Guest thetrendsetter Report post Posted March 17, 2004 I'm watching the Monday Night Wars DVD this past weekend, and I noticed alot of glaring things about both Business Ethics, and Centralization VS Decentralization among a few other Buisness Fundamentals. I almost thought that this could make good viewing for a 1st Year Buisness Student along side our school's (Saint Mary's in Canada) Business Ethics section of both Management and Accounting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Murmuring Beast 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2004 Prepare to be laughed at. I was. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slayer 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2004 Business Ethics Oxymoron Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BifEverchad 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2004 Horrible idea. Wrestling isnt taken serious by those who don't enjoy it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Winter Of My Discontent Report post Posted March 17, 2004 Horrible idea. He said it best. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Murmuring Beast 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2004 Business Ethics Oxymoron Brilliance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2004 I used pro wrestling a few times in high school to good results... Never thought it would be such a good idea in college though... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RavishingRickRudo 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2004 I don't think regular business is that petty. I think the only relevant thing you could get out of the Monday Night Wars is brand positioning and how the WWE was much better than WCW at it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Murmuring Beast 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2004 I'll post the essay I did for Uni, on factors which affect the performance of a company. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Murmuring Beast 0 Report post Posted March 17, 2004 Organisations and their Environments Assignment 1 Introduction: According to Scott (2003), organisations are made up of several elements, each of which is just as important as the other. Goals cannot be analysed as being any more important as other factors which include company origins, stakeholders, structure, technology and environment, when looking at how an organisation works. To understand any organisation we must look at how each factor affects a company’s performance. Organisation: World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) was first globally established 20 years ago after Vincent K. McMahon took full control of the company in 1980. Since McMahon’s take-over, wrestling has experienced great changes. His original idea of entertainment was safe-viewing for children and adults alike. Centering the company around Hulk Hogan, McMahon started a craze across America with the introduction of action figures and other replica merchandise. The inclusion of such celebrities as Muhammad Ali and Cyndi Lauper at their first Pay-Per-View event, Wrestlemania 1, were risks, but risks that paid off greatly.4 Recently, profits are down and Chairman Vince McMahon is no longer one of America’s richest businessmen. Forbes.com, a business website, stated that, “For the 3 months ended 7/25/03, net revenues fell 13% to $74.7M. Net income fell 27% to $2.8M.” Over the course of the last two years, total revenue has fallen from $438.41 million to $374.26 million. Goals: Amitai Etzioni defined an organisational goal as “a desired state of affairs that an organisation attempts to realise.” World Wrestling Entertainment’s main goals are to produce live entertainment in the form of television and pay-per-view broadcasts. They aim to improve their “branded merchandise market” with the sale of videos, magazines and other merchandise. They hope to expand the “mainstream potential” of World Wrestling Entertainment in “national and international markets”. At the time of WCW’s purchase, WWE’s main rival, WWE’s Monday night show was drawing consistent ratings, making it one of the most watched shows in America. But in mid 2002, ratings reached their lowest since 1998. Perhaps WWE became complacent after the purchase of the main competition and did not feel the need to better their product. Vince McMahon resorted to signing old entertainers who were physically finished years earlier. Also, the introduction of more soap operatic storylines, with more sexualised content and stunts, may have alienated fans who are solely interested in wrestling. WWE claims, however, that the majority of viewers belong in the category of young males thus proving that this way of producing television may be successful in coming years. However, if WWE wants to remain as the top wrestling organisation, they will have to update their goals in future and not continue with ones which have become stale and outlived their usefulness. As Etzioni states when explaining goal succession, “...tendency of organisations to find new goals when the old ones have been realised or cannot be attained.” Stakeholders: Gareth Jones defines stakeholders as “people who have an interest, claim or stake in the organisation, in what it does, and in how well it performs.” In World Wrestling Entertainment, 81% of holders are from within the company itself. The top internal holders, as of 13 October 2003, are James Ross and Kevin Dunn, who both have 12,024 shares in the company. WWE hold a responsibility to these holders, as Jones states, “Stakeholders who do not believe that the inducement is enough to warrant their contribution sell their shares and withdraw their support from the organisation.” In many ways, the viewers of WWE are the largest source of income as they buy merchandise and purchase television events. WWE has a duty to please these investors so that they will continue to invest in the company. If the product is not appealing to the majority of viewers, then WWE will be in danger of losing income. As Jones states, “The money they (customers) payis their contribution ... and reflects the value they feel they receive from that organisation.” 12% of shares are held by Institutional and Mutual Fund owners. The top institutional group is Citigroup Inc, a powerful organisation that specialises in financial services. As of 30 June 2003, Citigroup had a reported 1,283,713 shares in the company. A withdrawal here would have a huge effect on WWE, so the company will have to continue to produce profits if they wish to keep Citigroup as their main external investor. Structure: World Wrestling Entertainment is now a world-wide organisation. Although based in Connecticut, USA, WWE now has offices in London, Los Angeles, Toronto and New York. Nowadays, WWE employs a vast numberof employees, not just in the form of on air entertainers, with its own legal,marketing and media teams along with areas in consumer research and production. WWE has vast appeal throughout the world and this is proven with the popularity of live events in Canada, Asia, Europe and Australia. WWE regularly travels throughout the world and makes two annual appearances in the UK. WWE television is shown in 100 countries and in 12 different languages every week. With regards to their external structure,WWE has formed bonds with major retailers, including Toys “R” US and Wal-Mart. These branches sell WWE products in return for advertising on WWE television and on the Internet. The WWE appears to have a strong structure currently as they are branching out to other retailers so they can diversify their product more in the future. If WWE stayed as a stand-alone organisation, it would be more difficult for them to advertise their product and gain help from different suppliers. Technology: Advancements in technology have made life easier for WWE. They regularly release DVDs, computer games and CDs, which prove to be immensely popular. WWE video games have earned them over $300 million in the US alone. By releasing a wider range of products, they are reaching a wider range of customers. The official wesbite, wwe.com, gets over 200 million hits per month. Viewers have the chance to download exclusive videos and pictures as well as comment pages. Technical advances reducecosts, as Joan Woodward highlighted in “Technology and organisation”(1958). WWE can now do things quicker and with less expense because of advances in computing technology. For example, the adverts on the official website pay for the upkeep of the site and also saves the company from producing statements and information in newspapers and magazines, thus saving money. Gareth Jones said that the Internet is a new “avenue” that can be used to inform customers about “new and existing products”. Their second majorwebsite, wweshopzone.com, is an all-year online shop, where visitors can buy official merchandise. The official site only ships to America and Canada, but there is a European spin-off which delivers to most European countries. Before, buying WWE merchandise would have been more difficult for those who could not find outlets which sold official goods. Online shopping has changed all that for WWE. Environment: WWE must comply with sociocultural forces. If their product is seen to be offensive in the eyes of the public then the company will have to change or otherwise face a loss in viewership. WWE have been accused of using “shock tv” to gain ratings and in the case of one of last year’s storylines, in which the theme of necrophilia was brought up, ratings actually dropped such was the outrage that such a topic was shown on a wrestling show. As Charles Perrow states, when talking about industries, “Producers of TV programmes would prefer to handle more controversial and even liberal material but end up... because of the censorship of network owners and sponsors.” In WWE’s case, amongst the sponsors are the viewers. In the entertainment environment WWE must compete with the NFL, the NBA and NASCAR racing, which all clash with WWE television. But since March 2001, wrestling competition, in North America, at least, has declined. In March 2001, WWE purchased main wrestling rival Ted Turner’s World Championship Wrestling (WCW). During the 90s WWE and WCW both had shows on Monday nights, and between 1996 and 1998 WCW had the upperhand in the ratings. Wrestling journalist Justin Bachman wrote in 2001,"Throughout the 1980s and '90s, the two companies battled for ratings. But in the late 1990s, as the WCW's top performers aged and its talent-development efforts lagged, the WWF began to regularly trounceTurner.” Turner’s failure to invest in youth in WCW and tendency to rely on older entertainers hurt the company in the long term. Because of this, WCW lost around $80 million in 2000 and Vince McMahonwas able to purchase the opposition at a reduced cost. WWE has now become the main source of wrestling entertainment in America. No other company can come close in terms of producing the same quality of product. Conclusion: Scott’s theory is accurate. Companies are made up of many elements, and not just goals can be analysed in understanding the way an organisation works. In the case of WWE, some factors are understandably more important than others, but the analysis of the environment is possibly the strongest element in understanding WWE. The environment is a strong element mainly because it covers much scope. The environment determines what the WWE can and cannot do, as well being a benchmark for further development. Word Count: 1515 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
