WWE problems

[cincrazy]

Not sure how many on here have been/or are currently wrestling fans, but thought this was worth talking about. The WWE has seen a massive plunge in their stock due to the WWE Network falling short of expectations so far as far as number of users buying it, and the WWE not getting the network TV deal they'd been predicting. Lemelson Capital, who bought a large (though not controlling) stake in the WWE is calling for changes, and for the executive management to be removed or the company sold. In essence, they're calling for the head of the McMahons.

Now, I'm not business savvy to say the least. How legitimate of a case do they have? Can the board of directors actually force Vince McMahon out of power as chairman? Or could the WWE revert back to a private company to calm the storm?

Regardless of what happens, should be an interesting next few months for the company. The Network was a huge risk, and so far it looks to be scaring away a lot of investors. Could Lemelson Capital prove to be an even more dire threat to Vince's ownership of the company than WCW in the 90s?

[Tom Servo]

Lemelson can demand changes, but WWE can do whatever they want...though the shareholders may drive the stock down even further if they don't like WWE's choices. WWE seems to finally be paying the price for their decision to become a publicly traded company, as well as their tendency to overhype their audience and business acumen. Still, I think what is mostly going on is that Wall Street got worked by WWE and now they're pissed. I don't think Vince, Steph, and Triple H are going anywhere, but a lot of faceless suits will probably be sacrificed.

The funny thing too is that the Network is awesome, the best thing WWE has done in years if you ask me.

[LoganBuck]

Lemelson can demand changes, but WWE can do whatever they want...though the shareholders may drive the stock down even further if they don't like WWE's choices. WWE seems to finally be paying the price for their decision to become a publicly traded company, as well as their tendency to overhype their audience and business acumen. Still, I think what is mostly going on is that Wall Street got worked by WWE and now they're pissed. I don't think Vince, Steph, and Triple H are going anywhere, but a lot of faceless suits will probably be sacrificed.

The funny thing too is that the Network is awesome, the best thing WWE has done in years if you ask me.

I have heard several ESPN types, comment on the new products from the WWE, and they think that they are on the cutting edge. Maybe a little early, but the model they are creating for their streaming product is run through the MLB.com servers. They think that the streaming product could become the ala carte streaming option that all sports will embrace in the coming years, as consumers turn away from tradional bundled cable and satellite TV products. The average customer of subscription TV has something like 187 different viewing options, and most households only watch 17 channels. Keep an eye on this, it is very important to how sports media will be shaped over the coming decade.

[Yachtzee]

I have heard several ESPN types, comment on the new products from the WWE, and they think that they are on the cutting edge. Maybe a little early, but the model they are creating for their streaming product is run through the MLB.com servers. They think that the streaming product could become the ala carte streaming option that all sports will embrace in the coming years, as consumers turn away from tradional bundled cable and satellite TV products. The average customer of subscription TV has something like 187 different viewing options, and most households only watch 17 channels. Keep an eye on this, it is very important to how sports media will be shaped over the coming decade.

My personal theory is that, in reality, we're only paying for the 17 channels everybody watches. Most of those channels only show repeats and cheap reality shows. My guess is that they exist primarily as big bundles of advertising slots with the shows as something to give the appearance of niche programming. I suspect if they ever approved a la carte pricing and I told my cable company I didn't want TLC because I don't watch Honey Boo Boo or Sister Wives or Toddlers and Tiaras, my cable company would say, "Too bad. You're getting it for free whether you like it or not." Most of those extra channels are like the free rolls and side salad you get when eating out at a restaurant. Just cheap filler to keep you occupied while you wait for your main course.

[Raisor]

The McMahons aren't going anywhere. They control 90% of the voting stock.

[LoganBuck]

My personal theory is that, in reality, we're only paying for the 17 channels everybody watches. Most of those channels only show repeats and cheap reality shows. My guess is that they exist primarily as big bundles of advertising slots with the shows as something to give the appearance of niche programming. I suspect if they ever approved a la carte pricing and I told my cable company I didn't want TLC because I don't watch Honey Boo Boo or Sister Wives or Toddlers and Tiaras, my cable company would say, "Too bad. You're getting it for free whether you like it or not." Most of those extra channels are like the free rolls and side salad you get when eating out at a restaurant. Just cheap filler to keep you occupied while you wait for your main course.

The point is that there is a growing % of people leaving traditional content providers. All the free rolls, and drink refills, don't matter. This is why net neutrality is this big thing, and the general public doesn't seem to understand it/care. The government and the telecom giants are not acting in our (the consumers) best interests.

[Caveat Emperor]

The point is that there is a growing % of people leaving traditional content providers. All the free rolls, and drink refills, don't matter. This is why net neutrality is this big thing, and the general public doesn't seem to understand it/care. The government and the telecom giants are not acting in our (the consumers) best interests.

Yup -- there was a thread about this over on the ORG. The fact is that the "streaming revolution" is going to be killed off in it's tracks by the end of net neutrality and the (eventual) shift in policy by home internet providers away from uncapped, unthrottled data. Comcast (the country's largest provider following it's merger w/ TW) is already planning on imposing hard data caps on all home users within the next few years.

These people aren't stupid -- they see the future and they're going to work in a such a way as to ensure that they'll continue to maintain profit levels as people transition away from traditional "cable packages" and towards more on-demand and streaming content. To think there is this utopian future awaiting where everyone enjoys a la carte programming available at low monthly prices is, frankly, naive.

As far as the WWE is concerned, they have a two-fold problem --

1.) They upset the apple-cart with their WWE network, but (ironically) they don't have the muscle behind them to make it work.

2.) They toned down their content heavily so that Linda McMahon could run for the Senate, and they've now got a tremendously watered down product that's almost entirely devoid of compelling or interesting personalities.

[M2]

1) Data caps are pure evil. We should be beefing up our networks, not throttling our data.

2) The WWE Network gets at the fundamental problem that has plagued the wrestling industry since the dawn of pay-per-view: only a small, niche audience watches wrestling's biggest events. Imagine if the Super Bowl audience was 1/20th the size of the average Sunday game broadcast.

3) The reason the WWE didn't get the TV deal it wanted is because it treats TV like an infomercial. It's on TV to sell something else ad the networks know it.

4) The WWE has been in what I'd a Corporate Era for most of the past decade. It keeps running out the same guys in the main event and it's not being terribly creative. Add the PG nonsense on top of it and you get a product that feels a bit stale. They've got a ton of talent, they just need to unleash it.

[Slyder]

Not sure how many on here have been/or are currently wrestling fans, but thought this was worth talking about. The WWE has seen a massive plunge in their stock due to the WWE Network falling short of expectations so far as far as number of users buying it, and the WWE not getting the network TV deal they'd been predicting. Lemelson Capital, who bought a large (though not controlling) stake in the WWE is calling for changes, and for the executive management to be removed or the company sold. In essence, they're calling for the head of the McMahons.

Now, I'm not business savvy to say the least. How legitimate of a case do they have? Can the board of directors actually force Vince McMahon out of power as chairman? Or could the WWE revert back to a private company to calm the storm?

Regardless of what happens, should be an interesting next few months for the company. The Network was a huge risk, and so far it looks to be scaring away a lot of investors. Could Lemelson Capital prove to be an even more dire threat to Vince's ownership of the company than WCW in the 90s?

The McMahon's aren't going anywhere anytime soon they own far too much of the stock. The main problem I would say is that WWE struggles to make main event stars that they can market. Look at the last few years who were the "big draws" Undertaker (late 40s, granted like 2 months out of the year), HHH (early 40s), Cena (37), Orton (34), Batista (45) who's the guy to replace these guys? They bring Hogan and Rock back for a few weeks/months for nostalgia pop.

Daniel Bryan (turns 33 this week) has a great following but IMO their marketing of him (from a merchandise side) failed miserably. His niche was/is largely the crowd sick of the same old crap and most of his merchandise is so kiddy and stupid most of his fans aren't going to get it.

CM Punk (35) has become the biggest in the company star twice. Once after the Pipebomb heard around the world (only to be steamrolled by creative and HHH's ego) and again in 2012-2013 which led to a meh year long title reign where he played 2nd banana (on tv and PPV) to whatever Cena was doing. Worked to the point that he pretty much told them to take this job and shove it before a Mania run, which is usually what makes/breaks wrestlers entire year.

Brock Lesnar (36) paid a TON of money, and did bring a lot of new eyeballs from MMA when he returned in 2012. He usually only wrestles at Mania, Summer Slam, Royal Rumble, and Survivor Series.

Who else has the WWE made and can really make money off of?

They also tried to expand beyond what brought them to the dance. The XFL, Bodybuilding Associations, WWE Studios, WWF restaurants, 2 Congressional campaigns by Linda. They all lost TONS of money. As a publicly traded company they have reached the point where they're going to HAVE to change SOMETHING.

This doesn't even include the problems they have in creative, basic story telling is a lost art because they are CONSTANTLY changing writing teams. An example of this is John Cena vs Bray Wyatt at Mania... Wyatt is suppose to be this big bad guy playing mind games and messing with Cena's head, he has these two goons with him big bad mo fos. Cena "rises" above it to win a glorified 3 on 1 match whats the point of this story to continue? The "good guy" already "beat the odds".

[Slyder]

4) The WWE has been in what I'd a Corporate Era for most of the past decade. It keeps running out the same guys in the main event and it's not being terribly creative. Add the PG nonsense on top of it and you get a product that feels a bit stale. They've got a ton of talent, they just need to unleash it.

PG isn't part of the problem, the people calling the shots are. The Hogan Era, also known as "the Golden Era", was PG and its considered to be one of the greatest eras in WWF/WWE/WWWF history.

[Caveat Emperor]

PG isn't part of the problem, the people calling the shots are. The Hogan Era, also known as "the Golden Era", was PG and its considered to be one of the greatest eras in WWF/WWE/WWWF history.

It was one of the greatest eras in WWF/WWE/WWWF history because the show was fairly comparable with what you saw on TV. It was PG in an era of PG programming. The "Attitude" era reflected an America where "Jerry Springer" was a nationwide sensation -- it was kinda trashy, habitually stepping over the line of good taste, and very funny. The product now doesn't reflect where the rest of the entertainment world is; it's inoffensive and mostly uninteresting in an era where it competes with countless reality television shows and original cable programs that aren't afraid to push boundaries.

[Caveat Emperor]

4) The WWE has been in what I'd a Corporate Era for most of the past decade. It keeps running out the same guys in the main event and it's not being terribly creative. Add the PG nonsense on top of it and you get a product that feels a bit stale. They've got a ton of talent, they just need to unleash it.

They've got a ton of talent -- the problem is twofold:

1. They don't have nearly enough guys who can handle the microphone effectively.

2. They're booking way too many guys as "tweeners" and not doing enough writing to keep feuds/matches interesting.

Problem 1 is fairly obvious when you watch the show now -- they've really only got 3 or 4 wrestlers in the entire company who really know how to come out and cut a promo, and one of those people (Cena) has a gimmick that is so completely tired that nothing he says really registers with anyone any longer.

You think back to when the WWE owned the world in the late-90s / early-00s, and they had an endless supply of dudes who they could throw out for a talking, fued-building segment with no worries: Rock, Austin, Foley, Angle, HHH, Jericho, HBK, Edge, Taker, etc. With so few guys on the roster now that can carry an entire segment in the mic, it limits what they can do creatively. Take a guy like Wade Barrett -- he's a fantastic talker, he's got a new gimmick that is over as hell, and they don't have anyone on the roster that he can get into a "war of words" to build a decent feud. So, instead, they're stuck running some stupid "#1 Contender" tournament just so he can fight RVD at a PPV.

If you have guys who can't talk, you better be scripting some incredible stuff in-show to keep people invested in what's going on.

[Chip R]

They've got a ton of talent -- the problem is twofold:

1. They don't have nearly enough guys who can handle the microphone effectively.

2. They're booking way too many guys as "tweeners" and not doing enough writing to keep feuds/matches interesting.

Problem 1 is fairly obvious when you watch the show now -- they've really only got 3 or 4 wrestlers in the entire company who really know how to come out and cut a promo, and one of those people (Cena) has a gimmick that is so completely tired that nothing he says really registers with anyone any longer.

You think back to when the WWE owned the world in the late-90s / early-00s, and they had an endless supply of dudes who they could throw out for a talking, fued-building segment with no worries: Rock, Austin, Foley, Angle, HHH, Jericho, HBK, Edge, Taker, etc. With so few guys on the roster now that can carry an entire segment in the mic, it limits what they can do creatively. Take a guy like Wade Barrett -- he's a fantastic talker, he's got a new gimmick that is over as hell, and they don't have anyone on the roster that he can get into a "war of words" to build a decent feud. So, instead, they're stuck running some stupid "#1 Contender" tournament just so he can fight RVD at a PPV.

If you have guys who can't talk, you better be scripting some incredible stuff in-show to keep people invested in what's going on.

I don't follow it as much as I used to but I'd say you make some great points.

I wouldn't worry too much about this stock plunge. Companies go through this all the time. And, as far as wrestling goes, they are the only game in town. Of course they see themselves as more than just a wrestling company.

You would think they would use Paul Heyman's talents as a booker to spice up their in-ring product. I don't necessarily mean going back to the hardcore days but telling a better story. But part of WWE's problem is complacency. They don't have a WCW to compete against and they don't have an ECW to co opt their ideas.

I don't see a problem with them being PG. The Attitude era was great but those fans are grown-ups now and probably have kids of their own. Even the biggest Stone Cold fan is going to want his 6-7 year old to watch a PG product rather than a rougher product. That's how you build your fan base. Hook them at a young age and while they may not be fans for life, they will certainly be more likely to pass it on to their kids.

[Tom Servo]

Apparently Paul has 0 interest in being involved with creative, he says he has fought his last battles with the McMahons in regards to the creative end of WWE.


I don't think PG is necessarily the problem because even when they went PG in mid 2008 the product was still strong for the rest of the year. I think WWE really fell into a rut of relying on the same main event guys well past any point of reason. So many "future main event players" were never given a chance to run with the ball, and the fact that Randy Orton vs. John Cena headlined the last PPV of 2013 is mind-boggling to me.

[Caveat Emperor]

I don't think PG is necessarily the problem because even when they went PG in mid 2008 the product was still strong for the rest of the year. I think WWE really fell into a rut of relying on the same main event guys well past any point of reason. So many "future main event players" were never given a chance to run with the ball, and the fact that Randy Orton vs. John Cena headlined the last PPV of 2013 is mind-boggling to me.

It gets back to my point, though: it's hard to give a guy a world title / top-card push if they can't talk. You have a guy like Roman Reigns, for example -- he looks the part of a huge star, he's over with the crowd as part of his group, and he does good in-ring work. His promos are garbage, though. He's OK in pre-scripted backstage packages where (presumably) they can do a few takes and let him play off the rest of the Shield, but when the mic is hot his personality just disappears. You can get SOME mileage out of the "Cold, silent, killer" character, but it's hard to keep fans interested and invested in a character like that.

Or, look at Fandango; kid got over as hell with his goofy theme song and gimmick for a few minutes and there was an opportunity to really build something with the character, but the moment passed and the opportunity was missed because he can't talk. Now he's mired in midcardom with storylines that revolve around a breakup with his girlfriend over twitter.

Don't get me wrong -- Creative has been garbage for several years now (their inability to script interesting feuds and stubborn refusal to let characters occupy traditional heel/face roles is frustrating), but the WWE is doing themselves no favors when it comes to talent development. They're pumping out muscled-up dude after muscled-up dude from NXT and their training programs, but they're not getting enough people with personality into the pipeline and they're certainly not getting enough people with stage presence or showmanship on the mic.