WWE: WWE Network and Business Thread III [network count a "genuine disappointment"]

[M.C.G. 31]

WWE sent me an email offering the network free through to Jan 31, includes SS, TLC, Roadblock and RR. I guess numbers aren't where they want lol

 

[Kimi]

That's a real nice deal. Like even if I wasn't watching wrestling at all, I'd sign up instantly if they offered me a free Rumble. Those are always massive draws to lapsed fans 'cos Rumble are awesome.

 

[DenisSamson3]

Looking rough.

The WWE took a huge hit on house shows in October as the momentum from the brand split seemed to end in September.

WWE averaged 3,326 at domestic house shows and 8,000 at Raw tapings during the month, down from 5,167 at house shows and 10,125 at Raw tapings in October 2015. That was a steep drop of 35.6 percent, a great deal of which was related to the departure of John Cena. Raw tapings were down 21.0 percent, some of which was due to adding the Monday house shows meaning that Cena wasn’t advertised as the headliner at the Raw tapings as he was in September, when WWE was up from the prior year.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

Vice wrote a (long) piece on the WWE and behind the scenes stuff, NXT, Shane vs. Stephanie, Dunn vs. HHH in the business: https://sports.vice.com/en_us/artic...-inside-look-at-wwes-unlikely-business-empire

Some snippets:

...reporting directly to Vince as COO took its toll. "I had zero, nothing, no life at all," she told me. "I was having less of an impact on business initiatives. I started feeling more and more marginalized and feeling more stressed. And [Vince] wasn't happy with me anymore."

"When Shane left it was a very sad day," said Sally Presutto, who oversaw live events for the company for over two decades. "I thought he was a very fair and honest person to work for."

In 2011, Stephanie was promoted to executive vice-president of creative, where she oversaw character and storylines—the backbone of WWE's core product. To other employees in that area of the company, her new title was a strange if not altogether inaccurate label. "We never ran scripts by Stephanie, we never went to her with an idea," a former employee in the creative department told me. "She never sat in on production meetings. She didn't go on the road unless it was a pay-per-view, [when she went] to glad-hand."

Being in charge of new talent gives Levesque an opportunity to implement his vision outside of the writer's room. "Paul can't control the main product the way he wants to. Vince wins in the end," a former senior-level executive told me. "NXT gave Paul his baby because Vince can't oversee everything."

But Levesque's vision of what a performer should be doesn't always correlate with what the corporation needs to keep ratings up and money coming in. "He's an old-school guy—a true wrestler," the same senior-level executive told me. "But look at the ratings. Where are the stars? Smart marks love these characters, but that's not the audience that drives a giant business."

Former head writer Brian Gewirtz echoes this sentiment. "If you don't have a compelling character, it doesn't matter how good the match is athletically," he said. "You'll just have people sitting on their hands, waiting until it's over."

But, on July 28, three and a half months after WrestleMania 32, WWE released its quarterly report—a mandatory, all-encompassing document that lets the Security Exchange Commission, shareholders, and the public know how the company is functioning, both logistically and financially. An analysis of the report shows that WrestleMania 32 attendance was not, in fact, the 101,763 figure that WWE had been throwing around. It wasn't even in the six figures. According to the documents, the actual paid live attendance for the event was between 74,000 and 86,000. "As long as they don't lie about the financials, they aren't committing fraud," said Chris Harrington, an independent WWE business analyst.

"He [Vince] takes great lip service to wanting new ideas, but he doesn't value or respect outside opinion," the source said. "It's his way or no way. Vince's philosophy, which is hysterical, is 'Every day is your first day on the job.' That's not a philosophy to run a company, but a rationalization for Vince to change his mind whenever he wants."

 

[Fro]

Vice wrote a (long) piece on the WWE and behind the scenes stuff, NXT, Shane vs. Stephanie, Dunn vs. HHH in the business: https://sports.vice.com/en_us/artic...-inside-look-at-wwes-unlikely-business-empire

Some snippets:

holy crap that's long winded...some good stuff, some unneeded...

 

[M.C.G. 31]

I had no idea Shane sent up a meeting with Vince through Dunn in 2012 in an attempt to take over all of creative, and Dunn did it so he'd have more clout with Vince so HHH/Steph would lose some control.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

Holy ****...

I was curious to know the total churn numbers since the network's inception. "We don't give those numbers out publicly," George Barrios told me, but according to documents submitted to the SEC, WWE Network has amassed 4,587,000 total accounts since launching in 2014, while 3,076,000 accounts have left the service (leaving us with the current number of active accounts: 1,511,000). That means that 67 percent of accounts that were created were eventually canceled (I refer to them as "accounts" rather than "subscribers" because theoretically one person could sign up and bail more than once, thus skewing the metrics).

 

[GKJ]

The Observer on this should be something to behold.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

33% retention rate is beyond horrendous. Given that the Network is a GREAT product, it is even more worrisome.

 

[Kimi]

There's a non-insignificant number of people who abuse the 'first month free' deal a lot, so I wonder how that plays into it.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

There's a non-insignificant number of people who abuse the 'first month free' deal a lot, so I wonder how that plays into it.

The first month free thing should have ended after a year. Offering it for so long as just devalued the product.

Failing so hard with such a good product will be taught as a cautionary tale in business.schools one day

 

[M.C.G. 31]

The first month free thing should have ended after a year. Offering it for so long as just devalued the product.

Failing so hard with such a good product will be taught as a cautionary tale in business.schools one day

That (WWE Network), and Netflix vs. cable providers (at least in Canada). Hell I already did a paper and presentation on the latter this semester.

 

[Emperoreddy]

I figured they goosed the Mania 32 number but I thought they still broke 90K. Wow.

Also LOL to those network numbers. Are people surprised though? Outside of getting nostalgic for the old stuff, why would the average person want to keep the network?

 

[GKJ]

I think Dave Meltzer reported on a number around 97

 

[Natey]

What's wrong with those numbers? 1.5M is still a decent number and it's going to continue to grow. It's taking longer than Vince would have liked, but it'll grow.

And the biggest thing is simple - there's still so many houses with poor internet. And a lot of wrestling fans are those people in low income housing in rural areas.

I know in my town, which is like 15,000 people, doesn't even have high speed internet through Bell (10+ mbps down, 1+ mbps up). It's only been in recent years we've even had cable to do that job.

Yeah, in Canada you can get the Network on TV - but is only slowly coming to fruition too. When I was with Bell you couldn't even order it yet and that was not that long ago.

It's a new service and it's going to continue to grow. The servers are better than ever - I haven't had a show skip in ages. The subs are going up slowly but surely. It's not all doom and gloom like it's being made out to be here.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Natey, the problem isn't the total number itself. The problem is the awful retention rate. 33% is atrocious. Most business target around 80% if not higher retention rate for their services. 33% means that either the satisfaction level is very low or that customer don't see much value in what they pay for. It is a huge problem.

 

[ColePens]

I disagree with teh Execs take on "Stars". HHH's method was building stars, even if they were also good wrestlers. WWE's approach of building Hulk Hogans just isnt' realistic anymore. The business has changed. Example -- Roman Reigns.

 

[UnrealMachine]

There's a non-insignificant number of people who abuse the 'first month free' deal a lot, so I wonder how that plays into it.

Expanding on this, I'd be curious as to the retention rate of paying customers; even those who only paid for one month?

 

[Kimi]

Expanding on this, I'd be curious as to the retention rate of paying customers; even those who only paid for one month?

Yeah, that would data with actual value. The overall numbers really are meaningless.

 

[Virtanen18]

Agreed. Seems like an overreaction here to the numbers.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

Meltzer was talking about the ratings because WWE's stupid show with Heyman, JBL and Rosenberg brought up the three hour argument. Meltzer destroyed JBL's argument about the revenue coming in RIGHT NOW even though year-to-year, they're driving away many members of the audience. It's not a small 2-3% amount, but they're losing 15-17% of their audience every year and viewers are tuning from hour 1 to hour 3 more often. Meltzer said it was WWE thinking short-term (as usual) in regards to the money rather than long-term with their audience.

He said it was possible WWE could keep making big money off TV even with their crappy ratings because USA is struggling to create new episodes and that USA needs WWE now more than they did 5 years ago when the numbers were much better, but they're losing many members of the audience since the switch the three hours on a year-to-year basis.

From my own chart:

Fall Average for 2012 - 2.78
Fall Average for 2013 - 2.86 (Bryan's run) +2.93%
Fall Average for 2014 - 2.79 (-2.33%)
Fall Average for 2015 - 2.43 (-12.85%)
Fall Average for 2016 - 2.06 (-15.23%)

 

[scrubadam]

Why so much hostility or glee around any negative news about the network?

For what you get is pretty amazing value. The fact that PPV's went from 40$ to 10$ makes the whole thing worth it on its own.

The network itself has been ran beautifully. Its got tons of old content on their and WWE is always looking to add new material. Not everything is a hit (as if all TV shows are always hits) but along with their "scripted" shows we also get things like House show specials, CWC, 205 live, the upcoming UK tournament and Talking Smack.

Anyways the whole point of the network was to kill any chance for competitors to rise up. When you devalue your PPV's to 10$ its impossible for another company to even compete with you. So regardless of how many subscribers it has its accomplished its goal of making WWE number 1 and anyone else a blip on the radar.

 

[NewAgeOutlaw]

Why so much hostility or glee around any negative news about the network?

For what you get is pretty amazing value. The fact that PPV's went from 40$ to 10$ makes the whole thing worth it on its own.

The network itself has been ran beautifully. Its got tons of old content on their and WWE is always looking to add new material. Not everything is a hit (as if all TV shows are always hits) but along with their "scripted" shows we also get things like House show specials, CWC, 205 live, the upcoming UK tournament and Talking Smack.

Anyways the whole point of the network was to kill any chance for competitors to rise up. When you devalue your PPV's to 10$ its impossible for another company to even compete with you. So regardless of how many subscribers it has its accomplished its goal of making WWE number 1 and anyone else a blip on the radar.

You do realize that WWE accomplished the bolded feat 16 years ago, right? TNA even at its largest was less than a blip on WWE's radar.

 

[scrubadam]

You do realize that WWE accomplished the bolded feat 16 years ago, right? TNA even at its largest was less than a blip on WWE's radar.

Thats true, but if PPV was still viable a competitor could rise up. Wrestling business used to be about getting big PPV buys. Now a wrestling company would be suicidal to try and sell a 30$ PPV and no one is going to compete with the WWE with 10$ IPPV's.

So if you cant get huge PPV buy rates to generate huge revenue then how does an incumbent compete with the WWE? You won't become WCW big with house shows. TV is becoming less and less a factor.

Vince killed the wrestling PPV business which killed the chance for any competitor to gain any type of foot hold in the business and attempt to compete. The best they can hope for is to be a TV company like LU/TNA but in the end that won't make much money. If WWE isn't going to get a huge TV deal how much better can another company dream of?

 

[M.C.G. 31]

Apparently WWE will be adding the feature of downloading content for offline viewing to the WWE Network similar to the Netflix recently did in 2017.