PART 2 - Do you agree or disagree with the following Smackdown/TNA paragraph?

[Heyman]

PART 2 - Do you agree or disagree with the following Smackdown/TNA paragraph?

Is it an outrageous notion to suggest that the WWE should "sell" Smackdown to TNA? I'm not sure if NWA TNA would be able to afford Smackdown (for the price that Vince would want to sell it at), but this is getting ridiculous.

If I understand correctly, Smackdown had LESS than a 1,000 fans this week at their show (a *TV* show.....NOT House Show :eek: :eek: :nono: -).

I've talked about this in depth before, but what's the point of HAVING a Roster Split, if management will continuosly favor RAW? In other words - even IF Smackdown can (miracalously?) regain its momentum, can we really expect management to NOT send over an important Smackdown superstar to RAW?

I don't give a crap what the "numbers" say about PPV buyrates, etc. Only a fucking retard would think that Smackdown is a "better" show than RAW right now.

Don't get me wrong - I *try* and support Smackdown by watching it every week, but I just don't have much hope for it.

With Kurt Angle supposedly hurt now, things are only going to get worse.

At this point in time, even if management were to (miraculously) send a main-event RAW superstar over to Smackdown (i.e. Orton), one can argue that it would HURT Raw more than it would HELP Smackdown.


In a sense - I actually feel sorry for the wrestlers on Smackdown. :'( I genuinely *DO* want Smackdown to be a great show, but I just can't see it happening at this point.


With that being said - Is it possible (feasible?) for the WWE to simply "sell" Smackdown to TNA? If TNA itself can't afford it, then get Ted Turner and Hulk Hogan (or whoever) to buy it as well.



I'm not sure how much Vince would make by doing that, but lets be honest: Competiton will help the wrestling industry in general.


In the future - the WWE could once again get two different, two hour televised shows, while TNA could do the same.



I'd even go as far to say that the WWE should sell them the contracts of some big named superstars such as Eddie Guerrero, Rob Van Dam, Booker T, or Edge (just to ensure that this TNA-run-Smackdown stays "competitive").


Ideally - it would be GREAT to have every single big named Superstar in the WWE (on one show), but it only works in theory.


For instance - if guys like Guerrero and Big Show were to come on RAW, perhaps they wouldn't be as "prominent". Instead - they'd be pushed back to mid-card status (which could lead them in asking to get out of their contracts, etc.).

On that same note however - I think if something like this were to go down, Raw SHOULD take some superstars from Smackdown (who could replace certain superstars on RAW).


For instance...

-Carlitto Carribbean Cool could replace Eugene.
-Luther Reigns could replace Rosie
-John Cena could replace La Resistance.
-Undertaker could replace Kane.


The guys being replaced can then be sent off to TNA with the current Smackdown brand.

However - because TNA would supposedly get SOME WWE superstars who can potentially draw (Guerrero?), then its not like they'd be getting ONLY shit. Hell - even give them Stacy Kiebler and Torrie Wilson to give them some more "eye candy" (we can keep Trish and Christy :p ).



Probably an unrealistic and (stupid?) idea on my part, but I just feel bad for Smackdown. They should be in the hands of a company that will appreciate them.

[The CyNick]

PART 2 - Do you agree or disagree with the following Smackdown/TNA paragraph?


Probably an unrealistic and (stupid?) idea on my part

Only thing I agree with on this post

I didn't hear the numbers for the TV tapings, but RAW's last PPV did like 3,000 people for attendance or something like that. So RAW is in just as bad of shape as SD is.

Plus, SD has had their highest ratings of the year last week, so its not all doom and gloom for them.

Its true that WWE will always favour RAW, but saying they should sell it to TNA is just, well stupid like you said.

When you guys talk about competition being "good" for Vince, you obviously dont understand business. Vince doesn't want competition, why would he? He would lose money if he lost SD. No matter how low their live attendance gets, as long as you hear Tazz going "Smackdown is brought to you by *insert random sponsor here*" the WWE is making money. Why the WWE would sell that is beyond my comprehension.

[Innovator]

La Parka = Ratings

[MVP]

Yeah CyNick pretty much said what I was thinking.

WWE may be drawing shit for numbers wherever they go, but they aren't losing money from sponsors. They may not be making as much money as they were during the Attitude era because the PPV buyrates and house shows aren't selling out anymore, but they'll never go bankrupt.

[Gonzo]

:lol:

One of the most ridiculous notions I've ever heard. Ever.

[Loose Cannon]

When you guys talk about competition being "good" for Vince, you obviously dont understand business.

From Vince's stance, no, competiton is not what he wants. He's the sol provider of a product right now on a mainstream level and he will do whatever it takes to keep it that way probably. In his eyes, it's eathier him or fuck you and if he keeps making money, he'll risk all the fuck you's he has too.

But, on the flip side, the consumer side, competition is always good for business. Competition makes you, the owner of your business, perform at a higher level because you worry about the "other" guys breathing down your throat. Usually, when you preform at that higher level, you generate a quality product that people will want to learn more about, sample, make a purchase and then ulimately keep coming back for more.

So there's really two ways to look at it there.

Now, while we're on the subject, to go into business a little further, (and I'm going to use business lingo here) there are four stages of a product life cycle: Introduction, Growth, Maturity and Decline. Right now, to me, wrestling is sitting right between the maturity stage and the decline stage. But, here's the thing, wrestling has been there before... many times. But the WWE in particular has always managed to reposition itself in the minds of the consumers. That's the one thing that has kept them alive all these years. They changed with the times and basically introduced a new product. As soon as Vince figures out how to change his product, and I'm 100% sure he will, wrestling will boom once again. Something will just click with the fans, not a character in particular, but something about the product itself, you'll see.

[Head]

Even if that would somehow help Vince out, which it definitly wouldn't, I don't believe he can legally do it. UPN has a contract for World Wrestling Entertainment to produce two hours of programming in their given timeslot, and that contract cannot simply be given away to another company.

[The Mackem]

Ah the old product life cycle, that takes me back. Are you going to talk about the principles of Marketing, the Marketing Mix or Cash Cows next Loose Cannon?

[Heyman]

Hmmmm,

After RE-READING the thread that I created, I can honestly say that I was a bit..............high at the time. :shifty: :D


All in all however, I still think I *DO* have a point.


Is Smackdown inevitably destined to "fail?" (based on the way management itself perceives and treats Smackdown?).

If Smackdown is still making money (due to advertisers, etc.), yet still have a sub-par product (to which attendance, PPV buyrates, etc. start going WAY down), then I guess its not a big deal...........because they're still making a profit. :?:

I admittedly don't know much about the "business" side of things (which is why my initial post came across as........ridiculous :(), but it just hurts me personally (as a fan) to see that MANAGEMENT itself has limited respect for Smackdown.


I also think what REALLY hurts Smackdown right now, is that there are no real intense rivalries going on right now (or atleast the ones that the fans can care about).


I'll post more on this later.

[The CyNick]

To me, I still find SD entertaining. Because of HHH, I totally hate RAW, I just cant get into a show that's sole purpose is to pretend HHH is a "legend". SD at least has some new faces, and seems like a more entertaining product to me.

In terms of business, RAW isn't doing much better than SD, if at all. Excluding last night, SD has been doing doing higher ratings than RAW for the better part of 2 months. The last RAW PPV did worse than the last SD PPV, and attendance is about the same for the two groups. Where RAW beats out SD consistantly is in TV tapings, but I think that has a lot to do with Monday being a better night to do live events than Tuesdays. Even in the WWE's heyday, SD tapings always drew slightly less.

to LC's point:

Yeah comeptition is great for consumers, but Vince is not a consumer of wrestling. So its in his best interest to ensure nothing else gets off the ground and forms any kind of threat.

In terms of Vince turning things around, I'm not so confident. In the past he's always used ideas and stolen talent from other places in order to make his own product more successful. He took Hogan, who was already a mainstream star from AWA and built the company around him. Then he drove him into the ground and didn't turn things around until he copied Bischoff's formula for doing TV and stole Paul Heyman's concept of Attitude. Got lucky with a couple of r4eally talented guys, and bam everything was roses.

This time around, there is nothing out there that is similar to wrestling or wrestling itself that is doing well. The only thing Vince manages to do well is making money off old footage. To make matters worse there are few, if any promotions around the world that are really successful doing pro wrestling.

When you combine that with the fact that Vince seemingly has a blind spot for HHH and Steph and their inability to create an entertaining product. So they will be a major part of the company from now until forever. That also scares me.

People like to say, "oh the product was done before, but its just a matter of time before it comes back up". I am far less optimistic, almost cynical if you will. What I can see being more likely is that Vince will be able to keep the WWE so long as they can stay on TV to sell PPVs. But I dont think there's a guarantee that Vince has the creative ability to create the next big thing. And judging by what they let on TV I dont think Hunter and Steph have their finger on the pulse of what the average young male wants to see.

[Heyman]

To me, I still find SD entertaining. Because of HHH, I totally hate RAW, I just cant get into a show that's sole purpose is to pretend HHH is a "legend". SD at least has some new faces, and seems like a more entertaining product to me.

SD's definitely got some great faces, but they're short on heels (especially if Angle is hurt). I'm sorry, but there's no WAY that JBL should still be champ. Originally - the idea had SOME merit to it (if JBL's long title reign slowly made him more credible amongst the fans), but it doesn't now. JBL is still a fucking jobber! :D

Smackdown would be soooooo much better if they had a heel Lesnar on that show. :(.

In terms of business, RAW isn't doing much better than SD, if at all. Excluding last night, SD has been doing doing higher ratings than RAW for the better part of 2 months. The last RAW PPV did worse than the last SD PPV, and attendance is about the same for the two groups. Where RAW beats out SD consistantly is in TV tapings, but I think that has a lot to do with Monday being a better night to do live events than Tuesdays. Even in the WWE's heyday, SD tapings always drew slightly less.

The Last RAW PPV was Taboo Tuesday......a time in which the Red Sox/Yankees game was on.

I REALLY can't explain the TV ratings. Either UPN simply gets more viewers than TNN, or I'm COMPLETELY OFF MARK when I say that RAW looks like a far superior and developed product (and most other wrestling fans simply disagree with me).

As far as I'm concerned, I'd be interested to see what Smackdown would draw if the RAW show were in that time slot.


[QUOTE]to LC's point:

Yeah comeptition is great for consumers, but Vince is not a consumer of wrestling. So its in his best interest to ensure nothing else gets off the ground and forms any kind of threat.

In terms of Vince turning things around, I'm not so confident. In the past he's always used ideas and stolen talent from other places in order to make his own product more successful. He took Hogan, who was already a mainstream star from AWA and built the company around him. Then he drove him into the ground and didn't turn things around until he copied Bischoff's formula for doing TV and stole Paul Heyman's concept of Attitude. Got lucky with a couple of r4eally talented guys, and bam everything was roses.


This time around, there is nothing out there that is similar to wrestling or wrestling itself that is doing well. The only thing Vince manages to do well is making money off old footage. To make matters worse there are few, if any promotions around the world that are really successful doing pro wrestling.

When you combine that with the fact that Vince seemingly has a blind spot for HHH and Steph and their inability to create an entertaining product. So they will be a major part of the company from now until forever. That also scares me.

People like to say, "oh the product was done before, but its just a matter of time before it comes back up". I am far less optimistic, almost cynical if you will. What I can see being more likely is that Vince will be able to keep the WWE so long as they can stay on TV to sell PPVs. But I dont think there's a guarantee that Vince has the creative ability to create the next big thing. And judging by what they let on TV I dont think Hunter and Steph have their finger on the pulse of what the average young male wants to see.



I think those are very valid points. I wish I could comment on them, but I don't know what to say.

u stumped me. :p

[Mr. Nerfect]

I personally think that the writing staff should be compleely drafted as well. Have Brian Gerwitz and co. run RAW, and have Dave Lagana as well as Paul Heyman head up the SmackDown! staff. Don't have Stephanie McMahon interfere (have her work on RAW with her husband), and see if the two writing teams can create more original ideas for THEIR brands, instead of the WWE favouring their first child (RAW) over their second child (SmackDown!).

This way you can see how effective each writer is, and set seperate directions for each brand. Just three months of the SmackDown! team running SD! and the RAW team running RAW would allow management to see who pulls their weight, and what writers really do draw the attention.

If this all goes well, then you could probably even expand the product, by having house shows removed from the WWE's schedule, and by having two 2-hour shows for each brand a week, with two 1-hour shows airing in that week as well. So you can have RAW (2 hours), Nitro (2 hours), Heat (1 hour) and Thunder (1 hour) airing every week on the RAW side of things, and SmackDown! (2 hours), Fully Loaded (2 hours), Velocity (1 hour) and Jakked (1 hour) on the SmackDown! side of things.

While that sounds a bit cluttered at first, it allows more build-up for monthly PPVs, as well as more exposure for talent, and allows the WWE more of a chance to "compete" with itself. Vince is in no dnager of losing money, but it forces his writers to step up and start writing twice as hard. Maybe more errors with the current way the product is written will be weeded out when the opposition starts to expose it?

[Heyman]

If this all goes well, then you could probably even expand the product, by having house shows removed from the WWE's schedule, and by having two 2-hour shows for each brand a week, with two 1-hour shows airing in that week as well. So you can have RAW (2 hours), Nitro (2 hours), Heat (1 hour) and Thunder (1 hour) airing every week on the RAW side of things, and SmackDown! (2 hours), Fully Loaded (2 hours), Velocity (1 hour) and Jakked (1 hour) on the SmackDown! side of things.



:eek:

I could've sworn I was thinking the same thing (I was going to make a topic on it tommorow.........in regards to having more televised shows).

One thing that really hurts the WWE right now (IMO), is their lack of rivalries.

This lack of rivalries, is due to the lack of TV time.


Think about it:


-Back in the day, when there WAS no roster split..........wrestlers could have a 3 month long feud. That would be the equivalent of 24 shows. Even a 2 month feud would take up 16 shows worth.

Nowdays? - "24 shows" would translate into 6 months, while "16 shows" would equal 4 months.

In other words - the roster split practically makes it IMPOSSIBLE to create lengthy and memorable "rivalries" (relative to what we saw before the roster split) since there is only ONE show per week now.

Think about it --> Back in the day, we used to see TONS of rivalries......Rock/HHH, Jericho/Benoit, Angle/Austin, Vince/Austin, E/C/Dudleys/Hardy's, etc.,etc.


Now? Other than Angle/Lesnar and Triple H/HBK, how many MEMORABLE rivalries have we really seen? (there may be one or two more that I haven't mentioned, but I can think of any right now).

Chris Benoit vs. Randy Orton was built up for TWO FRIGGING WEEKS only! (the "main-event" for Summerslam.......the 2nd biggest PPV in the industry!).


Getting back to the main point, I think that's one HUGE thing that the WWE lack right now. A lot of their so-called "current" rivalries, just don't hit the g-spot in the anuses of us ol' time fans. :'(


Assuming that "rivalries" is a large part of what makes the WWE draw, then perhaps this is one of the WWE's biggest problems. :?:

[Mr. Nerfect]

:eek:

I could've sworn I was thinking the same thing (I was going to make a topic on it tommorow.........in regards to having more televised shows).

One thing that really hurts the WWE right now (IMO), is their lack of rivalries.

This lack of rivalries, is due to the lack of TV time.


Think about it:


-Back in the day, when there WAS no roster split..........wrestlers could have a 3 month long feud. That would be the equivalent of 24 shows. Even a 2 month feud would take up 16 shows worth.

Nowdays? - "24 shows" would translate into 6 months, while "16 shows" would equal 4 months.

In other words - the roster split practically makes it IMPOSSIBLE to create lengthy and memorable "rivalries" (relative to what we saw before the roster split) since there is only ONE show per week now.

Think about it --> Back in the day, we used to see TONS of rivalries......Rock/HHH, Jericho/Benoit, Angle/Austin, Vince/Austin, E/C/Dudleys/Hardy's, etc.,etc.


Now? Other than Angle/Lesnar and Triple H/HBK, how many MEMORABLE rivalries have we really seen? (there may be one or two more that I haven't mentioned, but I can think of any right now).

Chris Benoit vs. Randy Orton was built up for TWO FRIGGING WEEKS only! (the "main-event" for Summerslam.......the 2nd biggest PPV in the industry!).


Getting back to the main point, I think that's one HUGE thing that the WWE lack right now. A lot of their so-called "current" rivalries, just don't hit the g-spot in the anuses of us ol' time fans. :'(


Assuming that "rivalries" is a large part of what makes the WWE draw, then perhaps this is one of the WWE's biggest problems. :?:


I agree, 100%.

Having more shows a week allows more identity not only for the wrestlers and their rivalries/feuds, but for the brands themselves. This RAW and SmackDown! draft feels fairly "weak", IMO. By having two 2-hour shows a week, it allows the brands to try and "compete" with each other, which is something that could spring life back into the company.

[The CyNick]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Those fueds you guy are talking about were great because they had great performers and great booking. Hogan-Savage may very well be the best fued the WWE has ever done, maybe outside Austin-Rock, and they rarely appeared on TV.

In theory appearing on TV only once a week should allow fueds to go on for longer periods of time. But if you add more TV shows, you have to fill those shows with quality matches (if you dont nobody will watch) and then you'll have to give away more matches for free instead of saving them for PPV.

And one of the main reasons for the brand extension was that they felt having guys appear on TV more than once a week caused them to have a shorter shelf life, in that fans would get sick of them quicker. So if they were to decide that they dont care about that anymore, why not just kill the brand extension instead?

Further tot hat point, the WWE right now, cannot produce 2 quality shows every week, what makes anyone think it would be smart to increase that number? On top of that, if you add more product it will likely become watered down, and people will feel they can miss a show or two, and then you'll lose your audience.

Heyman, about the Taboo Tuesday PPV:

The tickets for the show were sold well before there was any knowledge of a Sox-Yanks series, much less a game 6, much less that it would be on the same day as the PPV. Plus, why would people in Milwaukee care about the Sox and the Yanks? So while you might be able to blame the game on the low buyrate (personally I dont buy that excuse), but its absolutely rediculous to blame the game on the crappy attendance.

Alienoid,

Any changes to the wirting team are pointless, because the fact of the matter is that the WWE will always be a playgorund for HHH as long as he's married to Steph. So you can put whoever you want in key positions, but the end result will still be the same.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Those fueds you guy are talking about were great because they had great performers and great booking. Hogan-Savage may very well be the best fued the WWE has ever done, maybe outside Austin-Rock, and they rarely appeared on TV.

In theory appearing on TV only once a week should allow fueds to go on for longer periods of time. But if you add more TV shows, you have to fill those shows with quality matches (if you dont nobody will watch) and then you'll have to give away more matches for free instead of saving them for PPV.

And one of the main reasons for the brand extension was that they felt having guys appear on TV more than once a week caused them to have a shorter shelf life, in that fans would get sick of them quicker. So if they were to decide that they dont care about that anymore, why not just kill the brand extension instead?

Further tot hat point, the WWE right now, cannot produce 2 quality shows every week, what makes anyone think it would be smart to increase that number? On top of that, if you add more product it will likely become watered down, and people will feel they can miss a show or two, and then you'll lose your audience.

Heyman, about the Taboo Tuesday PPV:

The tickets for the show were sold well before there was any knowledge of a Sox-Yanks series, much less a game 6, much less that it would be on the same day as the PPV. Plus, why would people in Milwaukee care about the Sox and the Yanks? So while you might be able to blame the game on the low buyrate (personally I dont buy that excuse), but its absolutely rediculous to blame the game on the crappy attendance.

Alienoid,

Any changes to the wirting team are pointless, because the fact of the matter is that the WWE will always be a playgorund for HHH as long as he's married to Steph. So you can put whoever you want in key positions, but the end result will still be the same.

I agree there were some great performers in those classic feuds, but Carlito/Cena has just as much potential. It is my opinion that the number of shows required changes with the wrestling age, and Hogan/Savage was done just right for that period of time, and Austin/Rock was done just as well for that period of time, but it seems now that with only one show a week, the build-up is not as good as any of those previously mentioned feuds.

One show a week, IMO, is not frequent enough to become a part of the wrestler's everyday life, nor is it enough to make it seem important enough. By having two major shows a week, with equal build-up, and good quality matches you create the feel that the shows can't be missed. The WWE won't give away any special matches, simply because the whole idea would be to allow more emphasis on those who usually miss out. STeven Richards, Val Venis, Eugene, William Regal, La Resistance, The Hurricane, Rosey, Simon Dean, Muhammad Hassan & Khasrow Daivari have more room to develope and to wrestle. One show a week is too cluttered for these guys to develope personas and to wrestle good quality matches.

With 8 hours build-up for every PPV for both brands, you can rush through more feuds, but still have them seem important. It also makes it seem as if wrestling are these peoples' lives, not just their occupation. It would allow PPVs like Bad Blood to be more meaningful, and the main PPVs like Summerslam, Survivor Series & especially WrestleMania would be twice as impactful as they are now.

And if they isolated the writing teams, and prevented Stephanie McMahon and Triple H from meddling with SmackDown!, then it would certainly see if Patterson was right with his evaluation. Maybe they could give Shane McMahon control of SmackDown!, and Stephanie McMahon/Triple H control of RAW, and we will see which one deserves to run the WWE when Vince decides to pass it on?

I doubt they would split the writing teams, but I think even Vinnie Mac knows deep down he's letting his family control too much of the WWE. If he did split the writing teams, it would be a good way to cull the power they have over the WWE.