WWE's new business goal

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Rysenberg, May 30, 2012.

  1. "- WWE’s new primary goal is TV ratings and their various TV products. The change in direction has been in the making for some time now and comes straight from Vince McMahon.
    In the past, pay-per-view has been WWE’s #1 goal but that’s no longer the case. One of the main ideas now is to use pay-per-view events to bring in viewers to WWE’s weekly TV shows. "

    Sorry if posted. I'm actually quite pleased with this news. I find it a bit irritating that a massive corporation like WWE can't afford to concentrate on buyrate and ratings. It's not exactly hard? But anyway, they have good enough superstars that put on good matches at PPVs, so they probably won't be affected.

  2. Awesome. Concentrating on ratings = a good product. Could be a good summer.
  3. Backwards FTW!
  4. Sounds like TNA's business model rofl.

    As Joe said, it's completely ass backwards.
  5. TNA does this, people yell "WCW"

    Vince does this, people applaud.
  6. It's a double edged sword. An overall better product due to focusing on weekly show, but consequently lower buyrates due to the PPVs not being so good. Probably had to do it due to Raw being three hours now.
  7. I think they might be going this route because PPV buys are on the decline anyway (excluding Mania)

    Every time I see PPV buy rates they are always down from the year before for that PPV
  8. True, their buyrates are decreasing, so they'll invest on something else, TV. I hope it works out well.
  9. As said, it's completely backwards. TV should provide the buildup to the matches that you'll eventually pay to see on PPV. Do they even make money off of ratings? This is just more proof that WWE see themselves as some sort of regular TV show (they even refer to the first Raw and Smackdown every year as the season premiere) instead of a wrestling company.
  10. Urm they basically are a TV Show. And I quote. :cole: "Raw is the longest running TV Show in history."
  11. Not the kind that leaves and goes off the air for about a year before coming back on, and not the kind that will end one day with their "final season." So they should not see themselves as some sort of TV show on the same level as Mad Men or Game Of Thrones or whatever other TV show is out there. I like Cornette's rant about them, saying that they actually believe they might eventually win Emmys or something, when they won't.
  12. I think they would have won an emmy already if it wasn't labelled under sports ent. It was said in the documentary.
  13. lol An emmy for what? Certainly not for acting.
  14. This. So how is it backwards? PPV buys are never going to increase consistently in modern society.

    It's common sense. It's completely logical for TNA to be doing the same thing so the hate on this is retarded.

    Also, it means a better weekly product... isn't that what you people want? You just want one random PPV a month being 5/10 and consistent 1/10 shows?
    • Like Like x 1
  15. True, the benefit of them focusing on weekly shows is that we'll have a good show every week, instead of a good show every month.
  16. Also, to add more, a good show every week = more PPV buys.
  17. My thoughts exactly. And I think as long as they give wrestlers like Bryan, Punk, Ziggler etc time we will still get quality PPVs.
  18. The best the show was recently was during the Summer of Punk.
    The best the build for a PPV was recently was Money in the Bank.

    So why can't you do both?
  19. With the improved weekly shows the build should naturally become better. The weekly shows will contain better story-lines and what not.
  20. I like the fact that they're going to be focusing on improving their TV products, which is great news. I'd rather be watching a great show and a semi-decent paper view than watching boring TV products and a decent paper-view.
Draft saved Draft deleted