Guest Brian Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 Oh, I agree that they'll still have RAW. But I can't see SmackDown as a viable brand without TV. If they go to the internet, they'll end up with like a fifth of the audience (it's averaging like 3.5 million?). That means less people who are able to watch and get involved, making it hrder to expose a vast majority to the show, and if it's only engaging a fraction of the audience, one could reason that their not going to be able to tour as well. I wonder if the solution to this would be to go on more international tours, especially since Italy is opening up as a very strong market. Still, a reduction in the size of the audience, no matter how bad it is now, can only makes things worse.
RavishingRickRudo Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 It's probably the WWE's hope that enough people buy WWE 24/7 where, if need be, they can sustain themselves on television and the internet.
Hunter's Torn Quad Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 It's probably the WWE's hope that enough people buy WWE 24/7 that, if need be, they can sustain themselves on television and the internet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Vince's plan is to eventually have WWE Channel of some kind, not necessarily as their primary television home, but also in case they do lose TV completely. Oh, I agree that they'll still have RAW. But I can't see SmackDown as a viable brand without TV. If they go to the internet, they'll end up with like a fifth of the audience (it's averaging like 3.5 million?). That means less people who are able to watch and get involved, making it hrder to expose a vast majority to the show, and if it's only engaging a fraction of the audience, one could reason that their not going to be able to tour as well. I wonder if the solution to this would be to go on more international tours, especially since Italy is opening up as a very strong market. Still, a reduction in the size of the audience, no matter how bad it is now, can only makes things worse. The Smackdown brand can be viable in that they'll be able to keep the losses as low as possible. I don't think PPV business for SD can get any worse if they lose television and are limited to US-based internet coverage and international television deals (Remember, that a portion of WWE PPVs buys, especially for WM, are from overseas). I think they are at the lowest possible level, and I don't think losing Smackdown on UPN could make it much worse, which itself shows how bad they've gotten. Smackdown is being watched by those hardcore viewers who are going to watch no matter what. It's been long enough since the move to Friday that any sizeable portion of viewers who were going to stop watching will have stoppped by now, and anyone around is sticking around for the long haul.
Hektik Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 If UPN doesn't pick up Smackdown where would it go? I doubt USA will want another 2 hour prime time wrestling show on their network. The only other NBC Universal options are CNBC, Bravo, or A&E. I would put my money on CNBC.
MrRant Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 Well considering you need broadband to watch the show, that cuts your audience down again from those that have internet access and the time to sit for an hour to watch a streaming show that you would have to start again at the beginning if you dropped your connection. SVOD would be possible but they need to do a better job getting penetration.
David Blazenwing Posted November 11, 2005 Report Posted November 11, 2005 If UPN doesn't pick up Smackdown where would it go? I doubt USA will want another 2 hour prime time wrestling show on their network. The only other NBC Universal options are CNBC, Bravo, or A&E. I would put my money on CNBC. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> CNBC? WTF? Lol... though between the three, I guess that would be their best option... idk, I could see it on Bravo too, more so than CNBC anyways.
Art Sandusky Posted November 18, 2005 Author Report Posted November 18, 2005 Well, Monday night we saw the entire roster at once. Lop the lower-level guys/gals and you've got the roster by May of next year. Can that sustain two different shows?
The Tino Standard Posted November 18, 2005 Report Posted November 18, 2005 A couple points here: 1. If you end the brand split, there's no reason you couldn't still have two touring groups. If you send 25 wrestlers (a mix of main eventers, midcarders, tag teams, etc) to one city to work a show and 25 others to another city, it would be the same thing. Just because you don't slam people over the head with two "brands" doesn't mean you can't have two touring groups. Back in the day, WWE used to run secondary tours all the time, long before there was a "brand split." 2. You could theoretically end the brand split without officially ending it. That's kinda what's happening now. Wrestlers are identified by their affiliation to one show ("brand") or another, but in many cases, they still keep appearing on both shows, working programs with guys on the opposite brand. As long as you keep at least 1 or 2 programs going between wrestlers from opposing brands, you're getting the illusion of the brand split ending without actually ending it. If the brand split eventually happens, this is how it will go down.
AboveAverage484 Posted November 18, 2005 Report Posted November 18, 2005 If they ended the brand split I might start watching again. Maybe then they'll be motivated to do something creative and/or new. And TNA isn't any better than WWE. They just throw a few guys out there to attempt to kill themselves and hire a few good indy workers to get the smarks on their side. The wrestling is just as shitty with a few exceptions, it's just different faces and factions so people flock to it. Then when people get tired of them, they'll turn away from them just like they did WWE.
Black Lushus Posted November 18, 2005 Report Posted November 18, 2005 my biggest problem with TNA is the lack of time they have to showcase more than just one or two people at a time...rather than having well paced matches with great high spots (without going overboard) and good psychology, taking the time to develop actual characters, they just kinda throw everything and everyone out there and try to wow the outside casual fan looking in with what turns out to be trainwreck matches...hopefully, they can soon expand to a two hour show so that they can get beyond slop matches, because, honestly, I really do want to like TNA...i will tell you this, though, Jeff Jarrett, Jeff Hardy, the New Age Outlaws, the Dudleys, Nash, etc. are NOT going to get me interested in the product...guys like AJ Styles and Samoa Joe will...sure those guys are highlighted enough, but I don't know them and TNA isn't doing a good job of helping me get to know them... I've never liked the brand-split so I won't cry if it goes away...however, they'll still need at least two weekly shows...
LaParkaYourCar Posted November 18, 2005 Report Posted November 18, 2005 When I first read the title of this thread I thought you were suggesting Nuking the WWE roster.
Black Lushus Posted November 18, 2005 Report Posted November 18, 2005 When I first read the title of this thread I thought you were suggesting Nuking the WWE roster. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> not a bad idea...
jester Posted November 21, 2005 Report Posted November 21, 2005 When I first read the title of this thread I thought you were suggesting Nuking the WWE roster. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> not a bad idea... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Undertaker would no-sell it.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now