May 5th

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

DH, I was being very generous with the numbers.  I could have easily said 100 000 with 10 000 being spending fans.  That's like 10% (10 000 of 100 000) of 2% (100 000 of 5, 000, 000) of total fans.  That is very 'minute' but it still makes an impact on the WWE.

Not enough to make a difference, the odds of even THAT many fans resorting to a boycott are minute in itself.

Minute or no, it is LOST OPPORTUNITY to make money. What kind of practice is it to say "fuck you, we don't want your money because you don't agree with everything we do"? If you lose fans, you have to find other people to make up for that loss. And as I said before, I have not been seeing proof of growth. You talked about your family and friends intending on buying Backlash to see Goldberg, and fine, but two things have to happen. One, they actually have to buy the show, saying it is not good enough, and two, when the Backlash buyrate comes out, it should be a significant increase from the usual number for a Backlash show (0.8 last year, 0.9 the year before).

[Guest Retro Rob]

Mark and smark alike want to see good wrestlers in good matches. Thats why Angle-Benoit brings a standing ovation and HHH-BPP brings boos.

Goldberg?

 

Hogan?

 

Their pops go against your theory.

[Guest snuffbox]

Watch the pops, RVD and others are over with marks too, but guys like Albert tend to be crowd killers.

This doesn't mean that RVD is an awesome wrestler, or will even draw.

 

I hate to compare RVD to a fossil, but Hogan's nostalgia run proved that in-arena pop != Ratings.

But it DOES mean that the audience want to be behind these guys. They dont necessarilly have to be the main draws...but a regular crowd pop should warrant a push. That seems obvious.

[Guest Downhome]

When a loss is so minute, most company's do not really care. It is money that can either be made up somewhere else, or money that simply is so small really has no impact on the company overall.

[Guest snuffbox]

Mark and smark alike want to see good wrestlers in good matches. Thats why Angle-Benoit brings a standing ovation and HHH-BPP brings boos.

Goldberg?

 

Hogan?

 

Their pops go against your theory.

In rare cases a huge amount of charisma can put a guy completely over.

 

But Royal Rumble and other instances prove my point. A modern audience knows when theyre seeing a shttty match and when theyre watching something good. And they respond to this. It may not = ratings draw...but the support for good matches over bad is obvious and at least warrants a heavier push.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

What was the decrease in buys for this year's Mania compared to last year's?

 

30-40%?

 

That is NOT minute at all. And that doesn't take into account decreases in attendance, sponsorships, and other sources of revenue.

 

To say that there hasn't been decreases in revenue is just ignorant. This is not a MINUTE problem that can be just swept under the rug. Unless, like I said, you want to be blissfully ignorant.

[Guest Downhome]

What was the decrease in buys for this year's Mania compared to last year's?

 

30-40%?

 

That is NOT minute at all.

No it isn't, not at all. That is because of the storylines and the quality of the angles, nothing more. It has nothing to do with the "what if" theory if a few net fans boycotted WWE.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

No it isn't, not at all. That is because of the storylines and the quality of the angles, nothing more.

Well, WTF do you think net fans want? Quality angles and storylines? I believe so!

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

What was the decrease in buys for this year's Mania compared to last year's?

 

30-40%?

 

That is NOT minute at all.

That can't be entirely related to angles and matches.

 

 

 

I just explained that OUR ECONOMY IS FREEFALLING and people arean't buying as much as they were one year ago.

[Guest Sakura]

Again, look at 2000. The net fans were happy. The marks were happy. They made a ton of money.

 

 

So why not try listening to the smarts?

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

When a loss is so minute, most company's do not really care. It is money that can either be made up somewhere else, or money that simply is so small really has no impact on the company overall.

 

$1,000,000 is minute? Vince thinks that fans are expendible - that's part of the problem. That's what creates incidents like Katie Vick. "Well, we will lose some fans, piss off a lot more, but we will gain controversy and that will create interest in the product. Lets go for it!" This kind of thinking has lead the WWE to where they are now... in the loss column.

 

The WWE could be making a TON of money if they used the internet effectively.

[Guest Downhome]

No it isn't, not at all. That is because of the storylines and the quality of the angles, nothing more.

Well, WTF do you think net fans want? Quality angles and storylines? I believe so!

No, quality angles and storylines would not be enough for net fans as long as their favorites were still not on top.

[Guest Downhome]

When a loss is so minute, most company's do not really care. It is money that can either be made up somewhere else, or money that simply is so small really has no impact on the company overall.

 

$1,000,000 is minute? Vince thinks that fans are expendible - that's part of the problem. That's what creates incidents like Katie Vick. "Well, we will lose some fans, piss off a lot more, but we will gain controversy and that will create interest in the product. Lets go for it!" This kind of thinking has lead the WWE to where they are now... in the loss column.

 

The WWE could be making a TON of money if they used the internet effectively.

No, that ammount is not really minute, I didn't mean it was. I said that the chances of it even coming to that much from a boycott was next to impossible. The odds of getting enough of fans together to cause that purposely is next to impossible.

[Guest Downhome]

What was the decrease in buys for this year's Mania compared to last year's?

 

30-40%?

 

That is NOT minute at all.

That can't be entirely related to angles and matches.

 

 

 

I just explained that OUR ECONOMY IS FREEFALLING and people arean't buying as much as they were one year ago.

That is very true, it's a combination of our horrid economy and the lack of intrigue in angles and storylines.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

I just explained that OUR ECONOMY IS FREEFALLING and people arean't buying as much as they were one year ago.

To quote Austin in that RAW article: "How convenient"

 

Unless there's a 30-40% (or higher) decrease in what Americans are buying, I don't think that's the entire reason, or even the main one.

 

No, quality angles and storylines would not be enough for net fans as long as their favorites were still not on top.

 

It would be a start. There was not this much complaining in 1998. Also, net fan favorites tend to have more of an ability to produce better stuff than non-net favorites, unless you can tell me how a Diesel or a Nathan Jones is capable of producing anything of quality.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

"It's the economy" is bullshit. If the WWE were putting out a product that people would pay to see, then guess what? PEOPLE WOULD PAY TO SEE IT! The WWE has been cut in HALF in just *2* years. That's not because of the economy.

[Guest Downhome]

It would not be a start to most bitter smarks. Even if they produced some quality angles, many would still spout hate to WWE as long as HHH or the such was anywhere near it. Hell, I personally love the current angle involving Jericho, HBK, HHH, and the such.

[Guest Sakura]

No, quality angles and storylines would not be enough for net fans as long as their favorites were still not on top.

Benoit wasn't on top in 2000 and there wasn't this much complaining.

 

 

I can say that personally, I could tolerate like Jones and Crips on top if they at least had good storylines.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Ok, this is easy.

 

Will doing nothing solve anything? No.

 

Will doing something solve anything? Maybe.

 

I'll take my chances with maybe. Case Closed. Let's see who is in and get started.

[Patty O'Green 0]

It should be noted that a lot of the net favorites are some of the more popular wrestlers in the company, Jericho, Booker, RVD, Angle,etc. No one is asking for the WWE to push heatless midcarders like Steven Richards to the top of the card.

[Guest Downhome]

No, quality angles and storylines would not be enough for net fans as long as their favorites were still not on top.

Benoit wasn't on top in 2000 and there wasn't this much complaining.

 

 

I can say that personally, I could tolerate like Jones and Crips on top if they at least had good storylines.

Most smarks actually enojoyed HHH back then also. I didn't say this goes for all, so kudos to you if you would accept HHH and Jones, I just meant that most would not. Their hate for some of these guys is so strong, that it will not allow many of them to ever accept them in any form.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

It would not be a start to most bitter smarks. Even if they produced some quality angles, many would still spout hate to WWE as long as HHH or the such was anywhere near it. Hell, I personally love the current angle involving Jericho, HBK, HHH, and the such.

You also praised Evolution when all they did was talk and get injured.......

[Guest creativename]

What was the decrease in buys for this year's Mania compared to last year's?

 

30-40%?

 

That is NOT minute at all.

That can't be entirely related to angles and matches.

 

 

 

I just explained that OUR ECONOMY IS FREEFALLING and people arean't buying as much as they were one year ago.

2002 was the greatest years for video games ever.

 

2002 was the greatest year for movies ever in gross terms...and even adjusting for inflation, 2002 was still a banner year. And we're talking about an industry with 80+ years of history.

 

The economy has very little to do with entertainment numbers, anecdotal evidence aside.

 

I'm a graduate student in Quantitative Finance, and just trust me when I tell you that it is NOT the economy. Entertainment industries are not highly correlated with economic swings; this has been shown over and over again, it's just conventional wisdom at this point. Yes, there is a positive correlation--almost no businesses have zero or negative correlation with the economy (the classic example of that is Repo businesses...which of course makes me think of the Repo man ); however, for WWE, the correlation is well below 1.

[Guest Downhome]

Ok, this is easy.

 

Will doing nothing solve anything? No.

 

Will doing something solve anything? Maybe.

 

I'll take my chances with maybe. Case Closed. Let's see who is in and get started.

Yes, I agree, but the goal MUST be stated. If you don't have a clear goal put out there, many will see no reason to be "in" in the first place. Why don't you just lay out what you want to happen, in detail, from top to bottom?

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

What was the decrease in buys for this year's Mania compared to last year's?

 

30-40%?

 

That is NOT minute at all.

That can't be entirely related to angles and matches.

 

 

 

I just explained that OUR ECONOMY IS FREEFALLING and people arean't buying as much as they were one year ago.

2002 was the greatest years for video games ever.

 

2002 was the greatest year for movies ever in gross terms...and even adjusting for inflation, 2002 was still a banner year. And we're talking about an industry with 80+ years of history.

 

The economy has very little to do with entertainment numbers, anecdotal evidence aside.

 

I'm a graduate student in Quantitative Finance, and just trust me when I tell you that it is NOT the economy. Entertainment industries are not highly correlated with economic swings; this has been shown over and over again, it's just conventional wisdom at this point. Yes, there is a positive correlation--almost no businesses have zero or negative correlation with the economy (the classic example of that is Repo businesses...which of course makes me think of the Repo man ); however, for WWE, the correlation is well below 1.

But.. but.. IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY MUTHAFUCKAS!!!!

 

[Guest Downhome]

It would not be a start to most bitter smarks. Even if they produced some quality angles, many would still spout hate to WWE as long as HHH or the such was anywhere near it. Hell, I personally love the current angle involving Jericho, HBK, HHH, and the such.

You also praised Evolution when all they did was talk and get injured.......

For the short time that they were around, the ratings actually went up a bit. Say what you will, but it was starting to get over. The injuries were just a pain in the ass to the program, that could not be helped.

 

I loved the angle, I hated that it ended.

[Guest Sakura]

I didn't say this goes for all, so kudos to you if you would accept HHH and Jones, I just meant that most would not. Their hate for some of these guys is so strong, that it will not allow many of them to ever accept them in any form.

Well UT was on top owning Kurt in 2000 and while we bitched, it wasn't close to being as bad as it is now.

 

And like someone said, most of the smart favorites are also really over with the marks.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

You also praised Evolution when all they did was talk and get injured.......

For the short time that they were around, the ratings actually went up a bit.

What, you mean in the same time period as when they were teasing Austin every week?

 

What a coincidence!!

[Guest wwF1587]

sounds like a good idea to me... Im in... May 5th huh, I know quite a few people that watch wrestling so I will tell them about it... most of them a marks but oh well..

[Guest Downhome]

I don't think any of us meant it was soley the economy. We were just saying that it could be a factor. The economy is bad, people are loosing jobs, they are making less money, so they have to cut back on things like PPV's and the such.It may not be the biggest factor, but to deny that it isn't is a little blind also.