The Hamilton Ave Journal 02.25.10: Volume 2 – Issue 126
Posted by JP Prag on 02.25.2010
Did NXT deliver in the ratings? Has the UFC done something that will help the WWE? Why would a Turtle sue a wrestling company? Is TNA really throwing away money by giving away a big match on free TV? All this and more is answered in this week’s edition of the Hamilton Ave Journal!
THE HAMILTON AVE JOURNAL
By JP Prag
Volume 2 – Issue 126
ABOUT THE JOURNAL
The Hamilton Ave Journal is the only wrestling news report focused solely on the business of wrestling. Here in the Journal we not only look at the stories that are important to the investor and business-minded person, but also delve deeper into stories that most fans of wrestling would overlook. That is because the Journal is about getting the heart of the matters that affect the companies and outlooks of the wrestling world.
And where is Hamilton Ave? That is the location of the WWE Production Studio in Stamford, CT, and thus the most powerful place in the wrestling world. Besides, The East Main Street Journal just does not have the right ring to it.
Who am I? I am JP Prag: consultant, entrepreneur, businessman, journalist, and wrestling fan.
Now, ring the bell because the market is open.
The Journal's front page area known as What's News isn't just about telling you what has happened. The stories in this section are about what will have an effect on the wrestling industry, individual federations, and the wallets of the fans.
LEAD STORY: NXT delivers… for now
After several weeks of advertising, pushing, and hoopla, WWE NXT made its premier on Tuesday night replacing ECW at the 10pm timeslot of SyFy. And from the onset, the show already is doing well.
The last episode of ECW scored a 1.14 rating, an anemic gain over the prior five months worth of ratings. NXT already reversed that trend by leaping 22.8% to premier at a 1.4 rating. The last time ECW saw a rating this good was on September 1, 2009 and even that was an anomaly. Before that, ECW had not scored a 1.4 since nearly six months prior on March 17, 2009.
To further break down the numbers, SyFy sent out a press release with the following information:
During the 10-11PM (ET/PT) telecast, NXT jumped 73% in Adults 18-34 (430,000), 51% in Adults 18-49 (787,000) and 35% in Adults 25-54 (767,000)…
Furthermore, SyFy stated that of the 1.7 million people that watched the debut of NXT, they saw a shift in demographic they were looking for:
The median age for WWE NXT was 35.2, nearly eight years below the 42.9 average for the Tuesday 10PM programming in 1Q10.
From their release, one could surmise that SyFy is quite happy with the results thus far. Now the question remains if the WWE and NXT can keep it up. ECW premiered to much higher ratings than this before sinking to its ending lows. NXT faces a completely uphill battle having no brand awareness outside of the WWE, a cast that are mostly unfamiliar, a timeslot that has been tarnished from its predecessor, and a format that is still being worked out.
Even still, this is strong start for a new relationship between SyFy and the WWE, and that is what this is really all about.
Newsbites
Some items of note in the rest of the wrestling business world:
The UFC has filed several lawsuits against companies and individuals hosting illegal streams of their PPVs on their websites. The WWE will most likely be glad to see this as they have been fighting against illegal streams for some time now.
Joe Francosi has joined the WWE creative team. In a break from recent Hollywood writers, Mr. Francosi is former backstage worker for the NWA and UPW.
On the subject of California-based UPW, the WWE has purchased their video library which includes the earlier careers of many wrestlers currently in the WWE and TNA. This will be in addition to the 80,000 hours of content the WWE already owns. The part-time logger position is still open at WWE, so there is now even more work to do.
Both RAW and NXT now have replays as the shows will air on Universal HD. RAW airs Saturdays at 7pm and 10pm while NXT airs at 9pm and 12am. Now only SmackDown does not have a replay in the United States.
Slim Jim has become the official sponsor of WrestleMania 26. Slim Jim—which has a long history of sponsoring wrestling events and personalities—has also signed a one-year deal to continue to be a major sponsor and "official meat snack of the WWE".
In the lawsuit of the week, WWE is being sued by a maker of textbook covers. ABC Corp 1-10, Inc. signed with the WWE and has produced several textbook covers featuring WWE talent. Turtle Company Inc. filed a lawsuit on January 20, 2010 saying they own the patent on the method by which ABC Corp 1-10 made the textbook covers. In the lawsuit, Turtle wants the WWE an injunction to stop the production of the textbook covers immediately and be awarded damages for the infringement of their patent. WWE and ABC have until March 13, 2010 to respond and thus far have not stopped production of the items.
In the Marketplace we look at the trends in television ratings. This section is less for critical analysis by the Journal but more for the reader to see what is really going on and to draw their own conclusions.
As with stocks, here in the Journal we track the progress of television ratings. If ratings are the barometer by which we judge the product, then over the course of 52 weeks we should be able to see patterns, trends, and anomalies.
For the week ending February 24, 2010, here are the current standings of our shows:
RAW
Close (This Week's Rating): 3.8
Open (Last Week's Rating): 3.4
Percentage Change: ▲ 11.8%
52-Week High: 4.5
52-Week Low: 3.1
All Time High: 8.1
All Time Low: 1.8
SmackDown*
Close (This Week's Rating): UNAV
Open (Last Week's Rating): 1.8
Percentage Change: N/A
52-Week High: 2.2
52-Week Low: 1.6
All Time High: 5.8
All Time Low: 1.0
* SmackDown! ratings may include fast overnight if final ratings are not posted. Also, SmackDown! ratings are for the prior week as overnights are not available before this article goes to print.
TNA iMPACT**
Close (This Week's Rating): 1.2
Open (Last Week's Rating): 1.2
Percentage Change: ▲ 0.8%
52-Week High: 1.5
52-Week Low: 0.7
All Time High: 1.5
All Time Low: 0.6
** TNA iMPACT's are for the prior week as ratings may not be available at the time of the Journal's posting
SuperStars***
Close (This Week's Rating): 0.9
Open (Last Week's Rating): 1.0
Percentage Change: ▼ 11.8%
52-Week High: 1.1
52-Week Low: 0.7
All Time High: 1.1
All Time Low: 0.7
*** SuperStars ratings may include fast overnight if final ratings are not posted. Also, SuperStars ratings are for the prior week as overnights are not available before this article goes to print.
NXT
Close (This Week's Rating): 1.4
Open (Last Week's Rating): N/A
Percentage Change: N/A
52-Week High: 1.4
52-Week Low: 1.4
All Time High: 1.4
All Time Low: 1.4
Analysis:
As NXT and ECW were covered above, that just leaves the stalwart shows. After ending a long stream of 3.6+ ratings last week, RAW rebounded with a 3.8, the highest rating since September 7, 2009. Meanwhile, RAW's streak was not the only one to end. SmackDown ended its 2.0+ ratings streak by getting a 1.8 on February 12, 2010. Finally, SuperStars ended their 1.0+ streak with a 0.9 last week. Obviously, all of these shows have been facing heavy competition from the Olympics which has been doing much higher ratings than expected. TNA also lamented in the 1.2 range again, but at this point ratings for the show are not really interesting until March 8, 2010.
We all know that wrestling is a business, but we don't often pay attention to what sells and makes money. Money and Investing looks into the top selling items in the world of wrestling and any interesting figures that may have come out this week.
What are the top selling items for the WWE? WWEShopZone.com releases a list of varying numbers to show what is selling for them:
1. John Cena Never Give Up T-Shirt ($25.00)
2. Edge Throwback T-Shirt ($25.00)
3. Triple H Return to Fear T-Shirt ($28.00)
4. John Cena Never Give up YOUTH Basics T-Shirt ($9.99)
5. John Cena Never Give Up YOUTH T-Shirt ($22.00)
6. John Cena Never Give Up Sweatband Set ($12.00)
7. D Generation X Worlds Biggest Member T-Shirt ($25.00)
8. John Cena Never Give Up Baseball Cap ($20.00)
9. Triple H Best of Deluxe 2009 Action Figure ($9.99)
10. D Generation X YOUTH Flip Flops ($15.99, on sale $7.99)
11. John Cena Toddler Flip Flops ($12.99, on sale $7.99)
12. WWE World Heavyweight Championship Toy Belt-Mattel ($14.99)
13. Bret Hart Emblem T-Shirt ($25.00)
14. WrestleMania 26 Red T-Shirt ($25.00)
15. Bret Hart Sunglasses ($10.00)
16. Eddie Guerrero WWE Shop & Jakks Pacific Exclusive Action Figure ($24.99, on sale $9.99, on double sale $7.98)
17. D Generation X Army Strong T-Shirt ($25.00)
18. John Cena Attitude Adjustment T-Shirt ($25, on sale $14.98)
19. Hardcore Holly Deluxe Aggression #18 Action Figure ($15.99, on sale $9.99, on double sale $4.98)
20. John Cena Illustrated YOUTH T-Shirt ($9.99)
Despite getting even more air time than usual, the Miz fell off the list this week for the first time in seven weeks. He was followed by all other fresh faces to be replaced with more John Cena and Triple H merchandise, as well as a return to the list with a new item for Edge. Of course, there were a few odd items due to sales, noticeably around flip flops and action figures for Eddie Guerrero and Hardcore Holly. One can imagine that these will not stick around for long, but such items during WrestleMania season are not the best sign for the rest of the roster. And the WrestleMania shirt at number fourteen is a stark reminder of just that fact.
TNA sometimes releases a list of top selling items on ShopTNA.com. According to the site the top selling items were:
1. Hulk Hogan – Change T-shirt ($19.99)
2. Don's Insane Brown Bag Special ($20)
3 HOGAN JOINS TNA - Limited Edition Plaque and Card ($39.99)
4. "Hulkamania" T-shirt ($19.99)
5. Beer Money T-shirt ($19.99)
6. Emergence CD ($14.99, on sale $9.99)
7. Bound For Glory 2009 DVD ($19.99, on sale $17.99)
8. AJ Styles "Phenomenal Brand" T-shirt ($19.99)
9. Hard Justice 2009 DVD ($19.99, on sale $9.99)
10. Sting "Discharge" T-shirt ($19.99)
After two months, the Journal has run out of comments about this situation. TNA will be delisted if there is not an update by the March 8, 2010 Monday Night iMPACT.
Wrestling isn't just about watching and reading. The best way to be a wrestling fan is to experience it live. Where is wrestling coming to in the next 2 weeks? The Personal Journal answers that question.
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
28 (Feb)
RAW Live (Wichita Falls, TX)
SmackDown Live (Abilene, TX)
1 (Mar)
RAW (Oklahoma City, OK)
2
SmackDown (Wichita, KS)
3
4
5
ROH on HDNet (Philadelphia, PA)
6
RAW Live (Salt Lake City, UT)
SmackDown Live (Pullman, WA)
ROH on HDNet (Philadelphia, PA)
7
RAW Live (Boise, ID)
SmackDown Live (Yakima, WA)
8
RAW (Portland, OR)
TNA iMPACT (Orlando, FL)
9
SmackDown (Seattle, WA)
TNA iMPACT (Orlando, FL)
10
11
12
RAW Live (Denver, CO)
TNA Live (Erie, PA)
13
RAW Live (Fresno, CA)
SmackDown Live (Stockton, CA)
TNA Live (Pittsburgh, PA)
Do you know a wrestling event coming up? Send one in to The Hamilton Ave Journal and we'll be sure to add it to the list.
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, let's just get some old stuff out of the way to get to a more current topic. Burnout asks:
Awhile back I believe I remember you saying that John Cena has sold more merchandise than Hulk Hogan due to the expansion of the company. I often use this quote in chatrooms just to hear everyone snap about how wrong I am. Can you confirm this for me so I have a source of sorts to show them in the future?
That is a gross oversimplification of what was written the Journal concerning the subject and unless you are explaining all of the details around that statement, those people in the chat room have the right to snap at you. A half truth is no way to present an argument. Please re-read the Editorial sections in the following issues of the Journal and be sure to point those people here:
Moving on to modern topics but sticking with merchandise, Joshua Stigall writes in via the lost are of e-mail:
I noticed a comment on Morrison's twitter account that they just got more of his T-Shirt in stock but that they were still out of the sunglasses. Do you have any idea when they ran out of stock? Could that be responsible for the brief time spent on the best seller list? Did they plan better by making more merchandise for the Miz when the realized their stuff could sell? I realize you might not have access to this information, even as a stock owner. I was wondering because this could seriously change the way I look at the top sellers list.
Sure, if Mr. Morrison's items were sold out for a period then it could be a factor in him not making the list, but not for the time period that Miz was on the list and Morrison was not. Also this week both have plenty of inventory but did not make the cut, so there are plenty of other factors at work.
As for the other half of your question, the WWE is always looking to expand the product lines of anyone who sells, so expect everything and anything up to a teddy bear that says, "I'm awesome!" when you squeeze it in the stomach.
Of course, merchandise is part of the WWE's portfolio that has made them a very successful company, as covered last week. perez was first to follow up on the WWE's tremendous performance in Q4 2009:
Another solid year for WWE. Always boggles my mind when people in the IWC don't understand that WWE cares about making money, not satisfying every single one of their needs or wants…
You need not look further then the commentary section of WWE NXT review to see how some members of the IWC feel about the WWE and the characters people play there. NXT is already showing to be an interesting move because it is showing the WWE can work a different audience and make them react they way they want. Now it is the experiment to see if they can make money with it which, like you said, is what they care most about.
Sticking with the financial results, Ryushinku also wanted to give his praise and commentary:
The key line was "the WWE was able to make more with less."
It's been a bit of a masterclass in 2009 on how to cut costs to maximise profit. If you're not making more, spend less! They ended up with $50m profit, one of the best totals they've had since earnings were made public (I can find stuff back to '95)
But they can't cut those kind of costs again, you'd think, not without having a visible detriment effect on the product. They'll be very keen to get upward growth in their revenue in 2010.
An early suggestion is that the Rumble did better numbers than last year, we'll have to see when an announcement is made. The Jan-May stretch tends to be the WWE's most beneficial so they'll want a good head of steam to make the year successful.
Yes, but now they are better poised to take advantage of growing sales when the time comes. The sad fact is for the better part of 2006-2008, the WWE had excess costs and could have made a lot more profit. Instead, they let costs continue to rise and get completely out of control to the point where they poised a potential problem for the company. Now, let's look at the areas that are already growing:
PPV Buys: In the surprise turnaround of the fourth quarter, PPV buys actually increased due to the WWE re-branding and tie-in promotions. This is the one to watch this year as more PPVs get a face lift.
Television rights fees: As the WWE adds programming around the world, they continue to get more preferential deals. On top of that, WWE NXT may be cheaper to produce then ECW, so that will also add to the bottom line.
International events: Live events overseas continue to have higher average audiences, average ticket prices, and merchandise sales. The WWE, as expected, is looking to add more events to the touring schedule.
Yes, other areas could see sales growth as well and the WWE is working on other channels of revenue (literally a WWE television channel), but the WWE is in a great position to take advantage of the any stream should it begin to expand.
Of course, there may be issues if they do face competition. And that competition could come from TNA, which had the other big story of the week. From Marky Mark:
About TNA moving to Monday nights:
I assumed their 3/8 rating would a 1.5 again, likely big first hour, then drop off as it usually does BUT
Hogan/Abyss vs. Flair/AJ is set!
Please tell me TNA is not following in WCW's path of giving away such HUGE matches on TV, and not on PPV, where TNA could reallly use the help, no matter how big 3/8 will be for TNA?
To answer this, an oddly familiar Guest#1608 responded with:
For TNA this may not be the mistake it was for WCW. TNA does not have many PPV sales anyways, so giving away matches won't significantly cut into business.
Their bigger problem is brand awareness, which WCW did not have. Many people simply don't know that TNA exists and those that do often choose WWE anyways. WCW did not have that problem. Even before nWo, WCW was going back and forth with WWE in the ratings battle. So clearly wrestling fans back then knew who WCW was.
WCW was also built on a business model that needed PPVs as a major revenue stream. TNA has survived and grown without this dependence. So while they may not gain in potential revenues, they are not really hurt by giving away matches.
Really, with the growth of foreign markets, PPVs become less vital.
The real important part, which may not be immediately evident, is whether TNA can capitalize on the attention garnered by giving away matches. If they can gain viewers in the long term, then TNA will have benefited from such a move.
A big splash is nice, but ultimately meaningless. Sustained growth is important.
Despite some people believing that "TNA hates money", our Guest here makes the point that the Journal has pointed out as well. PPV buys are not very important to TNA and TNA President Dixie Carter has gone on record that she would prefer to scale back or get rid of PPV entirely but the company has many contractual obligations to fill. Instead, TNA has seen their growth through larger television rights fees and packaging the product for international markets.
Hulk Hogan was brought on for the main purpose of getting TNA attention and expand their fan-base. Higher ratings do mean more to TNA in the end because it will help them get better television contracts and be able to negotiate additional programming. For TNA, PPV is not as vital as it was to WCW and definitely no where near as important as it is the WWE today.
Plus, let us not forget that giving away big matches for free is nothing new to TNA. This has little to do with the current management and everything to do with where the company sees its growth. The growth is in brand awareness, which yields better television contracts, more programs, more merchandise, and better touring. PPV could become a major stream of revenue, but TNA only has so many areas they can grow at once. Right now, PPV is not a priority in comparison to brand awareness and iMPACT ratings.
Speaking of TNA's ratings, those in the UK want to again clear up comparing RAW and iMPACT ratings over there. Although much like the first editorial in this section this has been covered several times in the Journal, here it is once more via Harrington Brooks:
Let's be clear on this.
The live RAW is on at 1/2 am. The equivalent 'first run' iMPACT! airs on Bravo on a Saturday night at 8pm.
It's also important to note that Sky Sports have a habit of shifting WWE programming for live events, so often RAW repeats and even Smackdown first airings get bounced around the schedule.
Sky Sports is also, of course, a premium subscription service and therefore has less potential wrestling audience than Bravo, which is available to all basic subscribers.
Everyone clear?
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.
This concludes Issue #126 (Volume 2) of THE HAMILTON AVE JOURNAL. Join us next week as we get ready to ring the bell again.
i get that monday march 8th is huge night and all but u can do other things, u can do everything except giving away hogan/flair returning to the ring.....
Posted By: yes (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 12:01 AM
I hate the argument that "Well, WCW gave away big FREE TV matches..."
Yeah, they did, and out of 40 years, they were on top for 2 years; and now are out of business.
Posted By: Hindu Friend (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 12:03 AM
I hate the argument that "Well, WCW gave away big FREE TV matches..."
Yeah, they did, and out of 40 years, they were on top for 2 years; and now are out of business.
Posted By: Hindu Friend (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 12:03 AM
That argument wasn't used though. In fact, the difference in how TNA and WCW operates was. Understanding the difference is vital to understanding why giving away a big match doesn't really harm TNA the way it did WCW.
As for WCW, their business issues require an article of their own. Giving away free matches was the least of their problems.
Posted By: Guest#2818 (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 01:40 AM
WCW went out of business because time-warner didn't want to be involved in wrestling anymore.If time warner I wanted to keep wcw going it would have been back top in a year or two.That's the way it goes companies come and go.
TNA is coming up now and possible ROH could move in position to be third or some other company may get the right money and tv time and become big.
Posted By: DoktorSick (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 02:50 AM
I never really thought of a PPV-less Wrestling Promotion. Is anyone else somewhat excited by the prospect?
Think about it. If TNA doesn't count on their PPVs (and they fix much of their booking, of course), they could literally run through overlapping programs ON AIR over time, working the way that ROH used to work in their pre-PPV days (any given week could highlight a big match in a single feud).
No need to schedule every feud for a PPV. Just a couple of big-money matches a week while they continue other feuds.
Then, every 3-6 months, they could have a Clash of the Champions-like event on a different night (say a Sunday).
Just because WWE and WCW did the PPV thing doesn't mean TNA needs to. We've just gotten so used to it that we instantly think "PPV = Big Fed". But why?
TNA started things differently, with weekly PPVs. Why not continue differently? This could be the niche they need to fill.
Posted By: Jimbob Jones (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 03:03 AM
Thanks for the answer. I began wondering about this after I saw the comment on the twitter, and then noticed a surprising amount of kids wearing the Morrison shirt on Smackdown. I wasn't expecting to see that many Morrison shirts in the crowd, so I began to wonder just how quickly they ran out of the shirt, and if that had an effect on the listings of the merchandise of smaller stars.
Posted By: Josh (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 03:37 AM
Thanks for the response! Fair point about them being better positioned now, not something I'd considered too.
Posted By: Ryushinku (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 04:28 AM
"Speaking of TNA's ratings, those in the UK want to again clear up comparing RAW and iMPACT ratings over there. Although much like the first editorial in this section this has been covered several times in the Journal..."
Yes. Usually wrongly. Position yourself as an authority by all means, but please check your facts first.
Clear?
Posted By: Harrington Brooks (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 04:43 AM
i get that monday march 8th is huge night and all but u can do other things, u can do everything except giving away hogan/flair returning to the ring.....
Posted By: yes (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 12:01 AM
________________________________________
YouBook! with yes:
Okay, yes, it's your chance to step up and show how much better you are than Russo and Bischoff. You've got a company running on 1.2's every week, and you're trying to challenge the hegemony of the the WWE machine. Your network has agreed to move your flagship show to a Monday night, directly competing against WWE's A-show, RAW. A trial run back in January proved successful for you, based largely on the debut of Hulk Hogan, along with the promise of further new faces. Those included Ric Flair, returning to mainstream wrestling for the first time since leaving WWE after a great send-off storyline that saw him 'retire' from wrestling. Ken Kennedy and Orlando Jordan are the two other debutants who have made an impact in the intervening months.
You want to grab as much attention as possible, to steal some of the WWE viewers that will be tuning into RAW at the exact same time; what's going to pique people's interest the most?
What's a better booking decision than having both Ric Flair and Hulk Hogan return to the ring but diluted to the point it isn't the direct 1-on-1 'money match' that people can shit on when it's on PPV?
YouBook!, yes.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 06:49 AM
Good Article. While I am not as business oriented as I guess everyone here on the site when there isn't an argument going on. I still say the only problem TNA seems to be following that WCW had a problem with is signing on old WWE talent too quickly and possibly for more money than they are worth. The upside to that is unlike WCW, TNA tends to let their talent still compete on other independent shows or organizations and get additional money from that.
After March 8 though, I am curious to see how that will then go because it might lead to a growing schedule of house shows and touring which is something TNA, I think would want to expand upon. For the younger wrestlers that would be no problem but for the veterans that they sometimes focus on the easier schedule of TNA was one of the things they liked.
So would they be so willing to shift back to a busier schedule as the company expands. Especially for those veterans that seem to be interlocked in a lot of their storylines or as you said with Hogan, were brought in to help get that exposure needed for expansion. Some of these big named veterans might be what sponsors want to see before they transition to using younger talent TNA has in order to push their products. If the veterans refuse the more hectic schedule that TNA has the potential to grow towards...it might hinder them a little. Just a thought.
Posted By: Guest#9260 (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 08:21 AM
WCW did not go out of business because they gave away huge matches on tv. WCW went out of business because they focused on Flair and Hogan (yup, even 12 years ago they were way past it). Obviously i can't speak for every fan but thats sure as hell why i stopped watching.
Posted By: joe blow (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 08:31 AM
The live RAW is on at 1/2 am. The equivalent 'first run' iMPACT! airs on Bravo on a Saturday night at 8pm.
It's also important to note that Sky Sports have a habit of shifting WWE programming for live events, so often RAW repeats and even Smackdown first airings get bounced around the schedule.
Sky Sports is also, of course, a premium subscription service and therefore has less potential wrestling audience than Bravo, which is available to all basic subscribers.
But still Impact beat Raw
Posted By: Guest#8446 (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 09:53 AM
TNA need to get rid of PPV as quick as they can, the market is over saturated with PPV from WWE, UFC and boxing.. lord knows people can't afford to buy all of them.
I think by running a big show monthly they will make more money from advertising streams than they ever did via PPV.
TNA is getting like 7-10,000 buys.... think how many people would watch if it was free (I'm guessing around 2.5 million based on current ratings) and think how much advertisers would pay during a major shows timeslot.
I truly believe the WWE (outside WM) and TNA long-term don't need PPV.
Posted By: Andrew Barbarash (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 11:31 AM
This column keeps on being very informative and interesting every week. Thanks a lot for writing this JP!
Posted By: Christopher (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 12:09 PM
PPVs all come down to money. Will they make more trying to sell a PPV or giving away a match for free on TV, getting a bigger rating average and thus charging more for ads during those big match shows?
I would think if they cant start getting more than 20K PPV buys then the latter makes more sense.
But peopel have become trained by these companies to think that Paying for soemthing makes it somehow better. Which is maybe why WWE has been putting absolute shit on TV for a few years now, because thena PPV doesnt even have to be good to beat out that garbage. When you have less than an hour of actual wrestling per month on your flagship show, out of about 9 hours or so of air time there is a major problem. Either that or you are purposefully degrading the free product to make the paid for product look better. Which even then it doesnt in seemingly half the cases.
The TV shows are more about advertising for the paid shows, dropping new merch, new songs, pimping bad movies, and even worse CDs than it is about wrestling or promoting the actual in ring product. Especially RAW. it is basically a 2 hour and 15 minute long commercial, with the "breaks' being the matches they throw together. So it is in reverse actually. Instead of a 96 minute program with 24 minutes of commercials you get a 24 minute (usually less than 20) program and 110 minutes of commercials.
Posted By: Rich (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Ring of Honor hopefully will get some kind of national televison deal one day. Having three promotions on national televison would be awesome
Posted By: Guest#1206 (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 03:31 PM
Anyone is basically saying TNA should operate like Strikeforce.
TNA could try to get on another network aligned with Spike to air an PPV type event every few months.
Why won't Spike give TNA more TV time or does TNA not want it?
Posted By: Jim (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 04:04 PM
"The part-time logger position is still open at WWE, so there is now even more work to do."
Paid to watch classic wrestling? Sign me up.
"You need not look further then the commentary section of WWE NXT review to see how some members of the IWC feel about the WWE and the characters people play there."
I was absolutely SHOCKED to read some of those comments. Yes, we can all be worked to some degree at various points (Michaels elimination in the Rumble got me for a wee bit) but to go apeshit crazy over Cole's comments simply because of a)who he is, and b) who he attacked is insane. But it made for great Wednesday morning reading I'll tell you that.
"I never really thought of a PPV-less Wrestling Promotion. Is anyone else somewhat excited by the prospect?"
Remember for a few months in 2004 the brand that didn't have a PPV would have a huge show instead. I loved that.
Posted By: neverAcquiesce (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 04:39 PM
Says a lot about WWE marks. ECW was just called ECW, or Extreme Championship Wrestling. Didn't rate highly. The new programme, they stick "WWE" in front of it and the ratings go up.
They could name a programme WWE Penis and it would get ratings.
Posted By: Vince McWoman (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 04:42 PM
WCW went out of business because of the AOL/Time Warner merger. They could have kept going because they were making enough money. It wasn't a single creative decision that led to the end of WCW, it was the stiffs at AOL/Time Warner that decided wrestling was beneath them.
Posted By: Internationally Sexy (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 05:25 PM
I think the above posts are why the no-PPV idea intrigues me so much.
For the longest time, we've gotten used to the following pseudo-conversation in wrestling (from all Feds):
"I HATE you! I'm going to kill you!!!"
"Oh, yeah!!! Why don't you come do something about it!?"
"Oh, I will! How's 2 weeks from Sunday sound?"
If TNA could make money by eliminating PPVs, then they could have more fluid booking. They could have more wrestling on their shows, better storylines, because they wouldn't have to spend week-in-week-out booking for a specific date.
Mind you, booking would need to be fixed to a large degree, but I just think if booked correctly, it would work well.
Could WWE survive without PPVs, though? I don't think so. They make too much money from them. But TNA doesn't appear to be making enough money from them to warrant not taking this risk.
Posted By: Jimbob Jones (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 06:38 PM
"Both RAW and NXT now have replays as the shows will air on Universal HD. RAW airs Saturdays at 7pm and 10pm while NXT airs at 9pm and 12am. Now only SmackDown does not have a replay in the United States."
Funny I figured when I watched Friday Night Smackdown on Fox late on Saturday Night I was watching a replay.
Posted By: Guest#5202 (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 06:45 PM
I don't get why Impact is being moved to Monday? Is it because Impact is beating Raw in England? That's a little biased considering impact is on at 9pm there whereas Raw goes live at 2 am. Also, Impact doesn't even come close to Smackdown. It battled ECW for ratings. Why would it think it would fair better on Mondays against Raw and MNF?
As for giving away big matches, Flair and Hogan are big name headliners because they are nostalgia acts now. Even Flair can't go like he used to and in the ring with Hogan, it's going to be ugly. People might tune in and then tune out back to Raw.
Posted By: Bleh (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 08:42 PM
Then, every 3-6 months, they could have a Clash of the Champions-like event on a different night (say a Sunday).
Just because WWE and WCW did the PPV thing doesn't mean TNA needs to. We've just gotten so used to it that we instantly think "PPV = Big Fed". But why?
TNA started things differently, with weekly PPVs. Why not continue differently? This could be the niche they need to fill.
Posted By: Jimbob Jones (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 03:03 AM
I like your ideas, but I wouldn't do the big show on Saturday. I'd try to get an extra hour from Spike and do it on Monday.
Spike wants to be the top cable network. Winning some Saturdays means nothing. It isn't a highly valued time slot, since the young male target demographic is out. Having a PPV-like show on Mondays can help Spike with its goal of beating USA Network.
By having the big matches on this show, people have a reason to tune in and not watch RAW. There is the difficulty of the "cool-off" matches, you might lose viewers then. But doing this every 4-6 weeks would directly undermine RAW and USA.
You always have to remember other people's motivations. Remember Spike doesn't necessarily support wrestling. Spike just views a wrestling show as a way to overtake USA.
Posted By: Guest#2558 (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 09:13 PM
Could WWE survive without PPVs, though? I don't think so. They make too much money from them. But TNA doesn't appear to be making enough money from them to warrant not taking this risk.
Posted By: Jimbob Jones (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 06:38 PM
WWE gets about 20-25% of its profits from PPVs, if I remember previous Hamilton Avenue Journals correctly. So not having PPVs would hurt, but this wouldn't happen immediately.
But PPVs mean less as WWE (regular shows) is sold to more foreign markets. That is almost free money, since the expensive part of the product is already paid for to feed the US market. Translators may be needed, but that need not be WWE money.
WWE is also aggressive in searching for more revenue streams. The more revenue streams you have, the less any one of them matter. Diversification is important for this reason.
If TNA were offering comparable money, then there is one aspect of a PPV-less world does hurt. Performers on PPVs get a bonus, something TNA doesn't seem to be able to meet.
WWE won't get rid of all PPV's though. Wrestlemania seems to be going strong. Summerslam is positioned as the other big show.
Posted By: Guest#7335 (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 09:26 PM
Much like WCW, TNA would go out of business tomorrow if Spike TV got bought out, and the new company dropped the show.
Posted By: Guest#5917 (Guest) on February 25, 2010 at 10:33 PM
Copyright � 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
