WWE Network finally happening

[concrete1992]

We should start a pool about how successful or not this will be.

I just don't see where it's going to pull in fans aside from the Netflix crowd(Well done on that explanation, Bix) or international viewers(who will get blacked out anyway). I think the people who don't pay for it are going to continue to do so and I think the usual people who buy it are going to also continue to do so. Honestly, this whole thing feels like they are trying to undercut themselves.

 

People don't mention it either but you have to factor in the economy these days. There's hardly a bright outlook for most of America right now and people are finding it really easy to cut out media. Obviously this will be cheaper than the current PPV model, but I don't think people are looking to add any more unnecessary monthly bills. I really also have no idea how anyone with a job and kids could possibly ever find time these days to watch shows.

 

The only real pro that I see here is that it should be pretty cheap for them to pull off. They just need to pay for the set up and the server bills.

 

I don't get the idea people are trying to cut costs rather than add costs in respect to the WWE Network. That would be a big bonus in my book. A wrestling fan wants to cut cable but wants to be able to keep up with Smackdown and Raw and all the other shows. Between a Netflix at $8/month and WWE Network at $10/month they would be spending CONSIDERABLY less than if they had premium cable. As the young fans that WWE has targeted get older this technology is going to be something they have a solid understanding of. As a 20 year old I consume 95% of my programming through the internet and that's how I like it. To me, going with the online format could pay off greatly even if it doesn't pay off immediately.

[mookeighana]

I don't get the idea people are trying to cut costs rather than add costs in respect to the WWE Network. That would be a big bonus in my book. A wrestling fan wants to cut cable but wants to be able to keep up with Smackdown and Raw and all the other shows.

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.

[Bix]

After reading the WWE Network story in the new Observer I'm starting to find myself wondering if WWE actually has a plan to get around their deals with the PPV distributors. It seems like Dave has no idea how they plan on addressing it.

[jdw]

Perhaps they're not long term contracts, and are about to expire.

[jdw]

I don't find anything in the most recent 10-K indicating how long it goes. It is in the risk section:

 

Item 1A. Risk Factors

 

[...]

 

Our failure to maintain or renew key agreements could adversely affect our ability to distribute television and pay-per-view programming which could adversely affect our operating results.

 

Our television programming is distributed by broadcast and cable networks, and our pay-per-view programming is distributed by pay-per-view providers. Because our revenues are generated, directly and indirectly, from this distribution of our programming, any failure to maintain or renew arrangements with distributors, the failure of distributors to continue to provide services to us or the failure to enter into new distribution opportunities could adversely affect our operating results. We regularly engage in negotiations relating to substantial agreements covering the distribution of our television programming by carriers located in the United States and abroad. Over the past several years we have expanded our relationship with NBC Universal and they currently distribute a majority of our domestic television programming.

Earlier they reference iNDEMAND and TVN.

 

But Barrios has been talking about life after PPV relating to the Network for most of the year, so one gets the sense that either the contract has a shorter term than one would expect, or has a rather easy/short no-cause termination window. That might be the case, as iNDEMAND long ago may have had standard boilerplate mutal 30-day no-cause language to let them get out of underperforming deals. If it stays in year after year, it's just sitting their waiting for the WWE to pull the trigger.

 

Might be worth digging deeper with sources.

[David]

We should start a pool about how successful or not this will be.

I just don't see where it's going to pull in fans aside from the Netflix crowd(Well done on that explanation, Bix) or international viewers(who will get blacked out anyway). I think the people who don't pay for it are going to continue to do so and I think the usual people who buy it are going to also continue to do so. Honestly, this whole thing feels like they are trying to undercut themselves.

 

People don't mention it either but you have to factor in the economy these days. There's hardly a bright outlook for most of America right now and people are finding it really easy to cut out media. Obviously this will be cheaper than the current PPV model, but I don't think people are looking to add any more unnecessary monthly bills. I really also have no idea how anyone with a job and kids could possibly ever find time these days to watch shows.

 

The only real pro that I see here is that it should be pretty cheap for them to pull off. They just need to pay for the set up and the server bills.

 

I don't get the idea people are trying to cut costs rather than add costs in respect to the WWE Network. That would be a big bonus in my book. A wrestling fan wants to cut cable but wants to be able to keep up with Smackdown and Raw and all the other shows. Between a Netflix at $8/month and WWE Network at $10/month they would be spending CONSIDERABLY less than if they had premium cable. As the young fans that WWE has targeted get older this technology is going to be something they have a solid understanding of. As a 20 year old I consume 95% of my programming through the internet and that's how I like it. To me, going with the online format could pay off greatly even if it doesn't pay off immediately.

 

You bring up a good point. If it turns out that people can just watch the most recent episodes of Raw and SmackDown on the network, wouldn't that cause problems between WWE and NBC Universal? People could cut the cord and still watch the shows, unlike a premium cable channel (which would require subscribers to keep their cable) or Hulu Plus (for which NBC Universal gets a cut of the revenue).

 

On a side note, has there ever been any serious research into the number of casual fans who would be interested in buying PPVs if they cost $10 or $15? I wonder if there is a large number of fans who really wish they could watch the shows, but they think it's not worth the money.

[jdw]

I think somewhere up the thread I mentioned that Networks are starting to see a negative impact on viewers from a mass of content being available on places like Netflixs. While some show can build a fan base off it, others have seen 10%+ drops in viewers for new episodes of the shows because a slew of prior stuff is up there.

 

I suspect the WWE will claim there's value in Raw and Smackdown "live" because their fans want to see the shows live (or within a few hours off the DVR). It certainly is something they're pushing in their Media Storyline when comparing themselves to Sports and that "Pay more for us because we're like Sports where people want to watch it live!" meme.

 

Whether Comcast buys that, or anyone else does... who knows. It's highly likely that Comcast would want some strong exclusivity on first run episodes. Whether that's a week... two weeks... a month... who knows. It's seems very unlikely that the WWE would be able to put the content up on WWE Net within hours of the show airing, unless they're willing to take a good sized cut in rights fees. It also seems unlikely that the WWE is going to do anything to put their rights fees at risk when launching WWE Net, or screwing up their relationship with whoever carries Raw and SD. Those are the methods that they're going to use to shill the WWE Net: by pimping the shit out of it on "free tv".

 

John

[JonnyBart]

Raw, Smackdown, etc. are all currently available through Hulu Plus, and NBC Universal doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Though that attitude could change when it comes to a digital service that is marketed specifically towards wrestling fans.

 

Something like a week delay on the network would probably work for both parties.

[Slasher]

Raw, Smackdown, etc. are all currently available through Hulu Plus, and NBC Universal doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Though that attitude could change when it comes to a digital service that is marketed specifically towards wrestling fans.

 

Something like a week delay on the network would probably work for both parties.

Because as mentioned in the post above, NBC Universal gets a cut of the Hulu revenues. If WWE puts their programming directly on their own server, what exactly would they pay NBC for? That is the concern.

[Migs]

The Naylor interview is awesome so far. I don't always agree with all of his tastes, but hearing him talk does make me long for the days when talking about wrestling online was far more idealistic than it is now. I think this place is better than most, but for example, in the thread on the WWE Network, people are dropping statistics and discussing whether they think it will be a success or failure, but there's been very little talk of if people are excited to access more footage, any particular footage they hope WWE makes available, if they personally will be signing up, etc. Anyway, listening to Rob Naylor talk is a reminder that wrestling really is awesome and that I do prefer talk about personal enjoyment more than any other type of pro wrestling talk.

Pulling this over from the Meltzer thread because I think its interesting.

 

I'll say that I feel like the excitement is a little limited because we exist in an internet world where many things can be found if one ties hard enough - the cool thing about the Network will be putting it one place and easily accessible.

 

I'd really love to see them dig into the stuff that's been completely unreleased - certainly there's a bunch of ECW on tape that's never seen the light of day that would be fantastic to see. I want to see the weird stuff, like the Sandman/Raven crucifix angle. And I do think we're more likely to see that once they've already released all the Raw/Smackdown episodes, all the episodes of various territories, etc.

 

In terms of fantasy archives - it'd be pretty incredible to have all the MSG/Boston/Philly/Toronto shows in full, in top quality. 24/7 has been a gift in that regard but their release has been haphazard.

[Matt D]

If they have every Mania/All American/Spotlight, that would interest me. Some of those you can't even find results for.

[Guest The Jiz]

If they have every Mania/All American/Spotlight, that would interest me. Some of those you can't even find results for.

That would be insane. Really, I've never been a fan of 24/7 because the shows they release are random. I'd love to see every episode released from the past. It couldn't be that hard to do. Hulu alone has thousands upon thousands of episodes without traffic issues AFAIK. For around $10 per month, plus at least B-show PPVs, that would be an insane steal. There is no way WWE couldn't get a million people to subscribe to that.

[mookeighana]

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.

[cm funk]

Raw, Smackdown, etc. are all currently available through Hulu Plus, and NBC Universal doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Though that attitude could change when it comes to a digital service that is marketed specifically towards wrestling fans.

 

Something like a week delay on the network would probably work for both parties.

I don't even see the need to put current/recent eps of RAW/SD on the network, especially if it would upset their corporate partners. "You can watch RAW/SD on the network a week after they air!" isn't any sort of selling it point. It doesn't really make sense for WWE either way. They'll have their pre-game/post-game stuff with highlights and video packages, but they want people watching the shows live on USA/SyFy, because tv is still the bread and butter.

 

As Slasher noted, NBCUniversal has a large stake in Hulu and is actually one of the ground floor partners on it. I figure the resistance to put WWE product on Hulu + until recently was probably from the WWE end.

[jdw]

Hulu is also something of a mess that no one seems entirely committed to, including the trio of owners.

[tlk23]

WWE Aims to Pin Down Rich New TV Rights Deals

 

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/wwe-aims-t...ive-1200966579/

 

The goal is to significantly increase the $139.5 million in TV licensing fees WWE earns each year for its shows, and attempt to get closer to the rich network deals that sports organizations like the NBA, NHL NASCAR, as well as soccer command.

 

To make its show more attractive, WWE is considering a live version of its two-hour “SmackDown,” which currently is taped on Tuesday before its Friday airing. To do that, costs to produce the series would increase, due to scheduling, and the show would likely need to move to a new night. But WWE would be willing to make the switch in return for a better fee for the series.

 

Negotiations and bids can’t take place until Feb. 15, when NBCU accepts or rejects WWE’s final offer; other bids are due Feb. 28, with WWE set to select its media partners by March 4. Should a new deal with another conglom happen, WWE’s shows wouldn’t move to a new network until October.

 

WWE’s pay-per-views, including annual juggernauts “WrestleMania” and “SummerSlam” won’t be part of the negotiations, since those will air on the company’s new subscription-based WWE Network, which will also include original series and access to the company’s VOD library. Launch plans for the channel, which WWE sees as its own NFL Network, have yet to be revealed. However, WWE maintains that it could break even on the venture if it can sign up 800,000 to 1 million subscribers willing to pay around $10 to $14 per month.

[mookeighana]

Fascinating stats this week about pay-TV formats across the age groups: as of October, 43 percent of Americans age 18-36 subscribe to Netflix, compared with 46 percent subscribing to cable and 16 percent to satellite TV.

 

http://mashable.com/2013/12/05/netflix-cable-users/

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.

[Bix]

12% seems crazy high for smart TV ownership. Even if you account for the average person liking the idea of it being all in one device, smart TVs are usually not entry level TVs (though that's changing a little).

[mookeighana]

12% seems crazy high for smart TV ownership. Even if you account for the average person liking the idea of it being all in one device, smart TVs are usually not entry level TVs (though that's changing a little).

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.

[JerryvonKramer]

Just spent a while reading about the "Echo Boomer" generation. I kinda object to being lumped in with the 18 year olds!

[jdw]

WWE Aims to Pin Down Rich New TV Rights Deals

 

http://variety.com/2013/tv/news/wwe-aims-t...ive-1200966579/

 

The goal is to significantly increase the $139.5 million in TV licensing fees WWE earns each year for its shows, and attempt to get closer to the rich network deals that sports organizations like the NBA, NHL NASCAR, as well as soccer command.

The company cites Nascar’s impressive dealmaking this summer as an example. The racing league secured a new 10-year deal with NBC and Fox worth $820 million a year. And that increase came in the face of declining ratings for many of its races. WWE argues that “Raw” and “SmackDown” alone are just as attractive, with a rabid fanbase that’s helped build networks, and its series are diverse in ethnicity and age.

 

Combined, the shows air 156 episodes a year that average a 2.2 household rating. Nascar airs 154 races and averages a 1.38 household rating among viewers, who are 92% white and over 50. WWE’s audience is far more diverse and broken out fairly evenly among age groups. A selling point is that 44% of them are under 34.

NASCAR doesn't run 154 "races" in a year. It runs:

 

33 - Sprint Cup

+ Bud Shootout/Sprint Unlimited (5.7M)

+ Daytona 500 Qualifying (3.1M)

+ Budweiser Duels

+ Sprint All-Star Race (3.7M)

 

33 - Nationwide Series

22- Camping World Truck Series

 

Sprint averaged last year:

 

7.8M on FOX for 13 Sprint Cup races

4.7M on TNT for 6 Sprint Cup races

4.8M on ESPN for 17 Sprint Cup races

 

http://www.jayski.com/news/pages/story/_/p...on-Ratings-2013

 

Then add in:

 

5.7M Bud Shootout/Sprint Unlimited

3.1M Daytona 500 Qualifying

3.7M Sprint All-Star Race

 

The Budweiser Duels were on Speed, and low rated in part due to the jobber nature of the network. Fox expects FS1 to be their ESPN, and over time the Duels should go up on FS1 vs Speed... or at least that's what they're banking on.

 

The Shootout/Unlimited actually tends to do 7M+, but "was the first to air opposite the NBA's All-Star Saturday Night since 2003" which cut 2M off it.

 

Sprint Cup drives the contract. It also tends to get a wide broadcast window, with a Pre Game Show, then a staggering amount of bullshit in the "race" timeslot before the flag actually gets dropped. We're talking about a 3-4+ hour "race" timeslot, not counting the other NASCAR related content the networks have around it. That's likely where they get their "156 races": 36 * 4.33 hours = 156. Where they come up with a "1.38 household rating" is beyond me, since the Sprint Cup ratings were far higher than that, not to mention the 7.8M / 4.7M / 4.8M for Fox / TNT / ESPN.

 

The most important part of this to Fox and NBC:

 

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal...AR-ratings.aspx

 

Seven races will air on Fox Sports 1, which is in nearly 9 million fewer homes than ESPN, and 13 races will air on NBC Sports Network, which is in nearly 20 million fewer homes than ESPN.

FS1 and NBCSN are desperate for Content, especially Content that could get locked up by ESPN into the next decade. That's 20 Sprint Cup races that will be over on those networks that they hope to eventually draw in the range of what even TNT could do: NASCAR fans are smart enough to find those 6 races that bridged the primary Fox and ESPN halves of past seasons.

 

None of that is the case for the WWE. ESPN doesn't want it. FS1 and NBCSN aren't desperate to overpay for it. Both are looking at:

 

* the NBA contract coming up which it's likely that *both* won't get a pieces of, and better than 50/50 that no single one of them will get it unless they break the bank.

 

* Big 10 deal (i.e. Football since that's the key). That's one that either of them could get from ESPN, especially if the Big 10 sees ESPN as completely in bed with the SEC (which they are with the coming SEC Network) and the ACC (which ESPN owns 100% of and will eventually do a Network for)... while being half in the sack with both the Big 12 and PAC 12 (which Fox has the other half of). The B1G may want their own house organ to focus on them... and overpay for them. NBC and Fox know this, and also know it's the last major conference up for grabs until well into next decade

 

The WWE ain't those guys.

 

Anyway... back to NASCAR...

 

Then there's Nationwide. It averages about 2M per race. That's pretty decent if we compare it to something *below* the SmackDown level. That's the key way to look at it: the thing draws more than NXT for 33 races a year which each got 2.5 to 3 hours long. NXT doesn't even have 33 one hour episodes in a year.

 

Point of all of this:

 

The WWE isn't fucking NASCAR.

 

If they really want to have fun, they should compare themselves to the NHL, which got that laughable $200M a year deal from NBC. My guess is that the WWE would be really, really, really happy to get $200M a year in this round, especially if they can avoid locking up for more than 5 years so that they can go back to the well again if $200M also is an undervalue.

[mookeighana]

Just spent a while reading about the "Echo Boomer" generation. I kinda object to being lumped in with the 18 year olds!

I'm out of the loop- this was a new term for me when I read the Harris poll. Curious to read links.

[JNLister]

It's children born in 1982-2000 (and thus reaching adulthood this century), also known as Generation Y (ie, after Generation X).

 

More specifically, it's the children of the original baby boomers, hence the name.

[jdw]

Millennials = Generation Y = Echo Boomers

 

It's kind of funny that folks have had to come up with a third name for this generation when the first one was being used even before Generation X became popular for the post-Boom. Hell... I grew up with my generation being called the Post Boom and have always thought Gen X was silly... mostly because a shittly Billy Idol band already used the term.

 

John

[goodhelmet]

There's only one generation that matters and that's The Greatest Generation.