Brian Fowler Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 In all seriousness, I am not a regular viewer of any show on either list... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Wilson Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Apparently poor people like cartoons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebbie Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 So, the richer you are, the less of a sense of humor you have? Makes sense. One of my pharmacists thinks Big Bang Theory and How I Met Your Mother are the funniest things she's ever seen. She's also Russian, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Dude if you know a Russian pharmacist you should be pretty hooked up and anything will be funny. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I don't get  how Once Upon a Time in Wonderland is in that second list. Rich and Poor people watch Once Upon a Time but since Wonderland doesn't have Lana Parrilla's pantssuits rich people don't watch it too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel 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 Are you just going scorched earth to get banned now? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w. josh Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 That "poor" list is skewed by college students, hence all the animation and sci-fi. The answer to the WWE's woes, clearly, is a battle for control between dueling GMs Ed O'Neill and Nick Offerman. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Poor people apparently love cancelled shows too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 That "poor" list is skewed by college students, hence all the animation and sci-fi. The answer to the WWE's woes, clearly, is a battle for control between dueling GMs Ed O'Neill and Nick Offerman.  Ron Swanson as the new Raw GM would be the greatest thing in wrestling history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirSmUgly Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I bet investors bought the "NASCAR money" thing because hey, NASCAR is seen as for backwoods hicks and so is wrestling and they are both live entertainment, etc.  The problem is that NASCAR is seen as a legitimate sport and pro wrestling is seen as guys pretend-fighting in trunks, at least by advertisers.  I don't know how WWE can convince advertisers that their audience has buying power other than by commissioning studies that show this unequivocally, but maybe the carny stigma of pro wrestling is just too deeply ingrained into our culture when it comes to how we judge the typical pro wrestling viewer. I still get people who say, "You watch pro wrestling? But you know it's fake, right?" as if we all don't watch, enjoy, and get caught up in our favorite scripted programming. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 There has to be a fear of being the one guy in the board room who raises his hand and meekly says "What about WWF?"  and is immediately gunned down by ED-209.   What they need is someone fearless and with vision at NBC:    This guyyyyyyyyyy! 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy LaRue Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I'm tickled that nine of the 'poor' shows are on FOX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Nature Boy Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014  That "poor" list is skewed by college students, hence all the animation and sci-fi. The answer to the WWE's woes, clearly, is a battle for control between dueling GMs Ed O'Neill and Nick Offerman.  Ron Swanson as the new Raw GM would be the greatest thing in wrestling history.   I'd also pay to see Al Bundy as RAW GM, but I'm not sure if it would draw in those prestigious high income viewers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odessasteps Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 No CW on the lists? Suspicious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Nobody watches CW. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebbie Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Obligatory. Â Â Â Still one of the best matches in history tbh 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bustronaut Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 People getting their panties in a bunch over this is hilarious. WWE stock has corrected, and the people pushing the "oust Vince" narrative apparently bought their shares on a long put, which means they want to drive the stock as low as possible before their time is up and then they'll sell at a healthy profit.  WWE stock is back at its 18 month average, I'm not sure why everyone's blowing their brains out about this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Fowler Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Well, if you're Vince and your net worth fell $357 million in one day, you'd probably not be real happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I still think that they are way ahead of the curve on the Network, and that will eventually pay big dividends for the McMahon's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattdangerously Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 These lists are bullshit. NOBODY watched Ironside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooker Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 One person does. Â His annual salary is $55,400. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raziel Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Rich people watched Super Fun Night... that explains alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piranesi Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 You know this doesn't seem so bad for Vince if you think of it in terms of Linda senate runs.   I mean, he only lost like 6 1/2 LSR's.  Shit. Okay, that's still really really bad. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antacular Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 People getting their panties in a bunch over this is hilarious. WWE stock has corrected, and the people pushing the "oust Vince" narrative apparently bought their shares on a long put, which means they want to drive the stock as low as possible before their time is up and then they'll sell at a healthy profit. WWE stock is back at its 18 month average, I'm not sure why everyone's blowing their brains out about this. No, that investment firm went short on it from $30 to $11, closed out after a 60% return, and are now long, meaning they've already made all the money they're going to make from a drop in the price. At this point they're anticipating an increase in the share price, not a decrease. If it drops more, they lose money. The company just lost 2\3 of their value in a matter of weeks, it's a pretty big fucking deal. Again, the "ouster Vince" talk is because of how off they were with the TV fees/network subscriber numbers (And yes, Vince DID say shareholders could guarantee a huge increase He added fuel to the fire comparing themselves to NASCAR, it wasn't some analyst as JP Morgan who realized the demographics between the 2 were similar). Further, yeah it's within its 18-month range, but over the past 10 years it's remained within the same $8-$16 range, despite being the entire North American wrestling industry. To top it all off, they've been able to INCREASE revenue during this entire period, yet they've become less and less profitable every year because SG&A costs keep increasing. It's one thing to blame management for stagnant stock price because consumers simply aren't buying the pro-d-uct, it's another thing entirely when profitability dwindles because management can't keep costs under control and uses the cash balance to paythemselves dividends despite not having sufficient net income. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offspring515 Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Do you guys think any of Alexanda York's computer programs could fix this? 3 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