Hagan Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Good points about MMA, but UFC is in a bad spot when it comes to draws right now. Not that they're still not doing good to great PPV numbers, but it's definitely a cooling off from a few years ago. It seems that the "fad" fans of MMA are starting to splinter away too. I mean, they have Ronda as a draw, and Jones draws with an opponent and...uh...isn't that about it? Wrestling can still get hot because fads come and go and teens and young kids get into weird shit. I mean, maybe all the Cenation grows up and decides to spend all their disposable income on wrestling and gets their kids into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacular Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Wrestling was only big because it was the closest proxy to an unrestricted brawl between 2 grown men you could get that didn't involve gloves and 12 fucking rounds. Why would the fight choice for kids to watch 10 years down the line be something that's "fake" versus MMA? Sure you can say the storylines, and that's why it'll always have a core following, but the storylines are only the premise for the matches to take place. Do kids like a good story? Of course. Do they like the idea of 2 guys legit smacking the shit out of eachother even more? Yup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Good points about MMA, but UFC is in a bad spot when it comes to draws right now. Not that they're still not doing good to great PPV numbers, but it's definitely a cooling off from a few years ago. It seems that the "fad" fans of MMA are starting to splinter away too. I mean, they have Ronda as a draw, and Jones draws with an opponent and...uh...isn't that about it? Wrestling can still get hot because fads come and go and teens and young kids get into weird shit. I mean, maybe all the Cenation grows up and decides to spend all their disposable income on wrestling and gets their kids into it. They have a few fights (Rousey vs. Cyborg or Carano, Jones vs. Gustafsson, Anderson vs. someone notable) that might do 500k+ given the right build but the prospects are not all that stellar. There are various issues surrounding these fights that could prohibit them from happening. Wrestling was only big because it was the closest proxy to an unrestricted brawl between 2 grown men you could get that didn't involve gloves and 12 fucking rounds. Why would the fight choice for kids to watch 10 years down the line be something that's "fake" versus MMA? Sure you can say the storylines, and that's why it'll always have a core following, but the storylines are only the premise for the matches to take place. Do kids like a good story? Of course. Do they like the idea of 2 guys legit smacking the shit out of eachother even more? Yup But the former has worked better than the latter in terms of television. The reverse applies to PPV. That's why WWE chose to undercut PPV providers much to their detriment. The UFC (and Bellator based on the PPV from Saturday) still don't have the pacing thing down to be an acceptable television product like WWE. WWE can be sorta successful without PPV. A major MMA company without television is a future dead MMA promotion. People buy and watch big fights, but they won't do it on a consistent level. You can literally do a breakdown segment-by-segment for Raw and be told which segments didn't work and try to fix it. You can't do that in boxing or MMA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooker Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I don't understand the WWE's marketing strategy with the Network. To anyone that's played MMOs, might have had the experience of trying to convince friends to play, and having them just totally baulk at the $15/month (or whatever it happened to be) and then, after you finally ground them down, turn around and marvel at how easy it is to pay such a small price for how much entertainment you get. The point being that, if the service is good, the goal should not be to drive up subscribers; the point should be to get as many people exposed to it as possible. Now, I don't know how the WWE Network works because, despite being an English-speaking North American, I happen to live in the 51st state - Canada - so I can't experience any of it. Why, when there is so much content available on it that, previous to it being set up, most of that content was uncomplainingly available on YouTube, is there not a useful, robust free area that would get people comfortable with using the service regularly? I imagine it would making spending one trip to McDonalds a month for all wrestling far more palatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Lord Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 I can't understand how at the very least when the WWE Network rolled out they didn't have Canada and Mexico included. The Internet tubes can't possibly be that hard to figure out. On RAW earlier they put up some did you know graphic saying the WWE App was downloaded over 12 million times. If they could get just 10% of those downloads to go for the network they would meet their goals for it to be profitable. Honestly I don't think avalibility is the problem for them. Content is. It's a loop of the same stuff. That's why people aren't jumping onto it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacular Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 That's why you keep the Hendersons/Ruas on free TV, and use those eyeballs to promote Jones' next victim (ughhhhhhhhughghgughghhhh). Sure the pacing is akward now, but MMA is still in its infancy, I honestly believe in 20 - 30 years it will be as big as NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagan Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Yeah, I get what you're saying, Ant but people still respond to characters/stories. It's just not just two guys beating the shit out of each other that draws real money/real ratings. As a television commodity, I tend to think that wrestling, in some form, has far better prospects than MMA. And who even knows how media content will be distributed in the next ten years. Boxing's downfall had far more to do with corruption, political gamesmanship, and a lack of exciting "name" fighters than gloves/12 rounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Antacular is Dana White! I KNEW IT! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooker Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Well, RAW is the free TV ad for PPVs. I'm talking specifically about getting people onto the WWE Network's website / app / whatever and getting them comfortable using it. Making it so that there is a huge userbase of people that know how the system operates, are comfortable using it, have an account that they sometimes comment on videos or whatever, etc. Getting those people to start paying for premium content is far easier than getting people that are watching RAW and don't even know how it works to start paying. Especially when it's fucking Michael Cole painstakingly walking everyone though it / begging us every week. Basically, what I'm saying is, they should be using the Hulu model (a model they're already familiar with!) instead of the Netflix one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacular Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 The storylines are compelling and definitely draw in fans, sure, but they exist only as a premise for which matches take place. If it were just storylines and not matches that were so interesting to fans and able to draw in money, WWE should set up a film studio and have their superstars star in mov-...., oh, wait. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 The only way WWE Studios could make money is basically doing wrestling biopics (Pillman, Eddie Guerrero, SCSA, etc.), but we all know how that would end. Ultimate Warrior's film would end with him having to go back to his home planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacular Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 2 SOON. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 The average cable household has 247 channels available to them, but watches approximately 13 of them, that's 95% unwatched, and I'd guess the sports channels fall into that 95% for a lot of people. Backing up a bit here, but cable/satellite companies are NEVER going to offer an ala carte option that costs less because of this. If you only watch 13 channels, and you are currently paying them 75 bucks a month (or whatever) for those 247, why in the fuck would they want to let you pay less for just those 13? Which is where the model of something like the WWE Network as well as Netflix/Hulu/Prime/et al come in, but right now none of them are cracking nearly the subscriber base of the more traditional distribution models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daddy-O Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Mark Henry: The Movie sells itself. Pay your airbills. (That's still popular round here right?) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagan Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 The storylines are compelling and definitely draw in fans, sure, but they exist only as a premise for which matches take place. If it were just storylines and not matches that were so interesting to fans and able to draw in money, WWE should set up a film studio and have their superstars star in mov-...., oh, wait. ;-) Go watch 1999 WWF. Those record ratings weren't drawn by work-rate, unless people really thought that Pete Gas was an underrated worker. The WWE is as much ring-rate centered as its been in years but it's not bringing in the eye-balls that like Edge's live sex act did. This isn't a bad thing, but WWE is more traditional than it's been in a while and I think they desperately need a hot angle to move the needle. Not just pushing new dudes, or switching titles, they need a big angle that gets people talking. I mean, even the most successful UFC/boxing fights usually draw on some sort of build/angle, whether real or manufactured. I mean, shit...Ultimate Fighter exists just for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 The storylines are compelling and definitely draw in fans, sure, but they exist only as a premise for which matches take place. If it were just storylines and not matches that were so interesting to fans and able to draw in money, WWE should set up a film studio and have their superstars star in mov-...., oh, wait. ;-) I mean, even the most successful UFC/boxing fights usually draw on some sort of build/angle, whether real or manufactured. I mean, shit...Ultimate Fighter exists just for that reason. I don't mind paying 10 bucks a month for Silva/Sonnen TUF Brazil on Fight Pass because of the personalities involved. The Brazilians TUF concept is a bit different as Meltzer has mentioned on the Observer shows. However, I can't imagine myself (or anyone with Fight Pass for that matter) watching a single North American TUF season on Fight Pass. They would have to pay me to watch that. However, UFC hasn't made a crazy push like the WWE has with new programming so the pushback is pretty limited. The main Fight Pass gripe now is having to pay for prelims when they were free in the past. But FS1 isn't going to air three hours of prelims when they have other programming, no matter if UFC is the highest rated non-football programming. Now if someone made me pay money for Legend's House or Total Divas (*just going by what I've heard from Meltzer and Alvarez because I haven't seen a single ep of either), I would cancel my sub right after Wrestlemania and start back up in January. When Total Divas resurfaces on the network after it runs its course on E!, is that really a selling point in terms of new programming? I'm gonna safely assume that the people who already watch it probably have the network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacular Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 UFC wasn't what it is today back in 1999. WWE will never get those numbers again, ever. I'm not saying storylines/characters aren't important (obviously that's one of the main reasons Ultimate Fighter has gotten so big, which has fueled MMAs popularity), but going forward in 2014 and beyond, the majority of people aren't going to want to watch "fake" fights when they can just as easily watch real ones. That was not the case in 1999, when MMA was only LEGAL in a handful of states. Shit, UFC can't even run in MSG because my state capital is just the absolute fucking worst. Still lots of progress to be made, with WWE it's a matter of how to stop the bleeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 The TUF ratings are at an all-time low. Averaging somewhere between 275k to 350k an episode IIRC. The UFC prelims on FS1 average 400k and higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacular Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 NEW NETWORK NEW NETWORK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 NEW NETWORK NEW NETWORK The season has been over for a month but the first 5 episodes of TUF Nations were: Episode 1: 371,000 viewers Episode 2: 253,000 viewersEpisode 3: 107,000 viewers Episode 4: 384,000 viewers Episode 5: 187,000 viewers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacular Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 Yeah but compare those numbers to everything else on FS1 not pro/college foosball/basketball and they're great numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 You would be a great publicist/spin doctor for the UFC. Compare that to the ratings for TUF Liddell vs. Ortiz from 2010: “TUF 11″ episode No. 9 (May 26): 1.5 million viewers “TUF 11″ episode No. 8 (May 19): 1.3 million viewers “TUF 11″ episode No. 7 (May 12): 1.8 million viewers “TUF 11″ episode No. 6 (May 5): 1.7 million viewers “TUF 11″ episode No. 5 (April 28): 1.8 million viewers “TUF 11″ episode No. 4 (April 21): 2.0 million viewers “TUF 11″ episode No. 3 (April 14): 1.6 million viewers “TUF 11″ episode No. 2 (April 7): 1.5 million viewers “TUF 11″ episode No. 1 (March 31): 1.9 million viewers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 The storylines are compelling and definitely draw in fans, sure, but they exist only as a premise for which matches take place. If it were just storylines and not matches that were so interesting to fans and able to draw in money, WWE should set up a film studio and have their superstars star in mov-...., oh, wait. ;-) Go watch 1999 WWF. Those record ratings weren't drawn by work-rate, unless people really thought that Pete Gas was an underrated worker. Man, while we were thinking about moves for Reigns to do. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugVPPt8ITW8 This was right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRGoldman Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 We are talking about Nielsen ratings for an MMA reality show and ben. made a post that didn't involve the stud stable saving the stock price. This is the worst thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elsalvajeloco Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 The best thread. TBE 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