Is success the problem with WWE?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by WarMachine, May 22, 2014.

  1. After seeing the Evolution/Shield stuff for a few weeks, I was hit by an idea - is being a success the problem with WWE? Here is what I mean: before 2000, things were different as you had regions, territories and finally WCW/ECW/WWF so you never really saw the same group of wrestlers together on the same show for any extended period of time. Every few years a contract would come up and someone would jump ship and before that, moving from territory to territory was just a fact of life. Then things changed and wwe was the only real option. Now we are seeing guys spend a decade plus in the same company. Guys like Hogan and Flair may have been multi time champs but they did it in a couple companies where as guys like Orton and Cena are multi time champs in the same company.

    I am not thinking so much about the lack of competition as are we just not used to seeing guys around for this long and that is why we have issues with the wwe product? Look at when Hogan left WWF and went to WCW - people got tired of him quickly there too. In the past, you had your mainstay talent but there was a lot of people coming and going which doesn't happen as much anymore. Was this problem going to happen no matter what? Is it simply a matter that we are not used to seeing guys around this long that we dislike the product even if the ideas are as good as ever and make sense for the characters?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. You're saying that due to WWE's success, people tend to stay there and that makes them stale? Well, you have a point. If you're used to the territory days, where you had one or two top guys but the rest always rotated, then sure, it's annoying that someone like Orton (for example) would be around since 2003 or something and be the same guy. I've been a fan since around 2007/08, so I'm not really used to guys leaving, so for me it's pretty much the only way things work, but I guess it can be worked around. For instance, you take a guy like Cena, who has been doing the same shtick since 06, then yeah, it's stale and it hurts the product (but he's the top guy, so he's expected to be like this even by territory logic), but when you have people constantly turning and reinventing themselves, it's fine. I also think that this is a problem, yeah, but right now it's starting to change because we're getting a lot of new guys. The old guys are still around and they shouldn't vanish at all, so indeed it's a problem that comes with there being only one big promotion, but atm I think it's starting to fade away a bit.
     
  3. #3 The GOAT, May 23, 2014
    Last edited: May 23, 2014
    Territories dying out isn't the problem. They were set to become extinct eventually anyway with the rise of cable television and PPV. The problem is how the business started to change in the mid/late 90's with the advent of having a PPV every month and booking star versus star matches every week on the weekly TV shows. With that type of format, guys are now exposed before a national audience on a much more regular basis and thus they run the risk of getting stale much quicker, and in general, feuds are also burned through much faster as a result.

    It was much different back in the day since there were only a handful of PPVs a year and star vs star matches were saved only for the big shows. Let's take 1989, for example. Hulk Hogan, the premier star at the time, wrestled a total of like 11 or 12 matches on national TV that whole year. Now compare that to today. John Cena, Daniel Bryan and the like wrestle that total amount of matches on TV before we're even three months into the year. At that rate, of course the audience will get burned out on guys quicker.

    Then again, so many wrestling fans need their fix and pro wrestling has always been such a popular "sport" that people still continue to tune in in droves, hence the excellent ratings that WWE manages to still pull in every week. Even during their worst period for business in the mid-90s, they were still setting cable records for Raw. They put very little effort into Smackdown on most occasions nowadays, and yet millions still tune in. So while we may be burned out or tired of a superstar (or a number of them), are the majority of fans, really?
     
  4. That is a consquence of having 7 hours of TV time to fill each week and a PPV a month. The product would be so much better if WWE returned to a brand split and had fewer PPVs. Very few feuds last longer than a month or two, which doesn't allow them to develop and build to the pay-offs. Also, with less programming WWE wouldn't have to repeat and recycle matches so often. Ratings would increase, but obviously the TV deals earn them more money than they would gain.
     
  5. I have to disagree with a lot of this thread.

    Good booking, good writing, and good storytelling are the keys to pro wrestling success.

    If you put together good matches that make some sort of sense, most fans will talk about how good your product is. If your storylines are coherent and treated as though they're important, then people will tune in week after week to keep up with what's going on. If your in-ring talent (that's not just wrestlers, it's managers, commentary, backstage on-screen personas, etc.) buy into telling the story as well as possible, the fans will buy in and care about the story that's being told.

    Professional wrestling is a unique product. With 7 hours of fresh TV per week and 3 hours of PPV every month, nothing should ever happen on a WWE broadcast that doesn't fit in somehow to a storyline. No, not all of the storylines are of the utmost importance, but all of them must have some importance. You have 5 titles in WWE (WHC, IC, US, Tag, Divas). That's five opportunities to tell a story. Sometimes, those storylines are one month (generally, when you have a hot new champ, his/her first feud leading to their first PPV defense is only going to take a month). Sometimes, they're storylines that last three months (just a personal aside: generally, pro wrestling storylines shouldn't last more than three months; when they do, they have to be huge: nWo, Invasion, the Authority, McMahon/Austin: all big angles that needed more than 3 months; Wyatt/Cena shouldn't run more than 3 months....it's not important enough). The key here is to maintain several storylines (I'd say nine to twelve) that are going at any one time. That gives you an opportunity to have something fresh every time someone turns on WWE television. Some of you are going to say: pro wrestling fans can't keep up with that many storylines, durrr. To you, I say: piss off. It's nothing for a regular television drama (which airs one hour of fresh television a week for 22 - 24 weeks a year in the U.S.) to have three storylines going at any one time, so it's no problem for WWE to do 9 - 12.

    The other opportunity there is that you individually may not care about every storyline, but you'll probably care for half or two-thirds of them at any one time. And if you care about two-thirds of the show, you're going to watch the entire show just to see what happens. Or you're going to go to websites to get the results, which you were probably doing anyway, so WWE's not out anything.

    wk
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Creative is the problem with the WWE today... the fact that they are held back by the "PG Era" is the problem. I'm not saying to bring back a full fledged bloody, chair headshots, nearly nude women Attitude Era.. I'm saying allow creative to push the boundaries a little more. They have done that a little recently.. the recent increase in "foul" language, the chair headshot to Bryan from HHH, Bryan hitting Kane in the head with a wrench, the backstage action segments slowly becoming more frequent again. Let creative be free to write these things in and then when it runs by the powers that be they can make that decision.

    It just seems to me like in this era of pro wrestling entertainment everyone is walking on eggshells and it's just not as entertaining as it should be.. spice it up just a touch and viewership totals will start to rise again. Stockholders will be happy when they see the numbers going up.

    My opinion.
     
  7. This may be your best post, and that's saying something. Also why the hell is Rob Ford your avatar? :lol1:

    Am quoting you because of your call for "9-12 storylines". How would you divvy those up? While a brand split would be a great way to solve a lot of problems, if anyone remembers 2010 they know you're exactly right. The other shows we just need a motivation to watch. If we have the current "3 storylines for the main event scene" model, add 3 to the Raw mid-card, 2 Smackdown-exclusive storylines to go with some added extras for the Raw feuds, a real feud that's exclusive to Main Event, and maybe even a little mini-feud that can go on during a series of Superstars matches. That would be 10 which, as you say, would hopefully help with one of the understated problems which that there isn't something for everyone. And the mid-card storylines won't be as deep as the main-event ones, hell some can be downright silly, and many of them you may not need to "keep track of" as much as "watch and enjoy".

    Anyway on topic, having other shows that are equally as relevant as WWE would be a great thing for the wrestlers themselves. Lets jump into an alternate universe where WWE and TNA are emanating from the UK where they are both of equal importance while ROH plays the ECW role. Both WWE and TNA are completely different types of shows and a wrestler on one show could be completely different on the other. If a John Cena jumps over to TNA to become the heel alongside Dixie and jumps right into a feud with Bully Ray as they plant the seeds for an EC3 vs John Cena feud, that's a much different role than he had in WWE, while the 'E is forced to elevate someone else to take his place, or just grab Austin Aries for themselves. It's obvious what the effect will be on Cena, but lets forget about the top guys for a moment. If the two companies could snag the "stale, misused" midcard talent from each other, the possibilities are endless. What if TNA saw this dude called Big E who just claps his hands on the ringside and brings him in to show more of his humorous personality (lets not even start on Ziggler) and possibly return to WWE as a whole different character with a much higher ceiling? What if Samuel Shaw is tired of being stuck with a terrible character and can run off to WWE or ROH where he can just put on really good, athletic matches the fans can love? (And lets not get started on Kenny King)

    Having some competition and being able to jump from place to place can only bring more star power to the wrestling business as a whole and make the shows a whole lot fresher, combined with all the other things that people talk about with the whole "competition" debate.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. I like Rob Ford. He's America's Mayor......even if he's Canadian. Also, apparently he's a fan of the Texas Longhorns, so I say: "Hook 'em, Rob!"

    Anyway, my idea would better be executed by a brand split. It would create the illusion of competition, even though the two "companies" (Raw and Smackdown) are owned by the same entity. But, and I know you remember the actual brand split like I do, you could have guys move back and forth between brands (and adding ECW actually helped that). So, if Ziggler couldn't be the top guy on Raw and was getting stale, maybe he would function better alongside the guys in Smackdown. Or maybe he could be the top dog on ECW and prove himself as a Champion, showing he should be given the opportunity to be the top guy on Raw or Smackdown (it happened for CM Punk and Jack Swagger). Obviously, it may not always work out that a successful ECW Champion went on to be a great WWEC or WHC (if I can revert back to those titles), but it gives them a little more of a proving ground and it gives people more opportunities to build their characters and their capacity to perform.

    The real problem is not with WWE's success so much as it is with WWE's overwhelming control of the market. Every company that comes along enters the market with the knowledge that, should they really try to compete, they're likely to get crushed before they can even get off the ground. And they also know that, anybody who they have who gets big is going to get the opportunity to leave and go to the WWE, and most of them will leave for the WWE if given the opportunity. It's going to take someone with a deep knowledge of the company, a shit ton of charisma (almost cult-leader-like would probably be best), deep enough pockets to steal top guys away from WWE and keep going despite losing talent to WWE, and the chops to keep their product on TV to ever really compete and, well before that's happened, WWE will have done everything they can to shut them down.

    I can't think of a lot of companies who would be willing to take the losses it would take to finally compete with, much less beat, WWE.

    wk
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Vince was just playing a nice game of Monopoly. He didn't mean anything negative. :cry:
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. Fans are the problem with wrestling in general. "The Big Bang Theory" just popped out a 10.1 Nielsen Rating.

    http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html (May 12, 2014)

    People watch that, yet I think the lead chick on that program is a piece of garbage. My opinion is irrelevant.
    The one thing the top Nielsen programs tend to feature which wrestling does not is freshness
    WWE is compelling with characters one can invest in. In fact, Nielsen programs are just as predictable as WWE is.

    WWE purposely eats Nielsen shows and steals their material, yet doesn't get anywhere close to the numbers.
    If people genuinely believed WWE was completely fresh, the numbers would elevate. (Easier said than done, I suppose)

    I'd like less sponsorship, cut the political BS and make the content more believable and competitive.
    The reason people watch any given program would amaze you and probably startle you. Most are flukish, sometimes its wifey