Thread: Does it even make sense to have a Network wrestling show?
View Single Post
Old 05-30-2007, 09:49 AM   #11
Kane Knight
Ron Paul 4 EVA
 
Kane Knight's Avatar
 
Posts: 152,467
Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alienoid06
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.
Kane Knight is offline   Reply With Quote