<Split> The decline of Vince McMahon

[Dooley]

It's also worth noting now that Vince is around the same age as Verne Gagne was in the mid-late 80's when he was clearly set in his ways and the world by and large had passed him by. It happens to older people.

[Bigelow34]

Is it me or did anyone else think when Vince came back just before Survivor series he looked quite ill.

Well you are the doctor, you should know!

 

And, yes... I think he did. He looked quite jaundiced and just not well.

[EvenStevenBooking]

Vince's best and dumbest move will forever be killing the territories. Instead of constantly keeping a supply of gold coming in, Vince took the gold all in two swings and now doesn't have a source. Had he figured out a way to keep the promotions he destroyed open, he likely could have kept his own personal territory system and had new stars for years. He also could have kept things fresh by sending stars to his other territories while bringing in stars from those territories to take their place.

The territories as they were known were going to die regardless.

[anarchistxx]

Vince's best and dumbest move will forever be killing the territories. Instead of constantly keeping a supply of gold coming in, Vince took the gold all in two swings and now doesn't have a source.

 

Not sure about that - most of the new stars WWE has had on top in the last five years started out on the indies. What is interesting is that Daniel Bryan & CM Punk had a lot more staying power on top than WWE created stars such as Jack Swagger, Sheamus and The Miz who faded very quickly after their initial pushes. Which sort of backs up your point that territories are better at creating talent than the current in house model.

 

But there is still a steady stream of talent coming from the local independent federations who have replaced the territories on a small scale. Seth Rollins has been pushed more than anyone this year and he made his name in ROH. Cesaro, Dean Ambrose and Luke Harper have also had pushes.

 

I agree with the point made above, that what WWE is really missing is the random people who would find their way into the industry, strip club managers or bouncers or just people who used to hang out at the gym and met someone connected to the industry. This isn't a problem solely with wrestling either - look at sports like soccer, tennis, cricket and even motor racing, that lack the charismatic mavericks that used to grace them. That is because of academies, sports science, a more technical, clinical approach to sport which means that you can't have James Hunt smoking and drinking and womanizing and still expecting to compete at top level sport. Most soccer players now have spent their childhood and life being mothered through academies - they don't know real life or real experience, so end up being blank and homogeneous and lacking a personality of their own.

 

It is a well worn point, but the fact that everything is so micro managed and overscripted in WWE really hurts their attempts to create new stars. Even John Cena, the last major star they made, got popular by a rap gimmick he invented himself and raps he wrote on his own. He got a backlash when the writers started giving him lame, awkward comedy to spout.

[jackwebb]

I don't know about ill but he didn't look all that great in that one photo of him posted a couple months ago. Finally just letting his body go and not worring about the weight lifting would have the same look with someone his age. That and no professional makeup like when on tv.

[BigBadMick]

He looks a lot like the photos of his father they always use.

[jdw]

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.

 

I'd argue that the WWE isn't really running it like a cable channel. They have one item of "new content" to draw people in: the monthly PPV shows. Which, as you pointed out several times, was already a declining item of content.

 

The rest of the "new content" isn't terribly well thought out, nor really fits into being must see for current WWE Fans. While some of us might be disappointed that the WWE isn't putting up the stuff that we older fans want to see, we also tend to get that: the small numbers of us that want to see all the old MSG/Spectrum/Boston Garden/Misc House Shows aren't significant enough for the WWE to invest a great deal of thought or money in.(1) But you would have expected Vince / Network Management to have invested more thought and time into content that Current WWE Fans feel they need to see several times a week to justify the $9.99 in addition to the PPVs.

 

That they drop the ball on that basic concept remains pretty gobsmacking.

 

(1) One could actually argue that that old content doesn't cost much: they have a crapload of it in the can from 24/7 and other projects. The hosting cost looks mixed: fair amount of storage space, but limited bandwidth/resource strain due to the limited interest.

[jdw]

On the broader question of whether he's in decline or not, I'm at a loss on why people would think it's impossible to consider. His career as a promoter hasn't been one of constant upward motion, either in terms of creative success or business success. He's had several periods where business went down or when creatively the company was down. The company has bounced back on one, the other, or both areas as well. But when you have a career that's gone past 30 years at this point, it's a bit naive to expect it to always bounce back to where it once was, or beyond.

 

I think we all can look at other forms of entertainment, business and sports where past success doesn't mean current success and future success are locks.

[Shining Wiz]

For the majority here, Vince and the WWF have always been there, and generally been IT when it comes to wrestling. Even if you grew up an NWA fan, you knew sooner rather than later that The WWF was the big time, so to speak. So, that being the case, it's hard to imagine something that defines the industry for so many disappearing.

[Matt D]

WCW ceasing to exist was pretty striking in that regard.

[jdw]

There were probably two generation of viewers who saw this monster as either being a sign of Entertaining TV or Excellent TV and watched in droves:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Must_See_TV

 

It's actually a bit like the WWF in a sense:

 

Expansion Era = The Cosby Show + Family Ties/A Different World + Cheers + Hill Street Blues/L.A. Law

Attitude Era = Seinfeld + Friends + ER

 

Wild Success: #1 show in 12 seasons, the #2 another 9 times, 49 Top 5 & 65 Top 10 series in 20 years

Critical Success: an insane number of Emmys, including 16 Best Drama/Comedy awards

 

It had been completely rebuilt between in initial era and second era.

 

Then it hit the wall. The business changed to a degree. Just as importantly, after Friend & ER the promotion couldn't build a new anchor program to carry the night until new strong programs could be added and get hot (to a degree what Seinfeld did in 1993/94 before Friends & ER came along the next season).

 

I think in 1991/92 one could see Must See TV running its course. Cosby ran its course, Different World was running its course, and LA Law had peaked. While Cheers was going strong, it was down from #1 and was heading into its final season.

 

In contrast, by say 1998/99 it seemed like Must See TV was train that had no end in sight. It had all 5 shows in the Top 5 for the second time in 4 seasons, and the Top 4 for the 4th straight year. Anything could get plugged in and draw: look at the shows from 1995/96 - 1998/99 that made the Top 10 yet were tossed aside for "not doing well enough". Pretty insane.

 

Creatively NBC fell apart. Business-wise they seemed to lose their track as well.

 

One thing that sustained NBC in the 20+ years was that they had some turn over, both in the creativity in making the shows, and also on the business side in marketing them and have a reasonable finger on the pulse of TV changing over those 20 years. By the early 00s, they seemed to dry up on both ends.

 

* * * * *

 

An example/analogy of probably the most successful entertainment in the US over that 20 year period. They had one disadvantage that the WWF doesn't now: direct competition. That's both in the genre (the other networks were cranking out comedy's and dramas) but also in time slots. Cosby took a hit when Fox insanely moved The Simpsons opposite it. Then in 2000/01, CBS put the second season of Survivor opposite Friends, and moved CSI from Friday to Thursday after Survivor and a new ratings monster was created.

 

There isn't any wrestling competition for Vince. The television competition is the same he's been dealing with for decades: other TV, and a longtime decline/dispersal of primetime viewers.

[JerryvonKramer]

On the broader question of whether he's in decline or not, I'm at a loss on why people would think it's impossible to consider.

Did anyone in the thread argue this though?

 

I contested two things:

 

1. That you can't suggest a guy who has been in the business for 40 years during most of which he's been the best promoter of all-time doesn't know what he's doing now because he's not booking the product in the way smart fans (or CM Punk) want him to.

 

Like I've said, I'm convinced that to an extent Vince has always written off the hardcore fan and gears everything to the casual fan. (For right or for wrong)

 

2. Just because his entire time as promoter haven't been as hot as the Hogan or Austin years, don't mean that you can write him off as someone who only had 6-8 "great years" in a 30 year run.

 

I don't deny that he's in decline, I just wanted to flesh out the how and why.

[thebrainfollower]

No one is saying that Vince McMahon is in decline because he's not booking Punk and Bryan as his top guys Jerry.

 

But he's been in charge of WWE for 32 years. During that time he had eighteen months to get started followed by a six year boom, a 6 year decline, a 4 year boom. He was up and down but his ups were like nothing the business has ever seen. He was definitely in his peak.

 

But for the last 13 years the WWE product has fallen. The only notice it gets outside of its own bubble is when yet another wrestler dies. It's not treated by the mainstream media as a joke, it's treated as irrelevant. Raw ratings are half what they were at their peak, and have been that way for years with no signs of upward mobility. House show revenues are in freefall and have been for years.

 

And the Network, the next big thing for WWE has not been the roaring success it was expected to be. The numbers are half of what WWE promised and they also took a huge hit on expecting much higher revenue with the USA deal renewal.

 

Right now fewer people are interested in WWE, and North American pro wrestling, than at any time in history. By any measure you want to use, ratings, house show gates, network numbers, PPV buy rates and merchandising things have been in decline for nearly HALF of Vince McMahon's run on top. About the only success has been the Mattel action figures and right now Mattel has enough power to dictate to Vince on broad things, and he's just lucky they don't really care that much.

 

THAT is the argument anyone is making and as you yourself say, THAT is why VInce McMahon is a sad old man in decline. And getting exactly what he truly deserves, a slide into total irrelevance by the mainstream media he deep down wishes adored and followed him.

[BillThompson]

Parv, if you can listen to the Austin interview and not see that McMahon is in decline and completely out of touch with the product, the talent, and his fans, I don't know what to say to you anymore.

[Sean Liska]

The internet hasn't been happy with Vince since WM17. We're just bringing up his age now because it's convenient, but it's not like people thought he was doing an amazing job in 2003 but has fallen way off since then. To me, he's fine. I honestly don't see the Gagne comparisons. He's got a crop of young guys that can carry them for a long time, The PPVs have been really good this year. The Lesnar title reign and ending of the streak shows he still has balls.

 

Curious where you get the figures that say house show revenues are in a free fall. They've been steady for a long time. I've heard this argument for ten years about how less people are interested in wrestling than ever and it's irrelevant in the mainstream and so on and so on but it's a fragmented entertainment landscape now and they're doing fine.

 

The Network projections would be the best argument towards him being in some serious decline but it's not any worse-conceived than the XFL. He likes to take big dumb risks and can afford to.

[Sean Liska]

Parv, if you can listen to the Austin interview and not see that McMahon is in decline and completely out of touch with the product, the talent, and his fans, I don't know what to say to you anymore.

Because he doesn't want to push Cesaro, a guy who didn't even have the charisma to headline in ROH consistently?

[JerryvonKramer]

But yet, even sad old man Vince in decline is making more money than any previous promoter ever.

 

Bill Watts never did 75,000 in New Orleans. Vince did.

 

Max Crabtree never did 80,000 at Wembley. Vince did.

 

Jim Barnett never did 71,000 in Georgia. Vince did.

 

And none of those gates took place during the "peak" periods.

 

What does "upward mobility" mean in the context of being the best wrestling promoter who ever lived?

 

Maybe it's Vince's personal tragedy that he's destined to be the biggest fish in a small pond, but who cares? We're wrestling fans. We view things from within the pond. If Vince is held to any standards they are standards he set himself in a league of his own by himself.

 

Parv, if you can listen to the Austin interview and not see that McMahon is in decline and completely out of touch with the product, the talent, and his fans, I don't know what to say to you anymore.

My comments are here: http://prowrestlingonly.com/index.php?/topic/30116-vince-mcmahon-on-stone-cold-podcast/?p=5643163

[BillThompson]

I think Cesaro is a far better talent than when he was Claudio. There's really no denying how over Cesaro was at the beginning of the year. Cesaro never did anything to change that, the writers and the booking did. Vince doesn't apparently see it that way, as apparently Cesaro doesn't have the charisma to be over despite being one of the most over guys in the company for the first few months of 2014. There are other examples as well, such as the talk of the Millenials and of not pissing people off.

[JerryvonKramer]

On the last Where the Big Boys Play, I read out Dave Meltzer over a series of weeks in 1991 pissing and moaning about Van Hammer getting pushed at the expense of Johnny B. Badd. With 15 years hindsight we can say, truly, "who cares". It just doesn't matter.

 

That's everyone pissing and moaning about Cesaro today.

 

Vince has to make decisions. This is a man who worked with Bruno, Pedro Morales, and Antonino Rocca. And Rey. You don't think he might have a feel for who does and doesn't have the makings of a star regardless of their background?

[thebrainfollower]

Having one hugely successful show a year (and that 80,000 in Wembley was 22 years ago) doesn't qualify you to be a success. Is Vince still the most successful promoter today? Sure. He successfully devalued pro wrestling so much that nobody wants to touch it. As I said earlier, pro wrestling is at the lowest point of interest in North American it has been in over 100 years. You can argue as some do that is BECAUSE of the way Vince McMahon changed what it is. I remain unsure of that but increasingly leaning towards agreement. But what you cannot argue is that it IS at its lowest point.

 

And we can't call Parv out for some of this. He himself is out of touch with modern product fans, talent and the product itself by his own admission. If he had watched week in and week out for years, his view of Vince McMahon would be much dimmer. It's the same as someone adoring Woody Allen who's seen all his movies up to and including Manhattan and nothing else.

[Sean Liska]

On the last Where the Big Boys Play, I read out Dave Meltzer over a series of weeks in 1991 pissing and moaning about Van Hammer getting pushed at the expense of Johnny B. Badd. With 15 years hindsight we can say, truly, "who cares". It just doesn't matter.

 

That's everyone pissing and moaning about Cesaro today.

 

I agree. I like Cesaro and he could be pushed more. But he's not a game-changer. It's not some huge sign that Vince needs to hang it up. It's amazing to me that we got this rare in-depth interview with one of the great minds in the history of the industry and all anyone wants to talk about is Cesaro.

 

If they send Ambrose back to the midcard, I'll be on board with everyone being mad at Vince because I think Ambrose has the highest ceiling since Cena. If they don't get good runs out of Reigns and Rollins and Bryan, I'll be on board. Cesaro? They'll survive.

[thebrainfollower]

Vince's FATHER put those guys on top Parv. Vince Jr's top stars, with one notable exception (and even he was never pushed as THE guy, he was always 1a to Austin and then even really to HHH in how he was booked) have always been white men.

 

Whether Vince is personally racist and sexist I cannot say. His product sure as heck is though and always has been.

[Sean Liska]

Having one hugely successful show a year (and that 80,000 in Wembley was 22 years ago) doesn't qualify you to be a success. Is Vince still the most successful promoter today? Sure. He successfully devalued pro wrestling so much that nobody wants to touch it. As I said earlier, pro wrestling is at the lowest point of interest in North American it has been in over 100 years. You can argue as some do that is BECAUSE of the way Vince McMahon changed what it is. I remain unsure of that but increasingly leaning towards agreement. But what you cannot argue is that it IS at its lowest point.

 

And we can't call Parv out for some of this. He himself is out of touch with modern product fans, talent and the product itself by his own admission. If he had watched week in and week out for years, his view of Vince McMahon would be much dimmer. It's the same as someone adoring Woody Allen who's seen all his movies up to and including Manhattan and nothing else.

WWE is highly successful by any historic standards. The Rumble sold out this year in minutes. So did SummerSlam. Payback sold out Chicago. Extreme Rules sold out NJ. MITB sold out quickly in Boston. TLC is going to sell out. The last international tour had plenty of big crowds. Mania does a $10 million gate every year now.

 

The whole thing about how wrestling is at it's lowest interest level in 100 years is such an empty talking point. Of course things are different than the days of dozens of local promotions having free TV during eras where there were 4 channels. Everything on TV except football has less general interest than it used to. Welcome to 2014.

 

The 1998 NBA Finals averaged 29 million viewers. Last year's Finals, with the made-for-TV Lebron story and Spurs redemption deal, did 15 million. Game 7 of the 97 World Series, with two teams lacking national appeal in Cleveland and Florida, did 39 million viewers. Game 7 of last year's World Series did 23 million.

[JerryvonKramer]

Brain - as I said earlier in the thread, I am no longer Vince's target audience. I hate the modern product maybe more than anyone else on this board with the possible exception of El-P. And it's Vince's product. I do not like what wrestling has become and it's nothing to do with why I watch it. It's why I spend all my time watching shit from 40 years ago. I'm not "out of touch", I just don't like the product period and I despise the crowds even more.

 

And I get the point about wrestling itself being at a low ebb. I would give anything to go back to the territory days.

 

But my advice to anyone on this board -- hardcore fans, smart fans, whatever you call it -- would just be "don't watch". It's not for you. I come back to my Simon Cowell analogy. I don't watch X-factor or buy the shitty records that result from it. It's nothing to do with what I'm into as a music fan. But Cowell has to follow what gets over and what sells. And that sells. Vince isn't much different.

 

Do you really think if he'd listened to all of the smart fans telling him to bury Cena and put Indie-god-of-the-week as WWE champ that the company would be doing BETTER?

 

Thing is with Vince, he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't with a lot of people.

 

But I'll just throw out the elephant in the room here: a lot of modern wrestling fans -- the type of post on the internet -- are happiest when they are in a permanent state of disgruntlement. Because what they get from the product is enjoyment from communal bitching and moaning. Go back and read fans even at the height of the attitude era or go back and read people writing into Meltzer during the peak of 1989 and you'll find guys bitching and moaning. Because face it that's what smart fans do. I've never been interested in that. I think the experience of being a "current fan" is tied into all of that and it's just not my thing. But I wish more people would admit that that's basically why they watch.

[thebrainfollower]

So selling out 12 shows a year vs what they were doing in the 80's and Attitude era and what tons of promotions were doing 30 years ago is a sign of success? Talk about empty talking points.

 

The idea that wrestling only succeeded because there was nothing else to do. Okay for TV I buy that, there just wasn't as much to watch 30 years ago sure. But the idea that people had no other entertainment options is silly. And IF Vince was the god businessman some claim he would have found a way to have WWE keep up. So far all his attempts to fit into 2014 have FAILED. And that's why's he's in decline. By your own argument, you just proved the very point you seem to oppose.