TPWW Forums - View Single Post

**The CyNick** · 10-11-2004, 06:20 PM

Wow, tough (good) question/topic.

I guess the easiest way to bring some quick interest in the product would be to re-unite the rosters, and work an Invasion type angle, culminating with unified champions and one roster.

But the problem with that is that I think its a short term thing, and its unlikely the WWE will go that route as long as they still have outlets for RAW and SD to air on.

But the brand extension complicates things even further because back in the day they only needed one key central angle with a couple of key stars to get people interested. But now, with two brands, you could in theory have a scenario where RAW hits on a killer angle while SD lags behind, or vice versa. So in essence they need to hit on two angles and get top guys over on both shows in order to maximize profits and really see the benefit of the brand extension.

So with that in mind, I think there needs to be different formulas used on SD and RAW. If they run the same angles on both shows it will get stale, and at that point they might as well bring the rosters together.

Ive been saying for a while that they need to look at their viewers' demographics more carefully and play off that. I heard something on WOL last night that said the first part of RAW the average age of the viewers was around 40. Yet the WWE seems to continually gear the product towards a younger demo, even though it seems those people are no longer watching.

As far as angle goes, its tough.

I think the best angles are the ones that are based partly on realism and partly on what is going on in society today. Thats what really made the Austin-McMahon thing so great. McMahon really was "da boss" and that had never really been played off on TV. On top of that, people loved the idea of seeing their hero Steve Austin kick the boss' ass. Everyone could relate to that. On top of that, the WWE had their pulse on the audience by giving them a hero who didn't smile and kiss babies, he flipped people off and whipped ass. In contrast Hulk Hogan came up during the late stages of the Cold War, and the idea of the American Hero who fought the giant enemies (maybe a representation of the power of the Soviet Union) went over like gangbusters.

Society has changed somewhat since 2001. I think people are more open to the more traditional type of hero, the guy who does the right thing and stands up to evil. I guess 9/11 had a lot to do with that change, in general it just seems with crack downs on obsenities on TV and the like, that people have moved away from a guy like Austin getting over being so rebellious.

If you look at movies, more and more, the movies that do well are fantasy stories, superhero movies, and cartoons appealing to kids. But does that or can that translate into wrestling?

I know that doesn't answer the question, in that I haven't given an angle, but its just some stuff to consider when throwing out ideas.

10-11-2004, 06:20 PM	#4
The CyNick Make the IWC Great Again Posts: 8,922	Wow, tough (good) question/topic. I guess the easiest way to bring some quick interest in the product would be to re-unite the rosters, and work an Invasion type angle, culminating with unified champions and one roster. But the problem with that is that I think its a short term thing, and its unlikely the WWE will go that route as long as they still have outlets for RAW and SD to air on. But the brand extension complicates things even further because back in the day they only needed one key central angle with a couple of key stars to get people interested. But now, with two brands, you could in theory have a scenario where RAW hits on a killer angle while SD lags behind, or vice versa. So in essence they need to hit on two angles and get top guys over on both shows in order to maximize profits and really see the benefit of the brand extension. So with that in mind, I think there needs to be different formulas used on SD and RAW. If they run the same angles on both shows it will get stale, and at that point they might as well bring the rosters together. Ive been saying for a while that they need to look at their viewers' demographics more carefully and play off that. I heard something on WOL last night that said the first part of RAW the average age of the viewers was around 40. Yet the WWE seems to continually gear the product towards a younger demo, even though it seems those people are no longer watching. As far as angle goes, its tough. I think the best angles are the ones that are based partly on realism and partly on what is going on in society today. Thats what really made the Austin-McMahon thing so great. McMahon really was "da boss" and that had never really been played off on TV. On top of that, people loved the idea of seeing their hero Steve Austin kick the boss' ass. Everyone could relate to that. On top of that, the WWE had their pulse on the audience by giving them a hero who didn't smile and kiss babies, he flipped people off and whipped ass. In contrast Hulk Hogan came up during the late stages of the Cold War, and the idea of the American Hero who fought the giant enemies (maybe a representation of the power of the Soviet Union) went over like gangbusters. Society has changed somewhat since 2001. I think people are more open to the more traditional type of hero, the guy who does the right thing and stands up to evil. I guess 9/11 had a lot to do with that change, in general it just seems with crack downs on obsenities on TV and the like, that people have moved away from a guy like Austin getting over being so rebellious. If you look at movies, more and more, the movies that do well are fantasy stories, superhero movies, and cartoons appealing to kids. But does that or can that translate into wrestling? I know that doesn't answer the question, in that I haven't given an angle, but its just some stuff to consider when throwing out ideas.