WWE TV 12/05 - 12/11

[Zoo Enthusiast]

The Vice piece was great.

[Coffey]

I'm not sure what the actual reality of the situation would be if it did play out but as a fan, I feel like I would rather WWE was owned/ran by Shane McMahon instead of Stephanie McMahon & Triple H. Anything that could potentially get Stephanie McMahon off of TV indefinitely has to be a positive.

 

We don't know everything about the behind the scenes stuff but I'm fairly confident in my assessment that a pro-wrestling company should not be publicly traded & should not have a team of soap opera writers coming up with the storylines and promos. I also believe that Kevin Dunn and Michaels Hayes should have been gone a long time ago & RAW, starting at 9PM on a weeknight, should not be TV-PG. I just feel like they make a lot of odd decisions & show loyalty to weird people... but they're making a ton of money, so what do I know?

[Coffey]

Also, I was thinking, Sean Waltman is definitely going to go into the WWE Hall of Fame, just so Shawn Michaels & Triple H can talk/brag about how all of The Kilq are hall of famers.

 

Big Show is going in too (when he's finished) and really deserves it. I was thinking about his career so far. He won the title from Hogan in his debut match in WCW, right? He was pretty over for awhile against the nWo too. Won the WCW title, the WWE title, ECW title, tag titles. Had that match with Mayweather. Going to have the match with Shaq. He's done a lot, really. Won the Andre Battle Royal. The fact he's done all he has, for as long as he has, with that size of a body is pretty incredible. Only thing he's not really done is win the Royal Rumble.

[The Thread Killer]

 

that article almost made me think Hunter and Shane shoot hate each other. I want to see that match now. The sequel to "love her or leave her" from Summerslam 99

 

That impression seemed loud and clear with Shane's responses concerning Trips on that podcast he did with Foley after his return.

 

 

That's what I thought at the time...Shane seemed visibly unimpressed with Triple H, but when I mentioned it here, people suggested the whole thing was a work. I didn't think it was, since they tend to be more shooty and less worky on those podcasts, but these are wrestlers, so who ever really knows?

[The Thread Killer]

I'm not sure what the actual reality of the situation would be if it did play out but as a fan, I feel like I would rather WWE was owned/ran by Shane McMahon instead of Stephanie McMahon & Triple H.

 

I used to think that, for sure. But if NXT is what Triple H's version of WWE would be like, then sign me up.

[cpst]

It's going to be interesting to see where WWE goes as a business in the next 5 years. Despite launching the Network, television contracts are still the most substantial portion of their business, and with ratings dropping USA was apparently unhappy enough to request that WWE take Smackdown live on Tuesdays. They'll be renegotiating in 2018/2019, and it's hard to see them getting a better deal than their current USA one. A few months ago there was a meme on a lot of the smark podcasts that ratings don't matter and that things like YouTube views are what's important today, but the numbers continue to say the opposite.

 

The article touches on how the Network launch hurt their last round of negotiations. Is Vince a genius for buying into the Network concept early and charting a path to (currently unfulfilled) financial independence from other media companies, or did he make a huge strategic error in launching it before the television negotiations finished, costing the company a few hundred million dollars?

 

At any point, Vince could no longer be in control of the company (be it death or severe illness). Since the McMahons control the vast majority of voting shares, they'll be able to choose the next CEO. Will investors really accept another McMahon without someone else that has stronger business experience? Say what you want about HHH's involvement in NXT as a wrestling promotion, but it's not an independently profitable business unit inside of WWE. Wrestling fans might get a different perception from that than investors.

[sek69]

Another interesting point is in the breakdown of ownership, I believe Linda only owns 8% and Shane and Steph each own 2%. Vince's share is like 48% or so after the last sale he did, it could come down to how his estate divides his portion when the time comes. Wouldn't it just be the most Vince thing ever for him to spend the last years of his life grooming Steph to take over, only to will his entire ownership stake over to Shane?

[cpst]

He owns 47% of all shares but 85% of all voting shares. He could give those to either of his children.

[cpst]

According to their 10K, only descendants of Vince and Linda can become holders of Class B stock with 10:1 voting rights, and if anyone else holds Class B stock it is automatically converted to Class A stock.

[Johnny Sorrow]

Someone else pointed this out, and I agree. I just adore the amateur psychiatrists diagnosing the imaginary McMahons,

[AirJordanFan93]

Also, I was thinking, Sean Waltman is definitely going to go into the WWE Hall of Fame, just so Shawn Michaels & Triple H can talk/brag about how all of The Kilq are hall of famers.

 

Big Show is going in too (when he's finished) and really deserves it. I was thinking about his career so far. He won the title from Hogan in his debut match in WCW, right? He was pretty over for awhile against the nWo too. Won the WCW title, the WWE title, ECW title, tag titles. Had that match with Mayweather. Going to have the match with Shaq. He's done a lot, really. Won the Andre Battle Royal. The fact he's done all he has, for as long as he has, with that size of a body is pretty incredible. Only thing he's not really done is win the Royal Rumble.

 

Of course Waltman is going in. I mean its the WWE HOF just look at some of the people they have put in there who really aren't that deserving of it. Least Waltman was a decent mid-card act in WCW and WWF in the late 90s.

 

As for Show it doesn't bother me that he will be in the HOF when he calls it a day. He has had his runs of success in both WCW and WWE.

[AirJordanFan93]

 

I'm not sure what the actual reality of the situation would be if it did play out but as a fan, I feel like I would rather WWE was owned/ran by Shane McMahon instead of Stephanie McMahon & Triple H.

 

I used to think that, for sure. But if NXT is what Triple H's version of WWE would be like, then sign me up.

 

I think a lot of people used to think like that about Triple H running the WWE. That it would be a company where he was still always on top and his buddies or chosen guys would get the big pushes. But the last 4 years with the expansion of NXT and what he has done with developmental have turned a lot of people who were against the whole HHH/Steph running things in a post-Vince world.

[stro]

I see HHH run WWE being like what the WWF was in 1984-85: Hire your faves from somewhere else, push them hard, and pretend like you made them.

[Loss]

NXT has a lot less masters to serve than Raw or Smackdown. When your only goal is to appeal to one type of fan, it's not hard to do that well. When your goal is to appeal to a wide audience that sometimes responds to conflicting things and you have to make choices that are going to alienate some people no matter which way you go, it gets complicated. NXT does a better job of appealing to its audience, but its audience is also more monolithic and an easier one to understand. There is less pressure to grow or to deliver a bottom line. The main pressure is artistic. Raw and Smackdown have a lot of commitments to a lot of people outside the wrestling bubble that NXT simply doesn't. This is not to excuse some of the awful stuff we see on Raw or Smackdown, but just to point out that the task before WWE in producing those shows is far more daunting and complex than in producing NXT. NXT is the better show, but there is no reason it shouldn't be with all the built-in advantages it has. If all of WWE existed with so few masters and so much freedom, it would quite possibly all look exactly like that. But that's not reality. If NXT as we know it collapsed tomorrow, WWE would go on and would not be drastically hurt. If Raw collapsed, WWE would be in serious trouble.

[sek69]

Someone else pointed this out, and I agree. I just adore the amateur psychiatrists diagnosing the imaginary McMahons,

 

 

Yeah, it's not like we have 30+ years of them in the public eye to draw on or anything.

[cpst]

I see HHH run WWE being like what the WWF was in 1984-85: Hire your faves from somewhere else, push them hard, and pretend like you made them.

That model will work pretty well unless they get greedy and burn through their feeder system, especially if they keep the Network price low to prevent any competition from gaining a large nonlocal following via Internet distribution.

[kid dracula]

NXT has a lot less masters to serve than Raw or Smackdown. When your only goal is to appeal to one type of fan, it's not hard to do that well. When your goal is to appeal to a wide audience that sometimes responds to conflicting things and you have to make choices that are going to alienate some people no matter which way you go, it gets complicated. NXT does a better job of appealing to its audience, but its audience is also more monolithic and an easier one to understand. There is less pressure to grow or to deliver a bottom line. The main pressure is artistic. Raw and Smackdown have a lot of commitments to a lot of people outside the wrestling bubble that NXT simply doesn't. This is not to excuse some of the awful stuff we see on Raw or Smackdown, but just to point out that the task before WWE in producing those shows is far more daunting and complex than in producing NXT. NXT is the better show, but there is no reason it shouldn't be with all the built-in advantages it has. If all of WWE existed with so few masters and so much freedom, it would quite possibly all look exactly like that. But that's not reality. If NXT as we know it collapsed tomorrow, WWE would go on and would not be drastically hurt. If Raw collapsed, WWE would be in serious trouble.

 

I feel like I've heard this argument a lot, and I don't really understand it. In what way would Raw be worse off, and less serving of its many masters, if it was booked as a traditional pro wrestling show? Wouldn't the show be much more appealing if it weren't built around feuding GMs, endless horrible comedy skits, impotent babyfaces, etc? If the current formula was working you could shrug and say it is what it is, but their ratings are hitting historic lows every week. If the pressure is on them to grow and deliver bottom lines, they're failing awfully. The Network is nowhere near the numbers they promised their investors, and they may never be. They also failed to deliver a big new TV deal, and I wonder, given the ratings trend, what their next contract with USA is going to look like.

 

I had the same question when Vince was on the Austin podcast, and he explained that they simply need a massive team of writers, because the business has changed. But why? Who changed it? Has it changed for the better? If the many new masters they now serve includes stuff like, "We must let Stephanie emasculate every wrestler in the company to establish to the world how powerful she is," that seems like a self-inflicted wound.

[stro]

Well, they've been hitting historic lows for about 10 years straight, as they've been on a downward trajectory for 15 years straight. I don't think it really matters much how they book Raw, to be honest. The core audience is always going to be there. Traditional wrestling shows could be anything at this point. What Raw is now has been that way for about 20 years. It's more traditional than what Raw was before that by this point.

[Loss]

 

NXT has a lot less masters to serve than Raw or Smackdown. When your only goal is to appeal to one type of fan, it's not hard to do that well. When your goal is to appeal to a wide audience that sometimes responds to conflicting things and you have to make choices that are going to alienate some people no matter which way you go, it gets complicated. NXT does a better job of appealing to its audience, but its audience is also more monolithic and an easier one to understand. There is less pressure to grow or to deliver a bottom line. The main pressure is artistic. Raw and Smackdown have a lot of commitments to a lot of people outside the wrestling bubble that NXT simply doesn't. This is not to excuse some of the awful stuff we see on Raw or Smackdown, but just to point out that the task before WWE in producing those shows is far more daunting and complex than in producing NXT. NXT is the better show, but there is no reason it shouldn't be with all the built-in advantages it has. If all of WWE existed with so few masters and so much freedom, it would quite possibly all look exactly like that. But that's not reality. If NXT as we know it collapsed tomorrow, WWE would go on and would not be drastically hurt. If Raw collapsed, WWE would be in serious trouble.

 

I feel like I've heard this argument a lot, and I don't really understand it. In what way would Raw be worse off, and less serving of its many masters, if it was booked as a traditional pro wrestling show? Wouldn't the show be much more appealing if it weren't built around feuding GMs, endless horrible comedy skits, impotent babyfaces, etc? If the current formula was working you could shrug and say it is what it is, but their ratings are hitting historic lows every week. If the pressure is on them to grow and deliver bottom lines, they're failing awfully. The Network is nowhere near the numbers they promised their investors, and they may never be. They also failed to deliver a big new TV deal, and I wonder, given the ratings trend, what their next contract with USA is going to look like.

 

I had the same question when Vince was on the Austin podcast, and he explained that they simply need a massive team of writers, because the business has changed. But why? Who changed it? Has it changed for the better? If the many new masters they now serve includes stuff like, "We must let Stephanie emasculate every wrestler in the company to establish to the world how powerful she is," that seems like a self-inflicted wound.

 

 

They aren't succeeding in drawing a bigger audience much these days. But they are trying. The attempt is there to appeal to casual fans, children, women ... that's why it's booked differently from NXT, at least in theory. I hear what you are saying, but the general belief is that booking good wrestling shows for wrestling fans means they'll never expand their audience. I don't necessarily believe that, but to be fair, NXT isn't meant for everyone. That's the intent of main roster WWE, even though that's not the end result.

[AirJordanFan93]

 

NXT has a lot less masters to serve than Raw or Smackdown. When your only goal is to appeal to one type of fan, it's not hard to do that well. When your goal is to appeal to a wide audience that sometimes responds to conflicting things and you have to make choices that are going to alienate some people no matter which way you go, it gets complicated. NXT does a better job of appealing to its audience, but its audience is also more monolithic and an easier one to understand. There is less pressure to grow or to deliver a bottom line. The main pressure is artistic. Raw and Smackdown have a lot of commitments to a lot of people outside the wrestling bubble that NXT simply doesn't. This is not to excuse some of the awful stuff we see on Raw or Smackdown, but just to point out that the task before WWE in producing those shows is far more daunting and complex than in producing NXT. NXT is the better show, but there is no reason it shouldn't be with all the built-in advantages it has. If all of WWE existed with so few masters and so much freedom, it would quite possibly all look exactly like that. But that's not reality. If NXT as we know it collapsed tomorrow, WWE would go on and would not be drastically hurt. If Raw collapsed, WWE would be in serious trouble.

 

I feel like I've heard this argument a lot, and I don't really understand it. In what way would Raw be worse off, and less serving of its many masters, if it was booked as a traditional pro wrestling show? Wouldn't the show be much more appealing if it weren't built around feuding GMs, endless horrible comedy skits, impotent babyfaces, etc? If the current formula was working you could shrug and say it is what it is, but their ratings are hitting historic lows every week. If the pressure is on them to grow and deliver bottom lines, they're failing awfully. The Network is nowhere near the numbers they promised their investors, and they may never be. They also failed to deliver a big new TV deal, and I wonder, given the ratings trend, what their next contract with USA is going to look like.

 

I had the same question when Vince was on the Austin podcast, and he explained that they simply need a massive team of writers, because the business has changed. But why? Who changed it? Has it changed for the better? If the many new masters they now serve includes stuff like, "We must let Stephanie emasculate every wrestler in the company to establish to the world how powerful she is," that seems like a self-inflicted wound.

 

They were claiming they could possibly hit like 4 million subs for the Network which is just nonsense given how poor the PPV business was for the 10 or so years before the Network hit. They had that BS survey where they claimed some crazy amount of people had an affinity for WWE. But yeah the next round of TV negotiations will be interesting given the really poor ratings they are delivering in the current one. Wonder if they will still play the "live sport" card again to try salvage some sort of increase if any will be pretty minimal.

[goc]

Do any of the 'WWE'S RATINGS ARE DOWN THEY ARE GONNA BE IN BIG TROUBLE' types actually bother to pay attention to the overall TV landscape? Ratings are going down across the board, WWE is still the highest rated show on USA Network, helping to boost the network's overall average. It's still one of the top 25 shows on cable.

 

They are not in a bubble here, people are cord cutting more and more. To the point where ESPN tried to bully Nielsen into retracting a report it had that said ESPN lost 621,000 subscribers. Nielsen ratings are becoming more and more outdated as they fail to measure the growing ways people can watch TV without cable or satellite. Nielsen isn't factoring in Hulu, Sling TV, Playstation Vue or whatever else is out there.

[WingedEagle]

Do any of the 'WWE'S RATINGS ARE DOWN THEY ARE GONNA BE IN BIG TROUBLE' types actually bother to pay attention to the overall TV landscape? Ratings are going down across the board, WWE is still the highest rated show on USA Network, helping to boost the network's overall average. It's still one of the top 25 shows on cable.

 

They are not in a bubble here, people are cord cutting more and more. To the point where ESPN tried to bully Nielsen into retracting a report it had that said ESPN lost 621,000 subscribers. Nielsen ratings are becoming more and more outdated as they fail to measure the growing ways people can watch TV without cable or satellite. Nielsen isn't factoring in Hulu, Sling TV, Playstation Vue or whatever else is out there.

 

They certainly do, and Meltzer for one regularly points out how even with the slide in ratings, USA's overall network ratings would take a tremendous hit absent WWE programming. Its a very different universe than 5, much less 15, years ago. But given how TV money is the backbone of the company its undoubtedly a top concern with an eventual renegotiation on the horizon and no desperate suitors forcing USA to ante up.

[Seabs]

That doesn't account for all the other metrics that are also going down. Although it is a good point to make regarding the ratings.

[goc]

 

Do any of the 'WWE'S RATINGS ARE DOWN THEY ARE GONNA BE IN BIG TROUBLE' types actually bother to pay attention to the overall TV landscape? Ratings are going down across the board, WWE is still the highest rated show on USA Network, helping to boost the network's overall average. It's still one of the top 25 shows on cable.

 

They are not in a bubble here, people are cord cutting more and more. To the point where ESPN tried to bully Nielsen into retracting a report it had that said ESPN lost 621,000 subscribers. Nielsen ratings are becoming more and more outdated as they fail to measure the growing ways people can watch TV without cable or satellite. Nielsen isn't factoring in Hulu, Sling TV, Playstation Vue or whatever else is out there.

 

They certainly do, and Meltzer for one regularly points out how even with the slide in ratings, USA's overall network ratings would take a tremendous hit absent WWE programming. Its a very different universe than 5, much less 15, years ago. But given how TV money is the backbone of the company its undoubtedly a top concern with an eventual renegotiation on the horizon and no desperate suitors forcing USA to ante up.

 

 

I'm not talking about someone like Meltzer who I know actually understands the overall trend. I'm talking about the hot take kings of twitter & message boards who regularly go off about 'THE RATINGS ARE SO BAD!!! WWE IS FUCKED!' without adding anything else to the conversation. There weren't any other suitors driving the price up on the last round of negotiations with USA and they still got a significant increase. It's not like the rest of television is gonna make some big rebound while only WWE ratings continue to go down.

[Matt D]

My simple, unasked for, answer is that they need to stop booking week to week and insert more mysteries and surprises and payoffs. Where does that fall on "overused talking points" bingo?