DISCUSSION - My Theory on why the WWE can't get to that "next level" in terms of ratings/interest, etc.

[Heyman]

DISCUSSION - My Theory on why the WWE can't get to that "next level" in terms of ratings/interest, etc.

The main reason why the WWE cannot...and has not.....taken the next level in terms of their ratings and fan interest, is because they have no idea how to push their baby faces. Period.

I believe that this has been a problem of their's since Survivor Series 2001 (which ironically enough, was probably the last day of the 'Attitude era').

One thing the WWE has done an EXCELLENT job of all these years - they know how to build up credible heels. Whether it has been Randy Orton, Brock Lesnar, Kane, John Cena, CM Punk, Chris Jericho, Triple H, Kurt Angle, Batista, Santino Marella, The Miz, Dolph Ziggler, etc., etc., the WWE has usually done a PHENOMENAL job in building up heels:

Their biggest problem however....something that has hurt them since 2001......is that they have ZERO idea on how to effectively transition a tremendous heel into a tremendous face. Period.

The WWE's biggest problem in converting heels into faces, is that they get too excited about positive crowd reactions (i.e. if fans start loving a heelish character, the WWE will take note and try and turn them into a face almost immediately). If you think back to the Attitude Era however, the WWE did NOT do this. Instead - they let the fans cheer the "bad guys" to the point where the fans were literally creaming their pants at the idea of cheering the bad guy. Heel Austin in 1997 and heel Rocky in 1998 are PERFECT examples of this. To a lesser extent, heel DX in 1997 also fit that bill.

If you look at some of the most disasterous face turns in WWE history (and if not disasterous, some of the biggest let downs), you will see the same thing:

-Brock Lesnar in 2002
-Kurt Angle in 2003
-Eddie Guerrero in late 2003 (he quickly burned as a face after winning the title at Wrestlemania)
-Randy Orton 2004
-CM Punk 2010

While all of these guys, along with numerous other examples, did achieve great success with their turns, they could have and should have been MUCH MUCH bigger. In retrospect, the face pops they garnered were lukewarm at best....compared to the face pops/reactions that they could have got.

Why? Because - unlike The Rock/Austin, the WWE 'blew their load' upon seeing even the slightest of a positive crowd reaction. It's basic pyschology. Fans don't want to be told to "cheer a guy." Fans want to cheer a guy based on how they feel......and fans will want to cheer a guy even MORESO, if they are not supposed to. THAT is how you build an effective long term face.

Heyman's 3 steps to building "the next big thing"

1) Have them be a tremendous entertaining heel (as the WWE does a good job of building).

2) Have the fans love these heels, but have the heels keep their character.....to the point where fans are cheering the heelish character, but the heel is still hating on the crowd and/or opponent.

3) In the long term, slowly transition the heel character into a fan favorite....BUT....keeping the 'character/personna' of the wrestler almost the exact same (i.e. like they did with Austin and even The Rock).


The WWE already do a tremendous job with step #1. This is actually one thing that they've done just as well from their Attitude Era days. It's Steps 2 and 3 that they need to work on....and have needed to work on since late 2001.

[TheAdamEvansFan]

Santino would make a badass Face if he has a serious character and stopped being a jobber.

[Nicky Fives]

Eddie never won the WWE Title at Wrestlemania.....it was No Way Out.....

[DAMN iNATOR]

Eddie never won the WWE Title at Wrestlemania.....it was No Way Out.....

Yeah, and then he of course retained the title at Mania vs. an extremely game Kurt Angle.

[Xero]

I think you're on the right track, but it's only part of the problem. I'll absolutely say they don't know how to book a strong face without making them super-face-ish and most of the time falling into a cookie cutter WWE mold. This has happened with Punk, Orton and Edge off the top of my head in the past few years, and it extends up to Cena and even Batista. WWE, for the most part, are stuck in their ways and believes that this is the only type of babyface that works within the current climate. It does. When you don't jam it down the fans' throat and there's only one of them.

The other, and MUCH bigger problem WWE has is developing their undercard and transitioning someone who has floundered for months if not years in an underdeveloped mess. The ONLY thing that matters on WWE programming is what they feel like making matter this week, and it makes the rest of the card inconsistent and sloppy. Jack Swagger main evented RAW last week, but who really bought Jack Fucking Swagger up against John Cena? Daniel Bryan is the WHC, but who buys him against ANYBODY? Their problem is that not everything matters on a consistent plane and they just shoehorn anyone they want into places they don't belong. There's no real transition. You're either an extra or in the upper-midcard or main event. There's no middle ground, and that completely kills everyone, heels and faces alike.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Yeah, exactly. It's like they don't even realize that every time someone turns face, that doesn't mean they have to become a super huge pussy who follows the rules and always toes the company line and does what he's told. I think that's why CM Punk appealed to so many people is because his face turn during the last summer-now was/is a lot more well done than most, with Punk wearing his anti-establishment attitude on his sleeve. We need more face turns similar to that style.

[MoFo]

I like what they are doing w/ R-Truth, hes a face now without changing his character.

[Lock Jaw]

I think the last face turn that really worked was this last face turn of Randy Orton.

He still played the exact same character. Cold calculating dude without remorse who hears voices in his head, might punt you in the skull, and TALKS.... like..... THIS.

It is only after moving to Smackdown that he started to be a bit more animated, smile more, do celebratory star-jumps, etc..... But for the most part he does not go overboard with it.

This is why before Punk came around, that Orton was the "cool" face.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Said it before and I'll say it again. There's too much great stuff on television to catch people's attention. There is also alot of shit on television that people seem to like (Jersey Shore and other reality tv.) My cable box goes to 1952 channels.

Even Oprah is having trouble get his cable channel off the ground and she's the Queen of All Media.

[Xero]

Why isn't the NFL having trouble, then? And other shows that actually take away from WWE's ratings?

The fact is that we won't ever see another day where wrestling gets a 14 share. But WWE I think could easily be pulling anything from a 4 to a 6 with a really hot product that clicks.

[GD]

When did Eddie Guerrero win the WWE Championship at Wrestlemania?

In the year of 2004, the superstars of Monday Night RAW boycotted the rumble and hence a special 15-man Royal Rumble match was contested on Thursday Night Smackdown where Eddie Guerrero eliminated Kurt Angle to earn a shot at the WWE Championship.

Eddie Guerrero went on to pin Brock Lesnar (after some assistance from Bill "Almighty" Goldberg) and won the WWE Championship for the very first time at the No Way Out ppv.

The 20th anniversary of Wrestlemania showcased two co-main events where Eddie Guerrero defeated Kurt Angle to retian his WWE Championship and The Undertaker returned to defeat his evil younger brother Kane.

It must also be noted that during this period, the whereabouts of the World Heavyweight Champion Triple-H and Shawn Michaels were unknown. Triple-H resurfaced after a few months at the Summerslam ppv to squash a new comer by the name of Eugene. Also for the first time in Summerslam history, the main event was not contested as a wrestling match. Evolution young gun and former Intercontinental Champion Randy Orton was awarded the World Heavyweight Championship. Randy Orton cried and celebrated his first title victory with the Canadian fans for an estimate time of 20 minutes and 8 seconds.

[Fox]

Hell of a theory, Heyman.

Hell of a post.

Hell of a helluva.

[Disco Apocalypse]

Interesting theory...

Completey agree with all of your examples where the face turn was butchered (or at least not completely utilised). CM Punk being the latest casualty unfortunately.

2004 Randy Orton could have been massive if he'd kept his heel legend killer persona. Imagine if Orton had remained a heel, taken over the leadership of Legacy (in turn turning HHH or Batista face), and then somehow gone over Undertaker at Wrestlemania by some dodgy tactics. To his credit, Randall came back and will now go down as once of the best of his generation.

But do failed face turns relate directly to ratings (or lack thereof)... I'm not entirely convinced. Interesting that Xero brought up the NFL and their continuing success. Sport has the advantage that it always has something to build to, i.e. a result. Whether it is the end of the game, end of season, play-offs, whatever, is has a long term result always being built to.

That's what I think the modern WWE era is missing, long term plans. Sure, it has Wrestlemania, but you need more. Why did people recently love the CM Punk leave the company angle, or the Nexus angle? Because it had long term possibilities that you were willing to watch through a few shows of crap for. What's the long term build at the moment? Rock vs. Cena... good, but not enough to keep me gripped through divas matches and Santino.

[Steveviscious89]

It's too bad that nobody amongst the IWC took these problems seriously until the past couple of years. I saw it coming about a hundred miles away at about the same exact time you're mentioning. I'm inclined to believe that wrestling won't see another boom until everyone has forgotten about the last one. I'm also going to agree with Xero on this one and add that the star power they have now is no where near where it was during the boom. The guys they have at the top are missing key attributes that could make them the complete package as a major wrestling star. Problem is, I also believe that Vince is being careful not to lose anymore big stars to Hollywood, so he is continuing to keep the same guys he trusts in the main event for the most part.

[Fox]

I'm Steveviscious and I'm smarter than all of you.

[Rammsteinmad]

The reason WWE won't be entering a 'boom' period anytime soon has nothing to do with strong faces, nothing to do with compelling storylines, and nothing to do with people having to forget the last boom period (STOP LIVING IN THE PAST!!!).

The reason WWE has the low ratings it has is simply because people don't give a shit about professional wrestling anymore.

All the fans during the much-loved 'Attitude Era' have grown up and have lost interest. Bring in new fans? A new, younger generation? Sounds like an easy idea, except kids today aren't the same as kids in 1999. Children today are so spoilt by technological advances, that I doubt most of them are going to choose to watch WWE programming over any of the other things they could be doing.

Everyones waiting for the next, great big boom period to begin, the Attitude Era wasn't planned. The 'next generation' boom wasn't planned. Things happen naturally. WWE can't control the television viewing climate. It's all about todays society, and unlike 1993 and unlike 1998, right now, there just isn't a place for Professional Wrestling.

[Rammsteinmad]

Except TPWW, of course. :p

[James Steele]

The reason WWE won't be entering a 'boom' period anytime soon has nothing to do with strong faces, nothing to do with compelling storylines, and nothing to do with people having to forget the last boom period (STOP LIVING IN THE PAST!!!).

The reason WWE has the low ratings it has is simply because people don't give a shit about professional wrestling anymore.

All the fans during the much-loved 'Attitude Era' have grown up and have lost interest. Bring in new fans? A new, younger generation? Sounds like an easy idea, except kids today aren't the same as kids in 1999. Children today are so spoilt by technological advances, that I doubt most of them are going to choose to watch WWE programming over any of the other things they could be doing.

Everyones waiting for the next, great big boom period to begin, the Attitude Era wasn't planned. The 'next generation' boom wasn't planned. Things happen naturally. WWE can't control the television viewing climate. It's all about todays society, and unlike 1993 and unlike 1998, right now, there just isn't a place for Professional Wrestling.

The "New Generation" era (Next Generation is Star Trek) was anything but a boom. WWF damn near went out of business.

[Rammsteinmad]

Ah, whatever that period was during the early 90's when everyone was watching then...

[Lock Jaw]

Don't think there was a period like that in the early 90s. Late 90s, yes.

[Xero]

The reason WWE won't be entering a 'boom' period anytime soon has nothing to do with strong faces, nothing to do with compelling storylines, and nothing to do with people having to forget the last boom period (STOP LIVING IN THE PAST!!!).

The reason WWE has the low ratings it has is simply because people don't give a shit about professional wrestling anymore.

All the fans during the much-loved 'Attitude Era' have grown up and have lost interest. Bring in new fans? A new, younger generation? Sounds like an easy idea, except kids today aren't the same as kids in 1999. Children today are so spoilt by technological advances, that I doubt most of them are going to choose to watch WWE programming over any of the other things they could be doing.

Everyones waiting for the next, great big boom period to begin, the Attitude Era wasn't planned. The 'next generation' boom wasn't planned. Things happen naturally. WWE can't control the television viewing climate. It's all about todays society, and unlike 1993 and unlike 1998, right now, there just isn't a place for Professional Wrestling.



I don't agree that people just don't give a shit about pro wrestling anymore. There are PLENTY of people who would watch it or follow it if it were hot. It wouldn't be an overnight thing, but a hot streak of a year or two can easily spread by word of mouth, making new fans and bringing back some older fans. Again, I absolutely believe that WWE could be pulling 5s today with the right booking, compelling storylines and pushed talents.

As for claiming that compelling storylines have nothing to do with it... Really? If you took away the nWo and Austin vs. McMahon, the Attitude Era, as we know it in terms of popularity, would not have happened.

Does wrestling, in its current form, fit today's viewing climate? I honestly feel with a few tweaks it absolutely could. A while ago I said it was all about adaptation and evolution. They can adapt and evolve the industry (or just WWE) to make it fit, it's not a hard concept and at its core pro wrestling is an extremely simple concept that can be input into many different adaptations and situations and made to work.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Flagship faces are a natural way to gain ratings.This is one of the million things WWE does wrong as far as wrestling product goes. But it is apparent that putting on a good wrestling product or even a well written product of any kind is the least of their priorities. It's obvious that the direction of everything is placed elsewhere, and I have no idea where exactly. When I watch RAW it strikes me that I'm watching something along the same lines as Mad tv.... and I always hated mad tv. A few flashes of brilliance here and there, marred by utter shit. Sort of like an episode of family guy as well. They could easily "HBO" up the product and take the booking seriously, but to do that, they'd have to give a fucking shit.

The saddest thing about it all, is wrestling has the ability to be so unique and Vince and co. seemed dedicated on making it just like everything else :(. Oh well, I'll always be a well wisher, amazing memories and nostalgia are implanted in my mind.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Agree with so many thoughts in here:

* Basically, I concur that babyfaces in the WWE are pretty shit. Even CM Punk has gone from being edgy in The Age of Irony to being a smiley babyface. It doesn't matter how charismatic someone is -- they need to be spreading the right message. Punk feels more like a puppet than a puppet-master at the moment, and that can't be helping him.

* I also agree that the WWE seems content at using bad humour, cheesy pop-cultural tie-ins and come off as absolutely desperate for attention so much of the time -- and that's a terrible way to stand-out. The WWE would have a better chance just having their product, and allowing it to be discovered, rather than creating a mix-mash of ideas and irrelevancies that don't capture anyone's imagination.

* The WWE seems to want to go after the kid demographic, though, and while there is some long-term safety in that, it's a double-bladed sword, simply because the WWE doesn't teach good morals. Women are still babyfaces for wearing less clothing and making suggestive motions, as opposed to being evil for focusing on their in-ring careers. Violence is still the answer for any babyface in the WWE, and then they go and preach an anti-bullying campaign.

* R-Truth's current face turn does seem interesting, as he's the same character but is obviously being positioned as a face. That being said, it seemed that more people were into Ricardo Rodriguez on RAW. The "WWE Universe" isn't used to that sort of complexity, whereas in the Attitude era, people would have been eating Truth's current shit up.

I know the old days are dead, but I think if the WWE really wants to see the dollar signs out of their babyfaces, they need to really understand that not everyone needs to be in the same mold. Perhaps the most popular superhero going today is Batman, and there are definite shades of darkness to his character. He's part of the Justice League, but he doesn't hang out with Superman or the Green Lantern all the time. Punk could remain edgy towards both heels and faces and still be selling t-shirts; and R-Truth can continue to be insane, but aim it at deserving heels.

* I'd also like to throw out there that the injury angle with Randy Orton has bothered me a little bit. They are really trying to create sympathy with the Orton/Barrett angle, despite Orton being a dude that punts people in the skulls, proudly ending their careers. Such an interesting feud could be made out of Orton coming back and wanting to kick Barrett in the skull; but I have a feeling it'll just be a two-dimension "I want revenge!" story, despite the universe dictating that it's just Orton's karma.

[XL]

Interesting theory...

Completey agree with all of your examples where the face turn was butchered (or at least not completely utilised). CM Punk being the latest casualty unfortunately.

2004 Randy Orton could have been massive if he'd kept his heel legend killer persona. Imagine if Orton had remained a heel, taken over the leadership of Legacy (in turn turning HHH or Batista face), and then somehow gone over Undertaker at Wrestlemania by some dodgy tactics. To his credit, Randall came back and will now go down as once of the best of his generation.

But do failed face turns relate directly to ratings (or lack thereof)... I'm not entirely convinced. Interesting that Xero brought up the NFL and their continuing success. Sport has the advantage that it always has something to build to, i.e. a result. Whether it is the end of the game, end of season, play-offs, whatever, is has a long term result always being built to.

That's what I think the modern WWE era is missing, long term plans. Sure, it has Wrestlemania, but you need more. Why did people recently love the CM Punk leave the company angle, or the Nexus angle? Because it had long term possibilities that you were willing to watch through a few shows of crap for. What's the long term build at the moment? Rock vs. Cena... good, but not enough to keep me gripped through divas matches and Santino.
Long term plans are all well and good but also very unrealistic.

Look at the last couple months, Christian got injured in the midst of a fued with Sheamus. Since then "The Great White" (:nono:) has pretty much floundered without a programme.

Alberto Del Rio got injured and whilst his adsence doesn't seem to have affected Raw too badly (although ADR v Punk likely would have run longer) you know they had some kind of plans for him.

Then Randy Orton got injured whilst fueding with Barrett.

In theory it's great to have "longterm plans" but they can be drastically changed in an instant.

[XL]

Also, figure in "Wellmess Suspentions".

[Damndirty]

It really is a mixture of just about everything mentioned here. The babyface failures and the lack of long term plans are because of instability and impatience with the writers. You can tell that the people coming up with ideas backstage aren't really agreeing with each other, which is why storylines have been shifting into crap mode out of nowhere. This can be easily fixed with the forcing of focus due to the uprising of a rivaling federation, which brings me to Rammsteinmad's contributing theory. If people are not given alternatives to follow that can be found in another federation as where cannot be found in the WWE, then simply put, nobody gives a shit about wrestling. Sometimes, it may just take another fed to be more popular than WWE for WWE to capitolize on bringing wrestling fans created by the other fed to theirs. To murder the other federation is suicide, and we have seen that after WCW and ECW's death. The end of the Alliance era is when the decline in popularity for wrestling began, because it brought closure to the Monday Night Wars. TNA is WWE's only hope at the moment, unless some other promotion suddenly gets their ass on tv soon.