Wrestling What Ifs

[Technico Support]

17 minutes ago, SorceressKnight said:

And to those corporate decision makers, they'd rather have a show that one million rich people liked than a show ten million poor people liked, simply because the rich people would buy rich people things (letting them get higher-class advertisers) and would buy the things advertised and not just watch them, while poor people would not.

 

 

That's why Raw is still on the air, right?  Why not cancel Raw and run the Westminster Dog Show League every Monday instead and get that sweet sweet Fancy Feast coin?

Come on now.  I agree that moneyed viewers are worth more than the poor white trash that TV people assume make up 95% of wrestling's audience.  But you're literally arguing that 2000 WCW could have been doing WCW Hot Streak era numbers and still would have been cancelled because of ad revenue differences.  The one million rich people in your example is theoretical while, in our argument, the ten million poor people were not.  No exec is turning down real money this week for theoretical money next week.

[Mister TV]

1 hour ago, Technico Support said:

 

That's why Raw is still on the air, right?  Why not cancel Raw and run the Westminster Dog Show League every Monday instead and get that sweet sweet Fancy Feast coin?

Come on now.  I agree that moneyed viewers are worth more than the poor white trash that TV people assume make up 95% of wrestling's audience.  But you're literally arguing that 2000 WCW could have been doing WCW Hot Streak era numbers and still would have been cancelled because of ad revenue differences.  The one million rich people in your example is theoretical while, in our argument, the ten million poor people were not.  No exec is turning down real money this week for theoretical money next week.

While the income for ad sales was lower for pro wrestling the high ratings Nitro had during most of its run helped push the networks overall ratings up, which meant ad rates across the board went up.

[Technico Support]

12 minutes ago, happjack said:

While the income for ad sales was lower for pro wrestling the high ratings Nitro had during most of its run helped push the networks overall ratings up, which meant ad rates across the board went up.

Thanks for adding that!  And this is the same reason Raw and Smackdown are still on the air now and WWE just got huge contracts for them.  How can wrestling still be on the air and making billion-dollar TV contracts if TV execs hate it so and can only sell ads for Totino's Pizza Rolls?  I don't doubt execs dislike this product but they like money and they like the numbers it brings.

[SorceressKnight]

1 hour ago, Technico Support said:

That's why Raw is still on the air, right?  Why not cancel Raw and run the Westminster Dog Show League every Monday instead and get that sweet sweet Fancy Feast coin?

Come on now.  I agree that moneyed viewers are worth more than the poor white trash that TV people assume make up 95% of wrestling's audience.  But you're literally arguing that 2000 WCW could have been doing WCW Hot Streak era numbers and still would have been cancelled because of ad revenue differences.  The one million rich people in your example is theoretical while, in our argument, the ten million poor people were not.  No exec is turning down real money this week for theoretical money next week.

I'm arguing that 2000 WCW could have been doing WCW Hot Streak numbers and still would have been cancelled because of the biggest reason possible:

It's not like WCW 2000 was drawing Impact's ratings on Pursuit here.

WCW in 2000, even at the nadir, was doing laughably bad buyrates, but as far as TV ratings went, they had...well, literally the same ratings as WWE in 2018-19 are drawing. Heck, WCW 2000 ratings may have been slightly better than WWE in 2018-19.

Ignoring the rise in cable networks, Internet TV, and the bigger rise in cord-cutters making 2 million viewers in 2019 not the same as 2 million viewers in 2000, it does need to be said that Nitro and Thunder were still very, very successful shows in the cable ratings in 2000, and they were still very high on the cable TV ratings for 2000. 

This has to be kept in mind when saying "but the ratings for WCW in 2000 plummetted!": EVEN THOUGH WCW 2000 sucked, Nitro's ratings were still so good that Nitro should have absolutely been able to find another network willing to pick them up (if not the new network also taking Thunder too.)  Shit, IMPACT was able to find three different cable networks willing to pick them up after Spike TV cancelled them, and the Impact ratings on the single highest-rated episode of their existence weren't as high as the lowest-rated episode of Thunder's existence. Even if 2 million in 2019 isn't the same as 2 million in 2000, WWE was able to get two billion-dollar TV deals on the backs of a show getting the ratings of Nitro in 2000. Miss me with that "Nitro could have gotten on another network if WCW in 2000 wasn't so terrible" bullshit, because WCW in 2000 still had the ratings to merit another network picking them up when TNT/TBS cancelled them, but no network would solely because they assumed the demographics weren't what they wanted. 

[Technico Support]

I believe you're saying Nitro was cancelled because its demo was undesirable to certain execs.  My point is that those same execs would hold their nose and deal with it if ratings had been better.  This is not really an either/or thing when it comes down to it, is it?  For these execs, there's apparently a spot on the graph where a show with an undesirable audience hits low enough ratings that it's just not worth having around. 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie]

5 hours ago, clintthecrippler said:

Then together as "The Real Africans" they can have a feud with "The Real American"?

Supposedly, Akeem and Saba Simba were going to feud if Akeem didn't leave.

[SorceressKnight]

2 hours ago, Technico Support said:

I believe you're saying Nitro was cancelled because its demo was undesirable to certain execs.  My point is that those same execs would hold their nose and deal with it if ratings had been better.  This is not really an either/or thing when it comes down to it, is it?  For these execs, there's apparently a spot on the graph where a show with an undesirable audience hits low enough ratings that it's just not worth having around. 

I can see that, but that's also the weird nature when going through.

The biggest weird point for this is the fact that the same ratings that made Nitro and Thunder not worth having around in 2000 can get WWE 2 billion-dollar TV deals in 2018, one of them with one of the major networks. 

Something else has to be there, and the only difference is how wrestling's demographic has shifted in the 21st century (in the Attitude Era, wrestling was still considered a sport of poor white trash, but in 2019 it's supported as "the pro sport of nerd culture")...but even that regard is almost weird (since a large reason WCW 2000 is so maligned is because Russo was pandering to the IWC too much, laid it on so thick, and did it so poorly.) 

[clintthecrippler]

3 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Supposedly, Akeem and Saba Simba were going to feud if Akeem didn't leave.

They started building it with inset promos.

 

AKEEM: "One thing I can't stand is someone claiming to be something that they're not!"

 

 

SABA SIMBA's response here:

 

 

[Nice Guy Eddie]

That quite possibly would have been the most racist angle ever, maybe even moreso than Piper painted half black at WM6. 

Of course, I would have been pulling for Akeem. Ten year old me didn't know about racism. All I knew was Slick was the coolest cat in the WWF.

[Victator]

9 hours ago, Technico Support said:

 

That's why Raw is still on the air, right?  Why not cancel Raw and run the Westminster Dog Show League every Monday instead and get that sweet sweet Fancy Feast coin?

Come on now.  I agree that moneyed viewers are worth more than the poor white trash that TV people assume make up 95% of wrestling's audience.  But you're literally arguing that 2000 WCW could have been doing WCW Hot Streak era numbers and still would have been cancelled because of ad revenue differences.  The one million rich people in your example is theoretical while, in our argument, the ten million poor people were not.  No exec is turning down real money this week for theoretical money next week.

And WCW was getting the demographic that advertisers like. young and stupid. There were a lot of executives who hated wrestling, but they are not risking their cushy job, killing a highly successful company. WCW was still getting good ratings in 2000, but Russo had made WCW a pain in the ass and wasted a lot of money. Along with Bischoff creating a budget that was not sustainable gave the suits their chance to kill it. If WCW was still making money, the people at Turner who hate wrestling never get that chance. 

[Nice Guy Eddie]

16 hours ago, MORELOCK said:

But why would he need to vouch for two dudes that had already spent years working for the company?

That always seem strange to me as well. Clarke was in WWE for about two years, but Adams had been there since 1990 with breaks in between for re-packaging and getting arrested. Wouldn't WWE know what they were getting bringing them back?

Edited May 24, 2019 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Mister TV]

8 hours ago, Victator said:

And WCW was getting the demographic that advertisers like. young and stupid. There were a lot of executives who hated wrestling, but they are not risking their cushy job, killing a highly successful company. WCW was still getting good ratings in 2000, but Russo had made WCW a pain in the ass and wasted a lot of money. Along with Bischoff creating a budget that was not sustainable gave the suits their chance to kill it. If WCW was still making money, the people at Turner who hate wrestling never get that chance. 

The drop in ratings, the cost of running a pro wrestling division and the desire to be rid of the carny con-men who fleeced Turner and Time Warner seem like pretty plausible reasons for dumping wrestling. Also take into account that most corporations are always looking to "cut costs" and only really invest into some project when they're pretty much forced too. The shows TBS and TNT started producing in the 2000's were overall a cheaper investment than pro wrestling and they basically paid themselves when they ran something from the Warner Bros. & MGM film and tv libraries. 

[Guest Stefanie Without Stefanie]

23 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

That always seem strange to me as well. Clarke was in WWE for about two years, but Adams had been there since 1990 with breaks in between for re-packaging and getting arrested. Wouldn't WWE know what they were getting bringing them back?

It was probably more like WWE knew what they were getting and didn't want to take the risk, and Taker was saying that he'd make it work.

[MORELOCK]

8 hours ago, Stefanie the Human said:

It was probably more like WWE knew what they were getting and didn't want to take the risk, and Taker was saying that he'd make it work.

That's the confusing part to me - Adams left willingly after Montreal, and I don't remember there being any issue during the tenure of Adam Bomb except maybe the usual drama with the Klique around that time. They didn't burn any bridges. But 2001 comes along and they suddenly have attitudes, or can't go in the ring? It's not like that ever kept them from putting Crush on TV for 7 years before. After that feud Clarke was released almost right away and Adams was sent to developmental for a couple of months before his release. Always seemed bizarre to me.

[LoneWolf&Subs]

Maybe there was animosity between Clarke, and the office that we don’t know about(Like he sucked for one).

We know that Adams, and Taker were friends, but I don’t believe Taker, and Clarke were.

Edited May 25, 2019 by LoneWolf&Subs

[MORELOCK]

Oh, I was only asking because I thought someone might have an actual answer, not inviting speculation from the guy that likes to make stuff up about the Undertaker. Thanks though.

[LoneWolf&Subs]

11 minutes ago, MORELOCK said:

Oh, I was only asking because I thought someone might have an actual answer, not inviting speculation from the guy that likes to make stuff up about the Undertaker. Thanks though.

[J.H.]

Wasn't their bad blood with Adams because he jumped to WCW after Montreal?

James

[MORELOCK]

He did leave over that, but so did Davey Boy, and they didn't seem to have a problem with pushing him to the main event in 99 despite several good reasons not to. 

[J.H.]

Because people actually cared about DBS and he had some name value, to the point that him coming in saying he was coming for the title kinda meant something. I don't think anyone ever cared about Crush

James

[LoneWolf&Subs]

I’m reading that Clarke actually quit in 95. Apparently over not getting the IC belt(So he claims).

 

Edited May 25, 2019 by LoneWolf&Subs

[GuerrillaMonsoon]

Never watched that Kronik match from 01 before.

Until now. At 4am.

They were totally in the right to not take the blame for that match. Neither were in the worst two workers of that match. Kane looks awful throughout. Clark doesn't sell anything granted but his stuff looks good and fairly crisp.

Eugh. The Jericho/Steph stuff doesn't age well either.

[SorceressKnight]

2 hours ago, J.H. said:

Because people actually cared about DBS and he had some name value, to the point that him coming in saying he was coming for the title kinda meant something.

...well, that and the "all signs say that Davey Boy Smith agreed to double-cross the Hart Family and publicly say WWF was blameless in Owen Hart's death if they rehired him and gave him a main event push." That too. 

[Victator]

On 5/24/2019 at 7:41 AM, happjack said:

The drop in ratings, the cost of running a pro wrestling division and the desire to be rid of the carny con-men who fleeced Turner and Time Warner seem like pretty plausible reasons for dumping wrestling

To be fair that describes executives in any business. I don't think Bischoff thought he was fleecing Turner. I think he made a huge miscalculation in how he set up the budget in WCW, that they would have to make 1998 money to keep the company profitable. But I don't think he was malicious in it. 

If you look at the history of TBS owning WCW, they were wanting to kill it even when it got high ratings and was cheap to produce. 

About Kronik in 2001 WWF. Adams did not leave on great terms in late 97. He was angry about Jeff Jarrett burying him on TV as a nobody. This was when Jarrett had not debuted because he viewed his opponents as not being stars. Adams also put up a stink about putting Kane over in a segment during the period Kane was randomly attacking guys. 

I never understood why that match got so much shit. It wasn't a good match but I would not call it bad. It always looked like Taker and Kane were the problem because they were not selling for Kronik, even for a face in peril segment. Which if Taker was the one fighting for them to come in, doesn't make sense. 

Maybe it was never true.

[Victator]

4 hours ago, SorceressKnight said:

...well, that and the "all signs say that Davey Boy Smith agreed to double-cross the Hart Family and publicly say WWF was blameless in Owen Hart's death if they rehired him and gave him a main event push." That too. 

Why did they not give Neidhart a main event push or even a roster spot. 

They thought Davey Boy still had something to give since it is obvious Vince was not watching WCW. The Davey Boy who left in 97 was not the Davey Boy who came back in 99 and he was quietly pushed down the card. Even trying to give him the Euro belt since he was also a draw in the UK, but his back was shot. Its not like Davey Boy was Bruce Hart and bribed with a main event push.