WWE Finances, et al Discussion

[The Natural]

To this day, 'Cause Stone Cold Said So is one of the best profiles on a wrestler I've ever seen. Steve Austin's commentary was hilarious. My Dad bought it for me in 1997 on VHS. I still have it.

Edited February 6, 2020 by The Natural

[SorceressKnight]

7 hours ago, AxB said:

On the other hand, someone coming in from the business world and doing talent evaluations of the PC may well decide that a guy with 10 years on the indies has more value than an ex-college football player with no previous wrestling experience. So the indies would be flooded with all the mini Corbins and Rawleys.

On the contrary to this (and for the people who think a bigger business will think based on the indie experience):

We're not talking about some business buying WWE, we're talking in particular about an ENTERTAINMENT conglomerate buying WWE, and in all likeliness they're the only ones who would want WWE. 

With that in mind: How many major Hollywood blockbusters can you remember that were built around "this star is one of the best actors/actresses in local community theater for over two decades, and now finally, at long last, we're giving this unsung hero of the acting scene their chance to be the lead star in a summer blockbuster!" Hell, even lower it to 'this person was a great actor for a long time on Broadway and they're making their debut as the lead in this summer blockbuster"?  The closest example you can think of is stand-up comics getting TV shows, and even then you'd have to be in the top echelon of stand-ups, and a TV show isn't as big a deal as a big summer movie.

By comparison to that, how many major motion pictures can be built around "well, they don't really have much talent, and they're not really well known by any means...but LOOK AT THEM!  Cast them in the major motion picture because they'll look good on the poster. If they can act, it's a plus. If not...eh, who cares?"

That's how we'd get in this instance- it'd be far less likely a entertainment conglomerate says "wow, this person has 10 years of indie experience and is considered one of the best in the business. Let's hire them", and much more likely they go past "college football player with no wrestling experience" and into "this person has no relevant athletic experience to speak of, much less wrestling experience...but their Instagram account is amazing. Let's hire them and make a wrestler out of them."  An indie wrestler would not be likely to get past the door in this world, and if they do, even if you have a Yes! Movement or a post-Pipebomb world for that star, where WWE currently goes "...don't care don't care don't care...aww fuck, you won't give up on this? Fine. We cave. You win. We'll give it to you", the entertainment conglomerate would invariably respond to that movement with "don't care don't care don't care OH MY GOD I DON'T CARE they have no star quality and it'll never change, we're going with this person as the star, DEAL WITH IT".

 

[Elsalvajeloco]

I dunno if motion pictures would be the best comparison given that the model now in 2020 has been completely turned on its head. Going back to the solo show Jim Valley did on WOL...he compared the success of the Iron Man franchise to Dolittle. Very few pure box office draws exist now. If you do two or three films on Netflix or Disney+ a year as an actor or actress, you don't need to be known by anyone. The brand and the IP owned by the brand are the stars. Not you. Motherfucker, you alone didn't get Disney+ 28.6 million subscribers. That was Disney that did that.

Live sports is still insanely star driven. What's funny is despite WWE trying their best for the longest to do what Hollywood has done by marginalizing what individual actors/actresses mean to the bottom line , the lack of actual meaningful stars that draw has only lowered the overall popularity of the WWE's own brand. That's why the sports entertainment tagline is so fucking silly. You want it to be one way, but it's the other way.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Elsalvajeloco

[SirSmUgly]

7 hours ago, Wyld Samurai said:

If the WWE was to ever be sold, I would like to see it bought by Peter Guber of Mandalay Entertainment. He has the desire for success and the knack for showmanship to be at the helm of the circus that is sports entertainment 

Guber ran Sony Pictures into the ground in the '90s and is pretty old himself, though. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Smelly McUgly

[sabremike]

2 hours ago, mattdangerously said:

Here's something I'm going to go to hell for: I'm watching a tape of old World Class, and Koko Ware and Norvell Austin are making their debut against Mike Reed and Buck Zumhofe, and all I can think about is how excited Zumhofe must have been when they told him he'd be wrestling the Pretty Young Things that night.

Horribly sick and offensive joke = Like

(I grew up on National Lampoon thank you very much).

[SorceressKnight]

31 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

I dunno if motion pictures would be the best comparison given that the model now in 2020 has been completely turned on its head. Going back to the solo show Jim Valley did on WOL...he compared the success of the Iron Man franchise to Dolittle. Very few pure box office draws exist now. If you do two or three films on Netflix or Disney+ a year as an actor or actress, you don't need to be know by anyone. The brand and the IP owned by the brand are the stars. Not you. Motherfucker, you alone didn't get Disney+ 28.6 million subscribers. That was Disney that did that.

Live sports is still insanely star driven. What's funny is despite WWE trying their best for the longest to do what Hollywood has done by marginalizing what individual actors/actresses mean to the bottom line , the lack of actual meaningful stars that draw has only lowered the overall popularity of the WWE's own brand. That's why the sports entertainment tagline is so fucking silly. You want it to be one way, but it's the other way.

Honestly, that is true, but it's not exactly the point I was making...and indeed, it helps the point I'm making a bit.

My point is that a conglomerate owning WWE would be the same thing: A conglomerate with this much power would build by marketability, and indie stars wouldn't have the blind star power that would make a conglomerate take them. It's more like that we don't get an NXT-like system of "find the best indie talents and use their marketability to make stars", but rather the FCW-era developmental movement of "this person would look great on a poster, and it'd be easier to take them and teach them how to rudimentarily wrestle than it would be to take a great wrestler and teach them to be marketable on a poster."  

Heck, the move to IPs over actors as bankable draws makes it even more obvious- the stars are interchangeable, so you can run them for as long as you need and when they are failed experiments/ask for too much money/need to freshen things up, replace them with someone else.

[Elsalvajeloco]

9 minutes ago, SorceressKnight said:

Honestly, that is true, but it's not exactly the point I was making...and indeed, it helps the point I'm making a bit.

My point is that a conglomerate owning WWE would be the same thing: A conglomerate with this much power would build by marketability, and indie stars wouldn't have the blind star power that would make a conglomerate take them. It's more like that we don't get an NXT-like system of "find the best indie talents and use their marketability to make stars", but rather the FCW-era developmental movement of "this person would look great on a poster, and it'd be easier to take them and teach them how to rudimentarily wrestle than it would be to take a great wrestler and teach them to be marketable on a poster."  

Hell, they might not have a developmental system at all. For years, online MMA fans were begging (begging may be too strong of a word but the point remains) that the UFC have a developmental league. During the Dana White/Fertitta regime, part of their M.O. was that all the other companies were their developmental league. Fast forward several years later, they have several organizations that have produced and continue to produce many UFC fighters (like CFFC where Punk does commentary, LFA, CES MMA, Invicta FC, and Cage Warriors where they found Conor McGregor years back) all on UFC Fight Pass. It helps the profile of these companies a little that they are seen as the premier feeder organizations. The UFC isn't paying a large fee to show their events or even using a large amount of monetary resources to help them run shows. They are standalone events. They still do reality stuff like Dana White's Contender Series but that's all done in house in Las Vegas at the facilities on their new campus.

A media conglomerate that buys WWE is likely to follow that model, nix the developmental league altogether, and ship the notable names from NXT to the main roster. Everyone else is getting cut. 

Quote

Heck, the move to IPs over actors as bankable draws makes it even more obvious- the stars are interchangeable, so you can run them for as long as you need and when they are failed experiments/ask for too much money/need to freshen things up, replace them with someone else.

Sorry, Terrence Howard, we have Don Cheadle on the line 2. Call you back later.

[Niners Fan in CT]

I think Robert Downey Jr. was the one exception.  Marvel will still do huge business for the foreseeable future but it wasn't until Black Panther that a Marvel movie without Robert Downey Jr. as the main star or one of the main stars was able to crack a billion.  

At one point you had Iron Man 3 doing $1.3 billion at the box office while most other solo/team movies were doing half of that.  Then Captain America Civil War does $1.1 billion which was around a $400M increase from the previous movie and what that had in common.... again Robert Downey Jr. as one of the major stars. 

[Brian Fowler]

But, of course, RDJ wasn't a bankable Megastar in 2008 either. In fact, casting him was a massive risk that Jon Favreau had to beg them to cast and they couldn't get him insured. 

[Elsalvajeloco]

37 minutes ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

I think Robert Downey Jr. was the one exception.  Marvel will still do huge business for the foreseeable future but it wasn't until Black Panther that a Marvel movie without Robert Downey Jr. as the main star or one of the main stars was able to crack a billion.  

At one point you had Iron Man 3 doing $1.3 billion at the box office while most other solo/team movies were doing half of that.  Then Captain America Civil War does $1.1 billion which was around a $400M increase from the previous movie and what that had in common.... again Robert Downey Jr. as one of the major stars. 

Even then, how many of the non Avenger films needed to crack a billion to be profitable? A billion worldwide just seems like a arbitrary threshold for people to accept it as a runaway hit unless it's a Star Wars film that underperforms.

Also, speaking of Black Panther, how many box office stars at the time were in that film that weren't just making cameos (quick or extended)? 

 

[Niners Fan in CT]

30 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Even then, how many of the non Avenger films needed to crack a billion to be profitable? A billion worldwide just seems like a arbitrary threshold for people to accept it as a runaway hit unless it's a Star Wars film that underperforms.

Also, speaking of Black Panther, how many box office stars at the time were in that film that weren't just making cameos (quick or extended)? 

 

The Marvel brand was off and running and then add in that Black Panther is the first black superhero movie in the franchise and Coogler directing it everyone knew that was going to be gigantic well before it came out.     

Iron Man 3 was still early Marvel.  You have that doing double of Captain America Winter Soldier I believe it speaks to the popularity of Downey Jr. in the role more so than the brand at the time.  

[Elsalvajeloco]

45 minutes ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

The Marvel brand was off and running and then add in that Black Panther is the first black superhero movie in the franchise and Coogler directing it everyone knew that was going to be gigantic well before it came out.     

We gotta define "well before".

The furthest long range prediction for the box office I can find is late December 2017 (the film came out mid February) and that's 90 million (or 90 plus) for the opening weekend. That's consistent for all the other articles from that timeframe. It finished at what? Around $202m for the three day opening weekend? I ain't no math major or no Scott Steiner, but the difference between 90 million which is pretty good and $202 million is quite large. To kinda quote Ordell Robbie in Jackie Brown, you short bout $102-112 million.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Elsalvajeloco

[Brian Fowler]

Yeah, Black Panther was expected to be a success, but I don't recall anybody predicting how big even in the lead up to the release.

It also had incredible legs for a blockbuster

[SorceressKnight]

5 hours ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

Hell, they might not have a developmental system at all. For years, online MMA fans were begging (begging may be too strong of a word but the point remains) that the UFC have a developmental league. During the Dana White/Fertitta regime, part of their M.O. was that all the other companies were their developmental league. Fast forward several years later, they have several organizations that have produced and continue to produce many UFC fighters (like CFFC where Punk does commentary, LFA, CES MMA, Invicta FC, and Cage Warriors where they found Conor McGregor years back) all on UFC Fight Pass. It helps the profile of these companies a little that they are seen as the premier feeder organizations. The UFC isn't paying a large fee to show their events or even using a large amount of monetary resources to help them run shows. They are standalone events. They still do reality stuff like Dana White's Contender Series but that's all done in house in Las Vegas at the facilities on their new campus.

A media conglomerate that buys WWE is likely to follow that model, nix the developmental league altogether, and ship the notable names from NXT to the main roster. Everyone else is getting cut. 

The problem with that for a conglomerate's developmental promotion is that ultimately, it ties to the same point: If you don't use developmental, then you'd inevitably be going to a "bring in top stars from the independent scene as your newcomers", and ultimately it's down to that same issue: The vast majority of independent wrestlers just don't LOOK like stars. They just don't. And the ones who you could argue do look like stars? They don't look like enough of stars to be good on a conglomerate's taste. 

That would mean a move like UFC wouldn't work- if you use indies as developmental, they'd be hiring people who are very talented from the indie scene, but who just don't pass the eye test. It'd also be a problem because of the important tools a wrestler needs: you can teach someone how to wrestle if they can't work a lick. If someone isn't charismatic, it's going to be a harder road- but there's some cases where a wrestling promotion taught an uncharismatic worker how to be snarky and cut some good one-liners and make it look like they're charismatic. But with the look- you either got it or you don't. There's not that much you can do to give someone a great look, and even if you have a Jinder Mahal-type situation where a wrestler who didn't really have "the look" decides to kill themselves to change that, they'll end up looking like...uh, Jinder Mahal on steroids.

Considering that "the look" would be a big core to making a star- especially by conglomerate standards, you'd NEED development to take people with the look and teach them to wrestle.

[JohnnyJ]

In order to have a successful movie or wrestling company it needs to be built around attractions. WWE has stopped paying attention to the interests of the audience (low engagement, ratings, attendance, etc,) and figured out how to make money anyway. 
Remember a few years ago when movie studios tried to position Armie Hammer and Taylor Kitsch as the next big things? The movies flopped, the audience rejected it and studios moved on to other stars.

The way WWE operates is once it is decided a wrestler is the next star nothing else matters. They will lose money to prove they are right. Which is why we’re watching Lone Ranger 7.

[RIPPA]

I turned this into the WWE Money thread since the discussion is going to just continue after the Earnings call this morning.

I am about to make a normal thread for those who don't want to follow the money

[Just Dave]

On 2/3/2020 at 6:55 AM, LoneWolf&Subs said:

I haven’t been watching the WWE. Has Big E improved enough as a singles competitor to be considered for the role as “The Guy”? Because honestly back when he was working singles matches during his initial run I was neither impressed, and thought of him as very reckless in the ring. It took him weeks before I believe an agent pulled him to the side to tell him to stop doing the Vader standing body block. Everytime he did it, he kept inadvertently Headbutting his opponent due to his short stature.

I honestly wish Big E employed a flamboyant clubbering style like Dusty, Jimmy Valiant, and Thunderbird Patterson did. He’d be the perfect guy to bring something like that back. I mean he’s already got the dancing skills, and promos for it.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by just drew
Wrong thread

[LoneWolf&Subs]

 

[RIPPA]

There is going to be A LOT of info dump over the next few hours but one thing so far

 

[Craig H]

I'm so close to cancelling my subscription because NXT is on USA. It was the one thing I would watch regularly on the Network, but I may as well save the money and just temporarily subscribe when there's a Takeover or a big PPV like Wrestlemania or Summer Slam or if there's ever a PPV with a good build to it. 

[RIPPA]

Oh and I forgot to put this in the last post but I am lazy now

The WWE said they are looking for "strategic alternatives" for the WWE Network.

Most people are taking that as they are going to make SOME sort of change to how PPVs are available

[nofuture]

A good Twitter thread detailing the financial report.

[Mister TV]

I can see Comcast buying the WWE if it goes up for sale, besides owning NBC-Universal they own Comcast Spectator which owns or operates arenas, stadiums and convention centers. They would own the intellectual property,  the cable or streaming service that people watch the intellectual property on, in most of the country they would also own the cable and/or internet service provider that brings in the intellectual property into the home along with owning or operating the arena the event everyone is watching takes place in. Sure they'd still book the WWE into venues they don't own but the big money events will be in their buildings and they can sit back and collect the rights fee money from FOX until that deal ends then move it in house.

[joseph2112]

Stock opened another 15% down. At this point this is an overreaction. I bought some.

[LoneWolf&Subs]

9 minutes ago, joseph2112 said:

Stock opened another 15% down. At this point this is an overreaction. I bought some.

Still too high. It can dip much lower.  The things to look for to bump it back up to pre Fox days are the next potential TV deal, and the sale of the company. It’s never going back up astronomically any other way. There is no boom period coming, unless wrestling has found its next great star, and Vince doesn’t hurt him in the service of “Protecting” his company.

Edited February 6, 2020 by LoneWolf&Subs