Marty Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Is it far-fetched to suggest the New York Yankees alone may be more popular than the WWE worldwide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childs Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 BTW, I did buy a Roku based in part on recommendations in this thread, and it's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 So the internet tells me that negotiations with Sting are happening again. Do people think that would potentially benefit the Network more than Wrestlemania to get him on board? He seems like a guy who could, with the right publicity, draw back some of those WCW fans who turned off and never turned back on, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyBart Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 What is even more silly is that I don't have 5-10 hours a week to kill Same, I have to remind myself of this fact whenever I get mad about the Network not having all of the archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheapshot Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 So the internet tells me that negotiations with Sting are happening again. Do people think that would potentially benefit the Network more than Wrestlemania to get him on board? He seems like a guy who could, with the right publicity, draw back some of those WCW fans who turned off and never turned back on, no? I am worried that horse bolted years ago and they aren't coming back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Sting didn't draw WCW fans when he was the ace of WCW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Sting didn't draw WCW fans when he was the ace of WCW He potentially drew eyeballs if not asses during the one year of the boom, which is the issue here. There's nostalgia for the Monday Night Wars era and it's obvious they're trying to tap into as much of that as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Sting didn't draw WCW fans when he was the ace of WCW Here we go again. The debate PWO doesn't want to see again, just next to Flair vs Bret. But yeah, it was 13 years ago. Those people are gone, and they won't come back for Sting who didn't brought them back to TNA either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 The WWE marketing machine is different. The goal here is in part nostalgia.it's in part why I'm frankly shocked they didn't rush through a deal with Hogan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Looking at some of the articles about the WWE Network on mainstream media sites, it strikes me that the people writing about it don't really understand it. This article is a good example: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Simp...evision-cheaper The author thinks this could actually happen: "Now, imagine this. Imagine if the NFL comes out with a similar streaming package. They charge $14.95 per month (but you have to pay for a full year at a time) for it and it includes the 24/7 programming of the NFL Network plus streaming of all games for your four favorite teams (or maybe $19.95 a month for all teams). Plus, the package includes archives of all games from past seasons, plus the full NFL Films library on demand." Can someone please explain to me why this would be a good idea? Why would the NFL threaten their multibillion dollar TV deals by letting people get every game without any kind of local blackout restrictions? Plus, there's this: "Let's say you're a big basketball fan, but you like to watch full runs of dramatic television shows and some comedies, too. You currently pay for broadband internet and an $80 a month cable package. Now, let's say the NBA copies this kind of streaming package described above, enabling you to watch games online for, say, $20 per month. At that point, you could just ditch your cable package, get the NBA package, add Netflix for another $9 a month, and get a digital converter box so you can watch over-the-air local channels for free. You would essentially retain everything you enjoy watching on television and save $50 per month. Here's my advice to you: if there's just one or two things holding you back from dropping your cable bill, watch very carefully over the next year or two and see if they pop up as an online streaming service. If they do, you should strongly consider dropping your cable package and replacing it with a digital converter box and antenna (for free over-the-air local channels), the streaming service of whatever it is you enjoy, and perhaps also a general streaming service like Netflix. The total cost of those things would be about $30 a month on top of the internet bill you already have and would allow you to completely drop your cable bill." Do people like him not understand that WWE isn't leaving cable? You still need cable or satellite to watch Raw and SmackDown when they first air. You're not going to be able to get all of WWE's content for a much smaller price (besides the PPVs). The sports leagues would be insane if they allowed people to watch everything live without having to get cable or satellite (as would WWE). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 The WWE marketing machine is different. The goal here is in part nostalgia.it's in part why I'm frankly shocked they didn't rush through a deal with Hogan. At some point, nostalgia is getting toward senility. I mean, who *really* wants to see Hogan at WM (or on the Network) *again*. It was a nice nostalgia stint back in 2003 (which overstayed its welcome quite quickly though). Eleven years ago. Nostalgia only goes so far. At this point, bringing Hogan back is almost necrophilia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Outside of the US I don't know but inside of the US, MLB is much more popular and always will be. I completely agree, but Dave was saying WORLDWIDE MLB is more popular than WWE, and I'm not having that. Does it really matter if the WWE is more popular in the rest of the world? The advantage in the US is so massively large that it renders it moot. 74,026,885 MLB Regular Season Attendance 1,854,100 WWE World Wide (US+Int'l) Attendance That's not even counting post season, Spring Training, post season, the All Star game. Okay... for giggles and shits, let see if we can find Spring Training numbers... http://www.ballparkdigest.com/201104013696...endance-numbers That's 2011. 3,513,720 MLB Spring Training Attendance 1,854,100 WWE World Wide Attendance 7,200 MLB Spring Training average 5,900 WWE world wide average It's unlikely that number for MLB ST has dropped a ton in the past two spring trainings. Given that MLB also owns the Minor Leagues... well... what the hell: http://www.milb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=2...lb&sid=milb Okay, that's some HOLY SHIT numbers right there: 41,553,781 Minor League Attendance 1,854,100 WWE World Wide Attendance That doesn't include the post season and all star games, which looking at 2012: http://ballparkbiz.files.wordpress.com/201...ce-analysis.pdf "The 204 post-season NAPBL games drew 666,348, an average of 3,266 per game. Attendance data was available for 46 independent league post-season games, and they drew 110,241, an average of 2,397. 10 NAPBL All-Star games drew a combined 92,930. " Hell, that's 869,519 for just those. FWIW, there's a shitload of info available in that PDF, and a lot of it just mind boggling. Ponder this: COMBINED NAPBL AND INDEPENDENT LEAGUE ATTENDANCE SINCE 1993 1993 - 30,756,828 1994 - 35,286,552 1995 - 36,208,800 1996 - 36,747,940 1997 - 38,227,980 1998 - 39,294,427 1999 - 40,051,268 2000 - 43,229,652 2001 - 44,805,778 2002 - 45,049,213 2003 - 45,627,856 2004 - 46,445,630 2005 - 48,851,400 2006 - 49,268,793 2007 - 51,298,733 2008 - 51,576,409 2009 - 49,609,703 2010 - 49,537,502 2011 - 48,082,830 2012 - 48,408,316 This is like a hidden business within a business that none of us pay attention to. Not saying it's Big Business, but that's a lot of people seeing that shit. That's not even getting into obvious things like: $1.5B per year = New MLB National TV Contract Which the WWE isn't going to come close to. That's a number that doesn't include local money. I believe this is Wendy Thrum's most recent chart on their values: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/dodgers-cou...h-local-tv-deal The Phils just signed an massive deal recently that looks to be in the range of the Halos deal. So... it really doesn't matter how popular the WWE is in the rest of the world. The gap between it and MLB in the US alone is so batshit huge on every level that the WWE can't make it up. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Is it far-fetched to suggest the New York Yankees alone may be more popular than the WWE worldwide? They average about 40K per game, and 10K per *spring training* game. At an average ticket price that is higher than the WWE. Their popularity in the US alone outstrips the WWE world wide. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted January 16, 2014 Report Share Posted January 16, 2014 Looking at some of the articles about the WWE Network on mainstream media sites, it strikes me that the people writing about it don't really understand it. This article is a good example: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Simp...evision-cheaper The author thinks this could actually happen: "Now, imagine this. Imagine if the NFL comes out with a similar streaming package. They charge $14.95 per month (but you have to pay for a full year at a time) for it and it includes the 24/7 programming of the NFL Network plus streaming of all games for your four favorite teams (or maybe $19.95 a month for all teams). Plus, the package includes archives of all games from past seasons, plus the full NFL Films library on demand." Can someone please explain to me why this would be a good idea? Why would the NFL threaten their multibillion dollar TV deals by letting people get every game without any kind of local blackout restrictions? The NFL might look at it to replace the Sunday Ticket down the road, but not their massive deals with ESPN, Fox, NBC and CBS. It would make the Sunday Ticket available beyond just DirecTV, and they would piggyback (as they already do) on the Production Costs of CBS/FOX who are already covering those games. B.uit so far, DirecTV has been willing to pay them $1B a year for the Sunday Ticket concept. That historically has been a premium above what the NFL could get by making the package available to all carriers (like the MLB equiv was and the NBA equiv is). And it's likely that the NFL has looked at making it more widely available, or available to the Telecoms (Verizon and AT&T) who are looking for their own wedge to try to draw subs away from Cable (and DirecTV). Whoever ponies up the cash will get it. Long run? I could see the package going that route, with the NFL Network being All Year content for a season that only has Sep-Dec value on the Sunday Ticket (playoff games are all available for free in every market sans blackouts). They also would likely force One Year subs (under the guise of Full Season subs) to avoid people subbing just from Sep-Dec. But there is the obvious ROI: The NFL makes $1B a year off the Sunday Ticket, with no production costs/overhead of note. DirecTV pays, and it's probably 99% pure gravy profit for the NFL. Taking that package "in house" is going to need to net them $1B a year. That's 5.6M subs a year at $14.95, give or take given costs (probably not small) and revenue (would they be able to sell ads to fit into the slots that CBS/Fox have breaks in?). 5.6M subs doesn't seem like a lot for the NFL, but... * every NBC game is already on for Free * every ESPN game is already on for Free * every Thursday game is already on for Free * every playoff game is already on for Free * the Super Bowl is Free * almost all of your Local Team games are on for Free (blackouts being the exception) So there's a lot of free stuff out there. And you're trying to get 5.6M subs for that content that isn't Free. Wait... The extension for Package is under negotiations with DirecTV right now, while all the other TV got done back in 2011 and run into the next decade. Given those other deals saw massive increases in rights fees, and now the NFL has options (AT&T and Verizon) and more options (Cable looking to hold off on bleeding subs)... that $1B is going to go up. $1.5B / $179 per year = 8,361,204 subs If you're the NFL, why at this time get nervous over shaking out 8.3M subs when someone like DirecTV is going to hand you $1.5B a year? Again... I think down the road the NFL might go in that direction. They're going to need some not-available-for-free content to hook subs (like Mania was for the WWE). But the $$$$ that the NFL is raking is just too much for them to chase it right now. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 For people who think you can have access to the entire library, that is not close to the case. Only about 1.5% of the library will be accessible, and very little of it will be old territorial footage. And while they will add new content weekly, they will also remove content. I know we discussed the access to old footage that is available but the bold part disturbs me. I didn't know they would remove content as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Ridge Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 For people who think you can have access to the entire library, that is not close to the case. Only about 1.5% of the library will be accessible, and very little of it will be old territorial footage. And while they will add new content weekly, they will also remove content. I know we discussed the access to old footage that is available but the bold part disturbs me. I didn't know they would remove content as well. Well that sucks. It does seem too similar to WWE 24/7 when stuff would disappear each month. So I'm guessing we will get the same thing when an expiration date pops up for a certain show/match where you would need to watch it by that particular date. Don't like that as takes away the flexibility of being able to watch things how you want. I don't want to have to race through things in order to watch it before it disappears though I expect stuff will stick around longer in VOD compared to 24/7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Netflix removes content every month this is nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 It is all new when it concerns this network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Netflix removes content every month this is nothing new. True, though in the Q&A Perkins Miller was asked about video capturing, and he said it wouldn't be needed because the footage would always be available. I kinda smelt the b.s immediately. Still I'm looking forward to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Migs Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Netflix removes content every month this is nothing new. Netflix removes content because deals to carry that content expire. This is all footage WWE owns the rights to. HBO keeps all of their series on HBO GO all the time... it's not like the Sopranos disappears some months. This won't keep me from subscribing... I'd have been subscribing to 24/7 for years if I'd ever had the option. But it's still a backtracking on the big talk they were doing about the library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Netflix removes content every month this is nothing new. Netflix removes content because deals to carry that content expire. This is all footage WWE owns the rights to. HBO keeps all of their series on HBO GO all the time... it's not like the Sopranos disappears some months. This won't keep me from subscribing... I'd have been subscribing to 24/7 for years if I'd ever had the option. But it's still a backtracking on the big talk they were doing about the library. Some stuff does fall off HBO Go from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Sting didn't draw WCW fans when he was the ace of WCW Sure he did. All the people were dressed like chairs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo Slice Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Netflix removes content every month this is nothing new. Netflix removes content because deals to carry that content expire. This is all footage WWE owns the rights to. HBO keeps all of their series on HBO GO all the time... it's not like the Sopranos disappears some months. This won't keep me from subscribing... I'd have been subscribing to 24/7 for years if I'd ever had the option. But it's still a backtracking on the big talk they were doing about the library. Some stuff does fall off HBO Go from time to time. Those are movies, though. All of HBO's original series programming remains. They do hold back on some of the sports series, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 The 1.5% figure is just doing the math. If they've announced that there will be over 1500 hours of content at launch, and they've said they have over 100,000 hours of content in their library, then that means 1.5% of their content will be available. It's not new info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted January 17, 2014 Report Share Posted January 17, 2014 Netflix removes content every month this is nothing new. Netflix removes content because deals to carry that content expire. This is all footage WWE owns the rights to. HBO keeps all of their series on HBO GO all the time... it's not like the Sopranos disappears some months. This won't keep me from subscribing... I'd have been subscribing to 24/7 for years if I'd ever had the option. But it's still a backtracking on the big talk they were doing about the library. Some stuff does fall off HBO Go from time to time. Those are movies, though. All of HBO's original series programming remains. They do hold back on some of the sports series, though. I don't remember which shows but I know at least one or two dropped off and reappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts