Skip to main content

Unsubscribed is the new Future Endeavored


Hi Scott,

Who is getting the "heat" for the lack luster quarterly report and the almost-but-not-quite failure of the Network. I presume the investors are blaming the McMahons; the McMahons are blaming everyone but themselves; and WWE employees and wrestlers are keeping their mouths shut lest they become unsubscribed from their pay cheques. 
 
Mike

They've already fired one set of bean counters over this, but I think Vince himself takes on a lot of the blame, because that's what he does.  But yeah, investors are definitely blaming the McMahons.  He just way, way over promised and now this is what the result is.  

Comments

  1. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: to date, I have not received one email or phone poll asking WHY I subscribe to the WWE Network or WHAT I would like to see to keep me as a customer. How the hell do you launch a niche network like this without a thorough understanding of who your core, paying audience is and what it is they're looking for?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gotta think all Vince cares about right now is circling the wagons, trying every trick they know to make the numbers look not-so-terrible, and hope to ride this out til the inevitable upturn in business that comes early in the new year. Sadly what we see on TV will reflect that. But at least it's not like it'd have been not too many years ago where you'd have had Vince out there on TV making a wrestler called "The Investor" kiss his ass. Literally.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is what happens when you put a Carny on Wall Street.


    "See the freakish HALF APE, HALF MAN!"


    *Guy comes out with a thick beard*


    This is the WWE.

    ReplyDelete
  4. True, though you can bet your watching habits are being compiled as statistical data which will generate a report which everyone in WWE will ignore because holograms are better.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wrestling is a business build on lies.

    Perfect for for Wall Street.

    /snark

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure they'll get a huge uptick in business if they can't sell WrestleMania via PPV.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm going to watch nothing but Dusty matches and Russo era PPV just to fuck with them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Come to think of it, that information would actually be really interesting to see.

    ReplyDelete
  9. WWE has spent most of the last 30 years not really knowing what the core paying audience wanted, so why start now?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM

    Stock is up to $13.13! Go Vince! Woo!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 12:41 PM

    $13.17!

    ReplyDelete
  12. You keep flipping me off, I'm going to shove this ice cream bar down your throat, Hoss!


    #NeedsHossApprovaltofeelValidated

    ReplyDelete
  13. Here's the thing - common stock holders of Class A WWE stock have little voting power, almost all the power rests in the Class B shares which are controlled almost exclusively by the McMahon's. The Board could just suspend the dividend, watch the Class A stock drop to near 0, and the company could continue to operate as long as it remained solvent. Hell, they could even get some bonds together and buy up the Class A shares just to close the loop.

    The WWE will be just fine...the Class A shareholders will be the ones who are screwed. Even when I believed that the WWE was profitable, I would never buy the stock because there was no leverage for the stockholder.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Shit just got real:
    @WWENetwork has just tweeted the launch of the Network in the UK has been delayed until further notice.

    Right as their tour is about to start.

    ReplyDelete
  15. They probably couldn't figure out what the UK equivalent of $9.99 was, and it threw all of their promos into chaos.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hey, if that results in Championship Wrestling from Florida being uploaded, I'm all for it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is true (although having dabbled a little in web analytics at my job, it can be overwhelming amounts of data to people who are not well versed in it). As someone who works in the market research industry, pairing together survey data with actual usage is the best way to become more knowledgeable. Many companies do this, sounds like WWE is behind the ball.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I wonder if the "British Bulldog is going to win whether he likes it or not!" kid was waiting anxiously for the network?


    We may never know because he may never get it.


    And we don't know who he is or where he lives.


    But for some reason, I like to think he's MaffewofBotchamania.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wow yeah just saw that, not a good thing probably

    ReplyDelete
  20. Delay announced 20 mins before it was meant to go live apparently.

    What's always made no sense is how they've managed to sort a deal with Sky who carry all the tv and have PPVs built into their coverage. Any network viewers won't be giving Sky PPV money and thus that deal changes negatively for them. Have they been behind this delay maybe?

    ReplyDelete
  21. It definitely seemed like it would be in SKYS best interest to cock block the network like what happened in Canada. I was kind of surprised when I read it was going to be exactly the same thing as we have here and I wondered how they worked that out with SKY? Maybe they didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  22. They'll get to that once they figure out how to upload the 26 cartoons from the 80's they talked about 3 months ago

    ReplyDelete
  23. They'd also have to deal with taking the company officially private which costs quite a bit. Doubtful they'd do that anytime in the near future. I think they're focusing quarter to quarter and really they need a long term plan. It's tanked other companies (blockbuster, etc) when they lost sight of their market and where they stood in it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Front page of WWE.com

    The launch of WWE Network in the U.K. has been delayed until further notice.

    Considering that this was posted minutes before the launch, I wonder if we're talking a matter of hours, days or months before it finally becomes available.

    ReplyDelete
  25. My work here is done.


    *drops mic*

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bean counters? Del Rio was released weeks ago, Scott

    ReplyDelete
  27. Virgil's Gimmick TableNovember 3, 2014 at 1:11 PM

    This company is just botch after botch. WCW 1999. And the new year is close.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dell went from public to private and it wouldn't be a bad model for the WWE to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You COULD say... Vince McMahons promises to shareholders were... *removes sunglasses* WAY over the top.


    YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  30. I wonder what the problem with the UK launch is, then again i still haven't heard any legit discussion on why the Network in Canada is the way it is from any credible sources ( Still only available in 20% of the country)


    Problems with the tv rights holders i presume?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wrong

    THIS IS CZW! IM OUTTA HERE! HUUUAAGHH

    ReplyDelete
  32. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 1:42 PM

    This company just can't seem to catch a break.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I know the Monday Night War/Attitude Era defined the latest boom, but some of us would like to watch NWA: WCW, Saturday Night, Prime Time, Superstars, Wrestling Challenge, WCCW and other shows from the 80s.

    ReplyDelete
  34. WWE Stock Timeline, November 3


    9:30 AM - 12.35


    12:25 PM - 13.38 (peak, hovered around there for two and a half hours)


    2:45 PM, approx - WWE Network/UK delay is announced


    3:47 PM - 12.82

    ReplyDelete
  35. JEEZUS! YOU'RE GONNA DIE

    ReplyDelete
  36. Larry David's cameo on Entourage is my favorite thing in the world. Ari's stammering over excuses

    "What language are you speaking? Are these excuses? I still don't know what happened you're speaking Chinese"

    ReplyDelete
  37. Oh, good Lord, could you imagine the ads over there? Lawler making HILARIOUS "It's only 10 pounds" jokes a la Abbott and Costello.


    The world's been spared. For now.

    ReplyDelete
  38. mind elaborating on what you mean about Blockbuster? Blockbuster made many missteps but I don't follow that one. Many feel it was really dumb to split off from Viacom but as far as knowing their market I never felt they overreached. In fact I would argue they were far too reactive rather than proactive in regards to Netflix and were stupid to try to build a mail order business when Netflix already owned the market and instead should have jumped straight to creating a streaming service.

    ReplyDelete
  39. 20 minutes before the launch?

    I'm suspecting a big solicitors letter was delivered by Sky, how they could let it get so close and then have to delay the launch is hugely embarassing.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "WELL... That's the end of Ziggler's push!"

    ReplyDelete
  41. Just click on the link and look at the website. It's 2014 and they still aren't capable of having a decent loading page. No wonder they can't manage to roll out the network for their second easiest market.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Don't worry about WWE -- they've got a crack team of video editors inserting Cena into every important wrestling moment of the past 30 years.


    "Cena has Andre up! Can he slam him!?!"
    "Bret isn't letting go of the Sharpshooter, but Cena isn't tapping!"
    "What just happened? McMahon told them to ring the bell.John Cena is the new WWF Champion after putting John Cena in the Sharpshooter, and John Cena looks pissed"

    ReplyDelete
  43. Yes, exactly. They we're always behind the curve as to what people wanted. For instance, when they should've been focused on streaming, they were focused on adapting to Redbox's model. They never caught up to what the market was calling for. Drawing a comparison, if the WWE thinks of themselves as an entertainment co (which they should) then recognizing that people have many other forms of entertainment to choose from is key. They wouldn't be the first company to misread the market and crash and burn. Not saying they will b/c historically they do very well when the chips are down.

    ReplyDelete
  44. If Kevin Steen wanted to pick a WWE name, he should have called himself "The Network" -- he would be Champ in 3 days.

    ReplyDelete
  45. WWE.com have updated the announcement to add "WWE would like to thank our fans in the United Kingdom for bearing with us." and disabled the comments after nearly a thousand posts in the space of an hour
    Still no update of timescales though.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Seriously, the biggest gripe for me is that Raw and Smackdown aren't available the next day.

    What crack genius negotiated that deal with Universal, where you have to wait a month for an episode of Raw but the PPV is available to rewatch the NEXT DAY?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sunday is 17 years since Montreal. Now there's a perverse irony at 4 PM EST weekdays, with Vince being screwed every time they ring the fucking bell.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Universal HD channel plays RAW pretty much all week after airing. Not sure if you've got that channel. SmackDown too.

    ReplyDelete
  49. But they CAN afford Jorge Lucas, George's cousin from south of the border.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nope, don't do the whole cable thing.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I'd like to see a where are they now feature with 90's fans. Little black kid jumping and down in the front row after Ron Simmons beat Vader for the belt is my favorite

    ReplyDelete
  52. For all their failures, getting rid of the commitment and the free month was enough to finally get me to renew my subscription that expired months ago. I don't mind paying 10 bucks a month to watch old wrestling if I have the option to cancel anytime.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Gunther the Nasty LoserNovember 3, 2014 at 2:12 PM

    "the "British Bulldog is going to win whether he likes it or not!" kid"

    I've always liked to think that the kid was an uber smark who understood the business, that Bulldog was booked to win but didn't want to, but had to go along with the plan anyway b/c it was his job to do so

    ReplyDelete
  54. Gunther the Nasty LoserNovember 3, 2014 at 2:13 PM

    OMG DID YOUZ GUYS HEAR DAT THE NETWORK WUZ DELAYED IN THE UK

    ReplyDelete
  55. Maybe Joey Styles can lay off his new hair club for men subscription and fix mine.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Universal HD only plays WWE on Saturday night. Raw and Smackdown air in a 5-hour block of 7:00 PM eastern to midnight, then again from midnight to 5:00 AM.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I thought it was the fans' fault for wanting ice cream?

    ReplyDelete
  58. So the Brits can't get the network? Looks like Vince's great great great great granddaddy still holds a grudge over King George III and what he did to his daughter.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Rodgers gave them a shit load of money for exclusivity, and it was more than the WWE expected to get from a roll out similar to the rest of the world. It's as simple as that. From the WWE standpoint it's smart.

    I assume the uk deal has something to do witn sky, but i can't imagine what it would be.

    ReplyDelete
  60. You just don't realize how good you have it smdh

    ReplyDelete
  61. I hope Vince returns as an authority figure and uses the Network as a meta device in a storyline so he can somehow work in "I'll unsubscribe you from your 'pay cheque.'"

    ReplyDelete
  62. Is it only Saturday? Felt like more. Maybe because it runs all day on Saturday.

    ReplyDelete
  63. WWE would get even less money if NBC/Universal let them show Raw/Smackdown the day after on the Network. WWE can charge more for 30 day exclusive rights. PPVs, on the other hand, belong to WWE so they can show them next day.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The reaction of the fans to Simmons winning is awesome. People just lose their minds.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Yeah, just Saturday. It seems long because it's a 3-hour Raw followed by a 2-hour Smackdown, then both shows are repeated for a total of 10 hours (7:00 PM to 5:00 AM).

    ReplyDelete
  66. What did I miss? Did Ziggler do something?

    ReplyDelete
  67. the Aroma In TacomaNovember 3, 2014 at 2:38 PM

    agreed, I also work in MR, years ago we pitched a couple of studies for WWE, their market research division is now non existent. Was headhunted for a position there in the early 2000's, while it would have been cool at the time, I am pretty glad I never followed through.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Mike Goldberg: "It is over It is ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL OVER!"

    :: Shuts Down Thread Announces C BREEZY the winner ::

    ReplyDelete
  69. Biff Kensington IIINovember 3, 2014 at 2:44 PM

    There's some WCCW on there, you just have to go to the Vault section.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Charismatic eNegro Jef VinsonNovember 3, 2014 at 2:45 PM

    Way over promoted? They barely talk about the Network at all. I mean how much is it?

    ReplyDelete
  71. When you spend your life building an empire in a business built on lying to the public, it's probably difficult to just be straight-up honest and realistic in investor meetings. I've always felt WWE overpromised, and it would one day come back to bite them, being publicly traded.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Gunther the Nasty LoserNovember 3, 2014 at 2:54 PM

    About tree fiddy

    ReplyDelete
  73. His non-union Mexican equivalent?

    ReplyDelete
  74. ah gotcha. Yep. Spending all the money to ramp up a mail order service when streaming was already in its infancy was asinine. And to this day I don't know what the hell is wrong with Knoxville and Fresno , where they tested the ill-fated no late fees program that was a financial and customer service disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  75. They don't deserve one. They shit on their customers and tell them its rain. Either they will change or die. . . .

    ReplyDelete
  76. delaying the launch of the WWE Network in the UK about twenty minutes (!) before its supposed launch.


    how does this company even manage to put up any shows at all?

    ReplyDelete
  77. Second time it's been delayed (in the UK) as well.

    Needless to say fans over here are totally outraged.

    Every week they're subjected to the marketing onslaught of a service they can't (officially) even subscribe to and then when the launch finally looks imminent it's trolled away from right under their noses.

    Absolutely shambolic business practice from WWE. Even the announcement was blunt, cold and incredibly patronizing.

    ReplyDelete
  78. And I'll bet it's because they had a last minute offer to bring it exclusively to
    SKY customers or some such similar shit.

    British people make very loyal fans. Until fucked over to the point where we lose all interest for good.

    DANGER, DANGER VINCE MCMAHON

    ReplyDelete
  79. Exclusivity for SKY customers is the poison pill I've been waiting sadly for this whole time.

    ReplyDelete
  80. EXACTLY what I suspect.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Has anyone heard if they're working on a "resume where you were watching" feature on the Network? From a pure functionality standpoint, that's the thing that drives me the craziest. I usually don't have 3 straight hours to watch an old PPV. So, if I stop in the middle, I have to remember where I left off and then jump to that spot (which isn't always precise). In Netflix and Amazon Prime, it lets me pick right up where I left off, so the technology exists.

    ReplyDelete
  82. WWE's version of Forrest Gump..

    ReplyDelete
  83. That's worked for me on PS3 and PC since the start

    ReplyDelete
  84. it does and doesn't. yes if you go through the menus and select the ppv it resumes on the ps3, but it would be better if it had a "resume what you last watched" feature so you don't have to go through the menus.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Yeah but that's the ONLY platform it works on. I can't start watching something on my Apple TV, then pick up where I left off on my PS3. Or vice versa.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I don't have a PS3, so I can't speak to that. But, how did you "resume" on the PC? Every time I access a PPV that I've watched part of on the PC, it starts back at the beginning. Same thing on the ipad.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Are you the loch ness monster?

    ReplyDelete
  88. And then if you buy PPVs, you'll be insulted for how stupid you are.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Signed up for CBS All Access and even THEY resume videos and that platform hasn't been out a month yet. If the Network were more like Netflix, they'd probably retain a few more people. Add a "watch later" list.. or what about a system where you could get updates on your favorite superstar. Any new content featuring that person would show up in a playlist. Not as hard as it seems using metadata that I know they use for their archives already.

    ReplyDelete
  90. But the shows are available on Hulu the next day, so 'splain that.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I completely agree. Putting aside any disappointment in the content, the mechanics of the Network are quite a bit behind comparable offerings. I watch video on my iPad all the time, whether it's Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO GO, YouTube. The features and functionality on those are quite a bit better than the Network. Watch lists, Play Lists, etc. are how modern customers consume video content. If they'd fix that, I wouldn't worry so much about the pace of updates, no Primetime Wrestling, etc. Just make it easier to watch the stuff that they do have!

    ReplyDelete
  92. I don't think they've updated that -- or ECW -- since fucking April.

    ReplyDelete
  93. How would that work? Airing as an cable channel similar to Rodgers, with the on Demand access coming later?

    ReplyDelete
  94. PC doesn't when I restart the browser. My bad

    ReplyDelete
  95. Even if I was watching it on the Network, I'd expect comments like, "We'd like to extend a cup of Earl Gray to our fans watching in the UK", and then JBL will practise the Cockney rhyming slang that a small percentage of British people in the south-east speak for tourists.


    Weirdly, when I try and welcome Americans to the UK by trying to organise a school shooting, my attempts to bridge the Atlantic by mocking what the USA is best known for, aren't received in the same spirit of casual xenophobia!

    ReplyDelete
  96. Playlists and a useful search really should have been added by now.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Yeah, that's how I unhappily see it. The Rodgers model. They've already said that RAW and Smackdown wouldn't air live due to Sky's rights, and that was when the Network was still due to launch today!

    ReplyDelete
  98. Because NBC Universal has a stake in Hulu, since it's a joint venture between three of the four major networks, so they make money off that, whereas they wouldn't get much of anything if it aired on the Network the next day

    ReplyDelete
  99. THIS IS SMALL POTATOES

    ReplyDelete
  100. It resumes on the Roku.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Isn't a bit early to call it a failure? It took Netflix 3 years to turn a profit and 5 years to set the model we enjoy today. Why do we expect the WWE to perfect it in 10 Months?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Because it gives us something to complain about and a chance to feel superior.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Because the model already existed perfectly, all they had to do was copy it exactly. This isn't the 'E breaking new ground.

    ReplyDelete
  104. That's a great idea actually.

    I looked up one of those kids that did the Coliseum Home Video postcard match of the month once -- he requested Akeem vs Hercules. He was serving lots of time for hitting someone while drunk in his car.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Because according to them THEY know what you want better than you do!

    ReplyDelete
  106. Extant1979 Most Must-See BoDerNovember 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM

    *EYEROLL*


    Yup, shitting on customers. Whatever you say.

    ReplyDelete
  107. It seems that tactic actually worked to convince people not to buy PPV's. Of course, they didn't end up getting the Network in response so big fail!

    ReplyDelete
  108. Run, Cena, Run!!!

    ReplyDelete
  109. Does he have to?

    ReplyDelete
  110. So what I'm getting here is, WWE really fucked this whole venture up. Seriously, I don't have cable, I want to watch Raw at least the night it airs or the next day without having to subscribe to another service in order to do so or screw myself and buy cable.

    ReplyDelete
  111. The Hulu show is also only a 90 minute edited down version of Raw, not the full show.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Netflix needed progression in technology and consumers who could purchase the devices that would make streaming possible. The Network has everything at its disposal Netflix did not, therefore, I don't see how they are similar.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I hope Maffew has some fun with this

    ReplyDelete
  114. That poor kid. I'm sure he meant that Bulldog wouldn't want to really defeat his brother-in-law because it's family. I knew what he meant.

    *It wasn't me.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Uh...the model existed? With what, might I ask?

    ReplyDelete
  116. Well, specifically the comparison I was making was to point out that new ventures rarely succeed in their first year. Its OK and it is natural. Let's face it, the network is a fan's wet dream and we're complaining over a few relatively minor details? Its not perfect, sure, but what is? Even Netflix has its off months...for fucks sake, how can they not have more Cronenberg movies?!?!? But its a minor ccomplaint in the big picture...having that many movies at my fingertips for $8 is a steal. And I think the network is too. For fucks sakes, they are giving you PPVs for $10! That's awesome just by itself. It could be better, sure, but the only thing on this planet that couldn't be better is grilled cheese sandwiches. I dunno, clearly I'm in the minority here but $10? Money well spent. Even if they never put 95 raws on. (And what is you guys and the 95 insistence?)

    ReplyDelete
  117. The comparison still makes no sense, other than the fact they are both VOD and were business ventures. One gives a variety of movies and television. The other sells its own product to an audience of 4 million people.

    As for the Network and it being a bargain, that's your opinion and I don't necessarily disagree with it, but many fans do based on the fact that the majority aren't subscribers, even though they are beat over the head with the Network on a weekly basis.

    And Netflix absolutely needed the technology. Netflix isn't where they are today without VOD being accessible on a whole array of mobile devices.

    ReplyDelete
  118. No...that is quite a different model than the network aside from the similarity of streaming.

    Netflix delivers unedited major (and minor) films ranging from new blockbusters to more obscure films. They don't worry so much about promoting the content as it is already established, and has something for everyone's tastes. Only concern they have is rotation.

    WWE Network is providing a niche product, that has to be organized, digitally transfered in some cases, and in some cases edited. That takes time and money. And it caters to and only to wrestling fans. So we're talking about, what? 10 million people? And I think that's being generous.

    So yeah, it is a completely different and unique model. Which takes more than 10 months to get right. I'd be surprised if it turns a profit in 18 months to be honest. But eventually it will, because eventually the overhead will be much lower.

    ReplyDelete
  119. True enough about the product, and the fan base. It is far more limited than Netflix. The comparison is apt in terms of new ventures and new business models that take time.

    I'd argue the technology aspect (again, PS3, XBOX, laptops) but that's nitpicking. They turned a profit before the iPad but blew up afterwards.

    And it being a value is something I can mathematically prove.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Although nobody can claim this is a true failure yet, nobody is unwarranted saying it looks like one.


    First off, unless they restructure their pricing plan, it will fail. They need a million subscribers with the current plan, and they aren't going to get a million subscribers, even if they get Canada and the UK on the "normal" plans. I think that's abundantly clear at this point. If they had released WORLDWIDE on day one, they may have pulled it off, but now that people are dropping subscriptions at a blistering rate, it isn't going to happen (40% of their US subscribers dropped their plan after 6 months -- 40%!!! The rest of the world barely made up the difference. And I fully expect them to lose another 30% in another 6 months)

    Second, even the hardcore wrestling fans will be unlikely to subscribe for years and years. WWE has a niche product with finite content. This isn't Netflix or Hulu where dozens of hours of programming can be added each with with appeal to tons of different people, and even the hardcores can only watch the same stuff over and over again so often. It's as if Netflix only showed romantic comedies, and expected people to keep paying for only romantic comedies -- eventually, even the people who love romantic comedies will tire of seeing the same movies over and over again.


    Third, they need to bring in new subscribers to replace the old. Simple fact is, in 2 years, after you've watched WM17 600 times, you'll likely be tired of wrestling, and will unsub. Who's going to replace you? All of the people who are going to be on the network are already ON the network. All of the people who want to see the Rock n Wrestlin' era and the Attitude Era are already watching it (and many of them had their fill and moved on)


    Most people, myself included, won't continue watching the same stuff ad infinitum. Hell, I'll probably never subscribe again, not because I don't like the past wrestling, but because I'd rather dedicate that money to what's coming down the pipe -- PWG, ROH, hopefully Jarrett's thing. Especially since, as a hardcore wrestling fan, I already have most of the stuff I want on DVD. I don't need to see a Bastion Booger match just so I can see an excellent Bret Hart match (which I already have on 2 DVDs)


    Unless the current product improves DRASTICALLY, I just don't see this thing succeeding. Too early to call it a failure? Maybe. But it isn't too early to suspect it might be.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Dude, at the top of the thread, you compare it to Netflix. Here, you say it's not like Netflix. You're gonna need to make up your mind.

    ReplyDelete
  122. I compare how long it took Netflix to gain a foothold...I could have used any other venture really. It was perhaps a confusing comparison due to some similarities (both stream video) But yeah that's as far as I take it.

    OK, it took 2 years for Facebook to turn profit. Better?

    ReplyDelete
  123. The problem with the WWE comparison and any of them is that none of those others were actively competing with themselves at the time.

    WWE took a stream of income -- one of their CHIEF streams of income -- and directly competed with it at a better price that necessitated their immediately making a profit. Netflix didn't lower the price of their DVD rental business when they started the streaming service. Facebook didn't stop advertising or create "Mybook", where advertisers could advertise for free (and it would still get to all Facebook subscribers)


    And neither of them certainly told you how dumb you were to be using their service to begin with.


    If we were in a bubble where the "Wrestling Network" existed outside of WWE, where the only money WWE stood to lose was what they invested in the project itself, then yes, you're right -- the comparison could be made.


    The problem is that the WWE Network doesn't exist in that bubble. They don't have 5 years to keep bleeding money at the rate they've been. Because they didn't only start something that might fail but doesn't impact their core business (see XFL and WBF) -- they created something that has a MASSIVE impact on their core business, and is causing them to lose money that they shouldn't have been losing to begin with.


    You're saying "well, it took these other places that long" -- the reason it took Facebook and Netflix as long as it did is because they had to gain traction. WWE has all of the traction it's going to get (unless their ratings suddenly skyrocket, which -- let's face it -- ain't gonna happen). It's product isn't suddenly going to become more popular, and the pool of people that would subscribe to the Network for the "old stuff" is likely already subscribed, and 40% of them just walked away.

    ReplyDelete
  124. See, that's not entirely accurate. For one thing, Netflix did indeed tell their customer base that they are idiots for not streaming, just obviously more diplomatic. They needed to lower the overhead of getting physical disks and the insane shipping costs. Then, to emphasize, they drastically reduced the amount of titles you could rent physically. Think they call that practice "throttling"

    And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the E saying, directly or otherwise, that you were an idiot for ordering the network...in fact I seem to recall and see on a weekly basis the opposite. To be honest, I'm not entirely certain why they see a value in $10 for PPV vs $60, but a) they clearly do and b) I'm not going to complain, I'm the big winner as a fan. AND I get all the additional content? Fucking awesome! To go back to Netflix, not sure how you feel, but there are months where the movies that I'm just not interested in. That's OK, I'm not going to cancel because a) next month will have new content and b) I have other options in the form of my queue. In some ways its not much different from many TV shows...not every episode is a winner. But overall, its a great show.

    I'm not arguing that the network doesn't need improvement. It clearly does. But seriously, for what they ARE providing, $10 a month is nothing. As a fan, I'm happy (not ecstatic but happy) with it. If there is no improvement in (let's say) 9 months, then I'm going to agree with you. But at this point, its pretty good for the price and because its new, I have no reason to believe it won't get better. I could be wrong. Maybe it'll just suck worse and worse every month. But again, its $10. I'm not really sure why its not getting the customer base it should (well, I kinda do...it is a niche product in many ways. They are marketing a weekly program aimed at kids, but offering a network for die hard fans. The average kid doesn't care AT ALL about 1995. I work with kids as a social worker and the fans who are my clients couldn't care less about Hogan fighting Warrior or slamming Andre. Sad but true.) But personally, as a fan, it is about 70% of what I'm looking for. Again, its $10. Netflix is $8 and I couldn't care about 80% of the movies they put out. But for the movies I AM interested in, its worth it. (Plus I get to find neat movies I'd never have watched otherwise. Shout out to Pontypool and American Mary, which are two of the best horror movies in a long time. Cheap plug!) Yeah, I wish they had more movies from David Cronenberg...but on the other hand, I get a bunch of Martin Scorsese films AND every modern George Carlin special! BAM! At $8 I am sold. Right now, the network is in the same place for me.

    Not sure I understand what you mean by competing against themselves though.

    And this brings me to my bigger issue. This is, in many many ways, what we've been waiting for as die hard fans. Why are the majority (or so it seems) hoping it fails? Seems to be the same attitude with Raw (which objectively is the best its been since they went 3 hours...which is still a brutal time investment. But...I don't HAVE to watch it.) As a fan, I want to see every wrestling company including stuff like CZW to succeed. The more wrestling out there, the happier I am. Now why do I feel like I'm in the minority? Isn't that how we're supposed to feel as fans? Doesn't it benefit us fans overall? Then why are so many hoping it fails? To prove a point few care about? Seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. What am I missing here?

    ReplyDelete
  125. Let me put it another way:

    I'm a big comic book fan and have been for 25 years. I loved DC most of all, between the iconic characters, the interesting dissection of the history, using that legacy to watch new characters grow (Jesus, as a comic book fan, was anything better than watching Wally West grow from a spoiled, entitled, self centered kid into a man who understand what the lightning bolt means? Only in comics could a story like that unfold in "real time" He grew as I did.) I adored the Vertigo line and Hellblazer was my favorite book starting with issue 40. (That and Peter David's Hulk got me through my teen years.)

    Now. I can't stand the new 52. I don't care for the characters, the Flash is bland, the characters mostly obnoxious. I hate what they've done with Vertigo...and I can't believe how they've gutted it. And please, don't get me started on John Constantine. I gave up on that with the issue where he tries to steal Shazam's powers. I've rarely enjoyed Superman books but now the character is unrecognizable and an utter dick. And I haven't read their stuff in over a year.

    And its OK. I don't have to read them. I get to save money and get other stuff (Hickman is my current favorite) But. And this is a big b ut. I don't want to see the New 52 fail. I hope it works out well for them and it seems like a lot of people are really enjoying it. A new generation of fans are on the ground floor of a a new mythology. What kind of a dick would I be to take that away from them, simply because its not for me? How selfish would I be? See, the more successful comics are overall, the better it is for me. It means more options and more books all around. It means Image rises as the new creative powerhouse and replaces Vertigo as the brand that isn't afraid to experiment. And as much as I don't like the new Superman...dear god I hope he doesn't go away. Because that's the icon. And other folks deserve to have him. Does that make sense?

    Or the tl;dr version...holy shit do I write epics when I'm on opiates. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I won't go into details in most of this now (it's late and I've got to work in the morning -- rest assured I'll get to it, though), but understand that being willing to talk about the issues with something -- in this case the bad decisions that WWE has made with the Network -- is not the same thing as "wanting it to fail".


    Why would I want it to fail? What good would come of it failing for me personally? Even if I HATED WWE, its failing would do nothing for me personally.


    However, if it's going to fail, I hope they get out of it somehow soon so that it doesn't take the company down with it.


    Using your example with the New 52. If it was causing Marvel to lose tons of money to the point that they risked failure (if you saw it was costing them millions, which risked the company you've loved all your life) wouldn't you want them to stop this wacky crap? Even if you were a fan of the New 52, wouldn't you say "listen, I like the new storylines, but not at the expense of Marvel going out of business!"


    Yeah, that's the same with me and the Network. I PERSONALLY don't see a way they could right this ship. If that's the case, I'd much rather have "No Network" than "No WWE"


    Which would you prefer?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment