411mania.com: Wrestling - The Hamilton Ave Journal 06.04.09: Volume 2

The Editorials section is designed for you, the readers, to respond to the views presented in the Journal, send an important news item, or talk about another overlooked business related item in wrestling. Just beware: the Journal reserves the right to respond back.

From the commentary section last week, the oddly well selling TNA Unbreakable 2005 was a subject of interest. First from HeartBurnKid:

Doesn't Unbreakable 2005 feature the AJ/Joe/Daniels 3-way? I wouldn't be surprised it's still a big seller, since that is TNA's best match ever.

StylesClash agreed with this thought:

Unbreakable 2005 is probably featured on the best sellers list due to it featuring the AJ Styles vs Christopher Daniels vs. Samoa Joe triple threat match, which gained 5 stars from Meltzer.

While that match is lauded, wouldn't we see the item more often in the top selling list, then? And wouldn't most people who wanted to own that match already have it by now? BringTheNoise seems to have the real answer:

The AJ/Joe/Daniels three-way from Unbreakable 2005 was the main event of TNA Epics this week in the UK. That may account for the sudden sales bump.

Well, one could not ask for a better result from TNA Epics. If this is the reason, then the show is already paying for itself (outside of its licensing fee).

Of course, TNA was not the only selling merchandise, as Jeff Hardy (covered above) provoked some Q&A. The question from Guest#3971:

I still don't get how Jeff Hardy sells so much merchandise.

Mark Knophler provided the verbose, but accurate answer:

Have you been living on the moon for the past couple of years??

Jeff Hardy moves merchandise because the kids and young women LOVE him!!!

All you have to do to move merchandise in wrestling is get the "kid"/"teenage" market to buy your stuff and you are set.

They have the most disposable income. And if they don't have any money, their parents do and EVERY parent has to buy something for their kids at a show.

And when you look at what's offered, it's either gonna be Jeff Hardy or Cena Merchandise. No kid wants a "Legacy" t-shirt and no parent wants their kids to buy a Triple H shirt w/ skulls on it.

Hardy's merch is safe for EVRYONE!

Jeff Hardy has moved something like 50,000 armbands since they began making them!

They're cheap to make. When you go to a show, EVERY kid wants them and Jeff Hardy is a kid/teen character so when he does/wears something all of the kids want it and the parents are going to buy it.

You get the kids---You get the MONEY!

Add that to all of the young women who think he's "sexy" and you got yourself a money machine!

While your "50,000" number is quite suspect, your point remains valid. Hardy is popular with a kid, women, and teenage demographic that make up much of the WWE's fanbase nowadays. Thinking of a recovering drug addict as "safe for kids" is a bit hard in this reporter's mind, but they have done incredible things with his public image. Stranger things have happened in wrestling, so Hardy is not really that far outside the norm on that scale.

Outside of merchandise, the usual subject of downloading shows came up. Guest#5649 portends:

It's about time Smackdown was on Hulu. Fighting the changes technology brings is futile, as Luddites have shown. What is needed is a new business model to operate under new conditions. The music, movie, and print industries have been extremely slow to understand this, much less act on changing.

Vince can bitch and moan about streams, but the fact is that the world has changed. Time to adapt or go under.

When the VCR (beta-max) came out, television companies and move studios became irate about piracy and the like. Yet in less than 10 years they had discovered that over 50% of the revenue from movies was coming from home purchases and rentals. At that point in time they were able to adapt to a new market and make money off it, despite the concerns. Today they should be able to do the same, yet they continue to fight. It's a losing fight. Making your product easier to acquire through the channels people want and they will pay for it. If it is easier to buy than to steal, it will be bought more often then not. You will never stop all people from stealing, but you can stop most people. JO, though, has an alternate opinion on shutting on streams:

While it's true that shutting down illegal streams might not get a lot more buyers there's one thing you haven't considered. If the WWE doesn't fight this it'll be a signal to people that it's OK to watch the illegal streams. Then what about the people who are already buying the PPVs but now see that there's a free alternative. It's likely that some people would switch from paying customers to the illegal streams.

My point is: the WWE might not be doing this to get more buyers, but instead to keep the ones they already have.

There is a significant quality and experience drop when you move from a living room TV to an internet stream on a small monitor. For some people, the opportunity cost is too high. Yes, there are those who will switch to an illegal stream (some already have), but like was noted above: if you make a better quality product deliverable in the same method at a price that is considered fair market value, then you will convert people from that illegal methodology. Not all of them, but enough to make it worthwhile. It's about going with how the market wants the product delivered, not fighting against it. Brett covers this point:

As opposed to offering PPVs for a mere $10, WWE should offer $10 PPV streams on the net. I believe that they did offer PPV streams once upon a time. It can be hard to find a good PPV, especially now that WWE is cracking down on it. So, WWE should offer there own, people will probably prefer to spend ten dollars than miss half the show because they couldn't find a stream. WWE could also offer an HD stream, which i don't believe is something most streams offer.

That is the bottom line. Find a way to make revenue, not add costs.

Speaking of other delivery methods, ECW started to become available on Sprint TV. Peers chimes in with his thoughts:

WWE doesn't offer content to Sprint. SciFi (sorry... SyFy) does that. I'm guessing whatever contract they have with the WWE allows them to do this. AT&T doesn't have a reason to get angry with the WWE; they're not involved in the decision. That said... $2.50 for a ringtone? Yeesh...

No, the WWE owns all of their content and how it is distributed. They are VERY particular about this. The WWE may have gone through SyFy or SyFy may have asked them permission, but the WWE still had to allow it.

Moving away from the regular streams, we jump into ratings where Richard wants to know:

Do you think RAW's ratings were really that bad when it got a 2.9 last year and wasn't against a Lakers game.

Yes, because in 2001 the WWE was scoring 4.2's against the NBA Playoffs. The benchmark is not last year; the benchmark is what the WWE is capable of. We know they are capable of getting 5.0's every week, but they have lost so much of the market that 3.5 looks like a good rating in these times. Well, it may be decent when comparing it to a 2.9, but not when comparing it to a 4.2.

Of course, ratings in the USA are one thing. Ratings in the UK are another. Luke fills in some holes:

Part of the reason for the fluctuating UK WWE ratings is that, apart from the live Raw, most shows are bumped around the schedule, plus they are repeated multiple times, plus the catch-up shows air constantly. There are some days where Sky Sports 3 will show upward of ten hours of the stuff. The viewership is fractured.

Yes, but the ratings shows the total of each show individually and collectively. Even on a week by week basis all together the shows are fluctuating a lot. But what you say about them being bumped around in the schedule certainly makes it hard to watch on a regular basis.

Sticking in the UK, Guest#4236 wants to know:

What I don't get about the UK is that if there's such a market for TNA and WWE, why hasn't a British entrepreneur tried to capitalize on that by doing a British take on Vince's sports entertainment? Most British wrestlers seem to gravitate to the US for that very reason. I'm obviously ignorant of the British entertainment industry but if something like TNA can succeed, why can't a homegrown version do the same?

Luke also wanted to answer this question:

I think part of the appeal is that the shows are rare here. I went to a really good UK Indy show recently, featuring Danielson, and it drew barely 200 people. To come close to matching WWE or TNA would require huge outlay and after a few months, interest would probably wane.

Tickets to the recent WWE London shows started at $60 for the nosebleeds

This is also a time sensitive question. From the 1880's through the 1930's, pro-wrestling was huge in Great Britain. George Hackenschmidt (then European Greco Roman Heavyweight Champion, among others) defeated the American Champion Tom Jenkins on May 5, 1905 in Liverpool, England to become the first "Undisputed" World Champion (sorry Chris Jericho). Times change, though, and the UK is not a market that can support its own large federation; there are simply not enough people and fans. But the WWE and TNA have cultivated a market that is profitable for them to visit… once or twice a year.

Plenty more was written, so be sure to take a look. And of course, a week would not be complete without a good dose of JP Prag's own HIDDEN HIGHLIGHTS!!

If you enjoy the Journal, why not bookmark 411mania.com and make it your home page? You can do that by clicking here.

CLOSING BELL

This concludes Issue #89 (Volume 2) of THE HAMILTON AVE JOURNAL. Join us next week as we get ready to ring the bell again.

Till then!

Post Comment (13) | Email JP Prag | View JP Prag's 411 Profile

Send To Friend |

Stumble It! |

Digg It! |

Please add your comment below.

If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.

Name :

Comment :

Remaining Characters :

2800

Comments (13)

Having close ties to a UK promoter, i hope i can shed a little light here.
The main reason that the UK based wrestling scene is it is still tainted by memories of "World of Sport" from the seventies / eighties, with Big Daddy and Giant Haystacks being probably the two most named wrestlers in most of the 30+ demographics.
Watch this clip to see where the problem lies in that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA5dt4z7BmI

Whilst the 15-30 market have been brought up on US based (mainly WWF / WWE) wrestling, there was, until less than 10 years ago, almost no advertised UK indy scene - "British" wrestling (rounds based, 10 count on a knockdown, etc) died in the mid eighties. Even now, whilst the UK indies are gaining in popularity and starting to get a foothold, the lack of "name" talent, and the fact that advertising is limited to usually second rate, cheap looking posters displayed in the window of the local butcher, means that the 30+ parent who's eight year old kid, wearing his HLR t-shirt and Hardy arm-sleeves won't take their child to the local gym to see some kids pretending to do "american wrestling"

When the WWE or TNA comes to town, it is a "big thing" - with the associated big ticket price. WWE were charging £45 (~$65) per ticket for essentially a house show at the 10,000 capacity arena in Newcastle - a local show would probably charge £5-8 per ticket for a show in a 100 capacity gym.

WWE can charge that much because they _are_ the big dog that only comes to town rarely. With the right promotion and a "name" PPV, they could probably fill the 56000+ seater St James Park in the same city.
TNA are starting to get quite the following in the UK due to their deal with Bravo, but the local scene is a pale comparison in terms of image, popularity and unfortunately, most times, product.

Posted By: Daishi (Guest) on June 04, 2009 at 03:41 AM

There seems to be a slight reluctance to admit this, but doesn't Jeff Hardy's popularity have something to do with the fact that he's a consistently entertaining wrestler?

Posted By: bluesteel (Guest) on June 04, 2009 at 05:58 AM

In response to the question "What I don't get about the UK is that if there's such a market for TNA and WWE, why hasn't a British entrepreneur tried to capitalize on that by doing a British take on Vince's sports entertainment?";

Pretty much every kid growing up will watch WWE at some point. It has been ingrained into the consciousness here, and now TNA as well is jumping on this. However, because of this, I think part of the appeal of wrestling is because it seen as being very American, and thus over-the-top, expensive and exciting, whereas a british wrestling show would be looked down on as dry and boring.

Posted By: Guest#5860 (Guest) on June 04, 2009 at 08:35 AM

SD gets low rating becuase it is on the former My Network. Many My channels are on the UHF band and thus draw less viewers. Furthermore, it is often pre-empted for basketball, hockey, or baseball. Thus, SD does not become appointment viewing.

Another reason for its low ratings is its Friday night timeslot. There's a reason that networks don't schedule their best shows on Friday; no one's home.

Posted By: Iron Knee (Guest) on June 04, 2009 at 11:38 AM

1PW was probably the biggest attempt by a UK promoter to do Sports Entertainment in the UK - and it went bust in under a year. It's back now, but stumbling along without the big names that drew the crowds. It would seem that it's the company name rather than the wrestlers that draw in the UK, as TNA and 1PW used a lot of the same talent.

Posted By: BringTheNoise (Guest) on June 04, 2009 at 12:59 PM

TNA could do a deal with one of the copious theme parks (EG Alton Towers) around the UK, or even an arena in one of the more popular seaside towns, film 6-8 episodes of TV over a week or two, having given out free tickets, in the middle of the summer holidays when these places will be packed full of people.

They wouldn't have to utilise their whole roster, they could pad it out with some of the European indy guys who are constantly touring and wrestling in Italy for NWE etc.

If they did a deal with one of the lesser ITV channels to show the resulting programmes, which followed say an eight week storyline, culminating in a new European / Intercontinental Champion being crowned, they'd get the following:

1) Huge exposure to the large number of people attending a tourist attraction at the busiest time of the year.

2) An opportunity to shill loads of merchandise over the course of the week.

3) Potential upturn in Website visitors, which increases advertising revenue.

4) More interest in their overall product, hence opportunity for longer tour or potential spin off European branch of the company that can run regular house shows over the months of June to September in British tourist hotspots.

It just makes sense for little outlay. If they filmed in 30 minute blocks over the course of a day and coached the crowd (if needed) the atmosphere would show on the TV show.

When Celebrity Wrestling was on ITV a few years ago on prime time saturday evening TV, loads of people tuned in out of curiosity to watch wrestling. Granted they turned off when no wrestling took place.

The success of TNA in the UK is not down to Bravo. There was a Wrestling Channel that laid the foundations by showing TNA weekly PPVS on a 6 month delay. The viewing figures weren't huge, but the channel ending up closing when the lost TNA to Bravo, such was the impact (no pun intended) of TNAs programming on their channel.

Somebody with some half right savvy in TNA could make a killing in the UK. Not saturate the market 25/7, but come the summer months, when we're not miserable bastards cos it's stopped raining, we'll spend money.

It's ripe for the taking for someone with some business acumen.

NB That twat at 1PW had no business acumen, thats why they went bust - not because of the lack of market.

Posted By: WinstonChurchill (Guest) on June 04, 2009 at 02:50 PM

Smackdown suffers from being a taped show. Period. Yes, you can avoid the spoilers and watch events as they unfold, but it's not easy particularly if you participate in wrestling forums or chat rooms where some dummy will no doubt leak information you wanted to avoid.

Also, WWE's insistence on reshooting different segments or redoing match endings in post production makes it look so bush league. It's almost as if anyone relegated to the Smackdown roster isn't considered trustworthy enough to get the job done in the promo department on live TV.

Raw, on the other hand, declining quality or not, is live almost every single week. Despite spoilers about who is backstage or finding out the main event a few hours before it airs, it still has that aura of "anything can happen."

Face facts, even though everyone knew that Batista would eventually save Flair in the cage last week, in the back of their heads, there was still a chance that "this could be HBK's or HHH's return." If they're really delusional, maybe they thought it was a returning superstar they haven't seen in a while. Unlikely, but because it's live, you never know. You only get that feeling on a live show because there's no real spoilers as the segments are taking place that could ruin the "surprise."

Also, even though it's prone to Botchamania fodder, you only get one take on RAW which makes it look like the fresher, more improvisational show. It doesn't matter if Snitsky vs. Knox main events RAW - more fans will flock to the live show regardless of quality.

Posted By: Brad B (Guest) on June 04, 2009 at 02:52 PM

I watched Wrestlemania 20 as a live webcast back in the day for a slight discount off the PPV price (I think it was $35 for a $45 PPV.) It was the only way I could see the show, the quality was decent, and afterwards, I was overjoyed that I spent that money.

I "found" Wrestlemania 25, 1 day after the event... and I didn't even bother to watch it until 3 days later. "Deleted!"

I agree: if you make the product available in the methods/formats the customer wants, and offer it at fair market value, people WILL buy...

...BUT make the damn PRODUCT better, and people will buy it anyway!

Posted By: Streams (Guest) on June 04, 2009 at 05:33 PM

Why does SD have such a low rating inspite of being widely regarded as the best show ?

I Think it is because Americans have very poor taste , They like movies like Mall cop & Vote for Twilight in award shows , and watch RAW & Moan about it instead of switching to SD . It's not the network or Friday night , because ratings for SD used to be quite high when HHH was around , it is the bad taste of the audience . No matter how bad RAW Gets , people will watch it but for SD , They will give excuses for not watching it .

People [ including the kids of today ] in USA Do not appreciate quality anymore and have very bad taste .

Posted By: Michael Shawn (Guest) on June 04, 2009 at 04:46 AM

>^-.-^<

Or it could be the fact that Smackdown! on MyNetwork TV isn't carried on a lot of cable carriers (like mine). If I had access to Smackdown! I would watch it every week, because from everything I've heard/read, it is far better than ECW, TNA !mpact, and even Monday Night Raw.

Posted By: Raykun (Guest) on June 04, 2009 at 07:31 PM

Not a big shocker that Beer Money has the top selling TNA item. They are clearly the most over act in the company by a nice margain in fact. Did they recentely just start selling their items? If so that's a mistake. Imo they should start selling any item having to do with the team(Storm's cowboy hat, Beer Money type beer bottle tag belts) The issue is as over as they are now you can't break em up and forge ahead with Roode's big singlespush(he had signed a 5 year deal with promises of a big singles push) Intersting development and wonder where they go with this. They are clearly the two most over(and valuable) homegrown TNA stars(helped that they haven't been screwed by Russo's booking yet)

Posted By: ted (Guest) on June 04, 2009 at 08:02 PM

Hey JP WWE already hold's streams on their site for every PPV for the same price. In fact I watched WrestleMania on WWE.com for the same price with very good quality.

Posted By: Rich (Guest) on June 04, 2009 at 10:51 PM

Great article as usual - congratulations to you JP Prag for a consistently interesting analysis of wrestling.
As I am based in the UK (and - true fact this - went to university with Nigel McGuinness - who lived two doors down from me in halls - great guy, really funny, even had his own radio show, and reignited my interest in wrestling), and have attended a few UK indy shows (I have seen Low Ki in my home town of Ipswich!), i have to say that part of the problem comes from the demographic - the hardcore British fans tend to be mid teens to early 20s, and as such it doesn't appear to be a friendly family environment (I don't think this is true necessarily, although certainly evening shows often have a rowdy crowd who have had a few drinks before hand). Without family attendance, it is always going to be a niche market over here.
I don't understand why a company doesn't set up shows in seaside resorts (and as someone mentioned above, theme parks)and build up a audience that way. With more people choosing to save money by holidaying in the UK, I would think that this would be an ideal time to be building up an audience. A slightly different approach may be necessary, possibly more emphasis on the athleticism to avoid "panto" comparisons ( another drawback of wrestlings image in this country - which really annoys me, until the WWE runs another stupid, tasteless or ober the top angle...).

There is money to be made from Wrestling in this country - even if audiences reached 400 - 500, or 2000 - 4000 for bigger shows, and there are so many TV channels crying out for a new show (rather than re-runs of re-runs!) in the UK.
On a seperate note, I just thought I would say that ECW is rapidly becoming my favourite show at the minute - WWE is looking good for talent, and Swagger, Christian, Hart Trilogy etc. make what should be a niche show exceed my expectations...

Posted By: GVSBfan (Guest) on June 05, 2009 at 08:19 AM