WWE Network finally happening

[David]

On today's Observer Radio, Dave said that he thinks that once the Network starts, the PPVs are going to essentially become monthly specials that air on Sundays. There won't be as much motivation to build to a big show because the revenues will stay relatively stable, since people in theory won't be ordering or cancelling for one show. Therefore, the shows are more likely to be based on what Vince wants, not what will draw.

 

If that turns out to be the case, that could turn out to be a big problem for the Network. If they want to have any chance of this becoming a big success, they really need to do some incredible shows that will show people that they really need to subscribe to it.

 

It's not like people don't cancel subscription services. This is a bit old, but according to http://www.economist.com/node/21526314, about 10 million households cancel HBO each year. While about an equal number sign up each year, it shows you that WWE can't just do bad shows and think, "They're too lazy to cancel."

 

It also doesn't help that people would still rather watch content through a channel than through a streaming service.

[Loss]

On today's Observer Radio, Dave said that he thinks that once the Network starts, the PPVs are going to essentially become monthly specials that air on Sundays. There won't be as much motivation to build to a big show because the revenues will stay relatively stable, since people in theory won't be ordering or cancelling for one show. Therefore, the shows are more likely to be based on what Vince wants, not what will draw.

I called this earlier in the thread, but I'm glad to see Dave is taking on the issue. It's something that I think is getting overlooked in all the business talk, both in this thread and elsewhere. Wrestling is supposed to be fun to watch, and I don't see the idea that business stays stable no matter what creative decisions are made as a good thing. Still, I feel like 90% of what we get is Vince's moral vision anyway, so this may not be terribly different. The biggest difference may be that there won't even be the tease of a megapush when someone like CM Punk or Daniel Bryan accidentally gets over. The same outside pressure should still be there to deliver good ratings though, so maybe I'm wrong. But again, Hall of Fame arguments for guys who peak in the post-network era will be interesting because there will be very few objective metrics we can use to prove anyone's worth.

[Loss]

Does this have any impact on how WWE promotes house shows? Should it? Will it? I'm trying to think about every aspect of WWE business and how the network launching will impact it.

[Bix]

On today's Observer Radio, Dave said that he thinks that once the Network starts, the PPVs are going to essentially become monthly specials that air on Sundays. There won't be as much motivation to build to a big show because the revenues will stay relatively stable, since people in theory won't be ordering or cancelling for one show. Therefore, the shows are more likely to be based on what Vince wants, not what will draw.

 

If that turns out to be the case, that could turn out to be a big problem for the Network. If they want to have any chance of this becoming a big success, they really need to do some incredible shows that will show people that they really need to subscribe to it.

 

It's not like people don't cancel subscription services. This is a bit old, but according to http://www.economist.com/node/21526314, about 10 million households cancel HBO each year. While about an equal number sign up each year, it shows you that WWE can't just do bad shows and think, "They're too lazy to cancel."

 

It also doesn't help that people would still rather watch content through a channel than through a streaming service.

People cancel HBO, but isn't it seasonal around the end of different shows?

[David]

On today's Observer Radio, Dave said that he thinks that once the Network starts, the PPVs are going to essentially become monthly specials that air on Sundays. There won't be as much motivation to build to a big show because the revenues will stay relatively stable, since people in theory won't be ordering or cancelling for one show. Therefore, the shows are more likely to be based on what Vince wants, not what will draw.

 

If that turns out to be the case, that could turn out to be a big problem for the Network. If they want to have any chance of this becoming a big success, they really need to do some incredible shows that will show people that they really need to subscribe to it.

 

It's not like people don't cancel subscription services. This is a bit old, but according to http://www.economist.com/node/21526314, about 10 million households cancel HBO each year. While about an equal number sign up each year, it shows you that WWE can't just do bad shows and think, "They're too lazy to cancel."

 

It also doesn't help that people would still rather watch content through a channel than through a streaming service.

People cancel HBO, but isn't it seasonal around the end of different shows?

 

It could be, but it's hard to tell based on the data that's publicly available. The most detailed numbers I've been able to find are quarterly figures, and those don't seem to change much.

 

This is what I found when I looked up the last four quarters (note that all of the numbers are for the end of the quarter):

 

2012 Q4: 28.7 million

2013 Q1: 28.77 million

2013 Q2: ?

2013 Q3: 28.9 million

[Grimmas]

On today's Observer Radio, Dave said that he thinks that once the Network starts, the PPVs are going to essentially become monthly specials that air on Sundays. There won't be as much motivation to build to a big show because the revenues will stay relatively stable, since people in theory won't be ordering or cancelling for one show. Therefore, the shows are more likely to be based on what Vince wants, not what will draw.

I called this earlier in the thread, but I'm glad to see Dave is taking on the issue. It's something that I think is getting overlooked in all the business talk, both in this thread and elsewhere. Wrestling is supposed to be fun to watch, and I don't see the idea that business stays stable no matter what creative decisions are made as a good thing. Still, I feel like 90% of what we get is Vince's moral vision anyway, so this may not be terribly different. The biggest difference may be that there won't even be the tease of a megapush when someone like CM Punk or Daniel Bryan accidentally gets over. The same outside pressure should still be there to deliver good ratings though, so maybe I'm wrong. But again, Hall of Fame arguments for guys who peak in the post-network era will be interesting because there will be very few objective metrics we can use to prove anyone's worth.

 

They have to have good television in this scenario, because if the television sucks then people will just drop the network. The network will go up and down based more on Raw than on pay-per-views, I would think.

[JerryvonKramer]

Is there any merit in making a comparison with Memphis and the way the network would work? Rather than bringing people back to the arena every week, it's bringing them back to their TV sets.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

On today's Observer Radio, Dave said that he thinks that once the Network starts, the PPVs are going to essentially become monthly specials that air on Sundays. There won't be as much motivation to build to a big show because the revenues will stay relatively stable, since people in theory won't be ordering or cancelling for one show. Therefore, the shows are more likely to be based on what Vince wants, not what will draw.

 

If that turns out to be the case, that could turn out to be a big problem for the Network. If they want to have any chance of this becoming a big success, they really need to do some incredible shows that will show people that they really need to subscribe to it.

 

It's not like people don't cancel subscription services. This is a bit old, but according to http://www.economist.com/node/21526314, about 10 million households cancel HBO each year. While about an equal number sign up each year, it shows you that WWE can't just do bad shows and think, "They're too lazy to cancel."

 

It also doesn't help that people would still rather watch content through a channel than through a streaming service.

People cancel HBO, but isn't it seasonal around the end of different shows?

 

It could be, but it's hard to tell based on the data that's publicly available. The most detailed numbers I've been able to find are quarterly figures, and those don't seem to change much.

 

This is what I found when I looked up the last four quarters (note that all of the numbers are for the end of the quarter):

 

2012 Q4: 28.7 million

2013 Q1: 28.77 million

2013 Q2: ?

2013 Q3: 28.9 million

 

I drop HBO when the NFL season starts because I buy the Sunday Ticket and really have no use for HBO once the football season starts. And the monthly price is pretty close to what the Ticket runs (I have DirecTV, obviously).

[Loss]

Is there any merit in making a comparison with Memphis and the way the network would work? Rather than bringing people back to the arena every week, it's bringing them back to their TV sets.

I think this has pretty much applied to RAW for the past 15 years. They are booking for the same group of fans in an attempt to lure them back to the same place each week, only that group is a national audience instead of a regional one.

[Loss]

The first wrestler to make an issue of royalty payments as it relates to the WWE network will be really interesting to follow. Maybe in the long run, they'll find that paying royalties based on access stats will make sense, because it will ensure that every wrestler and their mother plugs the on-demand feature.

[JerryvonKramer]

Is there any merit in making a comparison with Memphis and the way the network would work? Rather than bringing people back to the arena every week, it's bringing them back to their TV sets.

I think this has pretty much applied to RAW for the past 15 years. They are booking for the same group of fans in an attempt to lure them back to the same place each week, only that group is a national audience instead of a regional one.

 

How directly do RAW ratings translate into revenue for them though? RAW is mainly still free-to-air TV with the aim of building to PPVs and selling tickets to live shows (i.e. "the next time RAW's in your town") right? This would tie the viewership to money in a much more direct way.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

The actual TV rights fees are a huge part of how they make money from TV. The ratings aren't necessarily tied into that as much as what the market for TV rights is at the time they negotiate a new deal (obviously, in a vacuum a higher rated show is worth more than a lower rated one). Plus, this whole idea of whether or not they are worth paying a "live sports" premium for, which is what is kind of driving their stock price going up.

[bradhindsight]

On today's Observer Radio, Dave said that he thinks that once the Network starts, the PPVs are going to essentially become monthly specials that air on Sundays. There won't be as much motivation to build to a big show because the revenues will stay relatively stable, since people in theory won't be ordering or cancelling for one show. Therefore, the shows are more likely to be based on what Vince wants, not what will draw.

 

If that turns out to be the case, that could turn out to be a big problem for the Network. If they want to have any chance of this becoming a big success, they really need to do some incredible shows that will show people that they really need to subscribe to it.

 

It's not like people don't cancel subscription services. This is a bit old, but according to http://www.economist.com/node/21526314, about 10 million households cancel HBO each year. While about an equal number sign up each year, it shows you that WWE can't just do bad shows and think, "They're too lazy to cancel."

 

It also doesn't help that people would still rather watch content through a channel than through a streaming service.

People cancel HBO, but isn't it seasonal around the end of different shows?

 

It could be, but it's hard to tell based on the data that's publicly available. The most detailed numbers I've been able to find are quarterly figures, and those don't seem to change much.

 

This is what I found when I looked up the last four quarters (note that all of the numbers are for the end of the quarter):

 

2012 Q4: 28.7 million

2013 Q1: 28.77 million

2013 Q2: ?

2013 Q3: 28.9 million

 

In HBO's case, their subscribers may like four different things - Game of Thrones, True Blood, etc. so while some cycle off after their 12-week show is finished, others are cycling back on. Hence those numbers look fairly static.

 

In the WWE's case (as noted above), they don't have that luxury - either with live events or some kind of exclusive programming. If the product is down, people will cancel and sign-ups will be down.

[rzombie1988]

Is there any merit in making a comparison with Memphis and the way the network would work? Rather than bringing people back to the arena every week, it's bringing them back to their TV sets.

I think this has pretty much applied to RAW for the past 15 years. They are booking for the same group of fans in an attempt to lure them back to the same place each week, only that group is a national audience instead of a regional one.

 

Memphis and WWE are similar but opposites.

 

I've just watched the full month of January 1993 USWA and I don't think I saw one clean finish that wasn't a squash, meanwhile, it appears that most of the MSC matches had finishes. WWE on the other hand has the finishes on the free shows then makes you pay for the screwjobs. You know you have to pay to see the last 10 minutes of a Memphis Wrestling movie, but in WWE, you can see the last 10 minutes for free but need to pay for the additional scenes and bonus features.

 

One way in which they are similar is that we usually didn't know what would be on Memphis the next week TV wise and we usually don't know what will be on TV the next week in WWE. Memphis' weekly TV would be the equivalent of WWE's first Raw after a PPV. It's a shame too as the few times WWE would promote the next Raw, it made me more inclined to check it out.

 

If WWE does indeed make most of their money from TV, it would be smarter for them to adapt to a Memphis style. Only, I would change it to where there is one Raw dedicated to building the big show, then having the next show be the big show and starting the process over again. The biggest problem that would come from this is that unlike Memphis, WWE won't have people coming and going. As Memphis learned, when you stop getting fresh talent and keep having the same guys on top, people stop coming. Lawler was Memphis' best draw but had he went away, Memphis very well could be still around today.

[Kevin Ridge]

I'm going to have to figure out to hook my TV up to the internet finally as still can't watch more than a match or so on my computer. Can't imagine watching 3 or 4 hour shows. I'll probably give this a shot especially if they open the archives though I hope stuff doesn't expire within a certain time frame like 24/7 and On Demand where I may not get around to watching something in time.

[Bix]

I'm going to have to figure out to hook my TV up to the internet finally as still can't watch more than a match or so on my computer. Can't imagine watching 3 or 4 hour shows. I'll probably give this a shot especially if they open the archives though I hope stuff doesn't expire within a certain time frame like 24/7 and On Demand where I may not get around to watching something in time.

You understand that's not what you'd have to do, right? Get a Chromecast or Roku or use a game console.

[Cox]

Or an AppleTV, if you're an Apple guy.

[Childs]

A lot of newer TVs have built-in wireless and apps, so it's possible that you wouldn't need AppleTV, game console, etc.

[Kevin Ridge]

I'm going to have to figure out to hook my TV up to the internet finally as still can't watch more than a match or so on my computer. Can't imagine watching 3 or 4 hour shows. I'll probably give this a shot especially if they open the archives though I hope stuff doesn't expire within a certain time frame like 24/7 and On Demand where I may not get around to watching something in time.

You understand that's not what you'd have to do, right? Get a Chromecast or Roku or use a game console.

 

Never heard of those first two things but I do have a PS3. I don't have a wireless set up though or a router. So, I'd still need to research and figure out what is best option.

[Bix]

I hope somebody clues WWE into the PS3 browser having outdated Flash support which the user can't update.

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.

 

That's actually via a Sony app (Live Events Viewer), though the PS3 is one of the devices WWE absolutely needs to develop for to make the network work.

[cheapshot]

If the WWE launch via online channels then they will need largish technical support team, both back end and customer facing that they wouldn't necessarily need if they launched via TV. I don't know if the cost of this would be significant enough to make a dent in any revenue however, I just thought I'd throw that point on there.

[JNLister]

I hope somebody clues WWE into the PS3 browser having outdated Flash support which the user can't update.

[jdw]

The first wrestler to make an issue of royalty payments as it relates to the WWE network will be really interesting to follow. Maybe in the long run, they'll find that paying royalties based on access stats will make sense, because it will ensure that every wrestler and their mother plugs the on-demand feature.

It's likely they can stretch the current and post-Ventura contract to cover the Network. I posted the language from Trip and Steph's contracts up the thread. My guess is that they will do two things:

 

* New contracts

 

At some point, they'll specifically break out the Network and use language very similar to the other buckets: the WWE has a pool of revenue for the Network, and pays people based on a formula that largely is centered on appearances and slotting. It's nice and vague, though the WWE likely has well papered the back end to have something defensible if someone bitches about their PPV bonus or DVD money.

 

* Old Contract (i.e. guys who have long since left)

 

They say that the Network is covered by one of the existing buckets in the contract. The person will get paid by the same formula that folks under the New Contracts will.

 

The WWE has been doing this for likely a long time. Savage left the WWF in 1994. If he has a contract with the WWE now, either that he signed before he died or one that Lanny or his Mom signed since, that doesn't remove the fact that he went from 1994 to 2xxx without a new WWF/WWE contract. In that time, the WWF/WWE released countless videos and DVD's with his matches on them. I think there's zero doubt that the continued to pay him money for those releases under the language of his old contract(s), and coming from the pool of revenue set aside on the specific releases for wrestlers.

 

The stuff getting rebroadcast on the WWE Network would be treated the same. It's likely that the "revenue pool" for 20 year old stuff (and 5-10 year old stuff) will be rather small compared to the revenue pool set aside for New Content such as PPV replacements or NXT moving over there or SmackDown moving over there, or other things. With the WWE likely able to point to the weak ratings that 1986 episodes of WWF Superstars do relative to the new content. They likely be safe and smart on it, and probably have their asses covered well.

 

John

[Bix]

I hope somebody clues WWE into the PS3 browser having outdated Flash support which the user can't update.

If there's no PS3 app I'd be shocked.

[mookeighana]

I hope somebody clues WWE into the PS3 browser having outdated Flash support which the user can't update.

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.