Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 I just finished listening to the latest Wrestling Culture podcast and I gotta disagree with Dylan on the importance of TV ratings. In my opinion, TV ratings matter. Big time. And as long as wrestling is on major cable networks, ratings will matter for the foreseeable future. Yes, it's easy to just DVR the weekly TV or watch it somewhere online. But from both the company and fan perspective, it's much better when people watch the product live. It makes the product more valuable, both for the immediate bottom line and the product's long-term viability. Of course there's the usual arguments about higher ratings resulting in more ad revenue and overall revenue. I don't need to get into that. To me, TV ratings mean more people talking about your product and making the live version of your product sort of a family or communal experience. You want people watching your product live, tweeting about it, talking about it, and creating buzz. The more people that join this unique live experience, the more likely it is they'll plunk down money for a PPV so they can experience that version of the product live also. Ditto for attending live shows, buying merch, or subscribing to a wrestling on-demand service or television network. The "I can just DVR it or watch it online" (legally or illegally) argument applies to basically anything on television. The programming that still gets ratings for its live products is the programming that will continue making money and survive long term. Take the Oscars or any live sporting event, for example. It'd be easy to just DVR these events and watch them later so you can fast forward the commercials and other boring parts. But people still want to watch it live. They want to share their thoughts on Twitter after a huge Blake Griffin dunk or rant on a live blog when when some actress drags out her acceptance speech too long. They want to go to work the next day and complain about the coach's playcalling in the final two minutes of a football game. That's part of the live communal experience and there's still a lot of value in that. It's not fun to hear those types of conversations and turn away because you haven't watched it on DVR or downloaded it from some torrent site yet. Having people sporadically watch your programming over the course of a few days/weeks/months is much less valuable than having those people watch it live. I'm rambling a bit now, so I'll end with a question: If TV ratings are not (or one day, will not be) the correct metric to measure the success of televised wrestling, what is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Three things 1. I don't believe TV ratings don't matter NOW and they probably will always matter to some degree. What I do think is that the technological changes no longer make it the best indicator of how much something is watched week-to-week. Even among my non-hardcore wrestling fans I know several who watch Smackdown every week - on youtube. They have things to do on Friday nights and they don't watch it live, but watch every second that airs. I imagine this is fairly common behavior and not isolated to just my circle of friends. 2. Wrestling business models have changed several times in past which we discussed on the show. My point is more or less that the model is in the middle of shifting now and that the focus on tv ratings above all else hurts their ability to be innovators/try to monetize other different avenues. More importantly it actually hurts their tv ratings as their obsession with each week, allows them to ignore the big picture. Rather than seeing tv ratings as an investment to building a bigger and better product, it often seems that they see it as the be all and end all. 3. Some of your other points I agree with. I mean I think it is totally unreasonable to compare Raw to the Oscar's, because the Oscar's are once a year and Raw is 52 times a year. But I do think a big problem is that the WWE does not have the loyalty to brand you need to be a truly dynamic company. On the other hand on my daughters field trip last week EVERY SINGLE KID was talking about WWE, so they are doing something right in terms of building a new base of support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted March 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Three things 1. I don't believe TV ratings don't matter NOW and they probably will always matter to some degree. What I do think is that the technological changes no longer make it the best indicator of how much something is watched week-to-week. Even among my non-hardcore wrestling fans I know several who watch Smackdown every week - on youtube. They have things to do on Friday nights and they don't watch it live, but watch every second that airs. I imagine this is fairly common behavior and not isolated to just my circle of friends. That's fine if WWE wants to use YouTube or other methods of online viewing to make it more convenient for people to watch. But you need to make money off of those types of viewers. The best way to do that is to try and turn them into live viewers. That audience is much more valuable if it's a live-viewing audience. 2. Wrestling business models have changed several times in past which we discussed on the show. My point is more or less that the model is in the middle of shifting now and that the focus on tv ratings above all else hurts their ability to be innovators/try to monetize other different avenues. More importantly it actually hurts their tv ratings as their obsession with each week, allows them to ignore the big picture. Rather than seeing tv ratings as an investment to building a bigger and better product, it often seems that they see it as the be all and end all.Agree on this. WWE doesn't understand that long-term thinking actually helps TV ratings. This type of short-sightedness is a problem in many publicly traded companies, unfortunately. 3. Some of your other points I agree with. I mean I think it is totally unreasonable to compare Raw to the Oscar's, because the Oscar's are once a year and Raw is 52 times a year. But I do think a big problem is that the WWE does not have the loyalty to brand you need to be a truly dynamic company. On the other hand on my daughters field trip last week EVERY SINGLE KID was talking about WWE, so they are doing something right in terms of building a new base of support.Maybe the Oscars is a bad example, but take any show. Mad Men, Walking Dead, American Idol, whatever. What's the incentive to watch those shows live? The main one is the ability to share that live experience with others and experience the buzz of something that is happening NOW. If you don't care about any of that, then you might as well just pirate the show online or DVR it. That's fine from the consumer point of view, but a problem if you're the company trying to make a buck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 House show attendance. Diversified revenue streams are the worst thing that has ever happened to pro wrestling (from a fan's point of view). It's likely we could track wrestling's slow decline to coming up with ways to make money without having to draw a house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Yeah but that's in all aspects of entertainment right now, all the major sports are facing attendance issues because of the advent of HDTV. It's much easier to watch at home with a big ass TV and sound system making it feel like you are there instead of having to deal with the issues of going to a live event. The motion picture business has been facing this since DVD's and now Blu-Ray's along with pirating and then you have the TV networks dealing with DVR's. It's a whole new world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Yeah but that's in all aspects of entertainment right now, all the major sports are facing attendance issues because of the advent of HDTV. It's much easier to watch at home with a big ass TV and sound system making it feel like you are there instead of having to deal with the issues of going to a live event. Is that really a talking point? For baseball at least, watching the game is the least part of BEING at the game. I imagine that's true with football even more so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted March 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 For a lot of teams, especially in the NFL, revenue from ticket sales is the icing on the cake. They make their money through the mega TV contracts and sponsorship deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Attendance is starting to go down in some places and that has been a topic of sports radio shows recently. College basketball is really feeling it right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cox Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 I'd say at this point that having weekly football parties with the big TV, DirecTV (or Red Zone Channel), food, etc. has trumped going to the games live. Between the long TV timeouts, most of the affordable seats being miles away from the field, tailgating restrictions, etc, going to a live NFL game has never been less fun, and with the technological advancements with televisions, sitting home and watching games on TV with a bunch of friends, flipping around through games, has become a much more enjoyable experience. At least that's the way I look at it these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Three things 1. I don't believe TV ratings don't matter NOW and they probably will always matter to some degree. What I do think is that the technological changes no longer make it the best indicator of how much something is watched week-to-week. Even among my non-hardcore wrestling fans I know several who watch Smackdown every week - on youtube. They have things to do on Friday nights and they don't watch it live, but watch every second that airs. I imagine this is fairly common behavior and not isolated to just my circle of friends. That's fine if WWE wants to use YouTube or other methods of online viewing to make it more convenient for people to watch. But you need to make money off of those types of viewers. The best way to do that is to try and turn them into live viewers. That audience is much more valuable if it's a live-viewing audience. 3. Some of your other points I agree with. I mean I think it is totally unreasonable to compare Raw to the Oscar's, because the Oscar's are once a year and Raw is 52 times a year. But I do think a big problem is that the WWE does not have the loyalty to brand you need to be a truly dynamic company. On the other hand on my daughters field trip last week EVERY SINGLE KID was talking about WWE, so they are doing something right in terms of building a new base of support.Maybe the Oscars is a bad example, but take any show. Mad Men, Walking Dead, American Idol, whatever. What's the incentive to watch those shows live? The main one is the ability to share that live experience with others and experience the buzz of something that is happening NOW. If you don't care about any of that, then you might as well just pirate the show online or DVR it. That's fine from the consumer point of view, but a problem if you're the company trying to make a buck. I understand that you want to turn these people into live viewers and that should be a goal, but the reality is that it is going to become increasingly difficult. Even regular tv shows have advantages in that they are seasonal so the chances of fan burnout are drastically reduced. In general I think the changes technology has had on wrestling are wildly understated by "smart" fans who like to pretend that if the booking was Mid-South quality the WWE would be drawing 5.0 ratings, 2.0 ppv buyrates and record setting live attendance figures. I just don't see anyway that is true. I also don't think the tech changes are the whole problem, but I think they are an unexplored factor that combines with the bad booking, inability/unwillingness to create and get behind new stars, inability to stay "cool" by capitalizing on "hip" culture in the now, et. I honestly think the WWE is going to have to figure out a way to monetize internet viewership. I have no clue how the fuck they do this, but I think it is going to become a necessity unless they drastically change the number of shows they run a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 If the main selling point for WWE is match quality, there is no reason to see it in real time. The best way to incentivize real time viewing is to improve the booking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLIK Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 On the other hand on my daughters field trip last week EVERY SINGLE KID was talking about WWE, so they are doing something right in terms of building a new base of support. Heh, now i'm curious for you to exspand on this. What do the youth of today think of the likes of Daniel Bryan and The Rock and Punk and Cody Rhodes and uhhh Primo and whoever else is around? Kids these days like that Michael Cole fella? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 This age group hasn't really been a problem for WWE for a long time. Their decline in popularity has been in large part because fans over 30 years old have dropped off in big numbers, and they haven't really done anything to lure them back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingus Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Kids these days like that Michael Cole fella?Actually, I wonder about what effect that'll have on this generation of young fans. They don't have anything to compare it to, and are unaware that having a lead announcer who completely shits all over the entire show and buries all the wrestlers and storylines is not how it's usually done. I know it's off topic, but, serious question: why has the WWE continued with Heel Cole for so goddamned long? Usually when they try something like this, they do it for a few weeks and then drop it. This shit has been going on for two years straight! Clearly it's not working, since the numbers have dropped and dropped ever since they started it. Why are they so stubborn in clinging to their brilliant plan of having the commentary for every show being so hideous that nobody could possibly want to listen to it? In fact, the whole company seems oddly heel-dominated in recent times. Last year's Mania main event ended with a DCO-restart-run in-interference-Heel Wins!, which is something that should be unthinkable from a booking standpoint (unless Rock/Cena does a MONSTER buyrate, like best-of-all-time numbers). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Michael Cole is Vince McTherapy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 They all love Santino. Sheamus and R-Truth were talked up. Cena is a favorite. I thought it was notable that Punk wasn't mentioned at all and almost never is by her neighborhood friends other. They are all scared to death of Mark Henry, but they may be Emma's influence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 This age group hasn't really been a problem for WWE for a long time. Their decline in popularity has been in large part because fans over 30 years old have dropped off in big numbers, and they haven't really done anything to lure them back. This needs to be edited to 18-35. I forget if it was an Observer or Audio show but Meltzer said the biggest base of fans still watching is older folks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted March 11, 2012 Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Something I tossed up on the Torch Boards in a semi-related discussion (about the desire to see the return of jobber squash matches). * * * * * * * * WWE FY2011 Financials: $483.9M Revenues $340.0M Live and Televised Entertainment $94.9M Consumer Products $28.1M Digital Media $20.9M WWE Studios That $340.0M for Live and Televised Entertainment breaks down into: $131.5M Television Rights Fees $104.7M Live Events $78.3M Pay-Per-View $18.3M Venue Merchandise $4.6M WWE Classics On Demand $1.1M Television Advertising The WWE's single largest revenue stream is as Television Content via Rights Fees. 27% of the total revenue of the company. That number actually lowballs the revenue brought in from from non-PPV television, because the live gates from Raw and Smackdown go into Live Events. Other than PPVs and non-North American cards, which WWE shows consistently draw the best crowds in the Raw Era? The TV Shows rather than the other house shows. It would be an interesting study for someone like Meltzer to do to figure out what the average bump has been each year since 1996 for Raw/SD vs Other US House Shows in terms of attendance, especially in the periods before and after the Austin/Rock Boom. In addition to that, it's likely that a bigger chunk of Venue Merchandise is made at TV Events than non-TV Events. The point being: a massive amount of the revenue is made from what is essentially TV Content/Product. While a lot of us "back in the day" loved seeing the Mulkeys get squashed, it's not a given that modern wrestling fans will stay on USA Network in 50% or 25% of Raw's matches were squashes. It's an invitation to click away... and run the risk of your attention being grabbed by another program. * * * * * * * * Ratings matter a great deal. The company's #1 revenue stream is driven by having content that can be sold at a good price. In addition, maintaining those shows (Raw and SmackDown) help drive a massive part of their Live Show revenue (Raw and SmackDown tapings) and also Venue Merch. Maintaining those shows also allows them to advertising and promote their #3 revenue stream (PPV). The WWE is a television content company, via rights fees and PPV. They have been since Austin-Rock. WCW was as well through the Nitro Era. What we need to remember is that both companies where in decline and/or bad shape before becoming TV Content companies. WCW was essentially dead, the equiv of TNA: being kept alive by a corporate sugar daddy because the House Show / PPV business wasn't enough to sustain it. The WWF has been in a decline since Hogan left after Mania in 1992. TV isn't the problem with the WWE. It's the fucking idiots running the company. Take away the focus on TV and they'd still be fucking idiots, fucking things up. If there weren't ratings to chase, these idiots would have been freaking out in 1984 and 1985 over any Hogan house show that didn't sell the building out, pitch him to the curb and tried someone else. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted March 11, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 11, 2012 Something I tossed up on the Torch Boards in a semi-related discussion (about the desire to see the return of jobber squash matches). * * * * * * * * WWE FY2011 Financials: $483.9M Revenues $340.0M Live and Televised Entertainment $94.9M Consumer Products $28.1M Digital Media $20.9M WWE Studios That $340.0M for Live and Televised Entertainment breaks down into: $131.5M Television Rights Fees $104.7M Live Events $78.3M Pay-Per-View $18.3M Venue Merchandise $4.6M WWE Classics On Demand $1.1M Television Advertising The WWE's single largest revenue stream is as Television Content via Rights Fees. 27% of the total revenue of the company. That number actually lowballs the revenue brought in from from non-PPV television, because the live gates from Raw and Smackdown go into Live Events. Other than PPVs and non-North American cards, which WWE shows consistently draw the best crowds in the Raw Era? The TV Shows rather than the other house shows. It would be an interesting study for someone like Meltzer to do to figure out what the average bump has been each year since 1996 for Raw/SD vs Other US House Shows in terms of attendance, especially in the periods before and after the Austin/Rock Boom. In addition to that, it's likely that a bigger chunk of Venue Merchandise is made at TV Events than non-TV Events. The point being: a massive amount of the revenue is made from what is essentially TV Content/Product. While a lot of us "back in the day" loved seeing the Mulkeys get squashed, it's not a given that modern wrestling fans will stay on USA Network in 50% or 25% of Raw's matches were squashes. It's an invitation to click away... and run the risk of your attention being grabbed by another program. * * * * * * * * Ratings matter a great deal. The company's #1 revenue stream is driven by having content that can be sold at a good price. In addition, maintaining those shows (Raw and SmackDown) help drive a massive part of their Live Show revenue (Raw and SmackDown tapings) and also Venue Merch. Maintaining those shows also allows them to advertising and promote their #3 revenue stream (PPV). The WWE is a television content company, via rights fees and PPV. They have been since Austin-Rock. WCW was as well through the Nitro Era. What we need to remember is that both companies where in decline and/or bad shape before becoming TV Content companies. WCW was essentially dead, the equiv of TNA: being kept alive by a corporate sugar daddy because the House Show / PPV business wasn't enough to sustain it. The WWF has been in a decline since Hogan left after Mania in 1992. TV isn't the problem with the WWE. It's the fucking idiots running the company. Take away the focus on TV and they'd still be fucking idiots, fucking things up. If there weren't ratings to chase, these idiots would have been freaking out in 1984 and 1985 over any Hogan house show that didn't sell the building out, pitch him to the curb and tried someone else. John Exactly. TV is the company's bread and butter. Same goes for the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL, even if sports talk radio remains fixated on live attendance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rzombie1988 Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 I teach and I can tell you my students have no idea what wrestling even is minus maybe one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Dog Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 Yeah but that's in all aspects of entertainment right now, all the major sports are facing attendance issues because of the advent of HDTV. It's much easier to watch at home with a big ass TV and sound system making it feel like you are there instead of having to deal with the issues of going to a live event. The motion picture business has been facing this since DVD's and now Blu-Ray's along with pirating and then you have the TV networks dealing with DVR's. It's a whole new world. Ticket prices are why pro sports attendance is going down. Same with movies. My wife and I don't go to movies because it costs $20 just to get the tickets. We don't go to most pro sporting events because it costs at least $70 to get in the door. We go to baseball because it costs $20 to go. And we live in Columbus, things are moderately priced here and in Cleveland/Cincinnati compared to other markets. I also looked at NCAA Tournament tickets. $150 for cheapo tickets and they wonder why attendance can be an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Waco Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 I teach and I can tell you my students have no idea what wrestling even is minus maybe one of them. Where do you teach? I live three doors away from my daughters school. I also work around kids. Rarely a day goes by I don't see a kid in WWE shirt and/or over hear one talking about wrestling. But I live in South Carolina. Perhaps this is a wrestling bubble? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cross Face Chicken Wing Posted March 12, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 I teach and I can tell you my students have no idea what wrestling even is minus maybe one of them. Well, you must not be a very good teacher then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NintendoLogic Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 Attendance and PPV buys are the two primary indicators of who is willing to pay to see the product in real time. Not coincidentally, Vince himself has said on many occasions that he considers them to be the main indicators of whether the product is really clicking for the fans. Since WWE is a publicly traded company, we can look at its 10-K reports and get the figures going all the way back to 1996. I'll have a more detailed write-up later, but suffice it to say that the numbers aren't pretty. It's worth noting that PPV numbers have been artificially inflated for a while now by international buys. Does anybody know exactly when the UK stopped getting all the PPVs for free? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victator Posted March 12, 2012 Report Share Posted March 12, 2012 On the other hand on my daughters field trip last week EVERY SINGLE KID was talking about WWE, so they are doing something right in terms of building a new base of support. Heh, now i'm curious for you to exspand on this. What do the youth of today think of the likes of Daniel Bryan and The Rock and Punk and Cody Rhodes and uhhh Primo and whoever else is around? Kids these days like that Michael Cole fella? My nephews love Cena, Rey, Rock, Big Show, Taker and Kane. Thanks to Netflix they love JYD, Hulk Hogan and Austin. He says him and his friends argue about Cena and Rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.