Is the WWE heading toward disaster?

[Swiss Ultimate]

Just read up on the steadily declining ratings and PPV buyrates of the WWE. If the Rock couldn't "save" Survivor's Series what will save the WWE?

Could it be that in the current culture the WWE's decline is more about the shifting audience than storylines, superstars or production values?

Is this just one of those periods the industry has seen between booms or is this the new way forward?

[Iop]

Is this thread posted every 6 months to a year? I mean everyoe always talks about how WWE i s going down and business is going down and WWE will go out of business and UFC beat up WWE but then every year WWE makes 463646346346643643 billion in profits.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Is this thread posted every 6 months to a year? I mean everyoe always talks about how WWE i s going down and business is going down and WWE will go out of business and UFC beat up WWE but then every year WWE makes 463646346346643643 billion in profits.

Most of the ones I read in the past were about talent and show-direction. I'm merely asking this from a completely neutral position about show quality/direction. PPV buyrates, ticket sales, advertising and merchandise are what produces those profits. The bottom line is decreased when one or more of those factors fluctuate.

We are currently watching a downward trend in PPV sales. I don't have all the information, but it would seem that there is a negative trend in ratings as well. This is what I'm trying to figure out and internet sources for this question seem unreliable for the most part.

[XL]

I think they are currently in a great starting position to make things really good again. They just need to make the right decisions regarding certain things. For example:

- Decide who they are going to push and stick with it. It looks like Barrett, Rhodes, Ziggler, Sheamus and Ryder are all being given opportunity to shine. Don't let them fall victim to the start/stop booking problems.

- Stop undermining the guys they are trying to push as top guys. This means that guys like Miz and Truth don't get ripped to shreds verbally and phsyically by the likes of Cena and Rock. Also, as great as it is to hear Punk dishing out pipebombs to guys like Vince, Johnny Ace, HHH, etc, he should not be cutting off the balls of a guy like Alberto Del Rio. Yeah, he has his faults and I'm not a big fan of the guy personally, but if they intend to push him as a legit main eventer, don't have Punk come out and explain why the dude is shit.

- Someone needs to speak to Cena and curb the stuff he is doing to BURY guys. He needs to be instructed to sell properly, he needs to learn to react to situations with something other than a goofy smile.

Basically, they need to elevate their selected few to the level of Cena/Orton, not just below. People need characters they can believe in and that doesn't work if the end of the ascent to Main Event status is to be squashed by Cena/Orton.

[XL]

I think Mania will be the big tell. If they can't draw a bigger buy than the usual WM buy with Rock/Cena they may well be in trouble.

That said, it's not exactly ideal that Rock is involved. There's little point pulling a huge number based on a guy who won't be there for most of the year.

[XL]

Then again, I'm not a shareholder so couldn't care less about buyrates/ratings...

[Swiss Ultimate]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=WWE:US

[Gerard]

Then again, I'm not a shareholder so couldn't care less about buyrates/ratings...

+1 for saying "Couldn't care less", the amount of people that say "Could care less" makes my head hurt :(

[XL]

I am Englishman who advocates correct use of the language. My friends/girlfriend hate me for it.

But, I finally have her saying "It's broken" rather than "It's broke". Progress is progress.

[Emperor Smeat]

I'd say no mostly due to this being the traditional time of the year where the WWE is in its down period. Next month is the Rumble which is when they go back to being focused to generate the Mania hype.

If anything the WWE is trying out a lot more potential stuff, feuds, and pushes to see if any new stars can be made to benefit Mania or become future stars. For example Cody Rhodes didn't do much the previous year until he had the long buildup to Mania and eventual IC-level stardom.

[Xero]

Trends don't change overnight. It didn't take them two months to get to the state they are in concerning ratings and buyrates, and it won't take two months to turn it around. Honestly, things had been fairly steady from 2004-2010 or so. A bit of a drop, but in the last year to year and a half, things have been getting worse.

Establishing guys is a big thing. And it's not just about "let's take Wrestler X, who has been a midcard jobber for years, and push him". It's going to take months to build someone like Swagger up just to be at a position where he's a new slate. If they thrust him into a position now, people will be saying "really, that guy"?

Much like I believe has happened with Henry. When someone who hasn't watched since 2010 hears that Mark Henry was the champion, they're just going to go "really, why?"

They need to stop the process of burying guys and start making everything, top to bottom on the card, be important at the very least to the guys who are in the segment. Cody squashing Santino does nothing for either one, for example.

I also honestly feel that Michael Cole's character needs a drastic overhaul or needs to go from the announce booth. It was cute at first, hell I'd say he was even good, but when he's on commentary making everything about him, it's going to not only turn people off from watching because he's downright annoying in a bad way, but also negate whatever is happening in the ring. Make him a manager who commentates during his wrestler's match only. Don't make him the fucking lead announcer.

And it's still going to take a long time, with word of mouth and good booking, for this to turn around for the long haul. There's going to be a natural upswing going into WrestleMania from the Rumble, and they need to harness that and hope that they can hold onto the people who come back for the Rock/Cena program. If they can't do that (and it's been shown as recently as the Summer of Punk that they can't) then they're in big trouble.

As for the question at hand. I think there's a natural shift in audience, especially because the little Cena marks are just now starting to grow up. However, if the product is hot enough, that shift is minimal because of new fans checking out the product as well as holding onto old fans in the process who would otherwise tune out. When the writing is so poor as it can be sometimes, that shift is going to be felt and felt hard.

I think a while ago I coined this era the "New Generation 2.0" era, and it does stand to reason. There are some shit gimmicks running around, but slowly but surely since 2009 guys are being established and getting over more. It's almost like, right now, we're at the dawn of the Attitude Era (early 97) where the turnover of the old guard is in full effect and the new guard is being completely established.

Also remember that even when the Attitude Era was starting to get red hot (late 97/early 98), RAW ratings were treading around the same spot and Nitro was still constantly beating them. It takes a while for people to take notice.

I think it's safe to say we're at the dawn of a new guard being established, but I'm not saying we're at the dawn of a new Attitude Era. Just that if the product continues to get better, they can remedy this. It just takes time.

[Xero]

I'd say no mostly due to this being the traditional time of the year where the WWE is in its down period. Next month is the Rumble which is when they go back to being focused to generate the Mania hype.

The problem is that this hasn't just started now. For months now, there's been a trend, on almost every RAW, where WWE loses viewers in the second hour. This past week they lost 10,000 I believe. That's a sign that there's something drastically wrong with the product, not a natural down period in the calendar year.

[XL]

Honestly, Raw was more filler than killer for me this week.

A pointless squash match
A tag team match between guys that the audience are given no reason to care about
A rinse-repeat of the monthly "Setup the next challenger to the Diva's Title"

The Main Event, which to me felt fresh and new, creates a worry that if people turned off in the volume that Xero says they did, these guys aren't catching on with the "casual viewer".

[Xero]

I may be wrong on that number (can't remember where I saw it, may not have been for this week), but according to PWInsider, it went from a 3.04 to a 2.81. That's a pretty enormous drop.

Also, this is from PWInsider, on last week's Slammy show, which explains this trend a bit:

The 12/12 Slammy edition of Raw did a 2.84 rating for the three hour broadcast, averaging 4,109,000 viewers. In its regular 9 to 11 timeslot, Raw did a 2.98 rating and averaged 4,327,000. Stop me if you have heard this before but the 9 p.m. hour did 332,000 more viewers than the 10 p.m. hour, which means the show lost viewers, yet again, as the evening progressed. And WWE can't even blame NFL football on ESPN as they had a dog of a game that only did a 7.2 rating and under 10 million viewers. Plus, there were some repeats on Network TV and Dancing With The Stars is over. This show drew its rating on merit.

Raw did hours of 2.55 at 8 p.m., 3.03 at 9 p.m. and 2.93 at 10 p.m.

--

There is something drastically wrong with a 300,000+ drop like that. They lost more viewers than people ordered Survivor Series. And going by the Slammy numbers, it's probably more close to 100,000 lost this week than 10,000.

[Supreme Olajuwon]

The way I see it, this lack of interest from the fans shows that the WWE's current gimmick has gotten stale. A heel turn would really freshen things up, IMO.

I think at the Royal Rumble, possibly during the Rumble itself, the WWE could just snap and beat the crap out of everyone. Then they could repackage the WWE as a badass submission machine who doesn't take shit from anybody.

[Xero]

In fact, WWE could run an angle where WWE invades a television network and eventually takes it over on April 1st.

[DrCrawford]

if it is going to hell, then it is wwe's fault. the product is too formulaic. its not fresh. and they focus too much on things that won't keep the audience interested. its also a problem with the writing. it has nothing to do with being PG, as you can have a good product and be PG.



raw is more often than not the same thing every week. although i will admit lately it isn't always like that, but it still happens far too often to keep viewer interest. the matches are more or less the same though. someone gets beat down, cheesy comeback, match is over. rinse, repeat.

[Swiss Ultimate]

Also remember that even when the Attitude Era was starting to get red hot (late 97/early 98), RAW ratings were treading around the same spot and Nitro was still constantly beating them. It takes a while for people to take notice.



Most of what you say makes a lot of sense. I just want to point out that the dynamics are a lot different now. During that period of time WCW had a shit-ton of loyal viewers and their product was constantly in the News. In addition to the loyal WCW viewers who never watched WWE, there were the casual fans that would switch channels throughout the broadcasts.

Most people who watch TNA also watch WWE. I think the audience for wrestling has shrunk dramatically since 1997 and I don't believe that it was UFC that took 'em all. I think wrestling for a lot of people was just a fad or a phase.

I even think the WWE realizes that they're going to need to create some main-stream buzz to recreate the boom. I guess we'll see if this new strategy of theirs will have an impact by Mania and this time next year.

[Kane Knight]

I think Mania will be the big tell. If they can't draw a bigger buy than the usual WM buy with Rock/Cena they may well be in trouble.

That said, it's not exactly ideal that Rock is involved. There's little point pulling a huge number based on a guy who won't be there for most of the year.

Rock/Cena itself may be a problem for fans who don't want Cena to win and expect that the regular will beat the dude from Hollywood. However, I expect this will get positive results. Hard to draw a line as to what level of success is worthy of Rock/Cena, though.

And yeah, it's kinda dumb to boast about numbers attributable to celebrties and names who won't appear regularly, but it is Wrestlemania.

Which is the other thing. Wrestlemanias tend to do really good anyway, and I don't think it's a watermark for the health of the brand. Even if it does really well or really poorly, a lot of factors can be involved. The overall downward trend is more important in terms of fiscal health and popularity.

The way I see it, this lack of interest from the fans shows that the WWE's current gimmick has gotten stale. A heel turn would really freshen things up, IMO.

I think at the Royal Rumble, possibly during the Rumble itself, the WWE could just snap and beat the crap out of everyone. Then they could repackage the WWE as a badass submission machine who doesn't take shit from anybody.

So is The Royal Rumble still a babyface after this?

[Iop]

Most of what you say makes a lot of sense. I just want to point out that the dynamics are a lot different now. During that period of time WCW had a shit-ton of loyal viewers and their product was constantly in the News. In addition to the loyal WCW viewers who never watched WWE, there were the casual fans that would switch channels throughout the broadcasts.

Most people who watch TNA also watch WWE. I think the audience for wrestling has shrunk dramatically since 1997 and I don't believe that it was UFC that took 'em all. I think wrestling for a lot of people was just a fad or a phase.

I even think the WWE realizes that they're going to need to create some main-stream buzz to recreate the boom. I guess we'll see if this new strategy of theirs will have an impact by Mania and this time next year.

This is defiunetely true I know some ppl who used to watch wrestling in the late 90's in junior high and high school but "quit" watching it later because they decided its not cool or "stupid".

[Swiss Ultimate]

Then there are fans like me who might tune out for months to years just because of changing priorities.

For my demographic/niche it would be smart for the WWE to release their weekly programming and PPVs on DVD/netflix. Dunno if it'd be worth it, but I'd definitely watch the show.

[XL]

I may be wrong on that number (can't remember where I saw it, may not have been for this week), but according to PWInsider, it went from a 3.04 to a 2.81. That's a pretty enormous drop.

Also, this is from PWInsider, on last week's Slammy show, which explains this trend a bit:

The 12/12 Slammy edition of Raw did a 2.84 rating for the three hour broadcast, averaging 4,109,000 viewers. In its regular 9 to 11 timeslot, Raw did a 2.98 rating and averaged 4,327,000. Stop me if you have heard this before but the 9 p.m. hour did 332,000 more viewers than the 10 p.m. hour, which means the show lost viewers, yet again, as the evening progressed. And WWE can't even blame NFL football on ESPN as they had a dog of a game that only did a 7.2 rating and under 10 million viewers. Plus, there were some repeats on Network TV and Dancing With The Stars is over. This show drew its rating on merit.

Raw did hours of 2.55 at 8 p.m., 3.03 at 9 p.m. and 2.93 at 10 p.m.

--

There is something drastically wrong with a 300,000+ drop like that. They lost more viewers than people ordered Survivor Series. And going by the Slammy numbers, it's probably more close to 100,000 lost this week than 10,000.
I have to question whether this is an issue with Target Audience vs Time Slot?

If they are targetting/branding themselves towards kids they are gonna gonna alienate the older causal fans, however, a 9 - 11pm timeslot seems awfully late for kids to be watching.

Could the mass turnoff at the midpoint be attributed in part to "bed time"?

[MoFo]

I was wondering what would happen if they pump a shitload of money into the WWE Network, and it goes bust.

Seems a dubious time to release a wrestling-specific channel when interest couldnt be lower.

[Aguakate]

I don't think they're headed for disaster, but they are in a critical time, almost like a time of "transition".

Only the strongest will survive. Those who don't take advantage of the opportunity, will not.

[Ice Cream Bar]

The way I see it, this lack of interest from the fans shows that the WWE's current gimmick has gotten stale. A heel turn would really freshen things up, IMO.

I think at the Royal Rumble, possibly during the Rumble itself, the WWE could just snap and beat the crap out of everyone. Then they could repackage the WWE as a badass submission machine who doesn't take shit from anybody.

or a vending machine

[Rhaps]

Then again, I'm not a shareholder so couldn't care less about buyrates/ratings...

This.

I never get why normal fans give a damn about what Raw's ratings are.

Either a show was good or it was shit, that's all I care about. What rating it garnered or buyrate it generated makes no difference to my life.

[XL]

For me it's the next evolution of the "smark".

[Emperor Smeat]

I was wondering what would happen if they pump a shitload of money into the WWE Network, and it goes bust.

Seems a dubious time to release a wrestling-specific channel when interest couldnt be lower.

Probably go back to the WWE 24/7 on-demand model to help recover some of the costs.

They've been wanting their own channel for years but either they never got any big networks to help or the experience to run an actual channel. I remember Fox was somewhat interested in carrying WWE shows but never went as far as having them become their own channel as part of the Fox network.

[Dirk Ziggler]

Just read up on the steadily declining ratings and PPV buyrates of the WWE. If the Rock couldn't "save" Survivor's Series what will save the WWE?

Could it be that in the current culture the WWE's decline is more about the shifting audience than storylines, superstars or production values?

Is this just one of those periods the industry has seen between booms or is this the new way forward?

No

[Swiss Ultimate]

Then why did your mom?

[Dirk Ziggler]

then why did my mom what?

[DaVe]

Yeah, I don't think that made sense.

And that's actually a decent thought, XL.

[Juan]

This.

I never get why normal fans give a damn about what Raw's ratings are.

Either a show was good or it was shit, that's all I care about. What rating it garnered or buyrate it generated makes no difference to my life.

Same here, bro

[Blakeamus]

This.

I never get why normal fans give a damn about what Raw's ratings are.

Either a show was good or it was shit, that's all I care about. What rating it garnered or buyrate it generated makes no difference to my life.

It's what persuades people to bitch and moan. Having to rely on ratings and buyrates to make up their minds for them. There hasn't been a poor value of WWE RAW/Smackdown or PPV in the past 6 months in my view.

[SEXUAL VANILLA]

I agree. TLC, SS, HIAC, NOC were good shows. what else was there I cant remember. Vengeance? It was decent I think. Summerslam was kinda meh other than the main event wasn't it? MITB was awesome. Overall the WWE has had a great second half to the year after a disappointing first (Rumble and Mania sucked IMO)

[Shisen Kopf]

Oh no! WWE is doomed. The end is near and the only promotion to fill the void is OCW and their red mat.

[Kane Knight]

I have to question whether this is an issue with Target Audience vs Time Slot?

If they are targetting/branding themselves towards kids they are gonna gonna alienate the older causal fans, however, a 9 - 11pm timeslot seems awfully late for kids to be watching.

Could the mass turnoff at the midpoint be attributed in part to "bed time"?

Congrats, you're now officially recycling my posts from three years ago. :p

This.

I never get why normal fans give a damn about what Raw's ratings are.

Either a show was good or it was shit, that's all I care about. What rating it garnered or buyrate it generated makes no difference to my life.

Yeah, I don't get why people would want perspective or the closest thing we, as fans can get to an overall viewpoint regarding the product.

But what confuses me even further is why you guys spend your time wondering about other people wondering what people think. That's kind of what you're doing. You're posting about something that doesn't make any difference in your life, specifically about people posting about something that doesn't make any difference in your life.

though maybe it's a douchey hipster thing. You do have Juan's support, after all.

[Kane Knight]

It's what persuades people to bitch and moan. Having to rely on ratings and buyrates to make up their minds for them. There hasn't been a poor value of WWE RAW/Smackdown or PPV in the past 6 months in my view.

Yes, and the only way people could have a different opinion from you is if they rely on ratings. :roll:

[Indifferent Clox]

I think this is the beginning of a new wave. The ratings are down because people don't watch live or they pause it after an hour or fast forward through commercials. I bet most people who watch watch the whole thing, the rating just doesn't show that theywwatched it all consecutively.

Wwe needs to put its show online live as well. See who that gets. Why not?

[SEXUAL VANILLA]

Is the WWE much worse in quality than it was in 2005/2006? Because it seems relatively consistent since about 2005 for me with some short periods of being really good and some periods of being really bad. But back in 2005 they were having single brand PPV's that (Vengeance 2005) outdrawing Survivor Series 2011 which featured the return of The Rock.

It's something that is beyond WWE's control.

[SEXUAL VANILLA]

Speaking on low periods before a boom, looking back at the mid-90s the upcoming Attitude Era boom made sense. Get more edgy, the increasing popularity of ECW, people generally becoming more desensitized and the edgy culture that was springing up during that time with things like Jerry Springer, South Park, Family Guy too I think etc. It was a natural progression from something cartoony and timid to something more real and wild. Throw in the right guys at the right time and stiff competition from WCW and you have a recipe for a boom. Vince with his back against the wall = great programming. This current era, the PG era or whatever it's called which started back in 2008 is without a doubt the lowest period for the WWE since the New Generation Era. Whatever the post-Attitude Era and pre-PG transition time was (2002-2007) was noticably better in terms of ratings, buyrates and general popularity.

What could be the next boom period theoretically? Just more straight up wrestling and less sports entertainment? Another edgy attitude era like show? Maybe making wrestling more legit and sportslike (UFC is very popular) but that would basically make the WWE not WWE anymore and it would cause too many injuries I would think. It honestly feels like sports entertainment has peaked. The end is not near but we are approaching it. Still, that doesn't mean it can't be turned around it's just that I can't think of how they could do this. There seems to be too many things out of WWE's control in what determines a "boom" period.

[Kane Knight]

Is the WWE much worse in quality than it was in 2005/2006? Because it seems relatively consistent since about 2005 for me with some short periods of being really good and some periods of being really bad. But back in 2005 they were having single brand PPV's that (Vengeance 2005) outdrawing Survivor Series 2011 which featured the return of The Rock.

It's something that is beyond WWE's control.

In terms of quality, I gave much more of a fuck in 2005.

[SEXUAL VANILLA]

Interesting. I remember really hating the majority of 2005 post Wrestlemania. Other than the HBK heel turn and Eddie/Batista I can't remember liking much. I actually remember a TON of complaining about Cena and Batista's title reigns especially Cena. Plus there was the fact that the Attitude Era wasn't too far removed which made people more disappointed at the drop in quality. Now we're kind of used to it :lol:

...or perhaps people realized the quality of the late 90s/early 00s wasn't coming back and left? I think the Benoit thing actually turned away a shit ton of casual fans. I might be wrong but don't the ratings and PPV buyrates take a significant drop in late-2007?

[SEXUAL VANILLA]

Did a quick check, they do start declining after the Benoit incident but not like crazy. They go up again for the build to Wrestlemania 24 but after that is when it seems like the ratings have been barely above 3. So 2008 is when they really started to go downhill and the PG era started right then.

[SEXUAL VANILLA]

Shit look at this:

WWE ARMAGEDDON 2005:
Smackdown only single brand PPV which did 280,000 buyrates. That is the exact same # as the preliminary for Survivor Series 2011 which is a Big Four PPV and featured The Rock's in ring return.

HIAC
The Undertaker vs Randy Orton

Batista and Rey Mysterio vs Big Show and Kane

Those are the two main events. The World Heavyweight Championship wasn't even defended on the show. Other matches included Benoit/Booker for the US Title, JBL/Matt Hardy and some filler matches.

[Blakeamus]

Yes, and the only way people could have a different opinion from you is if they rely on ratings. :roll:

When I read their opinions of what they thought, it usually goes two ways. I'll read people give their opinion and say that what they viewed was "meh" and share their dislikes. But then I'll read people say "Oh! RAW made a 2.89 rating this week, what a sucky show, their going downhill." which I think is ridiculous.

[Kane Knight]

Interesting. I remember really hating the majority of 2005 post Wrestlemania. Other than the HBK heel turn and Eddie/Batista I can't remember liking much. I actually remember a TON of complaining about Cena and Batista's title reigns especially Cena. Plus there was the fact that the Attitude Era wasn't too far removed which made people more disappointed at the drop in quality. Now we're kind of used to it :lol:

...or perhaps people realized the quality of the late 90s/early 00s wasn't coming back and left? I think the Benoit thing actually turned away a shit ton of casual fans. I might be wrong but don't the ratings and PPV buyrates take a significant drop in late-2007?

Personally, I find hating the programming more conducive to watching it than not caring at all. You know that whole thing "there's no such thing as bad publicity?"

At this point, I'm "numb" to much of the programming, like EmoKalyx to finishers. Well, not really. I'm not posting in mascara stained tears on my Myspace, but you get the point. I've accepted GenerCena is here to stay. I've accepted that a bunch of midcarders are running wild over the title scene. I've accepted that WWE's okay with lukewarm crowds, poor ratings, and diminishing buys. And the end result?

"meh." I spend less and less time watching wrestling. But at least 2005 did have some peaks for me to care about.

Did a quick check, they do start declining after the Benoit incident but not like crazy. They go up again for the build to Wrestlemania 24 but after that is when it seems like the ratings have been barely above 3. So 2008 is when they really started to go downhill and the PG era started right then.

They'd been pretty steadily declining before that, too. Can't remember when the shift really started, but it was well before '08.

An interesting note is that most of the recent wrestlemanias have seen a decrease in their buys. Last years' was an exception, but it had been that way for like 3-4 years before. That still didn't stop WWE from having like two of their highest grossing Manias, but....

When I read their opinions of what they thought, it usually goes two ways. I'll read people give their opinion and say that what they viewed was "meh" and share their dislikes. But then I'll read people say "Oh! RAW made a 2.89 rating this week, what a sucky show, their going downhill." which I think is ridiculous.

You're oversimplifying, which is also ridiculous.

[Blakeamus]

Thank you Kane Knight

[Swiss Ultimate]

then why did my mom what?

Chicken Butt.

[M-A-G]

I thought Survivor Series did better this year, like up from 240,000 buys or so.

[Next Big Thing]

It's really all about how wrestlers are perceived today in my opinion. Wrestlers in the 90s looked and acted like rock stars. They made celebrities and athletes fans of them and had all sorts of crossover appeal that made it "cool" to watch wrestling.

You saw Kevin Nash fucking around with celebrities on Rock N Jock. Hulk Hogan getting escorted to the ring by the Dallas Cowboys. Dennis Rodman hanging with the NWO. Karl Malone teaming with DDP. Tyson with DX/Austin. Football players throwing up the Diamond Cutter sign. Hell, you still have athletes doing Scott Hall's pose. They played Ric Flair's WOOO in New Orleans every time Chris Paul scored. You'll hear rappers reference Macho Man and Jake Roberts from time to time too.

There are few guys on WWE's roster outside of with that same kind of "it" factor. Hell, these days WWE pretty much pays celebrities to come on their show, promote some shitty movie and mock their rising stars. Similar to seeing all these wrestlers like Rock and Taker at UFC shows and on interviews saying if they could go back and do it all again they would have done MMA. They sound like fan boys and make wrestling look that much lamer in comparison.

[SEXUAL VANILLA]

An interesting note is that most of the recent wrestlemanias have seen a decrease in their buys. Last years' was an exception, but it had been that way for like 3-4 years before. That still didn't stop WWE from having like two of their highest grossing Manias, but....

Yeah I never trust their "highest grossing Mania" claims. WM X7 had over one million DOMESTIC buys. Also pre 2004 I think WM was free in the UK and the last few years the WWE has scored way more buys internationally. I wonder if PPVs were available 10 years ago outside of North America, the UK and a few other places.

[Juan]

Serious business

[Kane Knight]

Yeah I never trust their "highest grossing Mania" claims. WM X7 had over one million DOMESTIC buys. Also pre 2004 I think WM was free in the UK and the last few years the WWE has scored way more buys internationally. I wonder if PPVs were available 10 years ago outside of North America, the UK and a few other places.

You do know one of the major ways they get away with higher grosses is by charging more, though.

I mean, you can lose a good chunk of your audience and make more money by doing so. Some of their annual reports actually have said this, both about Mania and about the company as a whole.

Speaking of annual reports, I'm skeptical of most things WWE does, but those stockholder reports are, to borrow from Juan, "serious business." I'm not sure I'm cynical enough to say they're not accurate, because if they lie there and are caught they could be seriously fucked. We're talking huge financial losses, loss of support, costly investigations, and jail time (Because WWE is not a bank or insurance company, so the laws actually do apply).

I do believe WWE will snow a lot of people on a lot of things, but I doubt they would cook the books in such a detectable fashion.

[Wake Up Call]

Shitty Product = No One Wants it (or in this case watches it)

Great Product = Lots of people want(watch) it.

It's pretty simple.

[SEXUAL VANILLA]

You do know one of the major ways they get away with higher grosses is by charging more, though.

I mean, you can lose a good chunk of your audience and make more money by doing so. Some of their annual reports actually have said this, both about Mania and about the company as a whole.

Speaking of annual reports, I'm skeptical of most things WWE does, but those stockholder reports are, to borrow from Juan, "serious business." I'm not sure I'm cynical enough to say they're not accurate, because if they lie there and are caught they could be seriously fucked. We're talking huge financial losses, loss of support, costly investigations, and jail time (Because WWE is not a bank or insurance company, so the laws actually do apply).

I do believe WWE will snow a lot of people on a lot of things, but I doubt they would cook the books in such a detectable fashion.

Yeah definitely I just meant WM 17 had 1 million+ buys, no matter what the actual cost of the PPV was. If it was higher like today I'm fairly positive 90-95% of people would have still paid for it back then

[Kane Knight]

Shitty Product = No One Wants it (or in this case watches it)

Great Product = Lots of people want(watch) it.

It's pretty simple.

Some people really do seem to have a problem with understanding this, though.

[M-A-G]

Some people really do seem to have a problem with understanding this, though.

It's still cyclical to me, dammit!

[Kane Knight]

It's still cyclical to me, dammit!

It's not just the wrestling cyclists, but :rofl: anyway. :D

[XL]

Kane Knight: Super Smark is on the case!

[Kane Knight]

Kane Knight: Super Smark is on the case!

Unfortunately, calling me a "smark" is like calling you "witty." It's inaccurate and nobody will agree. Well, Noid will, but since when has anyone given a fuck what Noid thought?

[Kane Knight]

Maybe I should just change that to "nobody with more than two brain cells." That way, Noid's covered, as well as the inevitable cheap shots.

[XL]

Would you prefer the term "smart"? :roll:

[XL]

FTR, this isn't me "bashing" you. You can take your fandom to wrestling to whatever extreme you like. If plotting rating and buyrate trends is your thing, have at it. I just don't see how it affects YOUR enjoyment (or lack thereof) of the product.

Unless, of course, the argument is "I don't like the current product and this data shows that I am not alone".

Which seems to be the case here.

[Rollermacka]

Like I said WWE has become pretty stale and predictable but thats just because pro wrestling just isnt as big as in was durring the 80s or the Attitudde Era. It's just like it was around 2003- 04 where there was no competition so they didnt have to do as much to keep it's audience. As for "WWE disaster" WWe doesnt have extrememly thin profit lines like WCW did where one bad show or preformer could send the entire show into disaster. WWE is doing fine, TNA has kinda evened out (but still an extremely distant second), so just enjoy what you can out of pro wrestling today.

Side Note, does anyone else feel a late 99/2000 WCW vibe from WWE today? That was when WCW used worked shoots, brought back Hogan as Hulkamania, Macho was brought back with Team Madness and Lex Luger became just "The Total Package"? Now, Punk "shoots" all the time, Kane comes back with the mask, Taker will be back soon for Wrestlemania, Big Show breaks the ring, "This is your life" segment, and the whole cryptic 2012 message with probibly be another Redebut?

[Kane Knight]

I just don't see how it affects YOUR enjoyment (or lack thereof) of the product.

It doesn't. This seems to be something asserted solely in your mind. Understanding the financials the smarks only pretend to grasp doesn't mean you have to let it rule you. But we're in a thread asking if WWE is heading towards disaster. Well, you know, me liking it or not liking it will have little to do with whether it makes it towards disaster. Booking to you, me, or anyone else specifically on this board will certainly not save WWE. Assuming it needs to be saved, where again, I would go to the numbers rather than "do I like it."

As it happens, both kind of dovetail right now. Ratings are down, buys are down, and I find a good chunk of what's on TV to be boring. That does not mean that I find it to be boring because I can read a spreadsheet or follow a weekly ratings post occasionally.

I'm good with patterns. I get that others don't store data on trends for as long as I do. That's fine. But when we're talking business, that data is rather important. Specifically data pertinent to this business, like buys and ratings. Hell, if there was an actual published figure for T-Shirts, I'd probably have that stored in my head.

Which brings me to the point of John Cena. I've long defended WWE's choice of pushing Cena due to the financial sense it makes while actively disliking his character and his overall push. Now, a perceptive person might see that and understand that there is a complex underlying opinion here, that I might look at the business and entertainment aspects separately, as I've done with Cena (and the Punk merch revelation, etc). Instead what I get is a bunch of Noids who decide that correlation means causation and I hate the product because it's doing poorly in the ratings.

Again, it's okay. I understand such nuances are difficult for most people, and probably moreso for your average wrestling fan.

And just while we're on the subject, I appreciate wrestling for its entertainment value more than a lot of people on the board. This is why I've mocked concepts like workrate and movesets since before Gertie was a regular here. While a good technical match can be fun, and certainly I can dig solid technical skills, it's not the be-all and it's not even really the deciding factor. This is why I like Michaels more than Hart: Both are fine performers, Hart probably had the edge in ring skill, but in the end, HBK's more entertaining. It's why I continued to like Cena after he main evented. Granted, he did start to tire, but not because of the tired old FIVE MOVES OF DOOM! bitching.

I don't know why I bothered with this, though, because people will go back to KANE KNIGHT USES RATINGS TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE LIKES THE SHOW LOLOL in five minutes.

[McLegend]

The PPV buyrates could be some large problem or could be something simple like people don't have $55 to throw on a PPV every month. Even a big PPV like Survior Series.

[Damndirty]

Most of what you say makes a lot of sense. I just want to point out that the dynamics are a lot different now. During that period of time WCW had a shit-ton of loyal viewers and their product was constantly in the News. In addition to the loyal WCW viewers who never watched WWE, there were the casual fans that would switch channels throughout the broadcasts.

Most people who watch TNA also watch WWE. I think the audience for wrestling has shrunk dramatically since 1997 and I don't believe that it was UFC that took 'em all. I think wrestling for a lot of people was just a fad or a phase.

I even think the WWE realizes that they're going to need to create some main-stream buzz to recreate the boom. I guess we'll see if this new strategy of theirs will have an impact by Mania and this time next year.


You are correct! I was in middle school by the time Stone Cold became champion in 98' and I was noticing people who were not wrestling fans became fans because of him (not limited to, though), including me (though Undertaker was and always will be my favorite). I know the NWO angle had definitely gotten people to turn people's head towards this direction for a glance, but Austin's antics was the thing keeping them there.
It was absolutely a major fad during that time, and like every fad, there is a time when people shrug their shoulders and move on to the next big thing, which is what was beginning to happen a few years after when I noticed people quit talking about it. It actually made me feel alone when I was one of the only ones still watching it, and even I had a hiatus period from watching (which I really regret now after hearing all that happened).
Wrestling can be a trend again, maybe even bigger than their best days, but here's the problem, they can't do it on their own, they need the alternative wrestling promotion/s to compete with. Both WWE and TNA, and maybe ROH, can bring people back into it by working together (but not letting people know it). These companies not only need to quit the cliches and burying of good talent, but they may just have to renovate the way these performances and stories are portrayed, like making them almost like a movie and doing more optical illusions and light effects to bring a new dimension to it.
I was beginning to see this being done with the whole conspiracy theory storyline that ended very badly with the majority of the talent walking out. It would have worked had they had the Anonymous Raw General manager be the same person behind the shit to set up HHH, but he/she just disappeared. When they did the walk out, I thought it was done way WAY too prematurely, it should have been done much later on and not just have the reasons told by only the heels (plus Jerry Lawler). And then talking about the reemergence of Brodus Clay, and then acting like everybody forgot it. Then the Jonah Hill advertisement for an appearance that never happened. Somebody is fucking up the storylines and promotions, so obviously, somebody backstage needs to get the boot or get their shit straight.

[Swiss Ultimate]

KANE KNIGHT USES RATINGS TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE LIKES THE SHOW LOLOL

[Damndirty]

For the record, I'm going to watch WWE most likely for the rest of my life, if it lasts that long. That's why ratings do matter to me, because if the WWE was dying, I would do all I can to keep it alive and participate in getting it back on its feet, and I would do this by getting more people to watch it and buy more of their merchandise. We're all wrestling fans here, and to see our favorite promotion in bad shape should be a concern to us. People that post here DO care about the sport, or else we wouldn't be here bitching about it and complimenting it in the first place. The question is what would you do to keep it on the air?

[TheAdamEvansFan]

I seriously laugh at every post on here lately.

It's all personal bias. Every post about hating the PG Era, it's all personal.

We grew up in the Attitude Era, you don't see 8 year olds on TPWW forums, except for AguaKate.

I mean, seriously, it's all bias. It's like saying you want to go be a child again, grow up and stop bitching.

WWE has turned into WCW, and now they are pushing younger guys that actually have more wrestling skills then bodybuilding, yet fans still find reasons to bitch? WTF? 2004-2007 was awful, roid raged wrestlers with no real future in the business. You had cena rapping, batista roiding, and Eddie stealing.

The product is much more family oriented today which creates longevity. Granted, I personally might not enjoy it as I like a bit of edgyness, but like CM Punk said, you don't need to be swearing to create edgyness.

Yea, if TNA rises to actual competition, it could make the WWE better, however, if that happens, it's likely Vince won't be running the show to see it happen by then.

Rock vs Cena at Wrestlemania, I could frankly care less. While the internet goons are jizzing in their pants, I'm looking at Miz, Barrett, Ziggler, Kofi, Ryder, and other young talent to give me my best matches, not two people who obviously feel they are too big to fail.

It's time to move on folks, Mark Henry was given the title run as a last run of sorts, it's not like he is burying the new talent, like Barrett said, it's how the business works, you go up the ladder and then get repositioned in the middle after it gets stale. People don't want to see Miz and Del Rio always in the main event for 2-3 years straight.

It's why we HATE Cena so much, because we even go through conspiracy theories when he misses a PPV. Is he injured?!!!!??? If I ran the company, I would repackage characters like Cena, Santino, Hornswoggle, even possibly the Undertaker. I was right about Kane coming back with the mask, which is great.

I saw someone talking about Cole. Granted while your personal bias comes out to hate the character, he really does a great job at getting you all worked up, doesn't he? Booker is obviously a great announcer, but it appears he has a little bit left in the ring, to just completely give up just yet.

I do agree that the Lawler/Cole wrestling matches or gimmicks inside the ring are completely awful, noone wants to see either guy wrestle.

However, I believe Cole is doing his part as a master heel, but not taking too much of the main spotlight/heat like John Laurinaitis is as his character isn't scheduled to last as long as Cole, at least, not on TV throughout a period of time.

I enjoy his rambling back and forth, you really never now if you will get his heel persona or his actual commentating, but that is how it was with Lawler when he teamed with JR.

For the internet community, hold your panties, Jericho is coming back to have a run with CM Punk, you will be entertained, but hopefully the younger guys in the lockerroom don't get overshadowed with Triple H vs Taker with HBK as Referee, Rock vs Cena with Foley as Referee, Jericho vs CM Punk, Big Show vs Shaq, etc...

I do feel as if the storyline with Triple H vs Taker is reused. Why is this match needed? Is it because Taker is too old to actually work with a younger wrestler, or is it that Triple H's ego is too big? We know that neither wrestler needs this match, but I guess if the stipulation of Career vs Streak is added on, then we will be all amazed!!!

It's primarily why I like factions, because younger stars don't get buryed when they are aligned with older stars in the ring, and are given air time to produce their character and sell it to the fans with the bidding of the older, over star.

[Aguakate]

I seriously laugh at every post on here lately.

It's all personal bias. Every post about hating the PG Era, it's all personal.

We grew up in the Attitude Era, you don't see 8 year olds on TPWW forums, except for AguaKate.

I mean, seriously, it's all bias. It's like saying you want to go be a child again, grow up and stop bitching.

WWE has turned into WCW, and now they are pushing younger guys that actually have more wrestling skills then bodybuilding, yet fans still find reasons to bitch? WTF? 2004-2007 was awful, roid raged wrestlers with no real future in the business. You had cena rapping, batista roiding, and Eddie stealing.

The product is much more family oriented today which creates longevity. Granted, I personally might not enjoy it as I like a bit of edgyness, but like CM Punk said, you don't need to be swearing to create edgyness.

Yea, if TNA rises to actual competition, it could make the WWE better, however, if that happens, it's likely Vince won't be running the show to see it happen by then.

Rock vs Cena at Wrestlemania, I could frankly care less. While the internet goons are jizzing in their pants, I'm looking at Miz, Barrett, Ziggler, Kofi, Ryder, and other young talent to give me my best matches, not two people who obviously feel they are too big to fail.

It's time to move on folks, Mark Henry was given the title run as a last run of sorts, it's not like he is burying the new talent, like Barrett said, it's how the business works, you go up the ladder and then get repositioned in the middle after it gets stale. People don't want to see Miz and Del Rio always in the main event for 2-3 years straight.

It's why we HATE Cena so much, because we even go through conspiracy theories when he misses a PPV. Is he injured?!!!!??? If I ran the company, I would repackage characters like Cena, Santino, Hornswoggle, even possibly the Undertaker. I was right about Kane coming back with the mask, which is great.

I saw someone talking about Cole. Granted while your personal bias comes out to hate the character, he really does a great job at getting you all worked up, doesn't he? Booker is obviously a great announcer, but it appears he has a little bit left in the ring, to just completely give up just yet.

I do agree that the Lawler/Cole wrestling matches or gimmicks inside the ring are completely awful, noone wants to see either guy wrestle.

However, I believe Cole is doing his part as a master heel, but not taking too much of the main spotlight/heat like John Laurinaitis is as his character isn't scheduled to last as long as Cole, at least, not on TV throughout a period of time.

I enjoy his rambling back and forth, you really never now if you will get his heel persona or his actual commentating, but that is how it was with Lawler when he teamed with JR.

For the internet community, hold your panties, Jericho is coming back to have a run with CM Punk, you will be entertained, but hopefully the younger guys in the lockerroom don't get overshadowed with Triple H vs Taker with HBK as Referee, Rock vs Cena with Foley as Referee, Jericho vs CM Punk, Big Show vs Shaq, etc...

I do feel as if the storyline with Triple H vs Taker is reused. Why is this match needed? Is it because Taker is too old to actually work with a younger wrestler, or is it that Triple H's ego is too big? We know that neither wrestler needs this match, but I guess if the stipulation of Career vs Streak is added on, then we will be all amazed!!!

It's primarily why I like factions, because younger stars don't get buryed when they are aligned with older stars in the ring, and are given air time to produce their character and sell it to the fans with the bidding of the older, over star.


...No way I'm reading all this.

[Attitude99]

wwe needs some real competition.

[XL]

For the record, I'm going to watch WWE most likely for the rest of my life, if it lasts that long. That's why ratings do matter to me, because if the WWE was dying, I would do all I can to keep it alive and participate in getting it back on its feet, and I would do this by getting more people to watch it and buy more of their merchandise. We're all wrestling fans here, and to see our favorite promotion in bad shape should be a concern to us. People that post here DO care about the sport, or else we wouldn't be here bitching about it and complimenting it in the first place. The question is what would you do to keep it on the air?
You realise that a fair % of the "IWC" justify watching PPV via illegal stream with "I'll pay for the show once it starts to be entertaining again".

...No way I'm reading all this.
TAEF basically bitches that every post here is "personal bias". Then treats us to his thoughts...full of personal bias.

[Damndirty]

You realise that a fair % of the "IWC" justify watching PPV via illegal stream with "I'll pay for the show once it starts to be entertaining again".


TAEF basically bitches that every post here is "personal bias". Then treats us to his thoughts...full of personal bias.


On my own, I stopped getting the PPVs when they started charging more, but when other people want to watch it, I'll pitch some $ in to see it. I have kids to worry about before I get some $50 PPV, especially if it, by chance, happens to have a main event like the Hogan vs. Jarrett, Bash at the Beach 2000 ripoff (though the next night, I'd like to see if something like that is ignored or something very eventful takes place due to it (because it's free :naughty:).

[DAMN iNATOR]

Is the WWE much worse in quality than it was in 2005/2006? Because it seems relatively consistent since about 2005 for me with some short periods of being really good and some periods of being really bad. But back in 2005 they were having single brand PPV's that (Vengeance 2005) outdrawing Survivor Series 2011 which featured the return of The Rock.

It's something that is beyond WWE's control.

2005 and 2006 weren't great years by any stretch for WWE, but they weren't horrible either. As a matter of fact, it is my firmly held belief that over the past decade (2001-present), 2003 was by far the worst year WWE has had in terms of quality programming, ratings, etc. in recent memory.

[Rammsteinmad]

I don't understand any of the hatred aimed at 2011. Seriously, this year has been fucking incredible!

[Mr. Nerfect]

It doesn't. This seems to be something asserted solely in your mind. Understanding the financials the smarks only pretend to grasp doesn't mean you have to let it rule you. But we're in a thread asking if WWE is heading towards disaster. Well, you know, me liking it or not liking it will have little to do with whether it makes it towards disaster. Booking to you, me, or anyone else specifically on this board will certainly not save WWE. Assuming it needs to be saved, where again, I would go to the numbers rather than "do I like it."

As it happens, both kind of dovetail right now. Ratings are down, buys are down, and I find a good chunk of what's on TV to be boring. That does not mean that I find it to be boring because I can read a spreadsheet or follow a weekly ratings post occasionally.

I'm good with patterns. I get that others don't store data on trends for as long as I do. That's fine. But when we're talking business, that data is rather important. Specifically data pertinent to this business, like buys and ratings. Hell, if there was an actual published figure for T-Shirts, I'd probably have that stored in my head.

Which brings me to the point of John Cena. I've long defended WWE's choice of pushing Cena due to the financial sense it makes while actively disliking his character and his overall push. Now, a perceptive person might see that and understand that there is a complex underlying opinion here, that I might look at the business and entertainment aspects separately, as I've done with Cena (and the Punk merch revelation, etc). Instead what I get is a bunch of Noids who decide that correlation means causation and I hate the product because it's doing poorly in the ratings.


:lol:

It basically comes down to "Cena sells merchandise, therefore the WWE is not unwise in pushing him." Hardly complex. I've been in the same boat for years, actually. Don't know where this "Noid says this," "Noid says that," blah-blah is coming from. I know I'm your favourite poster here and all, and you're a little obsessed, but try to cool the jets with it. It's tiresome arguing with a fat Asperger's dude who thinks he's Jon Stewart. Real tiring. And that's not a knock on people with Asperger's. Some of them are brilliant. Some of them are... well, tired meme-machines.

For the record: If a guy makes money, he should be pushed. This is smart business. Right now, the WWE is absolutely sane in keeping John Cena, CM Punk and Zack Ryder near the top of the card. And when he is cleared to return, you can bet your bottom dollar Rey Mysterio will be there, too. What's interesting is that the top merchandise movers seem to be doing little to help ratings and buyrates.

Trends don't change overnight. It didn't take them two months to get to the state they are in concerning ratings and buyrates, and it won't take two months to turn it around. Honestly, things had been fairly steady from 2004-2010 or so. A bit of a drop, but in the last year to year and a half, things have been getting worse.

Establishing guys is a big thing. And it's not just about "let's take Wrestler X, who has been a midcard jobber for years, and push him". It's going to take months to build someone like Swagger up just to be at a position where he's a new slate. If they thrust him into a position now, people will be saying "really, that guy"?

Much like I believe has happened with Henry. When someone who hasn't watched since 2010 hears that Mark Henry was the champion, they're just going to go "really, why?"

They need to stop the process of burying guys and start making everything, top to bottom on the card, be important at the very least to the guys who are in the segment. Cody squashing Santino does nothing for either one, for example.

I also honestly feel that Michael Cole's character needs a drastic overhaul or needs to go from the announce booth. It was cute at first, hell I'd say he was even good, but when he's on commentary making everything about him, it's going to not only turn people off from watching because he's downright annoying in a bad way, but also negate whatever is happening in the ring. Make him a manager who commentates during his wrestler's match only. Don't make him the fucking lead announcer.

And it's still going to take a long time, with word of mouth and good booking, for this to turn around for the long haul. There's going to be a natural upswing going into WrestleMania from the Rumble, and they need to harness that and hope that they can hold onto the people who come back for the Rock/Cena program. If they can't do that (and it's been shown as recently as the Summer of Punk that they can't) then they're in big trouble.

As for the question at hand. I think there's a natural shift in audience, especially because the little Cena marks are just now starting to grow up. However, if the product is hot enough, that shift is minimal because of new fans checking out the product as well as holding onto old fans in the process who would otherwise tune out. When the writing is so poor as it can be sometimes, that shift is going to be felt and felt hard.

I think a while ago I coined this era the "New Generation 2.0" era, and it does stand to reason. There are some shit gimmicks running around, but slowly but surely since 2009 guys are being established and getting over more. It's almost like, right now, we're at the dawn of the Attitude Era (early 97) where the turnover of the old guard is in full effect and the new guard is being completely established.

Also remember that even when the Attitude Era was starting to get red hot (late 97/early 98), RAW ratings were treading around the same spot and Nitro was still constantly beating them. It takes a while for people to take notice.

I think it's safe to say we're at the dawn of a new guard being established, but I'm not saying we're at the dawn of a new Attitude Era. Just that if the product continues to get better, they can remedy this. It just takes time.

I pretty much agree entirely with this post of yours, Xero. The trend can't be changed overnight. All you can really do is put the best product forward, with many of the solutions Xero has suggested implemented, and hope that through the building of proper stars (and the selection of the ones that have the best chance of that appeal to the casual fan), and through word of mouth over time, you can re-stabilise your audience.

Right now, Cody Rhodes and Dolph Ziggler are two of the best "rising" guys they have. Ziggler seems more imminently ready, and he gets the opportunity to prove it next week in a WWE Title match against Punk. Ziggler doesn't need to win the WWE Title right now, but he could stand to benefit from an impressive showing against Punk and either a Money in the Bank or King of the Ring victory later in the year.

Building up the card top-to-bottom is logically the best way to put on strong shows, overall, and it seems that the WWE are doing that -- with Air Boom being presented as a credible and proper tag team. They just need some other face teams to feud with some of the lesser heel teams, and allow both sides of the face/heel tag team spectrum to be toughened up.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I don't understand any of the hatred aimed at 2011. Seriously, this year has been fucking incredible!

Creatively it's been great. Most of the time, anyway. There are certainly little bumps in the road.

* Christian/Orton, while a great series of matches, short-changed Christian a little bit, in my opinion. No, I'm not saying he was "buried" (and never have I in regards to this feud). What I am saying is that Christian could have been allowed more than a "five-day reign" (technically, Christian wasn't even World Heavyweight Champion for two days), and the title loss to Orton could have still altered Christian's mind set and caused a heel turn AND left Christian with some credibility that could have given more "weight" to the feud. As fantastic as the matches were, it was always presented so that Orton was clearly the stronger force. And I don't mean that in the way that a babyface should be stronger than a heel -- I mean, despite technical victories here and there to keep the feud going -- Orton never really sweated Christian too much.

* The return of Kevin Nash, in retrospect, has been completely baffling. We never even got Punk vs. Nash. Big Kev returned, Powerbombed Punk, got destroyed on the mic, and then feuded with... Triple H? The return of Nash could have been used to generate interest somewhere; but it was not in the scheme of Punk's return.

* The WWE tried desperately to siphon any of CM Punk's heat in the Summer of Punk into whatever other top babyfaces or heels they had. After Triple H replaced Vince McMahon (a good shake-up), they had Vince trying to get back at Cena from the sidelines? Why not Punk? It seemed logical we were building to a Punk vs. Triple H match, but they drop that, have R-Truth and Miz play renegade heels, and then Triple H loses his job in segments that dominate RAW for weeks.

* The Anonymous RAW General Manager was never explained. Ever. What happened to him/her? The whole storyline of Triple H taking over from Vince McMahon when it came to day-to-day operations of the WWE suddenly swerved and became about Triple H running RAW. It may not seem like much, but considering the amount of heat the RAW GM had, it makes no sense to just drop the angle.

[Damndirty]

Creatively it's been great. Most of the time, anyway. There are certainly little bumps in the road.

* Christian/Orton, while a great series of matches, short-changed Christian a little bit, in my opinion. No, I'm not saying he was "buried" (and never have I in regards to this feud). What I am saying is that Christian could have been allowed more than a "five-day reign" (technically, Christian wasn't even World Heavyweight Champion for two days), and the title loss to Orton could have still altered Christian's mind set and caused a heel turn AND left Christian with some credibility that could have given more "weight" to the feud. As fantastic as the matches were, it was always presented so that Orton was clearly the stronger force. And I don't mean that in the way that a babyface should be stronger than a heel -- I mean, despite technical victories here and there to keep the feud going -- Orton never really sweated Christian too much.

This one may have been forgiveable, because, simply put, nobody really expected Christian's popularity as a face to be anywhere near that of Cena's or what would eventually be CM Punk. Not sure if it is because of his age or because he just doesn't have the charging personality required for a top superstar.

* The return of Kevin Nash, in retrospect, has been completely baffling. We never even got Punk vs. Nash. Big Kev returned, Powerbombed Punk, got destroyed on the mic, and then feuded with... Triple H? The return of Nash could have been used to generate interest somewhere; but it was not in the scheme of Punk's return.

* The WWE tried desperately to siphon any of CM Punk's heat in the Summer of Punk into whatever other top babyfaces or heels they had. After Triple H replaced Vince McMahon (a good shake-up), they had Vince trying to get back at Cena from the sidelines? Why not Punk? It seemed logical we were building to a Punk vs. Triple H match, but they drop that, have R-Truth and Miz play renegade heels, and then Triple H loses his job in segments that dominate RAW for weeks.

* The Anonymous RAW General Manager was never explained. Ever. What happened to him/her? The whole storyline of Triple H taking over from Vince McMahon when it came to day-to-day operations of the WWE suddenly swerved and became about Triple H running RAW. It may not seem like much, but considering the amount of heat the RAW GM had, it makes no sense to just drop the angle.

Now these three botch-ups they made may hurt them in the end, because if played out correctly, this would have been a conspiracy storyline fit for the Punk Era. Had Nash vs. Punk went on, and then Nash, Miz, and Truth been fired and turned renegade, it would have done good, though they should have done more than just beat up on people for shock factor. HHH got fired way too soon, before enough space could have made to pump up the renegade sabotage/attacks, and it would have been smart for the Anonymous GM (which could have been revealed to be Johnny Ace) to be behind this renegade sabotage to set up HHH for Mcmahon's behalf.

[Damndirty]

Creatively it's been great. Most of the time, anyway. There are certainly little bumps in the road.

* Christian/Orton, while a great series of matches, short-changed Christian a little bit, in my opinion. No, I'm not saying he was "buried" (and never have I in regards to this feud). What I am saying is that Christian could have been allowed more than a "five-day reign" (technically, Christian wasn't even World Heavyweight Champion for two days), and the title loss to Orton could have still altered Christian's mind set and caused a heel turn AND left Christian with some credibility that could have given more "weight" to the feud. As fantastic as the matches were, it was always presented so that Orton was clearly the stronger force. And I don't mean that in the way that a babyface should be stronger than a heel -- I mean, despite technical victories here and there to keep the feud going -- Orton never really sweated Christian too much.

This one may have been forgiveable, because, simply put, nobody really expected Christian's popularity as a face to be anywhere near that of Cena's or what would eventually be CM Punk. Not sure if it is because of his age or because he just doesn't have the charging personality required for a top superstar.

* The return of Kevin Nash, in retrospect, has been completely baffling. We never even got Punk vs. Nash. Big Kev returned, Powerbombed Punk, got destroyed on the mic, and then feuded with... Triple H? The return of Nash could have been used to generate interest somewhere; but it was not in the scheme of Punk's return.

* The WWE tried desperately to siphon any of CM Punk's heat in the Summer of Punk into whatever other top babyfaces or heels they had. After Triple H replaced Vince McMahon (a good shake-up), they had Vince trying to get back at Cena from the sidelines? Why not Punk? It seemed logical we were building to a Punk vs. Triple H match, but they drop that, have R-Truth and Miz play renegade heels, and then Triple H loses his job in segments that dominate RAW for weeks.

* The Anonymous RAW General Manager was never explained. Ever. What happened to him/her? The whole storyline of Triple H taking over from Vince McMahon when it came to day-to-day operations of the WWE suddenly swerved and became about Triple H running RAW. It may not seem like much, but considering the amount of heat the RAW GM had, it makes no sense to just drop the angle.

Now these three botch-ups they made may hurt them in the end, because if played out correctly, this would have been a conspiracy storyline fit for the Punk Era. Had Nash vs. Punk went on, and then Nash, Miz, and Truth been fired and turned renegade, it would have done good, though they should have done more than just beat up on people for shock factor. HHH got fired way too soon, before enough space could have made to pump up the renegade sabotage/attacks, and it would have been smart for the Anonymous GM (which could have been revealed to be Johnny Ace) to be behind this renegade sabotage to set up HHH for Mcmahon's behalf.