Face of the Franchise

[Noah Fentz 0]

Go back to what formula? The Crash TV? The Attitude Era is over, it's done with. Just because it worked in 1999, doesn't mean it will work it in 2008.

 

The 2.7 was against the most watched game in ESPN history. Ratings mean nothing in the long run, given the immense profitability of the company.

 

While I appreciate your insistence that profits are all that's important, you must keep in mind ratings play a huge part of making and perpetuating those profits.

 

Television/cable networks pay bigger dollars based on ratings. Ratings also equate how many households you're marketing your products to. So, really, ratings are the bread and butter of those profits. As they fall, profits fall.

 

The profits the WWE is enjoying at this very moment have been largely affected by ratings a number of months ago. The profits in the near future are determined by ratings today. Expect to see a decline of profits, at least in the US market.

 

How are ratings abroad calculated? Anyone informed on this?

[bob_barron 0]

I always thought it was idiotic to just look at one week of ratings and completely whig out, like they do at PWInsider.

 

RAW suffered poorly against an insanely highly rated football game. Big shocker. They're not going to have a decline in profits because they drew a poor rating against football. They're still one of the highest rated shows on cable TV

[Noah Fentz 0]

I always thought it was idiotic to just look at one week of ratings and completely whig out, like they do at PWInsider.

 

RAW suffered poorly against an insanely highly rated football game. Big shocker. They're not going to have a decline in profits because they drew a poor rating against football. They're still one of the highest rated shows on cable TV

 

Agreed, but in years past, WWE saw very little loss of audience to MNF. Now, with the (IMO) less interesting shows, people are turning the channel on Raw. How long before more people follow suit?

 

I'm not suggesting it's time to panic, but it is time to take a good look at what they're doing right/wrong. In my memory of watching wrestling (27 years), I can't remember a more lackluster WWE/F than today's product.

[The Truthiness 0]

In a post Benoit world, ratings don't mean much.

[PILLS! PILLS! PILLS! 0]

In my memory of watching wrestling (27 years), I can't remember a more lackluster WWE/F than today's product.

 

I can. 1994-1995, 2002-2005 were WAY worse in my opinion.

 

Cena's absence is a DIRECTLY RELATED of the current rating. I am not really am enormous mark for Cena, but it's obvious that he is their top cash cow, and his presence is an imperative to RAW audience at this point in time.

[bob_barron 0]

I always thought it was idiotic to just look at one week of ratings and completely whig out, like they do at PWInsider.

 

RAW suffered poorly against an insanely highly rated football game. Big shocker. They're not going to have a decline in profits because they drew a poor rating against football. They're still one of the highest rated shows on cable TV

 

Agreed, but in years past, WWE saw very little loss of audience to MNF. Now, with the (IMO) less interesting shows, people are turning the channel on Raw. How long before more people follow suit?

 

I'm not suggesting it's time to panic, but it is time to take a good look at what they're doing right/wrong. In my memory of watching wrestling (27 years), I can't remember a more lackluster WWE/F than today's product.

 

I don't understand how can people talk about the product being the most lacklustre. As mellow said above, 2002-2003, (RAW in particular) was some of the most dreadful TV. Smackdown in 2004 was horrific.

 

The product is fine right now. They put the belt on the guy everyone said was the top heel in the company and he's in the best feud in the company on a main event level. What more can you ask for?

[The Truthiness 0]

I always thought it was idiotic to just look at one week of ratings and completely whig out, like they do at PWInsider.

 

RAW suffered poorly against an insanely highly rated football game. Big shocker. They're not going to have a decline in profits because they drew a poor rating against football. They're still one of the highest rated shows on cable TV

 

Agreed, but in years past, WWE saw very little loss of audience to MNF. Now, with the (IMO) less interesting shows, people are turning the channel on Raw. How long before more people follow suit?

 

I'm not suggesting it's time to panic, but it is time to take a good look at what they're doing right/wrong. In my memory of watching wrestling (27 years), I can't remember a more lackluster WWE/F than today's product.

 

I don't understand how can people talk about the product being the most lacklustre. As mellow said above, 2002-2003, (RAW in particular) was some of the most dreadful TV. Smackdown in 2004 was horrific.

 

The product is fine right now. They put the belt on the guy everyone said was the top heel in the company and he's in the best feud in the company on a main event level. What more can you ask for?

 

 

Head drops and moonsaults?

 

[Noah Fentz 0]

I always thought it was idiotic to just look at one week of ratings and completely whig out, like they do at PWInsider.

 

RAW suffered poorly against an insanely highly rated football game. Big shocker. They're not going to have a decline in profits because they drew a poor rating against football. They're still one of the highest rated shows on cable TV

 

Agreed, but in years past, WWE saw very little loss of audience to MNF. Now, with the (IMO) less interesting shows, people are turning the channel on Raw. How long before more people follow suit?

 

I'm not suggesting it's time to panic, but it is time to take a good look at what they're doing right/wrong. In my memory of watching wrestling (27 years), I can't remember a more lackluster WWE/F than today's product.

 

I don't understand how can people talk about the product being the most lacklustre. As mellow said above, 2002-2003, (RAW in particular) was some of the most dreadful TV. Smackdown in 2004 was horrific.

 

The product is fine right now. They put the belt on the guy everyone said was the top heel in the company and he's in the best feud in the company on a main event level. What more can you ask for?

 

Am I the only one that sees that as a grasp for ratings? Punk losing the title seemed rushed to me.

 

As far as the product being worse at other periods, sure, of course it's been worse, but one would have to think the product now, with the profits being made, should be almost, if not THE best it's ever been. There is worse than lackluster, BTW.

 

lack·lus·ter [lak-luhs-ter] Pronunciation Key –adjective

1. lacking brilliance or radiance; dull: lackluster eyes.

2. lacking liveliness, vitality, spirit, or enthusiasm: a lackluster performance.

[bob_barron 0]

Yea, it's called terrible, which is what it was in 2002.

 

I don't like the way Punk lost either, but everyone's been on Jericho's nuts since he turned heel, especially the HBK feud, so they put the belt on Y2J and make that the feud for the World Title.

 

Don't see the problem

[Noah Fentz 0]

Yea, it's called terrible, which is what it was in 2002.

 

I don't like the way Punk lost either, but everyone's been on Jericho's nuts since he turned heel, especially the HBK feud, so they put the belt on Y2J and make that the feud for the World Title.

 

Don't see the problem

 

Not saying it's a problem, more like a solution [to ratings].

[StrapFinlay 0]

The answer is Hulk Hogan. But Hulk Hogan is the face of not just WWF/E, but pro wrestling in general. And the crowd reaction at WM18 showed the Rock is still several rungs away from Hogan's level - and unless he surprises the world and makes a watchable film, he'll never reach it.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Man, Bob loves defending WWE.

[bob_barron 0]

Man, Bob loves defending WWE.

 

What's your point?

 

I remember when I was called an apologist because I was against such stupid plans as launching a boycott of RAW.

 

I'm just sick of seeing people regurgiate the same talking points from 2002-2003 when the product truly was awful.

 

People act like one bad rating is means for a crisis. A 2.7 rating sucks, no doubt, but in the bigger picture it's not the end of the world. If they get a 2.7 again next week, then maybe it's cause for concern.

 

And the crowd reaction at WM18 showed the Rock is still several rungs away from Hogan's level - and unless he surprises the world and makes a watchable film, he'll never reach it.

 

While wrestling-wise, Rock is not on the level of Hogan, his movies have blown away anything Hogan has ever made.

[Wally Balls 0]

Or maybe...just maybe...people don't find the product entertaining. After all, it's not like your thoughts are universal with everyone elses.

[StrapFinlay 0]

And the crowd reaction at WM18 showed the Rock is still several rungs away from Hogan's level - and unless he surprises the world and makes a watchable film, he'll never reach it.

 

While wrestling-wise, Rock is not on the level of Hogan, his movies have blown away anything Hogan has ever made.

 

Neither are any good. The Rock has not got the global crossover into film yet - and I don't think he has the ability to achieve it.

 

But it depends what group we are considering - if 100 people on the street were asked to "name a wrestler," Hogan would surely be mentioned more than any other name.

 

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Undertaker. Not that I'm a big fan, but the dude has basically always been there.

 

I also tend to think of Flair because his Rumble win was the first time I watched anything wrestling with great interest (more for the Rumble match itself which I had never heard of before but seemed neat.) That and he showed up in Nintendo Power's review of some WWF game way back when, so I never really thought of him as a WCW guy.

 

Hogan, not as much. Between avoiding Hulkamania as a kid and seeing nWo shirts everywhere as a teenager and not knowing what it meant, I see him as much more of a tweener in basically every respect.

[bob_barron 0]

And the crowd reaction at WM18 showed the Rock is still several rungs away from Hogan's level - and unless he surprises the world and makes a watchable film, he'll never reach it.

 

While wrestling-wise, Rock is not on the level of Hogan, his movies have blown away anything Hogan has ever made.

 

Neither are any good. The Rock has not got the global crossover into film yet - and I don't think he has the ability to achieve it.

 

 

Get Smart- 129 mil domestic, 94 mil worldwide

Game Plan- 90 mil domestic, 57 mil worldwide

 

Rundown and Walking Tall also did moderately good business, and Rock is seen as a movie star in Hollywood, given he is racking up A-list leading roles, while many of Hogan's films landed DTV.

 

Or maybe...just maybe...people don't find the product entertaining. After all, it's not like your thoughts are universal with everyone elses.

 

I was defending it against people acting like this is the worst WWF/E has ever been, which is utter nonsense.

[The Truthiness 0]

Barron making people look like idiots is fantastic.

[Wally Balls 0]

Barron making people look like idiots is fantastic.

 

How is he making anyone look like an idiot?

[Wally Balls 0]

Like I said before... Ric Flair has said it's Austin, not Hogan. But based on the fact that Ric has been around this most of his life, I'm going to say that it's Austin too.

[The Truthiness 0]

edit

[The Truthiness 0]

Barron making people look like idiots is fantastic.

 

How is he making anyone look like an idiot?

Because he has dwarfed the argument that Johnson hasn't been a huge success outside of wrestling.

 

 

He also is making people look like morons, when they make claims that "2002-2005" is just as bad as what is going on in the WWE today. When in fact, WWE is the best it has ever been, and yes I'm including 98-2000. The product is awesome and is making a ton of money; the ratings just aren't that good, which in the big scheme of things don't mean much, because it's still the top rated show in cable outside of MNF. Entourage ratings haven't been that great, but that doesn't mean Entourage isn't still an awesome show. What I think Bob is saying is bad ratings doesn't in anyway mean the show is bad.

 

 

If WWE change what they're doing now, because of the ratings, that would be a bad move. They have a good thing going now, they shouldn't fuck with it, but they will panic and do something stupid.

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said before... Ric Flair has said it's Austin, not Hogan. But based on the fact that Ric has been around this most of his life, I'm going to say that it's Austin too.

 

 

Flair talking down about Hogan, and praising Austin is just him being a company yes man, something he has been doing since 2003. Flair hates Hogan, and takes any chance he has to throw shots at him. Which is understandable, Hogan came in to his little mom and pops organization, and made it in to a giant. Rather people want to believe it or not, Naitch was one of the main guys that didn't see anything in Austin or Foley back in WCW, when it was pretty clear that Austin and Foley were 2 young guys that should've been pushed to the moon, but I guess since he didn't say this in HIS book, people are just going to ignore the facts.

 

Flair and Hogan is the same type of assholes, the only difference is Hogan has about 30 million more dollars than Naitch, and Hogan did put the business on the map, his name will always been recognized as the biggest name in wrestling, period.

 

Flair will always be acknowledged by his peers and Melt as the best wrestler ever, but they snicker and laugh at him behind his back.

[Wally Balls 0]

Yes, but I find the product now to be abysmal. Doesn't mean I'm a moron.

[Diamonddust 0]

And the crowd reaction at WM18 showed the Rock is still several rungs away from Hogan's level - and unless he surprises the world and makes a watchable film, he'll never reach it.

 

While wrestling-wise, Rock is not on the level of Hogan, his movies have blown away anything Hogan has ever made.

 

Neither are any good. The Rock has not got the global crossover into film yet - and I don't think he has the ability to achieve it.

 

 

Get Smart- 129 mil domestic, 94 mil worldwide

Game Plan- 90 mil domestic, 57 mil worldwide

 

Rundown and Walking Tall also did moderately good business, and Rock is seen as a movie star in Hollywood, given he is racking up A-list leading roles, while many of Hogan's films landed DTV.

 

Or maybe...just maybe...people don't find the product entertaining. After all, it's not like your thoughts are universal with everyone elses.

 

I was defending it against people acting like this is the worst WWF/E has ever been, which is utter nonsense.

 

And the cherry on top... The Rock has been a presenter at the Academy Awards as well.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

He also is making people look like morons, when they make claims that "2002-2005" is just as bad as what is going on in the WWE today. When in fact, WWE is the best it has ever been, and yes I'm including 98-2000. The product is awesome and is making a ton of money; the ratings just aren't that good, which in the big scheme of things don't mean much, because it's still the top rated show in cable outside of MNF. Entourage ratings haven't been that great, but that doesn't mean Entourage isn't still an awesome show. What I think Bob is saying is bad ratings doesn't in anyway mean the show is bad.

 

Bob didn't make anyone look like a moron. He merely expressed an opinion that today's product is good, which you obviously share. That doesn't make him right. In my opinion, today's wrestling product is abysmal. I basically gave up for good around 2005 when they put Cena on top, but I've tried to give it a chance in recent years. I honestly can't make it through five minutes; it's that bad.

 

Also, on the subject of ratings, Bob was right in the fact that one shouldn't overreact, but that doesn't make them irrelevant. When the ratings go down, it's because less people find the need to watch. That's directly indicative of their enjoyment of the product.

 

On the subject of making money, that's a result of the tremendous WWE business model. That has nothing to do with the quality of the product. However, ratings that are at ten year lows and PPV buys in the can are a reflection of public's interest in said product.

 

Flair talking down about Hogan, and praising Austin is just him being a company yes man, something he has been doing since 2003. Flair hates Hogan, and takes any chance he has to throw shots at him. Which is understandable, Hogan came in to his little mom and pops organization, and made it in to a giant. Rather people want to believe it or not, Naitch was one of the main guys that didn't see anything in Austin or Foley back in WCW, when it was pretty clear that Austin and Foley were 2 young guys that should've been pushed to the moon, but I guess since he didn't say this in HIS book, people are just going to ignore the facts.

 

Flair and Hogan is the same type of assholes, the only difference is Hogan has about 30 million more dollars than Naitch, and Hogan did put the business on the map, his name will always been recognized as the biggest name in wrestling, period.

 

Flair will always be acknowledged by his peers and Melt as the best wrestler ever, but they snicker and laugh at him behind his back.

 

Yes, Flair has a problem with Hogan and citing Austin as the top face is being a company yes man, but shit, this is just all kinds of wrong. First of all, Hogan didn't blow up some mom and pop organization. Flair was a huge draw all across the country for ten or so years before Hogan came to town. He was so big in the south that mega-star Hogan couldn't draw flies there in the eighties. Yes, he's not the star that Hogan was, but he's number 2 for that era.

 

Also, Austin was the guy that Flair wanted to push to the title in '94 before Hogan came in. Hogan screwed that up. Yes, he missed the boat on Foley, but you can't win them all. Oh, and who would snicker and laugh behind Flair's back? And why? That's just asinine. He's probably one of the most respected wrestlers in history.

 

Truthiness, you really need to stay out of arguments like this. It's fine to have an opinion about today's product, but you present those opinions as fact and you look moronic. Aren't you like 17 years old? You have no historical perspective at all.

[bob_barron 0]

In my opinion, today's wrestling product is abysmal. I basically gave up for good around 2005 when they put Cena on top, but I've tried to give it a chance in recent years. I honestly can't make it through five minutes; it's that bad.

 

Putting Cena on top was the absolutely correct move. He's a great worker, a heat machine, can cut a promo and is a big money drawer for the company. It really isn't that bad. You have Chris Jericho and Shawn Michaels having one of the best feuds in years, and now it's positioned as the top feud in the company.

 

They took a chance and put the belt on CM Punk, a guy who certainly doesn't fit Vince's model for the perfect body. The RAWs where they didn't have a GM were great, and I really wish they hadn't brought in one, since I loved the anything can happen mentality.

 

They've also tried to put new faces in top spots, in 2005 Edge was on his way to the top, now he's the top heel on Smackdown. Cena's blew up, and I think all their work on Orton has finally paid off. And Jericho's been totally revitalised.

 

When the ratings go down, it's because less people find the need to watch. That's directly indicative of their enjoyment of the product.

 

Ratings aren't irrevelant, but WWE should be shooting more for buyrates and house shows since that's where the money truly is. Obviously you want people watching it, but living and dying by a quarter hour won't get you anywhere.

 

PPV buys in the can are a reflection of public's interest in said product.

 

PPV buys are not in the can at all. They've been up over the past few years actually. Sure some shows don't do well, but I believe based on the last Observer, that PPVs have done pretty well this year, and they're making money off of everyone.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Putting Cena on top was the absolutely correct move. He's a great worker, a heat machine, can cut a promo and is a big money drawer for the company. It really isn't that bad.

 

It is if you can't fucking stand John Cena. I gotta say, it's kinda funny that people seem to be arguing over which period of WWE was best, forgetting that everyone has their own opinions on the matter.

 

That said, I had given up on RAW until CM Punk won the title. Now that he lost in that fucking horrible booking mess at Unforgiven, I have no desire to watch anymore.

 

but WWE should be shooting more for buyrates

 

Not gonna argue that that's where the money is, but when less people want to watch the show for FREE, don't you think that directly means even less then that want to pay for it?

[The Truthiness 0]

On the subject of making money, that's a result of the tremendous WWE business model. That has nothing to do with the quality of the product. However, ratings that are at ten year lows and PPV buys in the can are a reflection of public's interest in said product

Or maybe people just stopped watching wrestling, which does happen. That doesn't mean the product is bad, it means people grow up and are not interested people watching men fake fight anymore.

 

Too say WWE, which is a wrestling company, making a lot of money, had nothing to with the wrestling product is kind of dumb. People wouldn't know about WWE other ventures, if it wasn't for them you know, watching WWE. Cena was the face of the company at the time, so he should get a lot of the credit.

 

The product isn't abysmal, abysmal is an TNA show. WWE has put on 2 years of awesome television, but hey, that's how I feel. Maybe it would be better if Austin can back, he could flip people off, drink cheap beer, make the crowd say WHAT like some retards, and stun people for 2 hours. Yeah, that's just what WWE needs, fuck compelling TV like HBK/Y2J.

 

Flair was a huge draw all across the country for ten or so years before Hogan came to town

 

He was from 83-86, but a lot of that had to do Dusty, Harley, The Road Warriors, and The RNR Express also. 88-1995 WCW was a mom and pop joint, and Bischoff and Hogan turned it in to national power house, Flair was made to look like an idiot most of the time, which was awful. But hell Flair is just as guilty as Hogan, in making people look bad and going in to business for himself, he just didn't make a ton money when he was being a selfish asshole, Hogan on the other hand made wrestling one of the most popular entities in the mainstream in the 80's, and people made a ton of money being on a show Hogan was headlining. I can't say the same for Naitch, he was an better wrestler, cut better promo's, and influenced a lot of his peers. He didn't make more money, he didn't put 2 companies on the map, and he sure as hell doesn't have as big a name as Hulk Hogan. I doubt Hogan cares, that people in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi didn't come out too see him. People in NYC, Cali, Texas, Chicago, Detroit, and all the other big markets made it a point to come out and watch the big goof.

 

The statement Flair, made about "Austin being bigger than Hogan" was just a bitter statement, from a guy Hogan treated like a peon.

 

 

As far as saying that Hogan was #1 and Flair #2 in the 80's", well it isn't arguable about Hogan being #1, but Flair being #2 isn't as accurate. I'm sure Andre The Giant, Dusty, Macho, and Piper would disagree.

 

Truthiness, you really need to stay out of arguments like this. It's fine to have an opinion about today's product, but you present those opinions as fact and you look moronic. Aren't you like 17 years old? You have no historical perspective at all.

I don't think you need to tell me, what kind of conversations I need too be in, if you don't like what I have too say, I think you shouldn't respond too me.

 

 

No, I'm not 17 and if I was, it still doesn't change the fact that I think, people calling the current WWE product bad right now is idiotic.

 

But I will apologize, for saying "Bob is making people look like idiots". To YOU Korean Cool I apologize, honestly.

[Papacita 0]

On topic, if you're talking all-time WWE, I don't see how you can say anyone but Hogan is the face of WWF/E. As much as I loved the Attitude era, by 02 Austin was nearing irrelevancy, and Rock seemed to step away just as he hit his peak.

 

On the current product...to say that it's the best ever is a BIG ASS STRETCH (I know it's all opinion, but I'm not sure I'd put this current era over the Flair era of 91-93, much less 97-2000), but I think you've gotta give them their due in that they've been on their shit in a lot of aspects this year. HBK/Jericho has been flat out the best WWE feud of the decade, and while I don't like the handling of Punk's reign, on the Raw side at least they've been doing a great job with younger guys like Kofi, Priceless and others. Granted, I watch very little WWE these days, so maybe those saying it's abysmal are seeing some stuff that I'm not seeing, but I can't help but feel some of you are being too hard on them.

[The Truthiness 0]

Papacita, what about Batista/Taker, Cena/Orton, Orton/Hardy and The whole Mcmahon meltdown concluding with the explosion angle from last year?

 

You didn't like any of that?