Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NeanderCarl
Well we all moan and bitch about how bad the TV shows have been, but there is no pressing incentive for WWE to hugely improve them. They are two hour long advertisements for PPVs and house shows, nothing more.
Until TNA, UFC or some other comparable company decides to challenge WWE in a head-to-head slot, we are unlikely to see things change. Raw, ECW and Smackdown are action infomercials.
|
...Yes...As long as you ignore the fact that their veiwership has radically declined over the past year alone, and that effects sponsors (Which keep them in business), it affects where your "commercial" is shown, and it affects how many people buy your product when the PPV comes around. The last one being inconvenient to you, I'm sure. Mostly because it's contrary to your argument that the commercial doesn't matter (Which is wrong).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NeanderCarl
Plus, regarding Vermont: WWE didn't have two, or sometimes even three, touring brands in the pre-Attitude era... with more available shows, they will tour venues they would have neglected in the past because they will burn out the regular towns by playing there too often.
The WWF of the mid/late 80s also had 'B' Shows and sometimes 'C' Shows, which would play in high school gyms and small concert halls, and this was during the Hogan boom.
|
Man oh man, I tell ya, they didn't have two brands, but they had a healthy house show roster, both pre- and during attitude era. They didn't tour here then, even with house shows.
Meanwhile, this argument is rather moot, as it ignores that the size of their televised venues has gone down, too.
They don't have to shrink their over all venue size so as not to "burn out." There are plenty of larger venues, and more are being built. There are more large venues in more diverse areas than the Attitude Era, why don't they tour them? Oh right, attendence is down, seat revenues are down, etc.
I'd also point out the number of Supershows, which actually limits the extra capacity by putting all the brands in one place at one time (to save money, which goes back to my argument), and the fact that ECW still doesn't have a real house show schedule (It last what...2 months? 3?), so even saying "sometimes" they have 3 is a bit of a joke. They have Tuseday Night Heat, which tours with Smackdown, tapes with Smackdown, and has no distinguishable house show planning las I checked. Anyway, I'd say all that, but I think my point stands without it.
Though I would like to point out that the artificial roster split still doesn't leave them with enough people to reliably do a Royal Rumble, let alone tour as aggressively as they once did. They've been forced to cut back on their wrestlers to make sure they keep making profit.