WWE - THE BEGINNING OF THE END?

[Guest Ciaran The King]

After NOC and Raw, I am now convinced more than ever that we are witnessing the last days of a dying company. I'm not talking instantly or hinting that WWE will completely vanish, but what does the future hold for a company that has no future? No young established stars, no obvious long term booking plans except for Rock(actor) v Cena(no talent), non existent tag team division, no talent divas in the ring or out, and no faith in pushing new talent.

 

After reading what I have read and now knowing what I know, was Vince Jr's decision to expand in 80's the worst decision in Pro Wrestling History? what about his idea to end developmental territories and push no talent muscle heads. Or how about his inability to understand the wrestling world and instigate change in an industry that so desperately needs it.

[ViciousPrism 177]

No. Just.... No.

[dsrchris 190]

What do I keep telling you about the Tag Division? It was non-existant 2 months ago. Now it's in the formative stages, and from what they've been doing so far, it could well increase in strength and momentum. Patience. It's a virtue.

 

In fact, if you don't mind, I'm gonna flip this around a little bit. Imagine if you will that Vinnie Mac pops his clogs tonight, and tomorrow morning you get the call to say they want you to be in charge of WWE. What would you do to bring it out of this "horrible" state it's currently in? I'm genuinely interested in what you'd do differently if you were calling the shots. And I don't want anything smarta*sed like "kill John Cena". I'm actually interested in what changes you'd implement to make the WWE a better place.

 

Hell, everyone else can join in if they like. Only one man can save WWE. You. How are you going to do it?

[Guest John Hancock]

It's the end of WWE and pro-wrestling in general being part of the national conscious and American culture, but that's been happening for about ten years. As for WWE as a company, no, they're be fine. Their T.V. numbers are still huge compared to pretty much everything, their finances a great, their pay-per-view numbers are fine. Short of miracle, they'll never be back to 1999 again, sure, but they don't need to be. Compared to themselves, WWE are in the shitter, but, compared to everything else, they're doing pretty great. The Attitude Era was a one off mega period, that wasn't the average, it was the absolute peak, and, in relation to that, now isn't a end, it's the realistic average. They're still a multi-million dollar company, and their core business will be fine.

 

A decline from what they were? Yes, but, considering how high they were, that was bound to happen.

 

The end of the WWE? Absolutely not.

[Guest Horowitz]

I'd stop putting the belt back on Cena every ****ing 2 months for a start. He doesn't need it.

Punk became a star beating Cena. Twice. Granted, he looked good against HHH but ultimately lost. Imagine how much of a star he could have become had he beat The Game.

The tag division looks to be heading for some improvement so doesn't look too worrying for me. I can only remember a handful of times when it was ever relevant anyway.

I'm not a Henry fan but enjoyed the clean win and domination. This could work.

I'm not a Del Rio fan either but just cant see the point of the loss. They need to stop the knee jerk reaction of putting the belt back on Cena. When alls said and done and Cena finally retires, WWE will be full of mid carders if they aren't careful.

Click click click. Turn the channel.

[Guest]

People seem to forget that John Cena MATCHED Kurt Angle in a wrestling match when he debuted, Cena is doing what he is told to do, much like Hogan was in the 80's.

 

Could WWE do better sure, but as said they don't need to. Can they make another star when Cena goes? Depends on the roster to prove it like Cena did.

[etz 78]

As Matt said, no, and as JH said, they're in a period that is about the average, not really a slump.

 

Also, WWE doesn't want breakout stars, they want people to buy PPV's and come to arenas based solely on the fact they are WWE. With Cena and Orton gone, the main event of Del Rio, Sheamus, Christian etc. would be just fine. People are only mid carders because other people are on top of the card. When the gap opens, someone will step up, they always do. Even bloody JBL did, for **** sakes. And as a wrestler he sucks harder than most of the midcard today.

Edited September 21, 2011 by etz

[Guest Ciaran The King]

Only one man can save WWE. You. How are you going to do it?

 

I like the concept.

 

The first change would be as follows. I know WWE is classified as sport entertainment and that's fine, but I would like to see a more realistic, competitive and believable aura return to the federation. Some of the moves that Sin Cara and Morrison do are just ridiculous and sloppy looking, Bryan/Punk/Sheamus offer a much more realistic feel to a match that many other's don't.

 

With Cena I would just tone everything down, and make Cena a more adult character, word's like poopy and nappy do not belong in a wrestling ring. I dont dislike Cena as much as everyone think's but the perception that's he a polished performer is very annoying.

 

I would also put faith in people like ADR,Ziggler,Swagger and have them get big wins and over established stars.

[Guest John Hancock]

The problem with realism in wrestling is that everyone knows it's fake, and anyone who wants a real fight is watching the UFC. I actually think the total opposite, that WWE could learn a lot from lucha libre and Japan in creating a product isn't trying to be "MMA: The Musical".

 

The biggest problem WWE have is new stars, which shouldn't be a problem. The reason it is is that they're way, way too complacent, and frankly haven't given a shit since they beat WCW, and, secondly, that Vince McMahon is entirely insane.

 

The creative process needs to slow down and stretch out. They need long term angles, planned in advance, with a goal at the end of each storyline to somehow move someone up the roster in a constructive way. They need plans, and they need to stick to them. No more booking on the fly, no more last minute changes, no more cold feet about new stars.

 

That's the booking problem. The other problem, Vince McMahon being mentally unwell, is harder to deal with, because he is the WWE, but, honestly, they'll never, ever, ever, never be big again with him in charge because he's just too crazy. He hates his writers, he hates his roster, he hates his fans, he hates wrestling, he's just lost it, the banned words, the irrelevant rules, the burial of people for backstage issues, the intentional refusal to give fans what they want because they don't want exactly what he wants to give them (see; Zack Ryder in Long Island, or the lack of him), all that sulking 14 year girl shit he does, just because he can, it has to go, it just has to. The only thing that would stop him from being a spoilt brat would be TNA or RoH doing half decent numbers, and that's not happening, so he doesn't care.

Edited September 21, 2011 by John Hancock

[etz 78]

I think Punk hit it on the head when he called Vince "the millionaire who should be a billionaire." and he wasn't wrong about the reasons either, he just didn't address Vince's personality issues.

[Guest Jamster26]

Business wise, it isn't. From an entertainment standpoint, I'd say yeah, to an extent. Well my entertainment anyway. I just want change, I want something drastic to happen in the wrestling industry, that flips it all upside down. Whether that's TNA making a substantial leap to challenge WWE, or WWE changing for the better.

 

However; neither of them things look to be happening at this moment, so I'll just bide my time. Here's hoping though.

[Maxximus 353]

CTK is just taking this way too seriously. Sure WWE was on a great role there for a bit, but just because things change doesn't mean that the company is dying. They'll be around forever and with a little bit of optimism, things could actually get much, MUCH, better in the years to come.

[Guest Jimmy Redman]

In terms of the "how would YOU fix it?" question, in this case its sort of easier to say what you WOULDNT do than actually explain what you would do.

 

For example, Cena beating Alberto for the belt to try and hotshot a rating. THAT is moronic, WCW-killing bullsh*t. Panicking when one week's rating dips in September (its not like they're unaware that MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL has started..) and cutting a potential star's legs off and further devaluing your world title just to get the number back up to 3 for one week, that sh*t is straight up madness.

 

If I have a point to make, its that I'd stop changing the titles for stupid reasons like trying to pop a rating, and actually protect them and make them seem important and worth paying money to see.

 

Its really, twice as important to do it now than do it at a time when the business is better, because when business is good, you dont have to build stuff properly because things will sell themselves to a great degree. When business is bad, you will only sell something if its built properly and seems important. Look at MITB. We're in an environment of bad business and free-falling buyrates. They built a world title match properly, made it important, made it something to see, and look, they increased business by 20%. That is, relatively, a gigantic increase. MITB showed me, more than anything, that even in this period, you can still sell PPVs if you try hard enough.

 

And thats the thing really. You cant just click your fingers and create the next boom period. Its not all luck when they come, but a million factors have to be in place for that kind of thing to happen. They cant magic themselves into the next boom period, but in the meantime you can still concentrate on putting on good shows and selling tickets and PPVs properly. Like I said, its more important that you concentrate on that in a down period since in a down period a good product is the only thing that will make you any money.

[Guest the HiTman]

It's the end of WWE and pro-wrestling in general being part of the national conscious and American culture, but that's been happening for about ten years. As for WWE as a company, no, they're be fine. Their T.V. numbers are still huge compared to pretty much everything, their finances a great, their pay-per-view numbers are fine. Short of miracle, they'll never be back to 1999 again, sure, but they don't need to be. Compared to themselves, WWE are in the shitter, but, compared to everything else, they're doing pretty great. The Attitude Era was a one off mega period, that wasn't the average, it was the absolute peak, and, in relation to that, now isn't a end, it's the realistic average. They're still a multi-million dollar company, and their core business will be fine.

 

A decline from what they were? Yes, but, considering how high they were, that was bound to happen.

 

The end of the WWE? Absolutely not.

 

What is "everything else"?

 

WWE is dead, they just don't recognise it yet.

[Guest John Hancock]

Compared to almost everything else in the entertainment industry.

 

On average, RAW is around the 7th highest rated show of the entire year on US cable. That's huge. They're still an absolutely massive company. They have an average attendance of 7000 people per live event, including house shows, they sell around 5 million pay per views a year, they make around $40 million profit a year on pay per view sales alone, they make about $50 million a year from their various T.V. contracts, they make about $10 million a year from merchandise, they make $40 million from just licensing out their brand name, they make $70 million in DVD sales, f*ck it, they make $10 million just by selling advertising space on WWE.com.

 

In what way, compared to anything other than themselves at their peak, or compared to something mega-mega successful like American Idol, is that a failure? Fact is, compared to 99% of entertainment based brand names, they're still f*cking HUGE.

[Paul 584]

Pfff. You can prove anything with facts.

[Guest Saz]

WWE works on a generational level, growing and changing with the generation, which was what we saw with the late 80s to attitude era.

 

It's just at it's "attract the kids in" stage and then they'll grow up to be just as cynical as most here.

[Omega 354]

As Saz says that whole thing for WWE at the moment is investing in the younger generation, which if you look at the sustainability of WWE is the only sensible option. Keep a 8-10 year old in wrestling until they are say 25 is sure as hell got to be a better strategy than trying to play to 18-25 demographic who don't "buy" wrestling in the same way. That's not just about merch or even "believing" wrestling is real. It's about how you maximise keeping an audience.

 

All the criticism of quick title reigns, undercooked booking and Vince's various personality issue are all relevant of course but only to an audience that WWE feels, and rightly so in my opinion, that if they were going to tune out then they woulod have done so by now. People are still watching as John has quoted enough to keep WWE as the 7th highest rated show on US cable so anyone who says that the WWE is doing "the wrong thing" and that "they're going to die" is to totally misunderstand the situation.

 

Of course there are improvements that could be made to win back some of the "lost" demographic without compromising the clear strategy they are running with now but the ultimate point is the they have no need to.

[Guest mrkennedy]

o.k how about this........ cena,punk del rio finishes a draw at hell in a cell. Vacant WWE title title tournament at survivor series. Punk and Cena reach the final. Vince and Triple H appear at ringside call for the bell during cena giving Punk an STF. Punk gets screwed and Vince Cena Triple H Kevin Nash and John Laurinitis where in at together all along. Instant C.M Punk stardom and instant Cena heel. I think this could sort out the mess they have made at the moment short term. Building Mark Henry as a credible champ bulldozing people till mania and Daniel Bryan causing the upset now that would be making a star also. Just my opinion but hey what do I know its not like I am a wrestling fan or anything

[Guest Ciaran The King]

o.k how about this........ cena,punk del rio finishes a draw at hell in a cell. Vacant WWE title title tournament at survivor series. Punk and Cena reach the final. Vince and Triple H appear at ringside call for the bell during cena giving Punk an STF. Punk gets screwed and Vince Cena Triple H Kevin Nash and John Laurinitis where in at together all along. Instant C.M Punk stardom and instant Cena heel. I think this could sort out the mess they have made at the moment short term.

 

Building Mark Henry as a credible champ bulldozing people till mania and Daniel Bryan causing the upset now that would be making a star also.

 

Great idea, I'd love to see it happen

 

Wouldn't that go against what there doing with Henry now? Also if Orton, Kane and Show can't defeat Henry how can Bryan?

[etz 78]

Because Bryan will use brains instead of brawn and trap Henry into a submission.

[Guest Jimmy Redman]

Yeah, that will be the whole point. Show, Kane and Orton couldnt do it, but Daniel Bryan can, because he's THAT good and has that much babyface fighting spirit to win the big one. There's your new world champion.

 

Its absolutely my dream scenario from this point, but I cant see it actually happening, sadly.

 

As Saz says that whole thing for WWE at the moment is investing in the younger generation, which if you look at the sustainability of WWE is the only sensible option. Keep a 8-10 year old in wrestling until they are say 25 is sure as hell got to be a better strategy than trying to play to 18-25 demographic who don't "buy" wrestling in the same way. That's not just about merch or even "believing" wrestling is real. It's about how you maximise keeping an audience.

 

All the criticism of quick title reigns, undercooked booking and Vince's various personality issue are all relevant of course but only to an audience that WWE feels, and rightly so in my opinion, that if they were going to tune out then they woulod have done so by now. People are still watching as John has quoted enough to keep WWE as the 7th highest rated show on US cable so anyone who says that the WWE is doing "the wrong thing" and that "they're going to die" is to totally misunderstand the situation.

 

See, my point is that I completely agree with you, BUT, I still think that gearing towards the new generation and staying family friendly, that doesnt mean you have to settle for lazy booking. They can get away with it, certainly, and in no possible way in the imagination is WWE "dying". But still, they can be more successful than they are now, even a little bit, by building up PPVs properly, making titles and title matches mean something, making new stars, and so forth. They can be making more money than they are now. And they can still be a kiddie product and build their audience while at the same time building to a PPV match properly, you know? They're not mutually exclusive. Kids dont require sh*tty booking and falling buyrates to stay fans.

 

Thats all I'm really saying. There's only so much room for growth in this environment, because a kids/family audience doesnt have the PPV buying potential that the adult male crowd does, but we've seen as recently as July that there are still enough of them there to make a difference when you book something people will actually pay for. And besides, with the Rock's upcoming run bringing a certain amount of adult males back, they're going to be watching so you might as well try and take their money while they're here, you know?

[etz 78]

I think the idea that you have to book a non-PG show to get the young male audience is bollocks anyway. Sure, to snag a certain portion of the IWC, yes. But the average young male fan would have no problem watching a PG show that was well booked and didn't insult them. For people in that age group, wrestling is often just another excuse to get pissed with your mates, especially the casual young male audience.

[Guest Sean Johnson]

I don't think Bryan will actually cash in at Wrestlemania. Creative doesn't have the faith in him to have him headline the biggest PPV of the year. He's been jobbing ever since winning MITB, which is absolutely ridiculous booking, unless there actually is a bigger plan in mind. The only thing that would make sense is if he turns heel, although I'm not sure if he has the personality to be a main event heel. I don't know if they want him to be a sympathetic underdog babyface, or if they just want to make him look like a joke. Either way, I don't like it.

[Guest Jamster26]

I can't see Bryan winning the big one. I think he'll get screwed somewhere down the line.