Nash Released?

**Next Big Thing** · 09-10-2011, 09:43 AM

Just to go OT a little regarding Daniel Bryan:

Kane Knight has a point in the sense that, as a publicly held company, the WWE's ability to "work" the audience has limits.

Most people who buy stock in a company aren't doing it as fanboys, they're doing it to profit and consequently are more focused on revenue and cashflow than they are storylines. That's even if they are familiar with the product. So when something comes up like the Daniel Bryan situation, where WWE actively presents itself as PG to the audience, sponsors and investors and then does something that goes completely against that, it puts the revenue and cashflow at risk because those sponsors who contribute to WWE's bottom line may not be sponsors in the future. That's the kind of unnecessary risk that WWE has an obligation as a public company to not expose shareholders to. You can't just say to sponsors or shareholders "We're a different kind of entertainment so you should have known we'd have a guy choke someone with their own tie and spit on our top star despite us making sure everyone knows we're PG now."

As fans we may enjoy it, but we've still got to consider the business implications of some of these "works" because to a certain extent they do influence how far storylines and characters can go.

09-10-2011, 09:43 AM	#17
Next Big Thing Posts: 4,839	Just to go OT a little regarding Daniel Bryan: Kane Knight has a point in the sense that, as a publicly held company, the WWE's ability to "work" the audience has limits. Most people who buy stock in a company aren't doing it as fanboys, they're doing it to profit and consequently are more focused on revenue and cashflow than they are storylines. That's even if they are familiar with the product. So when something comes up like the Daniel Bryan situation, where WWE actively presents itself as PG to the audience, sponsors and investors and then does something that goes completely against that, it puts the revenue and cashflow at risk because those sponsors who contribute to WWE's bottom line may not be sponsors in the future. That's the kind of unnecessary risk that WWE has an obligation as a public company to not expose shareholders to. You can't just say to sponsors or shareholders "We're a different kind of entertainment so you should have known we'd have a guy choke someone with their own tie and spit on our top star despite us making sure everyone knows we're PG now." As fans we may enjoy it, but we've still got to consider the business implications of some of these "works" because to a certain extent they do influence how far storylines and characters can go.