The Jim Ross Is A Grouchy Hateful Vile Human Being thread

[Bob Morris]

If WWE still considers its main demographic 18-35-year-old males, why would the company make programming decisions that are done to aim more towards a program advertisers would consider more suited for children, such as reducing swearing and cutting back on blood?

 

Plus John Cena's main appeal is to kids, while the 18-35 male demographic is more likely to prefer booing his presence.

 

As far as other celebrities that may have had a positive impact, Dennis Rodman had a little in his first WCW stint. His follow-up stints, though, did nothing for the company.

 

But yeah, celebrities as a whole haven't really added to a wrestling product, unless it was a case of "take a hot celebrity, paired with a hot wrestler, and let the rest take care of itself."

[Marty]

With a few exceptions, wrestling fans are typically resentful of outsiders coming in. But I don't know that I fully understand how the average wrestling fan thinks anymore, so that may no longer be the case.

A lot of that is often how the placement of wrestling fans is set by the promotions themselves. Wrestling fans have very often (one could argue consistently) been placed on the inside, and things have often been mentioned where the outside doesn't "get" wrestling. TomK at the time mentioned the media coverage of the Benoit stuff and how the WWE accused the media of sensationalism, with the fanbase backing the WWE quite strongly in that sense. But there's also your usual cases where someone like JR says on T.V. during a ladder match "There's probably some idiot who doesn't care for wrestling saying "They know how to fall!"" Stuff like that only strengthens the "inside" relationship between promotion and fans.

 

However, because a lot of celebrities are placed on the outside, that inside relationship gives that sort of backlash towards celebrity involvement. There's also still a lot of fans who strongly believe that WWE can and should be all about wrestling and don't require celebrity involvement. I can't recall where I saw it, but when the Seth Green announcement was initially made, someone said, "It's officially no longer a wrestling show."

[Jingus]

If WWE still considers its main demographic 18-35-year-old males, why would the company make programming decisions that are done to aim more towards a program advertisers would consider more suited for children, such as reducing swearing and cutting back on blood?

I don't think it's actually done them any good with regards to getting more kids to watch. They certainly didn't have a problem selling out Stone Cold merchandise to children when the product was at its raunchiest. I doubt that going from TV-14 to TV-PG actually convinced any parents that the show was now appropriate for their kids to see as opposed to before.

 

Personally, I like the conspiracy theory that the WWE has moved into a more family-friendly direction as a response to Benoit, part of the "we put smiles on people's faces!" type of deal to try and clean up their public image. Don't forget the weird stories like changing the name of the F-U because Linda wanted to be on the school board, too. I think it's more of a public relations facelift than any sort of actual marketing strategy to try and change their target audience.

 

Also, if the program was now aimed at children, why the hell would they be bringing in Donald Trump, Ted Dibiase Sr, or ZZ Top? And while "they're just scrambling to get anyone famous who's willing to show up" is true, it doesn't answer the question by itself.

[Log]

I more curious as to how ZZ Top will be on the mic.

[S.L.L.]

Seth Green voices a supporting character on Family Guy and is the creator of and a regular voice actor on Robot Chicken. So the two big projects he has currently keep his face off of TV, which means unless you're old enough to care about voice actors and authorship, then Seth Green is pretty anonymous to the younger audience that WWE is turning to.

WWE's primary target audience is still Males 18-35 (or is it 34? I can never remember the particular arbitrary number), since those are both 1.the most likely to watch any wrestling show, and 2.generally craved by advertisers as the demographic which spends the most money on superfluous junk shown in commercials.

 

Advertisers crave the male 18-34 demographic, but they also tend to avoid wrestling fans like the plague, so that argument kinda cancels itself out. Also, it's not like there aren't a shit ton of people who got rich by peddling stuff to kids, too.

 

Sure, they still want kids to buy the foam fingers and replica belts and Cena dolls and Rey masks, but for their television income the M,18/35 demo is the catbird seat.

For their television income, they are kinda fucked just by virtue of being wrestling. That's why successful promoters tend to focus their attention elsewhere while using TV to sell the fans on things that will actually make them money like PPVs and house shows and merchandise. Seeing as how Cena is the top dog in that regard these days, only makes sense to shift attention towards the demographic that buys his stuff.

 

Also, if the program was now aimed at children, why the hell would they be bringing in Donald Trump, Ted Dibiase Sr, or ZZ Top? And while "they're just scrambling to get anyone famous who's willing to show up" is true, it doesn't answer the question by itself.

Well, with Ted, there's a good storyline reason to bring him in. But other than that, yeah, it kinda does. If it didn't, they probably would've brought in Seth McFarlane instead. How many relevant celebrities can you think of who would lower themselves to being on WWE programming? Can you think of 52 for an entire year?

 

Also, it's not like kid's shows have to be designed to appeal to kids and kids alone. Was Animaniacs not a kid's show because they told a lot of jokes kids wouldn't get? Or Rocky & Bullwinkle? Or Sesame Street, even?

[Jingus]

Advertisers crave the male 18-34 demographic, but they also tend to avoid wrestling fans like the plague, so that argument kinda cancels itself out. Also, it's not like there aren't a shit ton of people who got rich by peddling stuff to kids, too.

How does it cancel anything out? Yes, the advertisers they have pay less for their spots than they would for just about any other program with similar ratings. But they paying sponsors they do have still do want the M1834 demographic as their primary audience. How many commercials for toys or other children's products do they air?

 

For their television income, they are kinda fucked just by virtue of being wrestling. That's why successful promoters tend to focus their attention elsewhere while using TV to sell the fans on things that will actually make them money like PPVs and house shows and merchandise. Seeing as how Cena is the top dog in that regard these days, only makes sense to shift attention towards the demographic that buys his stuff.

Kids buy a bunch of Cena stuff, sure. But are they the ones buying PPVs, DVDs, 24/7, live event tickets, and all the other things that provide revenue streams? The vast majority of their fans are still adults.

 

Well, with Ted, there's a good storyline reason to bring him in. But other than that, yeah, it kinda does. If it didn't, they probably would've brought in Seth McFarlane instead. How many relevant celebrities can you think of who would lower themselves to being on WWE programming? Can you think of 52 for an entire year?

Yeah, of course there probably aren't many, especially on short notice or for not much money. But you'd think you could still do better than some musicians who were big a quarter of a century ago. If they really didn't want those guys, if the pool of celebrities willing to do it is just that low, you'd think they wouldn't go through with the idea of a different guest hope ever week.

 

Also, it's not like kid's shows have to be designed to appeal to kids and kids alone. Was Animaniacs not a kid's show because they told a lot of jokes kids wouldn't get? Or Rocky & Bullwinkle? Or Sesame Street, even?

I still don't see the argument for the WWE being a kids' show. Yes, they don't allow blood anymore; but they even edit blood on 24/7, which is not remotely a product aimed at children. Yes, they cut down (slightly) on cussing and sex; but as I mentioned, I still think that's just a "see, we're safe for the whole family!" cover-my-ass to try and rebuild their image after Benoit more than a legitimate attempt to gain a larger audience of underage viewers. Hell, kids like swearing and naughty content. Aside from those fairly negligible changes, have they altered their business model in any way since their raunchier days? They still do everything else pretty much exactly the same. If they are seriously wanting a larger percentage of their audience to be children as opposed to a few years ago, they sure as hell haven't taken any concrete steps towards making that happen.

[The Thread Killer]

sek makes a good point too...ZZ Top are actual fans of the WWE. I have seen them on television at shows tons of times. Since they already know and follow the product, it's not just a blatant plug for them, they actually want to be there I would imagine. I wouldn't be surprised to see guys like Shaq end up doing it too.

From 411:

 

Shaquille O’Neal To Host Raw Next Week

Posted by Larry Csonka on 07.20.2009

 

It was announced on Raw that the special celebrity host next week would be NBA star Shaquille O'Neal.

[tomk]

Instead of just looking for celebrities who want a paycheck, the WWE seems to be going after celebrities who are actual fans. These are all the guys who showed up in the "I too am a WWE fan" advertisements years ago. I imagine they'll avoid Steve O. I imagine that this means they won't get anything that will get as much mainstream coverage as Cena v Federline, but it means at least the borderline celebrities will appear to be legit enthusiastic.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

With the exception of stopping at Raw (sometimes) when flipping channels on a Monday night or browsing (occassionally) the current gossip on message boards, I haven't paid attention to modern pro wrestling in 10 years. I still love watching old footage of the territorial days and analyzing the business side of the wrestling industry. That said, I like the celebrity guest host schtick for two reasons:

 

1. It's something unique.

2. As an old fan, it's caught my attention at least a little bit. I haven't watched Raw because of the guest hosts yet, but I may if they find someone I'm interested in. Who knows, maybe I'll like the show overall and go back to watching on a regular basis. Perhaps the WWE is thinking there are many others like me: Former fans who tired of the product, but may be lured back in if given some reason to watch a show here and there.

[Loss]

Instead of just looking for celebrities who want a paycheck, the WWE seems to be going after celebrities who are actual fans. These are all the guys who showed up in the "I too am a WWE fan" advertisements years ago. I imagine they'll avoid Steve O. I imagine that this means they won't get anything that will get as much mainstream coverage as Cena v Federline, but it means at least the borderline celebrities will appear to be legit enthusiastic.

Maybe next they'll start doing all 2 out of 3 falls main events and move RAW to Center Stage in Atlanta.

 

[Bob Morris]

One thing that WWE needs to remember with regards to having celebrities showing up to be a guest GM on Raw is they still have PPVs to promote. How many of these celebrity appearances are actually in the vein of getting people to buy PPVs?

 

At least the likes of Mr. T, Dennis Rodman and Mike Tyson were used in some way to convince people to buy the PPV, or in Mr. T's case, to head to these locations for closed circuit TV airings of Wrestlemania.

[Loss]

Also, the appearance of a guest host every week is going to keep the shows being a little too light-hearted for my tastes. With guest hosts, you can't really do serious storylines.

[S.L.L.]

How does it cancel anything out?

 

Advertisers want the male 18-34 demographic.

 

Advertisers don't want the wrestling fan demographic.

 

1 - 1 = 0

 

How many commercials for toys or other children's products do they air?

None that I can think of, so you've got me on that one. Still, the advertiser thing is a red herring since TV ad revenue is the least significant source of income they have, and the most significant advertising they do on TV is for themselves.

 

Kids buy a bunch of Cena stuff, sure. But are they the ones buying PPVs, DVDs, 24/7, live event tickets, and all the other things that provide revenue streams? The vast majority of their fans are still adults.

I should preface this by saying that I don't have the hard evidence of what demographic is buying what, and am largely going on anecdotal stuff like the company's biggest draw being really popular with kids and not nearly as popular with adults, which you would think would suggest something.

 

That said, worth pointing out that kids generally don't buy any of that stuff, not even the Cena merchandise. Parents buy all of that stuff at the behest of their kids.

 

Yeah, of course there probably aren't many, especially on short notice or for not much money. But you'd think you could still do better than some musicians who were big a quarter of a century ago.

 

If you were very, very deeply in denial about where wrestling is on the cultural significance hierarchy, yes, you would think that. Otherwise, you realize that Shaq is about as high as they're ever going to go. Who do you think they're going to be able to get that's drastically more culturally significant than ZZ Top? Jimmy Carter?

 

I still don't see the argument for the WWE being a kids' show. Yes, they don't allow blood anymore; but they even edit blood on 24/7, which is not remotely a product aimed at children. Yes, they cut down (slightly) on cussing and sex; but as I mentioned, I still think that's just a "see, we're safe for the whole family!" cover-my-ass to try and rebuild their image after Benoit more than a legitimate attempt to gain a larger audience of underage viewers.

 

Except they didn't actually start doing that stuff and hyping up the family friendliness to media outlets until a good year-and-a-half after Benoit, which kinda eliminates that as a rationale. I guess you could point to Linda McMahon being put on the Connecticut Board of Education, but even there, you would think the criticism leveled against her would be "she's the CEO of a god damn wrestling promotion", rather than "she's the CEO of a god damn wrestling promotion that produces programming inappropriate for children". So putting aside conspiracy theories with questionable backing, the logical explanation would be that they are directing the company towards the market that seems to be the most interested in the company right now.

 

Hell, kids like swearing and naughty content.

 

So the continued presence of that isn't evidence against my argument? That's a relief.

 

Aside from those fairly negligible changes, have they altered their business model in any way since their raunchier days?

 

How are we defining "raunchier days"? I mean, the WWF/E has really been gradually toning down their content pretty much since Russo left. Peak of their "raunchier days" was 1999, and it seems impossible to say they haven't made drastic changes to their business model in that time. You can still see vestiges of it for years afterwords, but by 2004, pretty clear that they no longer see that as an important part of what they do.

[Loss]

If you were very, very deeply in denial about where wrestling is on the cultural significance hierarchy, yes, you would think that. Otherwise, you realize that Shaq is about as high as they're ever going to go. Who do you think they're going to be able to get that's drastically more culturally significant than ZZ Top? Jimmy Carter?

This cracked me up. Can you imagine Jimmy Carter hosting Raw? I feel like there are funny jokes to be made here, and all of the ones I'm thinking of are terribly unfunny. Too bad.

[Sean Liska]

I still think people are worrying too much about the guest hosts. To me, it's just a nice gimmick to freshen things up weekly on a show where the top names have been around forever. If they use ZZ Top as part of next year's big WrestleMania celebrity angle, I'll be concerned.

[Cox]

It really continues the variety show direction that WWE feels like they have tried to push Raw in for the past few years, what with the combination of goofy comedy and occasional serious wrestling angles. Having a new celebrity enter their world, like an SNL guest host, just feels like a natural progression. Not saying I enjoy it or anything, but for those of us who want good wrestling shows, that's why Smackdown and ECW exist, since Vince seems to give two fucks about them anyway.

[Al]

If you were very, very deeply in denial about where wrestling is on the cultural significance hierarchy, yes, you would think that. Otherwise, you realize that Shaq is about as high as they're ever going to go. Who do you think they're going to be able to get that's drastically more culturally significant than ZZ Top? Jimmy Carter?

This cracked me up. Can you imagine Jimmy Carter hosting Raw? I feel like there are funny jokes to be made here, and all of the ones I'm thinking of are terribly unfunny. Too bad.

 

Jimmy Carter trying to negotiate peace between feuding wrestlers would be all kinds of awesome.

[tomk]

building housing for Crime Tyme and Pretty Ricky. Lusting in his heart for Maria.

[Dylan Waco]

Gives a "crisis in confidence" speech wear he attacks the company for it's dependence on foreign talent and bad writing.

 

Next week McMahon opens up Raw and says a malaise has fallen over the show and they need to shake things up. Announces Adamle as guest host.

[kjh]

To me, it's just a nice gimmick to freshen things up weekly on a show where the top names have been around forever.

The problem is they're not using the time this is buying them to create any new top names.

[Sean Liska]

To me, it's just a nice gimmick to freshen things up weekly on a show where the top names have been around forever.

The problem is they're not using the time this is buying them to create any new top names.

 

True. I think Miz earned some trust from Vince with the Cena feud, and Swagger's a sure thing, but they're a while away from main eventing. MVP has main event level charisma but doesn't work for me as a face. Maybe this is what Smackdown is for, and guys like Punk will get sent over once they're established as main event level guys.

[Marty]

Smackdown's been the better show as far as building up new names since the start of the brand split, aside from last year when HHH was on it.

 

RAW might be worse off than ever for building new stars, with Cena, HHH, Orton, Batista all on top, and someone like Big Show just a notch below, even if one or some of them is injured. This isn't a "HHH will bury them all" argument either, as all of them have been established top stars for so long that it's difficult to push someone new in that category. Difficult for WWE, anyway, and likely.

[Cox]

Apparently, Jeremy Piven will co-host Raw with Shaq today, as per Meltzer. He's at least an A-/B+ star these days, being the only guy on Entourage who can act.

[Jkeats]

Apparently, Jeremy Piven will co-host Raw with Shaq today, as per Meltzer. He's at least an A-/B+ star these days, being the only guy on Entourage who can act.

Gary Cole

[Cox]

Didn't know Gary Cole was on Entourage now, haven't watched since, ironically, Seth Green made his cameo.