What Wrestling Can Learn from American Politics

[rovert]

Found this on F4W's message board after searching the terms "Kerry Von Erich NWA" it is from the pre-merger Wrestling Observer site posted February 2008.

 

What Wrestling Can Learn from American Politics

 

by Wrestling Professor

 

It's election year, which means that the best promoted, biggest drawing, slowest building feud will be John McCain vs. either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Michael Bloomberg could make this a 3-way dance if he enters the race (and Ralph Nader already did), but since all candidates look to be appealing to independent voters to a large degree, he might sit this one out. Indeed, on November 4, 2008, the WrestleMania of politics will have its showdown, and no match in MMA or pro wrestling this year will generate a fraction of the worldwide interest this will.

 

 

 

An astute observer, one who is always on the lookout for something new (or old) that can draw money today, may ask himself/herself: what can we learn from this?

 

 

 

Political elections are merely toned down versions (in terms of violence) of old time, slow-building pro wrestling feuds (MMA feuds are shoot versions of the same thing). You've got the Republicans and Democrats each rooting for their side (ala faces and heels), several main issues at stake (ala the face getting revenge on the heel), vignettes building up each candidate (ala wrestling angles shot on live television), verbal attacks in the media (wrestling promos), debates (dueling promos), VPs and henchmen (managers and valets), and high-powered endorsements (promoters using celebrities to get the mainstream rub).

 

 

 

The Presidential election is effective booking at its best, but few have ever realized that. The only political/wrestling crossovers have been limited to Japanese legends and Jesse Ventura, with a few midcarders in local markets (Brian Blair) thrown in for good measure. Guys like Jerry Lawler and Ric Flair have flirted with the idea of running for office before, but it's their lifetime of the other kind of flirting that would doom them if they ever ran. There was that one time Hulk Hogan proclaimed on Jay Leno that he was running for President, but that was a joke; Hogan's feeble attempt to get media attention on the heels of Ventura's historic win in Minnesota.

 

 

 

Not surprisingly, there are a ton of lessons that WWE and especially TNA can learn from this year's most successful feud. Here are a few:

 

 

 

1. Rallies

 

 

 

The best, most innovative idea that I think would shake up any major wrestling PPV would be a rally. Here's why.

 

 

 

Drawing money is all about emotion. Of all people, RVD said it best in a recent radio interview: when you think with your emotions, logic goes out the window. Logic says you should never buy a wrestling PPV; your money is better off put into a retirement savings account or into your education. Logic says you should put down 20% or more on your home, refuse interest-only loans, and live well below your means. Logic says you shouldn't spend $50,000 for one night (a wedding), when people are just going to excrete that expensive food the next day and go on with their lives. Logic says you shouldn't meet someone in Vegas, spend a thrilling weekend with them, and get married the next day. Logic says you shouldn't buy that hot new car, when there are plenty of used cars just as good down the street for far less. Logic says you shouldn't fire off an angry email to your co-worker when you're in a bad mood, because it always looks horrible in hindsight. Logic says if you gamble and double your money, you don't keep gambling and lose everything.

 

 

 

Logic says a lot of things that make sense, but because people want to believe certain things, logic loses out.

 

 

 

As a wrestling promoter, your job is to encourage people to ignore logic and get emotionally invested enough to buy your PPVs. How do you do that? Lots of ways. But I'm liking this rally idea.

 

 

 

Whenever there's a Presidential rally, the candidate in question always receives a short-term bump in the polls. This happened with John Kerry in 2004, but it was to his disadvantage that his rally happened first, because days later George Bush's rally came along, and Kerry's bump was gone and it was G.W. who saw an increase in the polls. In both cases, the bump was short-term. But that's OK in our case, because we just need viewers to feel that high long enough to pick up the remote and order the PPV. If they regret it, they can regret it after the show; by then, we'll already have their money.

 

 

 

So let's present a TNA Bound for Glory rally, shall we? Let's pretend it's September of 2006, and Kurt Angle has just joined TNA. I like using this example because to me, blowing Angle vs. Joe is TNA's version of WWE's botched Invasion angle of 2001. In both cases, it was like burning cash and flushing the ashes down the toilet, never to be seen again.

 

 

 

Our TNA rally will promote Kurt Angle vs. Samoa Joe at Bound for Glory '06. Pretend the two have never met before, that Angle has not yet appeared live on TV, and that Joe has never spoken a word yet to the TV audience. On prime time on Spike TV, we present two 60-minute rallies that will be repeated several times on Spike for the next 3 weeks.

 

 

 

Each rally is held inside a 1,500 seat auditorium with great acoustics. Everyone is well dressed, the audience is enthusiastic, and on the backdrop facing the TV camera, you've got two incredibly large blow-up posters; one of Angle's face, and one of Joe's face. Each poster sits on an opposite side of the stage (one to the left, one to the right), and the crowd is chock full of supportive signs like "Joe's gonna kill you." Streamers and balloons are dropped periodically, and we've presented a fresh, new, never-before-seen wrestling presentation.

 

 

 

Now we need speakers. Celebrity endorsements are hit-and-miss when it comes to politics. There is probably some benefit to Obama getting Oprah's endorsement, but the real turnaround for him was when he got Kennedy's (that's Ted Kennedy, not Ken Kennedy) vote, and several thereafter that began the momentum shift in his favor. For McCain, his endorsements by popular politicians in Florida may have been the deal-maker for him in a state that many experts predicted Mitt Romney would win. Endorsements by candidates who quit the race (such as Rudy Giuliani and John Edwards) are also extremely valuable, because in a tight race, winning over abandoned voters could make or break the end result. It was not an accident that both Obama and Clinton praised John Edwards in the opening remarks of their latest debate; they wanted Edwards' voters badly.

 

 

 

On the other hand, some celebrity endorsements in politics have no impact. In pro wrestling, however, I think the idea of endorsements would be much more effective.

 

 

 

At Kurt Angle's rally, we'd need powerful, charismatic speakers that would be able to fire up the rabid crowd in Kurt's favor. Here's where star power comes in handy, and an event like this is tailor-made for an older, retired, well known, beloved wrestler or manager to make a highly targeted appearance that would draw serious money.

 

 

 

There were barriers that could've gotten in the way of some of these guys appearing, but here are some names that TNA should've been pursued:

 

 

 

Brock Lesnar would make a perfect speaker/endorsement for Angle. He has wrestled him countless times and can personally vouch for his toughness. He can talk about his concussion, the Iron Man match, the WrestleMania match, etc. Brock could also endorse Samoa Joe, saying he knows Kurt's secrets and will be advising Joe on how to beat him. Bill Goldberg would also be a great choice. He's famous, well spoken, respected for being tough, confident, and speaks with authority and influence. If Goldberg gives a speech telling you that Joe is the real deal and reminds him of himself a decade ago, then that's a solid endorsement. Kurt's Olympic trainers, training partners, and opponents from the 1996 Olympic games would all be excellent choices as speakers. Whether they can speak or not, they'd have real credibility. Big Show would also have been a great choice. He wasn't a free agent at the time, and he's not one now, but for awhile there, he was. You could also have several TNA headliners be speakers and endorsements, such as Christian, AJ, Sting, and Jarrett.

 

 

 

Then you've got guys sitting around who would make great speakers at a rally like this. Some of them might be tied up legally by WWE legends contracts, but all are worth pursuing: Bobby Heenan, Roddy Piper, Bruno Sammartino (good luck, but hey, he did work for ROH), Superstar Billy Graham, Eric Bischoff, Bullet Bob Armstrong, Jim Cornette (had he never been hired to be a commissioner), Nick Bockwinkle (just make sure to give him a time limit or else he'll ramble on forever), Bret Hart, Kevin Von Erich, the Samoan Swat Team (for Joe), Rikishi (for Joe), Lou Albano, George Steele (have him speak out of character, which few have ever seen before), Steve "Dr. Death" Williams, Ken Shamrock (not in 2006, but now he could do it), JJ Dillon, Jimmy Hart, Larry Zbyszko, Paul Heyman (though he'd likely decline), Chris Jericho (a free agent at the time), Scott Hall, Lex Luger, Sean Waltman... the list is literally endless. Just comb through the rosters of 1990s WWF/WCW, 1980s WWF/NWA, 1990s ECW, and some of the most famous stars from the 1970s.

 

 

 

Load up the show with tons of star power, hype up the match like it's a huge deal, and promote the heck out of it. I guarantee that PPV would do more business than TNA's PPVs are doing now. And it would do business without writers, without angles, without expensive TV shoots, and by using an innovative idea, you might actually get some sense of accomplishment out of it.

 

 

 

2. Two opponents, one match

 

 

 

TNA likes to focus on every undercard guy and promote all these feuds at the same time. When Scott D'Amore (TNA's best booker ever, so of course he was dropped) was on Wrestling Observer Live a few years ago, he said that for all of Russo's criticisms, that he deserved credit for giving undercard guys angles and storylines.

 

 

 

It sounds like a charitable idea, but D'Amore was dead wrong in this case. Russo does give undercard guys attention, and that's a major detriment to the show. When you're promoting 12 PPVs a year, you need to keep it simple so fans can follow along.

 

 

 

Repeat after me: Each PPV should have one main event, and one semi-main event. Occasionally, an extra semi-main event is permitted. Then you focus 80% of your booking and hype on the main event, and the other 20% (at most) on the semi(s).

 

 

 

As a recent example, UFC 81 focused almost entirely on Brock Lesnar vs. Frank Mir. Secondarily (much to the chagrin of Sylvia), the semi-main of Tim Sylvia vs. Antonio Rodrigo Nogueira got some leftover hype and attention. And that's exactly how it should have been. The result was a smashing success.

 

 

 

Yes, Nogueira is a true legend and deserved better. Sylvia is one of the hardest opponents to beat, and he deserved better, too. But as good as they both are, the real money was in Lesnar vs. Mir. You could call UFC brilliant for realizing that, and it is, but to me it's just common sense. The majority of MMA fans were up in arms about Lesnar getting all the hype. Those are the same fans who said Ortiz vs. Shamrock wouldn't draw. Meanwhile, Ortiz vs. Shamrock saved UFC from oblivion in 2002, and then set UFC records in 2006.

 

 

 

Just as our President shouldn't always listen to "popular opinion," bookers and promoters shouldn't always listen to their fans. Fans are great, but sometimes they just don't know what's best for business (or in politics, for the country). If UFC listened to their fans, 2006 would've been only mildly successful and this past February's PPV would've been lucky to hit 300,000 buys. Instead, they doubled that. They mean well, but they don't always "get it." Dana White and Joe Silva "get it," and that's why they're successful and why everyone else in MMA is not. You've got billionaires willing to invest a fortune in Randy Couture vs. Fedor Emelianenko, thinking it will make them compete against UFC. They fail to ask themselves that even if that fight were successful, how do you build an MMA promotion after that fight is over? If Randy wins, you can't build around him because he's almost 50. If Fedor wins, you can't build around him because he lacks the charisma necessary to be a flagship superstar.

 

 

 

In our example, TNA should focus on Angle vs. Joe, and one semi. That's it. The midcarders are awesome and work hard, but they shouldn't be the focus. As midcarders begin to get over, you feature them gradually more and more in more semi's, and then you can graduate them to main event status. This is how Forrest Griffin and GSP became successful headliners today, and both are still not where they will eventually reach. Feature them slowly, protect them, give them CLEAN wins over established stars, and build them up the traditional way.

 

 

 

Remember, this is wrestling; you control the outcomes. UFC would've set records in 2007 if they could've controlled outcomes. Instead, Liddell lost twice, Cro Cop lost twice, Houston Alexander lost, Sokoudjou lost, and Serra scored the biggest upset in MMA history. None of that would've happened in a controlled environment. Wrestling is a controlled environment.

 

 

 

3. Drag it Out

 

 

 

The McCain vs. Obama (or Clinton) showdown will be the focal point of mainstream news until November. That's 9 months away. In wrestling, main events get 3-4 weeks of hype, max. That's ridiculous, and in the 80s, it was never that way. It was that way in the late 90s, but the whole industry was hot and when that happens, almost everything works. Sting vs. Hogan was WCW's biggest PPV ever, and it was because of the long build. People will pay attention on November 4 because it will have been 9 months of nonstop hype, 24 hours a day.

 

 

 

Not every main event should need 9 months of hype, but the idea is to slow things down considerably, and focus on fewer, not more, matches. Not only is this more successful, but it's 10 times easier than writing long, endless scripts of Impact shows that lead to pathetic buyrates.

 

 

 

If I was Bob Carter, I'd say to myself, "Wait a minute, you're telling me I can lay off 75% of my writers, reduce their workload by 50%, and watch my business increase by 300%? Where do I sign up?"

 

 

 

Instead, Bob Carter knows nothing about wrestling and relies on input from, you guessed it, creative writers who continue doing what they do because it justifies their jobs. No one ever bothers to track progress and business indicators to see if the current direction is working or not.

 

 

 

4. Twist & Turn

 

 

 

A long-building storyline does need twists and turns, but the key is to make them simple, understandable, real, and logical.

 

 

 

Just look at what's working in politics. It would be boring to just talk about McCain vs. Obama/Clinton or even Obama vs. Clinton all day. The "NY Times" article on McCain, credible or not, is an example of a new twist on an otherwise uneventful story. McCain is expected to win the Republican nomination, and since his victory is expected, it makes the story predictable, and thus not as "exciting" as the war between Obama and Clinton. Obama and Clinton are both battling for delegates and super-delegates, Hillary's campaign is in disarray, Bill is losing his cool on camera, Obama is riding waves of momentum, Obama is copying speeches from Governors word for word, etc. This is perfect fodder for the media machine, which plays up each insignificant story as something significant. It keeps the interest going in a story that has the same two characters over and over, but the stories are simple and easy for the masses to understand.

 

 

 

If bookers throw in a few twists and turns, keep them simple, focus them on very few characters (instead of lots of twists on lots of characters), and drags feuds out, business will pick up.

 

 

 

And finally...

 

 

 

5. Accentuate Strengths; Hide Weaknesses

 

 

 

I hate those 4 words, because ever since Paul Heyman uttered them on the "Rise and Fall of ECW" DVD, they have become the most over-used cliché in all of wrestling.

 

 

 

And like most clichés, it's true.

 

 

 

McCain emphasized his stance on national security, and Romney emphasized his expertise on the economy. Giuliani stressed his achievements in New York City. Obama focused on hope and change. Hillary used her passion for affordable healthcare. All those strategies worked to some degree.

 

 

 

UFC employs this strategy well. They even print the fighters' strengths on the screen as they enter the Octagon. WWE has been hit and miss, WCW was awful at it toward the end, TNA is inconsistent with it, and ECW, well, that strategy was its legacy and the reason they ever got noticed outside of Philly in the first place.

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

 

Pro wrestling has a long history, but the history of politics trumps that. Since the beginning of time, the struggle for power and leadership is what moved this world forward. No one is here to say one political mindset is better than the other, but instead, we're here to observe what's going on in the world and ask ourselves how we can learn and profit from it. Ironically, it is those observational techniques that separate leaders from followers, and if a wrestling or MMA promotion wants to lead, then it must listen and learn all the time.

 

 

 

McCain vs. Obama or Clinton will be this year's top drawing feud. There's a reason for that. Several reasons, really. Let's find out what they are and adopt them. May the best booker win.

Just too ridiculous not to post

[Loss]

This is amazing in its absurdity, rovert. Thanks for sharing it.

 

RALLIES!