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

[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?

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by The CyNick 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?

I would agree that 99% of people watching aren't counting the wins/losses necessarily but they definitely notice trends and boring repetition.

I also don't think that the IWC is as small a portion of the audience as WWE and folks like yourself would like to admit. I'd be willing to bet that the IWC as a whole (not just indie fanboys or guys who will watch any wrestling, etc.) actually probably makes up about 25% of the WWE audience.

Now, I've gone back and watched a lot of Attitude era RAWs and PPVs on the WWE Network and Youtube, etc. in the last few years. No doubt, some of the writing and booking was shitty and/or REPETITIVE much like today. That being said, there was not nearly the amount of repetition in terms of week to week, month to month, matches/segments that there is today. In addition, the stories were progressing and made more sense (i.e., the stakes were always raised and/or there was a reason for the matches taking place). Back then, they were able to book 7-8 feuds a month without things getting repetitive with even less TV time.

Now maybe that was a result of non-existent long term planning (i.e., chaos) or better long term planning, I don't know. Whatever the case, it resulted in better quality product, even if you take out the sensationalism of the violence/sex content.

If you think that today's guys coming up the ranks like Bray, Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose, New Day, etc. are any where near as over as guys like Shamrock, Kane, Benoit, Jericho, New Age Outlaws, HHH, Angle, etc. when they were in the same position coming up the ranks, I don't think you're being honest with yourself. I'd argue it shows in the crowd reactions and ratings too.

Yeah, yeah. I know, "But, media's consumed differently now! There's so much competition!" "These guys just aren't as good as those guys were!" I'm even willing to concede that in some cases, some guys today probably aren't as good as their counterparts from back then but that's not enough. It's always some other excuse other than a systemic problem within the company (i.e., writing, over scripting, booking, etc.) even when confronted with resulting evidence like ratings. The problem with your theory is that in comparing ratings averages for the past 9 years, RAW ratings have slowly declined while Monday Night Football ratings have either stayed stable or increased year to year.

I understand that RAW will never beat MNF in the ratings. Still the question must be asked. Why has the interest in Monday Night Football not decreased with all the "new" media competition? Is it because MNF, like many other non-sports (dramas, comedies, etc.) shows, and unlike RAW, those programs present compelling television that isn't repetitive week to week?

[The CyNick]

No way its 25%. If it was there would be 1000 people posting on a place like this. Keep in mind, when I say IWC, In taking about the person who follows all the backstage news and reads dirt sheets.

I'll admit I didn't do the research you apparently did, but I feel like during the Attitude Era, I saw some combination of Austin, Rock, Taker, and Foley in matches over a 3 year period. You have to remember that RAW in 1998 was drastically different, and was touching on material that was never done before. The result was strong TV ratings, but significantly hurt the image of the company long term. It's damage they are still to this day trying to reverse, and it's cost them big time revenue. The booking to me was not much different than it is today. I would be curious about how specifically you saw the booking as different. I remember a ton of pointless tag matches with top guys back then. All usually ended with a schmoze and a bunch of Stunners or Austin looking angrily at Vince.

You hit the nail on the head, the difference is the talent. The talent today wants success handed to them. The talent back then fought for what they thought was best. And the person in charge then was the same guy today. Why is it that Steve Austin fought his way out of midcard obscurity but a guy like Cesaro is happy being on TV and posting goofy pics backstage? On top of that, you had a plethora of hall of famers back then, I'm not sure we have that luxury today. It's like a pro sports team, you have some years with amazing talent, other years its mediocre.

You asked about MNF. Great question. Simple answer is WWE programming is more like a TV drama, you can catch up on it at any time. MNF needs to be consumed live. That's why rights fees for sports properties has gone up so much in the last 5 years or so. Live sports are You Tube and DVR proof. RAW doesn't have that luxury because it's entertainment. That said, there are not too many weekly storyline driven TV shows that have remained consistently at the top of the charts like WWE has.

[Simple Fan]

Originally Posted by The CyNick RAW doesn't have that luxury because it's entertainment.

Sports entertainment