Guest Slickster Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 I'm not sure how to reconcile the research findings with the higher live attendance rates, the consistent video game sales, and the weekly use of 'mainstream' celebrities in the product. Logic would dictate that if more people were attending your product and buying your merch than in 2003-04, then the popularity numbers would be higher than 2003-04. I'm confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 I dislike the product but then again I hate a lot of what is popular nowadays so WWE probably shouldn't try to cater to my interest nowadays. I think the world has just passed me by. On a happier note though, I saw Jerry Lawler make a public appearance at last night's Lehigh Valley Ironpigs game. He threw out the first pitch, involved in a mid-inning mascots race, and signed autographs for fans otherwise. I got a picture taken and Lawler was quite pleasant to all the fans. A couple of the WXW trainees were around to assist (and get beat up by mascots). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goodhelmet Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 The Paul Bearer being buried in oatmeal show was literally the first WWE PPV I'd watched since they blew the Invasion. Needless to say, it was also the last. I am pretty sure this also had the JBL-Eddie Bullrope match which was fun and a great Rey-Chavo match. The show was not a complete bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Liska Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 It's an arguable point that WWE is more popular today than 2002-2005. Certainly arena attendance is much healthier than it was in the dark days of 2003 and 2004. However, TV ratings and domestic PPV business are significantly down from that period. Recent market research is evidence against Dave's sweeping assertion too. From the Apr. 5 2010 Observer Newsletter: Global Research group TNS just released its annual survey on the mainstream popularity of pro wrestling, and found that with the exception of 2005, that 2009 was the year with the least popularity since the surveys started in 2000. It's tough to get a read on WWE right now. House show attendance is historically the best gague of where a company stands, but WWE's attendance is heading the opposite way of most other business indicators. Clearly they've killed PPV by runnning 14 high-priced PPVs a year while giving away 4 hours of free TV with frequent competitive matches between headline guys. Only an absolute diehard would spend $45 for a B-show nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.L.L. Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 It's tough to get a read on WWE right now. This. It's not like everything is up across the board or down across the board. It's somewhere in the middle. Better than the mid-90's and the company's descent into near bankruptcy. Better than the post-Invasion botching slump. Not as good as the heyday of the Rock 'N' Wrestling and Attitude eras. Not even as good as pre-Benoit murder/suicide '07. It's a mixed bag, and it's hard to read too much into it. What I might read into it - not that I haven't already been saying this for a while - is that the Mania number is not a good sign, and that the whole "wrestlers don't draw, the brand draws" talking point really needs to be taken out back and have a bullet put into it. Yeah, I know, Bret's return and Shawn's retirement should've covered the "wrestlers drawing" aspect of it. But... A. The two biggest names in the company right now are Cena and Mysterio, whose matches were billed third and...umm...sixth, maybe? B. Even if we allow that the wrestlers failed to draw - a fair assessment to make - the brand didn't pick up the slack. Anyway, this isn't the end of WWE, and I'm not even sure who's saying it is. But I see it more as something akin to 1998-1999 WCW, where there is both good and bad, where the company is in a state of chaos, where things could ultimately go either way, and right now, there's no way to be sure just which way it will go. Let's just hope it doesn't end with them re-hiring Russo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeCampbell Posted May 7, 2010 Report Share Posted May 7, 2010 I would have agreed with you at some point, but too much time has passed. It's been almost a decade since there were two established national promotions, and even longer since they were both doing big business at the same time. 1998 will never happen again, just like in 1998, we weren't going to see a return to what wrestling was in 1986. Now, arguing that WWE could have competition feels like arguing that the territories could come back. The ship has sailed. I somehow missed this post from Loss, which I wholeheartedly agree. I think that we can potentially see another boom period and *A* promotion emerge as legit competition to Vince, but not anytime soon. WWF and WCW were both formed due to the evolution of the wrestling business. WWF wasn't the first promotion to take advantage of the onset of cable and be seen nationwide. TBS beat him to the punch by a few years. But he was the first to legit take his show on the road and be that national promotion. WCW was formed by the strongest of the territories also being forced to go national and getting a financial backer to combat all the money that Vince had. The boom period was due to both companies finding hot acts and using them the best ways possible. WCW took advantage of Hall and Nash's star power and the freshness of Hogan as a heel. WWF took advantage of Austin and Rock's youth, skills in the ring, and on the microphone, as well as cashing in on Montreal with Mr. McMahon. The problem now is that nobody is allowed to really break out in the WWF because the writers write for everyone and next to nobody has any real creative freedom. Look at at Sheamus' WWE Title chase and subsequent reign, he'd have never been at the top during the boom period. It doesn't help that HHH won't get out of the way, despite having job security for life. I wonder if in 20 years, we'll be talking about HHH in WWE the same way that we talk about Hogan in WCW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted May 10, 2010 Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 Am I the only one who is glad we don't have to listen to Tony Chimel introduce Edge as if someone squeezes his balls halfway through? I cringed every time he'd call him the "rrrrrated R....SOOOPER-star" with the super part an octave higher. Just sounded so ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.L.L. Posted May 10, 2010 Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 It's better than his introductions of John Cena. He pronounced the name "John" about the same way Coach Z pronounced the word "job". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted May 10, 2010 Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 Im more of a Justin RRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOberts fan myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted May 10, 2010 Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 Chimel must know where bodies are buried, I just realized he's been the main announcer on SD for over 10 years now. It's not even like he has the excuse of fitting in with Vince's "attractive younger people on TV" mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KrisZ Posted May 10, 2010 Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 Chimel's been there like 20 years so he has some tenure going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJH Posted May 10, 2010 Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 He was the guy Shawn kicked at Mania 12, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted May 10, 2010 Report Share Posted May 10, 2010 Chimel was at ringside at MSG shows back in the mid 80s. Don't know what his official role was back then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Morris Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 With regards to WWE and its state of business, I certainly don't see the company as "dying" but when it comes to its PPV, TV show and house show affairs in the United States, it's not in particularly good shape. The difference between earlier periods and today's period is WWE has far more avenues to promote product. They do quite a bit of business overseas, and I think a big reason is that they have been careful not to oversaturate those markets with live shows. The live shows still go there once in a while, so to the overseas contingents, it's something special. I suspect that more U.S. fans feel burnt out on the product, though. Also, WWE now has a DVD market that is proving to be quite profitable. They may have been doing Coliseum Video releases in the 1990s, but none of them really stood out as anything special... and if any were biographies of a wrestler, they always stuck to kayfabe. Now WWE has no problem with breaking kayfabe to discuss a wrestler's career, even if it may be discussed the way WWE wants it to be portrayed. Plus, DVD allows the viewer to access menus and decide what he wants to watch, rather than having to hit fast forward to get to the part he wants to watch. And then there's WWE 24/7, which allows the company to reach the fans who are nostalgic for days gone by or those who want to brush up on their wrestling history, even if it's often revisionist. The fact WWE has more flexibility in terms of how it can promote its product is the reason why it's able to remain on solid ground overall, even if the main product it promotes isn't as popular in the United States as it once was. And really, the stock market stuff is blown a bit out of proportion. Having money to sit on doesn't mean your company is on solid ground... that's based on the revenues you take in and how they compare to your expenses, and while WWE may not be hitting the high numbers it drew during the "boom periods," it's not constantly running in the red. EDIT: Also, I think it's only a matter of time before WWE launches its own network to give it another avenue of promoting product, and I would not be surprised if the company, at some point, allowed people to pay a fee to download classic matches or shows (unless they are already doing this... I don't visit WWE's website so I don't know if they are doing that). There will be those in the company who will keep tabs on technology and promotional avenues, then combine that with the wrestling library the company owns, to keep finding ways to sell product to fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruiserBrody Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 This week's WON: Speaking of Hogan, when he was discussing MMA with Dan Lambert, who runs American Top Team a few months back, he told him that he used to think MMA was real until Randy Couture smartened him up. Just awesome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 Dixie Carter begging on Facebook: If you are not a Neilsen ratings reporter, you can still help TNA's ratings by recording iMPACT! on your DVR and watching it within 3 days. Every one of you who do that will be counted. Sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El-P Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 That's pretty pathetic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Slickster Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 We're one step away from Dixie demanding a letter-writing campaign to Nielsen to raise TNA's ratings because TNA is the future of pro wrestling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 Dixie Carter begging on Facebook: If you are not a Neilsen ratings reporter, you can still help TNA's ratings by recording iMPACT! on your DVR and watching it within 3 days. Every one of you who do that will be counted. Sad I thought you had to be a Neilsen reporter for Neilsen to use/obtain your data. I wasn't aware that all of my DVR viewing is counted by Neilsen. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Cooke Posted May 11, 2010 Report Share Posted May 11, 2010 I think she is looking at raw numbers that they can use to balance the Neilsen numbers. "We only pulled a .8 but have another 180,000 DVR viewers who aren't Neilsen certified, so we now have a .87" But I'm not expert when it comes to DVR's/TIVO and how they are affecting TV ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Morris Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 I once got one of those Nielsen diaries in which they asked me to write down the shows I watched for a one-week period. They paid me five bucks in advance to do it. I filled it out but have no idea whether it had any affect on ratings for shows I watched, but hey, I won't argue with five bucks just to fill out a TV viewing diary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bix Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 Is it overly cynical to think NXT was created solely to build up and then bury Danielson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Liska Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 Danielson got the win on RAW this week, and got to cut a decent promo this week. So I'm being optimistic and thinking they're taking him off this train wreck of a show so he can get to RAW/SD. I really don't think Vince has a huge score to settle with ROH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodySave Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 I don't usually watch NXT, but I'm glad I caught it tonight. What a weird episode. I'll admit, I have no idea where they're going with the Daniel Bryan/Bryan Danielson thing, but the pseudo-shoot promo he cut where he pretty much admitted Daniel Bryan was booked to be a loser has me intrigued, and I usually hate "OK, this is actually REAL, but everything else on the show is fake" nonsense. To NXT's credit, in featuring only 8 different "stars" for the past few months, I actually grew to like most of the roster in limited viewing and would like to see most of them filling out the RAW/Smackdown rosters and guys like Gabriel and Slater as a tag team. And, man, Wade Barrett is a really excellent performer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted May 12, 2010 Report Share Posted May 12, 2010 Is it overly cynical to think NXT was created solely to build up and then bury Danielson? I think the opposite was the case, they buried "Daniel Bryan" just so he could basically say "fuck this show, I'm the best wrestler in the world". I think the WWE knows they have something with him, and decided to use him to fuck with the smart crowd by having him job on the show only smarts watch. It was like the wrestling equivalent of liberals who watch Fox News just to be outraged. He's got the right connections politically (he was trained by not one but two Friends of Hunter), plus the rise of CM Punk probably helped make alternative (in wrestling circles) lifestyles like veganism acceptable. If they can accept a guy who doesn't drink or do drugs, then a guy who eats veggies won't be looked at as weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts