CM Punk: Greatest Promo Ever

[smkelly]

This makes the whole thing obvious to anyone who was still unsure, which is no one hear, I'm just making a general statement. Dudes at another forum think it doesn't prove that it's an angle, but instead proves that it is a shoot. The ones who think it's a shoot must have thought Punk and Cena were really fighting.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I just don't understand why anyone would think it's a "shoot". Oh, besides kids, and if it's kids who are posting stuff like that then shit, let 'em have wacky fun with it says me.

 

I'm doing the same, myself. It's a hoot.

[goodhelmet]

Christ, the question isn't if it is a shoot or not... it is how far they will let Punk go with it. That is the part that is fun, not determining if it is a shoot (except for that initial interview... fuck, that was great).

[smkelly]

Oh, I am "having fun" with this angle in terms of it being enjoyable. No doubt.

[S.L.L.]

From the most recent F4Wonline news update:

 

--Do you believe C.M. Punk is under contract to WWE right now?

Yes 84.8%

No 6.3%

Not sure 8.9%

And these polls are usually voted on by fairly dumb people. Basically, no one but the slowest 15.1% thinks that this is a shoot, and they like it anyway. Kinda like wrestling in general. Pointing out that it's a work, and all the ways in which it is obviously a work, does not make you smarter than the room, and if you think otherwise, I'm frankly embarrassed for you.

[Ditch]

It can't be worked but with a handshake agreement and no contract?

[Resident Evil]

Edit.

[smkelly]

From the most recent F4Wonline news update:

 

--Do you believe C.M. Punk is under contract to WWE right now?

Yes 84.8%

No 6.3%

Not sure 8.9%

And these polls are usually voted on by fairly dumb people. Basically, no one but the slowest 15.1% thinks that this is a shoot, and they like it anyway. Kinda like wrestling in general. Pointing out that it's a work, and all the ways in which it is obviously a work, does not make you smarter than the room, and if you think otherwise, I'm frankly embarrassed for you.

 

You mad?

[S.L.L.]

It can't be worked but with a handshake agreement and no contract?

It can, but I'd think you'd have to be an idiot to do it. An extension would be far more likely, if he didn't just sign a new contract altogether.

 

You mad?

More disappointed. Not with you though. I know you were just making a general observation rather than trying to preach to anyone.

[smkelly]

Well...good then

 

-------

 

I don't want this to parlay into fantasy booking realms too far, but if I were Vince, I'd make up a faux lawsuit claiming intellectual property thefts and damages and if I'm correct in my thinking, breach of contract would cover breaking the "90 day no-compete clause". Notwithstanding, ROH just did something similar, but in a different context and for a different reason and in a different "legal presentation style". I would use that consistency to my advantage though. I think this could be a modernized version of the 'Austin vs. McMahon' feud.

 

I don't recall any "wrestling lawsuit" angles, but I suspect at least one (or several) exist from Memphis. Wait. Flair and Bischoff. That sounds familiar, but I can't finger a specific, "I'M SUING YOU!" tirade.

[jdw]

From the most recent F4Wonline news update:

 

--Do you believe C.M. Punk is under contract to WWE right now?

Yes 84.8%

No 6.3%

Not sure 8.9%

And these polls are usually voted on by fairly dumb people. Basically, no one but the slowest 15.1% thinks that this is a shoot, and they like it anyway. Kinda like wrestling in general. Pointing out that it's a work, and all the ways in which it is obviously a work, does not make you smarter than the room, and if you think otherwise, I'm frankly embarrassed for you.

 

A poll taking of Figure4.com readers a week after Punk beat Cena on a WWE PPV to win the WWE Title? One would hope that those specific folks would know (rather than believe) Punk is under contract now.

 

The discussion hear on whether it was a work, whether Punk was under contract, and how much of what Punk said ahead of time was generally (or specifically) known by WWE Creative/Production was one that took place *hear* back after the initial mic spot. I don't think there's been any discussion on that aspect since roughly the first week, when I think everyone hear pretty much was on the same page that it was a work, Punk was staying, and WWE Creative/Production was in on everything.

 

The discussion we had on Comic Con wasn't about whether Punk was under contract or whether the angle was a work. It was about the specifics of the Comic Con Panel Crash, and largely due to a misreading of what people were saying: I thought people were buying into it being a Crashing, and eventually everyone came out and said/agreed that it was obviously a "crashing" that everyone but the Fans were in on.

 

This really isn't about "smarter than the room". We're wrestling fans. We talk about wrestling. Lord knows that you're done long posts (and series of posts) picking apart another poster on the board that you disagreed with, or didn't think was right. Should we read into all of those posts that their only point is to show that you're smarter than the other poster? Or are you just talking wrestling, and not agreeing with someone else?

 

John

[cm funk]

As far as the ratings go, I don't think anybody should read, well, anything out of them. The ratings are always depressed in the summer, there are some very popular shows in competition with RAW right now (Pawn Stars, Hell's Kitchen), and to sell the angle they a) didn't show anything from the match, and didn't even mention Punk by name until late in the show when Lawler half said it, then Cena mentioned him near the very end. On top of that it was very wrestling heavy without many hooks for casual fans.

 

Ratings have value, but they aren't the key indicator of what is working. When Austin and the promotion started getting really hot in 97 it took like 6 months for the ratings to catch up. Not saying another boom is coming, but the core audience and word of mouth getting behind the product is more important than a one or two week rating spike. In 2011 you can look at stuff like twitter, youtube, search trends etc. and tell that this angle is hot, and the real important number is the MITB buyrate which we won't know for a while.

 

I'm also curious if the DVR #'s have been up lately. Personally, I don't have a DVR at the moment, and I haven't been able to watch RAW much at all this summer as I'm always busy on monday nights......but ever since this angle started I've been getting on video sites or torrents first chance possible to catch up. I know I'm not the only one doing that.

 

I just hope people in the company understand the way that media has changed, and don't bail on this angle and general sort of direction before it gets a fair chance. I'm cautiously optimistic so far.

[smkelly]

The thing I look at with ratings is how when something doesn't immediately "light the world on fire" then whoever the spotlighted worker was is called a non-drawing wrestler and is generally pushed aside because of the general "make it or break it" type performances the WWE has regularly done. Personally, I don't ever anticipate another big money boom epoch for the WWE. I think they've pretty much been to the highest point that mainstream professional wrestling can achieve.

[cm funk]

Eh, I think I've seen enough where I'm confident that wrestling will get very hot and "cross over" again at some point, there's just so many variables in the industry, company and pop culture that it's hard to predict when it will actually happen. They've been in a weird area post-Attitude where the fad definitely crashed hard and the wrestling audience shrunk to a great degree, but they didn't bottom out like they did after the Hogan era, they've survived deaths and scandals that could have buried them, they've had crossover stars, and they've attained some generally positive mainstream success and attention at points all while not being in a boom period. Wrestlemania has morphed into a true Super Bowl/Olympics style event where cities bid on it, it's a weeklong event which is a boon for local economies, and people travel from all over the world. In the supposed down period their signature event has become bigger than ever. They need to evolve more away from the 13 PPV a year model and focus more on On Demand content and such, the WWE channel will be huge for them if done right, but the foundation is laid for the next boom much better than it was in the lean years of the early-mid 90's.

 

They really have everything in their favor at this point, they practically have a global monopoly on wrestling

[smkelly]

The problem is all of the stuff before and after WrestleMania. As we're constantly reminded of, WM is the "biggest event of the year". Which is true.

 

I just have a hard time envisioning them doing the kind of business they did with Austin and certainly not Hogan level business ever again because of the actual length of their current slump. Sure, WrestleMania events gross a lot of money with all things considered, but the day-to-day operations of the WWE, which is 52 weeks of television, and at the minimum of 12 Pay-Per-Views, along with the world-wide tours they do every year, and everything else, I just don't see where the next boom of interest is coming from.

 

The world-wide economy has progressively gotten worse, which is likely a singular validating reason why the wrestling economy had similarly plateaued and then begun declining steadily over the years. The lack of any solid "other" professional wrestling competition has also contributed greatly to the lack of overall interest in pro wrestling. The meteoric rise of MMA within the last few years has taken layers of wrestling fans and converted them to real fights. All of the off branch MMA shows, UFC related, or whatever else the MMA world has to offer has become the alternative to the WWE as to what WCW once was in my opinion. That's not a winning business combination of structure. Besides, they've tried the PG way, and it clearly is not working for them. And if they do intend to go the route of a modernized Attitude Era - honestly - the only way they will be able to compete is if they book their shows as though Cornette, Heyman, and Russo had somehow all donated their reproduction juices and a being was created that was a third of all the men it took to make "it". But even then. They still wouldn't do the kind of business that they did in 1998 because of all the PR groups that wouldn't be following TLC's advice. They are in a conundrum of some magnitude.

 

I mean, they have made business endeavors which have alienated, polarized, and drove portions of their fanbase away before. Like they did when it went PG and Cena was like Highlander and more Hogan than Austin. They lost fans when they turned into a Russo production. They lost fans when Vince suddenly became a fan of Walt Disney's empire.

 

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic about it, though. Maybe they can recover from their decline. They have done it more than once before. But to say they have everything in their favor is just a little too pretentious and naive for my tea. You are right though, they have a monopoly over global wrestling. It would seem though, that if that was anything remotely beneficial to such a large audience that the WWE would clearly and undoubtedly be one of the richest companies...or at least crack the Wikipedia page of top revenue companies world-wide that is two-hundred and four entries deep. Maybe their monopoly is more about picking up poop with their hands then perpetual energy.

[sek69]

Wrestling fans have short memories, and that extends to any down period being seen like the worst period in the history of the company. Creatively they might be at a low ebb, but the company still is flush with cash. We're nowhere near the lowest points of the company's history, times where there was real danger of the company completely running aground.

 

There's no reason the company can't have another boom period. Who would have thought that in 1994, during the height of the cartoon "New Generation" era that their biggest money period ever would only be 3 years away? Who knows for sure, but history shows someone will get hot at some point and spark another big period. Will it be CM Punk? Possibly, but sometimes the guys who trigger these period come out of nowhere.

[cm funk]

I don't think I'm being overly optimistic so much as looking at history and the way trends and fads seem to go in American pop culture, and knowing that pro-wrestling has a devoted core audience and proven cultural staying power. Rock music has been declared dead many times and it always comes back. Country music was popular, then it was the most uncool thing to listen to, now there's been a huge revival. Rap has it's peaks and valleys. Disco is cool now after a period of major backlash. Horror movies were out for a while, then they were back in. Same with Westerns. Clothing styles....hair styles.....everything comes back around again. Wrestling has had massive popularity spikes enough times over the past 100 years that I can't help but think it will happen again

 

The next wrestling boom could happen in the next couple of years, or maybe it won't happen till the kids of the fans who were teenagers during the WWF/WCW peak hit their teens. CM Punk is cool, Randy Orton and John Cena are established and have some untapped mass appeal potential.....they have a talented roster and all sorts of tools at their disposal. The Rock is coming back for WM. Austin might come back for another match. Vince McMahon seems to want a challenge and to go out swinging in his twilight years......they could be on the verge of something big right now.

 

Or maybe they aren't. It just seems silly to think they'll never reach that sort of peak again. It would help if TNA had their shit together, or if ROH could attain some ECW level buzz.....but I don't think either of those things is necessary.

 

RE: UFC.....I think they've already plateaued for the time being. Between the price, # of events and all the entertainment alternatives out there PPV is a dying market, and live event sales have been trending downward. They've had to paper events and have shows that don't even come close to selling out which was pretty much unheard of a few years ago. They fell into the oversaturation trap and have kind of burnt out and watered down the TV product and Ultimate Fighter concept. They absolutely have established themselves and MMA to the level that they're around to stay and will be successful longterm, but that perfect storm of marketable stars like Liddell, Couture and Griffin seems a long, long time ago, and they can only do so much to protect the people who fit the company face roles.

[Dooley]

RE: UFC.....I think they've already plateaued for the time being. Between the price, # of events and all the entertainment alternatives out there PPV is a dying market, and live event sales have been trending downward. They've had to paper events and have shows that don't even come close to selling out which was pretty much unheard of a few years ago. They fell into the oversaturation trap and have kind of burnt out and watered down the TV product and Ultimate Fighter concept. They absolutely have established themselves and MMA to the level that they're around to stay and will be successful longterm, but that perfect storm of marketable stars like Liddell, Couture and Griffin seems a long, long time ago, and they can only do so much to protect the people who fit the company face roles.

They're 3 months removed from doing a 55,000 stadium crowd and rumor is they're planning another one. The biggest stars still do 750,000+ on PPV. Chuck was a huge draw but UFC does better business now than with either of the other two you mentioned in the main event. Anderson Silva is headlining an event next month, which also should do in the 750,000 range. The data does not support your conclusions.

[kjh]

They're 3 months removed from doing a 55,000 stadium crowd and rumor is they're planning another one. The biggest stars still do 750,000+ on PPV. Chuck was a huge draw but UFC does better business now than with either of the other two you mentioned in the main event. Anderson Silva is headlining an event next month, which also should do in the 750,000 range. The data does not support your conclusions.

They'll be very lucky to do 750,000 buys for Silva vs. Okami in Brazil. Belfort was easy to market as a KO artist. Sonnen had a big mouth and only drew 600,000 with Anderson. Okami tends to win by dull decisions. I don't think Silva vs. Okami has the right dynamic to do a huge number.

[S.L.L.]

From the most recent F4Wonline news update:

 

--Do you believe C.M. Punk is under contract to WWE right now?

Yes 84.8%

No 6.3%

Not sure 8.9%

And these polls are usually voted on by fairly dumb people. Basically, no one but the slowest 15.1% thinks that this is a shoot, and they like it anyway. Kinda like wrestling in general. Pointing out that it's a work, and all the ways in which it is obviously a work, does not make you smarter than the room, and if you think otherwise, I'm frankly embarrassed for you.

 

A poll taking of Figure4.com readers a week after Punk beat Cena on a WWE PPV to win the WWE Title? One would hope that those specific folks would know (rather than believe) Punk is under contract now.

One would hope that everyone would know (rather than believe) that everything that happens at a wrestling event without some very extreme circumstances attached to it (which neither the original promo nor the Comic-Con thing had) is a work. And while I recognize that not everyone does realize that, I think it is clear that everyone on this board realizes that. Why you would ever have assumed otherwise is beyond me, and I generally think you're better than that. If you just misunderstood, so be it. It happens. I just don't really see how that happened, so you came off to me like a guy desperate to believe that everyone else was falling for it, so that you could tell them they were wrong, when nobody really believed it in the first place. Yeah, I write lengthy bullshit ragging on other people, but I'd like to think that I'm complaining about things that are actually there rather than tilting at windmills. This was a windmill, and I thought it was very clearly a windmill. So when a guy who's smart enough to know better tells us that we actually all think it's a dragon, and only he can recognize it for the windmill it truly is, I just shake my head.

[Sean Liska]

RE: UFC.....I think they've already plateaued for the time being. Between the price, # of events and all the entertainment alternatives out there PPV is a dying market, and live event sales have been trending downward. They've had to paper events and have shows that don't even come close to selling out which was pretty much unheard of a few years ago. They fell into the oversaturation trap and have kind of burnt out and watered down the TV product and Ultimate Fighter concept. They absolutely have established themselves and MMA to the level that they're around to stay and will be successful longterm, but that perfect storm of marketable stars like Liddell, Couture and Griffin seems a long, long time ago, and they can only do so much to protect the people who fit the company face roles.

They're 3 months removed from doing a 55,000 stadium crowd and rumor is they're planning another one. The biggest stars still do 750,000+ on PPV. Chuck was a huge draw but UFC does better business now than with either of the other two you mentioned in the main event. Anderson Silva is headlining an event next month, which also should do in the 750,000 range. The data does not support your conclusions.

 

UFC's buyrates and attendance numbers are definitely down from their peak, and just putting on a show with the UFC label on it doesn't mean the business that it used to. But that was bound to happen eventually once it stopped being a novelty. The big names that connect with the public should always do very well, and like WWE, they should be profitable for a long time even if they aren't at peak boom levels.

[jdw]

On UFC, I think we talked about this somewhere... maybe it was a Snowden fb post. UFC isn't remotely close to peaking it's revenue. It's entirely possible that it has on PPV. But look at something that's drawing test patern ratings like the NHL getting a $200M per year deal from Comcast/NBC. I don't think any of us expect UFC to pull in the $1B or so a year than the NBA does off it's combined national contract (ESPN/ABC + TNT), but somewhere between the NHL and NBA isn't unreasonable if they can get several of the major players interested.

 

People talked long about an HBO deal as being key. Really, HBO money is chump change compared to getting into the regular rotation of ESPN or FOX. I tend to think that at this time it's ESPN that they need to go to, though limiting it to a short 3-4 year deal rather than get locked into a 8-10 year deal. They really need to break through the barrier of being the *lead* on a Sports Center, and where ESPN sends major guys to cover it. They send folks to cover the British Open this week such as Van Pelt. Of course it's a property that they own. But they've also done it for things like the Master that they don't own. As much as I hate Chris Berman, it was been good for keeping golf over when ESPN thought enough of major events to send Boomer out to "host" coverage: Boomer had the pull to make sure it was going to get onto Sports Center, and not for a little one minute highlight package.

 

You sadly have to get in bed with ESPN to get up to that next level where UFC is *very* valuable Sports Programing Content.

 

John

[Dooley]

UFC's buyrates and attendance numbers are definitely down from their peak

When specifically are you speaking about?

[jdw]

I think there was a comment above about not just them having issues selling buildings out, but they actually had paper out.

 

John

[kjh]

I don't think UFC's papering is the best indicator that interest is down. Dana White is hurting himself at the gate because it's become so well known that he'll give away tickets if the building doesn't sellout. Hardcore fans are flying to events around the country without tickets because they know they'll be easily able to pick up one for free. For someone who spends so much money attempting to combat piracy, it's ironic that he lets so many people in for free to his events.

 

TV ratings are clearly down. PPVs down too, though a large part of that can be attributed to injuries. I think the base number that they're guaranteed to draw for any old PPV show is starting to decline though.