What casual fans want

[JoeDirt 0]

I thought this article would make for interesting discussion:

 

=====================================================

 

What Casual Fans Want

 

I've always been fascinated by casual fans. I totally don't understand the phenomena, as I was constantly getting more and more into the product from the first time I tuned in. However, in an effort to understand this, I'm going to take a look at what draws me in as a casual fan of other forms of entertainment, particularly sports, as well as suggesting ways for WWE to capitalize on the casual fans out there.

 

Personalities: There are probably lots of good players on every decent professional sports team. However, casual fans don't care about how solid player X is. They want stars. They want the Kobes and the Shaqs, not the Guy-With-An-Overly-Long-Foreign-Name-Who-Can't-Speak-English. Sadly, WWE has lost a large number of their top stars from their peak in recent years, including the Rock, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, and Mick Foley. They've also lost one of their biggest homegrown stars, Brock Lesnar. Plus, they couldn't figure out what to do with former WCW stars Goldberg and Scott Steiner. WWE has to put their nose to the grindstone in creating new stars. They can't go halfway like they're trying to do with Paul London and Billy Kidman, expecting them to magically catch on without any background on commentary, without promos, without build-up. These guys aren't personalities. You could insert any two young cruisers into their spot, and most fans wouldn't know the difference.

 

Simplicity: This applies in a variety of ways. First, the sport itself must be easy to follow. Wrestling gets this right for the most part, particularly when matches result in clean finishes. Problems begin to arise when we get into more complicated matches, such as the WWE's nasty habit of changing the rules every time they have a cage match. Can you pin the other person? What about climbing out? You can just walk out the door? Why doesn't everyone just do that? You don't want fans asking these questions, you want them focusing on the product.

 

Also, the storylines need to be easy to follow. This doesn't mean that you should dumb them down, but they need to be something that someone tuning in at any moment can pick up. You don't want people saying "Wait, why is Lita agreeing to marry that big ugly guy?" You want a first time viewer to get indoctrinated and wrapped up in things as soon as possible. The announcers are an important part of this, putting over a character's personality when they don't have the chance to grab a microphone.

 

Variety: Sadly, most Americans today have the attention span of a small hamster, including myself. This is where variety comes in. Give us fast-paced insanity. The casual fan doesn't want a nice, logical, slowly paced twenty, thirty minute match. They want to know in five or ten minutes who the better man is, and then they want to move onto something new.

 

Outside of pacing, it's also important to mix up the match styles. Give us a singles match, a tag match, a cruiser match, a hardcore match, and then surprise us. Don't expect fans to pay attention to generic Undercard Wrestler A versus Undercard Wrestler B matches without much build-up, then wonder why your ratings aren't doing better. The Raw women haven't even gotten to wrestle on the A show that much lately. WWE is missing an opportunity to provide more variety, and with how hard the Raw women work, it's hard to imagine why they aren't utilizing them more.

 

Gossip: Not everyone follows the NBA, particularly early in the season. Almost everyone has at least kept an eye on the Kobe Bryant rape trial. People want outrageous, gossipy entertainment. This is why good backstage segments are so vital. You want to be able to provide outrageousness while still maintaining a certain level of believability. This is why people will talk about the stories from the National Enquirer (Mary-Kate's on drugs! Kirstie Alley's fat!), but once you get to the Weekly World News (Dick Cheney really a robot! Bat Boy's sex slaves!), it becomes too laughable to generate any discussion. WWE seems to go to the Weekly World News well far too often, and would be better served to take a cue from the semi-believableness of the Enquirer.

 

Results: Ultimately, it's all about results. Hardcore sports fans will buy the satellite package that lets them watch some game 24 hours a day. Casual fans will check out the highlights on the local news or SportsCenter. Compare a WWE recap show to SportsCenter or even that local news cast, and you'll find that it falls far short. Even if you keep the long highlight segments, you need to drill those hosts into upping their game. About the only recap host that seems genuinely excited is Josh Matthews. Marc Loyd doesn't come off as someone who can't wait to tell you about what happened, and he hasn't shown the ability to come up with witty, snarky comments about the action. Sit those recap guys down and make them watch some real sports recap, and I guarantee that their coverage will improve by leaps and bounds.

 

During the show itself, the casual fans want to know the match results. Making it seem like a match will end at any moment will draw in the casual fans, and as we've proven, matches where you know they won't end for sixty minutes don't. I hate to say it, but I think that shorter TV matches are, in general, a good idea. Throw on something a bit longer in the main event slot, but keep it short and sweet other than that.

[Kizzo 0]

This is where variety comes in. Give us fast-paced insanity. The casual fan doesn't want a nice, logical, slowly paced twenty, thirty minute match. They want to know in five or ten minutes who the better man is, and then they want to move onto something new.

 

That's how WWE got the casual viewer to watch there program...casual fans do not want to see an 1 hour long match on T.V....neither do they want to see a 30 minute match on T.V....that's what writers Vince Russo and Chris Kreski tried to estbalished when they were in charge of creative....they always had the casual fan in the back of their minds......that's why you had so many angles going on at once...lots of promos(that were interesting and had some point to them)...and SHORTER matches...

 

Crash tv(1997-01)....was sucessful because it was so fast paced.....since 01 the current writers do not know how to script crash television correctly...

[Guest TigerDriver91]

Bring on the two minute matches every week. Yeehaw

[Kizzo 0]

Bring on the two minute matches every week. Yeehaw

I know u are being sarcastic...

 

But most internet fans do not like crash tv...they love 30 minute matches on television with no promos.....I'm probaly the only few...that love the old format of wrestling in the late 90s and early 2000..

[Dark Age 0]

I'd like to know how this guy knows what all casual fans want. Did he go to all their homes with a questionnaire?

[Kizzo 0]

I'd like to know how this guy knows what all casual fans want. Did he go to all their homes with a questionnaire?

Just look at the ratings from that time period...you will get your answer

[Ravenbomb 0]

Yeah, but wouldn't catering too much to casual fans alienate the more loyal fans? Then the casual fans go off and watch something else again and they don't have any viewers at all.

[BHK 0]

You know, as a compromise, I'd ahve no issue with free TV matches always being in the 8-10 minute range, while keeping PPV matches in the 10-30 range. I think that would appease both the casual and hardcore fans.

[Dark Age 0]

I've always been fascinated by casual fans.

 

What is this, a nature safari?

 

However, in an effort to understand this, I'm going to take a look at what draws me in as a casual fan of other forms of entertainment, particularly sports, as well as suggesting ways for WWE to capitalize on the casual fans out there.

 

This guy is nuts. He thinks he's filming a documentary or something.

 

Personalities: There are probably lots of good players on every decent professional sports team. However, casual fans don't care about how solid player X is.

 

He knows this how? Chris Benoit got over by wrestling.

 

They want stars. They want the Kobes and the Shaqs, not the Guy-With-An-Overly-Long-Foreign-Name-Who-Can't-Speak-English. Sadly, WWE has lost a large number of their top stars from their peak in recent years, including the Rock, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin, and Mick Foley. They've also lost one of their biggest homegrown stars, Brock Lesnar. Plus, they couldn't figure out what to do with former WCW stars Goldberg and Scott Steiner. WWE has to put their nose to the grindstone in creating new stars. They can't go halfway like they're trying to do with Paul London and Billy Kidman, expecting them to magically catch on without any background on commentary, without promos, without build-up. These guys aren't personalities. You could insert any two young cruisers into their spot, and most fans wouldn't know the difference.

 

I presume he's referring to Kenzuki. Well, he ISN'T a solid player, so it's a mute point. If he said Jamie Noble or something, fair enough. But he didn't. They've lost Rock and Austin. They still have Taker and Triple H. Those two should have been making new stars in the same way Rock did with Brock. The lack of star power is the fault of the current stars they have. They DID know how to use Goldberg, but they couldn't, and they were right in his usage. To make Goldberg a star, you have to have him run through everyone. WWE, rightfully, didn't wanna take this risk, because it would hurt them more in the long run. The short term jump in buyrates/ratings you would get with WCW Goldberg would mean nothing when everyone else has been buried. Steiner blew it himself, no fault of WWE. They're trying to create new stars now with Randy Orton and John Cena, but neithe rguy is ready. Booker T, Chris Jericho, RVD and the like should be in those spots while Cena and Orton are groomed. I agree on the London/Kidman bit.

 

Simplicity: This applies in a variety of ways. First, the sport itself must be easy to follow. Wrestling gets this right for the most part, particularly when matches result in clean finishes. Problems begin to arise when we get into more complicated matches, such as the WWE's nasty habit of changing the rules every time they have a cage match. Can you pin the other person? What about climbing out? You can just walk out the door? Why doesn't everyone just do that? You don't want fans asking these questions, you want them focusing on the product.

 

It wasn't easy to follow back in 99 with the constant swerves and turns. They NEVER had clean finishes back then. That is when ratings were high. The Cage match stuff is stupid, but cage matches are alot less frequent these days. It's not a HUGE issue.

 

Variety: Sadly, most Americans today have the attention span of a small hamster, including myself. This is where variety comes in. Give us fast-paced insanity. The casual fan doesn't want a nice, logical, slowly paced twenty, thirty minute match. They want to know in five or ten minutes who the better man is, and then they want to move onto something new.

 

How the fuck does this guy know this? He's talking shit. Didn't Benoit/Shawn pull in a pretty decent rating? Don't most long matches? As a matter of fact, the ratings barely change regardless of a 30 minute match, 10 minute match or an interview. WWE has it's core fan base these days. They usually stay for anything. Matches like Benoit/Shawn HAVE brought in more viewers.

 

Outside of pacing, it's also important to mix up the match styles. Give us a singles match, a tag match, a cruiser match, a hardcore match, and then surprise us. Don't expect fans to pay attention to generic Undercard Wrestler A versus Undercard Wrestler B matches without much build-up, then wonder why your ratings aren't doing better. The Raw women haven't even gotten to wrestle on the A show that much lately. WWE is missing an opportunity to provide more variety, and with how hard the Raw women work, it's hard to imagine why they aren't utilizing them more.

 

I must have missed the huge ratings brought in by the Divas division.

 

Gossip: Not everyone follows the NBA, particularly early in the season. Almost everyone has at least kept an eye on the Kobe Bryant rape trial. People want outrageous, gossipy entertainment. This is why good backstage segments are so vital. You want to be able to provide outrageousness while still maintaining a certain level of believability. This is why people will talk about the stories from the National Enquirer (Mary-Kate's on drugs! Kirstie Alley's fat!), but once you get to the Weekly World News (Dick Cheney really a robot! Bat Boy's sex slaves!), it becomes too laughable to generate any discussion. WWE seems to go to the Weekly World News well far too often, and would be better served to take a cue from the semi-believableness of the Enquirer.

 

Or how about just forgetting about getting publicity and just focus on wrestling? Didn't this guy want simple stories? Yet now he wants outrageousness and gossipy stuff?

 

During the show itself, the casual fans want to know the match results. Making it seem like a match will end at any moment will draw in the casual fans, and as we've proven, matches where you know they won't end for sixty minutes don't. I hate to say it, but I think that shorter TV matches are, in general, a good idea. Throw on something a bit longer in the main event slot, but keep it short and sweet other than that.

 

Simple solution: DON'T DO IRON MAN MATCHES ON FREE TV!

[geniusMoment 0]

This guy is totally wrong on one thing. If you gave the casual fans what they wanted you would have no womens wrestling except bra and panties matches and T&A type of stuff.

[Guest Brian]

Casual fans don't provide a good foundation of support in the bad times. Besides, it's not the format that draws people in, it's the characters.

[CanadianChick 0]

Meh, I don't how much I agree with this guy. The personality thing, he's right on the mark. Everybody needs a character, whether simplistic or not, and they have to be unique. Big monster guy doesn't cut it anymore. Little underdog cruiserwieght doesn't cut it. I went with a casual fan to a Smackdown house show in Febuary this year. He had no clue in hell who Matt Morgan was, and he watches often enough. On the other hand, he knew who Jamie Noble, a guy who got as much TV time, if not less than Matt Morgan, was, because of his hick personality. People like London need a to have a reason for people to care. It could be as simple as proving thier worth in WWE. That seems to be the character he has, but the audience shouldn't assume the character, they should be shown the character. The tag champs have had one small backstage promo since winning hte belts. That'd be fine and dandy if it was Kidman and someone like Noble, who are relatively known. But no one knows who London is, so why should they care?

 

On the other hand, I disagree with the match part. Sure, fans pop for short spotfests, but ultimately, the couldn't care less about the actual wrestlers. A good 20 minute match makes people care. Of course, not everybody should have regular 20 minute matches, but to say casual fans don't care isn't correct. I'll use a houseshow example again: people ultimately cared a lot more about a Eddie/Brock match than the cruiserweight spot fest. Why? They were both enjoyable, but the Eddie/Brock match told a story the people cared about. It was a pretty long match, and the responce it got was the best of the night.

[Guest Eugene`]

I've always had the mind of a casual fan, despite knowing everything that is going on because of the internet, at least in the last 4 years. To me, crash tv IS important, but not the way Russo relies on it 100 per cent. To me, you need to establish the characters. I like a good mix of everything. Sure, i'm not a workrate whore like 90 per cent of the internet is, but to me you need that right mix. I have no problems with "hosses" like Heidereich ( I can never spell his fucking name) or A-Train, as long as they had something appealing about their characters (which they don't) and I have no problem with watching a good wrestling match from Angle or Benoit, but to me, you need that mix, and technical wrestling isn't going to turn everything around.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Agreed with Eugene.

 

I can watch long singles matches but I can't watch long tag team matches like last Monday's main event.

[Guest TigerDriver91]

I love watching long singles and tag-team matches as long as they are exciting and don't fall apart half way through.

[BHK 0]

Agreed with Eugene.

 

I can watch long singles matches but I can't watch long tag team matches like last Monday's main event.

What is the differnece to you, exactly?

[CanadianChick 0]

I whole heartingly disagree. I love long tag matches, like the main event from Raw last week. The danger is that a bad, long tag match can be twice as boring as a long, bad singles match because of the extended beatdown of the face in peril.

[LaParkaYourCar 0]

I'll tell you what they want. It's pretty common sense. They probably expect out of it just as much as they expect out of any TV show they watch.

 

They want:

- Storylines/Characters that don't insult their intelligence and/or make them embarassed to watch.

- Matches that are good...no matter the length. If it's a long match...make it good. If it's a short match...make it good as well.

- Continuity. If they can remember it happening they will bring it up when it's contradicted. This will make them annoyed. Leave them with a "why do I bother" feeling that has driven them away in the first place.

- Something cool that they can talk about with their friends. None of them want to sit around the water cooler talking about Katie Vick.

- Some want T&A, but I'm sure even they would get tired of lame storylines surrounding it. Maybe WCW had the right idea when the Nitro Girls first came out. Put the T&A during commercials for the arena fans and have it spill over to when they come back from break for a few seconds so that the TV viewers are pleased, but keep the T&A out of storylines unless it really fits the storyline well.

- Feuds/Characters/Storylines they can relate with. Casual fans could relate with Stone Cold because he was that badass side everyone wanted to have. Casual fans aren't going to relate with most of the crap WWE puts on now.

 

Basically they want something that they can be comfortable telling friends that they watch. They want something that won't embarass them and they want something cool and interesting.

[AlwaysPissedOff 0]

That's how WWE got the casual viewer to watch there program...casual fans do not want to see an 1 hour long match on T.V....neither do they want to see a 30 minute match on T.V....that's what writers Vince Russo and Chris Kreski tried to estbalished when they were in charge of creative....they always had the casual fan in the back of their minds......that's why you had so many angles going on at once...lots of promos(that were interesting and had some point to them)...and SHORTER matches...

 

Crash tv(1997-01)....was sucessful because it was so fast paced.....since 01 the current writers do not know how to script crash television correctly...

Crash TV bit the dust in 99, not 2001.

 

As for the success of Crash TV, it can be directly attirbuted to Ausitn and Rock being so popular because those guys are who the fans came to see while the all the rest of the crap was basically icing on the cake. Crash TV didn't work in WCW because they had no one that the fans truly gave a damn about and as a result, Russo got exposed as the sham he is.

[Kizzo 0]

It bit the dust in late 2000 to be more accuarte...because Kreski used a similar format that Russo used...but he had a balanced between the two...but prefered Entertainment...

[Ravenbomb 0]

whatever happened to Kreski, anyways?

[Kizzo 0]

whatever happened to Kreski, anyways?

On Howard Stern two years ago...Stephanie mention that she was promoted to creative head around October of 2000....Kreski resigned in October of 2000(the rumor around the net...was due to being burnt out)..but looking at the pieces...it was all politics that lead to his departure...

[Chazz 0]

whatever happened to Kreski, anyways?

On Howard Stern two years ago...Stephanie mention that she was promoted to creative head around October of 2000....Kreski resigned in October of 2000(the rumor around the net...was due to being burnt out)..but looking at the pieces...it was all politics that lead to his departure...

I believe that much like Russo before him, Kreski did In fact get burned out with having to write 4 Hours of T.V. per week.

[Guest Kid Kablam]

This is where variety comes in. Give us fast-paced insanity. The casual fan doesn't want a nice, logical, slowly paced twenty, thirty minute match. They want to know in five or ten minutes who the better man is, and then they want to move onto something new.

 

That's how WWE got the casual viewer to watch there program...casual fans do not want to see an 1 hour long match on T.V....neither do they want to see a 30 minute match on T.V....that's what writers Vince Russo and Chris Kreski tried to estbalished when they were in charge of creative....they always had the casual fan in the back of their minds......that's why you had so many angles going on at once...lots of promos(that were interesting and had some point to them)...and SHORTER matches...

 

Crash tv(1997-01)....was sucessful because it was so fast paced.....since 01 the current writers do not know how to script crash television correctly...

Problem is that you create Sportz Entertainment fans as opposesd to actual wrestling fans. Crash TV got me to notice WWF/E Chris Benoit got me to stay. Those who liked Crash TV now dismiss wrestling as "Fake fighting"

[iggymcfly 0]

The internet smarks that love to villify "casual fans" for short attention spans and wanting two-minute matches really miss the point. All that casual fans want is to have good storylines to make them care about the matches. The reason that the ratings dipped in 2001 wasn't because they were having 20 and 30 minute main events. It was because the storylines were incredibly boring.

 

WCW "invading" was an interesting idea for the first few weeks. Having WCW fight a seemingly endless battle with the WWF for five months with only one match mattering for the actual storyline of which promotion survived was not. The epic battles of the personalities that people cared about (Austin vs. Rock) got lost by the wayside as everyone was supposed to care which letters (WCW or WWF) won which tag match.

 

Since then, there really haven't been very many well-written epic feuds, in which two established personalities battle to defeat each other. We're left with formulaic angles and skits in the main event. For every good storyline where HHH manipulates his "special" fan Eugene, or becomes jealous of his best friend Shwan Michaels and turns on him, there are 10 where he gets chased out of the ring by Goldberg, Booker T, or Scott Steiner, and acts kind of scared of them before cheating when they have their match.

 

Eddie Guerrero driving Bradshaw's car around and scaring him, and Undertaker chokeslamming a midget are examples of the same kind of shit. They almost had a feud people would care about with Kurt and Eddie, but when Eddie's having an auction to sell Kurt Angle's cast, people kind of stop caring.

 

Now, that's what brings casual fans in. As for what tunes them out after they get hooked? It's not long matches, and it's not even usually boring, repetitive programs. It's embarrassing displays that make them ashamed to watch wrestling. As for an example of what I'm talking about, see Katie Vick, Shane burning Kane alive only to have him come back the next week, Big Show's dead father, Eddie spraying poop on the Big Show, Scott Steiner rubbing HHH down in baby oil, and the diva search.

 

If the WWE can give people decent characters, write mildly interesting feuds for them, and avoid doing things so blatantly bad that they tune people out, they should really have no trouble. I think Russo and Kreski could both book shows that included 10 minute matches and 20 minute main events, and still do a hell of a lot better than the WWE is doing right now.

[JoeDirt 0]

But the weird thing is that the fans were flocking to the WWF in 1999 when they had shitty angles like the Ministry kidnapping Stephanie and trying to sacrifice her and shit like that.

[iggymcfly 0]

But the weird thing is that the fans were flocking to the WWF in 1999 when they had shitty angles like the Ministry kidnapping Stephanie and trying to sacrifice her and shit like that.

 

There's a difference between going over the top with a storyline and being stupid. For example, when they did the thing where Austin chased around Vince with a gun and then made him wet his pants in the main event angle, you got the impression that they knew what they were doing and wanted to show that they didn't take themselves too seriously. It was over the top, but it was still fun.

 

The ministry stuff was over the top too, but it still didn't have inherent logic gaps (like Katie Vick), or just an embarrassing idea (like spraying poop). You got the idea that they always knew where the line was, and they wouldn't quite cross it. Now, it seems like they have no idea where the line might be, and they're just trying random stuff to see where they might go with it, and dropping it at a moment's notice if it doesn't work.

 

I think the best comparison would be between the Undertaker in '99 and the Undertaker now. Back then, they always portrayed him as a heel when he was doing these things, and they stuck with the character. If he kidnapped Stephanie, everyone acted genuinely worried about it, and did everything they could to save her. Now, Heyman and the Dudleyz kidnap Paul Bearer, and no one does anything about it. Then, the Undertaker "kills" him for no reason, sits home a week or two, and then challenges the top heel for the title, forgetting the whole thing.

 

An over the top storyline with continuity can be fun, but when they're just going in random embarrassing directions with no reason or purpose, it really turns people off.

[Guest Loss]

The problem, more than anything, is that fans watch with the mindset that they're supposed to be entertained at every second. That's not how good storytelling works. You want fans tuning in because they care about the performers and want to see what's going to happen, not because they just want to be amused. WWE has only themselves to blame for that mindset. Yes, WWE should strive to entertain the audience, but the audience should not strive to be entertained, if that makes sense.

 

Wrestling is too exposed as being fake at this point, and there's no attempt to protect kayfabe or make angles even the slightest bit realistic. You can't really blame the Internet either when only a small fraction of the audience even follows the backstage stuff. To make people care, they have to believe that what they're watching is real OR they have to be so wrapped up in the characters that they just don't care. That doesn't mean making "shoot" angles like Vince Russo did in 2000, but that does mean that all the storylines need to be realistic and believable. Kamala harassing the Diva Search contestants is embarrassing and will only alienate fans, especially if someone else walks in and wonders why they're watching that shit. Last week's RAW main event involved several storylines (Jericho/Edge, Jericho/Batista, Benoit/Batista, Edge/Batista, Edge/Orton, Benoit/Orton) in a logical way, and they had a hot match in front of a hot crowd, which also furthered the storyline. THAT'S the type of dynamic they should be shooting for more often, but they try too hard to be cutesy most of the time.

[King Cucaracha 0]

There is some semblance of a point in the match arguement.

 

The Benoit/Booker match on the Monday Night War DVD is certainly not a 20 minute match that would draw a fan into it and neither is Goldberg/Hogan. However in both matches, the crowd are hot (or in the latter's case red hot) and if you look at the fans in attendance you can pretty much tell they're mainly casual fans from how they act and react. And to a certain point how they look.

 

I agree with Loss that they need to make fans care, casual or not, about what happens. But finding that dynamic is certainly harder than it sounds. There's only so many things they can make people care about and there's only so many times you can use them. D-X got over-used. NWO got over-used. Austin, Hogan, Rock, Flair...all over-used. Finding that new dynamic that the majority 18 year old kids in America are actually going to want to talk to their friends about is not just a case of putting on good matches. If it was then Chris Benoit would be the new Steve Austin.

 

Good matches are valuable but they need to find someone with the right charisma, right gimmick and right presence to be 'cool' enough. Then once you dragged them in using that person as bait, you use the Benoits and Jerichos to put on excellent matches and sell these casual fans the 'wrestling' part of the show.

[Guest Loss]

Do you not think Benoit has the type of appeal that would get real sports fans interested in the product since his work doesn't look "fake"? And Jericho has more value than the company allows him to have -- they never cross-promote his appearances on VH1, where he comes off well, and they won't let him become a permanent headliner.