411mania.com: Wrestling - The Hamilton Ave Journal 12.03.09: 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, Hulk Hogan's shenanigans appear to be topic du jour. Donners starts us off:

Just a note on Hogan's Hulkamania tour - he was on a Brisbane radio station and said that they will have to cut production costs on the later shows just to break even.

Attendance at the first two shows was well below 10,000 - about a third of the stadium capacity - and many of those tickets sold were reduced to $50 in the weeks before the show (down from $360 for Diamond and $150 for Gold).

It could have been the elderly card (featuring the Nasty Boys, Brutus Beefcake, Godfather, Ric Flair and others) or competition from the first-ever TNA tour (in February, though ticket sales from that have apparently also been very bad), but perhaps it is a warning sign that Hulk and Flair not the draw they once were.

From most reports, attendance seems to be in the 6,000 to 8,000 range per show, which would be quite impressive. No other independent organization pulls those type of numbers, and TNA has only on a few occasions had crowds that big. When Hogan and Paul Wight had a match in Memphis a few years back they brought in 5,000 fans, which is a solid number.

Were price cuts necessary to bring in more fans? Probably so, but those came late in the game. Just because they booked an arena that was too big does not mean that the shows are not showing good numbers. Instead, take homage in the fact that a mostly unannounced card featuring a few known names in an organization with no brand recognition and a limited advertising budget could do so well.

Sticking in the Hulk Hogan world, Guest#7847 came in late with:

Hulk Hogan's trademarks are owned by Eric Bischoff. He bought them from Hulk so Linda & the Graziano's couldn't get them in the courts.?

No offence to yourself or TMZ, but they did not translate those legal documents correctly. The Journal read through the entire court papers, and here is what happened: Before any divorce proceedings began, Hulk Hogan transferred the various trademark assets related to him and his products to a number of shell companies. Most of these companies he was 99% owner of and Eric Bischoff or someone else was a 1% owner in. Since Hogan did not have any pre-nuptial agreement, these assets were considered part of the "Marriage Assets", so Linda Hogan also had to sign to agree to the transfer.

After the transfer and during the divorce proceedings, the various shell companies leased the rights that each one owned to various companies, some owned majority by Hulk Hogan, some owned by Eric Bischoff. Let us be clear on this: Hogan did not "sell" his assets to Eric Bischoff; instead, he gave Eric Bischoff a ten year lease on the assets to put them to use for the various Hogan companies. At the end of the day, it is more of an ability for Mr. Bischoff to represent Hogan's interests and make sales in his name, but most of the money would still go to Hogan's various entities and eventually himself.

Linda Hogan is contending that she was tricked into signing the documents that made the original transfer in that Hulk Hogan had already talked about the transfer of assets with his lawyer before introducing the idea to Linda, even though the two presented it as if it was the first time they had thought of it. So in Linda's part of the suit, she wants the assets transferred back to her in an "unfair proportion" and to have a controlling interest in all of the shell companies, including the ones owned by Eric Bischoff.

So it is actually a much more complicated situation and not one that should be trust to TMZ. Perhaps their lawyers should have taken a read through first before writing the piece with half truths and lack of understanding?

Moving away from Hogan, Stephanie McMahon was named one of the most powerful women in cable. Many were surprise, such as BattleBowl92:

I seriously doubt anyone outside of the wrestling community would recognized Stephanie, let alone considering her a powerful woman of cable... she books b/c-list celebrities for RAW which the mainstream considers (rightfully so) a modern traveling circus... it makes money on cable because it's core demographic is the monster truck rally crowd which consider watching TV an event...

Most Powerful Woman.... in her dreams.

She is the third most powerful person of a $480 million a year company that provides 10 hours of content a week to various stations and is the second highest producer of PPV revenue in the country. In what way does that align to your statements in any way? This isn't 1989 anymore and cable television is the medium for growth and dollars. Obviously you did not read the Journal closely last week because the piece was about how CableFax listed her among other WWE women in their most powerful women in the television industry, which those numbers would make her. Also, two other women were listed, but all were in the "runners up" category. The top 50 did not include any of them, but did have Bonnie Hammer, who controls where and when much of the WWE content is seen through her thrown at the top of NBC/Universal.

Unfortunately, you were not completely alone in the commentary section. Outside of that, Guest#0390 wanted to talk about what Bonnie Hammer might want to do with RAW:

If Raw goes to three hours cool, I guess but if they move to a 7 pm start time I think it would hurt their viewership some as myself and a lot of my friends have satellite on the west coast so currently we see Raw at 6pm our time but 7pm EST means 4pm my time and I won't skip work just to catch Raw. Hopefully that is not something they do.

One would assume that USA would be on delay in the West Coast, which would help with their national alignment and scheduling. Right now, it is a wait and see game, especially considering where the Comcast buyout may lead.

Plenty more was written, so be sure to take a look. And 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 #114 (Volume 2) of THE HAMILTON AVE JOURNAL. Join us next week as we get ready to ring the bell again.

Till then!

Post Comment (16) | 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 (16)

I know the popular thing to do is to bash WWE and praise UFC on every level, but with WWE reducing their PPV shows, it seems to me UFC is adding PPV shows lately.

Posted By: What he said (Guest) on December 02, 2009 at 11:09 PM

I read that iMPACT got a 1.1 rating last year on Thanksgiving. This year with much more star power and all that jazz, it got a 0.9? Something must be in the water down in Florida.

Posted By: Sorry (Guest) on December 02, 2009 at 11:10 PM

Getting rid of ECW is not a big deal. All that will change is the ECW title will likely go away, and the show will be turned into a SuperStars show. The initials is all that will go. Instead on SyFy, it will be WWE:Full Force or something with a few matches and clips.

Posted By: JackieChanny (Guest) on December 02, 2009 at 11:15 PM

That TMZ mistake is really funny since their founder/host, Harvey Levin, is a lawyer himself.

Posted By: Trashy (Guest) on December 03, 2009 at 01:01 AM

"One would assume that USA would be on delay in the West Coast, which would help with their national alignment and scheduling. Right now, it is a wait and see game, especially considering where the Comcast buyout may lead."

Actually Dish Network doesn't carry the west coast feed of USA network, and I don't know about other satellite providers, but that could be a problem if they do a three hour RAW with a 4PM start time for the west coast.

Posted By: The IWC (Guest) on December 03, 2009 at 03:41 AM

Thanksgiving is the most expensive meal of the year. Since the economy is alot worse off than prior years odds are more families ate together to cut costs. Personally I don't have Spike TV and get stuck watching Impact online. They got an extra rating from me since I got to watch it at moms. Thank god Rick Rude isn't around anymore so I didn't have to see her drool.

Posted By: Burnout (Guest) on December 03, 2009 at 04:22 AM

"One would assume that USA would be on delay in the West Coast"

For standard definition on cable, yes. USA only has one HD feed, so west coast gets Raw at 6pm (same with syfyHD/ecw and WGNSD/superstars, SpikeHD/impact) whereas since mynetworktv is (was0 a network with local affiliates, smackdown airs at the regular time, 8pm.

Posted By: jeff (Guest) on December 03, 2009 at 01:30 PM

"On PPV buying, Ms. Wilson says, "There may be one person ordering and three families coming over to watch it." This is a point I've been trying to make for a while - PPVs are too expensive. At $40+, you HAVE to pool together 4 families to make it worth it. Otherwise you don't order. If WWE had the guts to try a $9.95 PPV, they'd get 5-6 times the buys (because more people would stay at home and watch in groups of 1-4)and WWE would actually make MORE MONEY. Greed kills logic...

Posted By: Slappy (Guest) on December 03, 2009 at 03:12 PM"

Actually, when you factor in PPV right's fees and other costs factored in producing a PPV, $9.95 might not cover all the bills. The increase would not be as large as one would expect. However, if you lower the PPV prices to say $24.95 for all the "non big-4 PPVs" and $34.95 for the big 4s, then that might be a better money making model.

Couple that with UFC easily reaching 500K-1M PPV buys at $60 a pop, the price of PPVs doesn't seem to matter. It depends on what is on the card that screams to a potential buyer "I want to see that".

Posted By: The IWC (Guest) on December 03, 2009 at 09:16 PM

I know the popular thing to do is to bash WWE and praise UFC on every level, but with WWE reducing their PPV shows, it seems to me UFC is adding PPV shows lately.

Posted By: What he said (Guest) on December 02, 2009 at 11:09 PM

The companies are in different situations, however. Until UFC sees a decrease in PPV buys, they have no reason to cut the number of PPV. In fact, as long as their operating profits keep going up they have every incentive to add more shows.

This is the flip side of what Michelle Wilson was saying, but WWE is working on the side of decreasing buys.

Of course, UFC runs the risk of over saturating the market. Certainly there is the school of thought that you should leave your audience wanting more, rather than having too much product. That way you can milk the cow longer. The downside of that philosophy is that somebody else may step in and fill the extra demand. Life is full of contradicting wisdom, which is why degrees and experience aren't everything.

It is nice to see that WWE has added somebody why is more methodical and intellectually grounded.

Posted By: Guest#1580 (Guest) on December 03, 2009 at 11:15 PM

On PPV buying, Ms. Wilson says, "There may be one person ordering and three families coming over to watch it." This is a point I've been trying to make for a while - PPVs are too expensive. At $40+, you HAVE to pool together 4 families to make it worth it. Otherwise you don't order. If WWE had the guts to try a $9.95 PPV, they'd get 5-6 times the buys (because more people would stay at home and watch in groups of 1-4)and WWE would actually make MORE MONEY. Greed kills logic...

Posted By: Slappy (Guest) on December 03, 2009 at 03:12 PM

In addition to what The IWC said, there is also the factor of habits. Once people get used to watching with a bunch of friends, they may not go back to watching alone just because the prices of PPVs go down. Take the Super Bowl for instance. Ever been to a Super Bowl party? Ever been to a big one? That is on free broadcast. There is no monetary incentive to get together with others to watch it, but people make an event of it anyways.

What seems logical isn't always true. Until Galileo, people thought that denser object fall faster than less dense objects. He showed that a pound of lead falls just as fast as a pound of feathers.
This is why in business school, they teach people to prove things out with numbers. This is also one of the more annoying things about MBAs - they always ask for numbers and refer to statistics.
There is a point where you maximize profits because of buying habits. Lower the price too much and you start losing money because you aren't covering costs. Raise the price and you lose buyers, but up to a certain point you are bringing in money faster than you are losing buyers. The art is in finding that ideal point.
The WWE isn't trying to get their product into the most individual buyers. They are trying to maximize their short term and long term profits. Sometimes these are contradicting goals (Cena/Orton again v developing new stars), which leads to internet bitchfests.

Posted By: Guest#0703 (Guest) on December 03, 2009 at 11:24 PM

At the same time, the WWE has been able to get yet another extension on filing a response to the lawsuit against them for DSW by Jody Hamilton. The company now has until December 15, 2009 to respond to the remaining charge of ending the contract with the company without a required 90-day notice. This is not the second extension the company has received and is most likely just a delay tactic to try to wear Mr. Hamilton down.

I hate this stuff. I'll admit that I don't know much about law, but can't a judge see through to what this really is, a tactic to bleed the smaller man dry? I just don't get it...

Posted By: Brett (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 12:24 AM

Suggestion for ECW name change: WWE Wrestling Challenge. Have this be the show where young talent starts off mixed with veterans. Only it the "Universal Title" or something. The guy with the belt can challenge stars from other brands.
Also, it'd be funny if ECW shut down when Shelton wins the title.

Posted By: Old School (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 12:57 PM

As long as Morrison smites villains merely by unbuttoning his shirt in their general direction, the comic should be OK.

Posted By: Achoom (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 01:35 PM

JP,
What are your thoughts on the NBC-Comcast deal? Could this open outlets for more WWE on TV?

Posted By: Guest#9650 (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 01:37 PM

Wow, IWC and 0703, thanks for responding to my post with an informed counterpoint! Nice change of pace from most message boards.
A couple of comments:

- $9.95 WOULD cover the cost if (and only if) my theory is correct and 5-6 times as many people purchase the PPV. Ex. 10,000 X $40.00 = 400K gross
50,000 X $10.00 = 500K gross
(It's getting your $10 vs not getting anything. WWE lowered ticket prices to its live events to sell more tickets and make more money. Same principle could be aplpied to PPVS.)

- Changing habits: the families getting together that Ms. Wilson refers to are engaging in relatively NEW habits and a reaction to the economy, not old die-hard habits.

- Comparisons to UFC: Different animal. UFC PPV is the only place to see the top performers; but you can see Chris Jericho several times a week on "free" WWE programming. The superbowl is also different: once a year big event. That makes for a "party" atmosphere. The Superbowl comparison would probably hold true with Wrestlemania, however.

A lot of my opinion is based on what I have experienced myself, as well as talking to wrestling fans for hours waiting to get into TNA tapings. The (informal poll supported)idea is: for $40, I'm going to the sports bar, getting together with friends, or missing it altogether. For $10, I'd stay home and watch with my family.

Posted By: Slappy (Guest) on December 04, 2009 at 03:01 PM