Dave Meltzer stuff

[NintendoLogic]

Looking at WWE's SEC filings, here's its revenue from rights fees for every year since 2000.

 

2000: 12.2 million

2001: 35.2

2002: 53.3

2003: 58.5

2004: 71.1

2005: 78.0

2006: 81.5

2007: 92.4

2008: 100.7

2009: 111.9

2010: 127.0

2011: 131.5

2012: 139.5

 

Here's WWE's operating income from the same period.

 

2000: 84.7 million

2001: 87.2

2002: 44.7

2003: 26.6

2004: 73.6

2005: 50.3

2006: 70.5

2007: 68.4

2008: 70.3

2009: 77.1

2010: 82.3

2011: 37.0

2012: 43.2

 

For the 2006 transition period (WWE's fiscal year began on May 1 until 2007), the numbers are 58.7 and 39.2, respectively.

 

As you can see, rights fees have been a big part of WWE's bottom line for a while now, but the gap has been especially wide the past few years. Good on them for finding new ways to stay profitable, but that's an awful lot of eggs in the rights basket.

[Cross Face Chicken Wing]

I wonder how many people actually pay for the NFL Sunday Ticket?

Between 2-3M according to media reports. I took a look at DirecTV's recent 10-K to see if a full number was in there, but didn't see one.

 

Is that the number of people who have Sunday Ticket? Or the number who actually pay full price for it? I'm just curious. Not trying to say it's somehow losing DTV money, because obviously it's not.

[jdw]

As you can see, rights fees have been a big part of WWE's bottom line for a while now, but the gap has been especially wide the past few years. Good on them for finding new ways to stay profitable, but that's an awful lot of eggs in the rights basket.

We've talked about this here a lot in the past when folks over estimate the importance of PPV and underestimate the importance of TV.

 

Two points:

 

#1 - as I said above, and have run into the ground over the years, the "revenue value" of TV Programing is actually higher than the revenue listed in the WWE's filings

 

Explained this before, touched on it above.

 

#2 - we should avoid *over estimating* it as well.

 

Chris (mookieghana) mentioned it above when listing the revenue %. My data is slightly different because I don't list that "other" with TV, but anyway:

 

2012 Revenue

$139.5M TV Fees (28.8%)

- $88.9M Domestic (18.4%)

- $50.6M International (10.5%)

$103.7M Live Events (21.4%)

$83.6M PPV (17.3%)

$46.3M Licensing (9.6%)

$33.0M Home Video (6.8%)

$19.7M WWE.com (4.1%)

$18.8M Venue Merch (3.9%)

$14.8M WWEShop (3.1%)

$8.2M Other Live & TV Revenue* (1.7%)

$7.9M WWE Studios (1.6%)

$6.0M Publishing (1.2%)

$2.5M Other Consumer Products (0.5%)

$484.0M Total Revenue

 

* discussed in the early post what that appears to be

 

Again, they're pretty multi stream in where their revenue comes from. Live Events, PPV and Rights Fees make up 2/3rds of the company's revenue. In a sense, selling "live performances".

 

On some level, it's a bit impressive that the WWE is able to generate another 1/3rds of it's revenue from other streams. That's not a small number: $157M last year. It's also some high margin stuff in licensing and home video and merch. The concern would be those some of those streams are pretty damn flat in growth. But that could be said about most of the company. The major, rapid growth of the company stopped after Mania in 2001.

 

John

[jdw]

I wonder how many people actually pay for the NFL Sunday Ticket?

Between 2-3M according to media reports. I took a look at DirecTV's recent 10-K to see if a full number was in there, but didn't see one.

 

Is that the number of people who have Sunday Ticket? Or the number who actually pay full price for it? I'm just curious. Not trying to say it's somehow losing DTV money, because obviously it's not.

 

The number of people who "subscribe" to it. They have different tiers. One suspects that they don't count their free deals for new customers: switch and get a year of the NFL package.

 

As far as price, who knows. Different numbers in different articles, and the 10-K wasn't helpful. Confess to not being interested enough to go back through several years of 10-K's and other filings to see if they ever listed information in the past... also not sure how much we could extrapolate from it if it's 5+ years old.

 

In all past negotiations, it's clear that DirecTV made enough money from having the exclusive rights to keep reupping the contract with the NFL. The deal last time around was pricey: $1B per year was more than NBC ($650.0M), FOX ($712.5M) and CBS ($622.5M) paid per year... and those sum bitches got every third Super Bowl and playoff games. Only ESPN ($1.1B) paid more than DirecTV, and they have an alternative monster revenue stream in carriage fees which are sky high.

 

It's also worth noting that DirecTV is profitable: $2B in net income that last three years on revenue that's driven up from $24B to $29B+. If the NFL deal is killing them, it's hard to see.

[sek69]

It should be noted that previously when the deal ended, DirecTV fought hard to keep exclusivity, to the point of probably overpaying the NFL just to keep it that way.

[kjh]

If you look at the figures, WWE's TV rights fees hasn't really escalated significantly at all, since 2002:

 

FY2002: $409.7 TOTAL $112M PPV $137 TV (AD+RIGHTS) $74.5M LIVE EVENTS $24.4M LICENSING $61.8M OTHER (HOME VIDEO, VENUE MERCHANDISE, ONLINE SALES)

FY2003: $374.3 TOTAL $91.1M PPV $131.4 TV (AD+RIGHTS) $72.9M LIVE EVENTS $22.5M LICENSING $56.4M OTHER (HOME VIDEO, VENUE MERCHANDISE, ONLINE SALES)

FY2004: $374.9 TOTAL $95.3M PPV $130.5 TV (AD+RIGHTS) $70.2M LIVE EVENTS $22.6M LICENSING $56.3M OTHER (HOME VIDEO, VENUE MERCHANDISE, ONLINE SALES)

FY2005: $366.4 TOTAL $85.5M PPV $122.5 TV (AD+RIGHTS) $79.4M LIVE EVENTS $20.9M LICENSING $57.4M OTHER (HOME VIDEO, VENUE MERCHANDISE, ONLINE SALES)

2006: $415.3 TOTAL $93.6M PPV $96.5 TV (AD+RIGHTS) $84.4M LIVE EVENTS $32.0M LICENSING $108.8M OTHER (HOME VIDEO, VENUE MERCHANDISE, ONLINE SALES)

2012: $484.0 TOTAL $83.6M PPV $147.7 TV (AD+RIGHTS) $106.2M LIVE EVENTS $46.3M LICENSING $92.3M OTHER (HOME VIDEO, VENUE MERCHANDISE, ONLINE SALES)

They handled their contract renegotiations in 2005 really badly, as Viacom pulled out at an early stage, leaving them with no leverage with NBCUniversal and thus forcing them to take a worse deal than they already had. They've had good growth since then to get them back to the level they were once at, but only by creating new shows and expanding into new international markets. It's hard to say there's a bubble here.

 

Though WWE looks to sports and think they can capitalise on rights fee escalations, their track record suggests that it will be tricky. Wrestling isn't hot at the moment and they could easily find themselves in the situation where only the existing network of an equivalent standing is interested in their programming. It's not like UFC where they could play NBC, CBS, Viacom, FOX and ESPN against each other.

[jdw]

If you look at the figures, WWE's TV rights fees hasn't really escalated significantly at all, since 2002:

They went down then came back up:

 

4/30/1999: $39.2M

4/30/2000: $90.0M

4/30/2001: $125.4M

4/30/2002: $136.3M

4/30/2003: $131.4M

4/30/2004: $130.6M

4/30/2005: $121.7M

4/30/2006: $104.1M

2006T: $63.2M

2007: $98.3M

2008: $108.1M

2009: $119.6M

2010: $132.9M

2011: $131.5M

2012: $139.5M

 

International fees have gone from $18.3M to $50.6M from 2002 to 2012.

 

It's not terribly perfect comps because the WWE has (i) changed their model from selling a chunk of their own ads to just fee based, and (ii) they've changed their buckets over the years. It's not perfect to see what's exactly in the "Ad Revenue" bucket, and think that Ad Revenue + Domestic Fees of $118M in FY2002 is all from the same sort of stuff that is covered by the $80.9M of Domestic Fees in FY2012.

 

 

They handled their contract renegotiations in 2005 really badly, as Viacom pulled out at an early stage, leaving them with no leverage with NBCUniversal and thus forcing them to take a worse deal than they already had.

It went bad, but they also had been changing the model away from selling chunks of their own ads for year. That revenue peaked in FY2001 and already was down more than 50% by April 2005, while domestic fees more than doubled. Clearly a direction they chose. As you say here:

 

They've had good growth since then to get them back to the level they were once at, but only by creating new shows and expanding into new international markets. It's hard to say there's a bubble here.

In the US, they've increased their domestic rights just under 50% ($59.6M --> $88.9M) from 2007 to 2012, with 2007 being the first full year where we could see the impact of moving away from selling ads. 50% increase in rights fees in the US in that period isn't a bad thing. The international rights have grown 54% in that same period, so it's pretty similar. I don't think the new shows in the US have driven much of it: their focus in Raw and SD, and those are the prime time ratings grabbers.

 

One of their secondary issues is that the WB/CW "fifth networks" have largely died off as far as paying the WWE good money. Moving to SyFy hasn't been great for the company.

 

 

Though WWE looks to sports and think they can capitalise on rights fee escalations, their track record suggests that it will be tricky. Wrestling isn't hot at the moment and they could easily find themselves in the situation where only the existing network of an equivalent standing is interested in their programming. It's not like UFC where they could play NBC, CBS, Viacom, FOX and ESPN against each other.

The lack of being "hot" is a problem. The NFL and NBA were/are hot heading into their latest rounds of negotiations. College Football has been hot as well, hence the money grab there.

 

The WWE is closer to MLB and Hockey, neither of whom were hot at their latest rounds. Except that those have better reputations than the WWE.

 

The WWE isn't in a bad spot. Good revenue. Their ratings aren't horrid for their channels. There are plenty of ways to keep costs reasonable. Profitable. No direct competition. But they also aren't hot, nor is there anything "new" about them.

 

Soccer/futbol isn't truly hot in the US, though its fan interest and viewership have gone up quite a bit from say the 90s. But the attention it's getting is up significantly, people are talking about it more, you see more international shirts all over the place, there's a general sense that the international part of the came has broken through into the US. It's not as big as hockey... but it's kinda-sorta right below it, just without the type of Sports Center attention the NHL gets. But it is "new" and kind of "hot" on its own, lower level. And that's driven rights up quite a bit.

 

I don't think the WWE needs to get "hot" again to survive. But it probably needs to if it's going to significantly increase its revenue.

[anarchistxx]

If WWE wants to get 'hot' again they will need to significantly change their style and image, which they don't appear willing to do. They are currently a safe, corporate, clean, non-offensive, homogenous product, which will continue steadily along but probably won't see any vast rises or dips in business until they change the way it is perceived and presented.

[Loss]

If WWE wants to get 'hot' again they will need to significantly change their style and image, which they don't appear willing to do. They are currently a safe, corporate, clean, non-offensive, homogenous product, which will continue steadily along but probably won't see any vast rises or dips in business until they change the way it is perceived and presented.

I think that's spot on. He's done some daring things in his time to be sure, but by and large, Vince McMahon is not a guy who likes to take risks.

[Death From Above]

Wrestling companies in general don't like to make radical shifts in direction, often leading to their downfall. Really, Vince has only made three really big ones:

 

1- Hogan and the TV boom in the war against everyone

2- The Attitude Era when challenged by WCW

3- Corporate WWE in a post-king of the mountain era

 

Which doesn't sound like a lot, but it's still more radical shifts than almost all of the major other companies put together. Most of them were good at one thing and went down with that. WCW tried a radical change with Russo but that was an absolute disaster from the beginning. All of the old territories couldn't change and died. ECW was always what it was, and in hindsight never had any serious hope of gaining support from the TV world by their very anti-establishment nature. Japanese companies, to me as a long time viewer, all seem very deeply established as having a specific "style" they present as part of their brand that really didn't change that much in short waves aside from the NOAH split in all the time that I followed it closely. FMW made a shift in it's later years, and the company imploded (not that I'm saying that's a straight line reason why). But generally the changes have been either gradual or nonexistant.

 

It's really hard to have a radical shift in style and pull it off, and very rare. WWE won't try another one until there is a really good reason to, which being as it will not be competition from the outside means as long as they are profitable this is what they are going to be.

[Ricky Jackson]

I can't really conceive of a realistic scenario where the WWE will ever radically change. Even when Vince is dead and gone. They are Disney, the NFL, McDonalds or Wal-Mart. They may add some new items to the menu (new shows, apps and other social media shit), but their essential formula will never be tampered with.

[Guest Staples]

On a different note, has Hogan ever explained what the point of this was?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1As4UVCkkKk

 

Especially the part about Savage's arm being fine yet his match ending with an armbar applied by Lex Luger, a man not particularly known for his technical skills.

[Bix]

On a different note, has Hogan ever explained what the point of this was?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1As4UVCkkKk

 

Especially the part about Savage's arm being fine yet his match ending with an armbar applied by Lex Luger, a man not particularly known for his technical skills.

But that very armbar was his finisher in the WCW game for the NES!

[tlk23]

As far a taking risk, how much of a risk would the WWE Network be? Good and bad.

[JNLister]

I think WWE may be majorly overestimating the whole "we're like a sport so DVR-proof" value (even ignoring that only one show is live). I get the feeling WWE programming fees are about 20% the actual value to networks of the ratings and 80% whether or not they have two or more stations seriously interested when a contract comes up.

[pantherwagner]

Did I just hear wrong or Dave said on the Q&A WON from a couple of days ago that Don Muraco got into wrestling because he was James Blears' boyfriend?

[sek69]

Did I just hear wrong or Dave said on the Q&A WON from a couple of days ago that Don Muraco got into wrestling because he was James Blears' boyfriend?

Pretty sure he said/meant Don was Blears' daughter's boyfriend.

 

Also Dave's been doing one of my least favorite Meltzerism lately mentioning Paige "did herself a disservice" which possibly could cause WWE to keep her in developmental longer. Bryan tried to pry it out of him, but all Dave would give up was that it was something involving her doing something immature when they are wary of calling anyone up before age 21. What irks me about it is Dave's doing a show for people paying him for info, and if it's something he needs to keep on the D/L for whatever reason there's no need to cocktease your audience.

[pantherwagner]

Did I just hear wrong or Dave said on the Q&A WON from a couple of days ago that Don Muraco got into wrestling because he was James Blears' boyfriend?

Pretty sure he said/meant Don was Blears' daughter's boyfriend.

 

That makes more sense. He was talking about it in between the cuts of podcast parts 2 and 3 and I just couldn't make sense out of it.

[rovert]

Also Dave's been doing one of my least favorite Meltzerism lately mentioning Paige "did herself a disservice" which possibly could cause WWE to keep her in developmental longer. Bryan tried to pry it out of him, but all Dave would give up was that it was something involving her doing something immature when they are wary of calling anyone up before age 21. What irks me about it is Dave's doing a show for people paying him for info, and if it's something he needs to keep on the D/L for whatever reason there's no need to cocktease your audience.

In fairness there is a thing called personal lives as well as sources.

[sek69]

Also Dave's been doing one of my least favorite Meltzerism lately mentioning Paige "did herself a disservice" which possibly could cause WWE to keep her in developmental longer. Bryan tried to pry it out of him, but all Dave would give up was that it was something involving her doing something immature when they are wary of calling anyone up before age 21. What irks me about it is Dave's doing a show for people paying him for info, and if it's something he needs to keep on the D/L for whatever reason there's no need to cocktease your audience.

In fairness there is a thing called personal lives as well as sources.

 

 

I get that, but if you can't talk about it then don't tease it when the very nature of the folks listening are going to want to know the whole story.

[cm funk]

I listened to that audio show, and it sounded like Dave was implying she's got a rep as a partier/drinker. And she's not 21. Which means she's drinking illegally. So yeah, it makes complete sense that WWE wouldn't want that going on.

 

Who's the youngest person they ever had on the main roster? Kelly Kelly?

[Guest Staples]

I listened to that audio show, and it sounded like Dave was implying she's got a rep as a partier/drinker. And she's not 21. Which means she's drinking illegally. So yeah, it makes complete sense that WWE wouldn't want that going on.

 

Who's the youngest person they ever had on the main roster? Kelly Kelly?

Rene Dupree and Kelly Kelly were both 19 when they debuted.

[Slasher]

Refresh my memory, as all the repackaged names blend in my memory, but is Paige Saraya's daughter?

[Alchemy]

Refresh my memory, as all the repackaged names blend in my memory, but is Paige Saraya's daughter?

Yes

[rovert]

Oh Dave:

http://www.f4wonline.com/more/more-top-sto...he-new-observer

 

Had my fantasy roleplay facebook accounts.