cycle in there I'd love to know where. At a quick glance, it looks fairly steady except for a few spikes when they have a big main event (ie Lesnar vs Couture). http://mmapayout.com/blue-book/pay-per-view/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted May 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Yeah UFC isn't very old at all. Nor is it cyclical. Kimbo Slice was not part of the Gracie/Shamrock days either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Funny how the Winnipeg show absolutely tanked in PPV sales yet it still raked in a lot of cashola for the UFC. I wonder what WWE ppv numbers look in comparison. I wonder how bad the Bellator show will bomb and whether the Glory PPV will get anyone in North America to buy..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 My son was a huge UFC fan but now he really is starting to like Glory & Bellator MMA. What is Bellator? Too bad Glory is on Spike where it's not Hi Def. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso_55 Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Yeah UFC isn't very old at all. Nor is it cyclical. Kimbo Slice was not part of the Gracie/Shamrock days either Kimbo could beat up all the backyard warriors but got killed in UFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted May 6, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 Kimbo couldnt fight. He needed to get in UFC waaaaay before he did back when it was a battle of one discipline versus another, not the cross-train era. WWE PPV Buys are moot now. Winnipeg is always listed among the top PPV buyers in North America for UFC and has been for years. One of my greatest regrets is the time I presented an idea to start a Winnipeg-based Canadian "UFC" (long before anyone else in Winnipeg) and I let others convince me thatt focusing on wrestling was the way to go. Doh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now