Thread: THREE HOUR TIMESLOT IS KILLING RAW—PERIOD
View Single Post
Old 08-15-2014, 10:18 PM   #16
Mr. Nerfect
 
Posts: 61,524
Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
The duration of a program doesn't affect the quality, but in a world where the WWE is still running PPVs once a month, you're almost cramming as much into a RAW as SummerSlam some nights. In theory, having such stacked RAWs could negatively affect PPV business and the WWE Network.

I have never understood why the WWE has "B-shows." When you've got Superstars, Main Event and SmackDown to also cram content into, you have plenty of time in a week to showcase a lot of talent and give them meaningful developments. Yet the WWE actually chooses to make Superstars almost entirely irrelevant to the ongoings of RAW. And recently SmackDown has been used as a trial ground for promos and matches to later air on RAW. Everything Chris Jericho said to Bray Wyatt in their "One-on-One" this week was said in a backstage interview with Renee Young on SmackDown, for example.

I think everything the WWE is doing is working for them. It seems somewhat sustainable and every week on RAW you have one segment advertised for Main Event and SmackDown. It's very robotic and a bit of a pattern-holder though. I don't think allows much room for exciting growth. But the WWE may not be after that.
Mr. Nerfect is offline   Reply With Quote