WWE Is There To Make Money, Not Put On Good Wrestl

[Guest OnlyMe]

It's been a while since my last column, and you can put it down pretty much to "not caring about WWE". I bothered to watch Raw this week, and the Randy Orton vs. Val Venis match showed pretty much why I don't care. It was obvious from the start, based on WWE's pecking order and Orton's obvious push, that Venis had no chance. Even on PPV, where it is 99% certain who will win a main event, there's still that chance that you'll be surprised. Orton vs. Venis though... dull match with an obvious finish. Doesn't appeal to the wrestling fans; doesn't appeal to the entertainment fans.

 

Which led me to think – what are WWE's priorities? What are they aiming for?

 

A really, really quick and obvious introduction:

 

WWE is a business. The main priority of every business in the world is survival, and survival comes through having enough money to continue to operate. Therefore, a business has one key aim: Make money.

 

Wrestling in North America has never been especially successful. Pre-1998, wrestling always had vaguely respectable ratings, but was stigmatised by the public's perception, and in particular two things:

 

Continued

 

Feedback it...

[Guest webmasterofwrestlegame]

Nice argument, to to many fans you are pointing out something obvious.

 

Also, good wrestling and making money are not mutually exclusive. If Vince suddenly thought the best way to make money was to put on long, great wrestling matches each week he would do it.

[Guest TonyJaymzV1]

nice, still wish you had kept your original column...mine seems a little disjointed now...but your wrong. And i prove that with my column.

 

Chris Benoit vs. The WWE

 

I do agree with you that Raw is a snoozefest..but Smackdown has been getting into a good grove, aside from McMahon bullshit. Big Show=Champ...I tells ya!

[Guest AndrewTS]

Also, good wrestling and making money are not mutually exclusive. If Vince suddenly thought the best way to make money was to put on long, great wrestling matches each week he would do it.

 

Vince puts out the product he wants to see. He doesn't give two shits about what will make him money. That's why he keeps rehashing the same tired angles and same tired wrestlers while there are fresh new characters that are over with crowds just waiting to be pushed.

 

More so than ever before, the modern WWE is a vehicle for McMahon and family's egos.

[Guest Korgath]

I've always enjoyed Nik's columns. I think they're nice and generally objective, even though it's the viewpoint of someone who's obviously experienced a fair bit of the "old school".

 

I think the biggest issue here is "if an angle made money, it must be good". That's all that's happening. The WWE is a business that's not run by businessmen. Sure, some are shrewd and others are calculative and many even downright evil, but the McMahons and many of those in power, aren't exactly business-minded.

 

Unless, of course, they're counting on the fact that they're essentially a global monopoly at the moment.

 

But you don't see Bill resting on his laurels just because Windows is in 99% of all personal computers, do you?

[Guest AndrewTS]

I think the biggest counter evidence is the McMahon-Hogan angle. It was the angle that WMXIX was most heavily built on for the SD side and...well, it didn't draw a ton of buys like Vince was banking on.

 

Yet, they continued doing the angle with Mr. America.

[Guest PowerPB13]

"WWE is there to make money, not put on good wrestling".

 

Technically, they're not doing too well at either of those nowadays...

 

But seriously, nice job on the column.

 

-Patrick

[Guest Insane Bump Machine]

I think the biggest counter evidence is the McMahon-Hogan angle. It was the angle that WMXIX was most heavily built on for the SD side and...well, it didn't draw a ton of buys like Vince was banking on.

 

Yet, they continued doing the angle with Mr. America.

Let's see if history repeats itself. If we're right, the Vengeance buyrate should suck.

[Guest razazteca]

OMG BOYCOTT WWE~

 

There was a philosophy some years back about wrestling being a three ring circus. In a circus, if you don't like the clowns, then you'll like the lions. If you don’t like the lions, you'll like the acrobats, and so on. This philosophy was applied to wrestling: If you don't like the power men, you'll like the brawlers, and if you don't like the brawlers, you'll like the high-fliers

It looks like the Sideshow Freaks have taken over the show, also the carni barker has decided that he is now the feature act and must be star of the show.

Edited July 27, 2003 by razazteca

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Vince puts out the product he wants to see. He doesn't give two shits about what will make him money.

I doubt Vince wanted to see Hogan again. Really. He hired him and put him out there because he knew he'd make a buck for the company, and he did.

 

I don't think he really wants to watch Hulk matches though.

[Guest AndrewTS]

Rudo: Considering Vince has been on a nostalgia kick, and Hogan was king in an era when hosses definitely drew, I think he does like Hogan. When Hogan is out there, he's a walking, talking reminder of the when considered a genius, infallible, and a savvy, smart businessman.

 

Plus if Vince thinks someone can make him money, that's good enough to like the person.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

Wrestling in North America has never been especially successful. Pre-1998, wrestling always had vaguely respectable ratings, but was stigmatised by the public's perception, and in particular two things:

 

I'm sorry, I couldn't quite get past this. Do you have any stats to back this up, or is this just wild guessing? Cause I'd venture to say a bunch of wrestling historians would be laughing right now...

[Guest AndrewTS]

Rudo: I think he means that wrestling wasn't mainstream before then. Sure, it was big in the South, but more urban areas and audiences looked down on it.

 

Of course, during the Hogan era it was big for quite a while, but then it declined again throughout the 90's.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

That's still a misconception.

[Guest AndrewTS]

Okay, maybe he means because it wasn't taken seriously or the wrestlers considered real athletes. After all, Hogan and other roided up guys plodding around punching and kicking each other, goofy characters, and rambling nonsensical promo was the impression that most people thought about wrestling as.

 

See, for example, the "Mad Dog Hoek" episode of Ren & Stimpy.

 

Of course, maybe he can just explain what he meant when he reads this again.

[Guest RavishingRickRudo]

But he said "_Pre-1998_, wrestling _always_" as if to say in the 20's, in the 50's, etc. But there would be people in-the-know who would disagree with that assertion.

[Guest Retro Rob]

Wrestling in the 20s (don't know about the 50s) was perceived more as a sport than entertainment, thus I don't know if it should be grouped with the version of professional wrestling we have seen since the 70s/80s.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Well like in most other areas of business, you keep putting a crappy product out and the business will end up suffering...

[Internet Warfare]

Vince puts out the product he wants to see. He doesn't give two shits about what will make him money.

 

That's probably the most retartded thing I've heard. Vince not caring about money? Please, the only reason he brought in Hogan was to make money...

[Guest deadbeater]

Urban areas put them down? They had shows in Yankee Stadium for goodness sakes! And just mention a wrestling show in Chicago and you used to guarantee 10000 at the gate. In Brooklyn and Queens alone they had a dozen venues where they have wrestling.