WWE Finances, et al Discussion

[Elsalvajeloco]

46 minutes ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

How in the world did that blurb turn into more about AEW than WWE?  Anyway,  if they plan of charging $60 for PPV they can count me out and they will also lose my network subscription.  I'm not going back to 2012.  Not with their content.  

As stated before in this thread, Dave has been hammering home how AEW should find a destination willing to pay top dollar for their PPVs.

The thing is, you likely need a real legitimate track record of selling PPVs before you can find a suitor. Even with cannibalizing their own PPV business and the dwindling network numbers, WWE at the very least has branded what are suppose to be their "big" events. AEW is a bit always from that even though they are starting off with four PPV events, which is suppose to increase the value of them. Still you need a built in, loyal fanbase. AEW has too small of a sample size for anyone to make that type of determination yet.

[Archibald]

3 hours ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

How in the world did that blurb turn into more about AEW than WWE?

Because he is on AEW's payroll.

On a more serious note... nah, thats all I got, just wanted to make an outdated joke.

[Craig H]

Most of Dave's ideas for AEW would kill the promotion and the stuff that works for AEW he doesn't understand half of the time. Dave is best at reviewing matches. He also likens himself to a business analyst and in that regard he should stick to reviewing matches. I think every week Dave mentions how AEW should increase to 12 PPVs and sell the rights to somebody and that shit just isn't going to work. At most, AEW should have no more than 6 PPVs a year. 

AEW's business model is working exceptionally well. Increasing to 12 PPVs would make them WWE lite and would water down their product. I think Tony, Shahid, and the rest of the EVPs have a better understanding of making their business work than Dave ever could.

As far as WWE goes, I can't see their PPVs airing on ESPN+ working well. It sounds like it would be a total clusterfuck and further devalue the Network.

[Matt D]

21 minutes ago, Craig H said:

 Dave is best at reviewing matches.

He's really, really not. 

He's best at writing non-linear headtrip obituaries anyway.

[Jiji]

Yeah, his retrospectives are what he's best at these days. Went back in the vault and read his August 2009 article on all-time individual drawing power. Was very interesting. Those top guys from the '30s-'40s were insane. I had hardly ever heard the name Jim Londos but within Dave's system (and he spoke to its inherent flaws), he's the greatest draw of all time when you look at scope (10,000+ houses) and duration. 

[odessasteps]

I think the obits (and now being a HOF voter) are the only things keeping my Observer subscription. Between not caring about MMA and Japan, I think there are weeks I read maybe a third of that week's newsletter.  

[dragonzombie]

WWE stocks  are up..somewhat.

[Boydy]

22 hours ago, D.Z said:

WWE stocks  are up..somewhat.

It says its down 2.48% when I just looked.

[nofuture]

2 minutes ago, Boydy said:

It says its down 2.48% when I just looked.

The whole market took a huge dive today due to the corona-virus.

[JonnyLaw]

I love that in the excerpt Rippa posted, Meltz seems to be humblebragging about him and Dana White correctly predicting the Network would devalue their PPVs, when pretty much everyone had that opinion. “Wait... you mean they’re giving away Wrestlemania?!?”

[Niners Fan in CT]

I believe our position here was "I mean I'll take it... but why wouldn't they still charge full price for WrestleMania?"    Very difficult to put than genie back in the bottle, I'd say. 

[Elsalvajeloco]

14 hours ago, JonnyLaw said:

I love that in the excerpt Rippa posted, Meltz seems to be humblebragging about him and Dana White correctly predicting the Network would devalue their PPVs, when pretty much everyone had that opinion. “Wait... you mean they’re giving away Wrestlemania?!?”

 

7 minutes ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

I believe our position here was "I mean I'll take it... but why wouldn't they still charge full price for WrestleMania?"    Very difficult to put than genie back in the bottle, I'd say. 

About that...

I was far into the MMA bubble then, but when both Fight Pass and WWE Network came out around the same time (Fight Pass started in Dec 2013 and the Network was January 2014), I remember a vast majority of the people who were both MMA and WWE/wrestling fans saying that WWE had the much better model.

You can go back through the posts in the MMA forum (specifically the old MMA Talk threads) because the board went down and then came back around then a few months before that. I was the only fucker defending Fight Pass because people wanted UFC PPVs to be part of that $9.99 per month and people thought just the library and prelim fights (in addition to exclusive events) wasn't enough at that price. 

I don't remember people saying Dana was right. I also don't remember people saying WWE was fucking up. Then again, I don't expect people to complain about that. So I have to side with Niners on this.

[Jiji]

Yeah, IIRC it was a lot of people being happy with it but simultaneously confused as to how they were hoping to make as much money as with PPVs.

[Elsalvajeloco]

39 minutes ago, Oyaji said:

Yeah, IIRC it was a lot of people being happy with it but simultaneously confused as to how they were hoping to make as much money as with PPVs.

One of the things that proved to be a fallacy that I saw/heard (not on this board but podcasts and social media) was that MMA fights don't have the same replay value that pro wrestling does. Okay. Then, Meltzer did the research and on both platforms, subscribers were watching live content way more than old content.

I think what happened was that the lapsed fan crowd had a nerdgasm not knowing that novelty and nostalgia wasn't going to last forever. Also, if you're a grown person with priorities, you're more likely to use the time you have to catch up on events that just happened or about to happen rather than watch a bunch of old Crockett and WWF content. It's not like wrestling cards are an half hour each. You have to devote real time to watching unless pinching time off your day to watch 3 or 4 15-20 minute wrestling matches every now and then. That's a small fraction of the amount of live content WWE produces in a month.

Edited February 26, 2020 by Elsalvajeloco

[Brian Fowler]

I mean, the WWE model was obviously better for the fans (fuck, I'm a real casual MMA fan at best, but I damn sure would've done Fight Pass at $10 if I got every ppv. That's an absurd deal.)

But I remember a lot of speculation before the official announcement that the network would get you the 8 B-PPVs but not the big four. Or the other 11 except Mania. Or that their would be a separate package for ppvs. Etc etc. I do definitely remember some people arguing WWE made a great move because PPV was going to die off any day. But I don't think that was anything close to a consensus.

I said it before, but I still think ROH's Honor Club has the best model for handling PPVs with getting the minor shows included and a 50% discount on the major ones.

I can't imagine ESPN+ or whoever trying to get $60-70 bucks a month from WWE shows now, but doing the same model as they are with UFC at a lower price wouldn't shock me. Subscribe to ESPN+ for $5 then you can buy WWE shows for another $10 or $12 or whatever.

[Elsalvajeloco]

1 hour ago, Brian Fowler said:

I mean, the WWE model was obviously better for the fans 

Keyword: was

And I would put an asterisk next to that because something clearly happened between then and now with the fans where WWE is planning to revamp their model.

If you're essentially giving away your content and people still don't want to subscribe, there are some clear issues afoot.

[LoneWolf&Subs]

2 hours ago, Brian Fowler said:

can't imagine ESPN+ or whoever trying to get $60-70 bucks a month from WWE shows now, but doing the same model as they are with UFC at a lower price wouldn't shock me. Subscribe to ESPN+ for $5 then you can buy WWE shows for another $10 or $12 or whatever

That depends on what Disney is paying. If they are paying up the culo, then you better believe they are going to be charging full price for these shows. So better get used to watching illegal streams or magazine stills on WWE programming if you are a WWE fan.

Edited February 26, 2020 by LoneWolf&Subs

[Super Ape]

45 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

If you're essentially giving away your content and people still don't want to subscribe, there are some clear issues afoot.

I’ve gone over my reasons why I never subscribed to hell and back, but if I were to guess why the sub numbers are low, a lot of it would be on the quality of the current product, and the fact that pro wrestling is just... declining like vaudeville and the circus before it.

[MonteCarl]

I remember a talking point about "giving away PPVs" on the Network being that WWE would actually make more money that way because 100% of the Network money goes right back to them, but they have to split a percentage of the PPV money several ways before WWE got their share. Also, with the PPV model, there would be PPV Parties where one person gets the show and many people show up to watch it. With the Network, the thought was that every one of those people who would go to a PPV Party would now subscribe to the Network, ultimately ending with with more revenue that way as well. 

[Technico Support]

33 minutes ago, MonteCarl said:

I remember a talking point about "giving away PPVs" on the Network being that WWE would actually make more money that way because 100% of the Network money goes right back to them, but they have to split a percentage of the PPV money several ways before WWE got their share. Also, with the PPV model, there would be PPV Parties where one person gets the show and many people show up to watch it. With the Network, the thought was that every one of those people who would go to a PPV Party would now subscribe to the Network, ultimately ending with with more revenue that way as well. 

I suppose that logic is somewhat sound, until people start sharing logins and WWE starts giving out months and months for free to pump up the numbers.

[NikoBaltimore]

1 hour ago, MonteCarl said:

I remember a talking point about "giving away PPVs" on the Network being that WWE would actually make more money that way because 100% of the Network money goes right back to them, but they have to split a percentage of the PPV money several ways before WWE got their share. Also, with the PPV model, there would be PPV Parties where one person gets the show and many people show up to watch it. With the Network, the thought was that every one of those people who would go to a PPV Party would now subscribe to the Network, ultimately ending with with more revenue that way as well. 

Yeah, and that ended up stopping most PPV parties for me as if my friends all had the network what's the point of gathering if could just watch it in our respective homes?  That plus us all having busy lives it didn't take long before we just stopped.  The only time there may be a gathering is for the Rumble as there's normally a surprise that is worth having people around to see the collective reactions.

As far as questioning the logic of having all PPVs on the Network I was questioning their judgment when they first announced it.  So I'm not one bit surprised that they realized "Shit, maybe this was a bad idea."  Am I going to pay full price for a PPV?  Fuck, no.  Will I maybe gather somewhere for the Rumble or Wrestlemania?  Maybe.  But it does suck if they end up reversing course as a lot of people will be upset about it.  As long as they put it on the  Network after a month delay then that could work for those that really need to see it live.

[Eivion]

2 hours ago, Technico Support said:

I suppose that logic is somewhat sound, until people start sharing logins and WWE starts giving out months and months for free to pump up the numbers.

I think this hurt them a lot. It was magnificently stupid how often they were doing free months. That should have been something that happened no more than twice a year and never around one of the big four.

[Technico Support]

Just now, Eivion said:

I think this hurt them a lot. It was magnificently stupid how often they were doing free months. That should have been something that happened no more than twice a year and never around one of the big four.

Their logic was that Netflix and the other streaming services all offer free trials.  But shit, most of those are for 7 days.  WWE was giving away a full month.  And it's not even apples to apples.  A month of WWE network can include a major PPV.  There's nothing comparable in any other streamer's free offer.  I mean I guess you could stream HBO free for a week and binge Game of Thrones or whatever, but it's not the same.  

Also, weren't they also doing stuff like 3 months for a dollar or something?

WWE was doing free months to fudge numbers for investors while the other services offer freebies to try to get new subscribers.

[Raziel]

Yeah, the "100% revenue vs. the 50%" argument was sound, but running out constant 30 day free trials with no actual checks on them so people were just making dummy email accounts to keep getting free months buried everything.

[Technico Support]

46 minutes ago, Raziel said:

Yeah, the "100% revenue vs. the 50%" argument was sound, but running out constant 30 day free trials with no actual checks on them so people were just making dummy email accounts to keep getting free months buried everything.

I asked the question of dummy accounts here a while back and somebody mentioned that you have to enter a credit card number and that has to be unique.  Still, there are ways to fudge that.