WWE's coming fall

[Loss]

I don't even know that Creative has much control over what airs. I get the idea sometimes all they do is write lines for the wrestlers to say.

 

I would love for more clarification to come out over how much control someone like a Brian Gewirtz has over match finishes, how much time segments and matches are given, and PPV build. It always seems like his primary job responsibility is just to take the parameters given to him by Vince and/or Stephanie and script from there.

 

I would love for the Observer to tackle this in depth at some point.

[rovert]

Arent the whole Vince mirco manages everything days over since the formalisaton of duties since the public floatation?

 

On being dropped from a network WWE will have their own (weaker) network within the next 2 years so they'll hardly be WCW or ECW.

[Bob Morris]

I agree with those who suspect WWE will just get their own network... even if they don't get kicked off USA. With all the programming they have available, it would likely be more cost effective for them to have their own network.

 

As far as Vince goes, the real question is going to be whether or not those who succeed him are able to keep things together from both the business and the booking perspective. I'm not sure how many sharp minds who could easily take control are left in that company... you have some people who are control freaks but may not be able to convince everyone to stay on board, and you have those who might be savvy but may not be able to do a good sell job on other employees.

[Guest Slickster]

I think WWE won't put all their product onto WWE Network for the same reasons the NFL wouldn't put all the games on NFL Network...because not everyone will get that channel on their cable system when it opens. I'd rather deal with another channel's BS and lose some $ off the top than isolate my product onto some high-numbered cable channel that not all of my fanbase would get.

[rovert]

I think WWE won't put all their product onto WWE Network for the same reasons the NFL wouldn't put all the games on NFL Network...because not everyone will get that channel on their cable system when it opens. I'd rather deal with another channel's BS and lose some $ off the top than isolate my product onto some high-numbered cable channel that not all of my fanbase would get.

But at least it is a back up plan for the absolute worst case scenario.

 

 

Has anyone read Jim Collin's book How the Mighty Fall it is a part of the management zeitgeist at the moment? He studied of number of well heeled "built to last" companies which ended up falling and produced a Five Stage Model of Decliine. I dont see much of what WWE is doing that shows any real signs of decline as per the model although placing them at Stage 1 is an arguable point. Personally I couldnt help but think of WCW when I read the book:

[Ronnie]

Arent the whole Vince mirco manages everything days over since the formalisaton of duties since the public floatation?

I recall that when they initially floated the WWFE stock they had to declare to the SEC any risks that investors might face but not have realised. The only thing that was established as an extraordinary risk (so, not such things as changing economic circumstances) was the importance of Vince McMahon, and that his death would greatly impact the abillity of the business to create profit.

 

They still mention this now, so I don't think that Vince's importance has diminished.

 

From 2009:

 

The loss of the creative services of Vincent K. McMahon could adversely affect our ability to create popular characters and creative storylines, which could adversely affect our operating results.

 

In addition to serving as Chairman of our Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. McMahon leads the creative team that develops the storylines and the characters for our televised programming and live events. Mr. McMahon is also an important member of our cast of performers. The loss of Mr. McMahon due to unexpected retirement, disability or death or other unexpected termination for any reason could have a material adverse effect on our ability to create popular characters and creative storylines, which could adversely affect our operating results.

[rovert]

I dont doubt he would a major loss and Wrestlemania builds wouldnt be the same without him. But I doubt he personally approves every still in WWE magazine or anything like that anymore was basically what I am saying.

[Ronnie]

Got ya. Sorry, yep, I read your post, took a mental note, read the following ones, then posted and kind of misremembered what you'd actually said

[jdw]

Great chart, rovert. WWE = Level 3? I don't see them at either Level 1 or Level 2, though perhaps reading the book would show parallels to those.

 

John

[rovert]

Great chart, rovert. WWE = Level 3? I don't see them at either Level 1 or Level 2, though perhaps reading the book would show parallels to those.

 

John

The book is tiny it is really an academic paper in hard back form.

 

Explaination of the first four stages:

• The first stage Hubris Born of Success is where organisations become insulated by success; accumulated momentum can carry an enterprise forward for a while even if its leaders make poor decisions or lose discipline.

• The second stage Undisciplined Pursuit of More describes how Hubris allows organisations to stray from the disciplined creativity that led them to greatness in the first place, overreaching by making undisciplined leaps. The “More” refers to more scale, more growth, more profits, more of whatever those in power see as “success”.

• The third stage Denial of Risk and Peril is heralded by internal warning signs beginning to mount, yet external results remain strong enough to “explain away” disturbing data, as leaders discount negative data, amplify positive data, and put a spin on ambiguous data.

• When those in power begin to imperil the firm by taking oversized risk, and acting in a way that denies the consequences of those risks stage four is the result. The cumulative peril and/or risks-gone-bad of stage three assert themselves, throwing the enterprise into a sharp decline visible to all.

The first stage certionly speaks to what Dave Meltzer often talks about with the ratings not reflecting the differential in quality of Nitro compared to Raw in 1997. I guess you could make the case that WWE is in stage 3 decline in regards to their domestic PPV business.

[jdw]

We agree that the WWE is well past Stage 1. I think they're past Stage 2, which is perhaps the football league, the movie business, not really being smart in setting up Rock to head off, and probably a lot of other small things.

 

This:

 

The third stage Denial of Risk and Peril is heralded by internal warning signs beginning to mount, yet external results remain strong enough to “explain away” disturbing data, as leaders discount negative data, amplify positive data, and put a spin on ambiguous data.

Seems to sum up pretty well the WWE over the past 5-6 (or more) years. They've been spinning their wheels since the peak, they point to positives rather than the warning signs, but it's really hard to see the company now in as positive of a position as they were in 2000. That WWE seemed to have a bright future, while this one is "successful" but on the treadmill.

 

Stage 4... as negative as we want to be about the company, it's hard to argue they are there yet.

 

John

[goc]

I think WWE is going to be fine, and more than fine if they manage to find another Hogan/Austin/Rock. Really the company is only going to be as hot as it's biggest star, which is Cena right now. Cena is a draw and a star, but he's not an Austin or a Rock. So they do good but not great business. It's still far better than their last slow period after a boom which lasted about what? 6-7 years? 91-97? That got progressively worse, while things have picked up from where they were in 02-03.

[sek69]

The 91-97 down period was drawn out further than it normally would have been, considering all the scandals and Vince being on trial pretty much forced them to change their entire way of doing business. They had to retrain their fanbase to accept guys like Bret and Shawn as main eventers instead of bodybuilder guys.

[kjh]

I think people forget how much doom and gloom there was in late 2004 about the state of WWE business, before they sort of lucked into the red hot Batista babyface turn angle (which to their credit, once they realized that they had something hot on their hands, they ran with the ball and didn't drop it), and they elevated John Cena and followed through on his push despite hardcore fans vocally rebelling against it. Business is much better now than it was in late 2004, but they haven't got anyone on the main roster who has been as well protected as they were AND are as charismatic and have the same look (vitally important for WWE's top decision makers) and ring presence. I suppose as long as Cena stays healthy they should be OK. Without him the company would probably be in pretty rough shape now.

[Loss]

Miz and Punk are the next guys who should be getting those spots, but I'll be surprised if they do.

[MJH]

I agree that Punk and Miz should be elevated but whose the babyface ace after Cena? Generally companies are built around their top babyfaces and I can't see Punk or Miz becoming that. Cena's not going to be around that long, it's a wonder he hasn't gotten injured more given his horrible bumping.

[Loss]

Yeah, they're kind of screwed on babyfaces, but at one point guys like MVP and Kingston would have done fine before they were buried for whatever reason.

[sek69]

Wasn't MVP one of the guys who kept getting pot fines and got his push stopped to send a message that they weren't tolerating it anymore?

[Loss]

I don't know if MVP was a pot guy, but he was complaining about having to pee in front of the wellness guy, which resulted in him being depushed.

[MikeCampbell]

Does Punk still have locker room heat because of his supposed attitude problem? If that's the case, that's the only reason I don't see him becoming a top guy of Cena proportions.

[artDDP]

I can't recall where though I do remember reading an interview with MVP where he said WWE's pot fines were too steep.

[Ronnie]

I don't know if MVP was a pot guy, but he was complaining about having to pee in front of the wellness guy, which resulted in him being depushed.

For embellishment's sake, I understand that it was for disparagingly asking the pecker-checker whether he really spent years at college to watch men take a pee.

[sek69]

I know Dave was doing a lot of blind item stuff like "you can tell who keeps getting the pot failures based on who's push has stopped" right around the time MVP hit the wall.

[rovert]

I know Dave was doing a lot of blind item stuff like "you can tell who keeps getting the pot failures based on who's push has stopped" right around the time MVP hit the wall.

Then only to do things like later to confirm it was someone else not MVP to the point of confusion. I dont think it was pot merely joking with the drug tester.

[kjh]

Does Punk still have locker room heat because of his supposed attitude problem? If that's the case, that's the only reason I don't see him becoming a top guy of Cena proportions.

I think Punk will always have some locker room heat because he carries himself with an air of confidence that rubs up important people (certain road agents, Triple H, Undertaker, etc) the wrong way. So yeah, I agree that there's a ceiling to how high he'll get pushed. I think Chris Jericho and Rob Van Dam had the same problem, maybe Booker T too.