411mania.com: Wrestling - The Hamilton Ave Journal 06.24.10: Volume 2

has a different idea:

As for Toy Biz... TNA didn't have anything to do with their failure or vice versa. Toy Biz was a tiny company that could NEVER get it's figures into major retailers. Toy Biz ran Marvel Legends, the most successful comic toy line in decades and couldn't properly distribute them. Which is why they eventually had Hasbro distribute their toys. Which led to eventually Marvel ditching Toy Biz all together and going direct with Hasbro.

Toy Biz didn't struggle to get TNA on the shelf, they struggled to get anything on the shelf. Jakks has a much smarter business model and experience. Which is key. JAKKS has signed, TNA, NWA and NJPW to deals. They KNOW the wrestling figure market. They already have 90% of the molds made. All they need is new heads. It's a shoe-in to be a success.

Getting on the shelf is the real challenge in any retail business. Just ask all the food distributors how much money they spend every year to get their products on the shelves of supermarkets. Supermarkets don't make money on selling food; they get most of it from fees associated with having the product on the shelves and in the right place.

Of course, when talking about past successes and failures, that automatically brings up the Midway game, such as Guest#2618 did:

Midway helped TNA in the long run because dozens of used copies of that game will be lining the bins of Gamestop & FYE games for years until they pull an ET and bury them out in the desert.

Even if it's only a subtle flick of the eye-- it's like a tiny little advertisement you can't help but see when you're looking for something better.

Well, that certainly is looking at the bright side!

When it comes to video game experiments, it seems like the WWE is ahead of curve here. Says Guest#1117:

I like this test game with THQ and testing the viability of the micro-transaction system. This is the type of exploration that I did not see under Shane McMahon, although in his defense this may have very well started under his watch. I had not felt that gaining more web based revenues was an area they had matured in.

Since this is free, I assume it will be ad supported.

In all honesty, the technology may not have been there either. While it is quite possible that some of this will be ad supported, there is probably a bit that will be paid for. Perhaps you have to pay to unlock certain wrestlers or modes? Or maybe you will pay for outfits, music, and the like? It certainly will be an interesting test to watch and the Journal will be keeping its eyes on South Korea.

Back in the toy binHeartBurnKid takes a closer look at TNA's new figures:

Love how the Jakks packages are in a six-sided blister. Really drives home just how much of their visual branding TNA lost when they switched back to a traditional ring.

Not only that, it shows you how much TNA is making rapid changes that their partners are not aware of. Imaging if Nintendo or Microsoft changed one of their standards of the programming language in how games are made or the size of the disc? Their partners need time to react, which is why video game companies always get third party players involved early. The few times they have not done so, the systems have proven to be complete disasters.

When talking about TNA, though, branding is always a key issue, as Iron Knee points out:

TNA's name will remain major impediment to their success. First, it tells you nothing about the product. Like it or not, WWE tells you what you are getting with its moniker. Second, it's sixth grade level double entendre, which does nothing to elevate the perception of the company or the product. They'd' do well to select a name that communicated what they were and their mission statement succinctly, i.e. Extreme Championship Wrestling.

It depends on if TNA thinks there is more brand value in the same given their investment or not. Then again, this is the company that made moving back to Thursday the ultimate spin by saying the "fans demanded it", so they should be able to pull off renaming the company with a similar flair.

Moving into a little more pure business, Coyotespaw comments on the WWE's stock:

One thing you forgot to mention in the evaluation of WWE stock is the upcoming election in Connecticut. Regardless of whether or not Linda McMahon wins the senate seat, there will likely be a large amount of speculative interest in WWE stock. While I'm not an expert in the stock market, I would advise avoiding a purchase of WWE stock until after mid-November, unless you want to gamble on the market.

Coyotespaw did not note if he already owns shares or has an interest in the WWE, so his opinion has to be asterisked with that.

Stocks are just a reflection of market perception, but Good Robot Cena is concerned with how the market is looking at the WWE:

This might be a stupid question, but if one assumes Bryan Danielson's firing was a work, is WWE in violation of SEC rules by putting out false news?

To try to answer this, Darth Mortis chimes in with:

If this is a work, and they posted the information on the corporate site as if it were real, they might very well be in serious trouble for providing false information to investors.

If it is a shoot and they post it, then the firing is legit, but they have the option to rehire in the future.

But have they ever posted hirings and firings of talent on the corporate site before?

Well, the WWE has posted many firings, including Carlito's most recently. Hirings are generally related to corporate officers and not independently contracted talent, so that is a moot point.

The only comparison point is a year ago when the WWE released a press statement saying Donald Trump had bought RAW. They almost immediately had to post another article saying it was part of a storyline because that could be something critical to company operations.

Firing someone, even in storyline, is not critical to company operations so it could not be seen as market manipulation. One would have to show that the news of Bryan's firing led to a change in stock price, and that could not be further from the truth. And this is the point that Guest#2350 brings up:

I would have a hard time seeing how this would be meant to manipulate stock prices though. I have real doubts that the SEC has enough people that know much about wrestling. They would be hard put to assemble an argument they could defend.

Leaving the WWE's model behind and talking about TNA again, Dave^G asks:

With this question of business model flying around I would be interested in the Journal's take on the rumored switch of TNA from PPV to (at least partially) CotC style 'free to TV specials'.

I know this is just idle IWC gossip at the moment, and TNA's PPV distribution contracts may block any such move in the near future, but in the big IF of the future this were to occur where would the money come down on this? (in your opinion anyway ;) )

In Issue #103 of the Journal it was written:

Putting on a PPV has not been an exceptionally profitable process for TNA. Last released numbers have PPV averaging 25,000 buys and maxing out at 50,000 buys. At $29.95 per PPV, at 25,000 buys the show would gross $748,000. From the top, 50% automatically goes to the PPV companies, leaving $374,375 for TNA. The satellite uplink time can cost anywhere from $50,000 to $200,000 and the cost for talent, the studio, catering, and all other ancillary costs puts a large number of these PPVs in the red.

When it comes down to it, TNA is not dependent on PPV the way the WWE. About 22% of the WWE's revenue and bottom line come directly and indirectly from PPV, but that is not the case with TNA. Instead, the vast majority of their money comes from television rights fees with secondary figures from merchandise and ticket sales.

Being not as dependent on PPV, TNA can adjust their model to not have as many in a year. Since TNA should focus more of profit then on top line revenue, eliminating or reducing a non-profitable division makes logical business sense.

As Ms. Carter started above, there are contracts in place that stop them from making any rash decisions; but eventually those contracts have to come to an end. So, how would fewer PPVs affect TNA?

Well, if there are 12 PPVs that average 25,000 buys as stated above, that is roughly $9.0 million in gross revenue and $4.5 in net revenue. If TNA were to drop to 8 PPVs per year, buyrates would have to increase to 37,500 buys in order to maintain the same level of revenue, an increase of 50%. Is this feasible for TNA? Normally, a 50% increase would [not] seem plausible, but given the low starting numbers that remains in reason.

Moving down to a bi-monthly model (6 PPVs a year), buyrates would have to increase to 50,000 buys per show, an increase of 100%. While this number is less likely to happen immediately, it is more in line with TNA's long term plans. They should be able to get that many buys if growth projections remain true. It does mean a long period of less PPV revenue, something the company would have to ride out.

Being private, TNA does not have to report these numbers to anyone and justify their actions, a benefit the WWE does not share. Given that, TNA has a lot of leeway with what direction they decide to go.

And further in Issue #130:

Going back to the revenue generation topic, Guest#5459 fills in some additional information on PPVs:

[Begin Guest#5459]

PPV is only a small factor in TNA's revenue stream. Most people don't seem to get that, I assume because wrestling fans are conditioned to believe that PPV is the only way to make money.

It's not. In fact, if anything PPV is going away. It may not be instant, but PPV numbers have eroded away and will continue to for the foreseeable future. I don't suspect we'll see PPVs as we know them at all in ten to fifteen years.

TNA has to continue to make PPVs because that's where they can run matches without commercial interruption and fans are conditioned to thinking PPVs is where things happen. Carter & company have said several times this is one the reasons they even continue with the PPV format and are looking at ways to move around the concept.

[End Guest#5459]

And that is TNA's strongest competitive advantage: they are not locked in to any revenue stream. Aside from television rights, no other revenue stream takes up such a large percentage of the total that TNA could not drop it tomorrow or start a new one. The WWE gets 18% of its revenue from PPV and therefore could not do without out immediately. However, at one point that number was closer to 40%, so the WWE has done a tremendous job of diversifying their portfolio. Nowadays, though, the WWE is slower to adapt and change simply because of the size and structure of their organization. If TNA acts like an entrepreneurial company, they can move quicker and take advantage of new streams before the WWE. If they act like they have the organization and overhead of the WWE, not only will the WWE get there quicker, but they will reap all the benefits before TNA realizes they have lost out on something.

So the bottom line is this: getting rid of PPVs that are not profitable will automatically boost TNA's bottom line even though it will decrease their top line. Now, if they replace those unprofitable shows with television specials, that may work. The cost of putting on a taped special is far less than the cost of putting on a PPV. If they can get $300,000 per special all around the world (Spike is not going to pay that much for a single episode), then it will be profitable.

The WWE could never do this because they get close to $5 million for a single PPV. With that, even distributing internationally they will not get that for a one-time program, especially considering what SuperStars costs. For TNA, though, aiming for a much lower number makes television specials a possibility. More importantly, though, is dropping PPVs that do not make a profit. Never build the top line in sacrifice of the bottom.

Looking at the world in general Guest#6555 wants to know:

It is possible that some of the percentage conversion from ratings to PPV buys is not from targeting a younger audience, but from the downturn in the economy?

With the recession and continuing unemployment, people feel less secure in spending large amounts of money on things like vacations. However, people staying at home still want to be entertained. They may see PPVs as an affordable luxury.

If WWE Chairman and CEO Vince McMahon is to be believed, the downturn has affected them in that people of viewing parties instead of buying the shows individually. If anything, the targeting of younger audiences was party done to counteract this. When it comes to replacement vacations, doing more local activities like going to the beach and hikes have seen a tremendous uptick in attendance.

Finally, armin wants to know:

Alright, never have I commented because I respect your opinions so much. I am an accountant myself and run a quite successful business south of the border... so.... my question is this:

If you get the chance to work for TNA? (which I dislike so much for their stupid decisions) do you think you could help improve their business model?

First, let's get Guest#6540's opinion:

I do not presume to speak for The Journal's reporter, but I'm going to toss my opinion out here.

There are many voices within TNA that have opinions of how TNA should be run. Many of these people have a lot of clout. Since you have run a successful business, you know how political opinionated people who get paid a lot (and therefore have influence) can be. Jumping into such a situation that does not have one clear defining voice that can set a direction is futile. Ultimately piecemeal changes do not move a company in the right direction. Instead, a situation like this is like a drunk ameba, flowing every which way.

Second, it does not appear that TNA has yet realized that they have the problems the Journal (and I) perceive that they do. You have to understand that you have a problem before you can solve it. The resources, understanding (I would prefer people who understand why they are going what they are doing so they can react correctly), and enthusiasm would not be available without this understanding.

As for this reporter, any offer with the correct correlation of pay, location, work/life balance, challenge, interest, and autonomy will be considered, but TNA would be a tough stretch. The Journal is very critical of many elements of their business model and the major focus of the company. In order to be effective, this reporter would need a certain level of control that could not be given with the current structure. With Dixie Carter, Jeff Jarrett, Hulk Hogan, Eric Bischoff, Vince Russo, and others creating their own direction and vision (often different from each other), the situation is not a preferred one to go in to.

And as Guest said above, TNA has to perceive they have a problem before a problem can be fixed. If they do not see that trying to grow the company in a non-organic fashion is an issue, then there is no way this reporter could be effective. Therefore, it would be a waste of this reporter's time as well as TNA's resources.

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

Till then!

Post Comment (23) | 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 (23)

I'm curious to see just how much of the WWE library ends up on YouTube.

Some companies are finding the DVD market so unprofitable they're happy to at least see some kind of profit from online access that's free to the consumer.

For example, I just noticed 12 seasons of "King of the Hill" are available for steaming on Netflix while only six have actually seen home video release.

Posted By: Trashy (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 01:23 AM

The YouTube move is an interesting one. Diversifying from Hulu may end up being a clever move, although it does mean they stray from the NBC family.
More interesting is the fact that they don't offer RAW on either Hulu or YouTube, not even after a week's delay. This tells me they aren't really sold on the internet as a profitable distribution medium.

Posted By: Guest#7771 (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 01:39 AM

I think it's hilarious that so many "adults" in the opinion section have such strong feelings about fucking TNA dolls.

It's like the scene in 40 year old virgin...only instead of changing the color of the toy soldier pants these fuckers will be changing the color of Jeff Hardy's arm doilies.

Posted By: Ronnie (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 12:25 AM

If it helps, they will also have the Beautiful People action figures. The only Knockouts represented.
And here I wanted an Awesome Kong to kill bitches dead.

But where do you see opinions here about TNA figures, beyond business issues? Aside from what you have started, I mean.

Posted By: Guest#3229 (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 01:42 AM

I think it's hilarious that so many "adults" in the opinion section have such strong feelings about fucking TNA dolls.

It's like the scene in 40 year old virgin...only instead of changing the color of the toy soldier pants these fuckers will be changing the color of Jeff Hardy's arm doilies.

Posted By: Ronnie (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 12:25 AM

^ Wrestling Fans tend to have Tunnel Vision, it's like they have aspergers or something...They probably didn't realize they were talking about freaking dolls.

Posted By: JIMBROWN (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 01:50 AM

RAW's rating has gone up 5 weeks in a row, dating back to mid-late May.

Nice breakdown of the Martha "Bitch" Hart lawsuit versus the WWE.

Posted By: Max (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 02:06 AM

i still say the name tna is hurting the company to grow and get their name out there seriously, instead people chuckle for a second and then never think about that again. in the rise and fall of ecw, paul heyman said the name extreme championship wrestling had a hard time getting on ppv cuz ppl thought they were real and couldnt be allowed on ppv. the name does matter and somehow, somehow tna has to change their name.

Posted By: perez (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 02:09 AM

How does the name WWE tell you anything more than the name TNA does? The intials WWE mean nothing.

Granted, TNA can lead to giggles. But the letters WWE mean nothing without context.

Once you say World Wrestling Entertainment, you have to say Total Non-Stop Action. The letters TNA are always followed by the words, WRESTLING.

So if anything TNA actually has the leg up on WWE in that sense. On 99% of things associated with WWE, they don't even say wrestling, whereas TNA always has wrestling in their branding.

Should TNA have perhaps chosen inititals that weren't a double entendre? Perhaps. However that never worked out for any other organization, including WCW because it made the name sound like a ripoff of WWF.

I think the name TNA quite well communicates what they are and their mission statement succinctly, TOTAL NON-STOP ACTION WRESTLING. It's about the fast paced, anything goes wrestling environment that they try to produce on their shows. Granted, you could argue that there isn't non-stop action at all times, but you could argue that WWE doesn't have wrestling or entertainment on their shows.

And what exactly is the name TNA going to stop them from achieving? A national cable TV deal? They already have that. A video game? Been there, done that. Action figures for kids? Guess what, TNA has that too.

The concept that the name TNA is holding the company back in any capacity is just a delusion dreamed up by internet fanboys that somehow fail to see TNA is an incredibly successful organization.

WWE the absoloute leader in professional wrestling, with over 50+ years of mainstream brand awareness gets ratings on it's long running most dominant flagship program of a little over a 3 rating.

TNA which has been on Spike for what, 5 years? Gets a 1 rating. Literally two rating points seperating them, whilst WWE has decades of a leg up on them in brand awareness, capital spending and television broadcasting.

To be honest, it's almost ridiculous to assume that any wrestling company could do better. TNA regularly beats WWE's other cable offerings, NXT, ECW (when it was around) and Superstars and is surprisingly growing closer and closer to cutting the gap with Smackdown.

WRESTLING isn't popular as it once was. TNA has done a incredible job of establishing itself as a viable entity. The knuckleheads who think differently on the internet clearly have no depth or scope to their analysis. What TNA has done in a 8 year span is nothing short of a milestone in entrepreneurship and professional wrestling.

Posted By: Guest#3906 (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 03:03 AM

Sure Dixie didn't mean "Indiana"?

Posted By: JayC (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 05:05 AM

I don't blame Martha Hart at all, I was watching Over the Edge when Owen Hart died. I am sure they can settle this out of court.

Posted By: wzl (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Is there a particular reason that the WWE doesn't include Raw as part of their streaming offerings? Is it simply because it's "the flagship" so they don't want to potentially dilute the ratings by offering Raw through alternative sources, or are they contractually prevented from doing so? It seems to me that Raw is much more heavily bootlegged then any other WWE show, so if their reasoning is to get out in front of that, not including Raw is a self-defeating move.

Posted By: Hellpop (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 01:31 PM

How does the name WWE tell you anything more than the name TNA does? The intials WWE mean nothing.

Once you say World Wrestling Entertainment, you have to say Total Non-Stop Action. The letters TNA are always followed by the words, WRESTLING.

So if anything TNA actually has the leg up on WWE in that sense. On 99% of things associated with WWE, they don't even say wrestling, whereas TNA always has wrestling in their branding.

I think the name TNA quite well communicates what they are and their mission statement succinctly, TOTAL NON-STOP ACTION WRESTLING. It's about the fast paced, anything goes wrestling environment that they try to produce on their shows. Granted, you could argue that there isn't non-stop action at all times, but you could argue that WWE doesn't have wrestling or entertainment on their shows.

And what exactly is the name TNA going to stop them from achieving? A national cable TV deal? They already have that. A video game? Been there, done that. Action figures for kids? Guess what, TNA has that too.

The concept that the name TNA is holding the company back in any capacity is just a delusion dreamed up by internet fanboys that somehow fail to see TNA is an incredibly successful organization.

WWE the absoloute leader in professional wrestling, with over 50+ years of mainstream brand awareness gets ratings on it's long running most dominant flagship program of a little over a 3 rating.

TNA which has been on Spike for what, 5 years? Gets a 1 rating. Literally two rating points seperating them, whilst WWE has decades of a leg up on them in brand awareness, capital spending and television broadcasting.

To be honest, it's almost ridiculous to assume that any wrestling company could do better. TNA regularly beats WWE's other cable offerings, NXT, ECW (when it was around) and Superstars and is surprisingly growing closer and closer to cutting the gap with Smackdown.

WRESTLING isn't popular as it once was. TNA has done a incredible job of establishing itself as a viable entity. The knuckleheads who think differently on the internet clearly have no depth or scope to their analysis. What TNA has done in a 8 year span is nothing short of a milestone in entrepreneurship and professional wrestling.

Posted By: Guest#3906 (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 03:03 AM

Great analysis! Too often people don't recognize that there are other organizations outside of the WWE that are successful.

Posted By: JR (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 01:32 PM

Saying nothing of how horrible and needless Owen's death was, if Martha hated wrestling so much, she shouldn't have married a wrestler. People die, life moves on. Nothing will change the past. Allowing people to enjoy the life's work of Owen honors his legacy a lot more than pretending it doesn't exist.

Posted By: Jon (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 01:42 PM

Wrestling is really what made Owen famous and successful and such a legend and you can't erase that... As tragic and wrongful as his death was, you can't erase his legacy and what he accomplished in wrestling."

Hmmmmm....sounds like this may apply to another dead wrestler who WWE pretends never existed....

Posted By: NaRyan (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 09:35 AM

------------------------------------

Why should they? I was a huge Chris Benoit fan myself. One of my favorite moments in the history of the business was the end of Wrestlemania 20, where he and Eddie Guerrero celebrated after both were triumphant.

The day Eddie died, was one of the saddest days in the history of wrestling.

The day Benoit died, I was like "are you fucking serious?". We lost two of the greatest performers and technicians in the history of the sport in such a short time. Without hesitation, WWE cancelled the LIVE RAW and showed nothing but Benoit matches the entire night and dedicated the entire show to his memory only to find out later in the evening that...he murdered his family?

In addition to of WWE's biggest stars, former World Champions mind you, dying in a short period of time while under contract with WWE, one of them murdered his family and WWE ran a show in the murderers memory? That was a huge black eye for the company and moreover the sport of professional wrestling!

Benoit doesn't deserve any recognition.

He fucked over the fans, he fucked over the business, he murdered his fucking family. I don't care how great he was, the piece of shit deserves what he gets.

And for a little perspective on the matter, how much mentioning do you hear of OJ Simpson on NFL programming now? Very rarely if ever, and that's simply because his name is in the record books.

Benoit is the OJ Simpson of WWE.

Posted By: Are you serious? (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 02:44 PM

"Nice breakdown of the Martha "Bitch" Hart lawsuit versus the WWE.

Posted By: Max (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 02:06 AM"

How is she a bitch? She has a legally binding contract that states they are not to use his likeness and entitles her to royalties in the event that they did. The WWE did not honor that deal. They even admitted to it. They are in the wrong.

Posted By: Karatgold24 (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 05:12 PM

The Martha Hart lawsuit is very interesting. While it seems a certainity WWE will have to make make a pretty big royalty payment, I REALLY hope she doesn't succeed in her efforts to prevent WWE from using or mentioning Owen Hart without permission, as it will simply lead to WWE never mentioning Owen Hart again and his career and legacy being forgotten.

As much as I understand why she is doing this - in her eyes WWE killed her husband - it is robbing the fans of Owen's matches and character. It also sets a precedent which may lead to other wrestlers being excluded from future releases and recognition because of fear over lawsuits.

Posted By: Guest#2536 (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 08:44 PM

Actually, pointing out that TNA stands for "Total Nonstop Action" doesn't help much either. At least WWE stands for "World WRESTLING Entertainment", that is, they make money by entertaining you through wrestling.
TNA - what kind of action? Action movies? A clip show with only fighting scenes? Stunts, action scenes? Gambling? Porn?
Yeah, the name is kind of non-specific. On the other hand, if you already know they are a wrestling company, you see their boast. The action just keeps on coming.

I don't think that the name is what is holding TNA back. The lack of market awareness hold them back. Even when the South was pretty much Coca Cola country, people knew about Pepsi Cola as an alternative. Same with McDonalds and Burger King, Wendy's, etc.
Being an alternative that (may) fill a market need doesn't do much good if people don't know you exist.

As for ratings, some of that is exaggerated. WWE has Smackdown on Fridays in spite of their traditional core demographic going out that night. The coming move to SyFy reduces those ratings further, now and in the future. However, that each move was done in order to get larger contracts. WWE and their broadcasting partners know this. That is part of the value in being a proven commodity.
In WWE's case, ratings were sacrificed for cash. The market is largely aware of their two main shows. Superstars is really a show made of scraps, almost free money. So TNA beating the second and in shouting distance of the first isn't so meaningful. For TNA, ratings are also a (distorted) reflection of how many people know about them.
Heck, in moving to SyFy, WWE picks up a cool $10 million for exactly the same show. In return for no extra costs, WWE gains a net profit several times higher than TNA's likely net.

Posted By: Guest#6883 (Guest) on June 24, 2010 at 09:03 PM

If grammar mattered, then "The World Wrestling Entertainment" doesn't make as much sense as "The World Wrestling Federation" did prior to the forced name change in 2001.

With that in mind, why do you always put a "the" before WWE, but not before TNA or any other wrestling organization in your report, when you should be more consistent and not either put or not put a "the" prior to any wrestling organization's name?

Posted By: Guest#4150 (Guest) on June 25, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Idk the name matters much and at this point rebranding will make business shrink by way of fan confusion.

Keep the name,move on people.

Posted By: Macdollarz (Guest) on June 25, 2010 at 08:08 PM

I don't think Sheamus having a t-shirt in the WWE best-selling list means much when it as at no. 16. Sheamus must be one of the least over multiple-time world champions ever.

The Miz rising into the top ten is of more interest and significance in my opinion - even if you don't like the guy (and I'm not a huge fan, I think he has been over-rated because of how few young wrestlers now have mic skills) you can't deny he is getting over with the audience in a way none of the other mid-carders have been able to. He has this natural swagger and charisma which is very well suited to the WWE. Could Miz win a world title in 2011?

Of course, nobody compares to John Cena when it comes to moving merchandise. The guy is a fucking machine, and the way he dominates the best-selling list proves just how much kids really do love this guy. As a fan I'm sick of his stale act and never-ending push, but if I worked for the WWE I would be doing the exact same thing. Making tons of money from top stars is what it's all about in the end.

Posted By: Guest#1231 (Guest) on June 26, 2010 at 10:31 PM

"I don't think Sheamus having a t-shirt in the WWE best-selling list means much when it as at no. 16. Sheamus must be one of the least over multiple-time world champions ever."

Considering what is above Sheamus, the sheer number of items offered by WWE, and the weak first championship reigns that are standard in WWE now, I think it shows plenty.
On the other hand, consider who isn't above him. For that matter, the IWC love's Orton's new face turn and look where he is, only one item at #11.

Posted By: Guest#5350 (Guest) on June 27, 2010 at 12:16 AM

You nerds are pathetic, spouting off bullshit opinions about the business-side of pro wrestling when you aren't involved in it and never will be. Your opinions mean jack shit.

Posted By: Guest#3752 (Guest) on June 27, 2010 at 09:03 PM