Skip to main content

Network Price

I was thinking about how the network is struggling for subscribers, and maybe the six month commitment is turning off some people. So why doesn't WWE offer some sort of tiered pricing option? Maybe $20 for one month, $15 a month with a three month commitment, and the same $10 a month for the six month commitment.

They're apparently having a hard enough time explaining to people how to watch the Network on their TV; complicating things further by offering a tiered pricing structure just seems like asking for trouble.  Simple is better.  

Comments

  1. $20 for a single month means giving away PPV's at less than half the original price tag. "Wanna see WrestleMania? Subscrube for one month at the low price of $20!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. davidbonzaisaldanamontgomeryJune 22, 2014 at 7:35 PM

    At a certain point, you're just going to hit a ceiling with this kind of stuff. Hell, even as a subscriber, even I've fallen off watching the network/archives because of work, actual TV/live sports, significant other, Netflix, gaming, etc. It's a great deal, but even some folks may not even have time for dat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. All these excuses for the network.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I miss the glory days of arguing about the merits of DDP at the lunch table with your friends.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I cant believe any subscriber can bitch about a 6 month commitment. You are getting a ppv a month for that 10 bucks a month plus the archives. Pretty much the best deal out there when it comes to streaming services and they still have so much content to add...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think you're right. Really, the only way to increase the subscriber base, is to increase current fans of the product. How many fans who would sign up for just the old content are still holding out? I know there are probably a few, but how significant of a number could that be?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The truth is that people that use this sort of technology is a very small minority. Most people don't use hulu, most people don't stream netflix, most people don't use torrents. Most people use the internet for Facebook, email and YouTube. It's a product that's about 5 years ahead of its time. And suggesting a tiered price point like they haven't discussed it and you're some sort of innovator is lol.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This has been brought up at least 100 times, and at least 100 times it as been said...it isn't an option.

    I'm sure they're eager to never sell another $50 pay per view because someone can get it for $20 on the network.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The PPVs except WM 30 have sucked major ass and are the worst part of the bargain.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My friends all loved DDP.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The two NXT ppvs were worth the 60 bucks alone...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sources indicate the Network would be doing much better if they had more Japanese content. As it stands right now, the general feeling from the people backstage is that there's too much HHH and not enough Misawa and Tanahashi on the Network. There are those that think changing their pricing to yen instead of dollars might be what the Network needs, but they are not sure. I'll have a 20 page rambling explanation of this in next weeks double issue of the Observer, where we also discuss the hottest act in the WWE, Alicia Fox, who may or may not win the WWE Title at MITB. Everyone is talking about her, and Vince is said to be high on the idea of a black female world champ to boost ratings.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think all of the PPVs following Wrestlemania have been anywhere from Average to Good. Money if the Bank will probably be pretty good. Wanna see some PPVs that "suck major ass"? Watch any of the interchangable PPVs between Summerslam and Royal Rumble from last year.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To be fair, the PPV market is effectively dead now. Now that the cat is out of the bag with the WWE Network (and internet piracy), they pretty much have to stick to it now. The days of relying on people to $55 for a PPV (outside of maybe Wrestlemania) are over. Therefore, I don't see the effect of PPV buying for one month to get a PPV as being that negative.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Your friends and my friends both. They were all idiots!

    ReplyDelete
  16. Stranger in the AlpsJune 22, 2014 at 8:08 PM

    The 6-month commitment thing cannot be the problem. They still only draw out their $9.99 a month. If you don't have $10 in your account, then you probably shouldn't have a Network subscription. The unfortunate part of all this, is that newer content is possibly the answer, as in the current product. If you promised all this old content upon launch, and you still didn't get the numbers you wanted, then it seems that doing things like moving Total Divas to the Network, and shows revolving around the current product might work.


    A coup for the Network would be airing RAW and Smackdown live every week, but we all know that it will never happen because of the $$$$ in being on cable.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you for this.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That wouldn't be a coup for the Network. That would be a tremendous detriment to the company's business model as a whole and would probably sink them once and for all if they ever had to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Do you think you're the first person to bring up the fact that people don't know to watch the Network on their TV as a problem for potential subscribers?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Im guessing that the end game WWE is hoping for is for both of those shows to wind up on the network...

    ReplyDelete
  21. If everybody knows the problem, than discussing it is an exercise in futility. But then again, that's what this blog is for.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Are there really people out there in 2014 that do not understand the way this thing works?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I thought the Blog was a place for otters to meet up and discuss awesome movies....

    ReplyDelete
  24. Of course there are. Do you think everybody has a roku? Or a ps4? How insulated are you?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yes tons of people. I personally know people in there late 20's/early 30's that don't know how to watch Netflix etc on tv

    ReplyDelete
  26. Why not add as much as you can of old school content? If wrestling in itself is a dying genre, then word of mouth from fans like is would sure enough help. I have Arleast a dozen friends that would sign up for UWF and early 80's NWA.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Like playstation plus?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Because old content only takes you so far. The focus also needs to be on the current product, as you'll keep getting new content from it. Once old replays of WCW Monday Nitro dry up, then what? You have to try and sell the service on the current product.

    ReplyDelete
  29. But they aren't adding it. If somebody was stealing PPV Through the web, they probably have the PPV's from the past through torrent too...

    ReplyDelete
  30. Totally disagree. While there are certainly more people NOT using Netflix than are, there's clearly a benefit for Netflix having the service it does. You want to be ahead or at least current with trends, and that's what WWE is doing. Someone has to be the first Netflix or Hulu, and so far I'd say those two companies aren't regretting their decision.

    ReplyDelete
  31. There is a ton of fans in the 30-50 year old range that would love the nostalgia. Yes, the product needs to improve, but why not suck in the old school fans with content they remember?

    ReplyDelete
  32. You misunderstood. I'm not saying it's a mistake. I'm saying it's a struggle to get people to try something they're unfamiliar with. It's not going to be profitable. For years. That's just reality.

    ReplyDelete
  33. My torrenting has dropped substantially now that I can get those old shows in far better quality on the Network. I've even gone back and watched a few shows that I've only found with very low quality as torrents.


    Given the choice between Network quality and the sometimes questionable transfers available on torrents, I'll happily pony up the 10 bucks a month for the network.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sure, if you want to kill your business. Why would they want that to be the end game?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I think they are smart to roll out a little at a time. Attitude Era fans that have not bought yet, will grab subscriptions once those Raw episodes are up...

    ReplyDelete
  36. I'm 30 years old and I still have a Netflix DVD subscription and the only streaming services I have are Amazon video and WWE Network. That's it, and that's all I'm interested in having, for many reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  37. there should be a balance of old and new stuff. which will come in time. i agree there is a lot room for improvement but its only four months old. going to take at least 1-3 yrs. i do like having the old ppv's in one spot. agree vault could better. my main pet peeve is them not putting up the yrs on the shows. 2005 missing from raw and 2006/7 missing from beyond the mat on the roku.

    ReplyDelete
  38. They are probably hoping in the long run that fans will get the network for those shows...

    Ya look at Netflix and they started developing shows to grab new subscribers and I believe it is working...

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm not trying to be insulting, but I don't think you understand the business model. I'll say it again, they make more money off TV rights fees than they ever would off Network subscriptions. There is no way in hell they would ever wish to have their primary TV shows only shown via a streaming service every week.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Agreed. They drove the stake through the PPV model's heart with this thing. It's ride-or-die with the Network.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I'm just waiting for that sad day when the question becomes "how do you get people who don't like wrestling to watch a wrestling network?" Because you know a year or so down the road, that's what we'll all be debating.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'd have to agree with this. Extreme Rules & Payback were perfectly fine shows. Nothing terrible, nothing extraordinary. And they come off even better when you've paid $10 for it instead of $50.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Down the road, suppose they add advertising to the Network. Wouldnt they get to keep that money and also have the fans needing to get the Network in order to watch?


    I mean some took it as Directv and Dish not carrying PPV as a bad thing but if anything it pushes fans into either getting network or buying DVD's....

    ReplyDelete
  44. Insulated? Im guessing you mean isolated. I know plenty of non tech savvy peeps in their 60's that have and understand how to use Netflix...

    ReplyDelete
  45. I went to certain places on the net to watch stuff before the Net but for 10 bucks a month, Id rather watch it on my TV in HD....

    ReplyDelete
  46. No, advertising on a streaming-based network wouldn't equate to dollars made from a cable network like USA or SyFy. It just wouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  47. protect from the unpleasant effects or elements of something.
    "he claims that the service is complacent and insulated from outside pressures"
    synonyms: protect, save, shield, shelter, screen, cushion, buffer, cocoon; More

    Congratulations! You learned something today!

    ReplyDelete
  48. yep...how long did it take netflix to become netflix.. i did not sign up for netflix until last yr. or how long did it xbox live to get on its feet or cable tv in the 80's. it took dvd's 3-5 yrs to become where it is today wwe network will take some time. if wwe network survives the struggles and becomes the juggernaut it could be. this yrs will be forgotten. .

    ReplyDelete
  49. I prefer the talking head shows to the old ppvs/shows. I have seen all the countdowns except for the divas one. I have watched a few wrestlemania rewinds and a couple of the documentaries. I like the insight that the "experts" bring to the old stuff.
    If you had a show like Flair's greatest matches with Flair talking about why they are so great, I would definitely watch that.
    If you had a Sport Science type show (like the one on fox sports/espn) that explained the science behind the moves or the impact to the human body that happened during Foley's HIAC match, I would definitely watch that.

    ReplyDelete
  50. CruelConnectionNumber2June 22, 2014 at 8:59 PM

    The answer is: The current product sucks ass and there aren't enough fans who NEED the Network because free pro wrestling is a hobby and not one that hooks them into everything ala 1998-2001 fans.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Yeah, what everybody else here already knows when it comes to Dougie2876....

    ReplyDelete
  52. Let it play out and see where it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I like your suggestions about 'Wrestler X talks about his greatest matches' and a Sports Science show.


    I think one of the problems, like I've seen Scott suggest, is that it seems like the people in charge of Network content aren't familiar with wrestling and seem to be somewhat clueless about what would get people to subscribe. The stuff like WrestleMania Rewind and Countdowns are good, but they're also pretty obvious since the major sports networks have similar styled shows.

    ReplyDelete
  54. You have a dozen friends who know about the UWF? Do you live in Louisiana?

    ReplyDelete
  55. It's the dealbreaker for me. I have no interest in the current non-Mania ppvs. Since its launch I've been taking UFC's Fight Pass for a month when there's going to be a live fight worth watching on there. I would probably do WWE Net once every few months to get my fill for awhile.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Glad to see you're over here.

    ReplyDelete
  57. They have a real product problem with the Network. My father, a die-hard wrestling fan, would watch anything with Jerry Lawler or Ric Flair. He's 55 and doesn't have an email address. He only watches RAW, Smackdown, any PPV that gets him pumped and DVD's that I give him. My nephews who are die-hard wrestling fans only watch RAW, the big PPV's and some certain Indy's. They don't care about any old-timers, If they're really itchy, they find something on Youtube.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Uncrusimatic_Buck_NastyJune 22, 2014 at 9:15 PM

    there are still more remote (US) places that still can't get high speed internet, right? i wonder how that factors in, if at all

    ReplyDelete
  59. Now that would be an interesting factor.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Blockbuster wishes that most people use the interwebs for Facebook, email and YouTube.


    I do think one of the problems is that because the WWE fanbase is a lot younger than it was in the late 90's and early 00's, you're not gonna have 8 year old kids with Rokus who subscribe to The Network. I think if their current fanbase had the demographic makeup it did 15 years ago (not in terms of size-- although that'd be great-- but in terms of age), The Network would be an easier sell.


    I feel like the only type of people who would even think of buying a wrestling network are the hardcore wrestling fans who have been watching their whole lives. And it seems like those are the only ones who have subscribed.

    ReplyDelete
  61. There's a good chunk of the US that can't get high-speed internet at all and those who can will don't always get it. The thing about high-speed is that it only describes the provider's capability, not what they're actually providing.

    I have high speed internet and if I'm watching some random PPV on Dailymotion at 1 AM, the video quality is OK. If I'm streaming a popular show on Netflix during normal human hours, half the time, the stream gets degraded to the point that it looks like a YouTube movie filmed on a Super 8 with cat shit smeared on the lens.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I don't know. While I think there are a lot of people who are nostalgic about wrestling, it's one thing to be that way and watch a YouTube clip and another to subscribe $10 a month for the footage.


    It's almost like how I get nostalgic with random N64 or Sega Genesis games. I romanticize about the days of when I was a kid and could just play games for hours. So I play a game or two for an hour and then that's it and I'm good for months. I'd never pay $10 per month for something I only really care about every once in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Let me ask you this: would you really pay $10 for Raw and Raw, Except Nobody Tries?

    I can't imagine the person who would plunk down $120 a year to watch Raw. Fuck the cable rights fees. WWE having a "free" outlet is essential. How do you grow a fanbase when you aren't giving them a THING for free to hook them?

    Setting a monthly fee to be a fan of wrestling would kill the industry in short order.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Not to mention that by adding advertisements, now you're going back on the deal you originally proposed to your subscribers. Ads are not a huge imposition, but going back on what you promised or implied is a fine line to walk when you're desperate not to lose any subscribers you have.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Flair would totally ignore the matches and would just talk about the hot chic he banged after the match.

    ReplyDelete
  66. If we assume there are a bunch of nostalgic fans out there waiting to subscribe...

    Uh, waiting for what?

    What can the WWE do to draw those hypothetical potential subscribers in? It's not about adding more old school content. There is not a statistically significant number of old school lapsed fans watching network update posts on blogs and such to see what AWA shows got added this week or whatever, so what it's gonna take?

    ReplyDelete
  67. This. Old school wrestling is old school wrestling. It exists as it is and it isn't changing. Wanna watch an old PPV you don't have on DVD/VHS? YouTube, Dailymotion, hell, Google can point you in the right direction.

    Where this product, as all WWE products, lives and dies is in modern day. If the current product sucks, nobody's buying and nobody's watching. I guarantee you that if a survey were done to measure the number of lapsed fans who heard about the network... Somehow and subscribed from the current fans who bought in, the latter would dwarf the former by a comical margin.

    ReplyDelete
  68. That he knows what words mean and you don't?

    ReplyDelete
  69. PPV isn't dead, but it's as good as for the WWE. They really fucked the carriers with the Network and if they ever do pull the plug on it (which has a less than 0.1% chance of happening), they'll remember it and give Vince/HHH/whoever a nice, shitty, raw deal to carry the shows again.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Short of some tech-dipshit-heaven wired with all fiber-optics surrounding the HQ of some tech giant, where I live is probably one of the best markets for internet service in the nation. This is a widespread problem that the industry is in no hurry to fix, for the same reasons that the same companies (for the most part) didn't give a shit that a large swath of the nation couldn't get telephone service when your own home phone became the next big thing in telecommunications.

    ReplyDelete
  71. wwe/ still need to get the live stream working better on all devices. i think that is the main issue. for a lot of people. the last three weeks the live stream on the roku has been iffy..while before that it was working nicely. while vod stream works great.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I like this tiered pricing suggestion. I don't think paying $10 a month for six months is a problem for most people, but the required commitment is. Some people just don't like being locked in to a "contract" that they can't cancel for a certain amount of time. This tiered idea would at least provide some different options for people.

    ReplyDelete
  73. It's such a crap shoot. Here in STL speed is pretty good but I found LA lousy when I visited. Seems opposite of how it should be.

    ReplyDelete
  74. CruelConnectionNumber2June 22, 2014 at 10:34 PM

    Payback featured over an hour and 11 minutes of in-ring between three *** 1/2+ matches (Cesaro/Sheamus, Cena/Bray, Evo/Shield) so I'd hardly say the show sucked ass. Nearly half of the show was better than above average. The rest of the show was average. I'd give it a 6/10 personally, but far from bad.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I feel like they don't promote classic content well. Watch classic wrestling and see the legends! Why is Flair a legend? Find out with World Championship Wrestling!

    ReplyDelete
  76. CruelConnectionNumber2June 22, 2014 at 10:37 PM

    Extreme Rules was the lesser show of the two but featured the best match of the two, a **** 1/4 six-man between the Shield and Evolution. Bryan/Kane wasn't great but was decent. Again, we're in the era of basically getting Raw Without Promos as PPVs now, with only shows that are in re-up subscription periods treated as special.

    ReplyDelete
  77. CruelConnectionNumber2June 22, 2014 at 10:38 PM

    PLUS those NXT specials --- Cesaro/Zayn, Charlotte/Natty, Neville/Kidd, Paige/Emma... plenty of money's worth.

    ReplyDelete
  78. NXT don't have PPVs. You know I'm talking about the hot trash called Extreme Rules and Payback.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I have charter in the stl (collinsville, il) and it's great I never have a problem with speed no matter the time.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Yep. People forget that Netflix was founded in 1997.

    ReplyDelete
  81. That should be the selling point for them to go for.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Same with me in Northeast Ohio.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Yeah, that's the right answer.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Total Divas, that is all.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Yep, they appeased the hardcore fans, but sadly no one else.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Or just NXT in general.

    ReplyDelete
  87. No you're right, NXT has specials.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I'm in Edwardsville so we probably have the same set of tubes. Only minor complaint is I have to reset the connection every couple of days. Unsure why that is.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Couldn't you apply the same argument to PPVs? People are essentially paying 120 a year to watch one big PPV and 5 B-shows.


    I guess the point I'm trying to make is that Raw and Smackdown would just be added bonuses to entire library of stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I'd say they've hit a ceiling with the number of subscribers they're going to get in the USA. There are only so many fans of the current product and there's only a certain percentage of them who care enough about old shows/extra content to pay a monthly fee. Going after Attitude-era fans or WCW fans won't work; nostalgia is enough to make them look this stuff up on YouTube, they're never going to start paying for something that was free fifteen years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Really? I'm all for parodies, but this was pretty terrible.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Spot on. Nostalgic fans will hunt down a clip on YouTube to watch Rock give a classic promo or something but they aren't willing to pay $60 to watch old PPVs for hours on end. They just want a quick hit now and then, and YouTube is fit for that.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Hardly a good excuse. Netflix still has 30m+ subs.

    ReplyDelete
  94. My usage of the network is very hit or miss. This weekend the only thing I watched was the September Raw with the Corvette getting cemented. Getting the PPVs are great but the stream is iffy at some points. The only time I was really glad I had it was after Warrior passed away, I watched the network every night.

    ReplyDelete
  95. You, sir, are nothing more than a 100% fruit booty.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Well, clearly my sense of humor isn't as "dynamic" as yours may be, Dave.

    ReplyDelete
  97. They need to hire Rock Parsons - the owner of the other wrestling network. Oh wait he's not the owner. There is a local channel in VA Beach that shows wrestling on Saturday night and shows classic wrestling not owned by Vince. The old Chicago stuff, and Savage's/Poffo's IWA.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Thread borrow: sting vs. Sid at HH 1990 is amazing. It's about a *** thanks to Sting carrying Sid.

    ReplyDelete
  99. If the network did a Paul Orndorff week, a Tito Santana week, and released every hulk hogan match and promo they own -- I would pay for the network.

    ReplyDelete
  100. And some VA beach promotion that had a Lita wannabe announcing.

    ReplyDelete
  101. I understand what your an but Flair's probably the worst guy to put doing that.

    Interviewer: What made this match with Harley Race so special?

    Flair: The nWo was the worst idea in the history of wrestling!! WOO!

    ReplyDelete
  102. Don't talk bad about my uncle meltz!

    ReplyDelete
  103. I think it's fair that they don't know what will make people want to subscribe. I mean, check the comments on the blog. Some people subscribe almost exclusively for the "free" PPV's and care very little about the old content. Some view exclusively for the old content and consider the PPV's a perk. Then, meanwhile, content like Legends' House -- which almost always gets panned here -- is one of their most viewed programs. It's easy to forget that just because each of us might enjoy something doesn't mean that the entire viewing audience would enjoy it.

    ReplyDelete
  104. I've said this before... when they put out the "Most watched shows" weekly, does that count archive stuff, or is it just the livestream? Because if it's the latter, then there's already a limited number of timeslots to fill out the Top Ten, you have repeats taking some of those slots, and you have the issue of when people are watching.


    I don't know if they publicly release the "raw numbers", but it wouldn't surprise me if they add up ALL viewings of one show for their rankings. So something like Legends House, shown multiple times over the week, would rank higher than a random one-off show just through sheer volume.

    ReplyDelete
  105. If the WWE expects non-network subscribers to start paying $10 to continue following Raw, they will need to drastically improve the quality of the product. Otherwise, they will lose a ton more viewers, as any borderline fans won't follow them.

    ReplyDelete
  106. The thing is, Ads CAN be a huge imposition. I know people who get significantly pissed when they have to watch a 1.5 minute ad without the ability to skip before a YouTube video.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Worked with her recently on an indy show here in Western Pennsylvania (myself as a ring announcer/commentator). She's an ROH dojo trainee. She's one of the most legit personable people I've met in the indies. I could see her going a long way in ROH (and beyond) if she wants to.

    ReplyDelete
  108. If Pele and David Beckham couldn't make soccer popular in the U.S., then nothing ever will.

    ReplyDelete
  109. I always loved Stevie Ray's commentary for the same reason I love Mongo's.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment