Does it even make sense to have a Network wrestling show?

[Kane Knight]

Let's face it, folks: On Cable, WWE are the big dog. Even in their current state, they're almost always in the top ten for cable ratings. But even on Smackdown's BEST day, it wouldn't even come close to the charts.

Think it's even really worth it? I mean, it's gotta be nice to have a second show, but that's GOT to be a small piece of the pie for them.

[IC Champion]

So get rid of Smackdown or move it to cable?

[Kane Knight]

Well, I was thinking more the latter.

I mean, network gets more coverage, but it doesn't seem to be much benefit as-is. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Xero]

I would imagine that having a network show appeals to investors, bad ratings or not.

If you have an 8 year run on a network it's going to look better than if they only had one every so often.

[IC Champion]

Well, I was thinking more the latter.

I mean, network gets more coverage, but it doesn't seem to be much benefit as-is. Maybe I'm wrong.
I was hopin the former

[Kane Knight]

Cancelling Smackdown is probably about the same as moving it. at this point.

[St. Jimmy]

Putting SmackDown on cable takes away most of the restrictions that make SmackDown terrible.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think it makes sense. I mean, the line between Network and Cable is getting thinner and thinner, but it does sound good to have a show on NBC. Whether or not it is a good idea to put a horrible show on Network TV is another question, though.

[Kane Knight]

Talking SNME is all well and good, Noid, but not exactly what was mentioned.

Also, the line between Network and Cable is not thinning. If anything, the cable prices are enforcing that difference.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Talking SNME is all well and good, Noid, but not exactly what was mentioned.

Also, the line between Network and Cable is not thinning. If anything, the cable prices are enforcing that difference.

Hmm, you might be right about that, but I've read numerous articles about Network TV becoming "dated" by Cable and other technological advancements. I guess price would make it inaccessible for a lot of potential consumers, though.

But rolling with that point, let's have a look at who the WWE's target audience is. I mean, let's face it: Idiots. I know a lot of idiots have Cable, and that rednecks probably love to watch whatever bullshit they can get their hands on, and thus might already have access to the WWE, but it's one of those living expenses that is probably first cut when idiots have to pay child support, and parking tickets, and whatnot. A free TV show, providing they got the right timeslot (not on a Friday or Saturday night) could actually work out for the WWE.

[Mr. Nerfect]

So yeah, what I think it comes down to are these two questions:

1) Are there more idiots with cable than without it?

2) Are idiots willing to watch wrestling, or is the pendulum on wrestling still too far over on the "uncool" side?

[Kane Knight]

Hmm, you might be right about that, but I've read numerous articles about Network TV becoming "dated" by Cable and other technological advancements. I guess price would make it inaccessible for a lot of potential consumers, though.

But rolling with that point, let's have a look at who the WWE's target audience is. I mean, let's face it: Idiots. I know a lot of idiots have Cable, and that rednecks probably love to watch whatever bullshit they can get their hands on, and thus might already have access to the WWE, but it's one of those living expenses that is probably first cut when idiots have to pay child support, and parking tickets, and whatnot. A free TV show, providing they got the right timeslot (not on a Friday or Saturday night) could actually work out for the WWE.

Well, ratings for Friday Night Smackdown are not much different from recent Thursday Nights, and they're not good. Getting a 2 or 3.Anything on cable, ESPECIALLY on a dead night like Friday, means for all intents and purposes, nobody is watching you. Hell, their FREE show looks to be drawing fewer viewers than their pay show, which should tell you something. Now, sometimes, it's not their fault. Network also means pre-emptings for sports and such, much of the year. But still, it kind of shows they can't draw with the free show.

Now maybe there is a benefit to their portfolio to be on network, but I can't imagine any investor saying "Wow...CW...Do they draw numbers like CSI?"

The thing is, you're talking Network TV, of which there are only about a dozen participants. WWE dominates on Cable, where there are dozens, often above fifty distinct competitors. Its only solid competition, if you don't count HBO and similar stations, is Nickelodeon, and they're vying for a hugely different audience.

But the guys in Network mostly compete for the same demographics, the same people, and the good shows regularly pull in 10s. By good, I mean popular. Reruns of House school Smackdown.

It's clear that, given a choice on free TV, WWE isn't it. It wasn't before the move to Friday Nights, and it certainly ain't getting better.

[IC Champion]

What Kane Knight said, WWE can own cable, but on Networks, its just sad, and RAW almost always finishes at the top of the cable ratings.