In theory, a 24/7 wrestling channel should be a major fan's dream and
during the peak of the pro wrestling boom in 1998, a similar concept
would've generated millions because of the supply/demand ratio at the
time.
Nearly two decades later, World Wrestling Entertainment is the
undisputed champion of the industry and after years of meticulous
negotiating, they own the video library of nearly every major wrestling
promotion that existed in the United States. As a result, more footage
is available to more fans than any other time in history, but is that
too much of a good thing?
After the brand extension, more pay-per-views were added to the schedule
and as of now, there's usually a PPV event every 2-3 weeks, which has
already watered down the concept of those shows being perceived as
"special events." Since Smackdown was moved to Tuesday to air live, a
key if the perception of the show is going to be considered near the
level of Raw, if there's a pay-per-view that week then it translates to
8-9 hours of wrestling in the span of just a few days. At some point,
it's too much for the viewer to digest and angles begin to blend
together or at least don't stand out as much as they could've. Between
pay-per-views, Raw, and Smackdown, is there really a demand for that
much live wrestling content?
Let's be honest here, while the WWE makes hundreds of millions of
dollars a year, pro wrestling isn't as relevant in pop culture as it
once was, something that the ratings reflect. Sports entertainment isn't
trendy the way it was a decade and a half ago. Don't get me wrong, the
WWE is a successful company, in part because they usually maximize the
potential revenue from the core audience, but there isn't an
overwhelming demand for more content. Along with several hours of live
programming each week, the WWE network streams a 24 hour schedule,
including special events such as the Stone Cold podcast. At some point,
the average viewer has enough wrestling for the week and tunes into
something else.
Essentially, it seems like WWE brass could be in danger of
unintentionally over saturating their own product because with the
amount of content available, viewers might simply pick and chose what
they want to watch before they channel surface to another genre. Sure,
there are those diehard fans within the wrestling bubble, but the
general public, which makes up the bulk of the WWE's business doesn't
necessarily demand endless hours of sports entertainment. A network
subscription might sell with the affordable price for the pay-per-view,
but is that same consumer watching weekly? Depending on the competition
on a particular night, pro wrestling ratings are sometimes sluggish and
with more entertainment options than any other time in history, it
becomes even more critical for the effectiveness of angles to be
maximized to maintain viewership, but again, is that realistically
possible with several hours of live programming each week?
As simplistic as it sounds, pro wrestling is up against very formidable
competition for ratings right now and with a revolving door of various
rematches often booked, it's difficult to create the "must see"
atmosphere for a particular contest. The MLB postseason provided
compelling drama for the better part of a month and the world series
garnered major ratings. The NFL season, despite being down slightly
compared to previous years, still poses opposition to PPVs or Raw
depending on the teams scheduled. The TV dramas such as The Walking Dead
also compete with pay-per-views in terms of live viewers. Obviously,
the network has the on-demand feature to allow fans to watch at their
convenience, but the point is the product is still not being perceived
as "must see" in that scenario, which could transition to the TV
broadcast.
I don't have the answer for how to make the current product more of a
weekly draw, and as mentioned, I don't know if it's possible with
several hours of live programming each week. Some have suggested that
Raw be scaled back to the traditional two-hour format, a logical point
because it would package the show better without some of the potential
flat points during the production, but the expansion to three hours a
few years ago didn't have much to do with the actual content of the
show. The USA network requested that Raw add another hour, as it
generates more ad revenue and it also provides an additional hour of
steady ratings for them. Basically, the additional hour was strictly a
business move, not an attempt to add more substance to the product.
Essentially, more wrestling doesn't automatically mean better wrestling.
If the causal viewer decides to limit the amount of sports entertaining
programming they watch, it can lead to stagnant numbers that will
reflect a stagnant product. Again, if a well booked angle gets lost in
the shuffle of the expansion of WWE shows, how effective is it? Keep in
mind, there's NXT weekly, and a cruiser weight show to be added soon,
both of which are in some ways used to introduce or further talent on
the main roster. Is the casual viewer going to watch all those shows?
Another aspect of the WWE being a corporation is the stock price, a
number that can determine the estimated value of the company at any
given time. That stock price, while often kept stable by the diehard
demographic, is mostly determined by how many of the general public are
spending money on the product. As harsh as it might sound, the most
loyal fans don't usually determine WWE's rate of main stream success, as
a corporation, the priority is to reach the main stream demographic of
causal fans. If the product remains watered down, it's remains to be
seen how or if management generates more viewers for the shows than the
roughly 3.1 rating that they average right now. By the way, that's a
solid number for a weekly TV show, but when you consider that the peak
of the Attitude era had 10 million viewers a week, there's obviously the
potential for an increase for the ratings.
The bottom line is, the combination of over saturation and lack of
angles that generate a buzz around the product creates a ceiling on the
level of success the promotion achieves. Granted, the company is
profitable and without any legitimate competition, there's no risk of
another group getting a piece of the pie so it might not make a major
difference, but as a business, it's not ideal to have an artificial
limit of success.
No comments:
Post a Comment