goc Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 I realize that. What I am saying is that if the WWE Network includes PPVs it would almost have to cost $50 a month or else they are kind of giving PPVs away. And I think that the potential customer base willing to pay $50 a month for the WWE Network is probably largely made up of people who are already buying their PPVs. And thus, I don't see how they can create any new revenue with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 I'm not in their finance department so I don't have to run the numbers, but assuming they offered it on a month to month basis, they simply have to believe that enough people will subscribe for $12-$15 / month beyond those who already buy every PPV. I may purchase a couple PPV's a year, but would easily pay a much lower fee for this channel, likely with or without PPVs included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 As a DTV guy I'm fucking stoked they are interested in carrying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackwebb Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 They get less than 50% of the money from a PPV sale right? They probably are hoping that if they are getting an average of 100,000 buying pay per views to get double that buying the network. For the right price that definitely seems possible considering how many people buy Mania. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
victory Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 I've been a subscriber to Direct TV for over a decade and I never got an email about a WWE Network survey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 They get less than 50% of the money from a PPV sale right?40%, to be specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nell Santucci Posted February 9, 2013 Report Share Posted February 9, 2013 They get less than 50% of the money from a PPV sale right?40%, to be specific. What I'm wondering is how the WWE plans to offset the high PPV price tag. I suspect that the WWE hopes that their deal with DirectTV will pay off should other providers get in a bidding war to carry the network. That, along with advertising dollars, could lead to a self-sustaining operation. That they're so willing to sacrifice PPV makes me wonder if they see that market as coming to an end in a few years. I wish there was a better analysis in the Observer. I'll search through archives today. But the view between Alvarez and Meltzer is that the network will almost certainly flop because their breakeven mark would require so many to subscribe that even the company's best projections couldn't expect so many to pay for the package. But they're not accountants either, and I don't think the McMahon family is stupid enough to take on this project unless they knew that the payoff would be there in some capacity for even mediocre business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert S Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 But they're not accountants either, and I don't think the McMahon family is stupid enough to take on this project unless they knew that the payoff would be there in some capacity for even mediocre business.There are so many failed McMahon-ventures that contradicts this assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 What would be really nice is WWE 24/7 here in the UK. I find it baffling how we still don't have that, especially as TV in this country is now 100% digital. Hell, it would be nice just to have some option on their website to open up content for an online subscription. It's strangely antiquated to make these things TV only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNLister Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 24/7 is on demand right? Sky (satellite) only recently added on demand capabilities -- before that, only Virgin (cable) could do it and I assume WWE wouldn't want to upse Sky by giving Virgin an exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryvonKramer Posted February 10, 2013 Report Share Posted February 10, 2013 Pretty sure Sky can do On Demand now: http://www.sky.com/mysky/makethemost/on-demand/ Or is this something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nell Santucci Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 But they're not accountants either, and I don't think the McMahon family is stupid enough to take on this project unless they knew that the payoff would be there in some capacity for even mediocre business.There are so many failed McMahon-ventures that contradicts this assumption. Yes and no. The failed McMahon ventures happened after boom periods where they had tons of expendable cash on hand, and their failed ventures came in dealing with non-wrestling entities. For better or for worse, the McMahon's have been able to generate a profit in almost every year of its company, and that's no easy feat in comparison to WCW. Vince has done dumb moves, but the overwhelming majority of his financial moves have been smart, which is why there must be something underlying the WWE Network venture, as they can't possibly be pushing such a money loser on the surface. The key component is "on the surface". I'm not sure what the prospects of the WBF were, as they wanted to compete with Joe Weider, but the XFL had a lot of potential if the company succeeded. Partly why neither succeeded is Vince's habit of gimmickizing those products, whereas that wouldn't be a concern for the WWE Network. Hell, the company has even made a profit out of WWE Films through DVD sales alone, though I think "The Marine", in fairness, was the only film to not lose money in the movie theatre. They're far less reckless than Antonio Inoki. EDIT: One point worth making is I found it quite telling that a coworker who casually watches wrestling but is also a fan of team sports argued with me that the XFL was worked. That speaks for itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNLister Posted February 11, 2013 Report Share Posted February 11, 2013 Pretty sure Sky can do On Demand now: http://www.sky.com/mysky/makethemost/on-demand/ Or is this something else? Nope that's it, but it was only added relatively recently IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anarchistxx Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 WWE is smart if they go on demand with 24/7, it seems to be the future of broadcasting. Even the BBC is making their stuff available on demand before it even airs in a traditional timeslot. In a few years I doubt if many channels will even be broadcasting programming at specific times, other than those such as sport channels that rely on live events. A good proportion of television will be on demand only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nell Santucci Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 WWE is smart if they go on demand with 24/7, it seems to be the future of broadcasting. Even the BBC is making their stuff available on demand before it even airs in a traditional timeslot. In a few years I doubt if many channels will even be broadcasting programming at specific times, other than those such as sport channels that rely on live events. A good proportion of television will be on demand only. I listened to Meltzer's radio show this morning, and the consensus was that if only DirectTV picks up WWE Network, there is no way they can make a profit. But if multiple providers get it, it might be able to succeed and that it'll give the company a greater revenue stream than anything they've ever done before. So that's that. The company seems to know what it's doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Yeah but having DTV be the flagship is huge because everyone tries to compete with them not the other way around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nell Santucci Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 Yeah but having DTV be the flagship is huge because everyone tries to compete with them not the other way around Do you think they're going to be able to make a huge profit from this? I'd imagine just gutting the B-show PPVs would be sufficient. Putting SummerSlam and the Royal Rumble into that package is a tad bit superfluous imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 They've averaged $76M in PPV revenue from 2009-11. That will be up in 2012: they were already at $70.6M in the first nine months of the year. A chunk of that is international, and a chunk is Mania. So lets say they get 1M subs of which $2.50 a month comes back to the WWE. That's $30M a year. That's likely well south of what they would need to break even. 1M subs is a lot, even if they're on every major carrier. Other aspects of the cable/dish bundles are going up, such as EPSN. They're also going up in a fashion where they're buried in the cable bill (i.e. part of Basic services), where it's really hard for a customer to carve them out of his bill to save money. It's those extra "tiers" and "channels" that people eyeball when their cable / internet (and potentially phone) bills are up in the $150 to $200 range a month. It's easy to see a stand alone WWE, wonder how much they're really watching it, and think it's something they can carve out. The WWE's cut at $5 a month? That gets to the off set point quicker, if they get 1M subs. Again, that's a large number. It's a small number of you watch all the PPV and are going to cough up money for 11 of them. But 1M households don't do that. Really... the WWE needs to look at a JV with a channel company, and look to get into Basic at $0.06 a month just to get their foot in the door. Cheap-content the majority of the WWE Hours of the channel, go infomercial overnight for cheap revenue, and look for cheapish but more likely to pull a reasonable rating in Prime Time. 50M households at $0.06 x 12 months = $36M. And you're not giving away new PPV as part of the deal. That's not huge revenue, but it's a foot in the door for the long run. If it's not quite turning a profit, kill the WWE Studios (which should be dead anyway), cut back on the dividend putting money mostly in McMahon Pockets, and stop doing stupid shit like Linda blowing $100M running for the fucking Senate. Of course Vince doesn't seem to want to JV with anyone to get some leverage to get onto careers. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted February 12, 2013 Report Share Posted February 12, 2013 I would've thought that they would've saved the Big 4 from the Network that would've been the best idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laney Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 I think WWE is going about this network the wrong way. I think the smart thing would be for them to make this as an app available for devices such as Roku, Xbox, and PS3. I imagine the cost for the network would be cheaper if they took this approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyonthewall2983 Posted February 17, 2013 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 I agree. I think they should look at Netflix, and the moves they are making, especially in regards to original content. Use that as a platform to launch this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted May 2, 2013 Report Share Posted May 2, 2013 Latest on the network is that it will come in... 2015. I almost typed '2105'; I have a feeling that would be more accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 I really have to laugh at the WWE pissing $540M+ away over the past decade on dividends, most of it going into Vince and Linda's pockets, $100M of which Linda lit up with a match in her two insane attempts to become a Senator. That's $54M a *year*. In the peak three years of paying out (2008-10), it was $247M total. It's not that the WWE "couldn't" pull off a network because of outside forces. It's simply because they have been too stupid to. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditch Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 What does dividends have to do with a network? Either a given plan for the network would be profitable or it wouldn't. Is lack of funding the hang-up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted May 4, 2013 Report Share Posted May 4, 2013 What does dividends have to do with a network? Either a given plan for the network would be profitable or it wouldn't. Is lack of funding the hang-up?Correct, they'd have less issues with startup if they had more cash, since maybe they could've bought an existing network. Was it ever reported how much Comcast wanted for Universal HD or did negotiations not even get that far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts