<Split> The decline of Vince McMahon

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm all for people pulling out the numbers. I'd be very interested to see.

[Sean Liska]

 

"Oh but only 8 of those years were HOT"

 

 

Yeah, this always gets me in discussions like this. You look at a year like 2007 where Mania set the all-time PPVs record, drew 70,000, big Rumble and SummerSlam PPV numbers, healthy house show attendance, and most importantly, something like $40 million in profit off $480 million in revenue. But it doesn't even count as a feather in Vince's cap because RAW didn't average a 6.5 that year.

 

To address the main point, I like what Vince is doing now a lot more than I did in 01-04ish. They've got a really solid foundation of young guys to carry the company forward in coming years like Reigns, Bryan, Ambrose, Rollins, Wyatt, and Rusev. Even Meltzer has said that WWE has better positioned itself for the future than NJPW has. The experiment they're doing with Lesnar as champ now shows that he can still try new things and take risks. I'd say things are generally fine outside of his Network decision-making.

[BigBadMick]

Just wondering - while it's accepted that Vince is the best wrestling promoter, how would he do if we widened the scope?

 

Were would he rank among top businessmen outside wrestling?

 

What would Alan Sugar (just throwing him out there as an example, I don't know a lot about finance) make of him?

[Loss]

I gotta say, as much as I love this place, posts like that one are too antagonistic and "I'm right, you're completely" wrong, and kind of put a damper on things. We're all part of a community here, let's keep things a bit more friendly, it really helps the discussions.

 

Agreed.

[Loss]

I would add that Vince is set to have a bigger money-losing year this year than WCW ever had, or at least that was the projection at one point. It may be less now because he's cut costs to the bone. There are mitigating circumstances surrounding that, but 2014 has been a miserable failure creatively and they have blown up their business model without seeing any return.

[pol]

While it's an area fraught with rampant subjectivity, I think it's important to consider how much money Vince has left on the table through poor decision making at various times in history, even when WWE was still performing well as a whole. That's something that gets lost when looking at raw numbers. The WCW invasion would be the most obvious example here - to ignore the amount of potential money lost there because 2001 was still a very good year for them overall is disingenuous.

[Sean Liska]

I would add that Vince is set to have a bigger money-losing year this year than WCW ever had, or at least that was the projection at one point. It may be less now because he's cut costs to the bone. There are mitigating circumstances surrounding that, but 2014 has been a miserable failure creatively and they have blown up their business model without seeing any return.

I don't know if it's fair to say it's been a miserable failure creatively as much as the Network was a miserable failure, to this point, as a concept. But if creative was such a huge problem, it would have affected attendance, TV ratings, merch, and everything else. Also, the Rumble and Chamber PPVs were highly successful this year, pointing to creative working until they blew the model up. SummerSlam did a surprisingly high # on PPV, which indicates it may have been a high-performing PPV if not for the Network.

[Loss]

I also think most people would agree that Vince McMahon is the greatest wrestling promoter of all time. In fact, he's so far ahead of all others that he is held to a much higher standard, just as he should be. Compare his success to that of other promoters and of course he comes out smelling like a rose, but that doesn't mean he's without his share of major (major!) failures and flaws.

 

And any promoter worth anything has proven not only that they can get something hot but that they can navigate inevitable downturns in popularity when they happen. Vince has absolutely proven that and he has been incredibly successful. I think that the critiques come from a place of frustration sometimes. How can someone so brilliant at certain aspects of promotion still get so many things wrong so much of the time?

 

I still think CM Punk's "millionaire who should be a billionaire" (even if he is a billionaire when the stock is good) line is a pretty accurate description of Vince.

[Loss]

 

I would add that Vince is set to have a bigger money-losing year this year than WCW ever had, or at least that was the projection at one point. It may be less now because he's cut costs to the bone. There are mitigating circumstances surrounding that, but 2014 has been a miserable failure creatively and they have blown up their business model without seeing any return.

I don't know if it's fair to say it's been a miserable failure creatively as much as the Network was a miserable failure, to this point, as a concept. But if creative was such a huge problem, it would have affected attendance, TV ratings, merch, and everything else. Also, the Rumble and Chamber PPVs were highly successful this year, pointing to creative working until they blew the model up. SummerSlam did a surprisingly high # on PPV, which indicates it may have been a high-performing PPV if not for the Network.

 

 

You're pointing to their ability to not turn people away. But what have they done this year to bring people in?

[JerryvonKramer]

One issue I have with Vince is that he's apparently acquiesced to this sort of standardization of the product into a predictable but boring thing that is more concerned with stability than taking creative risks for possible growth.

One thing to think about though is that even phenomenally successful companies like McDonalds need to have periods of consolidation after rapid expansion. There have been periods when they've opened a new restaurant practically every week, and there have been others when they've just held onto what they have. Could Vince not just be consolidating?

 

I am interested though in what exactly Vince has done to "fall off" in recent years.

 

It seems like the only thing that has gone really wrong has been the Network. I'd like to know more. I'd like to see the arguments on either side presented, cos this is very interesting.

 

I just get a bit heated when I see people run roughshod over Vince's achievements as if the only thing he ever did was Wrestlemania 3. There is a long-standing tradition of people doing as best they can to diminish whatever he has accomplished by as much as possible, attributing it to luck and circumstance rather than vision and acumen. And I am very opposed to that tradition.

 

But I would like to focus into the ways in which Vince specifically has changed and how this has directly affected business. My hunch -- and this is nothing more than a hunch -- is that core business isn't really down as a result of bad booking and that this is just a smart fan hobby horse (because it has ALWAYS been one). See my Simon Cowell vs real music fans line for more.

[Loss]

I may have inadvertently stumbled on something, but is it possible that Vince's biggest strength is not how he handles peak popularity, but in how he runs the company when business is cold? If WWE still lived and died on PPV buys and house show attendance, they would have been losing money as early as 2002. But they aren't because he changed the business model at a time he needed to change it, and that's a feather in his cap.

[JerryvonKramer]

Loss - I would be interested to know what WWF were doing during the Bret and Shawn years when "WCW almost put them out of business dammit!" Were they losing money or did Vince cut the roster and dates and revert back to core business enough to off-set any real losses? Serious question, I don't know. Apologies if this is common knowledge to everyone. If NJPW or EMLL ever had a year when they made more than WWF it would have to be one of those I'd have thought.

[Loss]

Actually, 1998 more than 1996 is the most profitable year in WCW history. For a long time, it was the most profitable year any wrestling company had ever had. I'm guessing WWE has had more than a $55 million profit at some point in the last few years but I know they still hadn't as late as 2006 or 2007.

 

I will look in old WONs, but I'm not sure if the WWF has ever ended a year in the red. It's possible they haven't, which is another credit to Vince.

[Sean Liska]

A year where they maintain their popularity, despite unexpectedly losing Punk and Bryan, and are forced to elevate 3 new PPV headliners into the mix (Shield guys), to me can't be labeled a "miserable failure". 2001 was a miserable failure.

[Grimmas]

Loss - I would be interested to know what WWF were doing during the Bret and Shawn years when "WCW almost put them out of business dammit!" Were they losing money or did Vince cut the roster and dates and revert back to core business enough to off-set any real losses? Serious question, I don't know. Apologies if this is common knowledge to everyone. If NJPW or EMLL ever had a year when they made more than WWF it would have to be one of those I'd have thought.

He certainly used the claim he was losing money to renege on Bret Hart's 20 year deal one year into it.

[Loss]

When he raised the price of the In Your House pay-per-views, the money issues he was having at that point went away. They were resolved before Bret left actually, but by that time, the WCW offer was already on the table.

[Loss]

In 1997, Vince told Dave that the day they start training their fans to treat some pay-per-views as skippable is the day they start to crumble. I wonder what he would say to that now.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

Loss - I would be interested to know what WWF were doing during the Bret and Shawn years when "WCW almost put them out of business dammit!" Were they losing money or did Vince cut the roster and dates and revert back to core business enough to off-set any real losses? Serious question, I don't know. Apologies if this is common knowledge to everyone. If NJPW or EMLL ever had a year when they made more than WWF it would have to be one of those I'd have thought.

He certainly used the claim he was losing money to renege on Bret Hart's 20 year deal one year into it.

 

Yeah, but employers do that all the time. "The faculty has a £1 million deficit in their budget, so no one gets research leave this year and we need more students!"

 

"But sir ... we made £10 million profit!"

 

"THE BUDGET IS SHORT"

 

Every work place ever with the possible exception of Google.

[DMJ]

I'm actually in the process (somewhat, not sure if I'll actually go through with it) with writing a very comprehensive look at 2014. I do think that this year, with the Network, and the Batista/Punk/Bryan/Streak stories and the TV rights campaign being regarded by most industry insiders as a bit of a flop, is the most important year, both on-screen and off, since 2001, if not 96'-97', if not 84'. The amount of industry shake-ups between January and today is just incredible and much of it is not positive for the WWE.

 

I don't think the "sky is falling" regarding the demise of the WWE, though. I think it is too profitable, too popular, and too big to sink...but I do think this year has, at the very least and in a weird way, put a spotlight on what things WOULD need to happen to possibly end the WWE, for example, if the Network subscriber base shrinks by 50% *and* ratings drop by another 50% *and* the next time TV rights come up, USA/NBC ain't interested *and* if the WWE fails to elevate anyone post-Cena or post-Lesnar *and* the US economy takes another major hit and it has a negative effect on house show gates and merch sales. Basically, all of these things (and more?) would have to happen which is pretty unlikely, but 2014 was the first year I think I saw (and maybe the WWE sees) that there is actually a set of dominoes that could (however unlikely) fall.

 

(Not to mention the ridiculously overblown and meaningless reports about investors possibly buying out the WWE - something that could, if it were ever to happen [probably never, but maybe decades from now], put them in a similar position as WCW by making them just a "brand" under a parent company that would cut their losses much sooner than the McMahons would)

[Childs]

I may have inadvertently stumbled on something, but is it possible that Vince's biggest strength is not how he handles peak popularity, but in how he runs the company when business is cold? If WWE still lived and died on PPV buys and house show attendance, they would have been losing money as early as 2002. But they aren't because he changed the business model at a time he needed to change it, and that's a feather in his cap.

 

Yes, he's extremely disciplined when he needs to be and never seems to lose sight of the corporate big picture. I think the mistake people make is conflating that skill set with his ability as a straight wrestling booker. As a booker, he's often flying by the seat of his pants, which makes him no different than most of the successful bookers throughout wrestling history.

[Loss]

Sorry for the multiple posts, but one other point. Vince made a great calculation with Wrestlemania XIV. He needed the eyeballs and paid Tyson to make it happen. People in his inner circle were advising him that the show wouldn't be as profitable, but Vince argued that they needed eyeballs more than anything at that point, because he'd rather lose money on 700,000 buys than make money on 400,000 buys. There's a big picture vision there that I don't think any other promoter - at least in the United States - would ever be able to see.

[JerryvonKramer]

 

I may have inadvertently stumbled on something, but is it possible that Vince's biggest strength is not how he handles peak popularity, but in how he runs the company when business is cold? If WWE still lived and died on PPV buys and house show attendance, they would have been losing money as early as 2002. But they aren't because he changed the business model at a time he needed to change it, and that's a feather in his cap.

Yes, he's extremely disciplined when he needs to be and never seems to lose sight of the corporate big picture. I think the mistake people make is conflating that skill set with his ability as a straight wrestling booker. As a booker, he's often flying by the seat of his pants, which makes him no different than most of the successful bookers throughout wrestling history.

 

How much booking does he actually do or has he ever done? And how much is he more the final word? The impression one gets is that he is naturally inclined to micromanage.

[Shining Wiz]

Alright Shining Wiz, have a hug too buddy. I'm not having a go at you as a person, I just really disagree with your take on Vince.

 

Only don't actually hug me. But I'm sorry if that post hurt your feelings, came across as too antagonistic, or made it seem like there was an absolute truth.

 

Alright. Assume all my posts have that tagged on the end of them.

 

Take your hug and shove it you blowhard!

 

I kid, I kid. No offense taken. Not quite that thin skinned.

 

Now, you seem to have focused on my comment regarding the two three year hot periods. Which, admittedly wasn't a scientifically thought out position. However, I also don't think that was the crux of my post, nor do I think the points you make (which I generally agree with) negate the point I was making. All those things you point out about how Vince's worst year would be everyone else's best year? That's because those two white hot periods built such a foundation that this is the end result.

 

My point was that, as Vince enters his 70's, there should be some concern. He's not King Midas. Not everything he touches turns to gold. For every Austin that hits huge there is a Dean Douglas, Double J, Beaver Cleaver and numerous other duds. He's made some stars, some stars have made him, and there's no science to it really.

 

And as Vince ages, it seems as if the shows have gotten more scattershot and inconsistent than they used to. Which, when you think about it, isn't exactly shocking. The 70 year old who runs his company as succesfully as he did 10, 20, 30, 40 years before is the rarity, not the rule.

[Childs]

 

 

 

I may have inadvertently stumbled on something, but is it possible that Vince's biggest strength is not how he handles peak popularity, but in how he runs the company when business is cold? If WWE still lived and died on PPV buys and house show attendance, they would have been losing money as early as 2002. But they aren't because he changed the business model at a time he needed to change it, and that's a feather in his cap.

Yes, he's extremely disciplined when he needs to be and never seems to lose sight of the corporate big picture. I think the mistake people make is conflating that skill set with his ability as a straight wrestling booker. As a booker, he's often flying by the seat of his pants, which makes him no different than most of the successful bookers throughout wrestling history.

 

How much booking does he actually do or has he ever done? And how much is he more the final word? The impression one gets is that he is naturally inclined to micromanage.

 

 

Every time a wrestler talks about the creative, as Punk just did, the impression is Vince remains the dominant voice.

[fakeplastictrees]

We can't ignore technology as a factor in any Vince Mcmahon 'decline' conversation. I am not surprised as The same thing happened to Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson understood music. He know what worked and what didn't work. When Invincible came out in 2001- the landscape changed. MJ was not ready for the 21st century and didn't handle it well. Despite selling 8 million copies in its first year of release, having 2 top twenty singles in the U.S., and being in the top ten highest selling albums of 2001- MJ/the world considered Invincible a 'flop'. So what did MJ do? Did he learn to adapt to the new technology and foster it to increase sales, etc? No. He started bitching and moaning while refusing to perform anything new off of Invincible, refusing to tour, etc. So how does this relate to the P.T. Barnum of Sports Entertainment?

 

Vince Mcmahon is a carny from a period in time we will probably never see again. Vince was use to working a certain way for a very long time. Vince right now is living in a world were PPV doesn't mean what is use to mean and cable is on the way out. People are watching and interacting with the product in different ways and WWE hasn't quite figured out whats going on in that regard. Look at the way WWE has handled The Network. WWE feels that it is right to slam people for NOT having The Network instead of looking at the technical complications some will need to over-come in order to properly order/view/use The Network. WWE also doesn't understand that its in competition with Youtube and other video sites. Once WWE realizes that Youtube and a bunch of underground video sites have some of the PPVs in full (WWE likes to cut out matches for some reason), perhaps they will make the need changes to The Network as its positioned as the authority for wrestling viewing, but is lacking in essential areas (as again specially relating to shows) that is currently hurting The Network and will continue to hurt them in the long run.

 

Vince Mcmahon is from the era where cable meant something and The Network is being ran like a cable channel despite existing on the internet. WWE and technology disconnects go outside of The Network and have found its way into the on-air product and the true assement of the product. Pro wrestling is such an interesting business because only in the wrestling business is the 'internet' a bad thing. Because of this belief, WWE/Vince have not fully embraced it and any criticism is immediately chalked up to 'Oh its just the internet!". The sad thing is that men in their 50's and 60's have conned men/women in their teens and 20's to believe that the internet is a bad thing when it comes to pro wrestling and the forward thinking views expressed online (in some cases) are just the ramblings of a bunch of 12 year old jaded kids with no education. When these '12 year old kids' show up the show and start booing Orton/Batista plans and other things they don't like- Vince's immediate reaction is 'oh its just the internet trying to hijack the show!' and not 'Oh fuck! WWE fans don't want to see this!'. Orton/Batista is a bad example as WWE called an audible and went accordingly from there but how many times in just the last decade has WWE shown to be out-of-touch with what's really going on in the world and with what the fans really want because of its distrust and hatered of the internet?

 

Running The Networking like a cable company, making fun of those who {for technical reasons} do not have the network instead of figuring out a solution to the technical challenges, downplaying the impact/usefulness of the internet in the 21st century and the opinions fostered from that medium, and the over promoting of social media are all problems. I didn't really touche on social media, but I will say this- I know WWE has a bunch of social media accounts- and its fine to plug them. But I honestly believe that WWE plus its social media more times in a 3 hour Monday night show then The NFL, NBA, UFC, NHL, and others. OH BUT THEY NEED TO PROMOTE~! Bullshit. The constant social media plugs comes off as grand-dad trying to be hip and reminding you that he is in touch with the youngsters.