WWE Hot Period?

[Strummer]

Meltzer's Update today:

 

Smackdown last night did a 3.1 rating on the fast nationals. It was in last place among the networks, but that's one of the best Smackdown ratings they've ever done on Fridays. WWE is hot right now, and will be for much of 2007.

Notice how he said for much of 2007. I take that as he sees this as a somewhat long term hot period for the company with it not just being attributed to football ending and it being the always successful road to Wrestlemania push.

 

WWE really hasn't made any drastic changes to the core of the product or how they present their product. So why do you think all of a sudden the company is on a hot streak, and a potentially sustained one at that?

[sek69]

It's probably helping that the booking has been pretty old school. Cena vs Umaga is the classic hero vs monster that's worked in wrestling since the dawn of time, and DX vs RKO was pretty heated as well up till HHH's leg blowing up again.

 

I think WWE knows this, that's why we're seeing HBK start to morph into the Terry Funk gimmick instead of trying to keep pretending it's 1995. It's roughly a billion times more believable he's a crazy bastard who's going to do whatever it takes avenge his pal rather than a 40 year old teen heartthrob with a receeding hairline.

[Loss]

2007 will probably not compare to the glory days of the Attitude era in terms of popularity, and I think there will be some people who will write off any success they have this year unless they're drawing as much money as they were with Austin and Rock, which isn't really fair or realistic. Truth is, there are a lot of factors that I think have led to this. Staying patient with Cena and not putting him in the midcard because half the crowd was booing him paid off in the long run and I think we're seeing the effects of that now. HHH getting sidelined has led to HBK getting a much-needed shot in the arm. The Undertaker/Batista and Cena/Umaga feuds have been the most simple and basic main event booking they've done in quite some time. And this will sound silly, but don't count Jeff Hardy out either. He's drawing television ratings right now on Raw and is very over. He seems to have his head on straight since returning, which is good, because fans have always taken to him and most likely always will.

 

Add in the buzz with things like Kevin Federline (Donald Trump has really been a failure, so I'm not including it) and I think things have come together nicely. Most of the problems they've had for years still exist, and I don't think they're going to ride this wave very long, but the timing has largely been good and lots of things have clicked at the same time. They seem to be doing more things that are working to some degree near the top of the card than they have in some time.

[The Thread Killer]

In the name of all that is good and holy...will people PLEASE stop comparing Shawn Michaels to TERRY FUNK?

[Guest TheShawshankRudotion]

Statistically speaking, the increases in fans could just be a result of population growth.

[sek69]

In the name of all that is good and holy...will people PLEASE stop comparing Shawn Michaels to TERRY FUNK?

 

 

You don't think HBK's newfound attitude is at least somewhat inspired by Terry Funk? Being a Texan is a nice coincidence but the last few matches he had on RAW were certainly Terryesque.

 

Now mind you I didn't say he was better than Terry at being the crazy old man brawler, but he's trying.

 

Also, aren't PPV numbers about the same as they've been the last couple of years? They've been getting people to come to more houseshows, which is good for the wrestler's paychecks I'd gather, but it's hardly a sign of a major upswing. I mean, doesn't Dave constantly beat the drum of PPV buyrates = success? Or does that only apply to non WWE promotions?

[Guest teke184]

 

In the name of all that is good and holy...will people PLEASE stop comparing Shawn Michaels to TERRY FUNK?

 

 

You don't think HBK's newfound attitude is at least somewhat inspired by Terry Funk? Being a Texan is a nice coincidence but the last few matches he had on RAW were certainly Terryesque.

 

Now mind you I didn't say he was better than Terry at being the crazy old man brawler, but he's trying.

 

Also, aren't PPV numbers about the same as they've been the last couple of years? They've been getting people to come to more houseshows, which is good for the wrestler's paychecks I'd gather, but it's hardly a sign of a major upswing. I mean, doesn't Dave constantly beat the drum of PPV buyrates = success? Or does that only apply to non WWE promotions?

 

Dave's tended to push the line of thinking that house shows are the first barometer of a wrestling company's well-being and that PPV buys are a second, with TV ratings being dead last.

 

 

The thought behind this is that house shows are based on the attitude of the fans towards the promotion as a whole, as the WWE doesn't tend to announce a card at the time tickets go on sale, let alone keep the card in any sembalance of order.

 

 

 

PPVs are probably a better way to figure out if the top matches being booked are what people want to see, as those *tend* to be announced several weeks in advance and, if proper booking is done, the fans should want to see the matches.

 

However, there are a number of tricks that the promoters can use in order to push a main event that fans probably don't want to see. Typically, it's through the use of gimmick matches that aren't seen very often.

 

 

 

My personal favorite when it comes to this was Bad Blood in 2003, as the fans were shitting all over Triple H vs. Kevin Nash for the most part. The plan was to have the two of them face off for the title on the PPV, so they had to find a way to make it work.

 

To make things even worse, this was the first planned show to have only RAW talent, so the undercard was pretty underwhelming outside of the battle royal to establish the new IC champion.

 

 

They initially tried to go with Hell In A Cell, but that alone didn't do it.

 

It took the HiaC stipulation being added as well as Mick Foley being slapped in as the special referee for the fans to buy it.

 

Considering that Mick hadn't been on WWE TV since the night after Survivor Series 2001 until the buildup of that match, I'd say it was a pretty strong push to keep the first show-specific PPV from shitting the bed in a major way.

 

 

The end result was something like a 0.7, which was stronger than a few of the non-Big 4 shows (Rumble, Mania, Summerslam, Survivor Series) around that time, but it also lead into a decline of PPV buys in general because the show-specific PPVs drew dick compared to the ones that showcased the entire company's talent.

[Loss]

The battle royal was actually at Judgment Day 2003.

 

The undercard for Bad Blood did have two fairly well-built matches in Shawn Michaels/Ric Flair and Bill Goldberg/Chris Jericho. I do think adding Foley is what sold the show, but those matches had better storyline than the main event.

[Resident Evil]

 

In the name of all that is good and holy...will people PLEASE stop comparing Shawn Michaels to TERRY FUNK?

 

 

You don't think HBK's newfound attitude is at least somewhat inspired by Terry Funk? Being a Texan is a nice coincidence but the last few matches he had on RAW were certainly Terryesque.

 

Now mind you I didn't say he was better than Terry at being the crazy old man brawler, but he's trying.

 

Also, aren't PPV numbers about the same as they've been the last couple of years? They've been getting people to come to more houseshows, which is good for the wrestler's paychecks I'd gather, but it's hardly a sign of a major upswing. I mean, doesn't Dave constantly beat the drum of PPV buyrates = success? Or does that only apply to non WWE promotions?

 

I think The Thread Killer is just having a hard time coming to grips with someone comparing Michaels to Funk since he apparantly doesn't like Michaels. Correct me if I'm wrong The Thread Killer.

 

All good natured laughing aside, this is why Michaels should be a top part of the card. He draws emotions out of people good and bad. If Michaels is indeed becoming more like Funk, than I might have to check out Raw one of these days.

[jdw]

"Hot" is a relative term. It's probably more accurate to say that the WWE is on an upswing right now, and that it is very likely to continue through Mania.

 

For the balance of the year... it's really hard to say. If Mania spikes up huge for (i) Shawn's current run, (ii) Taker's Streak vs. Title, (iii) Trump vs. Vince, (iv) Hogan's return, and (v) Stone Cold's return all working together to attract a wide base of wrestling fans... it's not a given that those fans are going to stick around.

 

One needs to keep an eye on the fact that not a great deal of what's going on right now, or in the run to Mania, is because the company has nailed it on several great storylines. They've largely fluked/lucked into things. Other than Batista vs. Taker, what happens at Mania isn't going to look like anything they planned even a month ago.

 

Adapting to changes in what fans want, and to deal with injuries such as Trip's, is a good thing. But when one reads the WON week after week over the past four months, it's really a case of (i) the WWE throwing shit at the wall, (ii) the same old problems existing in Creative, and (iii) Vince still being insane.

 

That remains a volatile mix in the company being able to sustain things.

 

Perhaps Dave's read on all this is that the WWE and/or "wrestling" are hot again, and that when you're hot it really doesn't matter what you roll out, the fans are going to buy it. I don't read that into what Dave is writing, so I don't want to project it as his thoughts. But I also don't see anything in what he's writing that gives one full "lock" confidence that the WWE is going to remain strong after Mania. WWE Creative still doesn't instill any confidence in me. If they can't come up with key storylines and stars to carry things past Mania, they'll be back in the same position they've been in the past 5 or so years.

 

 

John

[Loss]

I really think the only way to book successfully in the US *is* to throw things at the wall. I can't recall a successful booking run that hasn't been created from this mindset. No booker is going to have a 100% success rate because it's impossible to read your audience accurately all of the time. What separates good bookers from bad bookers, in my view, is understanding their audience, and running with things that are clearly working and dropping things that clearly aren't.

[jdw]

There are degrees of throwing shit on the wall.

 

Go back to the finish of Survivor Series 1998. Were they throwing shit at the wall? Or was there a clear plan in November 1998 to go Rock vs. Austin at Mania, while also laying out Rock aligned with Vince, Foley's face turn, and the bridge feuds of Rock-Foley and Austin-Vince (specifically *in the ring*) to pass time keep Rock and Austin apart after 11/16/98 until it was time for the final run to Mania?

 

As I pointed to:

 

"Adapting to changes in what fans want, and to deal with injuries... is a good thing."

 

But to totally "wing it" is one of many things that led WCW to go off the cliff.

 

A strong promotion needs to have in mind what they want the audience to buy while *also* keeping an eye on what the fans are and aren't buying.

 

The WWF at its best did that.

 

At the moment, I don't really see that from them.

 

 

John

[kjh]

Yeah, I read that tidbit by Dave Meltzer and it puzzled me because I don't see the company as being considerably hotter than this time last year or the year before that. Last year Edge's short run as champion drew stronger ratings than they are currently getting for Raw and he drew well at house shows with John Cena including selling out the Nassau Colliseum. The year before that they fluked into a hot storyline with Batista breaking away from Triple H and Ric Flair that did good PPV business. Neither of those hot patches lasted long, so I can't see this one being sustained either.

[Bix]

They sold out the Meadowlands recently, FWIW.

[jdw]

They sold out the Meadowlands recently, FWIW.

 

Yeah, Dave points to various sellouts as being a big postive and indicator.

 

I think it's a valid point. I'd like to see it supported a bit with some prior examples of what it meant and how it was sustained.

 

I'm not going to question the current "upswing". My question is more on the "much of 2007" aspect. Dave could be entirely correct on this. He studies the business side more than any of us, and possibly more than the WWE itself.

 

But to me "much of 2007" means that they'll still be on the upswing through July 2007, which would be seven of the twelve months in the year. I think through Mania looks like a reasonable bet, and a big Mania does as well. But Mania is April 1. It's literally a quarter of the way into the year when we knock a few days off for the short February. What's going to sustain them beyond Mania? Is the track record that once they have this momentum they hold it for several months even after the product stops delivering? Or was post-Mania so low last year that it's an easy threshold to reach in year-to-date comps?

 

It would be interesting to see him write a piece on it. Even in this week's WON with all the positive business news for the WWF we got:

 

(i) More evidence that Creative and Vince are still nutty

 

(ii) the pretty alarming news that WWE B-PPV's are down in the 150K buy range in North America

 

(iii) that Rumble responses for Dave were down relative to last year. While not always tracking with the final buyrates, he's pointed to them being a decent "fast indicator" of interest level in a PPV

 

(iv) not a lot of incite into where they company is "locked in" headed to Mania, and even less for post-Mania

 

So...

 

Like I say, it would be interesting to see him do a piece on it.

 

 

John

[Strummer]

I think Shawn's business-tanking title reign in 96 changed Vince McMahon's viewpoint on long term booking. Shawn was Vince's pet project and when his title run bombed, I think Vince was desperate and just tried throwing random stuff at the wall. If you look at late 96 through 97 there were *so* many new angles and characters introduced that the fans could hardly keep up. A few of them caught on and the rest is history. Basically Vince, with the possible exception of Cena this past year, has given up on long term booking and favored the more "scattered" approach

[Loss]

Possibly. I think WCW catching on and pushing huge matches on TV every week was what made it hard for the WWF to plan long-term, because WCW was giving away big matches at no charge and they had to eventually do the same to be competitive. The problem is that they could have reverted back to the slower-paced, long-term booking after WCW went down, but they still pace their television like Monday Nitro is on TNT.

[jdw]

I really disagree with the notion that they've gone scattershot as their primary booking theory since Shawn's first reign.

 

I gave the example of Survivor 1998 to Mania 1999, which even at a certain point added another long term storyline item to it - the need to turn Rock back face, which happened after just one PPV rematch with Austin on the next show.

 

Trip's initial "successful" run on top was also some long term thinking. They went to Foley again in the "bridge" spot to keep he and Rock apart until Mania. He and Rock would then have a feud ontop. I would 100% agree if someone wants to say that the Rock-Trip storyline was "tweaked" as it went along, including things such as Trip (and Steph) being able to convince Vince to end the long standing Mania booking of The Top Face Always, Always, Always Win The Main Event. Be that as it may, at the end of the feud at KOR in June, Rock had the belt as they no doubt planned all the way back in January.

 

We may not think of January to June planning as "long term planning" in the sense of 80s WWF where things were planned out even longer in advance. But in the 90s, that's decent long term planning.

 

Another example would be Batista-Trip. Austin vs. Michaels for Mania 98 is something that was planned at least as far back as December 1997 when Bret was heading out the door. Now no doubt Shawn in his head was plotting ways to screw over Austin before his back went out (and of course even after that happened and there was no reason he shouldn't lose). But it was the match that was planned.

 

Austin vs. Rock at Mania 2001 was likely planned from the point Austin got back and they didn't have a decent storyline for the Driver Angle. Even as they were building to Austin turning at Mania, they were laying the plans for what was to follow - Trip going face to be his first opponent. Granted, Trip was a cocksucker and quashed that *after* he got his win over Austin at No Way Out, but it was the long term plan.

 

The "throw stuff at the wall" was the crazy stretch of going to Double Chris followed by WCW Invasion followed by WCW-ECW Connection followed by Austin going "WCW" followed by the rushed Austin-Angle followed by the Survivors blow off to the Title Unification to Co-Owner Flair to the nWo "Injection" to The Brand Split to the Brock Push....

 

That was the period of throwing shit against the wall *consistently*. It was also the period of certain people (largely Trip) using his power (given who he was fucking) to negatively impact potential threats in the company.

 

It's also the point where the bloom radically came off the company from the salad days.

 

Really some of what we call "throwing shit at the wall" isn't really that. It's what I mentioned before (and have re-quoted at least once before):

 

"Adapting to changes in what fans want, and to deal with injuries... is a good thing."

 

Eddy (and Rey as well) getting over wasn't throwing shit at the wall. In reallity it was talent getting over with the audience almost despite what Creative and the Company were doing with them. It was then the company realizing it and trying to do something with it. In fact, let's be honest and admit that the company *fucked up* in realizing what the fans wanted. Eddy started getting strong as a singles and a draw in the middle of 2003 around the time he got the US title. What did they do with him? Stuck him with Big Show, had him job the title, and that was it. The company failed to strike when the fire was hot. He then fluked into a spot opposite Brock for the title, Brock was basically losing his mind at the time, and Eddy got hot again. The company didn't handle that one very well. To a degree Eddy didn't, but he really didn't have the full support of Creative like a typically annointed top babyface in the company would. For throwing shit at the wall, they rolled out JBL, who instantly became a VKM favorite... and the rest was history.

 

The company on occassion responded to the changes that the fans wanted with Eddy. The company didn't really hit an homers out of the park - Eddy never was as well executed as say Sting In The Rafters was done in maximizing money. But they did get some hits here and there.

 

Rey has been the same thing. It's not really tossing crap at the wall, but instead responding to the obvious.

 

John

[Guest TheShawshankRudotion]

I'd say switching to a PPV-a-Month (and then making those PPV's "bigger" /priced the same as the other non-mania shows) made it difficult for long-term planning as it really put limitations on what a company can do. This, coupled with what Loss said in regards to TV and how they gave away big matches not only monthly, but weekly, made it so in the end they simply weren't/aren't creative enough to sustain programs for an extended period of time. If they feel obliged to have two guys fight each other in some form after every 4 weeks-or-so, there's not many places they can go, not to mention go and make money.

 

IMO, while financially necessary if a company bases it's business model around it, the monthly PPV is a big hindrance to the development of programs and storylines.

 

And there is so much wrong with thinking the WWE is hot right now. First, the sample taken is, what, within the past few months? If that? It seems like "Smackdown drew 3.1 and they sold out a few arenas" and all of a sudden it's 1998. Any meaningful perspective on this, unless the growth is remarkable rather than statistically incremental, would come from having at least a years worth of data to back it up, especially in relation to the past 7 years worth of data already gathered through public record of WWE finances.

 

But even forgetting that, the quality of the data is vague. We know that the WWE has at least 5 million fans, judging by the amount of people who watch RAW weekly. The question is, regarding any increases in viewership or tickets bought, are the people coming in "new" fans, or part of that 5 million fanbase that has been watching unrelentingly for the past 5 years? While getting a fan who wasn't paying to see wrestling to pay is certainly an accomplishment, it is much different than creating new fans.

 

This is especially relevant for a number of reasons, the biggest being if it is just the current fans, then there is a cap on the growth and if the WWE is still unable to get new fans, then that is an issue to deal with, not-to-mention a reflection of their product and general public perception. Piggybacking off that idea, if it is just the current fanbase buying more, it is especially hard to say why they are buying more because this is a fan who -let's face it- has low standards and has stuck with a product that is lower than lowest common denominator. The only way to find out why that person is paying is to survey him or her, because up till that point any explanation is feasible given what that fans' tastes are.

[Strummer]

Possibly. I think WCW catching on and pushing huge matches on TV every week was what made it hard for the WWF to plan long-term, because WCW was giving away big matches at no charge and they had to eventually do the same to be competitive. The problem is that they could have reverted back to the slower-paced, long-term booking after WCW went down, but they still pace their television like Monday Nitro is on TNT.

 

I think it is a combination of both. Vince was putting big matches on RAW, including rerunning actual PPV main events for free (Bret v Bulldog from Dec, 95 IYH, plus matches from Survivor Series 95 and Royal Rumble 96) well before Shawn's reign. They also did gimmick shows like the "Raw Bowl" and did shoot style angles with Shawn collapsing, Kevin Nash revealing Vince McMahon actually owned the WWF and even Goldust calling Razor Ramon "Scott". However even during this period they were still doing long term booking as Shawn was obviously being groomed, the new guys from WCW (Foley, Vader, Mero, even HHH to an extent) were being phased in and the old guard (Nash, Hall,Mabel, Tatanka, Jarrett, 1-2-3 Kid, etc.) were being phased out. There was a clear change in booking style after Shawn's reign tanked as the title was bounced around like a hot potato (I know a lot was due to politics) and there became a gray area around the heel/face structure. Plus wrestlers were turning left and right (Ahmed Johnson, Owen, Bulldog) in attempts to finally have them catch on to something.

 

I really could talk about this period in wrestler forever (WWF, WCW, ECW at least) as it rejuvenated my passion for the business(although I never stopped watching during the dark years)

[kjh]

There was a clear change in booking style after Shawn's reign tanked as the title was bounced around like a hot potato (I know a lot was due to politics) and there became a gray area around the heel/face structure. Plus wrestlers were turning left and right (Ahmed Johnson, Owen, Bulldog) in attempts to finally have them catch on to something.

Even in this period there was a lot of long term booking going on; it was just that due to politics, injuries and fans reacting in a different way than expected, the plans had to be ripped up time and time again. In October 1996 the plan was clearly to do Bret vs Shawn as the main event of Mania, with Bret feuding with Austin and Shawn feuding with Sid in the meantime to keep them apart until after the Rumble. By February though all bets were off when Shawn being Shawn found a knee injury to get out of doing a job for Bret and they had to come up with a new last minute main event for Mania. So Vince came up with the Austin Bret double turn scenario realising that fans were itching to cheer Austin, while Bret's return got a more subdued reaction than expected.

[Loss]

I've often wondered if it would benefit Vince to do commentary during live broadcasts again, because he's then forced to explain/justify everything happening.

[Resident Evil]

I've often wondered if it would benefit Vince to do commentary during live broadcasts again, because he's then forced to explain/justify everything happening.

 

 

 

Instead of "what a manuever" we can have "what an angle!"

[jdw]

I would be happy if Vince circa 1979-81 was back in the booth. He was a hell of an play-by-play man, both in calling the matches, telling the storyline, and getting over the wrestlers. He also had a good amount of enthusiasm for it as well, but not so much that it was all that he brought to the table.

 

 

John

[Loss]

WWE apparently had its most watched Smackdown on Friday since 06/23/05, which was main evented by that 30-minute Eddy/Rey match. Really impressive number, considering that Smackdown was in a better time slot at that time. It's also a credit to the ratings power of Rey Misterio, as they've been hyping his return for a couple of weeks now.

 

WWE's hit to miss ratio is pretty impressive at the moment.