DISCUSSION - The current WWE era and their failed strategy to "make everyone look credible."

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Damian Rey Don't you remember the pushes they got after doing so fan? That's how you build credible headliners. Losing is failing in an upward direction.

So everyone being pushed should be on undefeated streaks?

[DAMN iNATOR]

Originally Posted by The CyNick So everyone being pushed should be on undefeated streaks?

No, but they SHOULD win singles matches more than barely over 70% of the time.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick So everyone being pushed should be on undefeated streaks?

A) For fuck's sake, he didn't say that. Seriously, you seem to enjoy arguing, but learn to stop using ad hominem arguments.

and

B) You know what? It doesn't matter as much in WWE or how guys are presented in American professional wrestling, but in Japan, when guys are figured in to be in the main event portion of a big show, they DON'T lose heading into it. I think it was last year that a whole bunch of top Japanese stars didn't lose a match from September-January.

What this does is put momentum behind all the top stars in the company. If you're going to be a top star, then there needs to be guys that just can't beat you. This is why, yes, a ladder system is completely appropriate. It doesn't mean they won't one day climb the ladder themselves, but you need to have pillars that are built, so that when they clash, something has got to give. This is how you build up huge stars to have matches against each other to translate that tension into revenue.

This used to be the way professional wrestling in America worked too. Different times? In some senses, but not in others. NXT -- the most critically acclaimed program the WWE has under its umbrella -- still exploits this method, and has a lot of success generating serious interest for his NXT Takeover shows.

Things like having a three-hour RAW get in the way. Creatively, that has to be one of the most annoying and draining things to the WWE right now. It's harder to leave guys off shows and hold interest with squash matches for that long. But I'm sure that if you really wanted to make people care about Dolph Ziggler vs. Tyler Breeze, you don't need to have them wrestle each other every week on RAW. Or across from each other in tag matches. Or also against other people in clusterfucks. You could have Tyler Breeze wrestle a match, win it. You can then have Ziggler wrestle a match, win it. You can then have one guy promo. You can then have one guy retort.

This stuff works, CyNick. Having every guy on every show win and lose an even number of matches does nothing for anybody. Except for maybe John Cena, who the company needs to count on for longer yet. But at some point it's going to be more of a curse than a blessing for the guy.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid A) For fuck's sake, he didn't say that. Seriously, you seem to enjoy arguing, but learn to stop using ad hominem arguments. and B) You know what? It doesn't matter as much in WWE or how guys are presented in American professional wrestling, but in Japan, when guys are figured in to be in the main event portion of a big show, they DON'T lose heading into it. I think it was last year that a whole bunch of top Japanese stars didn't lose a match from September-January. What this does is put momentum behind all the top stars in the company. If you're going to be a top star, then there needs to be guys that just can't beat you. This is why, yes, a ladder system is completely appropriate. It doesn't mean they won't one day climb the ladder themselves, but you need to have pillars that are built, so that when they clash, something has got to give. This is how you build up huge stars to have matches against each other to translate that tension into revenue. This used to be the way professional wrestling in America worked too. Different times? In some senses, but not in others. NXT -- the most critically acclaimed program the WWE has under its umbrella -- still exploits this method, and has a lot of success generating serious interest for his NXT Takeover shows. Things like having a three-hour RAW get in the way. Creatively, that has to be one of the most annoying and draining things to the WWE right now. It's harder to leave guys off shows and hold interest with squash matches for that long. But I'm sure that if you really wanted to make people care about Dolph Ziggler vs. Tyler Breeze, you don't need to have them wrestle each other every week on RAW. Or across from each other in tag matches. Or also against other people in clusterfucks. You could have Tyler Breeze wrestle a match, win it. You can then have Ziggler wrestle a match, win it. You can then have one guy promo. You can then have one guy retort. This stuff works, CyNick. Having every guy on every show win and lose an even number of matches does nothing for anybody. Except for maybe John Cena, who the company needs to count on for longer yet. But at some point it's going to be more of a curse than a blessing for the guy.

I gotta admit, I have no idea what ad hominem means. I hear it now and then, but goes over my head.

People say Kobashi vs ishawa is the greatest match of all time. People always claim that this is one of the greatest matches of all time. I have to admit I just don't care for these types of matches. I can't even get through entire matches, and I've tried on several occasions. I feel like Japanese wrestling insists upon itself. I try to get into it, but it's like they are speaking another language. I just for care for it, give me Spirit Squad vs DX any day. I feel their booking style holds no relevance for what WWE is trying to portray.

NXT only has one hour of TV per week and appeals to a niche audience. Look at their avg attendance for house shows. It's apples and oranges. On top of that, it's a feeder system, so it's easier to build guys up, have then peak, and then they are gone. That's not the case in WWE. In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of.

I'm sure writing 3 hours of RAW and 2 hours of SD is tough, but it's necessary. These other companies - Japan, shitty territories back in the day were not companies that were worth well over a billion dollars and employeed a small towns worth of people. If you want to recommend the WWE makes less money, sure you could make the booking to appeal to a smaller group of people.

You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about. WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. They are a billion dollar plus company, traded on wall street, one of the leading brands in social media, have been a top show on cable for more than 2 decades. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by The CyNick WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

Except for the last 10+ years where they haven't created any new stars, basically since they've gotten and stayed further and further away from the ladder system mentioned above.

Originally Posted by The CyNick You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about.

No you don't have to turn all TV into squash matches. All we're saying is don't have two guys basically rehash the same segments and matches week after week just because they're feuding. And no, adding tag matches or clusterfuck multiman tag team matches are not variants when you also have those matches repeatedly. No one is saying you can't have feuding guys have the occasional match on TV, just don't do it EVERY week. For example, have guys face jobbers/lowercard guys every other week instead of having the same matches/segments every week.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ Except for the last 10+ years where they haven't created any new stars, basically since they've gotten and stayed further and further away from the ladder system mentioned above. No you don't have to turn all TV into squash matches. All we're saying is don't have two guys basically rehash the same segments and matches week after week just because they're feuding. And no, adding tag matches or clusterfuck multiman tag team matches are not variants when you have also those matches repeatedly. No one is saying you can't have feuding guys have the occasional match on TV, just don't do it EVERY week. For example, have guys face jobbers/lowercard guys every other week instead of having the same matches/segments every week.

They haven't created new stars since 05? Lol

Right so you're essentially suggesting a lot more squash matches. Nobody is going to believe Zack Ryder can beat Kevin Owens. Eventually that will lead to people knowing you can skip segment after segment. And do you want Owens v Ryder in an 8 minute match? In theory squashes are quick, so you will need more of them. Soon RAW would have 30 matches per show. What a trainwreck that would be.

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Right so you're essentially suggesting a lot more squash matches. Nobody is going to believe Zack Ryder can beat Kevin Owens. Eventually that will lead to people knowing you can skip segment after segment. And do you want Owens v Ryder in an 8 minute match? In theory squashes are quick, so you will need more of them. Soon RAW would have 30 matches per show. What a trainwreck that would be.

Again, you're making assumptions, I didn't say anything about squash matches. I simply said have different matches outside of basically the same matches every week. Sure, some weeks they might be squashes, some weeks they might be a more competitive match with someone else at or a little above or below the talent's level on the card, and some weeks they'll have a match involving who they're feuding with. The point isn't to have all squash matches, the point is to quit having the same repetitive matches every week that result in me no longer watching and not building anyone.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ Again, you're making assumptions, I didn't say anything about squash matches. I simply said have different matches outside of basically the same matches every week. Sure, some weeks they might be squashes, some weeks they might be a more competitive match with someone else at or a little above or below the talent's level on the card, and some weeks they'll have a match involving who they're feuding with. The point isn't to have all squash matches, the point is to quit having the same repetitive matches every week that result in me no longer watching and not building anyone.

New guys get built every year. Do you think The Shield got over by mistake? Ambrose loses matches, he's still over. Bray loses TONS of matches, he's over. New Day are more established in the last 3 months than their entire careers combined. Kevin Owens is moving up the card.

You're looking at things from the perspective of the 1% of the WWE Universe. I don't believe the average fan sits there and goes "Ryback has only won 75% off his matches, he should be winning 93.5% in order for me to care about him". They just look at his character, his promos, his look, his skills, and determine if he's worth caring about.

I agree that in long term programs the matches can get repititive, but it's a tough balancing act. If you wait till just before a PPV to announce matches, people chirp about on the fly booking and no long term planning. When they have long drawn out feuds where guys are battling week after week people say "we've seen these guys fight too many times". Like a lot of things with the IWC you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. The kicker is the IWC represents such a small fraction of the audience, and are the most loyal, that you waste time appealing to their whims.

When you need to build 7-8 programs every month, it's tough to ensure everyone in those matches are on winning streaks and not fighting one another. Look at tag teams. How many teams can you have at one time? 5 or 6? If New Day is fighting The Dudleys how do you get 8 TV shots without a lot of either singles matches or 6-8 man tags to keep the program going? Do you job every other team to those two teams fighting for the championships? If you do that, who is left to contend next month?

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick I gotta admit, I have no idea what ad hominem means. I hear it now and then, but goes over my head. People say Kobashi vs ishawa is the greatest match of all time. People always claim that this is one of the greatest matches of all time. I have to admit I just don't care for these types of matches. I can't even get through entire matches, and I've tried on several occasions. I feel like Japanese wrestling insists upon itself. I try to get into it, but it's like they are speaking another language. I just for care for it, give me Spirit Squad vs DX any day. I feel their booking style holds no relevance for what WWE is trying to portray. NXT only has one hour of TV per week and appeals to a niche audience. Look at their avg attendance for house shows. It's apples and oranges. On top of that, it's a feeder system, so it's easier to build guys up, have then peak, and then they are gone. That's not the case in WWE. In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of. I'm sure writing 3 hours of RAW and 2 hours of SD is tough, but it's necessary. These other companies - Japan, shitty territories back in the day were not companies that were worth well over a billion dollars and employeed a small towns worth of people. If you want to recommend the WWE makes less money, sure you could make the booking to appeal to a smaller group of people. You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about. WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. They are a billion dollar plus company, traded on wall street, one of the leading brands in social media, have been a top show on cable for more than 2 decades. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

I'm not going to address the whole thing, because most of it is just...yeck, but I will correct you: No, squash matches aren't the only way to do that. John Cena has been very well protected, as has Randy Orton, as has The Undertaker, as is Brock Lesnar now. When Roman Reigns got pinned at Elimination Chamber '14, it was his second ever pinfall loss in WWE. That's 15 months into his WWE stint. Look at what the WWE did with Rusev.

The idea that you have to do squashes to keep guys strong is false. I would do more squashes, don't get me wrong. I think some of the girls could really get something out of it. Bring in Evie to put over the new heel Paige as she builds momentum for Charlotte and the Divas Title. Maybe you've heard of the KISS method? Keep It Simple, Stupid.

You say NXT appeals to a niche audience? I think NXT appeals to a niche of the WWE audience, but I think the WWE appeals to a niche of the television audience. Less people are watching wrestling than almost ever before, and a lot of that might have to do with the things that violate that KISS method, and be results from the Russo-led hot-shotting during the Attitude era, and the soap opera residue that people are now conditioned to and see right through. Why the fuck are there cameras in Triple H and Stephanie's office as they are talking about their evil schemes?

So, yes, NXT appeals to a niche section of the WWE audience -- because it's wrestling, and not so much the circus.

"In WWE you ideally want to create characters that resonate with fans and you can get a decade or more of stories out of."

YES! That is why the WWE fucking sucks at the moment -- they're not doing that! Progress! I suppose.

[Blonde Moment]

Originally Posted by The CyNick You can't constantly have guys on these winning streaks unless you turn all TV into squash matches. Maybe that's the way to go. I wouldn't do it, but it's the only way to accomplish what you are talking about. WWE has year after year created new stars for well over 50 years. They are a billion dollar plus company, traded on wall street, one of the leading brands in social media, have been a top show on cable for more than 2 decades. I'm pretty sure they don't need advice on how to create stars and build programs. But hey, maybe that's just ad hominem.

What they are doing now is simply not working, it is doing the exact opposite. It is the reason why aside from John Cena they have part timers. They need to have the occasional jobber in there, perhap rather than wrestle every week they sit in during a match and talk smack and maybe even cost someone a match that way.... to further the feud rather than have Cesaro lose because the Big Show needed a win before the PPV. The ratings are down because the product is STALE, the fanvorites are JOBBING OUT every other week killing their momentum.

Yep they know how to make stars .. just look at the indy talent on the main roster.... Their main issue is they do not know how to push the stars the fans create... You know the ones that give them their money....

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Fastway What they are doing now is simply not working, it is doing the exact opposite. It is the reason why aside from John Cena they have part timers. They need to have the occasional jobber in there, perhap rather than wrestle every week they sit in during a match and talk smack and maybe even cost someone a match that way.... to further the feud rather than have Cesaro lose because the Big Show needed a win before the PPV. The ratings are down because the product is STALE, the fanvorites are JOBBING OUT every other week killing their momentum. Yep they know how to make stars .. just look at the indy talent on the main roster.... Their main issue is they do not know how to push the stars the fans create... You know the ones that give them their money....

So in your mind they are struggling to make money?

[Blonde Moment]

Originally Posted by The CyNick So in your mind they are struggling to make money?

How about answering my post?
In any case i believe that although they are making money their booking is probably costing them more money in the long run. With the talent they have and the avenues available to them this company should be making more money than what they are and part of that is how they push their roster.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Fastway How about answering my post? In any case i believe that although they are making money their booking is probably costing them more money in the long run. With the talent they have and the avenues available to them this company should be making more money than what they are and part of that is how they push their roster.

They will likely bring in more money this year than they ever have. In your expert opinion, how much revenue should WWE be making for YOU to consider them successful.

How many consecutive Mania shows should they sell with more than 60k fans? If they sell 100k for Dallas does that tell you the product is hot or cold? They are one of the most popular You Tube channels. Does that mean they are doing well or poorly?