AEW Dynamite - April 7, 2021

[Badlittlekitten]

Yeah I'm not convinced by Meltzer's take about the blood and violence driving away viewers. It's all been there since the first PPV. 

[El-P]

40 minutes ago, MoS said:

There was plenty of blood and violence when Mox and Kingston were feuding too. It didn't make the female viewers tune out. I think Meltzer is focusing too much on that aspect, because he doesn't want to blame Omega. Ever since the show started revolving around him cutting shitty smug promos and doing putrid nauseating melodramatic angles with his equally terrible Elite buddies, AEW's ratings have declined considerably and the women have given up watching. I WONDER WHY HMM

Really now you're just working on your own confirmation bias here because you hate Omega and the Bucks angle, which you repeat each and every week over and over again. But there's exactly zero sign that there's a correlation between Omega at the top and the Bucks storyline which has been going on for months now and the current evolution. Like none. Metz went in details about how things have clearly evolved *in the last few weeks* and how the violence & gimmicks have been basically driven away the other viewers in the house (ie the women and teenagers). On the other hand, the ultra-violence promise of the barb-wire did draw their best PPV number. There was nowhere near the same level of gimmick & violence and blood even during Mox & Kingston feud. Not even close. Same for Cody when he was doing the TV title reign, yeah, he bled from time to time, but it was not an orgy of gimmick shots and spots & bloods like it's been lately. Baker vs Rosa was a terrific match. It was also clearly a defining moment in which the audience kinda switched, much like with the promise of barb-wire. This is a matter of direction they want to follow or not.

And I mean, we get it people, you don't like the Omega & Bucks storyline. Well, though shit because that's what's the top of the card is gonna look like for a long time because that's the kind of stuff these guys have been working for years (Cody leaving the Elite, the Ibushi reltationship etc...). And they will remain the top/near-the-top guys because, well, they are the best workers having the best matches and that's what AEW's core audience wants (yeah, I know, let's not go into the whole "core fans don't matter" argument again). This is not the issue here.

The one other issue that was interesting in Meltz long-ass analysis about some charts he got from whomever, is the number of people on Dynamite in the last few months. It's huge (like, 92 people !). And it has really affected the focus and time allotted to the main event guys and the young guys they need to push. That's a much bigger issue in term of getting people over and that's coming back to the "faction" issue, there's too many people on TV. Do we really need Max Caster and JD Drake on long single matches when Brian Cage, Ricky Starks, the guys from the Inner Circle & the Pinnacle are not getting matches ? No we don't. They absolutely need to choose their core 20 people they want to focus and and, well, focus on them. 

I wonder how long the bullshit "Meltz is defending his AEW friends" line of thinking is gonna keep on though, as he's been super critical on a lot of things AEW lately, meanwhile, he gave absolute praise to the NXT show.

And really now, people bitching about drama, this damn promotion started with "I want my brother" with cries and shit. I guess that was "good drama", but honestly it was the same kind of pro-wrestling heavy handed pathos as what the Bucks are doing. Only, these were Dusty's kids, so it had to be great... (hey, I loved it too, but let's not act like this was Academy Award acting either)

[MoS]

1 hour ago, El-P said:

Really now you're just working on your own confirmation bias here because you hate Omega and the Bucks angle, which you repeat each and every week over and over again. 

LMAO that's rich coming from you. Sorry you cannot handle any kind of criticism of your favourites. And I am sorry your favourites suck 

[El-P]

5 minutes ago, MoS said:

LMAO that's rich coming from you. Sorry you cannot handle any kind of criticism of your favourites. And I am sorry your favourites suck 

Ok great argument. Clap clap clap.

I just made fun of Matt Jackson's "acting ability" in my post about the show and have criticized AEW a shitload lately, but whatever. Yeah, he's kinda Shawn Micheals like when he tries to act emotional and shit, not nearly as bad but not exactly very good either. But anyway, this is neither here nor there. The evolution of the promotion into a more ECW-like style (which I don't mind) is what's been seriously talked bout. You wanna just throw out "lol it's Omega and the Bucks because they sukz, Meltz is defending his friendz" line despite evidence in the last few weeks trends, ok, whatever works for you. 

[MoS]

We actually have evidence that Omega quarters lose young female viewers consistently. Combine that with the general correlation of viewership going down since Omega became champ, after a couple of weeks of interest in the Impact angle that has gone absolutely nowhere, yeah, I am going to place part of the blame on Omega for AEW losing viewership and momentum. 

Let us not forget that the main reason Meltzer has concluded that the reason for the decline in female viewership is the blood and violence is because he asked a bunch of his female friends and they said that's the reason. That's hardly some hardcore super-scientific analysis either

[El-P]

Historically, blood & guts never drew women. It would be hypocritical to consider that magically, we don't know what's happening in the last few weeks when what used to be household watching turned into 1 unit per household as the big matches really had that heavy ECW style to them.. Meltz never said he did a super-scientific analysis either, so no need for a strawman here.

On the other hand, they did their best PPV numbers with Omega vs Mox (all to Mox credit, I'm sure because... well I am and Omega can't apparently be credited for anything ever because he sux) in a historical blood match. So like I said, the issue here is more complex than "who is losing women", but rather, which direction they want to take. It can be risky to go all in blood & guts because you can go for so long without people becoming accustomed to it. Maybe they'll do adjustments, maybe they'll go straight into that direction still. I mean, they'll do that Wargames match in a few weeks, so, that's a hint for the short term at least.

[MoS]

WWF had plenty of blood and guts during the attitude era and they did fine with women. They had plenty of blood right till Benoit happened and kids and young female viewers increased from Hunter's horror run cuz they found John Cena. Historically, it's been about the main guy and the main feuds

[MikeCampbell]

On 4/7/2021 at 6:35 PM, Infinit said:

BLOOD & GUTS will be on Dynamite! That's wild...I def thought they'd save that for PPV.

I said the same thing on Twitter, apparently their TV deals actually bring them in more money than their PPVs do. So, I can understand. But, it still feels like something that could attract interest in the PPV and drive up buys.

 

I'm an admitted huge fan of Death Triangle, so I'm pulling for them to take the tag titles next week. I honestly wouldn't be shocked to see Moxley show up and do something to cost them the tag titles. The Elite/Mox feud continues, and the tag titles can slide over to be part of the renewed Death Triangle/Best Friends storyline.

[Loss]

Dave thinks at this point they should be running more PPVs. Not only would it make them more profitable, but so much TV is aimless and has no real destination because the big PPVs are so far apart, and in the modern era, if something happened more than 3 weeks ago, it might as well not have happened. He pointed to things like Jungle Boy-Dax that were done really well, but probably mean nothing now because they had no immediate follow-up.

[El-P]

I like the fact there isn't a barrage of PPV, but they could have 6 per year honestly, that sound reasonable.

[Loss]

He talked about how he used to think 12 PPVs was too much, and Vince McMahon believed that for years himself. Then, Eric Bischoff started running monthly (and raised the price!) and PPV buys went up. Then Vince followed suit and after raising the prices instead of having second-tier discount PPVs, his business also went up. There's an interesting thing in wrestling where higher ticket prices and PPV prices often result in bigger business. The idea being that buying $10 tickets to take a date to a wrestling show makes you a cheap date, but buying $40 tickets is a little more special.

[Coffey]

28 minutes ago, El-P said:

I like the fact there isn't a barrage of PPV, but they could have 6 per year honestly, that sound reasonable.

It worked for ECW in 1999 when there was both WWF & WCW running 12 a year. Would make sense to me. 

But I don't know if I agree with the $50 price tag. Felt really burned after that last PPV. ECW PPVs were $20. Although of course that was over twenty years ago. 

[sek69]

1 hour ago, Coffey said:

It worked for ECW in 1999 when there was both WWF & WCW running 12 a year. Would make sense to me. 

But I don't know if I agree with the $50 price tag. Felt really burned after that last PPV. ECW PPVs were $20. Although of course that was over twenty years ago. 

Dave made a good point by saying discount prices make you look like a discount promotion. It sounds like something that shouldn't be true, but history has borne out that every time a wrestling promotion raised their PPV prices it led to more buys. 

I suppose another argument for AEW to run more PPV events is when one fails to stick the landing like the last one, the bad taste lingers more than it would if there was another show in a couple of months instead of 3 to 4. 

[NintendoLogic]

It's not a phenomenon unique to pro wrestling. In economics, it's called the Veblen effect. Super-premium vodka is another example. In fact, a big part of Grey Goose's initial marketing strategy was pricing it way above all the other vodkas on the market.

[sek69]

Hell, it's why Apple is worth billions.

[El-P]

Yeah, it's a typical bullshit economics trick. People pay more and they think they get better because of the higher price. When in fact there's no correlation at all.

1 minute ago, sek69 said:

Hell, it's why Apple is worth billions.

 I was about to continue my post with "Which reminds me that when my MacBook doesn't work anymore, I really need to buy a PC again" and then I see your reply. Well, indeed.

[Ryan Faulconer]

Running more PPVs would speed up the booking considerably. $50 just seems so greedy after growing up before PPVs were a thing and then settling on $29.99 circa 2000.  
 

When a promotion books tv properly there should be a natural flow from week to week.  One show leads into the next.  They shouldn’t need to run big shows because more shows should be big simply from the narrative leading them week to week.

12 PPVs is an outdated concept.  Every four weeks they NEEDED to advance issues by using an artificial constraint on every angle.  That is a good way to burn through unique matches too quickly.  All those constraints imposed on the booking also serve to overdo matches or rematches.

[MoS]

I think 6 PPVs in a year is perfectly reasonable. It will definitely give them more focus, and will also mean they can do more high-profile re-matches. Dave also mentioned how after Cody lost to MJF in a blood feud, he did not really try to get it back despite being a face. 

[TheDuke]

I really liked the main event. There was some cool moves but I really liked how Matt Jackson was torn between being upset at Kenny and caring about Kenny. It feels like some real life friendships I've had. I found it interesting because in that moment I didnt know what Matt was going to do. And Jon Moxley seems so much better than he was a year ago. I think putting him with Kingston was so good for him. I dont think I really bought into him as a lone wolf. He is better when he is fighting for someone else then when he is just fighting for himself. A better babyface anyway. Moxley I feel like made a big part of us caring about what happens with the Bucks, because we care about what happens to Moxley. Also this will pivot to Bucks vs Moxley and Kingston which will be awesome. 

[joeg]

9 hours ago, Ryan Faulconer said:

When a promotion books tv properly there should be a natural flow from week to week.  One show leads into the next.  They shouldn’t need to run big shows because more shows should be big simply from the narrative leading them week to week.

12 PPVs is an outdated concept.  Every four weeks they NEEDED to advance issues by using an artificial constraint on every angle.  That is a good way to burn through unique matches too quickly.  All those constraints imposed on the booking also serve to overdo matches or rematches.

This! Exactly!

[Loss]

7 hours ago, MoS said:

I think 6 PPVs in a year is perfectly reasonable. It will definitely give them more focus, and will also mean they can do more high-profile re-matches. Dave also mentioned how after Cody lost to MJF in a blood feud, he did not really try to get it back despite being a face. 

Yes, Jericho never being interested in regaining the title after he lost it is another example of this. 

[Ricky Jackson]

Yeah, that's something I've definitely noticed following from afar, particularly Cody being like "nah, I'm good" with trying to settle things with MJF 

[Coffey]

I like that they don't continue feuds on just for the sake of it because I'm not a big fan of having rematches too often, which is something WWE does way too much. I totally get that they'll blow through matches too quickly this way as well though.

[MikeCampbell]

2 minutes ago, Coffey said:

I like that they don't continue feuds on just for the sake of it because I'm not a big fan of having rematches too often, which is something WWE does way too much. I totally get that they'll blow through matches too quickly this way as well though.

What do you call the Omega/Moxley feud that’s been going since January?

[Loss]

I think there's a balance. You can run the same matches multiple times as long as the matches themselves are worked differently and the circumstances change from match to match. Rematch after rematch with nothing at stake gets old fast.