WWE: Monday Night Raw 151 -- Redesign. Rebuild. REPLACED.

[Scandale du Jour]

Yeah, I'd have more faith if Triple H was running it by himself, but unfortunately, he comes with Stephanie who seems too much like Vince. Don't get me wrong, Vince is a great businessman, but he let's his ego control his decisions far too often and I feel like Stephanie will carry on that tradition perfectly.

Vince isn't a great businessman. He is a great promoter and he has huge cojones. He isn't afraid of taking risks and some of the risks he took early on paid off enough that I was able to survive the many MANY MANY stupid investments he made. He also seems to be a terrible manager. Great wrestling promoter, great at handling wrestling people, but poor business skills.

As Punk said, he makes money despite being a pretty bad business person and will continue to do so because he basically has a monopoly. Still, business has been trending down for a decade.

 

[DenisSamson3]

As to ratings, September is a time when new tv series are starting. That will also eat in to them for the next few months.

 

[DenisSamson3]

Their product caters to children, but children don't have credit cards.

Good luck getting little Jimmy to convince his mom to spend $120 a year on wrestling shows.

Nope, definitely shouldn't try appealing to 18-45 year old males with disposable income.

That was my mentality for a while. Children will watch content catered to adults either way. So why not expand the market. Although I remember MCG had an article where he showed the average age of a wwe viewer and it was in the mid 40's. Maybe children don't want to be associated with childish shows? Busy playing Gta, watching game of Thrones and other similar shows. O what do kids do these days?

 

[ColePens]

The one argument I always love hearing is that "kids buy t-shirts!" Man... I remember every person age 16-35 wearing a Austin 3:16 shirt when he was good. So it's not like those individuals won't buy shirts, too.

It's a useless argument. WWE will never get it. They will eventually make the final wrong move and I totally believe in my lifetime there will be no more WWE as they went bankrupt. It's not in the near future, but you can just see the multiple terrible and dumb decisions they make and how it affects even their most diehard fans.

But it's pointless.

 

[Engebretson]

Vince isn't a great businessman. He is a great promoter and he has huge cojones. He isn't afraid of taking risks and some of the risks he took early on paid off enough that I was able to survive the many MANY MANY stupid investments he made. He also seems to be a terrible manager. Great wrestling promoter, great at handling wrestling people, but poor business skills.

As Punk said, he makes money despite being a pretty bad business person and will continue to do so because he basically has a monopoly. Still, business has been trending down for a decade.

True, Vince is not a great businessman in the general sense, but I was more meaning he's done well in the wrestling business, though a lot of that success was accomplished in spite of stupid decisions. So, maybe Vince is more business-lucky than he is business-savvy

I know we say this all the time, but I wonder how Vince's decision making process would alter if he had a comparable promotion doing business against him. I cringe every time I watch anything made by WWE about the final years of WCW where they rip the decisions WCW made yet can't help themselves from making similar stupid decisions because there's no other promotion around to capitalize on those mistakes.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

They like to romanticized the Attitude Era, but there were plenty of bad decisions being made back then. However, the good thing they did is to make sure most wrestlers on the show were relevent/had a story. Also, they had a very strong core storyline with Austin vs McMahon and then Rock/Foley vs HHH/Steph (in late 1999 early 2000).

However, when you rewatch some of the shows from 1998-2000, without the shock value, they are pretty "meh". Storytelling in general was better, but wrestling was much much poorer. Today, the wrestling itself is usually pretty freaking great. However, most of the storytelling is rather bad. One other thing I would like to point out is how Vince is struggling to adapt to the changing market. Feuds could go on for months before because there was much less exposure - you could run the same match 3 times a week for 3 weeks as TV was 1 hour once a week. These days, people get sick of most feuds rather quickly because they see the same guys/gals involved with each other multiple times a week. The brand split will help ease that though. Still, they either need more wrestlers or MUCH better storytelling. You can only see Sheamus vs Cesaro so many times before it becomes really really really boring (even if the matches themselves are good). You don't get tired of Sami vs Owens because not only all their matches are 4-star matches, but EACH of them play on the core story between the two VERY well.

They need MUCH better storytelling to make it work in this day and age. Longer more meaningful matches are also needed. From a creative point of view, they are doing a terrible job making you care about most matches. So, Vince is even bad at adapting his product to the current market which, IMO, makes it obvious that he was a great promoter with innovative ideas at some point but always has been a piss poor business person. They have to think of their product as a TV show about a wrestling show and not as "kayfabe". They need much better writing, fleshed out storylines and they gotta give you a reason to watch week in and week out.

 

[DenisSamson3]

They like to romanticized the Attitude Era, but there were plenty of bad decisions being made back then. However, the good thing they did is to make sure most wrestlers on the show were relevent/had a story. Also, they had a very strong core storyline with Austin vs McMahon and then Rock/Foley vs HHH/Steph (in late 1999 early 2000).

However, when you rewatch some of the shows from 1998-2000, without the shock value, they are pretty "meh". Storytelling in general was better, but wrestling was much much poorer. Today, the wrestling itself is usually pretty freaking great. However, most of the storytelling is rather bad. One other thing I would like to point out is how Vince is struggling to adapt to the changing market. Feuds could go on for months before because there was much less exposure - you could run the same match 3 times a week for 3 weeks as TV was 1 hour once a week. These days, people get sick of most feuds rather quickly because they see the same guys/gals involved with each other multiple times a week. The brand split will help ease that though. Still, they either need more wrestlers or MUCH better storytelling. You can only see Sheamus vs Cesaro so many times before it becomes really really really boring (even if the matches themselves are good). You don't get tired of Sami vs Owens because not only all their matches are 4-star matches, but EACH of them play on the core story between the two VERY well.

They need MUCH better storytelling to make it work in this day and age. Longer more meaningful matches are also needed. From a creative point of view, they are doing a terrible job making you care about most matches. So, Vince is even bad at adapting his product to the current market which, IMO, makes it obvious that he was a great promoter with innovative ideas at some point but always has been a piss poor business person. They have to think of their product as a TV show about a wrestling show and not as "kayfabe". They need much better writing, fleshed out storylines and they gotta give you a reason to watch week in and week out.

Yes I agree with you. The wrestling is actually pretty good now. Albeit the storylines don't leave you invested as much. We should have a poll done about how important story line vs wrestling is. To give one example in the sports and fitness world proponents always argue on the importance of nutrition/diet vs training. Most agree that diet is more important than training but the argument is on percentages. Typically it falls around 70-80% diet to 20-30% training if rest is not included as an option. Having a debate on story vs wrestling capability in percentages would be interesting. Although mic work would be another variable. Can an amazing wrestler with bad mic work still get over? Or would a crappy wrestler with great mic work have an easier time getting over?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

They like to romanticized the Attitude Era, but there were plenty of bad decisions being made back then. However, the good thing they did is to make sure most wrestlers on the show were relevent/had a story. Also, they had a very strong core storyline with Austin vs McMahon and then Rock/Foley vs HHH/Steph (in late 1999 early 2000).

However, when you rewatch some of the shows from 1998-2000, without the shock value, they are pretty "meh". Storytelling in general was better, but wrestling was much much poorer. Today, the wrestling itself is usually pretty freaking great. However, most of the storytelling is rather bad. One other thing I would like to point out is how Vince is struggling to adapt to the changing market. Feuds could go on for months before because there was much less exposure - you could run the same match 3 times a week for 3 weeks as TV was 1 hour once a week. These days, people get sick of most feuds rather quickly because they see the same guys/gals involved with each other multiple times a week. The brand split will help ease that though. Still, they either need more wrestlers or MUCH better storytelling. You can only see Sheamus vs Cesaro so many times before it becomes really really really boring (even if the matches themselves are good). You don't get tired of Sami vs Owens because not only all their matches are 4-star matches, but EACH of them play on the core story between the two VERY well.

They need MUCH better storytelling to make it work in this day and age. Longer more meaningful matches are also needed. From a creative point of view, they are doing a terrible job making you care about most matches. So, Vince is even bad at adapting his product to the current market which, IMO, makes it obvious that he was a great promoter with innovative ideas at some point but always has been a piss poor business person. They have to think of their product as a TV show about a wrestling show and not as "kayfabe". They need much better writing, fleshed out storylines and they gotta give you a reason to watch week in and week out.

While I mostly agree with it, the thing with the Sheamus/Cesaro thing is that the simple act of making it a best-of-7 and putting even just a vague championship opportunity out there has made it compelling enough for its place on the card. I mean, if you're going to run a series of matches between two specific talents, the way they've handled Sheamus/Cesaro is about how you'd want to do it. The thing is that you have to make sure that the two talents are going to be reliable in putting in good work and those two definitely work well together. I have very much liked the series especially because the finishes haven't been the same stuff all the time.

The issue that Cesaro-Sheamus is going to run into is that everyone knows that once the result is known and a championship opportunity is awarded, there is going to be no follow up when the inevitable result of a championship win or loss is achieved by whoever. But Cesaro-Sheamus is a breath of fresh air on how to handle putting out the same match multiple times w/o it being pointless and repetitive.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

While I mostly agree with it, the thing with the Sheamus/Cesaro thing is that the simple act of making it a best-of-7 and putting even just a vague championship opportunity out there has made it compelling enough for its place on the card. I mean, if you're going to run a series of matches between two specific talents, the way they've handled Sheamus/Cesaro is about how you'd want to do it. The thing is that you have to make sure that the two talents are going to be reliable in putting in good work and those two definitely work well together. I have very much liked the series especially because the finishes haven't been the same stuff all the time.

The issue that Cesaro-Sheamus is going to run into is that everyone knows that once the result is known and a championship opportunity is awarded, there is going to be no follow up when the inevitable result of a championship win or loss is achieved by whoever. But Cesaro-Sheamus is a breath of fresh air on how to handle putting out the same match multiple times w/o it being pointless and repetitive.

Very good point about the storytelling leading to the series. I would say that the story being told in the ring is the problem. Don't get me wrong, both guys are great wrestlers and the matches are technically very good. However, they bore me. They feel bland as hell. Maybe it is because, as you said, we all know how it is going to go.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

That was my mentality for a while. Children will watch content catered to adults either way. So why not expand the market. Although I remember MCG had an article where he showed the average age of a wwe viewer and it was in the mid 40's. Maybe children don't want to be associated with childish shows? Busy playing Gta, watching game of Thrones and other similar shows. O what do kids do these days?

Yeah, at the time of the article, the average age of the WWE viewer was over 45-years-old and was generally not in good standing in terms of their financial state whereas the average UFC fan was in the 18-29 range, high-tech, made more money and drove luxury cars.


I don't even think HHH is going to be the guy. When Vince dies, while the company will be shaken already, I don't think HHH is the guy to save them. I'm not saying the company will go under, but I don't think they'll be in great shape. They'll just be there.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

It's just how hilarious he made Reigns look in terms of wrestling ability. I think Reigns got off 30 punches/clotheslines and a Samoan drop, followed by tons of rest spots.

No trouble to tell who carried that match.

the fat guy has more stamina than the guy with the body they like

 

[AfroThunder396]

That was my mentality for a while. Children will watch content catered to adults either way. So why not expand the market. Although I remember MCG had an article where he showed the average age of a wwe viewer and it was in the mid 40's. Maybe children don't want to be associated with childish shows? Busy playing Gta, watching game of Thrones and other similar shows. O what do kids do these days?

I remember Kevin Nash talked about this in a shoot interview. Kids these days are playing violent video games like Call of Duty, watching violent TV shows like Walking Dead, watching Miley Cyrus and Nicky Minaj bouncing their boobs and butts all over the place in music videos, and calling each other every cuss name in the book.

So you're having two huge 240 lb men who are supposed to be pro athletes and ass kickers saying "I'm gonna kick your butt!' and spouting off all these happy go lucky cartoon lines, when you've got elementary kids calling each other ****suckers and mother****ers and f****ts at the bus stop.

I think it's crazy that a 70 year old man in his ivory tower thinks he knows what kids like more than kids do. It's 2016, understand what mainstream entertainment is. I get that it's a publicly traded company, and we certainly don't want to simply pander to the crowd with sex and violence, but you can absolutely push the envelope and have a little more serious tone to your show.

 

[Emperoreddy]

KO is a superstar of the year candidate. He isn't far behind AJ in the number of high quality matches he has put on.

 

[DenisSamson3]

I remember Kevin Nash talked about this in a shoot interview. Kids these days are playing violent video games like Call of Duty, watching violent TV shows like Walking Dead, watching Miley Cyrus and Nicky Minaj bouncing their boobs and butts all over the place in music videos, and calling each other every cuss name in the book.

So you're having two huge 240 lb men who are supposed to be pro athletes and ass kickers saying "I'm gonna kick your butt!' and spouting off all these happy go lucky cartoon lines, when you've got elementary kids calling each other ****suckers and mother****ers and f****ts at the bus stop.

I think it's crazy that a 70 year old man in his ivory tower thinks he knows what kids like more than kids do. It's 2016, understand what mainstream entertainment is. I get that it's a publicly traded company, and we certainly don't want to simply pander to the crowd with sex and violence, but you can absolutely push the envelope and have a little more serious tone to your show.

They got camp wwe. That seems to do well on the network. Usually in the top 4-5 per week when it comes out and that is only a cartoon. But I think you are right. One show suited more for adults would be a good test run. Have a third show that rivals raw and smackdown that is a bit more serious and see how well it does. If the ratings go up compared to those two, that gives some data. If it doesn't change or goes down, then we will know the results and can put that idea to rest. Would be interesting to get data on that. WWE is already well known in the world. Everyone seems to know what it is, but getting viewers to tune in is important.


Here is a comparison with a lot of similarities,


The comic book industry had a similar issue. Everyone knew a few comic book characters but movies did not do as well. How did the comic industry turn it around? Comics were seen as childish at one point also. Check out the market size now. A 1.3 billion dollar industry and that is only comics with out movies and merchandise or advertisements.
http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html

Comics were also seen as geeky, a niche and for children at one point. Walk in a comic book store in a major store now and it's mostly adults, and they bring their children along.

Whenever I walk in people seem to spend up to $80 a week on comics. Good money.

 

[DenisSamson3]

I other words, can any lessons be taken from the comic book/movie industry and put towards the wwe?

I know in the 80's and early 90's comic books were overproduced and many of the stories rehashed. That is one gripe during that time period. Also the movies during that time period had a different feel then seen now. One major claim is that blade helped revive the comic book/movie industry and it has gained traction. The irony is that triple H played a villain in Blade 3.

 

[GKJ]

They got camp wwe. That seems to do well on the network. Usually in the top 4-5 per week when it comes out and that is only a cartoon. But I think you are right. One show suited more for adults would be a good test run. Have a third show that rivals raw and smackdown that is a bit more serious and see how well it does. If the ratings go up compared to those two, that gives some data. If it doesn't change or goes down, then we will know the results and can put that idea to rest. Would be interesting to get data on that. WWE is already well known in the world. Everyone seems to know what it is, but getting viewers to tune in is important.


Here is a comparison with a lot of similarities,


The comic book industry had a similar issue. Everyone knew a few comic book characters but movies did not do as well. How did the comic industry turn it around? Comics were seen as childish at one point also. Check out the market size now. A 1.3 billion dollar industry and that is only comics with out movies and merchandise or advertisements.
http://www.comichron.com/yearlycomicssales.html

Comics were also seen as geeky, a niche and for children at one point. Walk in a comic book store in a major store now and it's mostly adults, and they bring their children along.

Whenever I walk in people seem to spend up to $80 a week on comics. Good money.

The have a show like that, it's called NXT.

Or if you want to get the realest, Ring of Honor

 

[M.C.G. 31]

KO is a superstar of the year candidate. He isn't far behind AJ in the number of high quality matches he has put on.

Those two will go to war for the rest of the year for that honour. This board will have such a hard time choosing between the two come HF Slammys time.

 

[Emperoreddy]

Makes me wish they could have a match to cap the year off.

Watch Sami and Jerhico put on a clinic to add Sami to the discussion and make things harder.

 

[Blitzkrug]

Those ratings are hilarious. Even more so considering the two games ESPN had were garbage (Skins/Steelers was a yawner, Niners/Rams might be in the running for the worst game in monday night football history)

if you can't compete with what was essentially 6 hours of turnovers and punts, god help you.

Smackdown might actually beat out RAW at this rate.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

Raw - 2.69m
SD - 2.658m

ohhhhh boy.

 

[DenisSamson3]

Raw - 2.69m
SD - 2.658m

ohhhhh boy.

Good for Smackdown.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

Smackdown was a far far better show, not being 3 hours and not having to go against Football...Smackdown is going to pass Raw in ratings and we might see Vince take the big one when it happens.

 

[Blitzkrug]

I wonder how much of that is because smackdown is cannibalizing the Raw viewers.

Wouldn't surprise me a good chunk of the crowd went "hey, all of my favorite guys (Cena, Styles, Wyatt, not having to put up with Foley or Stephanie) are on this show now. That means i can ignore RAW!"

Like, Raw has almost nothing going for it;

- Two of their more talented wrestlers (Cesaro/Sheamus) are engaged in a 7 match series where the winner gets literally nothing. Why should anyone care?

- They easily have the better women's division, but apparently have no clue how to book it.

- Reigns still sucks. Rusev is underutilized. Let's put one over the other.

- Jericho, who is having his best run probably since 2008 has nothing to do.

- Rollins is meh.

- New Day has long worn out their welcome. Gallows and Anderson, who were one of the better tag teams around are reduced to goofs.

The only thing they have going for them right now is Owens, but even he can't do it alone. No one is sitting through three hours of garbage like Jinder Mahal vs whoever. Smackdown offers arguably the better quality in less hours.

 

[DenisSamson3]

I wonder how much of that is because smackdown is cannibalizing the Raw viewers.

Wouldn't surprise me a good chunk of the crowd went "hey, all of my favorite guys (Cena, Styles, Wyatt, not having to put up with Foley or Stephanie) are on this show now. That means i can ignore RAW!"

Like, Raw has almost nothing going for it;

- Two of their more talented wrestlers (Cesaro/Sheamus) are engaged in a 7 match series where the winner gets literally nothing. Why should anyone care?

- They easily have the better women's division, but apparently have no clue how to book it.

- Reigns still sucks. Rusev is underutilized. Let's put one over the other.

- Jericho, who is having his best run probably since 2008 has nothing to do.

- Rollins is meh.

- New Day has long worn out their welcome. Gallows and Anderson, who were one of the better tag teams around are reduced to goofs.

The only thing they have going for them right now is Owens, but even he can't do it alone. No one is sitting through three hours of garbage like Jinder Mahal vs whoever. Smackdown offers arguably the better quality in less hours.

The 2 hour show is important.

 

[Blitzkrug]

It's already there lol.

Edit; maybe Raw just can't handle the beast that is Blaine Gabbert.