Is it really a good idea for WWE to rely on children for their ratings?

[Damndirty]

Think about this... these kids probably only watch the show for John Cena, and could give a shit less about the rest of it, let alone, probably don't even understand what's going on during the show outside of Cena doing his 5 moves of doom if that. What happens when John Cena disappears, like a life-threatening injury that eventually forces him to retire? Will the kids stay to watch the remainder of the show they don't get? Wait for Brodus's match to come up? Or are they gonna turn Punk into... into... this? http://www.snappynewday.com/wp-content/gallery/Rogers/mrrogers_image.gif

If they have a backup plan for this scenario, what would it be?

[#1-norm-fan]

They don't only watch the show for Cena any more than any of us watch the show for our favorite guy. Stop with thiiiiis.

[Keith]

Think about it. You build up your young fanbase now, and going into the future it's more than likely they will remain fans as adults, and then pass on the wrestling torch to their children, and so on and so forth.

[Shisen Kopf]

CM Punk will become CM Pop-Punk.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I wasn't a huge retard. I could root for more than one guy.

[Damndirty]

Yeah, but it's also shown that this tactic almost drove WWE bankrupt once before, so they shifted towards a more radical approach. And even though they were fans of the people in their time, that doesn't mean those people will still be there when they become adults. I'm not even as much of a fan as I used to be after all my favorite superstars disappeared, hell, almost ALL of the superstars from my time are gone. Big Show, Jericho, Kane, Christian, and Triple H are the only ones left and I know they don't have much longer wrestling for the company.
What I am getting to is that this PG thing can't go on forever, I know this has been over-posted, but this is regarding what would happen if Cena really is gone. In the current mold of the company, Cena's segments always hit big ratings and are usually (not always, but usually) the ones that do.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

In fact, when I was a kid, I watched EVERYTHING on the show. I certainly wasn't going onto the internet and posting "ZZZZZZZZ BRB PISS BREAK!!!" I enjoyed everything.

So yeah, I would probably want to cater to fans like that.

[Keith]

And just so everyone's on the same page, John Cena will never actually disappear.

[Damndirty]

I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I wasn't a huge retard. I could root for more than one guy.

I didn't start watching until 1998, and I watched it for the WHOLE show, but there were three people who brought me into it- Stone Cold, the Undertaker, the Road Warriors, but primarily it was Mike Tyson because I didn't know of too many wrestlers at the time (I knew alot about Tyson though). I was flipping back and forth between WWF and WCW (until WCW went to shit), and here I am... my favorites gone, and trying to make new ones.

[James Steele]

Yeah, but it's also shown that this tactic almost drove WWE bankrupt once before, so they shifted towards a more radical approach. And even though they were fans of the people in their time, that doesn't mean those people will still be there when they become adults. I'm not even as much of a fan as I used to be after all my favorite superstars disappeared, hell, almost ALL of the superstars from my time are gone. Big Show, Jericho, Kane, Christian, and Triple H are the only ones left and I know they don't have much longer wrestling for the company.
What I am getting to is that this PG thing can't go on forever, I know this has been over-posted, but this is regarding what would happen if Cena really is gone. In the current mold of the company, Cena's segments always hit big ratings and are usually (not always, but usually) the ones that do.

What group of viewers have stayed with the product for the past 15-20 years? The ones they catered to in the early 90s. All the Attitude Era casual fans don't watch anymore.

[Damndirty]

Because the Attitude is gone!

[Keith]

I realized tonight that, back when I was younger, I wouldn't miss a Divas match for the world.

Now, whenever a Divas match is on, it's my piss break or my time to go in the kitchen to get something to eat or drink.

[Damndirty]

Me too! I used to love watching Sable, no matter who she was fighting. I loved Luna too, cuz she was a freak! Now, they just throw a bunch of models in the ring instead of wrestlers... kinda lame.

[#1-norm-fan]

In fact, when I was a kid, I watched EVERYTHING on the show. I certainly wasn't going onto the internet and posting "ZZZZZZZZ BRB PISS BREAK!!!" I enjoyed everything.

So yeah, I would probably want to cater to fans like that.

Seriously. If I only watched the show for Hogan when I was a kid, I would have never watched free TV.

[#1-norm-fan]

Me too! I used to love watching Sable, no matter who she was fighting... Now, they just throw a bunch of models in the ring instead of wrestlers... kinda lame.

:wtf:

[Damndirty]

What group of viewers have stayed with the product for the past 15-20 years? The ones they catered to in the early 90s. All the Attitude Era casual fans don't watch anymore.

But even alot of those viewers from the early nineties never came back, because their favorite superstars never came back. Also comes the responsibilities of adult life that interfere with viewership of the old days (job, kids, wife, financial problems), so it's not to so easy to think they could just keep watching.

[Damndirty]

:wtf:

Yes, I know Sable is pretty much a model too, but they didn't have dozens of them without storylines randomly fighting matches leading to a whole lot of nothing. Sable had a really good storyline in her prime, and ontop of that, models were a rarity during that time.

[#1-norm-fan]

They need women to have storylines with the guys that don't force them into having to wrestle to get on TV and build their character.

Women's wrestling is a gimmick. There shouldn't be more than one match/segment revolving around women's wrestling. That being said, there needs to be a way to get them all on TV and keep them in the limelight while they aren't wrestling. More of them need to be aligned with a male wrestler in some way to keep them relevant.

[Damndirty]

I agree with that! Sable never had more than one match or segment outside of a preparation for a match sometime in the night, but they didn't happen often. The thing that made her popular was her feud with Marc Mero, so yeah, having an altercation or a dramatic relationship with a male wrestler is their best bet to get viewers.

[Raven Reaper]

No, cos most kids at this generation had no idea of the WWE legends lifespan in the industry that keep showing up and beating Heath Slater in his matches anyway. So yeah, they're like the Cenation justin bieber generation to me.

[The Rogerer]

I watched Summerslam and I don't think the PG stuff harms the product. I thought it was a good show and I was impressed with some of the matches, but when I think back to the Attitude era it was a constant stream of stupid shite.

They do need to look at hiring more interesting women.

[Corporate CockSnogger]

This is a ridiculous thread. How stupid exactly do you think kids are? When you were a kid could you only concentrate on one wrestler and then "not even understand what's going on during the show" outside of that? And yes, catering to a younger audience is what's best for them business-wise.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Just read an article about how John Cena vanished last night.

[MoFo]

I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I wasn't a huge retard. I could root for more than one guy.



:lol: yeah I hate how kiddie wrasslin fans are treated like window lickers

Like "why would they bring back Goldberg nobody would know who he is"

Well I started watchin wrasslin in 98 but I still knew who Savage, Andre the Giant and shit were, with Youtube and that now its even easier.

Idk

[Steveviscious89]

Well I respect everyone's opinion here, whatever WWE is doing at the moment isn't exactly working.

[Gass]

Well I respect everyone's opinion here, whatever WWE is doing at the moment isn't exactly working.

Yes it is, you moron.

[Steveviscious89]

Yes it is, you moron.
Oh I'm the moron? Then explain to me how dropping ratings and lack of interest in the product qualifies as 'working'. Don't give me that WWE fanboy crap. It doesn't work anymore. They still find a way to make money sure. That's because they know how, but it doesn't change the other numbers.

[loopydate]

If they're making money, then it's working.

[Kane Knight]

CM Punk will become CM Pop-Punk.

But will he outpop DX?

I don't know about you, but when I was a kid I wasn't a huge retard. I could root for more than one guy.

I'm betting more than one guy on the show was marketed to you, too.

Yeah, but it's also shown that this tactic almost drove WWE bankrupt once before, so they shifted towards a more radical approach. And even though they were fans of the people in their time, that doesn't mean those people will still be there when they become adults. I'm not even as much of a fan as I used to be after all my favorite superstars disappeared, hell, almost ALL of the superstars from my time are gone. Big Show, Jericho, Kane, Christian, and Triple H are the only ones left and I know they don't have much longer wrestling for the company.
What I am getting to is that this PG thing can't go on forever, I know this has been over-posted, but this is regarding what would happen if Cena really is gone. In the current mold of the company, Cena's segments always hit big ratings and are usually (not always, but usually) the ones that do.

The PG thing can go on forever. The question is, will it? The answer: probably. In the meanwhile, WWE is making fucktons of money and keeping ratings relatively stable. So what reason is there to change? Because you don't like it? Because of your falsely inflated notion of what does and doesn't go over with people? Because ponies?

[The Rogerer]

But what is going to happen when Stone Cold Steve Austin disappears?

[Steveviscious89]

If they're making money, then it's working.

This thread is suppose to be about the ratings though. And I'll be the one to say here that it's probably a matter of time before they have a difficult time making money. You know...kind of like I said here in this very forum ten years ago that the product was gonna tank and everyone thought I was nuts. Go ahead and call me a moron but I end up being right anyway.

[Steveviscious89]

But will he outpop DX?



I'm betting more than one guy on the show was marketed to you, too.



The PG thing can go on forever. The question is, will it? The answer: probably. In the meanwhile, WWE is making fucktons of money and keeping ratings relatively stable. So what reason is there to change? Because you don't like it? Because of your falsely inflated notion of what does and doesn't go over with people? Because ponies?

Relatively stable? Relative to what? A month ago? They now struggle to keep a freakin 3! Wake up already and look at the stats. It's been steadily declining for years.

[DAMN iNATOR]

This thread is suppose to be about the ratings though. And I'll be the one to say here that it's probably a matter of time before they have a difficult time making money. You know...kind of like I said here in this very forum ten years ago that the product was gonna tank and everyone thought I was nuts. Go ahead and call me a moron but I end up being right anyway.

As long as they get Cena and Rey to pass on the "kid-friendly wrestlers" to the generation after them and they do the same, etc. and promote them all with colorful, kid-friendly merchandise, WWE will never have a hard time making that $$$, since parents won't say no to their kids when they ask for the new John Cena shirt AND wristbands AND armbands AND hat.

In short, WWE will be around long after every current member on these boards is dead and gone.

[Steveviscious89]

As long as they get Cena and Rey to pass on the "kid-friendly wrestlers" to the generation after them and they do the same, etc. and promote them all with colorful, kid-friendly merchandise, WWE will never have a hard time making that $$$, since parents won't say no to their kids when they ask for the new John Cena shirt AND wristbands AND armbands AND hat.

In short, WWE will be around long after every current member on these boards is dead and gone.

K....I'll be back in five years to say I told ya so. If they do make money, it's going to progressively become less and less, relative to the popularity of WWE, but it wouldn't surprise me if it falls off more than that. What's worse is that there isn't another company that can stand financially on its own without worrying about the WWE's popularity. TNA has to depend on them in way because they're mostly responsible for the business in general doing well or poorly. If WWE falls off the map, it would take a HUGE company (like a WCW) to help the business.

You know it's not like I want them to fail. It's just that the numbers and the general consensus are telling me that they aren't doing well.

[Emperor Smeat]

Kids have always been the majority of the fanbase for the WWE or at least when they needed to redevelop the base for the future.

If anything is to blame, its the very short term thinking the WWE has since every few years they end up in the same situation of needing to have new stars but wasted all the previous time doing nothing about it. Just like the WWF was too reliant on Hogan, the WWE is the same with Cena to the point if anything happens to him, they don't have an actual Plan B since no current wrestler is equal to the status and value Cena is right now.

[Gertner]

Oh I'm the moron? Then explain to me how dropping ratings and lack of interest in the product qualifies as 'working'. Don't give me that WWE fanboy crap. It doesn't work anymore. They still find a way to make money sure. That's because they know how, but it doesn't change the other numbers.

It's a business. Making money in a business equals being successful. They just broke a record for their Wrestlemania PPV. Ratings have been pretty steady for the last few years.

[Gertner]

K....I'll be back in five years to say I told ya so. If they do make money, it's going to progressively become less and less, relative to the popularity of WWE, but it wouldn't surprise me if it falls off more than that. What's worse is that there isn't another company that can stand financially on its own without worrying about the WWE's popularity. TNA has to depend on them in way because they're mostly responsible for the business in general doing well or poorly. If WWE falls off the map, it would take a HUGE company (like a WCW) to help the business.

You know it's not like I want them to fail. It's just that the numbers and the general consensus are telling me that they aren't doing well.

I'll bite on this.

What should the WWE be doing then to "turn this failing business around".

[#1-norm-fan]

Just throwing this out there. The ratings were once consistently twice as high as they are now. Let's not confuse having steady ratings with "They're set and have no reason to change anything." Being successful is not a cut and dry thing. They could drop a full rating point over night and still be one of the highest rated shows on cable. I'd still say they need to try to improve things.

[Keith]

I think that when people say "I wish WWE was more like the Attitude Era", they're not really thinking about what the Attitude Era really was all about, but rather, the people (wrestlers) that were going out there and carrying out what we saw each week on tv.

I don't know if I'm explaining myself out.

What I mean is that there's a fine line between actually longing for what we used to see (the actual "cutting edge tv"), and longing for the characters that we used to see actually go out there and play a part in said "cutting edge tv".

If WWE went back to that type of "attitude", it's not a given that they'll be as successful as they were back then, with the guys we have today.

It was a special time, there were many veterans who had been in the Indy scene, in WCW and in ECW, and were at (or near) the top of their game, as well as a lot of young guys who were on their way up.

Also, a lot of things that were done we had never seen. But in 2012, we've basically seen everything. So there's not going to be that "novelty" factor, either.

[Gertner]

It wouldn't successful at all.

All those Attitude Era fans have moved onto MMA. There aren't go to watch or pay to watch fake fighting, when they can watch the real thing with interesting characters like Sonnen.

Focusing on kids and being PG is the smart thing to do. Parents have much income than some 17 year old kid running around telling people to suck it.

But the most people in the IWC can't wrap their fat virgin minds around that.

[#1-norm-fan]

There is no "smart thing to do" as far as ratings. You just have to figure out what crowd you're going for and successfully aim for them. They can be way more successful with a more adult based product and they can just as easily fail miserably with a more adult based product. It doesn't matter. What matters is successfully making the market you're aiming for spend their money on it and take their time watching it. Most of the entertainment industry is not aimed towards kids. In no way does that hold movies, TV shows, etc. from being hugely successful.

The good thing about WWE PG is that the current booking team is not terribly creative at all and most of the time is horrifically lazy and seems to not put effort into long term booking across the board. This doesn't really bother little kids so... fuck it. If the booking team was top notch, they could very well make more money with a more adult oriented product. Problem being that they can't keep switching it up all that often. They need to grow and keep viewers.

Bottom line is the rating doesn't matter nearly as much as anyone makes it out to matter. Regardless of which side of the debate they're on.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Exactly. The promoters just want people to think ratings matters above all else to them so the "loyal" (regular) viewers will tune in as often as possible, and if the promoter can get them to do so, to have them order most if not all of their PPV's in a given year.

PPV revenue + ad revenue from RAW/SD! + kids' merchandise I'm sure must add up to something in the high $100M's if not low $1B's per year. If that's something that tells Stevevicious89 or anyone else that WWE won't make it another 5 years (his words, not mine), then they need their head(s) examined.

[Kane Knight]

Relatively stable? Relative to what? A month ago? They now struggle to keep a freakin 3! Wake up already and look at the stats. It's been steadily declining for years.

I don't know if you've actually looked "at the stats," but Raw has been at roughly the same rating point for the last few years now. It has not been steadily declining. It fluctuates during certain sporting events and other major times, but it always did.

But I am curious as to how you think they would appeal to another demographic. It's not going to be the dudebros who are busy with MMA, or reality TV. So who? The smark community? Should they turn it into a weekly episodic drama mirroring the current lineup on Network? Perhaps a Fox News clone with pro wrestling?

[Kane Knight]

I think that when people say "I wish WWE was more like the Attitude Era", they're not really thinking about what the Attitude Era really was all about, but rather, the people (wrestlers) that were going out there and carrying out what we saw each week on tv.

I don't know if I'm explaining myself out.

What I mean is that there's a fine line between actually longing for what we used to see (the actual "cutting edge tv"), and longing for the characters that we used to see actually go out there and play a part in said "cutting edge tv".

If WWE went back to that type of "attitude", it's not a given that they'll be as successful as they were back then, with the guys we have today.

It was a special time, there were many veterans who had been in the Indy scene, in WCW and in ECW, and were at (or near) the top of their game, as well as a lot of young guys who were on their way up.

Also, a lot of things that were done we had never seen. But in 2012, we've basically seen everything. So there's not going to be that "novelty" factor, either.

Additionally, they couldn't keep pushing the limits.

But the Attitude Era was dying as people grew up, moved on, and became adults. They were losing fans anyway, losing money, and they found a new avenue eventually. The Attitude Era fans were the ones who actually left first.

[The Rogerer]

Just throwing this out there. The ratings were once consistently twice as high as they are now. Let's not confuse having steady ratings with "They're set and have no reason to change anything." Being successful is not a cut and dry thing. They could drop a full rating point over night and still be one of the highest rated shows on cable. I'd still say they need to try to improve things.And how many wrestling fans are just downloading or streaming the show now, as opposed to the old days?

[Haze]

Ratings are not the only thing that determine the success/failure of the WWE. Before Nitro went head to head with Raw, the ratings didn't have as much weight as we give them today. As long as they maintain high attendance for events, sell pay-per views,and move the amount of merch they have been moving...they are a long way away from dying off.

[Kane Knight]

Just throwing this out there. The ratings were once consistently twice as high as they are now. Let's not confuse having steady ratings with "They're set and have no reason to change anything." Being successful is not a cut and dry thing. They could drop a full rating point over night and still be one of the highest rated shows on cable. I'd still say they need to try to improve things.

Those "consistently high ratings" were very short in the overall scheme of things and did not reflect double the number of viewers, because there is no direct correlation between 1 point and a set number of viewers.

incidentally, they could drop a full ratings point and still be one of the "highest rated shows on cable" only if you cast a wide net on what is "high." After the top ten, there's a pretty big pile of shows.

And they are kind of set. They're top ten television, they draw huge amounts of cash, they are the most financially secure they've ever been, so....While technically, it's not as high as it could be, and ratings aren't the sole definition, they are an unmitigated success. Why do they need to try and improve things, again? Because you don't like the programming, or because you've decided ratings are more important than you just indicated, or...?

I mean, ratings aren't a cut and dry thing, right? They don't necessarily indicate success, right? So what does? Well, money says they're a success. And since that's the biggest factor in terms of things, shouldn't they be considered a success?

[Big Vic]

Children by more of their merchandise

[#1-norm-fan]

Those "consistently high ratings" were very short in the overall scheme of things and did not reflect double the number of viewers, because there is no direct correlation between 1 point and a set number of viewers.

incidentally, they could drop a full ratings point and still be one of the "highest rated shows on cable" only if you cast a wide net on what is "high." After the top ten, there's a pretty big pile of shows.

And they are kind of set. They're top ten television, they draw huge amounts of cash, they are the most financially secure they've ever been, so....While technically, it's not as high as it could be, and ratings aren't the sole definition, they are an unmitigated success. Why do they need to try and improve things, again? Because you don't like the programming, or because you've decided ratings are more important than you just indicated, or...?

I mean, ratings aren't a cut and dry thing, right? They don't necessarily indicate success, right? So what does? Well, money says they're a success. And since that's the biggest factor in terms of things, shouldn't they be considered a success?

Because they're a fucking company and success is not cut and dry. They wanna be a mainstream juggernaut. You just admitted they technically aren't as high as they could be and asked why they need to try to improve things in the same paragraph. Think about that. Why would a company stop trying to improve?

http://zoneone.wrestlingnewsworld.com/2012/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Smackdown-Tarped-Off.jpg

Stuff like this for a more clear example happening multiple times at TV tapings over the past year does not equal success. It's an area that needs improvement. These are Smackdown tapings. Apparently guys like Sheamus, Cody Rhodes, Alberto Del Rio, etc. aren't drawing huge crowds believe it or not. The Rock can't show up every night. Neither can Cena. The lack of guys who can actually draw is an issue. To the point where they had to bring in part timers from the past who are WAY more over than everyone else to raise interest.

Businesses don't just check the numbers, see they're in the red and ignore issues. The funny thing is, WWE probably realizes this and has been doing things to improve even though you seem to think they're set. They were a success before The Rock came back. They were a success before bringing Lesnar back. These weren't typical run of the mill decisions that went with the typical every day flow of keeping stagnant. These were attempts to IMPROVE ratings. To IMPROVE buy rates because the guys on the roster right now COULDN'T DRAW LIKE GUYS IN THE PAST COULD because of a failure by the company to make new stars like it had done in the past. So they brought back one of the biggest draws of all time and a guy who left and became one of the biggest draws in UFC.

They are not "set". That's ridiculous.

[DLVH84]

To be honest, in the short-term, yes, but long-term, I really don't think so.

[abec]

The original argument/concern is moot, Hulk Hogan was the same way and look how that indeed up.

[#1-norm-fan]

The original argument is definitely moot. Like I said, the only thing PG does is makes it easier to attract a crowd without having to be all that creative. It doesn't hold back the company from making a compelling product. It just makes it easier because kids are dumb. They could still attract an adult crowd as well.

[Kane Knight]

You just admitted they technically aren't as high as they could be and asked why they need to try to improve things in the same paragraph. Think about that.

Not much to think about. I uttered one facetiously and the other in a specific context. They're not contradictory at all; I pointed out the fact that ratings aren't exactly a marker of success, that WWE was making money hand over fist.

Stuff like this for a more clear example happening multiple times at TV tapings over the past year does not equal success.

Attendences are pretty much the same according to financial reports. I suppose you also think ratings just became as low as they are in the last year, too.

[Raven Reaper]

Smackdown taping photos like that are just O______O. I wonder if they put CGI crowds into the tapings so that we think it's a full house taping.. Hmmm..

[Kane Knight]

Smackdown taping photos like that are just O______O. I wonder if they put CGI crowds into the tapings so that we think it's a full house taping.. Hmmm..

Don't they typically face only one side? It's been common practice for years to fill seats on the "camera" side of televised events.

[Big Vic]

The original argument/concern is moot, Hulk Hogan was the same way and look how that indeed up.indeed

[Kane Knight]

'Course, Hogan wasn't exactly known as a team player, while Cena is.

Could kinda be a key difference down the line, when Cena is reaching the analogous time period where Hogan was overstaying his welcome.

[Kane Knight]

The other issue there is that Hogan's status was one of the things that inevitably led to the Attitude Era, the oft-fellated deal where rasslin' became more "mature." It was forced to grow up with its audience. Of course, I could be addressing the wrong audience here.

[Damndirty]

Not much to think about. I uttered one facetiously and the other in a specific context. They're not contradictory at all; I pointed out the fact that ratings aren't exactly a marker of success, that WWE was making money hand over fist.



Attendences are pretty much the same according to financial reports. I suppose you also think ratings just became as low as they are in the last year, too.

So you're saying that it means nothing for there to be a WWE wrestling television show? And people are feeding the company only after seeing the program on the internet or seeing it live to entice them to buy merchandise all these years? Or maybe the movies they put out, that too, right? :rofl:

[Kane Knight]

So you're saying that it means nothing for there to be a WWE wrestling television show?

Mmmm...False dichotomy.

[dronepool]

Children should go to sleep by 9/10pm so, no.

[Kane Knight]

Children should go to sleep by 9/10pm so, no.

Psssh. Your notions are ridiculous. Parents aren't there to control kids, they are there to be walking wallets for their children. So who's going to enforce such a bedtime? The government?

[Kane Knight]

Anyway, I think the important thing here is that I am dissatisfied with wrestling right now, and therefore WWE is unsuccessful.

[Damndirty]

Anyway, I think the important thing here is that I am dissatisfied with wrestling right now, and therefore WWE is unsuccessful.

I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN CALL MYSELF STUPID, ASSGOBLIN!!!!

[Kane Knight]

I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN CALL MYSELF ASSGOBLIN, TWATTYFACE!

[Rhaps]

It's been mentioned here already, but many people who came into wrestling in the late '90s don't always seem to realise that WWF/E has been 'PG' or 'Child friendly' for a lot longer than the Attitude Era, was for all intents and purposes was but a brief period of time compared to the overall longevity of McMahonland.

Sure the Attitude Era was the most successful period in the company's history than the dizzying heights of Hulkamania (if not more so??), but as has already been mentioned more than a few times here, the majority of folks who tuned in back then were fairweather fans who cared as much about T&A (not the tag team) and seeing Austin flip the bird on TV than they did about watching a 5* classic wrestling match.

Once the 'E stopped delivering the tits, the fans went away, and those folks who got into wrestling back in the days of Hulkamania, or even when Bret/Yoko were holding the title kept on keeping on in terms of supporting the product.

YES, it all nearly went tits up with the kid-friendly product before, but WWF almost going out of business back then had as much to do with McMahon's steriod trial and other external factors than it did the company targeting the younger demographic.

Today, rating's may be down yes, but I'm willing to bet ratings across pretty much every genre of television aren't what they were back in the 'late 90s. We didn't have Facebook or Netflix of Xbox or any of the multitude of things that can occupy the time we'd otherwise just spend on watching TV.

Barring some major disaster, WWE is always going to be fine.

[Kane Knight]

Today, rating's may be down yes, but I'm willing to bet ratings across pretty much every genre of television aren't what they were back in the 'late 90s.


Aaaaaand you'd be wrong.

[Kane Knight]

Maybe in five or ten years, ratings will have declined across the board in a way similar to wrestling, but there's still a huge demand for broadcast TV especially.

[Joesgonnakillyou]

I can't be bothered to read all of this thread because it's stupid, but I'm bored and if no one has answered to topic question here's the actual answer.

Yes, Here's why:

WWE is a business and on TV
Business's want to make money
On TV, Business's make money through advertising
Advertiser's like to appeal to as many people as possible
Advertisier's like to appeal to children because they are dumb and impressionable.

Now can you think of a way to make a TV show reach to as many people and children in particular?

Hint: it has two letters and you've been bitching about it for the last 5 years.

[Kane Knight]

I can't be bothered to read all of this thread because it's stupid, but I'm bored and if no one has answered to topic question here's the actual answer.

Yes, Here's why:

WWE is a business and on TV
Business's want to make money
On TV, Business's make money through advertising
Advertiser's like to appeal to as many people as possible
Advertisier's like to appeal to children because they are dumb and impressionable.

Now can you think of a way to make a TV show reach to as many people and children in particular?

Hint: it has two letters and you've been bitching about it for the last 5 years.

There's a bit of a flaw there in that PG is not the only way to reach people. You know how you can tell this? Turn on the TV. Like, there's a ton of successful programming that's not PG. Some of it even gets better ratings and is more financially successful.

It may be a necessity specifically for WWE, but not because of flawed logic.

[Joesgonnakillyou]

There's a bit of a flaw there in that PG is not the only way to reach people. You know how you can tell this? Turn on the TV. Like, there's a ton of successful programming that's not PG. Some of it even gets better ratings and is more financially successful.

It may be a necessity specifically for WWE, but not because of flawed logic.


Fair point, it is specific to WWE because it's not that successful.

Although kids buy more toys and other merch

[DAMN iNATOR]

There's a bit of a flaw there in that PG is not the only way to reach people. You know how you can tell this? Turn on the TV. Like, there's a ton of successful programming that's not PG. Some of it even gets better ratings and is more financially successful.

It may be a necessity specifically for WWE, but not because of flawed logic.

C'mon...we all know there's only one reason WWE programming is still stuck at the PG level after all these years...although I can't possibly think what that would be...
















































<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/bbgYgaSi_pI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Oh...right. Linda's still trying to become a U.S. Senator.

[Kane Knight]

Yay conspiracy theories!