Some might look at all the debate back and forth on the merits of Vince McMahon’s $1 million giveaway as proof that the idea is working as designed. It’s creating a buzz, and that buzz could translate to extra viewers.
I doubt it. I think it’s fair that the overwhelming reaction by fans to the sweepstakes has been negative – as evidenced by the audible boos McMahon received when he offered details of the contest on Monday night.
Just a few weeks ago, the Internet was similarly buzzing over what a terrible job Mike Adamle did in his first week as ECW’s lead play by play man. WWE turned it into an angle and the result was… lower ratings.
Now, I don’t think the giveaway will hurt WWE ratings, and in fact I could see a small jump in the first week or two of the contest. But it’s clearly not the answer to WWE’s sinking ratings. So what is?
First, I’d like to address an excellent point made in the comments forum – one that I’ve been meaning to write about for some time. That is that too much is made of WWE’s television ratings. It may be unfair to compare WWE’s ratings today to those of just a few years ago – much less to the hey day of the Monday night wars 10 years ago when Raw and Nitro were each drawing twice the ratings WWE is doing today.
With so many more cable channels available today than ever before, the advent of Tivo and DVRs, and the growing popularity of the Internet and video sites like Youtube, it’s really an apples to oranges comparison. Some 105 million viewers tuned into the final episode of M*A*S*H 25 years ago – nearly 80 percent of American homes. Comparatively, last year’s Sopranos finale drew just 11.5 million viewers. That hardly makes the Sopranos a failure, because it’s an unrealistic comparison against an era where Americans had far fewer entertainment options outside network television.
Nielsen’s is yet to completely figure out how to factor in viewers watching Raw on Tivo and DVR’s at their leisure. I know I rarely watch any wrestling show in its entirety in real time. That has to factor into a significant cut in WWE’s ratings.
The point is, while WWE should be concerned about the gradual dip in ratings, I don’t think it should be cause for the kind of alarm that results in foolish, short-sighted hotshot angles or desperate publicity stunts.
Indeed, there are few easy and obvious answers. In the early 1980s, when wrestling was still divided into territories and featured a lot of bland characters, creating a national wrestling promotion that featured colorful, larger than life stars and drew upon the MTV culture was a clearly sound option. In the mid 1990s, when fans were clearly sick of watching wrestling plumbers and garbage men, it was an obvious option to go with a more cutting edge style that featured adult-oriented characters and storylines.
That next “big idea” may not be so obvious this time around, although there are a few options. While still a blip on the mainstream radar, Ring of Honor is the only wrestling company with a national presence right now that is doing something clearly distinctive and revolutionary – long, innovative, athletic, and exciting matches. TNA may also have been onto something when it featured Samoa Joe and Kurt Angle in what was essentially a worked mixed martial arts match.
But it may not even be a matter of hitting on the next big concept, but rather freshening things up, trying some new ideas, and thinking outside the box. I have to laugh at the notion that WWE is reluctant to move some fresh faces into the main event mix at the risk of “rushing them along.” Shelton Benjamin has been part of WWE’s main roster for six years now. Paul London for five. Jeff and Matt Hardy for ten. The Rock had won his first world title two years after his debut, as did John Cena.
One absolutely crucial step WWE should take is to build its developmental system. WWE’s farm system over the years has produced such acts as the Rock, Edge, Randy Orton and John Cena, just to name a few. But the well has been relatively dry for some time now, as WWE has recruited young talents based on look over skill based on an outdated fixation on bodybuilder physiques.
I’d love to see WWE do more scouting in American independents, including Ring of Honor, and look for substance over style.
In addition to making the action inside the ring more realistic, WWE should also consider getting more realistic outside the ring. How many cartoonish leprechaun-running-through-walls angles have to flop before WWE goes a different direction? I’d love to see WWE start explaining why cameras are backstage and booking angles that we can sink our teeth into – not unlike the awesome Batista-Michaels-Jericho storyline.
And so, while there may be no one big thing WWE could do to turn around its fortunes, there are a number of small things: elevate young stars – not only to main events, but into upper mid card slots; experiment with more innovative, athletic styles that draw upon the emergence of mixed martial arts; bolster its farm system with diverse talent of all shapes and sizes from the country’s leading independents; do away with all the fifth-grade comedy that falls flat with a much of the audience; get away from the tired evil-boss storylines that got played out ten years ago; utilize WWE’s rich history by regularly featuring stars of the past; and more prominently feature tag team wrestling as a money-drawing attraction.
The fact is, WWE is already doing a lot of things right, and a lot of its misfortunes may be out of their hands and irreversible – at least until the next huge star comes along to grab everyone’s attention.
Just as importantly, there are some things WWE should not be doing, such as publicity stunts that only reinforce wrestling’s mainstream perception as low brow entertainment.
While there may be nothing inherently wrong with giving away a million dollars, it does become a problem when the company uses so much of its energy and resources in making the contest a focal point of the show, even above promoting its actual wrestling product.
This notion that the contest is meant only as a tool to create a buzz and draw in new viewers is flawed because, historically, it's been the product itself that has done that. Viewers weren't paid to sample Steve Austin and then decided that they liked him. Instead, Austin's groundbreaking character created a groundswell that caused more and more fans to tune in each week and see what he'd do.
While WWE apologists may claim that the giveaway was never meant as anything more than a publicity stunt and that critics are making too big a deal out of it, the fact is McMahon hyped it as the be-all, end-all, “first time ever in the history of television” announcement that would change the face of wrestling forever. So I’m going to hold him to it.
Comments (48)
I DON'T KNOW WHAT EVERYONE EXPECTS OUT OF THE WW(E). REMEMBER - IT'S ENTERTAINMENT. THIS SWEEP WILL BE A SHORT-TERM ENTERTAINMENT GAG.
FOR ALL WE KNOW, THIS MIGHT BE THE WWE'S WAY OF DRAWING PEOPLE TO THEIR WEBSITE!!!
OF COURSE EVERYONE WANTS SOME GIANT RATING BOOSTING FROM FRESH NEW STARS. THAT ISN'T AN OVERNIGHT PROCESS. HONESTLY, JUST PUSHING THE STARS ALREADY IN THE WWE IS GREAT WITH ME. PUSHING CARLITO AND SHELTON WOULD DO WONDERS. HELPING CODY RHODES PERSONALITY WISE WOULD BE GREAT. CREATING STRONGER TAG TEAMS WOULD BE GREAT. ALL THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE WITHIN COMPANY THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE MUCH EFFORT
RATINGS COME AND GO. FOR US TO BE WORRYING ABOUT THEM SHOWS THAT WE'RE PUTTING TOO MUCH STAKE IN THEM. IT'S HILARIOUS THAT WHILE RATINGS ARE DOWN, BUYRATES OF PPV ARE STABLE....DOESN'T THAT SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE STATE OF WWE?
The crowd were booing when Vince said it was going to be next week that the giveaway started, meaning the current audience would definately not get anything. They were eating out of the palm of his hand for the rest of the segment. Ratings were down right across the board. The Regal thing was good, but ratings still went down. Since Adamle's debut though, hits on the ECW viewing on WWE.com went to their highest ever, for what it's worth.
What I meant by not rushing people along is that you do have to be careful with how you build stars. We have got new main eventers in the past few years, so anyone that says we haven't is flat out lying. Difference being that in the older days, you'd actually have guys that would have been working a fair amount before coming to the WWE. Now thow, people come straight out of developmental, and a lot of the time straight into prominent mid-card roles. Sure, Shelton's been in the company a long time, but he's only been in the big leagues for 5 years. He hasn't found the personality that makes a true main eventer yet. Cena had it, Orton had it. Edge finally got it. Batista had it. Trouble is people see potential in these guys and think they need to go straight to the top. It doesn't work like that for everyone though, so the company does have to be patient. They have elevated young guys, and everyone has a spot, just like they have always had.
I still don't think you're getting the whole point of a publicity stunt. By your definition, any publicity stunt is desperate. Richard Branson turning up at the Airport with his new plane and a giant banner reading 'MINES BIGGER THAN YOURS' was a publicity stunt. Sure, it was slightly low-brow. People might accuse him of being childish, but it doesn't matter. What it does is get the Virgin name out there. This is what this is doing. I can't think of another publicity stunt that wouldn't have the aura of being desperate, because quite frankly everyone stunt will look like it is from a cynics point of view.
When Austin took off, it was still 83 weeks (you didn't acknowledge this point) before the WWF started winning the ratings race from WCW. People didn't know about Austin all of a sudden, and then decide to jump just like that. It took time for his name, and the company's name, to get out to the viewers. Let's say Kennedy takes off huge. They put him in main event programs and angles. What if not enough people know about it and ratings continue to stay in the low 3's, and USA start getting desperate? A publicity stunt creates a mini boom of interest. If enough people like the product to stay on with it, then it will have served it's purpose. Enough people know about the product, and then enough people have the option of deciding whether to stay with it or not. If they didn't even know that Kennedy or Jeff Hardy is the hot new act to be watching on TV, they aren't going to watch it. Enough people need to know it's happening.
Vince called it a big annoucement. He called it something that's never been done before. That was absolutely true. He wanted to generate interest, so of course he's going to sell it big. A 6-man tag isn't the biggest main event in Raw history, but they say it anyway. He never lied though, people just got carried away. What did anyone honestly expect? A formation of a new NWO? That's a concept that's been played out as much as the evil boss. A free PPV? Bah, cheap, desperate publicity stunt I say! Would that get mainstream attention anyway?
Personally what I think the company needs is a bigger picture. The only big picture that runs for months at a time right now is 'who is the number one contender?' This lasts for a month or two at the very most, then restarts itself. That, in itself, creates the good vs evil concept, and the spirit of competition, but it isn't bigger than wresting, and won't create a boom by itself. It's just going to keep the wrestling fans, not get entertainment fans. A lot of stars are also not linked, they are mostly all seperate entities, who all want to win a match. A lot of the stories are just trading victories (Shelton/Kofi) without actual development.
Angles like HBK/Batista/Y2J work because there was a real reason to feud, and a real story behind it. They were all linked to the story and had some investment in it. HBK retired Flair, Y2J and Batista considered Flair a mentor. It works, and feels natural. Kennedy/Burchil IMO has potential, because Burchil was linked to Regal, and will have a reason to want to get at Kennedy. Burchil is also linked to Katie Lea, so she can be used for story development.
I feel if there were bigger pictures to the stories, instead of just 'this guy beats that guy and swears revenge' or 'this guy ran in on that guy after the match last week to make a statement' etc then ratings would be better. The thing is, is that they can produce a good story, they just don't do it all the time, and I can't understand why. Perhaps it simply isn't possible to give everyone a great story, so they have to save it for when they can. I don't know. I just know that anything HBK has done this year has been with a good story behind it. MVP/Matt had a good story behind it. Regal/Kennedy would have had a good story behind it I'm sure. It also seems like they are trying to link more people to make it easier for stories to be developed (Cena/Mickie, La Familia) and everytime they have tried to start a 'big picture' story, something has ruined it. Vince blowing up could have ran for years, and span so many different ways before the eventual pay off. Vince's son could have been a lot better if Kennedy didn't get suspended. Regal being the evil boss that could also get it done in the ring would have had potential, but he had to go. Everytime they seem to try a big story, something stops them out of their control.
I'd think that during the height of the interest in the giveaway, they'll probably start another big story to capitalise. In terms of generating interest in the company though, there's not many better stunts they could have pulled than the one they chose, otherwise they would have chosen it.
Apologies for another long post, but I'm throughly enjoying the debate.
I think there are a few things holding WWE back:
#1 - I think what's held the WWE back and has most likely stunted the growth of the farm system is all the deaths surrounding the industry and the drug problems/addictions wrestlers are now fessing up to have (whether by choice or by death).
The Benoit incident didn't help matters, but the overall message, throughout all of sports today is that people are tired of the drug use.
Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa... all revered for their accomplishments in the late 90s. And now? Bonds gets boo'ed, he probably won't get in the hall of fame and people are talking about an asterisk next to his record.
#2 - Innovative storylines that are rushed and the same ol' storylines that are beaten to death. It's really a shame that Regal was suspended. His angle with Kennedy had the makings of something wonderful. Jeff Hardy was on his way and looks like (hopefully) he can pick up where he left off.
We have guys on RAW at the moment that are stale and boring. I really think an established face needs a heel turn. SOMETHING to make RAW more interesting. Turn John Cena. Worked wonders for Hulk Hogan in the mid-90s. Have John Cena cost HHH the title but not ally with any of the heels. Have him go absolutely crazy and psycho, and alienate himself from everyone.
Jericho has been a complete bust since his return, and as a Jericho fan, I'm embarrassed to watch him. This guy was the first undisputed champion and when he should have won the rumble and won the title and WM, they instead have him buried in some Batista-Michaels feud. If you're not going to use him effectively, get rid of the dead weight.
HHH is fine as champion for the moment, but really, this needs to be his last run. Guys like Michaels, HHH, Undertaker, JBL, Mark Henry, Big Daddy V and even Jericho I'm afraid need to be phased out.
#3 - The young guns need to be pushed. Cody Rhodes needs to make a statement by not only turning on Hardcore Holly, but beating the living hell out of him. 3 matches in a row, on 3 PPVs.. where Rhodes beats Holly so bad, that Holly retires. Seriously, the spark plug needs to be changed. "Hardcore" Cody Rhodes sounds great, don't ya think?
The new Million Dollar man should bring the Million Dollar Belt and proclaim himself the real champion of the WWE. Have him beat the hell out of Chris Jericho and trash the IC belt. "Why would I put that scrub belt around my million dollar waist when it's touched scrubs like Pat Patterson, Pedro Morales, Ricky Steamboat, Randy Savage, Jeff Hardy, the Rock, Steve Austin, Chris Jericho?" And with Ted Sr. as his manager and mouth piece.. oh hello.
Have Cryme Time beat the hell out of Vince McMahon and steal the million dollars. And have John Cena as the mastermind behind it all. Have Cena absolutely snap.
There are 3 new angles just off the top of my head that involve elevating younger talent. It's not hard. Just put some effort into it.
Wweisright: Just wanted to let you know I'm really enjoying this debate too. While I may disagree with some of your points, it's enlightening to hear somebody argue WWE's side so intelligently.
"In terms of generating interest in the company though, there's not many better stunts they could have pulled than the one they chose, otherwise they would have chosen it."
Hmm, interesting logic there....
"Vince blowing up could have ran for years, and span so many different ways before the eventual pay off. "
Yeah, everyone would have stuck around for that. You realize you're defending the most tasteless, ridiculous, and definitely most poorly timed angle in a long while? Without mentioning Benoit's name either. Even if the Benoit murder/suicide hadn't ended it, that angle was completely misguided, and painful to watch for people who remember why they started doing "ten bell salutes" in the first place.
Full props to anyone who can so thoroughly enjoy WWE's current product without any hint of criticism.
Well, if there was another stunt they were planning, or any number of stunts, they would have weighed up how successful they will be, with a number of advisors who are smart to both the wrestling business, the media world etc. Any other idea obviously didn't measure up to the criteria they was looking for, and they know what criteria they need to look for more than any outside onlooker. They have market research data that we don't, they have past experience in the business that we don't, they will have known what works and what doesn't, and they chose what they chose for a number of reasons. They also know EXACTLY why they are doing what they are doing, and what impact is needed, which a normal onlooker won't.
As for the limo angle, I think it could have been great. It could have spanned any number of ways but never got a chance to get going. You don't know it's misguided, because you don't even know what they could have done, where they could have gone with it or anything. It's a TV show and the death was obviously kayfabe. A tribute show where they do ten bell salutes obviously isn't. I guess any other TV show that uses a death in a storyline should be slammed also? Hell, I guess they should have been slammed for killing off Al Wilson, because it would have brought back painful memories when Torrie was crying for him? Come on.
I've criticised the product to an extent. I've said I wish more of the feuds had more development than simply a feud trade off victories and a sneak attack here or there. I've also said I'd prefer a bigger picture type overunning story that would be able to link more of the wrestlers instead of them being so seperate. I also appreciate though, that while they don't do what I want for every single guy, they have proved they are capable of putting on a compelling story. It proves they can do it, so there's obviously reasons why not everyone can have a story. I don't know what they are, but everytime they seem to try and start a bigger picture, something gets in their way that's out of their control. In reality though, I'm criticising something I as a fan would have no clue about, because I wouldn't know what kind of considerations have to be made in board meetings, booking meetings, creative meetings or nything.
Things come down to the product, period. Right now, it's lame and predictable. There is nothing that viewers MUST SEE every Monday night. Characters are stale, the actual limited in-ring wrestling is far from engaging and the storylines are menial.
Just write better TV and viewers will return (those that have left). Period.
You have missed the point again: Owen Hart really did die, live on PPV. They had to throw together the ten bell thing at the last minute for the RAW afterwards.
To then use that as a "kayfabe" angle is stupid at best, heartless at worst. And seeing stuff like that is exactly what makes it impossible to enjoy the WWE.
But obviously, I don't know what I'm talking about. A lot of time and effort and enormous salaries went into the decisions that have brought us wonderful moments like this.
I think they should re-use some of the angles from the Attitude Era without being so obvious.
Ken Kennedy has the ability to be World Champ because he is funny, loud, able to speak on the mic, an above average wrestler, and can be face or heel.
Instead we're getting a storyline where 3 face wrestlers are battling for the WWE Championship. Jeff Hardy can't speak at all. He can't sell his promos. He sounds so unnatural. Plus, why are they pushing him right after a drug suspension? What kind of message is that sending?
Cena's face run is waaaay outplayed. He needs a turn bad. They obviously hear fans booing him. Cena's even addressed it on TV. Now turn Cena completely (like the person said a few posts ago) and let him go. Plus, why doesn't he rap anymore?? Haha.
People like Kennedy and JBL are stuck in meaningless feuds. MVP isn't in any storyline on Smackdown, which leads me to believe he'll be drafted.
The IC Belt hasn't been used in a while. I know Jericho said he'll be defending it more but we'll see. The angle with him right now is so weird. I can't understand it. I wish someone would explain it to me.
On Smackdown/ECW, Matt Hardy has so many potential challangers for his belt. Personally I'd like to see Elijah Burke, Shelton or Morrison get a crack at it.
And CM Punk needs to start winning matches and be pushed as someone who is about to break into the main event scene. He's liked by every fan and is an excellent wrestler AND is Mr Money in the Bank. I have a feeling he'll lose the briefcase to Jeff Hardy. The WWE hasn't put him in a situation where he can come out at any time and cash it and be viewed as a worthy opponent. So there's no other way i see that angle going.
One storyline I'd like to see is CM Punk cash in on HHH at Night of Champions (after HHH wins the match). HHH will look at Punk like 'Who the F is this guy?' They'll have a good match until Punk outlasts the champ and surprises him into the GTS and wins. Leading to a HHH heel turn.
I think that could help alot. Putting one of your most popular/talented stars right into the main event spot.
WWE needs to hire Ed McMahon to help with this "McMahon Million Dollar Mania." Seriously how much better would it be to win a bunch of money in the form of a check if Ed McMahon is the one presenting it to you?!
Plus, McMahon's house is foreclosing so it is unlikely he would turn down any job at this point, right?
WWE needs a big star, and it doesn't have one right now. It needs a Rock/Stone Cold/Hogan guy that people tune in to see. Maybe some of the younger audience will just tune in so they can watch John Cena, but a guy like the Rock appealed to all age groups, male and female. Until they find the next HUGE star, ratings will pretty much stay where they are.
There are some things they could do - and should do:
-end the split
-unify all Titles: World/WWE, US/IC and the Tag Team belts
-add a midcard title for people where the IC Title is too early. It's a similar problem at TNA because the reason every former WWE Star will get the world title is, because there is no other fitting single title. The X-Div title is for CWs, the World for ME but what is with the 1000 wrestlers between this titles? The same in WWE between IC/US. There is no title to win for midcarder.
-with the end of the split there are enough goot worker to put up a real good tag team division
-create more stables: the stables were the backbone of the monday night war: nWo, D-Generation X, Hart Foundation, Corporation, Ministry etc.. with a stable are way way more ways to make stories interestion and even boring Matches like Big Bossman vs Roaddog could be interesting, if they are in feuding stables...
-let some unhappy guys go to TNA (Carlito, Shelton Benjamin) - and bring in some fresh air with wrestlers like AJ Styles, James Storm or Samoa Joe. The trading between the WWF and the WCW was - aside from the stories - the real interesting thing during the monday night war and which made it fresh every week.
-stories, more stories, long stories, much more stories.
-more micwork,
-more interviews
-more matches on RAW and SD
-shorter Matches - or why should I buy a ppv when I get the same and also long matches for free?
''You have missed the point again: Owen Hart really did die, live on PPV. They had to throw together the ten bell thing at the last minute for the RAW afterwards.
To then use that as a "kayfabe" angle is stupid at best, heartless at worst. And seeing stuff like that is exactly what makes it impossible to enjoy the WWE''
I haven't missed the point at all. Owen Hart really did die. Mr Mcmahon really didn't. Eddie Guerrero really is dead. Al Wilson really wasn't. Raw is a television programme.
Everyone knew Vince wasn't dead. Everyone knew Owen was. Why was a scripted death heartless on a wrestling show, but yet on any other show, it's all part of the fun? If you can't differentiate between something real and something that isn't, you take it too seriously. JR said 'this is not part of the show folks'.
I don't really want to debate this, as it's long gone. But people do need to get over the fact that there was a scripted death - despite the fact that there was a scripted death (and funeral scenes, crying familiy members etc) years ago.
And yes, a lot of time, effort and big salaries do go into the product every week. If you're ever at the very top of your industry, perhaps I'll come down to your work and tell you how badly you are doing. Of course you'll tell me I'm a moron and I don't know what I'm talking about, and you'd be absolutely right to do so. I wouldn't. You would, because you'd be at the top.
Also bring back the Hardcore Title. I think the 24/7 rule was a lot of fun and so were the battle royals. It would also be a stepping stone for wrestlers stuck in the pits of WWE.
The European Title could do the same for the opposite brand.
I applied to be on the creative team last year. I made it all the way to Stamford but unfortunately my storyline wasn't John Cena vs. Edge. John Cena is winning. Two guys attack Cena, Cena throws them over the rope and gives Edge the FU and pins him.
Had I done that, I'm sure I would have been on the team.
You know, I find this all kind of amusing.
I've mostly been a quiet observer of the Internet Wrestling Community for the last ten years or so. In the past decade, I have seen, over and over again, the following statements:
- WWE sucks. (insert other promotion) is way better.
- All of the WWE's top talent sucks, they need to push the younger stars.
- Wrestling storylines are boring and stale.
- (Misc. mid-card wrestler) is so awesome, why aren't they pushing him to the title!?
- Title changes used to mean something
While today's viewers have fond memories of the attitude era, go find some wrestling blog posts from 1998, and swap out the names for today's superstars. Absolutely everything that everybody has said about what can be done to "fix" the WWE has already been suggested.
Now, let's look at what the major differences between WWF ten years ago and WWE now are:
- WWF/E is the only of the major 3 promotions still in business (WCW, ECW)
- All of the "younger guys" from 10 years ago have either come and gone, or are today's top stars.
- Nearly every miscellaneous mid-card wrestler from 1998 has either fizzled into obscurity, because they didn't have "it," or they ended up becoming one of the top stars of the business.
- Wrestling storylines are still "boring and stale," but continue to be re-used.
- Title changes used to mean something
A decade ago, Austin couldn't wrestle and didn't deserve his spot at the top. Tony Schiavonne was the worst commentator ever. The Internet hated Ric Flair's tired old ass. Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, Chris Jericho, and Dean Malenko were going to be the future of wrestling. The Internet couldn't wait for Triple H to win his first world title. Edge was unproven but had potential. Undertaker was a low-talent hack who only had a job because he was big and used to be a big deal.
Today, Cena couldn't wrestle and didn't deserve his spot at the top. Michael Cole/Mike Adamle is the worst commentator ever. The Internet hates Triple H's. AJ Styles, Samoa Joe, Shelton Benjamin, and CM Punk are going to be the future of wrestling. The Internet can't wait for Kennedy to win his first world title. Santino Marella is unproven but has potential. Undertaker is a low-talent hack who only had a job because he was big and used to be a big deal.
The names and faces may have changed, but the comments all remain the same.
In 10 years, I'm sure we'll see it all over again.
Wow, there is just too much to say! What a great discussion.
Let me add to a few things I picked up while reading this post and the comments that precede mine, but first let me just say I am not the type of fan to crap on every little thing WWE is doing. I still enjoy it much more than TNA, and although I am a growing fan of ROH, it's just difficult for me to compare it to WWE because they are so different on so many levels. I love the WWE, always have and hopefully always will. That being said, there is much change needed. It's nowhere near as good as it could be.
1. I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but I feel pretty strongly that Kennedy has the potential to be a Rock/Austin/Hogan level star. The need for him desperately to chase a heel Triple H...
2. I've said it before, HHH needs to go heel and hold that title until Wrestlemania. He needs to do what he does best and make everyone hate him, kayfabe and legitimately. The youngsters because HHH is good at being a jerk. And the smarks because they just can't stand seeing him with the belt for so long. A Kennedy win at Wrestlemania could send him into stardom.
3. Tag Team Wrestling! This is possibly the best thing ROH has going for them. And WWE has some great young tag teams in Cantino, Wang Yang/Moore, Miz/Morrison, Cryme Tyme, and London/Kendrick. Not to mention a possible Cody Rhodes/DiBiase Jr. Team. Plus someone could be called up to team with Haas (Colt Cabana?!). I thought WWE was building towards this when Santino/Carlito were named #1 contenders. And then it just fizzled out. I don't get it. The tag titles should be the second most important belts to the world titles.
4. Push Shelton Benjamin... the guy is getting better and better. And I really enjoy watching his matches. I think his feud with Kofi has picked up in recent weeks and I'm actually interested in it. Too bad it'll never see PPV time.
I'm sure I have more to say but I don't want to write a novel
Well the only thing I can think of is they need new stars. One constant thing over the last 10 years is Triple H, Undertaker and Shawn Micheals, and over the last few years Cena and Batista.
Why not, even if it's for just a few months, mix up the main event scene majorly. I think Cena as heel would be great, wrestlers turn so often these days and Cena hasn't turned since he became face years and years ago. Then take a gamble and push CM Punk, Jeff Hardy, Ken Kennedy, MVP etc all to the top. And I mean world title shots. People will say Cena makes too much in merchandising, but c'mon like that will make a huge difference? take a chance people pay more money to see him get beat up than they do on his merchandise.
If it doesn't work, fine go back to the old stagers, but wether they are all ready or not, it's something different and it would certainly be fresh. And who knows maybe one of these stars will catch on fire like Steve Austin, maybe not, but you gotta try.
There are only so manny combinations of Edge/Batista/Undertaker and Triple H/Cena/Orton you can do.
Andy, wrestling was a lot better 10 years ago. I like Cena, but he's no Rock. I always hated Stone Cold but loved Kurt Angle. Chris Jericho was fresh and new and was funny as hell. This Jericho sucks. Edge and Christian and the five second pose was classic.
Does DX saying Vince likes cock really make you crack up laughing? How many times does Mr. McMahon have to be humiliated?? I mean he's the Washington Generals. There's no pop anymore!!
They tease Jericho for months and then make him IC champion???
The writers are horrid. They should have hired me. I had fresh and new ideas.
Vince should take his millions and purchase ROH. Then he could start the 2010 "honor" era after they teach his roster how to wrestle. Problem solved.
wweisright: Yeah, I don't want to debate this either. Maybe I'm not being clear, but the point is it's tasteless to try and turn tragedy into a way to make money, which WWE does a lot of. And the fact that they're at the "top of their industry" doesn't make them immune to criticism for it.
If you can stomach it then like I said, more power to you.
I'd bet most soap operas have used a death at one point or another in their existence though, it's hardly something that the WWE and the WWE alone have done to create or further a storyline.
"Andy, wrestling was a lot better 10 years ago. I like Cena, but he's no Rock. I always hated Stone Cold but loved Kurt Angle. Chris Jericho was fresh and new and was funny as hell. This Jericho sucks. Edge and Christian and the five second pose was classic.
Does DX saying Vince likes cock really make you crack up laughing? How many times does Mr. McMahon have to be humiliated?? I mean he's the Washington Generals. There's no pop anymore!!
They tease Jericho for months and then make him IC champion???
The writers are horrid. They should have hired me. I had fresh and new ideas."
See, that's exactly my point.
I said nothing about the wrestling product today vs. the wrestling product, yesterday. All I said is that the Internet is saying the same thing now as it was a decade ago.
People said DX was unfunny, then, too, and that their antics had nothing to do with wrestling. People said the Rock was cool, but he was no Ultimate Warrior. People said Jericho was better in WCW than he was in WWF. People got tired of seeing the E&C 5-second pose after two or three weeks.
From today's standpoint, the Attitude Era was better. When we were in the Attitude Era, the Rock'n'Wrestling days were better. When we were in the Rock'n'Wrestling days, the regional days were better. No matter what the date is, as far as most people are concerned, wrestling was always "better," ten years ago.
Something that a lot of jaded, long-term fans forget is that the WWE isn't meant for them. The WWE is meant to bring new people in at a young age, and get them addicted to the shows and merchandise for life - Much like cigarette companies.
When you see wrestling as a kid, it's fun and cool and new and exciting. And ten years later, you're going to think that when you started watching it was better, because EVERYTHING was so new and fresh and you'd never seen it before. And you keep watching, hoping for an exciting period like that to happen again.
Anyways, My point isn't that WWE is better or worse than it ever was - My point is that a lot of wrestling fans are always wanting to recapture that feeling of new and fresh and exciting from when they started watching, and that's an unrealistic expectation.
I'd say the person above me 'wins'. Everyone is also moaning about how the product isn't fresh anymore, that the upper mid-carders need to move up, and that whoever is in the current main event scene is stale. That's always been like that. People are accusing WWE of not creating new stars, but they are. It was time for HHH and Rock to step down in 2000 and let Jericho have his time then also. Now it's time for Punk and MVP to step up. It will be like this till the end of time. They'll be bored of Ted Jr and Cody Rhodes in a few years time also.
The jaded fans will want something new, but don't even realise the current main eventers were mid carders once. It's even more apparent now that the WWE have to create twice as many stars because of the brand extention, it's not so simple.
It's fresh to the people that are still new to the business, and who wrestling can have a real impact on. As long as there are new people born, there will be people who truly enjoy wrestling.
I think the main problem begins and ends with the fact that McMahon and company are really only concerned with their top dozen main event players. Everyone beneath those lucky dozen are interchangable. Nothing that occurs with any of them really matters to the emphasis of the WWE product. And what results from this is that anyone who doesn't like or has become dulled to the actions of those dozen wrestlers, just doesn't bother caring about the product anymore.
This isn't simply a cry for "more main event stars!", because truthfully, you *can't have* everyone be a main event star. However, what the WWE really does need to do is treat their midcard with some measure of respect, and not use them merely as fodder for their main event dozen, or as faceless, nameless shmoes who have nothing going on.
How many times have we random guy paired up into a so-called tag team just to keep them busy? How many times have we seen the IC title become an afterthought? How many times have we seen midcarders trade wins and losses back and forth with no seeming progression of their storylines? And most disappointingly, how many times have we seen a wrestler or wrestlers from a particular strata (cruiserweight, tag team, IC/US) used as nothing more than a lousy jobber to one of the main event dozen? Thousands of times. And as a result, we the audience easily pick up on this. It tells us that obviously the head office doesn't give a damn about getting these "scrubs" over... so why should we fans bother investing in them?
Part of the reason why the so-called 'Russo era' was successful back in '97-'00 was that he and his team made it a point to try and get *everybody* over... not just the main event few. Everybody got personal storylines. Everybody was treated as a potential "favorite wrestler" to a segment of the fanbase, and most importantly... nobody from a lower level was used as nothing more than cannonfodder for a wrestler at a higher level. If you were in a tag team, you got a team name, tee shirts, and you fought other tag teams... you never were put out there as Undertaker's "squash of the week" in order for us to remember just how "important and great" Undertaker was.
It's simple. You treat most of your roster like crap... you treat those of us who like those wrestlers as crap too. And only the select die-hards will stick around for you after you treat them like crap. The rest of us will find some other way to spend our time.
Arrrrrgh. If you really think that deaths in soap opera storylines and deaths in professional wrestling are even comparable, then it's no wonder you don't think it's tasteless.
So right, no argument here, enjoy the fun, laugh along with silly Mr. McMahon as he makes hi-LARIOUS jokes about J.R's colon cancer, or throws a fake post-mortem tribute to himself on RAW a week before he had another real death on his hands. Just quit being so surprised that other people don't find it so entertaining.
So what's the difference between wrestling scripted death and a soap opera scripted death? Maybe I really don't get it, or maybe i just don't take it so seriously. It's a scripted entertainment show, just like anything else.
As for the mid-card being treated as fodder for the main event, it has always been that way. Jobbers are fodder for the mid card. The mid card are fodder for the upper mid card. The upper mid card are jobbers for the main eventers. The main eventers are fodder for the champion, or the golden goose.
It's another lie that they simply don't bother with mid-card storylines, or try to get them over. Jericho's a mid-carder essentially, and is involved in a great storyline. MVP/Matt had a great storyline. Miz/Morrison have a lot of time devoted to them on WWE.com. Santino has the benefit of working with Austin and Piper. Finlay had the whole deal with Hornswoggle being Vince's son. Burchil and Kennedy have something going on over the firing of Regal - who himself was essentially another mid carder who was ascending.
The main eventers will always be the money makers, and most fans will predominently tune in to see them. More people were tuning in for Austin vs Vince than they were for Test, a hell of a lot more proportionately than the rest of the roster I'd say. It's the nature of the older fans to latch on to something in the mid card that's inevitably going to be newer, but in reality it's the main eventers that have and always will make the company the majority of their money. It's why they are main eventers, and why an entire booking structure is set up to make them look good, and why a whole show is structured to make the crowd pop for certain guys.
Yeah, they really did a great job of scripting that whole Benoit murder/suicide thing. So realistic!
What differentiates a mid-carder from a main eventer, besides the personal taste of the promoter? Vince likes big guys, so big guys it's been for the last 20 or so years. It sure as hell isn't based on in-ring ability; remember Bobby Lashley? Even given hours of t.v. time, title wins, and his freakish body, no one gave a damn about him. But Vince likes his bodybuilders, so what the fans thought didn't matter.
But that's because the writers are paid a lot, so they are obviously perfect beings who know better than the fans themselves what they want to see, blahblahblah....sorry, I don't buy it.
The Benoit death was real, Vince's was not. Is it that difficult? A clear differential is made between what's real and what isn't. Answer my question; what's the difference between a wrestling scripted death and a soap opera one?
Promoters have personal tastes for a reason. Vince's likes big guys for a reason. Plenty of people liked Lashley. He wasn't on Cena levels of crazy overness but he was doing well enough. If Lashley wasn't doing well enough, he wouldn't be in his spot, he'd be taken away. All Vince cares about is money. If he can't make money off of Bobby Lashley he won't use him.
You have absolutely no clue what considerations someone has to make in the wrestling business, when it comes to piecing together a match, when it comes to crafting a storyline, when it comes to promoting an event, when it comes to pushing a star to main event level, when establishing the pretige of a title belt, or anything else.You have no clue whatsoever. Neither does anyone else that's never stepped foot in the WWE. You have the right to complain and not to watch, but in terms of the process of making it better, you have absolutely no clue. What 'fans' want to see is totally subjective. Some fans may hate Cena, but if he's the right choice to make money, he's going to be used. Some fans may hate Jericho, or Kennedy, or any one of the other mid carders or up and comers that would apparently boost the ratings if given a main event spot tommorow, but none of that matters. It's what Vince wants to do to make money, and he does know that better than anyone.
If I came to your workplace and told you that I knew better than you did about how to do your job when I had no experience in your industry, you'd think I was a moron. If I start telling a personal trainer how he can get a better body when I'm skinnier than Colin Delaney and have spent all my life in sales and marketing, this personal trainer is going to think I'm a moron. If I start telling the CEO of Barclays Capital how he should be making his money when I've just left high school and have no experince in investment banking, he's going to think I'm a moron.
The one big difference between storylines 10 years ago and now is the depth involved.
Take the 98 Survivor Series as the best example. You had the Rock and Boss Man feuding going into it. And Stone Cold/McMahon. And the Rock/McMahon. And Mankind/Stone Cold. But Mankind and McMahon were on good terms. And so on and so on.
Lots of different angles, lots of people involved, but all relative to one another.
The NWO is another example. You had the NWO faction, the WCW faction, the Dungeon of Doom faction, the Horsemen, etc. They were all feuding with one another.
Nowadays, most angles just have two people involved. It would be nice to see a long angle that involves multiple personalities. It opens it up for a lot more matches and what not.
The difference is, the wrestling storyline was based on an actual tragedy that occurred in the company, which is still controversial to this day. If they had done the death angle and not used the ten-bell-salute tribute format, just like they do when someone actually dies, then yes, it would be just like a soap opera. Finally clear?
And your workplace analogy is worthless; if I had a job where one of the requirements was that people buy tickets to see me, their opinion becomes kindof important. Even if it's "wrong" as judged by me, or in this case by whatever esoteric booking method you seem to assume WWE uses. And for someone who's jumping on people for not knowing what they're talking about, you seem to be suffering from the same problem. "Booking structure"?
No doubt WWE has been financially successful. But to then assume this translates into "they're doing everything right" is a little bit of a jump. Enron was financially successful for a while there, so I guess their employees and stockholders were right in not questioning their success?
I get it, to you the WWE's financial status is the be-all end-all. But don't hate on people who are actually interested in the performance aspect of wrestling, and judge the company based on that. That's why people are fans rather than accountants.
Andy I disagree. I remember watching wrestling 10 years ago and thinking, this is really cool. I would crack up laughing at the pose, The Rock, Y2J. It was great. I knew it was great. I thought wrestling was never better.
Now?? It's never been worse. They cater to 12-year-olds so a 37-year-old like myself, has to suffer or not watch. I DVR it and fast forward to the ref falling to the ground. I know everything before it happens. I'm not bragging...I'm sad!! It's so obvious.
Santino Marella was great at first, but they ruined his character by humiliating him EVERY TIME!! Let him win a few times. It's stale. 10 years ago, it wasn't.
They didn't base Vince dying on anything about Owen Hart. The ten bell salute would be a sign of respect, not something that people invented just for Owen. Just like they will use blood to make something look real. Just like they will scream around in pain to make something look real. It's a show, it's over the top. Owen was not once mentioned when Vince 'died'. Anyone with a shread of intelligence would have known he wasn't really dead and would have been able to make the distinction.
And no, the workplace analogy isn't worthless. Just because you know that you want to see good wrestling, it doesn't mean you know how to deliver it to a target audience, not in the slightest. There is a way they do things, a way in which people who haven't actually been inside there no anything about. Your opinion on whether you watch the product or not is important. Your opinion on how you would book someone isn't, because you don't have a clue how it works.
I don't think wrestling is 'never worse'. This year has been one of the better ones. Better than the injury ravaged 07 for sure. I wouldn't say 03 was better, certainly not after The Rock left.
Basically what I'm saying on the workplace point is that they will listen to fan opinion when enough of their target audience says 'hey, I like Batista, I'm going to cheer him' and they'll start that process of putting them in the main event. They won't listen to fan opinion when it comes to 'Cena sucks! He can't wrestle!' or 'Batista has no charisma! Despite the fact he still gets some of the biggest reactions!' or 'why did they do that? what stupid booking!' because the fan simply won't know what stupid booking is and isn't at that point.
The only thing they care about is whether enough fans are watching and making enough noise, and spending their money. They won't be looking for tips on how to actually RUN their business though.
I'm not sure if you're being purposely dense, but it's pointless to debate. I'll just agree to completely disagree.
And unfortunately, the ten bell salute did originate with Owen, when they had to put on a show the night after he died and probably didn't know what the hell to do. It's obviously playing off that and every other tribute to a dead wrestler, it's undeniable. If you're ok with it, great, but don't expect everyone to be.
When has anyone told them how to run their business? Are people giving them investment tips? Fantasy booking is like armchair quarterbacks; they're not telling them how to run their team, they just have their own opinion. What is wrong with doing the same thing with wrestling?
And sorry, but the workplace thing IS worthless. Who buys tickets to see a CEO? You know how movies have focus audiences, so they can gauge audience reaction to different endings? Same deal, except hollywood smarter because they actually listen. Even if the audience has never been in the business.
And if you think John Cena is "way over", man, you should have seen The Rock back in the day.....major difference. AND I bet he sold more t-shirts.
ME being purposely dense? Yes I am fine with it. Having Vince die affected my life in no way whatsoever. I'm leaving it at that.
Running their business eqautes to giving booking tips, and business strategy, of which you see plenty on the internet. Armchair quarterbacks who have never been to the top of the sport know just as little as the armchair fans who criticise wrestling constantly. It's laughable, because when you have a conversation with someone at the top of a sport, and ask them about all the preconceived notions that the internet has about their selection of tactics etc, they blow them out of the water, because they have an understanding of the game that goes far, far further than anyone who's never been near the top of the sport understands.
No-one buys a ticket to see the CEO. Never said that. My problem is with people that act like they could do better, like they have all the answers. Movies have focus audiences, who will then get asked if they like a film. The directors will not then ask for directional tips though. That's the difference. That's the key.
Buying a ticket to a wrestling show doesn't suddenly give you the knowledge to book one better, just like it doesn't give you the knowledge to work a match better, or promote an event as well as Vince, or anything. The entire internet basicaly thinking Cena 'has 5 moves of doom!' proves my point - they have no clue about how a match is put together, and everytime they chant that, or whine about it, they prove it. That's just one of many things they act like they know so much about, but in reality are just being worked just like the casual audience. When there's that many people that's wrong about something, you know something's up. There's a difference between not liking Cena's wrestling style, and then acting elitist and claiming they know how someone should be wrestling. That's where totally fair criticism takes on a ridiculous form.
Apolgies for going off on a tangent with Cena, but he is just one example of a pre-conceived wrestling notion that is just flat out wrong. Yes I was around for The Rock, but I think I'm quite fair in saying that Cena is the most over guy in wrestling today. If that doesn't amount of 'crazy over' then nothing does.
Nope, having the place boo the hell out of you isn't "crazy over". Maybe if you're a friggin' heel, but the top face...not so much. And I know, I know, I don't know how it works, but you would have to be dumb to think Cena is on the same level, even basic popularity-wise, as Austin or The Rock, or that the mixed reactions are exactly what the genius wwe writers had in mind.
I get your perspective, you're sticking up for WWE because they deserve more respect from the fans. That *might* be true, the problem is it's a two way street, and when fans can see their opinion isn't valued, they won't appreciate it.
Buying the ticket means you are paying for a show. When people are disappointed, they have a right to say so, it being their money.
When somebody writes WWE IS STOOPID!1!!! on a message board, of course that's useless criticism. But to then dismiss all criticism is a mistake. No one is ever right 100% of the time, including WWE. You just have to look at the source and decide whether it's valid or not.
I'd say they are going for a mixed reaction with Cena, it's one of the aspects of his character that makes him so unique. Why did HHH come out and say, flat out, to Cena in the build up to Mania 22, 'you're not a very good wrestler...'. The WWE is well aware of what certain sections of the crowd think about Cena and they totally play up to it. It's just a new kind of kayfabe. The people that think they are being anti-establishment are just being worked as much as the casual fans that will cheer the faces and boo the heels.
You may think that, but history and common sense both say promotions usually prefer their top face be, you know, cheered. By a larger demographic than 10-14 year old girls. They did the Triple H thing because they had to acknowledge the chants and the booing. Pretty smart way to deal with it, but probably not the original intention for the character.
I agree with you about the ease of working smart marks, and it's sad they don't so it more often. But to think they scripted Cena's character to get mixed reactions is a little nieve.
And I will call you out once more on tearing people down for having uninformed opinions, and then presenting serious speculation of your own.
Don't you think if they truly cared that enough fans booed Cena that they would change something about him? Fact is they just don't care. People are reacting, and that's what they want. They are fully aware of what people like and don't like, but they have kept him the exact same way for more than 2 and a half years. If they wanted him to be universally cheered, they'd change something.
What speculation do I have of my own? The fact that there are things in the wrestling business that uninformed people haven't the first clue about? Because there is, just like in any industry at the very top. The are reasons why they book matches that fans won't even know about, there are reasons for everything, and if you are uninformed about them then you just won't know what they are.
Speculation as to what the writers intentions are, that's what I mean. Your assumptions are just as uninformed and misguided as anyone else's. "I'd say they are going for a mixed reaction with Cena" is totally a guess on your part. And yet you jump on people who do the same to criticize WWE. Bit of a double standard.
They've been trying and trying to get him universally cheered, and have failed and failed. My unfounded wild speculation is that his work ethic, crossover appeal (movies, endorsements, etc.), and lack of political baggage make him valuable as the champ. But it sure ain't the reactions he gets, and they would change them if they could.
It's pretty clear they are going for a mixed reaction, or don't care about them, otherwise they would change something about Cena's character. They actively encourage mixed reactions. His first feud with HHH was based on the fact that loads of people thought he 'couldn't wrestle'. It's not so much unfounded speculation as it is completely obvious that they don't mind mixed reactions. Trying to make him universally cheered doesn't eqaute to them bringing up some of his biggest (completely wrong) criticisms on television and using them as a reason to further a feud.
What makes this great and unique is that everyone has an opinion on Cena, and everyone has an emotional investment in the main event - which is the real money maker. If you're cheering or booing they really couldn't give a toss, the fact is that everyone is being worked in contributing to a loud atmosphere. They don't care if he's universally cheered or not, and it's one of the reasons why Cena is as big as he is.
Why was it based on "he couldn't wrestle" angle? Because that was the reaction they were getting, not because the idea just popped into their highly paid heads. You can think that, but it would be just another unfounded opinion on the internet, about as useful and informed as any dumbass CENA SUCKZ comment.
One could even speculate that it was HHH trying to get himself over by being the one to say to Cena's face what all the fans have been yelling at him. Just speculation. Same as your speculation that it's what they wanted.
People have emotional investment in the form of general distaste for him; I agree with that totally.
Look, the bottom line is this:
World Wrestling Entertainment is nothing but that: ENTERTAINMENT.
Whether you, personally, are entertained by it or not doesn't really matter. Millions of people are, each and every week. Over 15,000 people are paying to go to each Raw, and each ECW/Smackdown! taping. Millions of people are buying t-shirts and action figures for their kids. WWE is a business set in place to make money, and they make their money by establishing CHARACTERS that the vast majority of people can get behind.
If you want a promotion based on pure wrestling, go watch Ring of Honor on Monday night, instead.
Oh, wait, you can't. They don't have a weekly television show, because the casual fan, the one who is spending the money to go to shows, the one who is buying t-shirts, the one who is buying the DVDs, doesn't give a shit about technical wrestling. All they want is a character they can get behind.
That's not a dig against ROH, by the way. I think ROH absolutely has its place, and I wish them nothing but the best of luck. I hope that they succeed, I honestly do.
Personally, I prefer technical wrestling to sports entertainment. But I understand that that isn't what the majority of WWE's audience is asking for.
The never-satisified-with-what's-going-on-now Internet crowd is only a small fraction of the WWE's fanbase. Y'all can bitch and whine about how Cena can't wrestle, HHH is stale, Jericho should be in the main event, the writers come up with stupid angles, or how two or three of the angles from yesteryear were better, and some of that is true.
But the bottom line is this: The casual WWE fan doesn't watch every show, and doesn't order every PPV. They watch maybe two or three shows a month. To them, HHH as champion is exciting and new, because, previous to this title reign, he hadn't held a belt for more than a few hours in three years.
I know, because the majority of my friends are just casual fans, and I'm constantly having to explain to them what's going on, and why.
And WWE knows that the MAJORITY of their fans are that way.
Yes wwe*insertwhateverclevernameyouthinkofnext* is was the reaction they were getting, but it doesn't mean those fans were right. They are completely wrong, but that isn't the point. The point was that they don't care that the fans think he can't wrestle, because they are making noise. They haven't tried to change his character in any way since he started getting booed, so to say they've tried to make him universally liked, and failed, is laughable.
Just as laughable as the HHH insinuation, infact. Yeah, maybe it was all HHH's idea to make Cena look like the guy who can't wrestle, only to tap out to him? It was the overcomming of the greatest odds for Cena, when it was all stacked against him, and no-one gave him a chance. I don't know how it puts HHH over by then losing to that guy. It's another classic internet cliche. The whole angle was scripted to get everyone involved - and it worked to perfection.
Psycho Andy is bang on.