Quote:
Originally Posted by AJ
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but when people claim that going PG helped WWE, they mean sponsor wise...they were going to begin to lose a lot of sponsors if they continued with the TV-14 content.
|
I don't necessarily buy this argument. Would they have lost SOME sponsors? Sure. Especially if they had pushed the limits of TV14 and started to go really beyond into some seriously adult content. However, I don't recall any significant trouble with sponsors from 1998-2002. If anything they had more problems with parental/television/violence organizations, like the Parents Television Council, but not with sponsors. I recall numerous adult brand/product sponsors during the Attitude era.
Now, did PG help them get bigger, better paying upfront sponsors and other financial opportunities? Sure, but at the cost of their own content, content control, ratings and fans. Sure, now they have a large line of toys and more toy sales compared to what they had in the Attitude era days, and I'm sure they get a larger sponsorship and royalty check too from Mattell.
I get it, I truly do. Almost all major companies eventually sacrifice financial profit and growth over consumer growth and loyalty, in some form or fashion. It doesn't mean I have to be happy about it though. Especially when it comes down to profits vs poor product.