mookeighana

Well, the computer ownership number seems crazy high too - that's probably because Harris took the poll via online means. I'm not sure what 2013 Computer present in Household # is in the US is but as of 2011 that number was around 75% according to the Census Bureau. Still, I found the device prevalence in order quite fascinating. And it finally has some (debatable yes, but actual) numbers of streaming usage by age group.

This piece has been stuck in my head for awhile, and a twitter conversation today triggered me searching for the source data. I found the Harris Interactive Poll it's from: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/...lt/Default.aspx It has some really interesting implications: (1) U.S. Adult Ownership: (keep in mind this survey was taken online so there's bound to be some bias there) * 94% owned a computer (67% had a laptop, 66% had a Desktop) * 80% owned a Mobile Phone with 52% indicating it was a Smartphone (28% Android, 24% iPhone) * 36% owned a Tablet (19% had a iPad/iPad Mini, 10% had a Amazon Kindle Fire Series tablet) * 21% had a stand-alone BluRay player (no breakout of what percentage were internet connected) * 19% had a XBox 360 and 15% had a PS3 * 12% had a HDTV with built-in internet capabilities (44% had HDTV without) * 6% had "streaming media box" (such as Roku, AppleTV) (2) Netflix Streaming by Age Group: Echo Boomer (18-36 years old): 41% Netflix Streaming Gen X (37-48 years old): 24% Netflix Streaming Baby Boomer (49-67 years old): 18% Netflix Streaming Mature (68+ years old): 7% Netflix Streaming I cross-reference these numbers with the US Census, Netflix membership data and WWE investor presentations. You can read it on my blog: http://indeedwrestling.blogspot.com/2013/1...-age-group.html Basically, I end up with the conclusion that if WWE Network got similar adoption as Netflix Streaming did by age group (which, understandably is a very bold claim since we don't know price or platform availability nor is it obvious that the same reason 37% of parents are subscribing to Netflix would be the same reason that Parents of WWE Fans would be subscribing to the WWE Network but I digress...) , they would probably have about a 1.1 million viewers. However, that only translates into about 415,000 subscriptions (because the survey numbers implied several people in a single household have access to the same one Netflix subscription). I do recommend reading the Harris poll and thinking about the implications.

If anyone cares, I put together a compendium of my blog pieces about WWE Network and TV rights as a free PDF. https://sites.google.com/site/chrisharringt...ics/wwe_network Nothing new of that hasn't been covered, but it's sot of amusing to see how the story evolves over 45 days. And as for the excitement thing, I am quite excited. What I would love most is the ability to call my friends back in Rochester and simultacast some old Smackdown with my old wrestling buddies like we were sitting together in a garage watching Steve Austin and Crash Holly.

This was one reason that I always really liked when Smackdown was available on UPN/CW/MyNetworkTV -- you had the opportunity to reach an audience that wasn't paying for Cable or Satellite. I think Ion is broadcast in many areas, so I guess they could get Main Event, but with both flagship shows on NBCU channels, it certainly leaves some people in the dark. I guess now there's Hulu and Youtube for those that have access to keep up. Still.

Within a single market, absolutely. However, that difficulty isn't as severe if going online means you can take it worldwide rather than be restricted to the US or North America until you work out country-by-country cable deals. Very true, though I can see them having trouble with enabling worldwide access, due to their current international deals. Yesterday, George Barrios spoke at the UBS 41st Annual Global Media and Communications Conference (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1890451-world-wrestling-entertainments-management-presents-at-ubs-41st-annual-global-media-and-communications-conference-transcript?part=single). He essentially stated the WWE Network will be over-the-top (though he declined to confirm it): "We’ve been working with the MVPDs, the same pitch I just gave you here, let's transform the pay-per-view business together, grow the business for both of us. Quite frankly it's been a bit of a slog, having those discussions but we continue to have them. One of the things that happened over the last 12 months has been happening for quite a while and we have been monitoring it for quite a while, is the consumption of long form video over-the-top and we all have Netflix to thank for this. They have done the spade work of creating the environment and the consumption habit of consumers to watch long form video over-the-top. So this, earlier this year we said where two years ago we didn't think there was enough of that happening to make a network viable over-the-top, we now believe it is viable over-the-top. We continue to work with the MVPDs, see if we can knockout a deal in traditional distribution. If not, we have that option which fundamentally is unilateral. We could do it at our own discretion." And while WWE will get all of the revenue instead of a cut of it, they expect their costs to be higher under an over-the-top network (though Barrios believes the economics will end up being the same as a premium channel): "Run rate today is probably close to 15 million. So we haven't done 15 million in any one year, but if you look at where we are today and extrapolate it you'd say about 15 million. I'd say there is one other slug of costs that is similar whether it's traditional or over-the-top and that's marketing dollars and that's a big part of -- I mean obviously we are not going to have the cost of acquisition like Netflix and HBO because they are an accumulation of brands and content that they have to market. We have a brand and we have a powerful platform to market So we are not going to do that kind of customer acquisition cost but we are going to have to do some third party costs and it won't be insignificant. So that's -- that will come once a launch date is established and then announced. And then the other part of the costs stack really depends on whether you do traditional or over-the-top. If you go over-the-top you have significantly more costs, you have to do things like CDN costs, credit card fees, customer service. If you go traditional that essentially is covered up in the split that you are paying the MVPDs. What I would say is all those costs, in either model that I described are embedded in that $50 million to $150 million incremental OIBDA that's up there." 100% of the revenue, 100% of the problems. On a side note, I thought this was pretty amusing: "What I will say is I have not understood and still do not understand why the pay-per-view transition to a subscription service delivered by the MVPDs did not make sense, I still don't understand it." WWE has a vision for something, and outside companies won't go along with it. Isn't that essentially what happens whenever they've tried to rebrand themselves or get others to agree with their viewpoints? (Thanks to Chris for the link.) I wrote up a longer analysis of the presentation on my blog: http://indeedwrestling.blogspot.com/2013/1...-financial.html David hit the high-points regarding the WWE Network that were spoken. Only other thing I learned was that WWE invested in Hero Ventures (probably because WWE BOD Basil DeVito is on their board). Also, I found a nice Nielsen summary of how people are watching "over-the-top" video: How do people watch streaming services? * Directly on a computer (48% of Netflix users, 61% Hulu Plus users - increases from last year) * On Mobile Phone (11% of Netflix users, 10% of Hulu Plus users - large drop from last year) * Wii (26% of Netflix users, 12% of Hulu Plus users) * Internet-Enabled TV (12% of Netflix users, 9% of Hulu Plus users - down from last year) * Connecting Computer to TV (11% of Netflix users, 18% of Hulu Plus users) * On PS3 (12% of Netflix users, 12% of Hulu Plus users) * On iPad (5% of Netflix users, 12% of Hulu Plus users - down from last year) * On other Tablet (6% of Netflix users, 7% of Hulu Plus users) * Internet-connected BluRay Player (14% of Netflix users, 12% of Hulu Plus users) * XBox Live (13% of Netflix users, 16% of Hulu Plus users) * Roku Box (12% of Netflix users, 23% of Hulu Plus users) Source: 2013 Nielsen "Over-the-Top Video Analysis"

If you're really curious, I did stats on how often the same people appeared on Raw & Smackdown during the same 7 day periods: https://sites.google.com/site/chrisharringt..._raw_concurrent

All Ballots Lou Thesz (1), Jim Londos (2), Ed “Strangler” Lewis (4), Frank Gotch (5), Bruno Sammartino (6), Andre The Giant (8), Rikidozan (9) 85%+ of Ballots Hulk Hogan (3), Ric Flair (7), Buddy Rogers (10), El Santo (11), Antonio Inoki (12), Steve Austin (13), Joe Stecher (14), Gorgeous George (16), Verne Gagne (17), The Rock (18), George Hackenschmidt (19), Harley Race (20), Antonino Rocca (21), Nick Bockwinkel (22), Dory Funk Jr (23), Mil Mascaras (24), Stanislaus Zbyszko (26), Terry Funk (27), The Destroyer (29), Edouard Carpentier (33), Freddie Blassie (37), Pat O’Connor (47), Johnny Valentine (52) 70-85% of Ballots Shohei Baba (15), Dusty Rhodes (25), Gene Kiniski (28), Mitsuharu Misawa (30), Wild Bill Longson (31), Jack Brisco (32), Jumbo Tsuruta (34), Killer Kowalski (35), William Muldoon (36), Randy Savage (38), Stan Hansen (39), The Sheik (40), Bret Hart (42), Whipper Watson (43), Yvon Robert (44), John Cena (45), Dick The Bruiser (46), The Undertaker (50), Ray Stevens (55), Bobo Brazil (57), Bob Backlund (61), Keiji Muto (62), Danny Hodge (78) 55%-70% of Ballots Farmer Burns (41), Gus Sonnenberg (48), Shawn Michaels (49), Kenta Kobashi (50), Blue Demon (53), John Pesek (54), Earl Caddock (56), Bruiser Brody (58), Tiger Mask I (Sayama) (59), Riki Choshu (60), Maurice Tillet (63), Genichiro Tenryu (64), Akira Maeda (66), Bronko Nagurski (67), Evan “Strangler” Lewis (68), Toshiaki Kawada (69), Fritz Von Erich (70), Perro Aguayo (72), Tatsumi Fujinami (73), Big Van Vader (76), Ed Don George (79), Abdullah The Butcher (81), Triple H (85) 40%-55% of Ballots The Great Gama (65), Tom Jenkins (71), Don Leo Jonathan (74), Roddy Piper (75), Jerry Lawler (77), Dick Shikat (80), Billy Robinson (82), Kurt Angle (83), Ray Steele (84), El Hijo Del Santo (86), Shinya Hashimoto (89), Ricky Steamboat (90), Orville Brown (92), Mad Dog Vachon (92), Wladek Zbyszko (94), Billy Graham (95), Hans Schmidt (96), Rey Misterio Jr (98), Henri De Glane (100), Pat Patterson (103), Mildred Burke (106), Mick Foley (110), Wahoo McDaniel (140) 25%-40% of Ballots El Solitario (87), Frank Sexton (88), El Canek (91), The Crusher (97), Gory Guerrero (101), Dara Singh (102), Karl Gotch (103), Bill Miller (105), Everett Marshall (107), Sandor Szabo (108), Jushin Liger (111), Dynamite Kid (113), Jim Browning (114), Danno O’Mahoney (116), Mick McManus (117), Eddie Guerrero (119), Nobuhiko Takada (120), Enrique Torres (121), Chris Benoit (122), Col. J. H. McLaughlin (123), Eddie Graham (125), Steve Casey (126), Brock Lesnar (133), Bert Assirati (137), Pedro Morales (147), Sting (163), Ted Dibiase (168) 15%-25% of Ballots Ray Mendoza (99), Joe Savoldi (108), Ad Santel (112), Toots Mondt (115), Primo Carnera (118), Rene Guajardo (124), Negro Casas (127), Bobby Managoff (132), Villano III (133), Cavernario Galindo (137), Man Mountain Dean (139), Fred Beell (141), Atsushi Onita (142), Manami Toyota (142), Masahiro Chono (145), Wilbur Snyder (147), Danny Mc Shain (150), Duncan C. Ross (151), Big Daddy (Shirley Crabtree) (152), Dos Caras (153), Bill Watts (153), Cien Caras (157), Ivan Koloff (157), Joe Acton (159), Dr Ben Roller (161), Mark Lewin (163), Don Eagle (165), Ernie Ladd (167), Clarence Eklund (169), Chigusa Nagayo (173), Dump Matsumoto (181), CM Punk (184), Hiroshi Tanahashi (188), Pepper Gomez (194), Earl McCready (203)

People who appeared on 4+ ballots, in order of birth year: Excluding people that were exclusively promoters, commentators and managers (like Heenan & Albano), the wrestlers that are in the Wrestling Observer Hall of Fame which I didn't see on the list here were: * The Midnight Express (Bobby Eaton, Stan Lane and Dennis Condrey) * Masa Saito * Martín Karadagian * Hiroshi Hase * Most of The Fabulous Freebirds (Michael Hayes and Buddy Roberts) - Terry Gordy was ranked #305 * Último Dragón * Lioness Asuka * Devil Masami * Jackie Sato * The Fabulous Kangaroos (Al Costello, Roy Heffernan, and Don Kent) * Dory Funk Sr. * Tony Stecher * Stu Hart * Kensuke Sasaki EDIT: * El Satánico was on there at place #200 - I got thrown off due to the accent mark! Thanks Tofu!

I really don't think so. I honestly believe you're competing against purchasing Wrestling Content (i.e. PPVs and DVD/BluRays) through traditional channels of Cable/Satellite or Stores. $9.99 is a steal -- I spend that on lunch regularly. You're not really offering the same thing as Hulu or Netflix -- you're selling wrestling matches and wrestling TV shows. Yes, there are some wrestling documentaries on Netflix, but if that was what WWE was really banking on, this network is going to be nothing more than Classics on Demand v2.0. Instead, they're trying to offer something bigger - new content (mainly PPVs, but also the historical archives) and now there is the added lure of on-demand old content (if that really pans out). I love the idea of 6 months @ $10 = $60 up-front in a package that includes Wrestlemania. Grabbing a huge upfront group prevents a massive drop-off following their one mega-event (though the subscription #s might look terrible come Survivor Series 2014), it gives them more time to keep a large base of people to experiment with for several months and it still offers a value to the consumer (deliver many PPVs and other goodies in HD for less than one single mega-PPV). Honestly, I think they could get away with a higher price like $15 (it's a niche product and that lowers the # of subscribers they have to snag to break-even), but I believe they see the $10 mark online as an artificial price ceiling so it seems unlikely they'll do that.

I thought Bix had a great counterargument that he posted over on the Wrestling Observer board in the thread about this radio show (link to WO msg board). Hopefully he won't mind if I quote him: I do concur with Bix -- the internet-only #s for WWE/UFC are not relevantly going to predict the success of the WWE Network.

But is it really "way" less TV and PPVs? Attitude Era TV 2-hour RAWs 2-hour Smackdowns (started August 1999) 1-hour Sunday Night Heat 1-hour of syndicated TV (Shotgun Saturday Night and/or Metal/Jakked) Recap Show: Livewire/Superstars/Excess Basically, 4 hours of A-level TV, 2 hours of B/C level TV. Now we have 3 hours of A-level TV, 2 hours of B level TV (Smackdown), 1 hour of B/C level TV (Main Event). This year we had 13 PPVs, last year had 12 PPVs. In 1999 and 2000 and 2001 each had 12 PPVs each year. (And in that era, both ECW and WCW were running PPVs shows. There was 77 PPVs from those companies between Jan 99 and Dec 01.) I completely agree that Raw being 3 hours is too long and Smackdown is a completely miss-able show but the era of having 16 PPVs a year was the mid-2000s, not now.

If there's no PS3 app I'd be shocked. They just got online with PS3 for WWE PPVs in Q3 this year, so it would seem natural that supporting that console would be part of the roll-out plan.

NXT is only on Hulu so I don't know if it can really be counted and Superstars is only on Hulu/shown internationally, so I don't know if that can be counted either. For years, Heat was still internationally aired but it really was just filler material so they could service their international obligations. Though this really isn't that new of a situation. See: https://sites.google.com/site/chrisharrington/wwftv Right now you've got Raw (3 hours), Smackdown (2 hours), Main Event (1 hour) on broadcast television domestically which is 6 hours. In the past we had regularly had 5 hours with Raw, Smackdown, ECW (June 2006-Sept 2010) or 6 hours for about 1.5 years when WGN America started airing Superstars (starting in April 2009, it lasted until April 2011 but ECW/NXT went off broadcast in Sept 2010). We had 6+ hours back in 1999 when there was Raw (2 hours), Smackdown (2 hours), Heat (1 hour) and the syndicated shows (Shotgun Saturday Night, Jakked/Metal) plus Los Super Astros. We had 6 hours back in 2002 when there was Raw (2 hours), Smackdown (2 hours), Heat (1 hour) plus Velocity (1 hour) along with Confidential. Hell, even back in the 80s and 90s, there was 6 hours of wrestling between USA and Syndicated programming. What is the situation now: a) 3 hours is too long for a single show. The modern ratings patterns demonstrate diminishing interest in that final Raw hour. That underscores the fact that they've successfully retrained their viewers to tune in at 8 PM (huge bump for post-PPV weeks), but they're getting worn out before you even hit the overrun. Having no exclusivity between Smackdown and Raw hurts the ability to keep the product feeling fresh. Between 2003-2006 a very small percentage of talent appeared on both Raw & Smackdown in the same week. If you don't have megastar power like you did when Smackdown began, then your next best option is to build up reasons to watch each show and not just make it feel like Raw-lite. Personally, when the massive increase in TV Rights fees looming and the de-emphasis of PPVs ahead (with the online network you're looking less at building month-to-month attractions), I think there's an opportunity to return to building two brands. Essentially, that's why NXT is so different - it's a completely different set of storylines and performers. I like that and I think that's your best option to creating an environment where the real #2 is not TNA (because they're not even close) but rather the alternative WWE brand. Plus, if they can create something that's meaningful, they can tour with it and that's ultimately going to be their goal in the future - maximize live event revenue along with reaping in TV Rights fees.

Also, if anyone cares, I wrote two pieces today about the WWE Network based on the latest rumors: 1. http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2013/12/0...lation-abounds/ - let's summarize what we knew, what we might know and what could be 2. http://indeedwrestling.blogspot.com/2013/1...rk-revenue.html - let's predict WWE Network revenue

I really didn't have a specific boogeyman in mind (beyond music rights, but as it's been addressed - WWE has clean versions of all of that). I was wondering if they have any content they're uncomfortable airing - footage involving people who've sued them or things like would Over the Edge 1999 be included? Considering guys have gotten paychecks for the tiniest clips of them appearing of them on DVDs, I do wonder if they face any kind of a revolt should they not be giving any royalties to wrestlers with the footage. Then again, I don't know if the wrestlers (or ex-wrestlers) have a leg to stand on. If it's not Jesse Ventura's voice or Kid Rock's music, maybe they'll be fine. I really, really don't have a clue.

This is very true. I do like the $60/6 month idea. It protects WWE from a big drop right after Wrestlemania. It protects WWE if they have a big stream mishap up front from a huge exodus and it artificially inflates numbers quickly so they can tout them to investors. Plus, 6 months is a long enough that a lot of people might forget and not realize they're hooked up for something reoccuring. I am skeptical about the "every Raw, every Smackdown, every PPV" claim. That just seems like Rights clearance hell.

He said "connect devices" so that implies XBOX360/XBOX-One, PS3/PS4 along with presumably services like Roku. If it's available via major video game consoles, it at least has a shot - and as been noted, should they get 80% of the cut instead of 33%, that should majorly help on the break-even point. Lastly, it won't completely gut normal PPV ordering until 2015 which they will have more TV money to supplement. Honestly, if I can get WM streamed in HD on my TV via XBOX360, the $60 is spent and the rest is gravy for me. I do wonder if we're in the bubble here, being generally more tech savvy and hardcore than the average wrestling fan. I would be interested in knowing stats about how many people currently use consoles to watch online events through their TV. I don't doubt it at all. However, I see that as a plus for them in the sense that it won't completely kill the domestic PPV (ordering via Cable/Satellite) business in 2014. If anything, pushing the WWE App was a good benchmark for them to work on targeting WWE Fans that are tech-savvy enough to start interfacing with them via social media app with video streaming extras.

He said "connect devices" so that implies XBOX360/XBOX-One, PS3/PS4 along with presumably services like Roku. If it's available via major video game consoles, it at least has a shot - and as been noted, should they get 80% of the cut instead of 33%, that should majorly help on the break-even point. Lastly, it won't completely gut normal PPV ordering until 2015 which they will have more TV money to supplement. Honestly, if I can get WM streamed in HD on my TV via XBOX360, the $60 is spent and the rest is gravy for me.

And I'm assuming it's part of her role as being a working mom rather than someone who has to be at live events working with a creative team.

I wrote some 3-hour RAW Ratings Analysis

WWE 2000-2013: How I learned to stop worrying and love Kane -- http://indeedwrestling.blogspot.com/2013/1...2013-stats.html

I did look at the relationship between Wrestling Observer Awards and Wrestling Observer HOF: http://indeedwrestling.blogspot.com/2013/1...-wrestling.html Angle does well in that measure. Though that's cumulatively and not adjusted for the year of admission.

I can only see two avenues for this. First would be Matthew Singerman - if he had some background or connection to a show, it's possible he'd pursue it. However, while WWE is trying to be thought of as an Entertainment company and not just a wrestling content producer, I really don't see this idea getting traction. The second way would be if WWE did have some kind of distribution via Netflix. Since Netflix already has a history of trying to bring original content to their medium, I could see them being supportive and encouraging WWE to try a similar approach. But still, I don't see it happening because Vince desires so much creative control and the success of the network is clearly being built around PPV traction - not other original programming. Unrelated, but I also wanted to point out (or reinforce, I might have said this already) that a Feb 2014 launch would coincide nicely with their annual report results so they'd enjoy being able to tout the WWE Network launch to investors as a big deal - especially since they might not have anything new on TV Rights Fees negotiations to announce at that point.

For a few years, WWE would break out their PPV revenue into both Domestic & International amounts: (see page 30 at http://ir.corporate.wwe.com/interactive/lo...IP_09212012.pdf ) WWE PPV 2006: $74.1 (domestic) + $19.5M (int'l) = 21% int'l 2007: $76.6 (domestic) + $17.7M (int'l) = 19% int'l 2008: $73.6 (domestic) + $17.8M (int'l) = 19% int'l 2009: $65.0 (domestic) + $15.0M (int'l) = 19% int'l 2010: $58.5 (domestic) + $11.7M (int'l) = 17% int'l 2011: $65.8 (domestic) + $12.5M (int'l) = 16% int'l I couldn't find a 2012 number quickly, but let's assume they're around the 16.3% range. 2012 estimated: $70.0M (domestic) + $13.6M (int'l) I'll take the last four quarters as a proxy for 2013... 2013 estimated: $66.8M (domestic) +$13.0M (int'l) So, all together, I think we'll be looking at about $65M to $70M in Domestic PPV income that would potentially be "in danger" with a WWE Network launch that includes Wrestlemania. Full year revenue per buy in 2012 was $20.60 (up from $19.94 in 2011). (source: 2012 10-K) The Q3 2013 10-Q statement has revenue per buy at $19.35. Let's split the difference and assume $20. So, from a revenue standpoint.... $70M in 12 months = 12 months x $5.83M/month = 292k domestic monthly buyers x $20/buy x 12 months $65M in 12 months = 12 months x $5.42M/month = 270k domestic monthly buyers x $20/buy x 12 months (This is a number which smooths out the peaks for Wrestlemania/Rumble/SummerSlam with the B-shows.) Assuming a $15 Network Price Point. 50% split = $7.50/subscriber $70M in 12 months = 12 months x $5.83M/month = 778k domestic monthly buyers x $7.50/buy x 12 months $65M in 12 months = 12 months x $5.42M/month = 723k domestic monthly buyers x $7.50/buy x 12 months Assuming a $15 Network Price Point. 30% split = $5.00/subscriber $70M in 12 months = 12 months x $5.83M/month = 1.166M domestic monthly buyers x $5.00/buy x 12 months $65M in 12 months = 12 months x $5.42M/month = 1.084M domestic monthly buyers x $5.00/buy x 12 months Assuming a $10 Network Price Point. 50% split = $5.00/subscriber $70M in 12 months = 12 months x $5.83M/month = 1.166M domestic monthly buyers x $5.00/buy x 12 months $65M in 12 months = 12 months x $5.42M/month = 1.084M domestic monthly buyers x $5.00/buy x 12 months Assuming a $10 Network Price Point. 30% split = $3.00/subscriber $70M in 12 months = 12 months x $5.83M/month = 1.943M domestic monthly buyers x $3.00/buy x 12 months $65M in 12 months = 12 months x $5.42M/month = 1.807M domestic monthly buyers x $3.00/buy x 12 months So, to keep revenue flat for WWE - they'd be looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 800,000 (low-end) to 1.5 million (middle) monthly subscribers depending on the Network Price Point and the provider split. Assuming full coverage (big IF), I think they can definitely hit a million subscribers for Wrestlemania provided they do a media blitz. If they are launching with WM, I don't see any reason they would not launch at $15/month. If anything, they can come down off that to $10 if they REALLY have to following the PPV. In fact, I'd almost prefer they launched at $15 for Y1 and for Y2 they did something goofy like dropped to $10 but returned Wrestlemania to PPV-only. This does NOT take into account the cost of starting up the network (which is a $30M to $50M bogey), but at least shows how's it's possible for them to keep a flat domestic PPV revenue.

I thought all wrestlers other than The Rock just had downside guarantees that had to be met over a 12 month period? Given that the network isn't going to get coverage in the U.S. everywhere immediately and the international pay-per-views will continue, one would imagine they'll still get payoffs for each pay-per-view though the size of them will be lower unless the network is a big success from day one. In the end I can see a lot of disgruntled performers as they'll probably end up doing more work for the same or lower pay. I was thinking about it the other way - referring to David's earlier point about whether PPVs will matter..... If guys know they're going to be paid more for doing a "PPV" (and PPVs will still exist until the Network has such coverage that it just doesn't make sense to offer them ala cart - i.e. they'll always exist), even if the storylines aren't culminating in a huge way at every monthly PPV, I still think wrestlers will be motivated to go out there and work hard. Now, there's always that potential of a WCW situation where people stop caring, but this is a company that's run a lot different than WCW and this is also not the same coasting-on-the-star-power crew that they had either.