Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

AEW/ROH Finances, Ratings, etc.

Log

By Log
in ALL ELITE WRESTLING

 Share

Recommended Posts

Stefanie Sparkleface

Stefanie Sparkleface

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, Godfrey said:

I dunno, making the claim it was the highest attendance ever and it turned out to be short by 10,000 can be disappointing if you think TK won’t “lie” (work) like WWE does, and it’s easy to see a through-line with the flagging attendance State-side even if the two are unrelated. That’s why I was asking if there was some way of confirming how many tickets were on the secondary market at bell time, it would put a discussion like this to rest for the Twitter reaction crowd

Would it? Or would they just move on to reacting to something else?

So let's do the math. AEW's normal ticket usage rate is between 80-90%. Supposing that 81,035 is the legitimate number of tickets moved, we know that 72,265 people went through the turnstiles at Wembley. At that point, that's a ticket usage rate of 89.18%, which is well within their usual range. Whether or not it's confirmed that the 8,770 tickets that were unused were on the secondary market, they still performed within where they usually perform.

I think the reason people are hung up on the unsold ticket usage is because it's a relatively larger number and people are, as I said, looking to pick at nits. After all, nearly 9,000 tickets is nothing to sneeze at until you look at the actual usage rate and see it's within normal usage. I think your real question isn't so much were they on the secondary market, but what kind of tickets were they (meaning were they giveaways, sponsor comps, what position in the seating chart were they, et cetera). Even if they were all on the secondary market, though, I'm not sure what it solves because people still get hung up on the amount of unused tickets and proclaim TONY LIED!

Fun(?) caveat - for events these big, there are people who double dip on tickets by buying the cheapest possible ticket but then hitting the secondary market and getting a better seat at a cheaper price from someone who can no longer attend, because the double dip would still work out better price-wise than if they had bought the better seat at the initial value. At that point, that's two tickets sold but one usage, since the person almost always can't resell the cheaper ticket so it goes unused. There's all sorts of situations like this. It's only when you have a super-hot ticket with genuine sellouts that you have close to true 100% ticket usage, but you almost never see those in stadiums.

WWE has this happen to them too. Pretty much every large scale event promoter does. It is what it is, basically. People will debate it to the end of time. People still debate WrestleMania III's attendance! We avoid them at parties.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AxB

AxB

Posted
Posted

It's hard to know whether the people making a fuss about this are simply adopting bad faith positions intentionally, or legitimately had no idea that non-attendance of ticket holders was a normal thing. Like, I'm sure every WWE show in history had at least some ticket holders who didn't attend. Tiny indies that draw 60 people on a good night can have people that bought advance tickets and didn't go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hamhock

Hamhock

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Sparkleface said:

there are people who double dip on tickets by buying the cheapest possible ticket but then hitting the secondary market and getting a better seat at a cheaper price from someone who can no longer attend, because the double dip would still work out better price-wise than if they had bought the better seat at the initial value.

I am poised to do exactly this for Grand Slam, except that it won’t be the secondary market - I bought a $30 upper deck seat; the loge level was originally priced at $98, but they’ve now begun dropping it to $31.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
John from Cincinnati

John from Cincinnati

Posted
Posted

Thurston illustrated that even having a WWE event on the same day, not even head to head, kills Collision. Survivor Series weekend is gonna be rough.

Putting it behind an extra paywall for TSN killed it for me. If they still had Punk, I’d pay the stupid eight bucks or whatever while complaining impotently. As is, I’m fine with whatever they put on YouTube. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zakk_Sabbath

Zakk_Sabbath

Posted
Posted

Shit. If I am interpreting this correctly, its looking like Collision has dropped 25% of its audience in the last ten weeks - I find that number interesting because coincidentally, Dynamite has shed roughly the same amount of its audience over the last year.

Not usually a 'sky is falling' guy, but what the fuuuuuuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matt D

Matt D

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Zakk_Sabbath said:

Shit. If I am interpreting this correctly, its looking like Collision has dropped 25% of its audience in the last ten weeks - I find that number interesting because coincidentally, Dynamite has shed roughly the same amount of its audience over the last year.

Not usually a 'sky is falling' guy, but what the fuuuuuuck

This wasn't unexpected given sports (College Football/NBA) coming back, right?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JLowe

JLowe

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Matt D said:

This wasn't unexpected given sports (College Football/NBA) coming back, right?

Yeah, there were two huge games Saturday night too. But still trends are down, which feeds the vicious circle.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zakk_Sabbath

Zakk_Sabbath

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Matt D said:

This wasn't unexpected given sports (College Football/NBA) coming back, right?

See, I was wondering the same, and that's what's kind of hard for me to figure out - I remember when Punk was fired, it was reported somewhere that TNT was going to be fine with whatever the number was, as long as it did better than the movies they use to run in that time slot. But at the time, the show was still doing like 600K which was still usually good for a top 5-10 placement somewhere (don't quote me but IIRC it peaked at #3 some time in July, obviously prior to CFB/NBA season as you said).

So all of this to say: I thiiiiiiink this was expected, but a showing like this makes it difficult not to have a little anticipatory worry about whether or not the goalposts are gonna be moved at some point by WBD. Edit: especially in concert with Dynamite falling by a similar # YOY, AND the fact it's contract season

Edited by Zakk_Sabbath
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Dog

Dog

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm having a very, very hard time understanding anyone who thinks this is catastrophic for AEW. Let's consider the absolute, positive WORST case scenario. One that assumes that WBD is not a minor stakeholder in AEW (which I doubted at first, but am starting to believe thanks to TK's repeated non-denials of same).

WBD pays for Raw. WWE tells WBD no more AEW (which is extremely unlikely, considering they JUST settled a very similar antitrust lawsuit with MLW), or WBD decides on their own to not renew AEW (which seems very unlikely, because AEW still does gangbusters even if WWE does gangbusters plus. I guess you can imagine a world where they don't have enough money after paying WWE AND keeping all their NBA coverage).

AEW was a bargain for WBD, because Warner took a chance on them at first and gave them a paltry contract that does not currently represent their value. Dynamite ratings are solid and high. Collision has found its level and its ratings are marginally higher than what used to fill that slot, when not running against a PLE. If you compare AEW's current rights fee to WWE rights fees, and the numbers either company pulls, AEW is currently undervalued by about 2.5x.

None of this has happened in a vacuum. If we see it, other TV networks see it. If Raw ends up on WBD, it stands to reason that the losing bidders would be happy to pick up a similar ratings/carriage fee driver for less money. Maybe it's not at 2.5x, but I can't imagine any scenario where it's not still significantly more than the current valuation. WWE got a 1.4x increase for Smackdown, which was already making giant money from Fox. So, maybe a floor at 1.5x their current rights deal?

So in the ABSOLUTE WORST CASE SCENARIO, AEW is still making MORE money a year from today than they are right now. Just not AS MUCH MORE as they might have been, otherwise.

If you think any of that is a "Wreddit-level take," please subscribe to Wrestlenomics. It's only 5 bucks a month.

Edited by Dog
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheVileOne

TheVileOne

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Dog said:

Wait a second. This link says the meeting probably DIDN'T happen. How is that bad for AEW?

No, it doesn't. It says one source claimed it was inaccurate. Also, PWInsider and Dave Meltzer on WOR both reported on the meeting as well.

Quote

Especially the whole deal about Flimsy Phil being in L.A.... He has a house there. His wife's a fucking movie producer.

Well, that tidbit came from Dave Meltzer...so...? Also does CM Punk live there year-round? I thought Chicago was still his homebase. Provided he spent his money well, he could have homes all across the country. 

Quote

So in the ABSOLUTE WORST CASE SCENARIO, AEW is still making MORE money a year from today than they are right now. Just not AS MUCH MORE as they might have been, otherwise.

If that's even true, none of us have seen AEW's books or figures. Even if they are making more money now, are they breaking even? More revenue doesn't necessarily mean more profit. 

Edited by TheVileOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stefanie Sparkleface

Stefanie Sparkleface

Posted
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Dog said:

I'm having a very, very hard time understanding anyone who thinks this is catastrophic for AEW. Let's consider the absolute, positive WORST case scenario. One that assumes that WBD is not a minor stakeholder in AEW (which I doubted at first, but am starting to believe thanks to TK's repeated non-denials of same).

WBD pays for Raw. WWE tells WBD no more AEW (which is extremely unlikely, considering they JUST settled a very similar antitrust lawsuit with MLW), or WBD decides on their own to not renew AEW (which seems very unlikely, because AEW still does gangbusters even if WWE does gangbusters plus. I guess you can imagine a world where they don't have enough money after paying WWE AND keeping all their NBA coverage).

AEW was a bargain for WBD, because Warner took a chance on them at first and gave them a paltry contract that does not currently represent their value. Dynamite ratings are solid and high. Collision has found its level and its ratings are marginally higher than what used to fill that slot, when not running against a PLE. If you compare AEW's current rights fee to WWE rights fees, and the numbers either company pulls, AEW is currently undervalued by about 2.5x.

None of this has happened in a vacuum. If we see it, other TV networks see it. If Raw ends up on WBD, it stands to reason that the losing bidders would be happy to pick up a similar ratings/carriage fee driver for less money. Maybe it's not at 2.5x, but I can't imagine any scenario where it's not still significantly more than the current valuation. WWE got a 1.4x increase for Smackdown, which was already making giant money from Fox. So, maybe a floor at 1.5x their current rights deal?

So in the ABSOLUTE WORST CASE SCENARIO, AEW is still making MORE money a year from today than they are right now. Just not AS MUCH MORE as they might have been, otherwise.

If you think any of that is a "Wreddit-level take," please subscribe to Wrestlenomics. It's only 5 bucks a month.

Caveat to this: pure eyeballs on a show don't necessarily get you a deal, it's the ad buys you can get to go along with it. (Eric Bischoff's been harping this point a lot recently, and it pains me to agree with him on this because LORD is he awful but he's right there.) WCW towards the end was still a top-five show on cable, if I'm not mistaken, but nobody wanted to buy ads on their programming because of the belief that the wrestling fan wasn't a market worth advertising to, and if there was anyone interested in advertising on wrestling, WWE was right there and had triple the ratings.

Fortunately for AEW, they've got a bit of a benefit in that their viewership skews quite a bit higher when it comes to average income (I think I read somewhere that their average viewer's income was $20k higher than the median? Someone might want to fact check that), and they score very high in desirable demographics (18-49 is going to be your main, of course). Cable news shows pull in anywhere from double to quadruple of the viewership of pro wrestling, depending on the promotion and the night, but the average viewer of cable news is either at retirement age or is pushing retirement age, thus their average income tends to be lower and the ads they get pushed are lower quality trash (because folks on fixed incomes are going to get medicare supplements pushed to them, not $80,000 trucks).

This is also why you'll see things with lower ratings get higher dollar ad buys and more prime TV slots. Who's watching tennis, for example? Rich people. (And nerds like me who are named after Steffi Graf.)

So if WBD does pick up Raw and AEW is out the door, would any TV channel be willing to pick them up and their 900k same as aired viewers? Depends on if they think they can sell good quality ads to those viewers and carry over the base, and that'll depend on if the demographics remain stable.

Edited by Sparkleface
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Elsalvajeloco

Elsalvajeloco

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Sparkleface said:

Caveat to this: pure eyeballs on a show don't necessarily get you a deal, it's the ad buys you can get to go along with it. (Eric Bischoff's been harping this point a lot recently, and it pains me to agree with him on this because LORD is he awful but he's right there.) WCW towards the end was still a top-five show on cable, if I'm not mistaken, but nobody wanted to buy ads on their programming because of the belief that the wrestling fan wasn't a market worth advertising to, and if there was anyone interested in advertising on wrestling, WWE was right there and had triple the ratings.

Fortunately for AEW, they've got a bit of a benefit in that their viewership skews quite a bit higher when it comes to average income (I think I read somewhere that their average viewer's income was $20k higher than the median? Someone might want to fact check that), and they score very high in desirable demographics (18-49 is going to be your main, of course). Cable news shows pull in anywhere from double to quadruple of the viewership of pro wrestling, depending on the promotion and the night, but the average viewer of cable news is either at retirement age or is pushing retirement age, thus their average income tends to be lower (because folks on fixed incomes are going to get medicare supplements pushed to them, not $80,000 trucks).

This is also why you'll see things with lower ratings get higher dollar ad buys and more prime TV slots. Who's watching tennis, for example? Rich people. (And nerds like me who are named after Steffi Graf.)

So if WBD does pick up Raw and AEW is out the door, would any TV channel be willing to pick them up and their 900k same as aired viewers? Depends on if they think they can sell good quality ads to those viewers and carry over the base, and that'll depend on if the demographics remain stable.

And that's what Fox probably figured out and then realized, yeah not that many people are interested in WWE and you're not going to find a bigger brand name in pro wrestling. Keep in mind, Fox picked up UFC when they were destroying WWE in terms of ad dollars and a few years later Fox decided that "screw it, imagine if we got a more family oriented product....". Whoops.

That said, if PFL (which I am still convinced in an elaborate Ponzi scheme) can exist as an alternative to UFC and get probably 1/16th of the ratings on ESPN then AEW will somehow still exist in some form and fashion and likely on as viable a platform as TNT or TBS. I think the larger issue AEW faces outside of issues of their own creation (creatively speaking) is how do you build a bigger audience when a bigger audience doesn't necessarily mean what it did a quarter century ago. It's extremely difficult to compare the MNW of 25 years ago when ALL the variables are different. I am as least hard on Bischoff as probably you will find, but he's coming from a position of understanding TV years and years ago. When worse came to worst, his idea was just to throw more shit at the wall, which to be honest, is the same thing TK is doing. Maybe at best he can be like, "well, don't do what I did.". However, he didn't make it through the calendar year of 1999 after two amazing years business wise you will ever get in pro wrestling and moreover they felt comfortable replacing him with obsessive Howard Stern fan #6528 and the dude who wrote Duckman. So yeah, gotta take what he says with a grain of salt even if he does have some good points.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...