Skip to main content

WWE Makes Front Page of NYPost



http://nypost.com/2014/10/30/the-wwe-gets-ready-to-crumble/

Probably not the national press they'd like to be getting.

But their ENGAGEMENT scores are so high!  

I just can't wait for stock to drop to $9.99 so we can get the most epic screenshot of all time. 

Comments

  1. YankeesHoganTripleHFanOctober 31, 2014 at 12:38 PM

    Fuck the New York post. I know we don't all get along and have diffrences of opinion, but when trash like the Post is hating against us, that's the time we should stand together and deliver the double bird.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Writers just love to write shit like "WWE GOT POWERSLAMMED"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Strangely, the stock seems to disagree. It's held steady around the $12-$13 range despite the disastrous news.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That title is so hyperbolic, Goku has been fighting in it for seven days now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/103114front.jpg?w=780

    http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/103014front.jpg?w=780



    WWE did not make the front page of the New York Post

    ReplyDelete
  6. Us being who?

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's not saying a whole lot.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Someone please explain to me why ONLY adding 30K subscribers is bad please.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Because they over-promised and under-delivered.

    ReplyDelete
  10. YankeesHoganTripleHFanOctober 31, 2014 at 12:49 PM

    wrestling and their fans.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ok but why does that matter?

    If this comes off as arguing or trolling or whatever it isn't meant to, I am just trying to wrap my brain around it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just because of the investment being made by the shareholders. When they talk about revolutionizing the medium and can only capture a portion of what they promised, that makes them look really bad.

    It's just a matter of playing with other people's money and not doing what you sold them on.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't think they were bashing the fans. They were reporting facts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. People aren't being realistic in their expectations...

    ReplyDelete
  15. And yeah, you don't have to buy the stock, free country and all that, but for all those people who drove the price up in March, how disappointed are they?

    ReplyDelete
  16. 28k of them came from the international roll out, so it as less than 3k new domestic subs, and the world wide rollout only did 28k which is way less then they thought and if you look at the domestic growth model they basically hit 90% plus of their cap at launch, so it's probably the same for the international ones. This is why its bad.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Didn't they add it to a whole bunch of countries? Also I thought part of the story was how many subscribers they lost? Like adding 30k net isn't that good if in the new markets they actually added 100k, but lost 70k domestically.

    ReplyDelete
  18. So even though it is growth it is bad because it is less than projected growth?

    ReplyDelete
  19. You mean the WWE wasn't being realistic with the expectations they set?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Network’s 36 percent churn rate — meaning 255,000 of the 700,000 subscribers WWE had going into the quarter dropped their subscription.

    From NY POST.

    Losing 250k customers is bad.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Basically, because the domestic growth has basically capped at 700k give or take 10k, the fear is the international #'s are basically gonna be capped out at just over 30,000 at any given time. They were hoping for a few hundred k Intl, and meltzer thought they thought they could get 100k internationally at least.

    So now the hope that the international sub's are coming has been dampened.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Network’s 36 percent churn rate — meaning 255,000 of the 700,000 subscribers WWE had going into the quarter dropped their subscription."

    WWE needs to figure out how to maintain subscribers.

    ReplyDelete
  23. YankeesHoganTripleHFanOctober 31, 2014 at 1:05 PM

    Yeah and the post only reports negative WWE stuff. As I recall the last time I saw them on the front page, Owen Hart was lying dead in the ring.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Because that's all the WWE does that is newsworthy, colossal screw-ups.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Well its really zero growth as far as wall street is concerned, and this their logic.

    Here in the usa, wwes home base, it grew like 2,800 which is miniscule, and now it looks like the USA #'s will be stuck around 700k,
    But the hope was for a few hundred k of international sub's. They did 28,000, so 1)the international sub's weren't even close to half of what was hoped 2) based on the domestic growth model wall street will assume that the 28k will only go up 5-10% at best because the domestic sub's basically capped out at the launch.

    So even though, yeah on paper, 31k more people have it now than at q2, to wall street is actually looks like they lost sub's.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Stock buyback en masse is what I see happening. They can't de-list, but they can cut costs everywhere else and minimize the damage until Vince dies or HHH Pedigrees him through a ledger.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Why you chose this line of work is mind boggling to me. If I wanted web traffic to increase by a net 10% and I only got a net of 5% and that net 5% was all monetized I'd be thrilled.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Now to play devil's advocate (HE TOOK HIM STRAIGHT TO HELL, KING!)

    People will pay their $10 to get the ppv's. They won't be 'subscribers' per se, but they will be putting bread in the basket. They'll find a way to make those numbers look good.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It really takes ALOT of getting used to. There are so many things in the commodity world that just would look so counter intuitive from the outside looking in but somehow the #'s end up working out. Its basically weird math where not only must the numbers get bigger but they must get bigger in the most efficient way or it throws off your equation.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Agreed. It's crazy quant shit that 99.9% of us can't wrap our heads around. But the .1% that can... well, they have a lot of money. So it matters to them.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Apples and fish. You're talking about one website with (presumably) insignificant global traffic vs a publicly traded company.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well I wasn't really talking about any website and was just drawing a mathematical comparison of sorts, but I get your point.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I wasn't either, but I was trying to highlight the differences. A massive corporate juggernaut like WWE (and that's being generous) has way more variables to consider than a web site. You can dig past that into amazon vs google vs whatever, but I think you get me.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Not anymore they don't. They just need to get their $10 for the ppv each month.

    ReplyDelete
  35. To be fair, plummeting stock IS worthy of reporting. People have actual money invested, and they have every right to know what's going on.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Too bad they couldn't put a positive spin on that for you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Next time on DRAGONBALL Z!

    KAAAA!

    Next week!

    MEEEE!

    ReplyDelete
  38. I'll give them this much - a consistent 700k (give or take) paying their $10 for each ppv is probably better long-term than banking on crap ass ppv's that do 90k or less at $60

    ReplyDelete
  39. Worst_in_the_WorldOctober 31, 2014 at 1:35 PM

    The no subscription committment thing has teh chance to be a giant mess. You're gonna go back to super small buy numbers for the B PPVs, which are pretty much everything except Summerslam, Rumble, Mania, and maybe MITB (though the numbers on that one have never come close to the other three, so that's a B-show too.) Then the big 3 get huge numbers but at a hugely reduced price. The whole point of the subscription model seemed to be using the big events as loss leaders and you make your money on the months that previously did shitty buyrates.

    Which again makes me predict that Mania 31 is absolutely coming off the Network, and eventually Summerslam and maybe the Rumble too. It'd make zero sense otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yep. In the real world WWE not promising what they deliver actually has consequences. In wrestling, people on the internet will defend it and make excuses.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The stock price inflation was based in large part on the WWE showing the growth they claimed. If their growth is slower than expected, investors consider the stock overpriced and sell. This hurts Vince's bank account.

    Yes, they are still making improvements, which is good. But less of a profit means less conspicuous consumption, which means cost-cutting to maintain the level of return investors expect.

    Were WWE still a private business, you're right; more numbers would always be good. And after a year or two, when all the kinks are ironed out, the WWE Network will be a license to print money. But the main story is that great promises equal great expectations. (The stock bubble from around the time of the new TV deal is a prime example.)

    ReplyDelete
  42. Worst_in_the_WorldOctober 31, 2014 at 1:41 PM

    I think it comes down to they took two of their biggest company assets and revenue streams--- the monthly PPVs and the video library--- and bundled them into this product that has come WAYYY under expectations, and is showing terrible signs for future growth. This growth rate is totally awful, considering that rolling it out worldwide also did almost nothing.

    Plus the big question is: if 700-750k is their ceiling, what is the basement for this thing? Especially with the new non-subscription based plan, what happens if instead of growth a year from now this thing has 400k subscribers?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hell yes it does.

    ReplyDelete
  44. LOL. I was just thinking that too. I've never read any kind of main stream article about the wwe where the author didn't say something about "putting the smackdown" on something or something getting "bodyslammed" etc,, It really does just make me laugh. I don't know of anything else in the world that gets that kind of treatment when people write about it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Idiot.. can't you see that referee Tim Whit is on the bottom of the page??? They even made a cartoon drawing of Lillian Garcia for the other one..

    ReplyDelete
  46. "WWE STOCK DROPS FASTER THAN OWEN HART"

    ReplyDelete
  47. The one positive I thing I would just say as a observer of the wwe business model is that for most things today the floor and ceiling for the wwe don't seem to be that far apart. Much like their TV ratings will stay around 3.8 million no matter, maybe the wwe subs will stay around 600k or so, no matter what. I don't think that is close to the consensus in the investor world though. But I could see the same business stragegy that will basically ensure they never touch a million subscriptions might also keep it so it never dips below a close # to 700k. That's really not good news at all but it I guess you could call it a silver lining (if I'm right, and I'm just going off watching wwe ratings on the internet basically on this one)

    ReplyDelete
  48. I thought your first paragraph was the whole brand new PPV business model they were going with. Of all the things they need to change to get the network more customers I really don't think a month to month subscription was in the top 10.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Big News!! TNA is close to signing a new TV deal with WGN. You can read all about it on the front page of the Vance Middle School Gazette.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Yep, not meeting earnings targets is a huge blow for any company. And right now, the WWE looks like they can't deliver at all on their new medium (the network). Hence shareholders are much less likely to invest. Down to the very basics it's not that complicated - deliver a solid product that generates revenue and people will invest. Don't and they wont

    ReplyDelete
  51. BUT, will people still buy those now that they had a taste? For ex, I'm a huge life long fan as are most people here, but I'd never drop 60 bucks on a PPV of theirs. There just isn't anything that exciting they could do to make me want to. Sure they'll get buys and all, but PPV is dying and they have their weight behind the network, I don't know if they'll pull the plug on it that quick. Will be interesting to see though, b/c I can totally see them panicking and trying this and also getting their asses handed to them financially.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Worst_in_the_WorldOctober 31, 2014 at 1:55 PM

    No that's a good point, but I think there's (no shit) a big difference between maintaining a passive free-TV audience and maintaining a paid one. Yeah ratings hold steady (although over the course of the decade, they've dropped year to year) but good God the PPV numbers have fallen off the map over ten years. It's crazy to look at numbers for even B-PPVs in the mid 2000s and compare them to PPV the last few years. (Pre-network.) Unforgiven 2006 did a number that is where Summerslam is at now.

    Which is all to say, yeah there's die hards but if wrestling fans stop liking the product they definitely do end up going away.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Forget a buyback. Go all the way. Take the company private.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Bam Pow! Comic Books are taking over the big and small screens.


    Erry Time.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Gunther the Nasty LoserOctober 31, 2014 at 1:58 PM

    "WWE STOCK GETS KNOCKED OUT AND RAPED LIKE STEPHANIE MCMAHON NEEDS TO AT THE HANDS OF THAT LAZY FUCK BROCK LESNAR"

    Guess who'd write that one

    ReplyDelete
  56. Yeah but how do you spin underperforming numbers? Investors aren't dumb and the markets wont lie - investors will bail if they don't improve.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Worst_in_the_WorldOctober 31, 2014 at 1:58 PM

    I feel like the month to month thing is less of a move to help Network numbers, and more a move to eat less of a dick on the Wrestlemania payday. I'd bet they already decided they absolutely need to charge $60 for Mania this year, and month to month is legally what they had to do because otherwise anyone who just signed up for a 6-month subscription already would be getting Mania.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I want to play Devil's Advocate too! http://postmediaprovince.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/devils_advocate_500.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  59. Jorge SteinbrennerOctober 31, 2014 at 2:20 PM

    I'm definitely one of the early adopters they lost, as I didn't renew after the initial six months ended. I intend to re-up at some point, but there haven't been PPVs since Summerslam that felt "must-see" to me, and the content is not updated nearly enough (or, frankly, is interesting enough yet) to make me rush back to renew. I have no problem paying the $9.99, even if I'm consistently watching (I'm a Spotify Premium subscriber, for instance), but there's nothing that's making me rush back to re-up again. More video libraries (Mid-South, AWA, GWF), adding more classic WCCW, and improving the overall viewing experience would make this a higher priority for me. I'll be back, probably even by Survivor Series, but they could have made a couple of extra months off of me.

    ReplyDelete
  60. This is going to even out.


    Everyone's expectations were irrationally inflated at the start ("OOOOH! A million subscribers"), which pumped up the stock, and then irrationally deflated ("OMG--real trouble"), which is pressing the stock back down.


    For once, Vince is actually ahead of the curve--note the oohing and aahing over HBO's announcement of a streaming-only channel. Once they get the programming issues out of the way, they'll keep subscribers.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I sound like a broken record, but oh well, these three-hour Raws just kill the biggest incentive to buying the Network, which is $10 PPVs. There's literally no difference between the two shows.

    ReplyDelete
  62. He is ahead of the curve, but again, WWE's fans are not the same as HBO's fans. Many WWE fans are probably already HBO fans. And if I've got money to burn, I'm going with HBO.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I agree. They need to do whatever they can to keep the hardcores (i.e., everyone posting here) happy, because frankly, that's the only real audience for this thing. And that's where smart programming and making more footage available comes in.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Again, yeah BUT those inflated expectations didn't just materialize out of thin air. It came from the company itself.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Absolutely. And the market didn't do their homework because everyone's making money (!), so why should analysts research it, right?


    I'm not a Vince apologist: I think he set the bar too high (WE FELL FOR IT! WE ALLLLL FELL FOR IT!), but it's hard to believe that they didn't follow Business 101 and have a contingency plan in place for numbers that were less than ideal.

    ReplyDelete
  66. they would be lucky to get 300k to pay for WM at 60 bucks after selling the 9.99 network. I remember the huge hit Netflix too for daring to suggest raising prices to pay for more streaming content (movies mostly). People lost their proverbial shit and Netflix backed down (and now has an absolutely awful selection of newer movies but a lot of TV shows on streaming). WWE would not only fail to get enough people to buy WM at full price to really make that much more than what they would just keeping it on the network for 10 bucks, but the ill will it would create may very well do irreperable damage to the company. Not a good idea. At this point they have two options. Make the network work enough to replace ppv revenue they once had or downsize/cut costs to work with smaller revenue in this area. There are no other options. A return to the traditional ppv model is foolish and I would fully expect Dish and DirecTV to demand a bigger cut of the ppv revenue than before as a big middle finger for even allowing WWE to get back on ppv through their service.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Well, nobody ever said you had to be smart to invest in the stock market.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I know some people are saying "well isn't any growth good?" No, it's not. And heres' why. That churn rate is astronomical. If Netflix or Hulu had that churn rate heads would role. When we had monthly programs at Blockbuster, we shot for a 15% churn rate on the movie or game pass. There is an old adage in business that it is easier to keep an existing customer than to get a new one and it costs more too. If you keep your existing subscribers, you can concentrate on providing content to keep them and finding new sources of revenue within the network (ads, maybe figuring out how to include clickable links to buy merchandise and products within shows, etc.) If you constantly have to find 250k new customers every 3 months you spend a ton on advertising, free trials, and wasted time on Raw shilling for the network.


    In addition the other issue is that growth in the US is almost zero. Minus some insanity that the barrier was a commitment the whole time and numbers skyrocketing for any month between April and December, they have to accept that reaching the break even point of 1.4 million is not going to happen. What they have discovered is that 700k is the market. Maybe if they find a new Austin or Rock or Hogan that changes. But for now that's the market. Not only does that upset investors but it results in the company having to cut costs and to piss of wrestlers by continuing to reduce salaries, payoffs, and ultimately the roster (which cycles into continued overexposure for a select few, resulting in continued lack of desire to see a glorified Raw for $10).


    I've said this before and I'll say it again and again. Two options: Figure out how to make network compelling enough to convert more people and gain lapsed fans from older eras or cut costs. Combined with reduced revenue on DVDs (product of the network for the most part) and reduced live show revenue (not a good sign for a product's health), WWE simpy has to adjust their cost/revenue model for a 700k subscriber base to replace the former ppv revenue base.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Worst_in_the_WorldOctober 31, 2014 at 2:48 PM

    You might be right but I'd bet anything that's their thinking at least with Mania this year. Doing this month to month thing and including Mania would cost them so much money. They'd have a million people paying $10 for Mania and then like a few hundred thousand people paying $10 most other months. They're gonna try and get as many people as they can get back to paying $60 for Mania, whether it works or not who knows.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "There is an old adage in business that it is easier to keep an existing customer than to get a new one and it costs more too."
    I hate to cherry pick one line, but there are so few giant businesses that seem to follow this line of thought at present.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Worst_in_the_WorldOctober 31, 2014 at 2:59 PM

    Wonder if WWE Network could attempt to latch onto an existing digital platform, such as a Hulu Plus or Netflix, and sell itself as a tiered ad-on. I know that doesn't exist for either platform yet but I bet that as cable goes away you're gonna see a bit of a "cable-ization" of Netflix/Hulu with tiered sports packages etc.

    Basically that if you're a Hulu or Netflix subscriber, you get the ability to buy the WWE Network (built into the interface of the specific service) content maybe for an extra $8 a month or something. It opens WWE Network up to a huge pool of existing subscribers, plus Netflix/Hulu get their cut etc.

    ReplyDelete
  72. you are right but WWE isn't wal-mart or Target where the appeal is low prices not customer service. Small businesses live by that adage it is still taught in business classes, and I had it drilled into my head at Blockbuster and other retail jobs I had back in the day. Then again some giant companies like Wal-mart just figure rather than worrying about doing something right to keep customers, you simply force your competitors out of business so people have little choice, plus lobby for government to make sure you have an ample customer base of people who can't afford to shop anywhere else. "End political rant."


    Whether the adage is adhered to by some giant companies or not (and I'm sure it is, particulary with companies that make products such as johnsons and johnson, Nabisco, Coke, etc.) it is apropos for WWE and the network.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I disagree. I think this is a hail mary. They haven't figured out how to convert those folks from Raw viewers to network viewers. They are hoping that fear of commitment has been an overarching factor in this issue. I have little faith that it is, but they figure it's worth a try. I absolutely don't expect them to take WM out of the equation this year and if they did I stand by my statement that it may sink the company permanently at the level it is (they could continue on as a downsized version for years, but the ill will would be insane if they pull WM out of the package). And again, 50% of the ppv providers dropped WWE. They have to get those providers back and convince them to keep the same revenue split as before. Naah, I think it's the hail mary. Hail mary number two will be an advertising blitz all over to try and get lapsed fans to try it out.

    ReplyDelete
  74. that is what I suggested yesterday. Find a partner.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Worst_in_the_WorldOctober 31, 2014 at 3:25 PM

    Mediocre minds think alike I guess ;)

    But yeah, I really thing it'd be great if they could swing it. Same with getting the Network as a premium HBO-esque (or, WWE On Demand-esque) channel on cable systems. Totally opens them up to huge markets of people who are already subscribed to these services and are comfortable with the interfaces, and then ordering the WWE content is as simple as hitting a PPV-esque button and paying an additional fee within that account.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Trying to renew my network sub, page not found.

    W.T.F.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I think the Hulu/Netflix option is better.. I doubt that the major cable and satellite companies are willing to help the WWE Network stay afloat. Easier to let them fail and teach other content providers a lesson.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment