DTTW Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 44 minutes ago, (BP) said: WWE's business model and television at large has changed in the last fifteen years. Their biggest concern ratings wise is probably not having legerage when their contracts are up for renewal. WCW was hemorrhaging money, fell under the umbrella of a corporation with no interest in its survival, and lost a television slot when that was its most attractive feature to potential investors. It doesn't really compare with a public company whose majority shareholders are long term family owners who have their own network if they miraculously couldn't get a TV deal one day. Look I get all of that and even how the internet has changed the way people watch content, but with their flagship looking worse than their dead competition, someone had better see the need to do something because this looks really ugly. Christ didn't that comic writer get fired when they dipped below 3.0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cristobal Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Because it's 2016 and there's no competition, dead or otherwise. "WCW had higher ratings in 2001" is meaningless. TV ratings across the board are down, and even having dropped, Raw and SD ratings aren't BAD for basic cable. PG means that even if USA decides to change it up, someone else will gladly pay for them, albeit less, which hurts WWE less now then it might have due to the Network reversing the loss of PPV revenue, and increased merch sales making up for lost ticket sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L_W_P Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 8 hours ago, RIPPA said: RIP All Red Everything Has that guy had some cosmetic work done to look like her? That's actually creepy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 1 hour ago, cwoy2j said: What about a returning Luke Harper as the guy who takes out Strowman? You have the former Wyatt Family member dynamic and it would be a cool way to give him a push up the ladder. Plus I think Harper could get a pretty good hoss fight out of Strowman. YEAH YEAH YEAH 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nice Guy Eddie Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 2 hours ago, cwoy2j said: What about a returning Luke Harper as the guy who takes out Strowman? You have the former Wyatt Family member dynamic and it would be a cool way to give him a push up the ladder. Plus I think Harper could get a pretty good hoss fight out of Strowman. That crossed my mind as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nice Guy Eddie Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 Does Eva realize her hair is being done by a ventriloquist dummy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(BP) Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 I love how important wrestling still is to the dude. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromatagon Posted October 4, 2016 Share Posted October 4, 2016 37 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said: Does Eva realize her hair is being done by a ventriloquist dummy? I thought it was one of those creepy battery commercial people 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zakk_Sabbath Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 2 hours ago, L_W_P said: Has that guy had some cosmetic work done I was super hoping your post would end there 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTTW Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 2 hours ago, Cristobal said: Because it's 2016 and there's no competition, dead or otherwise. "WCW had higher ratings in 2001" is meaningless. TV ratings across the board are down, and even having dropped, Raw and SD ratings aren't BAD for basic cable. PG means that even if USA decides to change it up, someone else will gladly pay for them, albeit less, which hurts WWE less now then it might have due to the Network reversing the loss of PPV revenue, and increased merch sales making up for lost ticket sales. Clearly ever other thing on the telly and the internets is competition or else they wouldn't be setting new record lows. I think it's fair to point towards WWE's flagship show's ratings being far below it's dead competition, combined with it's decline since then, and say hey, maybe something isn't working here. I think we've reached the tipping point of wrestling entering into another ice age possibly. Bryan and Dave hammer on about Raw's viewers being over 40....well that's not exactly the demos that define cool, and as I've been stating few awhile now, wrestling is cold culturally and it only seems to be getting more so. Yes there is a fan base and it's passionate, but it seems to be about 1.5-3 million people total. Will they really be able to keep WWE afloat? WWE has many revenues streams, but like all businesses, it's their flagship that's supposed to lead. If Coke or BMW or whoever, see their flagship product starting to wane, you best believe they'd try and do something about it. WWE has gone on to attempt more revenue streams, rehash old ideas, and spent millions in hopes of creating the next Austin. They seem unwilling to do much to tweak RAW beyond sticking in new characters and having meaningless drivel to occupy three hours of time. It's funny how they used to be so good with timing and pacing, and making things matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 It's like that sketch Ben Stiller did where he was Tom Cruise's M:I2 stunt double. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caley Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 41 minutes ago, DTTW said: Clearly ever other thing on the telly and the internets is competition or else they wouldn't be setting new record lows. I think it's fair to point towards WWE's flagship show's ratings being far below it's dead competition, combined with it's decline since then, and say hey, maybe something isn't working here. I think we've reached the tipping point of wrestling entering into another ice age possibly. Bryan and Dave hammer on about Raw's viewers being over 40....well that's not exactly the demos that define cool, and as I've been stating few awhile now, wrestling is cold culturally and it only seems to be getting more so. Yes there is a fan base and it's passionate, but it seems to be about 1.5-3 million people total. Will they really be able to keep WWE afloat? I don't think that's necessarily true. Wrestling is kind of everywhere at the moment. You've got former wrestlers in big movies (Rock, Batista) while John Cena is everywhere. You've got two separate reality shows about WWE superstars on E! Rolling Stone has run semi-regular stories on pro wrestlers on their website. ESPN has a section on their site for pro wrestling...ESPN! Wrestlers do interviews on Sportscenter. You can watch Raw, Smackdown, NXT, ROH, TNA, NJPW, Lucha Underground, CMLL, AAA and more on a weekly basis with a basic cable subscription (Depending on where you live). I mean, WWE has its own freakin' network! Guys are making a living working indie wrestling. Culturally, I'm surprised how much crossover there still is. I'm a moderator on a hockey site, and there have been so many "DELETE" references this past summer, in addition to all the usual pro graps stuff that usually turns up. It really feels right now like the industry, right now, is the strongest it has been in years. As far as setting new record lows, this is always WWE's cold season, ratings-wise, and there's an unusual amount of competition this year what with the debate a while back, NFL games, and a pretty interesting MLB denouement. I mean, nobody is worried that the NFL is in decline two weeks after they set a record low for MNF. Why is there always such a sky-is-falling mentality for wrestling fans. This is a pretty good time to be a wrestling fan. Ride the wave. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstout Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 6 hours ago, Tromatagon said: So I read the F4Wonline report about ADR being stabbed. How much of a fuckup do you have to be for an article to keep using "allegedly" talking about you getting stabbed when you produce the photos of the cuts? "Allegedly" is a bit of a journalist's crutch and is falling out of favor because there are better ways to phrase things. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If you're talking about the report on the website and not one in one of the newsletters, the "allegedly" in the headline is fine. Could be better, but fine. As unlikely as it seems that he may have done so, he may have faked the whole thing for some crazy reason. The writer doesn't KNOW that Del Rio got stabbed, he's going on Del Rio's word. That said, the writer could've avoided "allegedly" by simply saying that Del Rio said he got stabbed. That's what Del Rio said. He said he got stabbed. If it turns out to be false, the writer could always say "I wasn't wrong, that's what Del Rio said happened, I can't help it if he lied." But the writer's wrong to say Del Rio alleged that he got stabbed. No, he says he got stabbed, he's not alleging anything. I sincerely doubt everyone who writes on any wrestling website (even wo.com) has had a decent amount of journalism training, so I never mind things much. I'm getting what I pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph2112 Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 35 minutes ago, jstout said: "Allegedly" is a bit of a journalist's crutch and is falling out of favor because there are better ways to phrase things. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If you're talking about the report on the website and not one in one of the newsletters, the "allegedly" in the headline is fine. Could be better, but fine. As unlikely as it seems that he may have done so, he may have faked the whole thing for some crazy reason. The writer doesn't KNOW that Del Rio got stabbed, he's going on Del Rio's word. That said, the writer could've avoided "allegedly" by simply saying that Del Rio said he got stabbed. That's what Del Rio said. He said he got stabbed. If it turns out to be false, the writer could always say "I wasn't wrong, that's what Del Rio said happened, I can't help it if he lied." But the writer's wrong to say Del Rio alleged that he got stabbed. No, he says he got stabbed, he's not alleging anything. I sincerely doubt everyone who writes on any wrestling website (even wo.com) has had a decent amount of journalism training, so I never mind things much. I'm getting what I pay for. My opinion is that since it is pro wrestling and Alberto Del Rio, they are basically saying he is said this but they don't necessarily believe it. The other part of it is if Dave simply said that Del Rio got stabbed and it wasn't true, he would have a million trolls lighting him up saying "DA MELTZ LIES AGAIN1111", even if that wasn't what happened. I agree the standard for wrestling journalism is fairly low but in this point I see what they are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstout Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 That's the big problem with "allegedly" and why it should be moved away from. The way the word sounds kinda adds a taint to what's being said, like you don't believe what they're saying. It's far better for people to simply say "Del Rio said he got stabbed." That's what he said. Later if it turns out that he faked the whole thing, you can say "Del Rio said he got stabbed, but police say he faked the whole thing." People get freaked out about using the word "said" too much, but it's the only one that doesn't add some sort of editorial bias to what's being written, like "Del Rio reportedly was stabbed." See how "reportedly" sounds like it needs air quotes around it? My old journalism prof, who isn't teaching anymore, sadly, said the word "said" in journalism should be used like a punctuation mark. You never catch yourself when writing saying "am I using too many periods?" But writers will always try to use some bullshit to replace the word "said" when "said" works fine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTTW Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 49 minutes ago, caley said: I don't think that's necessarily true. Wrestling is kind of everywhere at the moment. You've got former wrestlers in big movies (Rock, Batista) while John Cena is everywhere. You've got two separate reality shows about WWE superstars on E! Rolling Stone has run semi-regular stories on pro wrestlers on their website. ESPN has a section on their site for pro wrestling...ESPN! Wrestlers do interviews on Sportscenter. You can watch Raw, Smackdown, NXT, ROH, TNA, NJPW, Lucha Underground, CMLL, AAA and more on a weekly basis with a basic cable subscription (Depending on where you live). I mean, WWE has its own freakin' network! Guys are making a living working indie wrestling. Culturally, I'm surprised how much crossover there still is. I'm a moderator on a hockey site, and there have been so many "DELETE" references this past summer, in addition to all the usual pro graps stuff that usually turns up. It really feels right now like the industry, right now, is the strongest it has been in years. As far as setting new record lows, this is always WWE's cold season, ratings-wise, and there's an unusual amount of competition this year what with the debate a while back, NFL games, and a pretty interesting MLB denouement. I mean, nobody is worried that the NFL is in decline two weeks after they set a record low for MNF. Why is there always such a sky-is-falling mentality for wrestling fans. This is a pretty good time to be a wrestling fan. Ride the wave. Are you confusing media saturation with cultural revelency? I don't know anymore. Yes there is more content, but isn't business down for all of them or most of them? The internet latches on to things. Deletion was perfect for it, but it's the internet bubble. My mom knows John Cena is a wrestler, she has no idea about Deletion. Half of my coworkers probably know what it is and our job is internet based. Wrestling was and will always be good tv, but competition has gotten insanely more difficult. MMA is real and wrestling now had an inescapable stink of fake all over it. Hell look at Brock. The WWE values him more than nearly everyone. They booked "humor" and booked themselves into a cultural punchline. You can't ride a wave forever and given all the WCW type crap I see the WWF doing, I can't help but feeling a crash is happening sooner than later and they're at the top riding and guiding it. I suspect the WWE can survive when they fall, but good luck to everyone else....actually that could be what starts a new boom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SorceressKnight Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 1 hour ago, DTTW said: Are you confusing media saturation with cultural revelency? I don't know anymore. Yes there is more content, but isn't business down for all of them or most of them? The internet latches on to things. Deletion was perfect for it, but it's the internet bubble. My mom knows John Cena is a wrestler, she has no idea about Deletion. Half of my coworkers probably know what it is and our job is internet based. Wrestling was and will always be good tv, but competition has gotten insanely more difficult. MMA is real and wrestling now had an inescapable stink of fake all over it. Hell look at Brock. The WWE values him more than nearly everyone. They booked "humor" and booked themselves into a cultural punchline. You can't ride a wave forever and given all the WCW type crap I see the WWF doing, I can't help but feeling a crash is happening sooner than later and they're at the top riding and guiding it. I suspect the WWE can survive when they fall, but good luck to everyone else....actually that could be what starts a new boom. The problem though, is that the media saturation and cultural relevancy DO play a role in this. WWE is niche, but niche is MAINSTREAM right now- and even if WWE is down as a whole, WWE is basically an accepted part of the fabric of pop culture that is what it is- and has fallen to "if you like wrestling, you're watching WWE. If you don't really like wrestling, that's cool too, but it's over here if you're interested in it"...which is a whole problem because getting those big ratings requires getting those people who don't really like wrestling to give you a try and hook THEM- not in preaching to the choir and doing things that will keep the hardcore fans loyal to you...and even then, WWE's doing very well there: the "they only get 2-3 million viewers for Raw...but most of those people subscribe to the WWE Network" stat being unfathomably good in the "new era" of streaming services/television (with WWE Network being the highest-subscribed "niche market" streaming service out there- it'll never hit Netflix/Hulu/Amazon Prime numbers, but that would be closer to demanding Monday Night Raw beating NBC, ABC, and CBS programming in the ratings on a weekly basis in the "TV era". It's just not going to happen and it's unreasonable to expect it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 1 hour ago, jstout said: That's the big problem with "allegedly" and why it should be moved away from. The way the word sounds kinda adds a taint to what's being said, like you don't believe what they're saying. It's far better for people to simply say "Del Rio said he got stabbed." That's what he said. Later if it turns out that he faked the whole thing, you can say "Del Rio said he got stabbed, but police say he faked the whole thing." People get freaked out about using the word "said" too much, but it's the only one that doesn't add some sort of editorial bias to what's being written, like "Del Rio reportedly was stabbed." See how "reportedly" sounds like it needs air quotes around it? My old journalism prof, who isn't teaching anymore, sadly, said the word "said" in journalism should be used like a punctuation mark. You never catch yourself when writing saying "am I using too many periods?" But writers will always try to use some bullshit to replace the word "said" when "said" works fine. This sounds almost like a rule for writing from Elmore Leonard. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infinit Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 A little birdie told be Brock vs Goldberg might be happening very soon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattdangerously Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 If they're going to go to all the trouble of bringing back Goldberg, why is that the matchup they want? Why not a match with Cena, or Reigns, or Rusev, or one of the many other more interesting choices they could make? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyld Samurai Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Isn't Goldberg pushing 50 and has nowhere near the mass he did 20 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstout Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Dammit, WWE, book it this way for me just 'cause I wanna see what happens in the "IWC": Bell rings. Goldberg spear, jackhammer, pin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niners Fan in CT Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Obviously WWE has lost quite a bit of their viewership over the last couple years but for right now the important number to look at is the 18-49 rating. They are still pretty much #2 on cable behind Monday Night Football and they win most Mondays when football is in its offseason. SD! is doing well on Tuesdays also. The numbers for RAW and SD! are nearly identical. There's a lot of things going on whether it's Netflix, other streaming options, social media, a billion channels, cable cutting, etc.. It's not all because of a lack of star power or anything to do with creative. Plus, that third hour for RAW. It's a killer. But it also makes them a ton of money and USA wants it there. I think 5 hours of live TV plus NXT, plus all these other options people have for entertainment it's just a lot to invest in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turk128 Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 12 hours ago, Cristobal said: Because it's 2016 and there's no competition, dead or otherwise. "WCW had higher ratings in 2001" is meaningless. TV ratings across the board are down, and even having dropped, Raw and SD ratings aren't BAD for basic cable. PG means that even if USA decides to change it up, someone else will gladly pay for them, albeit less, which hurts WWE less now then it might have due to the Network reversing the loss of PPV revenue, and increased merch sales making up for lost ticket sales. TV overall has had a TNA slow death ever since the advent of digital; everyone talks about it, knows it's coming, and is trying their hardest to prepare for the inevitable. WWE's Network is an amazing example of forethought when it comes to the TV apocalypse. Looking back, I think everyone involved is glad they didn't get what they original wanted, the WWE channel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BurningBeard Posted October 5, 2016 Share Posted October 5, 2016 Having heard Goldberg say he'd want to win if he comes back, I can see the Brock match happening just to stoke his faux-tough guy ego. I hope he doesn't come back, he's an absolute tit (go listen to the Austin podcast for how much of an egotist he is) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts