WWE Network... It's Here

[Al]

Involving a collection agency seems like it would ensure the users never, ever used the service again. There are enough horror stories about services like XM Radio that make it virtually impossible to cancel your service.

[goc]

I had to get a new card and then didn't send them the info for my new one. I had my INITIAL sub get cancelled because I paid with paypal and it wouldn't draw money from my bank account attached to paypal and I never just leave money in my paypal account. I can definitely say that that if they send a collection agency after me I will pretty much be done with WWE forever.

 

The launch and the initial free trial was misleading. The initial content made it seem like they were going to put a lot of focus on older stuff like house shows, WCCW & ECW. But they haven't uploaded new house shows or WCCW episodes in MONTHS.

[KrisZ]

There's the saying that the customer is always right, but I hate the modern sense of entitlement, generally speaking. And I hate to do finger-pointing, but I feel like anyone who loves wrestling and is sharing a password is also doing something to actively destroy wrestling. Yeah, do that, and if everyone acts just like you, eventually there won't be a WWE Network. You are part of the problem, because you're helping send a message to WWE that the network is a bad idea when it's actually a great idea. There are problems with the execution of it for sure, but giving WWE any reason to think this was a wasted endeavor and they should go back to their old model is really bad.

 

EDIT: And I realize there are definitely hypocritical points I'm making, for reasons we don't need to get into in this topic. But damnit, that's my take on this, rational or not.

 

I agree with everything you have posted about this....it's ridiculous.

[Petey]

Why don't they just send Steve Blackman out to collect the money and make a series out of it? Two-for-one.

[Kevin Ridge]

Might as well have Repo Man showing up and taking folks Apple TVs, Rokus, PS3s, etc.

[DMJ]

Loss, I understand your passion, but sending collection agencies to target people who violated the WWE Networks' TOS sounds kind of vicious to me. A person who bought the Network to begin with in March, even if their plan all along was just to pay $10 for Mania, may have "screwed" the WWE out of the rest of the $50, but in the grand scheme of things, if you take the 700k subscribed currently and the 130k who "cut and run," you can look at the total as being roughly 830k who at least TRIED the Network and could theoretically be brought back and convinced to stay subscribed. To me, the last thing they should do is try to prosecute these fans - these are the "fence sitters" they need to come back, not ostracize.

 

Also, I will admit that I have set-up the Network on my non-fan brother's Roku as well as my own. He has since called me and said he was using the Network and loving Legends House in particular. From there, he's been brought back into at least a little bit of fandom, watching old PPVs and the Countdown shows. I don't think sharing my account is hurting the business at all. My brother had 0 interest in the Network, he was NEVER going to buy it, which means the WWE could NEVER market any of their own products to him. But by sharing my account with him, I have brought the WWE a new viewer - someone who is more likely to go see RAW or a live event, someone who is more likely to buy a throwback/nostalgia tee-shirt, someone who is more likely to tell a friend how great the Network is. If the WWE figures out a way to prevent me from using multiple devices, I won't be bothered...but until then, I'm going to let my kid brother enjoy himself and get back into the sport because THAT is what will keep the business going.

 

Finally, and I hate to come off as this snarky but your comments really made me think - Loss, do you think fans who DVR Monday Night RAW and fast forward through the commercials are also "actively destroying wrestling" because advertisers aren't getting their commercials seen? Do you think having friends over to watch a PPV and splitting the cost, as so many of us did in the 90s, "destroyed the business" during the Attitude Era because instead of each of us buying the show for $39.95, we'd cram as many people onto the couch as possible? Did my aforementioned brother and I help kill the business when we shared our Undertaker, Mankind, DX, and Austin tee-shirts to wear to school? Did my parents kill the business when they only bought us one Hulk Hogan action figure and one Andre the Giant action figure and my brothers and I had to take turns playing with them?

 

Re-reading your post, you stated very clearly that your aim wasn't to derail the topic and you even stated that you knew how your comments could come off as hypocritical. I apologize for jumping on the issues you raised, but I felt like the other side of the argument should be expressed, specifically that the sharing of accounts (which is just as possible to do on Netflix and has proven to be of no real consequence) and the violation of TOS by cutting a subscription early are not grievous offenses and may actually benefit the WWE in the long run if they can figure out (a) why fans are ending their subscriptions early and ( how to market/monetize their other products and revenue streams through the Network.

 

Again, sorry for the longwinded response the derailment, but your comments really struck a nerve with me.

[Bix]

At this point they have to drop the "$10 billed monthly with a six month commitment" option if it can't be enforced and leave the two new options: $20 a month with no commitment or $60 lump sum paid in advance for six months. If you know how to get around the "commitment" there's no reason to pick the $20 option.

 

Anything else is a bad idea.

[Loss]

I understand why the post struck a nerve. There's not really anything in your reply that I would call a bad response or anything I disagree with, actually. I freely admit that what I said was more of an instinctive response than a rational one. I want the Network to succeed because I like paying less money for more wrestling, but it seems like a significant number of fans are finding ways to buck the system. Normally, that wouldn't irk me at all, but when it creates a narrative that the launch of the Network is a bad thing, that annoys me because the launch of the Network is a great thing. And I don't want the system buckers to ruin this for everyone.

[Grimmas]

Since I hate Rogers and don't want to have cable ever again, I guess I am sticking with my US version of the WWE Network.

[jdw]

At this point they have to drop the "$10 billed monthly with a six month commitment" option if it can't be enforced and leave the two new options: $20 a month with no commitment or $60 lump sum paid in advance for six months. If you know how to get around the "commitment" there's no reason to pick the $20 option.

 

Anything else is a bad idea.

 

The thing they were trying to avoid was it being seasonal: people plopping down $60 one a year for Mania, then letting it lapse, only to renew the following March. $9.99 a month is suppose to be "painless" as a subscription, while $60 is something that people think a bit more about.

 

At $20 a month, these people will just pay for Mania and think they got a great deal. Perhaps the WWE gets a good deal as well since they pocket the money (less whatever MLB is charging them).

 

They really need to work in the direction of having enough regular ongoing interesting content that makes people think $9.99 is a good deal, beyond just getting the PPV's.

[Loss]

I like the idea of having tiered subscriptions. A premium sub would also get you special deals on live event tickets and merchandise, along with some exclusive, more rare content that wouldn't be made available for regular subscribers. I'm thinking territories here.

[Coffey]

One of the big things that I still love about buying music is the awesome stuff you get when you buy the tangible copy. Digital music is great if you just want to hear a single, or make a workout/driving comp. or whatever. When I want to enjoy the music though, part of the appeal to me is putting the music on. I've just recently gotten into buying vinyl. Going through the old records at music shops & hunting for records I want is a big part of the appeal. All the cover art & inserts in the albums really makes it feel special.

 

I love professional wrestling as I have watched it for pretty much my entire life. I still follow it quite closely & it's a big part of my daily life but I've never felt that real connection to wrestling if I'm not at a live show. Just watching shows on my computer feels like just listening to mp3s at the gym or in a car.

 

I like the idea Loss suggested with a tiered subscription. When the music industry took a real big hit to sales because of digital distribution, some artists tried to combat that by giving perks inside of their physical copies of music. Like exclusive bumper stickers or whatever miscellaneous schwag. It would be cool if, as part of a tiered WWE Network subscription you could, in example, get the monthly PPV poster shipped to your mailing address.

[jdw]

The problem with tiers is that the WWE lost 100K+ subs who thought a *basic* tier (just $9.99) was too much to pay. So there's a $14.99 tier with More Stuff... how does that get back the 100K+ that took a powder? It's something that's more likely to appeal to those that are already signed up. Worse, that More Stuff much actually be the Stuff that will draw more subs to pay $9.99 a month.

 

Seriously... they have to find ways to make the $9.99 feel like enough ongoing content that 1M people want to pay for it. That's hard to do when you're cutting $30M a year of costs, unless that's coming from things that have no impact on the Network (i.e. including Product that impacts getting new content onto the Network).

 

And example...

 

For years I've talked about them airing a Live House Show on the Network on Saturday Nights. Do it cheap, akin to the old MSG, Spectrum, Boston Garden shows rather than the big production budget of Raw. Spike attendance (people go to the live shows more than non-live shows). Give people a weekly new TV show that's above the Superstars level but below the Raw/SD level. Integrate it into Raw and SmackDown so that at least 1 thing that happens each week on SNWrestling plays into Raw, and at least one thing that happens on SD plays into SNW. You don't need to go insane on it at the start... but it's not that hard to block some things out.

 

The problem is that when you're cutting $30M a year, who wants to spend money on a live produced house show? A decent sized production team, announcing crew (including backstage guy who may also work the crowd), more road agents that you have at a typical house show, etc. Even running it on the cheap, and taking advantage of the WWE already running shows on Saturday... it still wouldn't be cheap.

 

That's just one idea. We've bounced around others over the months and years. They all cost money, attention, production, effort. Those are things that a WWE Network needs, but if they're stripping it down to 500K US subs as break even (or meeting revenue and profit needs), that will be a lean network.

 

Not holding my breath that their coming moves will be any better than what we've seen. They don't seem terribly smart about this, which isn't uncommon over the years when the WWE has gone outside their core business knowledge.

[goc]

I didn't think the $9.99 was too much. I also think there is a ton of content on The Network. It just isn't the content I wanted or the content I thought it would be.

[Loss]

I don't think price is the issue. I think bad promotion is the big issue, followed by content. If anything, I think WWE is hyping the value aspect of it way too much.

 

Michael Cole has no credibility with the audience and is not the guy who should be singing the praises of the Network. The people who should are Hogan, Austin, Undertaker, Michaels, Flair, Rock, Bret ... those types.

[KrisZ]

The monthly deal model was just parroting what Netflix & Hulu are already doing so it's a proven model but wrestling fans are a different monster.

[Kevin Ridge]

With the employee cuts will this be folks working on the Network? The work to get stuff up to grade to be uploaded to Network seems overwhelming as is. Losing staff is just going to make it worse especially with the huge focus on the Network. Unless they are just taking the stance that it is current programing that is driving subscriptions and only the few hardcores who care about older material.

[goc]

The thing about wrestling that's different is that there are way more lapsed fans than currents fans. I think there should be an equal focus on the current product & new shows like Legends House along with uploading archive footage like old Raws, Nitros, territories, house shows, etc.

 

They don't just have one audience to cater to. I realize that there's no way you are going to get every lapsed fan to buy The Network, or even a large majority of them. But they aren't getting ANY money from them now and if they hit the right niches I think they could get a significant amount of people who have no interest in watching the current product to subscribe to The Network.

[Coffey]

I really think it was silly launching without the Nitros already on there, honestly. I guess they wanted to save that for the people to re-subscribe but to me, that's a big draw. Especially the Monday Night Wars era where I know I missed stuff because I was watching one show over the other.

[Johnny Sorrow]

 

 

Finally, and I hate to come off as this snarky but your comments really made me think - Loss, do you think fans who DVR Monday Night RAW and fast forward through the commercials are also "actively destroying wrestling" because advertisers aren't getting their commercials seen? Do you think having friends over to watch a PPV and splitting the cost, as so many of us did in the 90s, "destroyed the business" during the Attitude Era because instead of each of us buying the show for $39.95, we'd cram as many people onto the couch as possible? Did my aforementioned brother and I help kill the business when we shared our Undertaker, Mankind, DX, and Austin tee-shirts to wear to school? Did my parents kill the business when they only bought us one Hulk Hogan action figure and one Andre the Giant action figure and my brothers and I had to take turns playing with them?

 

 

None of those things are illegal or breaking an agreement.

[Coffey]

So change it from DVRing RAW to downloading RAW the next day off of a torrent site. Now it's illegal. I think the point still stands. People used to stream all the PPVs every month illegally. A lot of them still do. Now people stream the WWE Network. Especially in other countries. At least with the WWE Network, they're getting $10 a month from some customers that they used to get $0 from just for the convenience of a working feed for the PPV each month.

 

Granted that's at the cost of PPV going from $40 to $10 or whatever the drop was.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Oh, I used to watch illegal streams all the time circa 2004-2006. It was still illegal and if I had gotten busted I was guilty of illegal behavior.

[Coffey]

Right but when you streamed a PPV did you feel like you were actively destroying pro-wrestling?

[SteveJRogers]

Right but when you streamed a PPV did you feel like you were actively destroying pro-wrestling?

 

Getting PPV programming from illegal means, be it a cable de-scrambler or someone online is greatly different than getting free access to the WWE Network.

 

One is a decades old tried and true platform where you can do that with tons of different programming (movies, concerts, boxing, UFC, Evil Kinevil daredevil events, hell I think Bobby Riggs v Billie Jean King tennis match was a PPV event, etc) and in recent years WWE events have been quite hefty price wise.

 

The other is a brand new gambit of a platform for the company that could in fact change the landscape of how all professional sports leagues, and other entertainment based companies push their televised content onto the public for mass consumption. Especially at a lowish cost.

 

Imagine paying 10 bucks a month to get archives of your favorite baseball, hockey, basketball, football or whatever team? THAT'S what the success of something like the WWE Network could bring about.

 

Which is another point, this is the WWE themselves, and while you were hurting the WWE in terms of loss of a PPV buy, it was kinda indirectly, but you were more directly hurting your cable provider with that practice of getting the PPV illegally.

[cm funk]

 

128,000 subscribers figured out how to cancel? That's pretty scary.

 

Like I said a few pages back, I truly think the forced long-term commitment is what stung them and this is one of the specific areas where they got burned: people that thought they were trying out the Network for a month or two, like any other online content service, only to realize that they were locked into an unwanted six-month commitment through the fine print.

 

It wasn't fine print. They were very upfront about it being a 6 month commitment. I realize that there are a lot of stupid people out there, but you had to be blind to not see the 6 month commitment.

 

I believe that there's some people out there who DIDN'T realize it and balked when they did. I'm sure there were people who signed up for the free trial and were too stupid to cancel before it rolled over. I'm sure there are people who used pre-paid debit and didn't have funds on the card when it rolled over. There were a lot of paypal users who realized they could cancel whenever they wanted. Heck, I'm sure there were a number of people who's cards expired/got new cards.....but it would be telling that those people wouldn't bother re-upping or just going in and entering their new info

 

Something I don't think mentioned yet in this thread about cancellations/drops which I think is probably one of the biggest factors is the technical problems, still, months after rollout, across almost every platform. This is the April-June # correct? There were still a lot of technical problems in April and May, especially for X-Box. I'm on PS3 and it's actually been working better than ever the last few weeks, but up until recently I was still having problems. I could not watch Battleground live for example. It's been an issue for tons of people and they have a legitimate grievance to call up and say "your service doesn't work properly, this isn't what I signed up for, cancel my subscription"