Reed Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Like I said in the CTDWAT, I find it hard to believe that pretty much everyone who follows WWE even sporadically behind the scenes knew Vince was talking nonsense when he claimed they'd get four times what they were currently making in WWE, but someone the people that invest millions of dollars in this had no clue. Man, at least hire some people who can do google searches or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odessasteps Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I wonder just what would happen if these venture capitalists try and push Vince out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 We get a repackaged heel Otunga? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 JEsus, is Italy's crown prince okay? I didn't even know Silvio had a son. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted May 18, 2014 Author Share Posted May 18, 2014 Meltzer made it sound like Barrios and Wilson are going to be the scapegoats for this. There are apparently people who want Vince out, but since the perception is that he's the only one who can run the company, he's very safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramsey Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 So the real question is this: How does Vince, the KING of knee-jerk reactionary businessmen work with this. Immediate doubling of the network price? Bring back his emphasis on PPV? Create a character named "Stalk Price" and have him join the kiss my ass club? Interesting times up Stamford way... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odessasteps Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Illogically, i can see Vince (and/or the McMahon-Hemsley Alliance) blaming Danielson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted May 18, 2014 Author Share Posted May 18, 2014 It's time for the Hobo Army. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ace Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Like I said in the CTDWAT, I find it hard to believe that pretty much everyone who follows WWE even sporadically behind the scenes knew Vince was talking nonsense when he claimed they'd get four times what they were currently making in WWE, For one thing, I don't think Vince ever said that. Hell, 4x wasn't even their asking price. They asked for 280. It was other speculators claiming it'd be 4x based on what soccer and NASCAR got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted May 18, 2014 Author Share Posted May 18, 2014 Like I said in the CTDWAT, I find it hard to believe that pretty much everyone who follows WWE even sporadically behind the scenes knew Vince was talking nonsense when he claimed they'd get four times what they were currently making in WWE, For one thing, I don't think Vince ever said that. Hell, 4x wasn't even their asking price. They asked for 280. It was other speculators claiming it'd be 4x based on what soccer and NASCAR got. The way he continually talked up NASCAR's deal on the conference calls seems to have left many with that impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Spanish Waiter Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Illogically, i can see Vince (and/or the McMahon-Hemsley Alliance) blaming Danielson. This guy writes about pro wrestling and tries to charge money for it 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 The NASCAR argument made a certain amount of sense, because WWE does do more viewers, with a more diverse audience by age, location, race, and gender. But the problem is the NASCAR rights have begun to be seen as a massive overpay. I'm honestly surprised the tv rights wound up as low as they did though. I thought getting into the 250-300 range was likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie M. Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Everything in the last 15 years should tell you that people don't know what the fuck they're doing with their money when it comes to the stock market so it's no surprise a bunch of people got hoodwinked. Of course there are plenty of brokers who likely made out like bandits convincing people to buy into this shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted May 18, 2014 Author Share Posted May 18, 2014 I'm honestly surprised the tv rights wound up as low as they did though. I thought getting into the 250-300 range was likely. I think they could have feasibly gotten that, but they apparently scared off a lot of people in the industry by announcing they were going to ask for so much extra cash. Like one cable channel even dropped the idea of negotiating with them entirely after they heard that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niners Fan in CT Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Meltzer was saying basically that Vince made his bed with all of the toilet humor over the years. The numbers show that WWE has a diverse audience but they do very well in key demographics. The problem is that there is still this idea that most wrestling fans are poor dumb idiots and Vince hasn't helped matters with his long history of low brow 'comedy.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muhammedboehm Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 The thing to remember about the NASCAR deal is its being split between three networks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie M. Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Meltzer was saying basically that Vince made his bed with all of the toilet humor over the years. The numbers show that WWE has a diverse audience but they do very well in key demographics. The problem is that there is still this idea that most wrestling fans are poor dumb idiots and Vince hasn't helped matters with his long history of low brow 'comedy.' For a long time there they didn't want to be compared to sports because UFC was whipping them in PPV so their out was "they're sports, we're not sports." They really hammered that home for years and now they've never really did anything major to be repositioned themselves for this new TV deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted May 18, 2014 Author Share Posted May 18, 2014 Meltzer was saying basically that Vince made his bed with all of the toilet humor over the years. The numbers show that WWE has a diverse audience but they do very well in key demographics. The problem is that there is still this idea that most wrestling fans are poor dumb idiots and Vince hasn't helped matters with his long history of low brow 'comedy.' Yeah, but he did mentioned that even back in the 60s and 70s, wrestling had a low class rep and few wanted to pay for it. Vince didn't help, and undoubtedly made it worse, but it was like that when he got into the business. Honestly, you could bring in writers from Hannibal or Mad Men, pay Bryan Cranston a zillion dollars to be Raw GM and generally put out the classiest, most intelligent product ever...and wrestling would still be seen as "two guys in speedos fake fighting." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Meltzer was saying basically that Vince made his bed with all of the toilet humor over the years. The numbers show that WWE has a diverse audience but they do very well in key demographics. The problem is that there is still this idea that most wrestling fans are poor dumb idiots and Vince hasn't helped matters with his long history of low brow 'comedy.' Meltzer. It seems kind of unfair, though, to blame someone for a strategy that was designed to keep them going 10-15 years ago and worked then, for that strategy not also being perfectly finely tuned to allow them to branch into a different direction in a different decade and a different market. It's like looking at the fall of Rome and saying Rome made their bed in 200 B.C. when they insisted on expanding their borders too much...they only bought themselves 400 years of immediate prosperity and security but totally should have anticipated how the world would change in the next half a millennium. It's not like corporate America isn't willing to rehabilitate something if the numbers are there to justify it. This seems more like a nuts-and-bolts bargaining problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted May 18, 2014 Author Share Posted May 18, 2014 Raw should have more alcoholic womanizing advertisers. Or meth dealers. That's what smart, educated people with loads of disposable income like to watch. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 There was a recent article that more affluent people's favorite show is Modern Family (while poorer people prefer Bob's Burgers.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed Posted May 18, 2014 Author Share Posted May 18, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I'm a bit confused on that argument. Given the number of poors/richies nowadays, there has to be a better comparison with a show for poors that compares better ratings-wise. MODERN FAMILY pulls like 4 times as many viewers as BOB'S BURGERS. Which of the shows on the poor chart gets closest to MODERN FAMILY in terms of viewers? Also, Poors...STOP WATCHING UNDERCOVER BOSS!!! IT'S A SHOW BY THEM TO MANIPULATE YOU INTO LOVING THEM!!!!! I mean, Fuck. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I think it's the average annual income of the people who watch the show, as opposed to total number of viewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Is it weird that the only shows on that list that I regularly watch are the top two richest and the top three poorest? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now