Think WWE is going to switch to smaller venues again?
 

Watching Raw from tonight, I noticed a few patches of empty seats. Not like a ghost town or anything, but the last few weeks I've noticed that they have started to show. Mostly the nosebleeds, obviously.

WWE's financial reports have been saying the same thing (for the most part) over the last couple years...Attendance down, buys down, revenues up, ticket prices up. Think they're going to go the route they did before, and we're in for some belt tightening ahead?

Wouldn't be surprised.

Would've thought the answer would be to make their shows better, but NOOOO, ofcourse not!

Could it just be THAT time of the year?

Not only holiday season, but do people really want to go out in miserably cold weather?

Mitchell Cole said it was a sell-out crowd!

Coudl be, but as I stated, even WWE's own numbers are saying attendences have been down for more than just the Christmas season. People will go out and see the show, even in this weather and this season, if the product is something worth it to them.

I must admit that when either RAW or Smackdown! have toured here in the past that I have gone to see the show.

However, haven't done so in the last two years because, as you rightly put it, the product hasn't seemed to be worth it.

Guess going PG is failing again like it does when any promotion tries it since the hogan era.

Actually I think they have already started doing so.

If I remember, they moved a Smackdown taping from the Q in Cleveland to a smaller arena. And they are doing it with others as well, but I forget all of the details.

fixed!

Yeah, I think they've been opting to go to smaller arenas instead of the massive places unless it's for a big PPV (like Summerslam, for example). I really don't think the company will run smaller shows completely, just for appearances sake, but house shows, regular tv shows, etc. will continue to run in smaller venues.

I'm not sure whether or not we will see a noticeable difference in coming weeks, though. As stated, the downward spiral has been going on for years. I guess marketing to kids was the right move after all, ay?

Is Michael Cole Mitchell Cole's brother? How long has he been employed by the WWE? What work has he done before being called up? Does he also have a degree in journalism?

And the "foreign" markets are somewhat different, but even reports from the UK have said they're no longer selling out, and they were a decent market. WWE only makes so many tours overseas, so if you want to see them in Italy, Australia, or California ( :shifty: ), your options are limited. But even then, one of their solutions was to tour overseas more, so I'm assuming the novelty is wearing off.

They were in New Hampshire for christ sake.

They do New Hampshire pretty often, actually. They did it even when they were big in the Attitude Era, given that's one of the places I saw them most when I still went to live events and gave a shit.

Now, when they go back to doing Vermont dates, we'll talk.

I can't wait until they have RAW bumpers saying "WWE is the only wrestling organization to sell out every high school gymnasium in Rhode Island."

"Last week, Superstar CM Punk outpopped the Leland and Gray Rebels in Townshend's second largest venue."

I hope they don't. There is nothing better than watching RAW live from the Garden on television.

I don't think they'll stop going to the hot spot arenas. Apparently the Garden house show this past weekend was a sell-out. That's impressive in this day and age. But for the other, more far-out areas they will be and currently are scaling back, aside from PPVs.

The WWE is money hungry, so no.

That's the reason why they ARE scaling back. There are reports from arenas where entire upper-bowls are tarped off. They're paying more money for a 20k arena when they're only drawing 10-15k.

Spinner Belt.

If Shawn Michaels was champion we'd be in a boom period.

Xero hit these points, but still....

They will NEVER stop going to MSG or similar venues. We're talking about their regular touring schedule, not the big points.

That makes no sense. You do smaller venues because you can't draw the numbers for larger venues and are effectively wasting money. WWE's done this recently, actually, only a few years back.

Those big venues are starting to showabsences, and that hurts WWE and really any touring group/company/whatever.

I think it's more likely the WWE are too proud to admit this, and keep shooting for larger arenas, and just convince themself it was that Paul London guy they released a few weeks back who was responsible for the low attendance the last time they were in town.

But they would be wise to stop paying for larger venues when they just cannot afford to pay it back with the revenue they take in.

This would be relevant if they weren't already scaling back...

:y:

Also, as a public business with shareholders to account to, I doubt they're going to be too "proud" to scale back. After all, I doubt many shareholders care too much about ratings and buys, but when they see those numbers in the minus column, they will certainly care.

One of the major draws of WWE's stock is it's a pretty solid moneymaker. Cut that out, and you really don't have much of anything.

Yeah, Cena can't just steamroll the entire NASDAQ.

Switching to smaller venues would probably not be a bad idea, but it seems too much like an admission of defeat for Vince McMahon to agree to it.

I would do smaller arenas because of the image of making it look sold out, plus the noise factor can help. Cheers won't seem faint, boos won't seem weak, and overall reactions will sound alot better.

Oh shit, son...Never put the odds against Cena....

Aside from them having already done so in the past, I think the bigger admission of defeat might come from reporting losses that the company would have to justify.

Well, first off, WWE is failing in the UK because they book about 14 shows between the 2 brands in the week they are here, and i could drive from the 2 most distant arenas booked in about 4 hours. Its blaitant over-saturation.

As for the states, there is no point in using a 20k arena to draw 8,000 fans to a house show. As for TV, They have a very large set design, which can only fit in certain buildings, and there must be a deal between WWE and the Arenas they are in that is worth something, or they wouldn't put cameras outside the venues and tell the audience where the show is coming from all the time.

I'm fairly sure that Vince has been using most arenas in the circuit in USA for about 15 years, or since they were built from there onwards. With that said, nobody or no business books as many shows as McMahon in as many buildings. So I would think that the cost of hiring the use of the venues is already at a heavily discounted rate, and to go to an arena that has 7,000 less seats to fill, but they have never once used I would guess could cost about the same ammount to hire. But then the attendance is capped.

I guess, in a nutshell. What i'm saying is that if Vince is getting the best deals on venue hire, then the show production costs would hardly be any different if they went to smaller unfamiliar places.

I'd rather they have smaller venues for Raw and Smackdown and then have bigger arena for the PPVs, it would give it a more "big event" feel and also the smaller crowds are usually more hot.

They never will, but they should go back to the Hammersmith with a good, wrestling card.

I don't know, maybe it's because I'm in Mexico and I haven't been able to watch regularly for the past 2 weeks, but... they're scaling back????

Which they were doing because they were a gravy train, so they stepped it up. But they're not just oversaturating the UK market, they're killing the overseas interest in all but the most hardcore wrestling fan locales...

Doing smaller house shows would probably be a good step. However, WWE is not so constrained by their set that they can't do smaller areans...They've done them before in recent history, so there's obviously some level of play.

Which is a lot of assumption, and yes, if it's all correct, he's probably better off. However, I kind of doubt that.

I agree. Currently, what';s keeping them seeing increases is that they've raised ticket and PPV prices. I think merch costs more on average, too, but I can't remember.

All the house shows I could find were at least fifty bucks. Not as bad as yours, but then, our economy's shit right now. Those were the worst possible seats available. Prices actually step up fast, so if you want to, like, see the show, it's gonna cost you more.

At this point, price cuts probably won't be enough even when it comes to that point. They're losing interest in their live shows. And while there is a huge merch market, there's a decent chance that the samages to their live business might be irreperable. Note, I said "chance," before anyone leaps on me for predicting doom.

Anyway, I agree. I'm just driving home the longevity issue. There may be no timely way to bring the fans back to the venues. TV shows and live attendences help drive the merch sales, so....