My letter to Fan Services

[Ace309 0]

I did send a short email to the address, but I don't expect a reply. Basically, I said that they have quite probably more wrestling talent under one promotion's umbrella than ever existed when there were competing federations, and it was a shame they were being used in septic truck-type skits.

 

And, yes, syxx, maybe you *are* wrong.

[KTID 0]

they have quite probably more wrestling talent under one promotion's umbrella than ever existed

 

Yea. If you ignore WCW, ECW, New Japan, All Japan, NOAH, TNA, ROH...

[Guest PowerPB13]

Here's what I sent.

 

"I realize that the online sentiment toward WWE isn't all that great, but I decided to try to present a level-headed point of view on what's going on.

 

Basically, there are a few main things that are wrong nowadays.

 

First, the heels seem to come out on top all the time...and the faces that do come out on top aren't the ones that the fans want to see coming out on top. On Raw, Triple H and Evolution dominate the scene 90% of the time. On Smackdown, it's Brock Lesnar and Vince McMahon.

 

While the "thrill of the chase" is a good storyline build, if it takes too long for the face to finally topple the heel, in my opinion, the fans get sick of waiting and stop watching. That's what happened with Triple H's title reign...by the time it finally ended, the fans no longer cared. Worse yet, it seems obvious that Triple H will simply regain the belt once he returns, rendering Bill Goldberg's title win meaningless. Goldberg was hardly my "pick" to win the title from Triple H(I would have preferred to see Rob Van Dam or Booker T win it from him), but at that point I just wanted to see someone different holding the belt.

 

Second off, I realize that WWE is hardly a "purist" organization as far as in-ring stuff goes, but some of the extra angles are getting to be a bit "much". It really kills the "suspension of disbelief" when Kane gets "killed" one week and is back with few ill effects the next. Also, I'm sure there are other things that could have been done with Eddy Guerrero and The Big Show than dragging out a septic truck. The era of "Attitude" where that kind of "shocking" stuff went over is past, and when you've raised the bar as far as "shocking" people, they don't react as much when the same kind of stuff happens. And when you raise the bar too far, the risk of injury gets very high. You can only do so many ladder matches and cage matches and such.

 

Another problem is one that I'm sure you've heard a lot about: The fact that the McMahon family dominates the TV product. While select storylines involving the McMahons have produced great results, the majority of the family is kind of overexposed at this point...and it creates negative sentiment when trained wrestlers are denied TV time in favor of people who are on TV simply because they have the power to put themselves on TV.

 

As far as future "family member" Triple H goes, I don't have a problem with him...as long as he uses his time off to recover from his nagging injuries and is able to return to the form he was in back in 2000 and the first half of 2001. While HHH has the influence to stay on top for as long as he desires, he has to realize that, in-ring, he doesn't seem to be what he used to be, and that, out of the ring, the fans don't react to him as much as they used to. If he can maintain the fan interest and get the job done in the ring, then I don't have a problem with him being on top. If he keeps getting hurt all the time and keeps coming out to crickets chirping, then it's time for somebody else to get that spot.

 

A reason why HHH doesn't get the reactions he used to might be that he's been on top for so long that people are tired of him. One of things that hurt my enjoyment of WCW was that they literally had the same people on top for years on end, Hogan, Savage, Luger, etc. Nowadays, it's Austin(who's the same as he's been for most of his WWE career), Triple H(again, same old same old), the McMahons, Undertaker, and a few others who have been on top of the scene on both sides of the roster. There are a select few who have gotten into main events, but they're seen as "second-rate" compared to the Austins and Hunters and Takers of the company.

 

Back in 1996-7, WCW had its big surge of popularity thanks to the NWO angle. While I didn't care for the NWO angle through most of its existance, I do acknowledge that it had an indirect positive effect on the WWF: It forced the WWF to change what it was doing and present something fresh and new, rather than relying on the "same old same old" that had served them well for years. Nowadays, there's no serious competition out there, and it seems like Vince McMahon is perfectly fine with squashing any competition that may even come close to approaching WWE(signing NWA-TNA prospects, yanking Jerry Lawler off a hyped Major League Wrestling card just one week beforehand). Competition makes both sides strive to get better, and some of the WWF/WWE's best shows came through the Raw vs. Nitro war.

 

I hope that you take my comments into consideration...I don't know how welcome this kind of feedback is appreciated, but I did my best to word it in an intelligent and mature manner. Thank you for your time."

 

-Patrick

[KTID 0]

Here's what I sent:

 

"Just writing to thank you for entertaining me week in and week out with your enthralling television shows and excellent pay-per-view extravaganzas. I realise that business is down slightly at the moment due to the economy, the cyclical nature of the business and of course, the war.

 

I would also like to congratulate Stephanie McMahon on her tremendous work as head writer. The writing has come on leaps and bounds from the days of "good versus evil" and Miss McMahon's writing is a big part of that.

 

I was saddened to learn of Hunter Hearst Helmsley suffering another tragic injury, and would like to wish him a speedy recovery so he can regain the World Championship, RAW just isn't the same without "The Game". I also hope that whoever is responsible for this latest injury is punished to the greatest extent possible, such as Rob Van Dam was when he injured Helmsley with his unsafe and, frankly, wreckless style. He should take a page out of Mr Helmsley's book and learn to work WWE style, after all this isn't ballet.

 

The only thing i think could possibly improve the current WWE product is i'd have more McMahon's on the shows, after all they put the FUN in DYSFUNCTIONAL.

 

Keep up the good work, and long may the current standards be maintained for years to come."

[Guest PowerPB13]

I assume you WANT the company to go out of business...

 

-Patrick, who notes that RVD was at GCW's first-anniversary show and wonders if he'll be freed up in time for the fourth-anniversary show next spring

 

[KTID 0]

I sure hope so, Patrick.

[syxx2001 0]

I dont think Im wrong. Theres a reason why Jeff Hardy got over quicker than Dean Malenko or Chris Benoit did. Or more over. And Jeff didn't even touch the microphone in his good days I dont think.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

Then I guess we should have "hardcore" and ladder matches every single week, until they literally mean nothing anymore.

 

This can go along with my "remove the ring completely" idea! Just have these 'matches' in the back. Or in the crowd. Who gives a fuck about injuries?

 

It's GOLD I tells ya!

[syxx2001 0]

If it made money in 2000 it is gold.

 

Ladder matches haven't meant much in a long time. Psycology has to go into the match, like the TNA cage match. They could have thrown a gimmick in there and called it a day, but they used a cage because XXX used a 3 on 2 advantage. Then at the end of the match Skipper was locked out of the cage, giving AMW a 2 on 1 advantage for a change. That right there made the match great. But when you are in a series of matches, like RVD and Christian and you just say "LADEER MATCH NEXT WEEK" then it doesn't mean anything because whats the point? But if Christian had used the belt to win week after week, or something, then it would have meant something.

[ISportsFan 0]

If it made money in 2000 it is gold.

Their feeling right now is if it made ratings in 1999 it's platinum.

 

Jason

[KTID 0]

Bad example, Syxx2001. Look at what happened to Hardy.

[syxx2001 0]

True, true. But Rey Jr. still got over in WCW as a cruiserweight. Ultimo too I think.

[KTID 0]

Good example with Rey.

 

However, Ultimo was as good a wrestler as Benoit or Malenko.

[Guest Mulatto Heat]

Bad example, Syxx2001. Look at what happened to Hardy.

Jeff Hardy is a prime example of spotfests wearing thin on the fanbase over time. Not only could he not be bothered to give a shit unless there was a ladder involved, his usual shallow spots in regular matches made his moveset look about as generic as Bradshaw's fallaway slam and clothesline from hell. He ended up being unable to top his previous performances. And that goes for WWE in general. TLC has meant less each time it's put on. The same goes for Hell in the Cell and ladder matches.

[syxx2001 0]

But Benoit and Malenko never wrestled the "cool" spots type of matches that Rey and Ultimo did. Rey and Ultimo used the lucha, hurricanrana, head scissors, fast paced match while Benoit and Malenko wrestled the leg lock, wrist lock, indian death lock, slower match. Look at Hog Wild 96. Some might blame it on a "bad crowd", but more people cheered for the Rey Jr./Ultimo 10-15 match than Benoit/Malenko's 30 minute match.

[KTID 0]

I don't see how Ultimo wrestled "cooler" than Benoit did at the time.

[syxx2001 0]

Ultimo wrestled a quick style than Benoit did in WCW. At least he did with Mysterio and the other cruisers.

[Guest JMA]

Here's what I wrote. I decided to be kind of passive in the letter so someone may actually read it.

 

"Hello,

 

My name is Justin Adams. I'm eighteen years old and a WWE fan. I have been for most of my life. One of my first memories is actually The Twin Towers (Big Boss Man and Akeem/One Man Gang) vs. The Mega-Powers (Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage). I have always stayed a fan of your product, though. I was there in the early nineties, when Ric Flair won his first WWE (then WWF) World Heavyweight title. I was there after Hogan left and Bret Hart became the top dog. I was there for the cartoonish gimmick of 94-95. I was there when Shawn Michaels finally "reached the top of the mountain" by winning his first WWF/E World title. I was there when Steve Austin forever blurred the lines between babyfaces and heels, and became an icon.

 

It seems to me (from a fan's perspective) that WWE is still waiting for the next big "boom period." The time when wrestling is so mainstream that you see everyday people walking down the street wearing merchandise of their favorite star. I thought I might take this time to send in some constructive criticism. I know you must get a lot of e-mails like this, but I'm not going to be overtly negative. After all, both the fans, workers, and promoters want wrestling to succeed. Here are some of my ideas.

 

1: Longer matches: I sometimes feel wrestling has lost sight of what it is with the "Crash TV" type of programming. Currently, I feel televised matches are too short. I feel giving workers at least ten minutes to perform would be a good idea. This can be done by cutting some stuff that is not needed out of the show.

 

2: Less TV time for non-wrestlers: I feel this is currently a big problem. The Ross/Lawler vs. Coach/Snow feud, the Vince vs. Stephanie feud, and the Shane vs. Kane feud are things I feel Raw and Smackdown could do without. I believe Jim Ross himself has said he doesn't like being in onscreen angles because it takes away time from the wrestlers. The McMahons themselves have become too overexposed, in my opinion. The spot on the card for Vince and Stephanie could be given to some other deserving workers. The Shane vs. Kane feud i believe is a bad idea because it takes away from Kane's monster heel image. I feel it hurts the heat of the rest of the workers who have tried and failed to beat Kane. It kind of makes Shane look better than them (which should never happen).

 

Less over the top angles: The only time I stopped watching wrestling was for the majority of 2002. The Katie Vick and Al Wilson angles were pretty over the top. I don't think most fans liked the implied necrophillia. And I doubt people thought for a second Al was really dead. I think there should be more believable angles that aren't so over the top.

 

I hope I have been of some help. Thanks for taking the time to read.

 

Your fan,

Justin Adams"

[Guest PowerPB13]

As others have said, WWE seems to feel that all they need to do to draw ratings is to randomly throw out gimmick matches with zero buildup to them. Raw Roulette last year was a prime example of that, throwing people into gimmick matches for no reason other than the mindset that specialty matches = ratings. The more a fed does specialty matches, the less they mean. What kind of major issue did RVD and Christian have that required a ladder match to settle it?

 

WWE is still capable of building people up properly. They made Brock into their first new main-eventer in a long time. Rodney Mack got a reasonable slow build(regardless of how people feel about his in-ring skill). Zach Gowen got a big buildup to his debut, but then they turned him into a one-legged Barry Horowitz.

 

There are so many people that could be legit if they just got that one significant win to put them over the top. It's all a matter of whether the "top guys" are willing to help them reach that level, or whether the management is willing to put its collective foot down and MAKE the top guys elevate people.

 

-Patrick

[Guest MikeSC]

You know, since they won't read it ANYWAY, I decided to write a letter myself to them.

 

I see a few glaring problems with the product, and while I'm sure that you get this kind of thing regularly, I do hope that you will read this and understand that this is coming solely from a fan who sincerely wants to see this company become what it once was. It is a goal that is quite reachable. This is fairly lengthy, but I do hope that you will read this in full and recognize it simply as a cry for your company's salvation and not just another "net geek" griping because his/her favorite is not being pushed to their satisfaction.

 

I can appreciate the logic behind the considerable air time given to the McMahon family. They will always be there for the company and they will always do the best for the company that they can do.

 

The problem, however, is that their positive impact on the company appears to be minimal, if not non-existant. I don't pretend to speak for all fans, but just looking at the situation through the eyes of somebody watching the programs, it makes the majority of the RAW roster look weak, if not borderline impotent, for Shane to come out of nowhere and "beat up" Kane. Kane had just proceeded to basically destroy much of the RAW roster. Shane, a non-wrestler, though comes in and does what many people on the RAW roster seem unable to do. And I have yet to see a point to Stephanie and Vince McMahon's presence on Smackdown. Theri impact on the storylines for the show seems to be minimal, but the air time that they inhabit is considerable.

 

In the past, you had managed to not only get dominant people over, but you did it in a manner that wouldn't make large chunks of the roster, to the eyes of the common fan, to be completely unable to even compete with them. A dominant performer can be entertaining, but when the only people able to compete with the dominant performer are non-wrestlers, it does significant harm to the company. There is a difference between a David and Goliath battle --- and a total squash. Your company seems to tend towards the wrong extreme in this regard nowadays.

 

And, the writing has been a problem for a little while now. I'm sure Stephanie is a very solid writer, but just judging by the numbers since she took over the duties, there has been a steady and constant drop-off in terms of ratings, attendance (house shows, TV shows, and PPV events), and PPV buyrates. I will not begin to blame her solely for the problem, but she must have some responsibility. Stephanie and the rest of the crew are attempting to pursue entertainment with mixed results, but they seem to be leaving the wrestling out of the equation.

 

You have numerous people out there who are intelligent, witty, and ALSO good wrestling minds. Somebody who can write soap operas might be good at writing soaps, but wrestling is not a soap opera. It never was. No fan of wrestling views wrestling as a soap opera and I have little reason to assume that soap opera fans would even give pro wrestling a chance, so hiring people whose style caters to people who will never watch your program is a dubious proposition.

 

Why not seriously woo Mick Foley, or a Terry Funk --- heck, why was no effort made to sign Dutch Mantel (formerly of IWA and a man whose track record with that company is second to none) --- as the head of creative? Stephanie can still have input and, odds are, some of her ideas are solid, but if one looks solely at all of the numbers, she has not been a success as the head of the division. She needs to be a part of a committee, not heading the committee.

 

Speaking of writers, I do not claim to be able to tell you WHO you should look for in a writer, but the people who handle the creative aspects really NEED to be wrestling-minded people first and this, judging by the numerous job ads I've seen from you over the years, does not seem to be a major aspect that you are searching for.

 

That is mildly baffling to me. Shouldn't you want a writer to genuinely LIKE the product and not want to see it suffer much more than somebody who regards the WWE as simply a step to a "better" job elsewhere (and while I do not assume that all of them view that, I have to question how many of them like or understand wrestling, given the direction of many of the storylines)? The writers you currently have --- and all of whom probably have a job much more difficult than I can appreciate --- just have not delivered compelling storylines, so a change should be seriously considered. And why wrestlers, either current or retired, are not really considered is a little curious. I do not feel that giving the top-tier guys power over their booking is a good idea, but nobody knows more about wrestling than the guys who work day-in and day-out and who have a burning love for the industry?

 

Do you think Tommy Dreamer, who by most accounts has some really good ideas, would view writing for RAW as his entrance into "better" things? How about Paul Heyman? His stint on Smackdown was categorized by the hardcore fans --- a fanbase that no company should take for granted --- as being quite good and the ratings for SD stayed rather stable while he was there. Why not give these guys more input? Scott Levy could have been a very good optionfor you in terms of angle creation, but he has stated, repeatedly, that his ideas were all but ignored by the higher-ups.

 

Finally, it appears that you view this downturn in this business in the wrong light. Again, it just appears to me that the company is desperately trying to push guys who have drawn in the past. If nobody is drawing right now --- and nobody seems to be doing much in that regard --- then it is the time to promote different performers. If the current crop of main eventers are not delivering the numbers the WWE should expect out of their "top guys", then how are they "top guys" any longer? Why not use this downturn to simply try new guys? Steve Austin and the Rock, easily the two biggest draws your company has churned out in years, were definitely not expected to be huge draws when the WWE first pushed them. Both of them were stuck with gimmicks that did more harm than good --- but you tried something different for both of them and struck gold. This is the case with a lot of your talent --- Kane, Edge, the APA, etc all started off with gimmicks that didn't work and you simply changed things and it worked quite well.

 

You need to do that now. You need to try something different. Try using guys who you have NO idea what to do with and put them in tag teams. The impressive performance of Haas & Benjamin on Smackdown should show that young talent can get over as a tag team. Really good ring performances and a view by the fans that the company has something planned can lead to big money in the future. Build up guys who seem to have no real purpose but who do seem to be able to get fan interest (I won't mention names, but try and be open-minded when you listen to the audience reaction to their appearances) into legitimate main eventers. You can easily do that -- it simply requires the determination on behalf of Vince McMahon, more than anybody else, that this person might be worth the effort. Rather than fearing the possibility of losing more of an audience, appreciate that there is much lower for things to get and use this opportunity to take chances.

 

Give the fans a reason to care about all of the talent. At your apex, in 2000, you had numerous guys who the fans cared about. Even jobbers, i.e the Mean Street Posse, had enough of a story and character development to make fans care about them, one way or the other. Nowadays, it seems that many people are just thrown out there with no story and the fans are just apathetic about them. It does a disservice to the talent and it does the company itself no good. What is the point of signing somebody if you have no intention of doing anything to assist them in becoming stars who can help draw a crowd?

 

Finally, the announcing on RAW needs some work. The women on RAW have become one of the main reasons to watch RAW. They have become very solid workers and their matches are usually quite entertaining. It is distracting to the fans and insulting to the workers to have Jerry Lawler constantly behave as if they are nothing more than eye candy. I won't deny that they are attractive, but they are so much more than just that. They deserve considerable credit for their work and should be treated as valued workers, not as simple sex objects.

 

I appreciate your time and any consideration you put into this matter.