This is a really, really well-written and researched article about all the stuff that could go wrong with the Network. Figured some people here might enjoy the hard numbers counterpoint to the usual "It'll be awesome!" stance.
WWE can lick my ass as far as I'm concerned. I hope Impact destroys NXT & Superstars in the ratings, more PPV providers pull the WWE PPV's from their lineups, the Network service is awful, and their ends up being huge trouble with WrestleMania streams.
WWE is trying to be a dickish monopoly and I don't like it at all. I was considering the WWE Network, but with the lineup they put out tonight to try and steal TNA's viewers and potentially put them out of business is just an awful move for fans. If TNA goes under, we literally will have no more American wrestling to watch on TV that isn't WWE. Yes, I think ROH will go under very fast if TNA does because if you think WWE won't go after them, you are sadly mistaken.
Brought up many of the kneejerk concerns I had about the Network, as well.
I don't know why, but based on some of these barriers, it sounds like quite the stretch to hit 2 million subscribers. 1 might be doable, but the break-even basically means they need 2.
I don't think the ratings are a good indicator of potential subscriptions. There are plenty of people (like myself) that haven't watched Raw in years, but will subscribe for the on demand piece.
Still surprised they haven't outlined how the wrestler pay structure is going to change. That makes me think they either are REALLY uncertain what it's going to look like or they're planning on taking a short term beating on this and don't want to spook the wrestlers too soon
To counter that, there are a lot of people who watch Raw weekly that refuse to pay for their wrestling. So I think it's honestly a push in that regard.
The one that I've been, and continue to be, the most skeptical of is that they will ever reach that break even point. One million households is an awful lot.
I'm getting it soley based on the $10 for a PPV factor. I doubt I will sit around and watch 90's PPVs that much, I wish I had the time. $10 is very reasonable for a PPV and that is the big selling point for me.
I think they honestly have no idea. They are putting all their slices of bologna on one sandwich and if it succeeds then BOOM they get the cheese, but if it doesn't succeed, then they are stuck with just a piece of stinky meat.
I'll be on board day one, mostly for the pay-per-views and NXT (Superstars might be interesting if they actually gave a damn about it like they used to and did some Superstars-only angles between the lower-to-midcarders). But I had WWE On Demand, and I really only had time for History of ECW and the Roundtables.
I think International numbers will still be strong for them, which they'll probably lean on a LOT more during investor calls, but domestically, they're going to take a bath on the PPVs unless they scale WAY back on the production (which would amuse me, because they're already basically "Raw with a different graphic on the screen!")
This year, they're going to use the new WWE 2k15 engine and just simulate The Undertaker match. It will still be ****, and he'll still out perform half the roster, even as he glitches into the ropes and his forearm goes through the back of his opponent's head during the tombstone.
Strong champions Good feuds Everyone gets a chance to perform
I'm not trying to sound like a puro idiot,but NJPW is pulling the perfect formula right now.Where in WWE it's only Cena they want to push,they don't wanna let other have a star spot.NJPW has Tanahashi as the main draw,but is he the only that gets the star treatment? NO! Okada,Goto,Naito(can't understand the hatred on him),Shibata,Suzuki...They have get a chance to showcase their skills.I hope you can see my point.
One of those concerns I don't think won't be a huge hurdle is the mid -30s fans embracing the technology. I worked four months in Best Buy's computers and tablets section and the customers that seemed to know the products best going in seemed to be the people in that range. With technology entwined more with our lives, I dont think itll be a huge reach for people who want the network being able to figure it out. Just count how many people are on their phones when youre on a train or Starbucks.
Orton ain't a draw,just like Sheamus.They can carry them-selves alone.
NJPW:Tanahashi,Goto,Naito,Okada,Makabe,Devitt,Ibushi, Nakamura,Young Bucks...Some may be be tag players,some may be mid/upper guys but what they do feels important.The IC now IWGP heavyweight level of perstige due Nakamura run,just give air time for that right person and wonders can happen.
They can do some pretty incredible make up jobs to get him looking better than that for a handful of raws and mania. This "here's a picture of undertaker looking old" (which is always pretty shocking to see how old is does look as a guy who was already watching wrestling during his debut in the wwf) is a story that seems to come out before wrestlemania now-a-days.
I just meant more that I think theyre more saavy than given credit for. If not an iPad, theyll have consoles or Roku or laptop, some avenue to watch it on to their satisfaction, I dont think theyll be shell shocked by the concept of the network as implied.
JVC said below that the Observer said WWE needs 1 million subscriptions to break even. Does anyone think they will come close in the first couple months? I think they are screwed if they think they will get 1 million subscriptions. WWE's main fan base is kids. Kids don't have credit cards.
You never notice how on mobile devices ESPN and grantland have a tab at the bottom of the screen where you can load a multiple "page" story as one page? Every website should do that.
A big problem that haunts is the "I just want group" with that other groups are forgotten.I'm not saying they should go Attitude Era,but acknowledge other demographics.That's the problem with channel like CN that just want boys and that's it.
I was listening to Austin's podcast and Cena is being interviewed. He even mentions that WWE needed to build new stars in the last ten years but didn't. That's bad when your top guy is criticizing the product to that extent.
Huh. No mention of the problems created by the Comcast merger. Netflix is learning the hard way that as ISPs become more powerful financially and politically, net neutrality is a thing of the past. That means Verizon and Comcast can throttle streaming speeds or cap your downloads, and you can't do anything about it unless you play ball with them. And WWE is even more vulnerable here because they're taking PPV income away from those providers.
As long as ISPs control the last mile, they'll really control the WWE Network consumer experience. WWE can tout the MLB backbone all they want, but MLB has relationships with Verizon and Comcast. And WWE takes all the risk; if a customer has a bad experience with the WWE Network because Comcast throttles you, what is the customer going to cancel, the Network or their Comcast service (especially when most areas don't really have viable broadband competition)?
The real risk is that WWE might do EVERYTHING right here- great app, fantastic content, killer price point- and still get blamed and hammered because of the customer's ISP. And that's assuming that WWE nails everything out of the gate, which is really hard to do. And they're risking Wrestlemania PPV income on it.
As a WWE fan and a business analyst who has worked in the telco space, I'm rooting for Vince to have a massive success here. I think he's grasped the right model for his company in the age of YouTube and pirate streams. He'll get my money on day one, and I'll even be patient as they work out the inevitable bugs. But I do have some doubts that they- or really, any company their size in the age of megatelcos- can pull this off.
Honestly, they'll probably be ok or close to it for Mania, but going forward? And are you getting your 1 million +/- buys for Mania but losing the 100-200k-ish per PPV for the other 5 months? Curious how this one plays out and I think they're going to kick themselves for not going 7.99 for the catalog and $15-20 a month for "WWE+" with PPVs
What happened with Thursday? Are putting something on TV or doing shows on the network? If its the wwe network you could just watch it anytime. I don't see it hurting impact
See for me, and I'm 34, the idea of watching TV on a device isn't a thing at all. My old-guy thing is that I can't ever imagine a time that I would want to watch TV if I wasn't sitting down at home. I'll watch it on an iPad, sure, but on a bus or a train? That's fucking weird.
I would think that not everyone having access to good high-speed internet would be a bigger issue than people not embracing the technology. Hell, my mom is crazy about tech shit, and she's nearly 60. And I'm sure the vast majority of wrestling fans own one of the video game consoles that can stream it.
They've moved the goal posts - they told investors at the announcement that 1 million by WrestleMania was the goal. Today, they said the goal is 1 million by the end of the year.
They're basically telling investors that it's going to lose money for the first year but they'll eventually hit their targets. I'm assuming that means the price will go up after 6 months or they are banking on positive reviews to get people to sign up after WrestleMania.
As Scott mentioned yesterday, not having the Network ready when they announced it was a huge mistake.
"Because no cable company around here carries it." WWE discontinued their "WWE Classics" on demand service at the end of January in order focus on the Network.
To me, the most interesting part of this article was getting a wake up call about who is using / able to use "over the top" technology.
No idea why I didn't realize it sooner. I (patiently) had to teach my mom how to watch Breaking Bad on Netflix--I bet there are indeed some 35-50 year old wrestling fans who might struggle with this new technology.
I have a 21 inch TV. I got it for my birthday when I turned 14 which means that it's been going for over 20 years. They don't make 'em like they used to.
You're not the only one. I assumed the person who wrote the article made the dropping of the term "over the top" mean more that it actually did at the unveiling.
I have a 32 inch TV out in my garage that's even older than that and it works fine. I can't even give it away because it's so heavy that no one wants to lift it. Hell, when me and my brother took it out to the garage (we weigh 270 combined that the most), both our backs were shot for about a week.
I forget, you're in Canada, right? So you have Rodgers, I take it? I didn't even know Canada had satellite TV, with the weather up there it would barely work.
I'm one of those on the 30% side. Not that I think this product isn't any good, but I want more old non-PPV content before I dive in. It's not like the WWE's ppv cards are really peaking my interest right now either, so the only attraction to the Network is the old stuff.
By weekly TV do you mean old weekly TV or RAW/Smackdown streams? No way they get away with the latter on the Network without pissing off whoever gives them TV rights fees.
But, alternatively, Comcast and Verizon would be taking a huge risk fucking with another multimedia company like that. They'd basically be inviting every major web based company on the planet to go to all out war with them.
If they do that then the Network dies. Some people will hold onto it for the pay-per-views, but that kind of increase is going to drive away people, especially in the 6 month period once the first 6 months of the Network ends.
Where do you live, Toronto? Anyway, satellite TV was a pain in the ass here. It goes out anytime there's a thunderstorm, and you constantly have to clean the snow off it. Especially here, the dish (with DirecTV, anyway) has to face SW, and that's usually the direction the wind blows from off Lake Erie. And I had to cut a tree down at my old house because it got so big that it was hitting the dish and fucking up the signal. Plus, DirecTV's customer service is absolutely abysmal. I'm never going back to satellite again.
Would this lead to a push by a good chunk of the boys to unionize? I know it's a FAT chance, but I can see something like this really poisoning the locker room atmosphere.
Speaking as a 44 year old fan, I've been using streaming technology from Netflix since its inception, but I've also had to do without cable TV for different reasons since...oh, at last 2000.
Truthfully, I'm also not the type to download movies and TV shows illegally. But, I may or may not watch perfectly legit streams for certain wrestling programs.
Totally unrelated but there was just a flash of lightning so bright that the room I'm in, with no lights on, lit up like daylight. Through curtains. Holy fuck.
Yeah, I fully expect to be pissed off about the service for at least the first week or so. If they can get it together in time for WM, I'll be ok with it.
Neflix/Amazon is in a tough position since Comcast (in many places, like my apartment in DC) controls the cable AND the broadband Internet. So even if I wanted to "cut the cord" from cable...I still need to pay Comcast for access to streaming.
Comcast has waaaaay too much power compared to Netflix.
This. I live out in the country, and my ISP (TDS) started with 3mb available, went to 5mb, to 10mb, and then to 15mb. Realistically, I've never gotten higher than 10mb. Then they started having problems in Jan 2013. Since then, I've been getting between 3mb - 4mb, sometimes up to 5mb. It's REALLY FUCKING FRUSTRATING, and I used to work there, so I know the BS lines people are told when they call. I have been able to get credits to make up the difference in the price between what I'm getting and what I'm paying for, but I'd much rather have the fucking bandwidth.
And, they're really my only option. I can't go with ISPs who provide service via satellite for two reasons. First, I know I don't have line of sight with satellites because Dish Network has told me I'd have to chop down trees in order to get their product. I'm not doing that. Second, the satellite companies that offer speeds higher than I'm currently getting put a cap on monthly bandwidth, and I know I'd exceed it every month.
I think that's the biggest problem - the main value prop for the Network are a bunch of PPVs that no one has cared about for like 5 years at this point.
They keep saying, "What used to cost you $700 will now cost you $120!"
But for most people who only bought Mania, their yearly tab is going up from $60 to $120. They're making it out like it's some huge deal. But based on buyrates, there are about 500,000 people that only buy WrestleMania ever year.
And there is another 3+ million that watch Raw every year and don't buy any PPVs.
That's why I think the number will be between 250-400k. Roughly the hardcore 100k that order many PPVs, another 150k that order Mania/Rumble/SummerSlam and maybe 50k that just want the old stuff.
I just don't see someone who doesn't buy PPVs now suddenly jumping on the Network to spend money on PPVs they didn't have any interest in anyway.
Verizon's 4th Q profit was $5 billion dollars. Comcast's 4th Q profit was nearly $2 billion, and will control 52% of all cable households after the TWC merger. And they probably own Congress and the FCC, too.
Netflix? $8 million profit 4th Q 2013. WWE just posted a loss and projected losses for the next few quarters as they change models. Hulu is partly owned by Comcast, so they ain't starting a fight.
Now, the big quiet dogs here are Google and Amazon. But both companies probably consider Netflix to be at least a rival (Google sells videos, and Amazon has their own streaming service). And neither company is going to fight for the WWE.
I'm not saying Comcast and Verizon want to go to war with anyone. But if they did, it would be a bigger disparity than WWE and TNA. We're talking Andre and the Big Show teaming up against *amoeba*.
I don't buy PPV's other than RR and Mania. I have no interest in EC whatsoever. If I had the network today then I _might_ watch it just because it was on, but it is worth $0 to me. Not even 10.
For me, I would order the network, but once I blew through the old PPVs I would be out.
People are still panicking about the content? I know we have to wait and see, but what we've heard so far (different ratings, disclaimers) are good signs. P.S. Can't people just put an article on ONE page?!!?
You're pretty much the people I was thinking of, that and people that just can't afford real fast internet (Time Warner can get you broadband for $15, but it's only 2mb. Fine for just basic web surfing but not much else). I just did a speedtest, I'm getting 33mb down, 5mb up, and that's on a cheap Chromebook on wi-fi, but I pay a shitton for internet, it's easilly the most expensive bill I have outside of rent. Satellite internet sucks, not only do you have to deal with the dish itself, but you'd probably pay more than you are now with worse results.
No, I'm just a little slow tonight. I thought you were making jokes about them being old. I thought Flair was the same age as my mother is, turns out he's 7 years older.
Good riddance. Can't stand guys like like, they hate the "IWC", but then post on the smarkiest website on Earth. Hell, if you look up "IWC" on Urban Dictionary Scott is mentioned in the first definition. And not in a good way.
But you're talking about the difference between trying to skim the till in classic rentier fashion and deliberately fucking up a major business initiative being launched by a multi-million dollar corporation. The former is basically good clean fun to the billionaire class, while the latter is simply not done, both for reasons of class solidarity and for potential ramifications. After all, if Comcast can torpedo the WWE Network, they can fuck with Bank of America's online banking system or some other function another super rich, super connected firm uses the internet for.
In short, being able to collect those rents by breaking down net neutrality necessarily requires not making other really rich, really powerful business interests consider the many ways ending net neutrality would allow internet providers to totally fuck them if they feel like it.
Yup. I would happily pay twice what I am now for 15mb down consistently; it's just not available to me. We ain't moving, either. We really like our house and our property.
I've done that before, and probably would for WM this year, if it wasn't for the upcoming WWE Network. For the regular PPVs and Raw, I can't do that, sit comfortably, and shoot the breeze on this blog. With whatever the Chromecast thing is, I might...and I will probably look into it. But, once the Network starts, it would just be for Raw, and I may be content to just use the laptop.
In short : it's a big gamble.
ReplyDeleteWWE can lick my ass as far as I'm concerned. I hope Impact destroys NXT & Superstars in the ratings, more PPV providers pull the WWE PPV's from their lineups, the Network service is awful, and their ends up being huge trouble with WrestleMania streams.
ReplyDeleteWWE is trying to be a dickish monopoly and I don't like it at all. I was considering the WWE Network, but with the lineup they put out tonight to try and steal TNA's viewers and potentially put them out of business is just an awful move for fans. If TNA goes under, we literally will have no more American wrestling to watch on TV that isn't WWE. Yes, I think ROH will go under very fast if TNA does because if you think WWE won't go after them, you are sadly mistaken.
Brought up many of the kneejerk concerns I had about the Network, as well.
ReplyDeleteI don't know why, but based on some of these barriers, it sounds like quite the stretch to hit 2 million subscribers. 1 might be doable, but the break-even basically means they need 2.
Cant be bothered to click through 10 pages of ads and terrible page layout to read it.
ReplyDeleteNothing Earth shattering in that article. Well written, but they're the same 10 things us "laypeople" have been saying since the announcement.
ReplyDeleteYeah, nothing new here, just harder numbers to back it up with.
ReplyDeleteThe WWF1987 "Lick My Ass" Club? You know Missy Hyatt will do it. Vince? Debatable. Only on PPV.
ReplyDeleteI heard on wrestling observer radio they're break-even point is 1,000,000.
ReplyDeleteThey can't manage to get more than 4 million to watch their show on basic cable. 2 million subscribers is frankly, a ludicrous proposition.
ReplyDeleteOff topic, but second time I'm going to ask this...
ReplyDeleteWhatCulture pays in pence direct to PayPal, correct? Is there a way you can get paid in dollars instead?
I don't think the ratings are a good indicator of potential subscriptions. There are plenty of people (like myself) that haven't watched Raw in years, but will subscribe for the on demand piece.
ReplyDeleteLOL! Uh ohh, Spaghetti-O's! LOL!
ReplyDeleteStill surprised they haven't outlined how the wrestler pay structure is going to change. That makes me think they either are REALLY uncertain what it's going to look like or they're planning on taking a short term beating on this and don't want to spook the wrestlers too soon
ReplyDeleteTo counter that, there are a lot of people who watch Raw weekly that refuse to pay for their wrestling. So I think it's honestly a push in that regard.
ReplyDeleteAll good points.
ReplyDeleteThe one that I've been, and continue to be, the most skeptical of is that they will ever reach that break even point. One million households is an awful lot.
I'm getting it soley based on the $10 for a PPV factor. I doubt I will sit around and watch 90's PPVs that much, I wish I had the time. $10 is very reasonable for a PPV and that is the big selling point for me.
ReplyDeleteI think they honestly have no idea. They are putting all their slices of bologna on one sandwich and if it succeeds then BOOM they get the cheese, but if it doesn't succeed, then they are stuck with just a piece of stinky meat.
ReplyDeleteI'll be on board day one, mostly for the pay-per-views and NXT (Superstars might be interesting if they actually gave a damn about it like they used to and did some Superstars-only angles between the lower-to-midcarders). But I had WWE On Demand, and I really only had time for History of ECW and the Roundtables.
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that if WWE has 200,000 subscribers then they get say 50k-100k PPV buys then they will say they had 300,000 PPV buys?
ReplyDeleteDid You Know? WWE Battleground 2014 was the most watched WWE pay-per-view in twenty years.
ReplyDeleteLOL. I could see them doing that. It's going to be interesting when they only get like 25k-30k buys for a PPV.
ReplyDeleteEspecially now that New Japan is slowly busting 100k per PPV.
ReplyDeleteI think International numbers will still be strong for them, which they'll probably lean on a LOT more during investor calls, but domestically, they're going to take a bath on the PPVs unless they scale WAY back on the production (which would amuse me, because they're already basically "Raw with a different graphic on the screen!")
ReplyDeleteThreadjack....Undertaker is looking older than shit these days
ReplyDeletehttp://i1165.photobucket.com/albums/q588/411mania1/WWE/Undertakerrecentimage.jpg
That's using the powers of darkness too much.
ReplyDeleteTNA or Jarrett's new company needs to look at that. Perhaps American fans are sick of the storyline based wrestling and want a more pseudo-sport.
ReplyDeleteNothing a little mascara and lipstick can't fix.
ReplyDeleteThis year, they're going to use the new WWE 2k15 engine and just simulate The Undertaker match. It will still be ****, and he'll still out perform half the roster, even as he glitches into the ropes and his forearm goes through the back of his opponent's head during the tombstone.
ReplyDeleteAnother great article by Scott. I love these whatculture articles he's writing.
ReplyDeleteStrong champions
ReplyDeleteGood feuds
Everyone gets a chance to perform
I'm not trying to sound like a puro idiot,but NJPW is pulling the perfect formula right now.Where in WWE it's only Cena they want to push,they don't wanna let other have a star spot.NJPW has Tanahashi as the main draw,but is he the only that gets the star treatment? NO! Okada,Goto,Naito(can't understand the hatred on him),Shibata,Suzuki...They have get a chance to showcase their skills.I hope you can see my point.
Yep!
ReplyDeleteWWE has Cena, Bryan, Orton, Punk, Sheamus
then EVERYONE else.
Geez, he's gone full white now.
ReplyDeleteOne of those concerns I don't think won't be a huge hurdle is the mid -30s fans embracing the technology. I worked four months in Best Buy's computers and tablets section and the customers that seemed to know the products best going in seemed to be the people in that range. With technology entwined more with our lives, I dont think itll be a huge reach for people who want the network being able to figure it out. Just count how many people are on their phones when youre on a train or Starbucks.
ReplyDeleteI'm really not looking forward to Taker - Brock.
ReplyDeleteI can't see anyone 40+ watching WWE on an iPad.
ReplyDeleteR.I.P Mark Calloway,he wanted to have one MMA fight before he died.
ReplyDeleteOrton ain't a draw,just like Sheamus.They can carry them-selves alone.
ReplyDeleteNJPW:Tanahashi,Goto,Naito,Okada,Makabe,Devitt,Ibushi,
Nakamura,Young Bucks...Some may be be tag players,some may be mid/upper guys but what they do feels important.The IC now IWGP heavyweight level of perstige due Nakamura run,just give air time for that right person and wonders can happen.
Scott Steiner still tries to understand what is video-games
ReplyDeleteWow. 1 million subs?
ReplyDeleteThey can do some pretty incredible make up jobs to get him looking better than that for a handful of raws and mania. This "here's a picture of undertaker looking old" (which is always pretty shocking to see how old is does look as a guy who was already watching wrestling during his debut in the wwf) is a story that seems to come out before wrestlemania now-a-days.
ReplyDeleteI just meant more that I think theyre more saavy than given credit for. If not an iPad, theyll have consoles or Roku or laptop, some avenue to watch it on to their satisfaction, I dont think theyll be shell shocked by the concept of the network as implied.
ReplyDeleteJVC said below that the Observer said WWE needs 1 million subscriptions to break even. Does anyone think they will come close in the first couple months? I think they are screwed if they think they will get 1 million subscriptions. WWE's main fan base is kids. Kids don't have credit cards.
ReplyDeleteYou never notice how on mobile devices ESPN and grantland have a tab at the bottom of the screen where you can load a multiple "page" story as one page? Every website should do that.
ReplyDeleteBut they have parents,but not all of them will be willing to pay.
ReplyDeleteYep, especially when the parents read the "6 month subscription required" fine print.
ReplyDeleteA big problem that haunts is the "I just want group" with that other groups are forgotten.I'm not saying they should go Attitude Era,but acknowledge other demographics.That's the problem with channel like CN that just want boys and that's it.
ReplyDeleteI was listening to Austin's podcast and Cena is being interviewed. He even mentions that WWE needed to build new stars in the last ten years but didn't. That's bad when your top guy is criticizing the product to that extent.
ReplyDeleteJust give the book to Austin,he really shows in the podcast how business wise he is.
ReplyDeleteHuh. No mention of the problems created by the Comcast merger. Netflix is learning the hard way that as ISPs become more powerful financially and politically, net neutrality is a thing of the past. That means Verizon and Comcast can throttle streaming speeds or cap your downloads, and you can't do anything about it unless you play ball with them. And WWE is even more vulnerable here because they're taking PPV income away from those providers.
ReplyDeleteAs long as ISPs control the last mile, they'll really control the WWE Network consumer experience. WWE can tout the MLB backbone all they want, but MLB has relationships with Verizon and Comcast. And WWE takes all the risk; if a customer has a bad experience with the WWE Network because Comcast throttles you, what is the customer going to cancel, the Network or their Comcast service (especially when most areas don't really have viable broadband competition)?
The real risk is that WWE might do EVERYTHING right here- great app, fantastic content, killer price point- and still get blamed and hammered because of the customer's ISP. And that's assuming that WWE nails everything out of the gate, which is really hard to do. And they're risking Wrestlemania PPV income on it.
As a WWE fan and a business analyst who has worked in the telco space, I'm rooting for Vince to have a massive success here. I think he's grasped the right model for his company in the age of YouTube and pirate streams. He'll get my money on day one, and I'll even be patient as they work out the inevitable bugs. But I do have some doubts that they- or really, any company their size in the age of megatelcos- can pull this off.
Honestly, they'll probably be ok or close to it for Mania, but going forward? And are you getting your 1 million +/- buys for Mania but losing the 100-200k-ish per PPV for the other 5 months? Curious how this one plays out and I think they're going to kick themselves for not going 7.99 for the catalog and $15-20 a month for "WWE+" with PPVs
ReplyDeleteSubscription will go up to $19.99 a month after 6 months, I'd wager.
ReplyDeleteMan, that's going to be rough though. Probably necessary but should have tiered it from the start
ReplyDeleteNo way they are gonna pay that.
ReplyDeleteIt's still very justified. That's over half off the price of the PPV's plus you get all the other content.
ReplyDelete$7.99 - Access to old PPV + TV library
ReplyDelete$9.99 - Access to weekly TV + old PPV + TV library
$19.99 - Access to everything including monthy PPV's
I don't know,I'm still skeptical about this.
ReplyDeleteI actually don't disagree with this on the whole, but I do have to point out that my 87 year old Grandma rocks an iPad.
ReplyDeleteYeah, something like that. They run the risk of getting too complicated with tiers, but thank god for the Bellas to explain it to us all
ReplyDeleteNot a chance, I'd be shocked if they even get half that.
ReplyDeleteMy mother reads her Books from there.
ReplyDeleteAs long as he can keep his body good to go I actually like the white haired look for him. He IS old.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened with Thursday? Are putting something on TV or doing shows on the network? If its the wwe network you could just watch it anytime. I don't see it hurting impact
ReplyDeleteThat will be a huge hurdle. Based on the 24/7 numbers that have floated around I would consider 300K to be a pretty good showing.
ReplyDeleteSee for me, and I'm 34, the idea of watching TV on a device isn't a thing at all. My old-guy thing is that I can't ever imagine a time that I would want to watch TV if I wasn't sitting down at home. I'll watch it on an iPad, sure, but on a bus or a train? That's fucking weird.
ReplyDeleteI would think that not everyone having access to good high-speed internet would be a bigger issue than people not embracing the technology. Hell, my mom is crazy about tech shit, and she's nearly 60. And I'm sure the vast majority of wrestling fans own one of the video game consoles that can stream it.
ReplyDeleteIs that the one that's just online, or the one that you can get from your cable company? Because no cable company around here carries it.
ReplyDeleteWWE is airing NXT, Superstars, and Legends House in a three hour block on Thursdays.
ReplyDeleteScott didn't write it.
ReplyDeleteThey've moved the goal posts - they told investors at the announcement that 1 million by WrestleMania was the goal. Today, they said the goal is 1 million by the end of the year.
ReplyDeleteThey're basically telling investors that it's going to lose money for the first year but they'll eventually hit their targets. I'm assuming that means the price will go up after 6 months or they are banking on positive reviews to get people to sign up after WrestleMania.
As Scott mentioned yesterday, not having the Network ready when they announced it was a huge mistake.
It blows my mind that as old as he is, he's still 5 years younger than Sting.
ReplyDeleteHoly crap, really?
ReplyDeleteI think a majority of us would've signed up immediately. Now, reading from the posts it seems like its 70/30 for getting it.
ReplyDeleteWWE doesn't give a shit about ROH unless they're stealing their talent.
ReplyDelete"Because no cable company around here carries it."
ReplyDeleteWWE discontinued their "WWE Classics" on demand service at the end of January in order focus on the Network.
Mabye more so. Sting is 53, I want to say Taker is 48, but he my be a year or 2 younger.
ReplyDeleteNo cable company around here ever carried it. We only have 2, plus DirecTV and Dish Network.
ReplyDeleteOh, okay. I was just pointing out that it now no longer exists.
ReplyDeleteWiki says Sting is 59 and Taker is 65. I thought that both of them and Michaels were all 65.
ReplyDeleteI thought I heard they were keeping it active until March. Guess not.
ReplyDeleteThat would make Flair about 110.
ReplyDeleteFlair is 49.
ReplyDeleteNo chance. To charge $10 more than any other streaming service? Even WWE isn't that dense.
ReplyDeleteTo me, the most interesting part of this article was getting a wake up call about who is using / able to use "over the top" technology.
ReplyDeleteNo idea why I didn't realize it sooner. I (patiently) had to teach my mom how to watch Breaking Bad on Netflix--I bet there are indeed some 35-50 year old wrestling fans who might struggle with this new technology.
I had never heard the term "over the top" before yesterday. I just have to say that.
ReplyDeleteMe either, to me "over the top" either refers to a battle royal or a joke that was a little too inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteWhoa, whoa, whoa Adam! That was a little over the top!
ReplyDeleteSo he started wrestling when he was about 6?
ReplyDeleteDo I really need to tell you that I'm talking about birth year?
ReplyDeleteI've never heard it called anything but streaming.
ReplyDeleteI don't get why anyone would want to watch TV on a 10" screen when they have a 40" or 50" TV.
ReplyDeleteI have a 21 inch TV. I got it for my birthday when I turned 14 which means that it's been going for over 20 years. They don't make 'em like they used to.
ReplyDeleteYou're not the only one. I assumed the person who wrote the article made the dropping of the term "over the top" mean more that it actually did at the unveiling.
ReplyDeleteI didn't realize Canada had Third World internet access and I live here!
ReplyDelete17 or 1849?
ReplyDeleteI have a 32 inch TV out in my garage that's even older than that and it works fine. I can't even give it away because it's so heavy that no one wants to lift it. Hell, when me and my brother took it out to the garage (we weigh 270 combined that the most), both our backs were shot for about a week.
ReplyDeleteWe have Time Warner and Verizon Fios, that's it. And we only got Fios recently, for most of my life it's been a complete monopoly with cable here.
ReplyDeleteAn extra $10 for something that normally costs 4-6x that? Sounds like a good deal to me.
ReplyDeleteDo you guys have good internet down there? For some reason I've always assumed you were posting here on a phone.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that we only have one cable option here, and some kind of satellite thing.
ReplyDeleteI forget, you're in Canada, right? So you have Rodgers, I take it? I didn't even know Canada had satellite TV, with the weather up there it would barely work.
ReplyDeleteI cut the cord, but yeah, Rogers.
ReplyDeleteI live an hour and a half away from you and my weather is so bad I can't get satellite TV?
I'm one of those on the 30% side. Not that I think this product isn't any good, but I want more old non-PPV content before I dive in. It's not like the WWE's ppv cards are really peaking my interest right now either, so the only attraction to the Network is the old stuff.
ReplyDeleteBy weekly TV do you mean old weekly TV or RAW/Smackdown streams? No way they get away with the latter on the Network without pissing off whoever gives them TV rights fees.
ReplyDeleteBut, alternatively, Comcast and Verizon would be taking a huge risk fucking with another multimedia company like that. They'd basically be inviting every major web based company on the planet to go to all out war with them.
ReplyDeleteIf they do that then the Network dies. Some people will hold onto it for the pay-per-views, but that kind of increase is going to drive away people, especially in the 6 month period once the first 6 months of the Network ends.
ReplyDeleteYet THIS is the man we are supposed to take as a credible opponent for Brock Lesnar??!! ROFL!
ReplyDeleteWhere do you live, Toronto? Anyway, satellite TV was a pain in the ass here. It goes out anytime there's a thunderstorm, and you constantly have to clean the snow off it. Especially here, the dish (with DirecTV, anyway) has to face SW, and that's usually the direction the wind blows from off Lake Erie. And I had to cut a tree down at my old house because it got so big that it was hitting the dish and fucking up the signal. Plus, DirecTV's customer service is absolutely abysmal. I'm never going back to satellite again.
ReplyDeleteI've heard that we pay a lot for poor service.
ReplyDeleteI have no first hand knowledge.
That really was an excellent article. Nice to see this from different perspectives.
ReplyDeleteWould this lead to a push by a good chunk of the boys to unionize? I know it's a FAT chance, but I can see something like this really poisoning the locker room atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a 44 year old fan, I've been using streaming technology from Netflix since its inception, but I've also had to do without cable TV for different reasons since...oh, at last 2000.
ReplyDeleteTruthfully, I'm also not the type to download movies and TV shows illegally. But, I may or may not watch perfectly legit streams for certain wrestling programs.
Sounds like a pain in the ass.
ReplyDeleteTotally unrelated but there was just a flash of lightning so bright that the room I'm in, with no lights on, lit up like daylight. Through curtains. Holy fuck.
I expect Amazon/Netflix to really rally customers against the Comcast-TWC merger. It's going to be a bloody fight.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I fully expect to be pissed off about the service for at least the first week or so. If they can get it together in time for WM, I'll be ok with it.
ReplyDeleteOh, it's already started: http://nypost.com/2014/02/20/netflix-blackout-fears-on-the-rise/
ReplyDeleteNeflix/Amazon is in a tough position since Comcast (in many places, like my apartment in DC) controls the cable AND the broadband Internet. So even if I wanted to "cut the cord" from cable...I still need to pay Comcast for access to streaming.
Comcast has waaaaay too much power compared to Netflix.
No lightning here, but it is pouring pretty hard. And it's warm enough to melt the snow, so there's a flood warning.
ReplyDeleteI like the white look. Makes him look like a wizard.
ReplyDeleteGandalf could take Lesnar.
I guess so, because I thought you were just fucking with me.
ReplyDeleteWell, according to the dirtsheet, he would rather have a nice cozy match with Bryan
ReplyDeleteThis. I live out in the country, and my ISP (TDS) started with 3mb available, went to 5mb, to 10mb, and then to 15mb. Realistically, I've never gotten higher than 10mb. Then they started having problems in Jan 2013. Since then, I've been getting between 3mb - 4mb, sometimes up to 5mb. It's REALLY FUCKING FRUSTRATING, and I used to work there, so I know the BS lines people are told when they call. I have been able to get credits to make up the difference in the price between what I'm getting and what I'm paying for, but I'd much rather have the fucking bandwidth.
ReplyDeleteAnd, they're really my only option. I can't go with ISPs who provide service via satellite for two reasons. First, I know I don't have line of sight with satellites because Dish Network has told me I'd have to chop down trees in order to get their product. I'm not doing that. Second, the satellite companies that offer speeds higher than I'm currently getting put a cap on monthly bandwidth, and I know I'd exceed it every month.
So, yeah. Good times.
Edited for clarity.
ReplyDeleteI think that's the biggest problem - the main value prop for the Network are a bunch of PPVs that no one has cared about for like 5 years at this point.
ReplyDeleteThey keep saying, "What used to cost you $700 will now cost you $120!"
But for most people who only bought Mania, their yearly tab is going up from $60 to $120. They're making it out like it's some huge deal. But based on buyrates, there are about 500,000 people that only buy WrestleMania ever year.
And there is another 3+ million that watch Raw every year and don't buy any PPVs.
That's why I think the number will be between 250-400k. Roughly the hardcore 100k that order many PPVs, another 150k that order Mania/Rumble/SummerSlam and maybe 50k that just want the old stuff.
I just don't see someone who doesn't buy PPVs now suddenly jumping on the Network to spend money on PPVs they didn't have any interest in anyway.
This. SO this. It's only within the last year or so that I've accepted watching some wrestling stuff on my laptop...legit streams, of course.
ReplyDeleteHolla if you hear him. Big bad booty daddy. He's your hookup. etc.
ReplyDeleteHe'll dye his hair/beard and look pretty much the same as he has in recent years. Still, I'd be good with him retiring.
ReplyDeleteVerizon's 4th Q profit was $5 billion dollars. Comcast's 4th Q profit was nearly $2 billion, and will control 52% of all cable households after the TWC merger. And they probably own Congress and the FCC, too.
ReplyDeleteNetflix? $8 million profit 4th Q 2013. WWE just posted a loss and projected losses for the next few quarters as they change models. Hulu is partly owned by Comcast, so they ain't starting a fight.
Now, the big quiet dogs here are Google and Amazon. But both companies probably consider Netflix to be at least a rival (Google sells videos, and Amazon has their own streaming service). And neither company is going to fight for the WWE.
I'm not saying Comcast and Verizon want to go to war with anyone. But if they did, it would be a bigger disparity than WWE and TNA. We're talking Andre and the Big Show teaming up against *amoeba*.
I would suck Vince off to completion while letting Steph fuck me in the ass if they gave us DBry/Taker at this years WM.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Bayless, I would be willing to do this. Legit.
Ding ding ding!
ReplyDeleteI don't buy PPV's other than RR and Mania. I have no interest in EC whatsoever. If I had the network today then I _might_ watch it just because it was on, but it is worth $0 to me. Not even 10.
For me, I would order the network, but once I blew through the old PPVs I would be out.
This is a SERIOUS improvement over your posts this morning. Solid stuff.
ReplyDeleteYou're saying it's a roll of the dice. Could go either way. Place your bets!
ReplyDeletePeople are still panicking about the content? I know we have to wait and see, but what we've heard so far (different ratings, disclaimers) are good signs.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Can't people just put an article on ONE page?!!?
You're pretty much the people I was thinking of, that and people that just can't afford real fast internet (Time Warner can get you broadband for $15, but it's only 2mb. Fine for just basic web surfing but not much else). I just did a speedtest, I'm getting 33mb down, 5mb up, and that's on a cheap Chromebook on wi-fi, but I pay a shitton for internet, it's easilly the most expensive bill I have outside of rent. Satellite internet sucks, not only do you have to deal with the dish itself, but you'd probably pay more than you are now with worse results.
ReplyDeleteDoes your laptop have HDMI ports? I just hook mine up to my TV. You can maybe use a VGA cable too, but I'm pretty sure it won't be in HD that way.
ReplyDeletePeople:"We like page views"
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm just a little slow tonight. I thought you were making jokes about them being old. I thought Flair was the same age as my mother is, turns out he's 7 years older.
ReplyDeleteYou shall not pass
ReplyDelete*dong*
Figured some people here might enjoy the hard numbers counterpoint to the usual 'It'll be awesome!' stance."
ReplyDeleteI can already hear bignasty96 fapping away.
Better than Steve.
ReplyDeleteDid he get banned?
ReplyDeleteYep, just clarifying, the Steve with the blue avatar got banned on Monday or Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteMost people ignore fine print, though.
ReplyDeleteGood riddance. Can't stand guys like like, they hate the "IWC", but then post on the smarkiest website on Earth. Hell, if you look up "IWC" on Urban Dictionary Scott is mentioned in the first definition. And not in a good way.
ReplyDeleteMy grandfather used to rock WebTV like nobody's business.
ReplyDeleteI can't understand why any sane wrestling fan would want the network to fail. It boggles my mind.
ReplyDeletehttps://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/s403x403/1661789_10152595128484942_1066137167_n.jpg
ReplyDeleteWow, given the white hair and magical powers, the Undertaker character basically is a wizard at this point.
ReplyDeleteI think some of that sentiment is coming from people that think it might wake the company up and cause them to shift gears.
ReplyDeleteTotally. And I think that they should just go with it.
ReplyDeleteBut you're talking about the difference between trying to skim the till in classic rentier fashion and deliberately fucking up a major business initiative being launched by a multi-million dollar corporation. The former is basically good clean fun to the billionaire class, while the latter is simply not done, both for reasons of class solidarity and for potential ramifications. After all, if Comcast can torpedo the WWE Network, they can fuck with Bank of America's online banking system or some other function another super rich, super connected firm uses the internet for.
ReplyDeleteIn short, being able to collect those rents by breaking down net neutrality necessarily requires not making other really rich, really powerful business interests consider the many ways ending net neutrality would allow internet providers to totally fuck them if they feel like it.
Very interesting article. The network looks like arguably the company's biggest roll of the dice since Wrestlemania.
ReplyDeleteYup. I would happily pay twice what I am now for 15mb down consistently; it's just not available to me. We ain't moving, either. We really like our house and our property.
ReplyDeleteI've done that before, and probably would for WM this year, if it wasn't for the upcoming WWE Network. For the regular PPVs and Raw, I can't do that, sit comfortably, and shoot the breeze on this blog. With whatever the Chromecast thing is, I might...and I will probably look into it. But, once the Network starts, it would just be for Raw, and I may be content to just use the laptop.
ReplyDelete