Chaos Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 I do think that sadly there is a huge subset of the audience who is confused with how the wwe network works. After Mania I was talking to a woman I encounter in my work related travels from time to time. She is not someone of means or particularly bright. I asked her whether she got the network and got mania. She explained that she didn't buy the ppv because she couldn't afford it and didn't buy the network because she didn't understand how it worked. Instead, she preordered a DVD of the ppv off amazon for twenty dollars and change. That gives you a glimpse of what wwe is working with. It will be interesting what the DVD numbers are for mania. Presumably, each of those fans are fans who should be gimmes for a network subscription but are not for some reason. I know people that have Network access that still bought the Mania Blu Ray. The only reason I contemplated buying it despite already having the Network is because I went to that Mania.
Brian Fowler Posted May 27, 2014 Posted May 27, 2014 I'm half tempted, just because I own the first 29 on dvd or blu-ray, and I have that damn collector's mindset.
muhammedboehm Posted May 28, 2014 Posted May 28, 2014 Did anyone else see the bit (not sure where I saw it think it might have been twitter) that there was a cable sports network that was very interested in WWE programming but when they went to the meeting and Vince quoted his asking price they laughed and left the meeting cause there view is wrestling is just cheap and good for ratings.
IHFP Posted May 29, 2014 Posted May 29, 2014 Bix made a good point in his article. "MLS is getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 to 17 times what WWE is getting per viewer, which is completely ridiculous." MLS got a $90 million/year deal even though their ratings are pretty low (220K on ESPN, 110k on NBCS, and only 400k on NBC compared to almost 4 million a week for Raw), and their ratings actually declined from 2012 to 2013. I'm a big MLS fan but it's clear to see that WWE is undervalued due to its reputation and reputation of the viewers.
Antacular Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 That's what happens after years of phalanges birthing, Kiss My Ass Club initiations, and Katie Vicks: Sometimes you gotta sleep in the bed you make.
muhammedboehm Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 That's what happens after years of phalanges birthing, Kiss My Ass Club initiations, and Katie Vicks: Sometimes you gotta sleep in the bed you make. Agree plus you can't for years claim your not 'sports' then get mad when you don't get compaired to sports 1
Fat Spanish Waiter Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 The idea that wwe fans are all idiots may be fair but the idea that marketing to idiots is a bad idea is amazingly stupid. Anyone on here ever buy a merc because Jon Hamm voice their commercials and they air during Mad Men?
nofuture Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 Bix made a good point in his article. "MLS is getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 to 17 times what WWE is getting per viewer, which is completely ridiculous." MLS got a $90 million/year deal even though their ratings are pretty low (220K on ESPN, 110k on NBCS, and only 400k on NBC compared to almost 4 million a week for Raw), and their ratings actually declined from 2012 to 2013. I'm a big MLS fan but it's clear to see that WWE is undervalued due to its reputation and reputation of the viewers. If you want to know why MLS got so much, just look at their sponsor lists. WWE would kill to have any of these sponsors. http://www.mlssoccer.com/sponsors
Antacular Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 The idea that wwe fans are all idiots may be fair but the idea that marketing to idiots is a bad idea is amazingly stupid. Anyone on here ever buy a merc because Jon Hamm voice their commercials and they air during Mad Men? Point. But as mentioned earlier here, the demos that WWE attracts aren't the ones that advertisers are willing to pay top dollar for. And while everyone shits on the PG-Era, shifting the focus towards the younger demographic was probably the smartest thing they've done in years for marketing purposes, regardless of Senator McMahon's prospects.
Matt D Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 Bix made a good point in his article. "MLS is getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 to 17 times what WWE is getting per viewer, which is completely ridiculous." MLS got a $90 million/year deal even though their ratings are pretty low (220K on ESPN, 110k on NBCS, and only 400k on NBC compared to almost 4 million a week for Raw), and their ratings actually declined from 2012 to 2013. I'm a big MLS fan but it's clear to see that WWE is undervalued due to its reputation and reputation of the viewers. If you want to know why MLS got so much, just look at their sponsor lists. WWE would kill to have any of these sponsors. http://www.mlssoccer.com/sponsors 1
piranesi Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 Are you diagramming the process of getting back together with your ex who moved to Phoenix to get away from you? 1
Brian Fowler Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 Are any of those companies still around? (Actually, I think Stacker 2 is.)
Bustronaut Posted May 30, 2014 Posted May 30, 2014 Not only is JVC still around, but so is the KaboomBox (now the BoomBlaster) http://www.jvc.co.uk/product-list.php?id=100143
odessasteps Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 If you want a great discrepancy between ratings and advertisers, it may not get any better than yachting and when the America's Cup is on. You can bet the advertisers will be things like luxury cars and Rolex-caliber watches.
Bustronaut Posted May 31, 2014 Posted May 31, 2014 When 400 people earn 42% of the nation's wealth, it doesn't make any difference what ratings their hobbies have on TV 1
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