FB/Twitter plays part of DECLINE in ratings/PPV buys?

[Blakeamus]

Caught a blog from Joe Dombrowski on Facebook where he ranted on the Do's and Dont's of social networking for Pro Wrestlers. Interesting read. But then he added a piece that Dave Meltzer wrote -

"I was in a discussion yesterday with the head of a major promotion talking about how that every major company (UFC, WWE and TNA) that has embarked on usage of twitter and Facebook has ended up having their key business metrics (ratings, PPVs) decline, while the former two bring in literally millions of fans. There is a reason why. Stars killing their aura as stars. They get people to talk about them, but they also make people less want to pay to see them because they come across like they aren't stars. Not saying some people don't come across as stars or it's a negative, but the ones that do are the minority."

What are your thoughts? Do you really think using Facebook/Twitter ends up killing their aura as stars?

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Blaming ratings on Twitter? Only Vince Russo could think something that stupid up.

[Xero]

Ratings and buy rates are down. We need something to blame it on. Economy is too obvious. I KNOW! BLAME THE TWITTERS!

[Xero]

Fuck you Chris Jericho for coming across like a real person. You're the reason why business is down.

[Blakeamus]

I find it ridiculous.

[Innovator]

THIS CANNOT STAND. ZIGGLER IS SHOWING A PERSONALITY

[Nicky Fives]

Blame ratings problems on torrents or the economic recission, not on Facebook or Twitter......

[Kane Knight]

Correlation totally means causation.

[Blakeamus]

They posted the blog on Wrestleview.com if anyone wants to give it a read.

http://www.wrestleview.com/viewnews.php?id=1318948014

[Kane Knight]

Blame ratings problems on torrents or the economic recission, not on Facebook or Twitter......

They used that one too recently. 7 year cycle.

[Gertner]

I blamez it on Super Ceena alwayz winning!

[Rammsteinmad]

Logically, the guy makes sense. It's Twitter and Facebook. Zack Ryder is most known for his show on YOUTUBE! Which gains a millions views or something crazy.

Youtube is where the ratings are at!

[DInsaneOne]

Maybe the question is, how do we measure the value of success, with recent changes in technology, maybe some of these companies should look at measuring success to more than just TV ratings and PPV buys. Yes they still form a very large part of their revenue.

Social Networking gives you the ability to create more stars and probably cheaper as well.
Maybe David Meltzer was just looking at it from one side of the coin.

[BigCrippyZ]

Or maybe WWE could stop having a PPV every 3 damn weeks!? IMO it's really getting out of hand lately with a PPV almost every 3 weeks.

[DInsaneOne]

Or maybe WWE could stop having a PPV every 3 damn weeks!? IMO it's really getting out of hand lately with a PPV almost every 3 weeks.

Agreed, sometimes less is more, and having PPV's so frequent, makes the event feel less important.

Also I think outside of the big four they can alternate the other ppv's e.g. have king of the ring every 2 yrs.

[Emperor Smeat]

Or maybe WWE could stop having a PPV every 3 damn weeks!? IMO it's really getting out of hand lately with a PPV almost every 3 weeks.

Agree especially when they are all full priced but most of the time don't have the same effort put into them due to such a short period of time for hyping and promoting the events.

It also doesn't help this time of year tends to be when the NFL or playoffs in MLB dominate interest while also being the same time the WWE enters a down period until the Rumble.

Some wrestlers do get hurt because of their stupidity (ex. Melina and Matt Hardy) and not because of the service itself.

[Londoner]

Or maybe WWE could stop having a PPV every 3 damn weeks!? IMO it's really getting out of hand lately with a PPV almost every 3 weeks.

This gets bought up every year around this time. I agree 100% though. Couldn't believe Vengeance was this Sunday already. Doesn't feel like there's been enough build at all.

[FourFifty]

The internet is just as good for the industry as it is toxic. Zack Ryder made himself who he is because of social media outlets, while Matt Hardy has disintegrated before our very eyes (let's face it- while Matt Hardy's life was indeed on a downward spiral it would have been a sad, sympathetic story if he didn't tweet every five seconds). It goes on a person to person story.

When it comes to TNA and WWE, they have their own internal problems that could be affecting their PPV buy rates. TNA's problem is, well, it's TNA. The only wrestling company that makes more sense when you're shit faced. As WWE goes, restructuring the ppvs would be a good start. Lower their PPVs to 12, MAYBE 13 a year, and not every year needs a Night of Champions or Hell In A Cell. Keep the big 4 PPVs, keep the same basic names for the throw away PPVs, and 2-3 times a year have a gimmick ppv.

[Kane Knight]

Maybe the question is, how do we measure the value of success, with recent changes in technology, maybe some of these companies should look at measuring success to more than just TV ratings and PPV buys. Yes they still form a very large part of their revenue.

Social Networking gives you the ability to create more stars and probably cheaper as well.
Maybe David Meltzer was just looking at it from one side of the coin.

Social Networking doesn't mean shit if people aren't watching. What they want is money, and they don't get it from Facebook. They get it from you watching, due to ad revenue. They get it from attendance, due to ticket revenue. They get it through merch, which is done largely after you've bought a ticket. They get it through PPVs.

They view stars in how much cash they can draw. And if you're not making money, you're not making a star.

So no, Facebook and other social networks do not have a place in determining ratings and success.

Or maybe WWE could stop having a PPV every 3 damn weeks!? IMO it's really getting out of hand lately with a PPV almost every 3 weeks.

So how does this relate to TNA, UFC, etc.?

[Rock Bottom]

I don't get how them using something handed to them from god to actually communicate with their fans to do so makes them any less of a star. Getting a tweet is the next best thing to getting an autograph.

[Rock Bottom]

Fuck you Chris Jericho

[BigCrippyZ]

So how does this relate to TNA, UFC, etc.?

PPV numbers from TNA are poor because of the poor product.

UFC's PPV numbers are reportedly in decline too in recent months. However, I would argue their numbers have been great (and are still great) due to the variety in the cards and the UFC product, from PPV to PPV, even with their close schedule.

[Mr. Nerfect]

It wouldn't hurt the WWE to reduce the number of PPV, lower the prices of them and present original matches at each other; but ultimately it comes down to people not having the disposable income to spend on professional wrestling or mixed martial arts.

[Kane Knight]

I don't get how them using something handed to them from god to actually communicate with their fans to do so makes them any less of a star. Getting a tweet is the next best thing to getting an autograph.

Yes, that's exactly what they think. :roll:

PPV numbers from TNA are poor because of the poor product.

UFC's PPV numbers are reportedly in decline too in recent months. However, I would argue their numbers have been great (and are still great) due to the variety in the cards and the UFC product, from PPV to PPV, even with their close schedule.

TNA has had a poor product for ages. It didn't lead to an actual decline prior.

Selective dismissal does not invalidate the point, nor does it validate the notion that the problem is the number of PPVs WWE has. The number of PPVs WWE has had has been rather stable for a while, and does not correlate to declines. There have been declines with so many PPVs, and there have been notably non-declining periods with the same.

Clearly, there is another factor involved. As the number of PPVs does not seem to impact buyrates consistently.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Buyrate is not an efficient statistic and it never was. In the 80s there were too few boxes to get a fair rating and now there are way too many. TV ratings are down because there is so much stuff to watch now either on TV or online.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I've heard that the WWE would make a profit on a PPV if it got something like 40,000 buys. That may not be the actual number, but the point of that information was that the WWE essentially always delivers above and beyond what they need to with PPVs. So while all this talk of decreasing the number of PPVs to theoretically increase buys -- the WWE could also increase the number of PPVs if they wanted.

The WWE will basically run the number of PPVs they want to make money in that area. If PPVs stopped being profitable, you can bet that they would cut back. Right now, it's not really a large issue, though, because as KK said -- it's an industry-wide trend that is inconsistent. Money in the Bank, for example, did far beyond what it did last year.

[Kane Knight]

Buyrate is not an efficient statistic and it never was. In the 80s there were too few boxes to get a fair rating and now there are way too many. TV ratings are down because there is so much stuff to watch now either on TV or online.

Oh, excuses!

I love apologetics!

Ratings didn't go down with increase of content. At least, not directly. It also belies how so many others can get a similar piece of the pie in terms of share, an effective percentage.

If it was more options dividing it, everything would falter. If it was online content, everything would falter.

That's not happening? At least anywhere near WWE level? Oh shit, well, maybe we can blame voodoo! It'd be about as effective.

And buyrates don't actually get calculated the same way, so that was kind of shit from the beginning.

Regardless, they count in the one way WWE cares about: Money.

[Blakeamus]

If PPVs stopped being profitable, you can bet that they would cut back.

Nah, they would just attempt to change the name of the PPV. ie. Survivor Series. :shifty:

[Next Big Thing]

I would love to know who the head of this major promotion is. I know it's not Dana White since he actually encourages his fighters to use Twitter and uses it heavily himself. Dixie is a dumb bitch so nothing she says matters. That really only leaves Vince, but I doubt he'd openly acknowledge something like that. Meltzer's probably full of shit on this one and was trying to make up for a slow news week when he put that out there.

[Kane Knight]

Meltzer's always full of shit when it's inconvenient.

[Ruien]

I blame the other programs that are better to watch.

[Kane Knight]

I blame the other programs that are better to watch.
Prrrrrrrrobably not going to affect PPVs that much though.

[XL]

Well it's all linked isn't it.

People choose to watch other shows, they're not watching Raw, they're not seeing the build, they're not getting invested in the product, so they're not gonna even consider buying the PPVs.