WWE TV 04/29 - 05/05 Bolsonaro's strategy is worse than Jon Snow's

[C.S.]

What an insidious diseased company.

Saw this posted in the comments section of CagesideSeats.com, and it's on point.

 

 

[SomethingSavage]

There's no real investment or care put into creating or crafting these characters or personalities anymore. That was a staple in their marketing strategies throughout both boom periods. The company knew you needed to distinguish each character and make them a viable, marketable individual.

In the 80s, everyone seemed like they mattered at every level of the card - from the opening acts to the tag teams on over to the middle of the pack and on up to the main attractions.

Ditto for the Attitude Era. Everyone had their role & served a purpose. And everyone was over.

Today, their top World Champion is a lifeless nobody. Zero personality. Absolutely no defining qualities or traits. What is a Seth Rollins? What does he stand for? What does he oppose? What's he about?

How do you sell this void to anybody as a star? There is no there there. What are you going to market? Shitty skunk hair dye? Bulletproof vests? What is this empty shell supposed to be? Dude's been given a million nicknames and still can't manage to make a single one of them mean a thing. What is he about again?

The answer is always the same - nothing. The best they can come up with for ANY (and literally EVERY) babyface is that they're living their childhood dream.

Seth would kill to be as recognizable as the Birdman. He's their top World Champion and doesn't even sniff the same air of overness as somebody like Crash Holly.

Hell, Scott Taylor knew enough to get over silly shit like the Worm and his lid. Because it's about having noticeable identifiers. It's about having presence. Most of today's guys think it's about impressing their peers & diving all over the place in hopes of earning some faux sense of respect or admiration.

No, Colby. It's about figuring out your own thing and establishing your own identity with the fans - that way you're not just this fucking mannequin stand-in where they happen to store Bossman's old black gear.

21 hours ago, Robert S said:

The idea behind the brand split is fine (it should reduce overexposure of guys being on TV 2+ times per week and give guys room to grow), it's mostly the execution that's shitty. When they did the initial brand split on 02 they managed to create different identities for the brands (whether by accident or on purpose), Raw was Hunter's Sports-Entertainment brand, Smackdown was the workrate brand (due to the Smackdown Six). They also managed to do single-brand PPVs that did not feel like third rate shows. Now it's just an abitrary split where some guys mostly appear on Raw while the other mostly appear on Smackdown. Due to the huge amount of titles the (multi-brand) PPVs are just one title match after another.

The more likely reason they run an endless string of title matches on their cards is because that's the only thing they know how to book anymore. It's the easiest, laziest path. Numbers of title reigns, lengths of title reigns. That's all they can muster anymore.

I was recently reminded of the absurdity of their horseshit when I clicked on the Daniel Bryan WM30 match with Triple H via their YouTube channel. Somewhere along the way, Michael Cole and JBL are talking about the winner going on to face Randy Orton and Batista later that night.

And they constantly refer to Orton as "the first ever WWE World Heavyweight Champion."

Gross.

And utterly fucking ridiculous.

I mean, yeah. This was at the time when Randy had just "unified" the two belts again. But to any casual viewer or normal Joe Schmo watching? That statement sounds beyond stupid. They're thinking, "Then what the fuck was Stone Cold? Or Rock? Or Hogan, or Bret? Or Bruno?"

Nah, man. Only Randy Orton in 2014, apparently. Those other guys are lesser thans.

[FMKK]

A good few years back I wondered why they didn't make more a deal about statistics and title reigns etc because I'm a nerd for that stuff but now I'm absolutely sick of it because it seems like 50% of their feuds are based around how many days a certain person or team has held the belts for. Did it all start with Punk's 434 day WWE Championship reign? That was cool because it set him apart but now it seems to be the blueprint for all the title feuds.

[Robert S]

1 hour ago, SomethingSavage said:

Today, their top World Champion is a lifeless nobody. Zero personality. Absolutely no defining qualities or traits. What is a Seth Rollins? What does he stand for? What does he oppose? What's he about?

Making the obvious joke:

Q: What is a Seth Rollins?

A: First of all, it's Seth FREAKING Rollins.

Q: What does he stand for?

A: Construction, because he is an architect.

Q: What does he oppose?

A: Kings, he even slays them.

Q: What's he about?

A: Burning it down.

[SomethingSavage]

1 hour ago, FMKK said:

A good few years back I wondered why they didn't make more a deal about statistics and title reigns etc because I'm a nerd for that stuff but now I'm absolutely sick of it because it seems like 50% of their feuds are based around how many days a certain person or team has held the belts for. Did it all start with Punk's 434 day WWE Championship reign? That was cool because it set him apart but now it seems to be the blueprint for all the title feuds.

Yeah. There was a time when it felt appealing and refreshing. 2019 is not that time.

Statistics in real sports are fascinating to talk about. Statistics in a completely worked scenario cannot be a go-to. They can work sparingly and are best utilized for specific performers. Kurt Angles. Brocks. Even just a tremendous talker that can antagonize & set the stage to be usurped by a conquering challenger in the making.

But the New Day? Charlotte? Sasha? Finn Balor? Everyone on God's green earth gets a storyline centered around numbers and days and dates and times and calendars and statistics.

And it's all so samey. So none of it means a thing.

33 minutes ago, Robert S said:

Making the obvious joke:

Q: What is a Seth Rollins?

A: First of all, it's Seth FREAKING Rollins.

Q: What does he stand for?

A: Construction, because he is an architect.

Q: What does he oppose?

A: Kings, he even slays them.

Q: What's he about?

A: Burning it down.

Oh well hell, son. In that case, back up the Brinks truck. Let's swim in that sweet green cheddar, y'all.

What a money concept! Creative services comes through again!

[Loss]

There is no problem having some people on the roster who just have the gimmick of being a wrestler and nothing more. That suited Tito Santana really well for years. But Tito Santana was also one of Vince's most prized wrestlers in that era because he knew he could trust him to get anything over. I would like to see that Tito Santana role cultivated as something meaningful today, and Rollins wouldn't even be the worst candidate for it, but there's also a fan mentality that anyone who isn't winning in main events is being held down. Tito Santana was an IC champ and a guy who made heels look great who were on the way up, yet I think he meant more to his company than the champion Seth Rollins does now.

[Ricky Jackson]

Where have you gone Tito Santana, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you...

[TheDuke]

the problem was that eventually Vince decided Tito wasn't good enough, so he had to become El Matador.

In spite of the money from Saudi Arabia and the Fox deal, I feel watching the show that they might be about to fall into another pit similar to the El Matado era of the mid 90's in terms of attendance.

[Coffey]

I might like Seth more if he starting cutting promos about having to do bull fights.