>"People are watching cable television less and less - it's simply a fact.
>Netflix, Amazon and video streaming services alike are undeniably the future now. When millions of Americans are collectivily deciding to cut the cable cord, it can't be ignored by media-based businesses.
>The management team, mainly Vince actually, pitched the idea of a wrestling network.
>Needless to say, it's been a huge success for the WWE financially and especially in terms of content."
What did he mean by this? Are ratings irrelevant to Vince now?
that simply isn't true, hunter
I heard that TV accounted for 35 per cent of WWE's profits. I doubt Vince doesn't care about ratings but a decline in rating will make future TV deals more difficult to negotiate.
>>1460222
It means the know where their audience is at & are doing what they have to in order to reach them & maximize their exposure to the product.
I don't think ratings mean as much to them as it does to those networks and sponsors, who are panicking over cord-cutting right now, with the WWE network.
At the end of the day, all that matters is that you're making the most profit out of your business as possible so if TV doesn't pull it's weight in revenues anymore then it can become somewhat irrelevant to the WWE.
https://twitter.com/AustinKarp/status/738756394728361989
https://twitter.com/APkrawczynski/status/744900597330120705
http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2016/05/nba-playoff-ratings-warriors-thunder-game-six-overnights-tnt/
So Doofus son in law actually understands the bigger picture after all?
He is, of course, absolutely right.
TV contracts have been an albatross around Vince's neck for a generation. WWE Network needs to launch itself as the global streaming platform for all wrestling and MMA: Everything from Wrestlemania to UFC to WCPW to LU, ROH and Japan.
Vince made his pile by seeing the home video boom at the very start of the 80s. He will understand this move to digital. He loves the idea of full, end-to-end production and distribution.
Ratings mean shit. Sponsorship and advertising on US TV is all pizza and dick medicine. In UK it's gambling and banks. TV advertising space is worth less and less, so it pays less.
>>1460222
Dean confirmed draw
/asp/ on suicide watch
>>1460222
>Trips for Trips
>people honestly think ratings mean less to them
Just because they have other sources of revenue doesn't mean one of their strongest wells of profit suddenly means shit.
Your TV does poorly, you accrue a negative bias, you make less money. Simple as that. They're only saying ratings aren't meaningful because they're not drawing them very well. Bet your ass were they pulling 4.x's they'd be screaming that shit from the rooftops.
>>1460258
Television viewing figures peaked some time around the late 1980s.
Even if you log all of the near-infinite channels of media you can access your content from now, there's no real way of achieving the viewing figures for weekly events that you would have enjoyed in like 1989.
>>1460236
Sports are the last bastion for cable.
He's right long term that apps are what matter but WWE has about 1.4 million paid subscribers and is still reliant on tv money which will be worth less next time around with falling ratings. TV isn't dead yet shows like Game of Thrones are still hugely successful, WWE ratings are partly down because it's not as good not just because of cable cutting and the network
>>1460302
>1.4 million paid subscribers
around half of those are literally getting the network FOR FREE
So basically, ratings aren't irrelevant NOW, but it's looking that way in the future.
If so, that will actually help WWE in their next negotiations if cord-cutting and less traditional tv viewership continues, as they won't need TV, TV will need them so the balance of revenue shifts more to WWE as a "content provider" for TV.
Of course, that's all based on what ifs right now so.
>>1460229
Aren't they still one of the most popular, consistent shows in the Monday night slot? Take that away and you'll be hard pressed to find anything that can make up those numbers reliably on short notice with a reasonable budget. WWE still has a lot of negotiation leverage. But yeah, tv is dying.
>>1460310
no, some vh1 show about hip hop and another show starring 2 gay men consistently beat monday night raw kek
>>1460302
Game of Thrones could easily have been done on Netflix with its scale of budget. Would have had even fewer content restrictions too.
>>1460310
WWE isn't worth as much as shows like mad men to the advertisers because of the demographic. WWE still need ratings to be ok for the next negotiation but it suits them to spin the narrative that ratings are entirely down because of a digital revolution.
>>1460308
Most networks are looking at Netflix' success and thinking "we can do that". That's where content is going in the next decade, cable as the last generation knew it is dead, in the digital age, the one who can provide the most content in the most easily accessible way will be King.
>>1460317
True, but Madmen's over now. Should have needed sooner really. It's really hard for networks to constantly bring out new hit series, but WWE always draws a reliable core audience. Pity the sponsors are so picky about content.
So... does this finally put to bed the meme that HHH doesn't know what he's talking about.
First NXT, now he sees Netflix's success and emulates it. The dude is a natural businessman. Based Haitch.
>>1460328
>The management team, mainly Vince actually, pitched the idea of a wrestling network.
>mainly Vince actually
>Vince actually
>Vince
>>1460222
Doesn't stop Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead & NCAA from setting RECORD. HIGH. RATINGS
>>1460346
I can't believe Vince still has to carry this fucking company. He should just fire Haitch immediately right no and replace him with JeriGOAT or Cena or Batista
So, legitimately how far away are we from Raw and Smackdown being on the Network?
>>1460349
GoT only drew a little over 9 million at its peak. That would be abysmal in the 90s considering the money spent on it.
>>1460353
USA network is still big money. They'd probably want 3 million subs paying $9.99 to balance it out. Or they could up the price a bit.
>>1460354
HBO is a premium cable network. the fact it destroys cable networks should tell you something
WWE uploads all the actually important parts of Raw and Smackdown in little bite-sized chunks on their youtube channel for very easy access literally the night of airing. And the full episodes go up after a month on the network.
You can be an invested WWE fan, completely legally, just with the youtube channel and the Network. There's just no need to have a cable subscription. I think they understand that.
>>1460273
That doesn't mean that they're worthless, or even that lessened in importance.
Ratings denote the growth or recession of your casual viewer-base, and are intrinsically tied to how it prospers. Those are the people you reel into a more committed relationship with the product through the network.
The emphasis may be on the Network, but they're really only saying "lol ratings don't matter to us that much anyways" because they're dying a death.
>>1460353
Not for a good few years yet, they need tv to help draw in potential subscribers and network subscriber growth will probably slow down. They'll do 1 more big tv deal and probably have condensed versions on the network
>TV ratings don't matter
Yes of course they don't matter HHH, you got notoriously horrible ratings when you were the champion during a time when wrestling was as big a cultural phenomenon as Game Of Thrones.
>>1460390
he is still butthurt he tanked the ratings and turned raw into the b shaw while smackdown was the a show when he was champ kek
>>1460392
This. People literally quit watching RAW in favor of smackdown cause of him, Ric Flair and the evolution babbies destroying RAW with their over-booking.
>>1460353
If you mean only on the network, never. That would be an awful idea. TV deals (specifically the third hour of raw) are the only thing that kept them from losing money last year and probably most years. Their profit was only 24 mil. If they aren't on TV they can't expand their audience and they will sink.
>>1460222
>still letting the cable networks fuck the show with a third hour and 20 commercial breaks
the network is a huge success you guys
>>1460392
To be fair, the main problem is that they didn't surround him with talent and expected him to handle the show himself. Guys like Kane, RVD, and Booker T are good hands, but they're not draws and probably not even main event level talents, desu. Steiner was past his prime and not that big of a draw. Benoit was great, but not the type of person people would tune in to watch, he excelled when paired with a more charismatic worker. Goldberg WAS a draw and they really dropped the ball there, even if he was trash.
What were we left with to pair HHH with? Shawn Michaels. They had a fantastic program together, but it just wasn't enough to make up for the turds with Kane, Booker T, etc.
If RAW had Angle, Jericho--who was on RAW, but they didn't use right, and Undertaker to feud with HHH, the show would have been fine.
>>1460396
That's what happened with me. I quit Raw because of all that bullshit and only watched Smackdown
>>1460460
>Dealing in what ifs
HHH was a victim of no talent on his level at the time which impacted RAW's ratings.
Need I remind you that he headlined the biggest WM in history last year with 100k in attendance. Please stop this meme.
>>1460523
I'm really not even sure what your point is. All I was saying is that HHH was good enough to be a top guy on a great show, even holding the belt for extended periods of time. He just needed more of a supporting cast. Brock, Angle, Taker, Edge, Mysterio, etc., all could have given HHH more to work with than WCW turds. With Rock and Austin gone, Vince used HHH to bury the WCW guys and prove that WWF was better. Probably should have just used Brock.
>>1460328
he is natural businessman cuz he is jew
>>1460604
No he's french, his surname is famous
>The management team, mainly Vince actually, pitched the idea of a wrestling network.
Does anyone actually believe that Vince came up with this idea all by himself. What a load of shit, complete shit businessman so is Haitch.
>>1460355
Well, the Network is kinda around 1.5 right now, yeah?
Truthfully, if they raised the price of the Network a little higher, to maybe something like 12 or 15, I'd still pay. It still beats their old PPV format by a long mile. I'd like it if they did more Network only content if that were the case, kinda like what they did with KOTR last year and the CWC Classic. Hell, I'd rake the Hulu versions of RAW and Smackdown on there.
>>1460222
>The management team, mainly Vince actually, pitched the idea of a wrestling network.
Except Shane pitched the idea before he left and Vince shut it down.
>>1460304
yeah true i have my friends network account
>>1461042
Paul would never lie.
>>1461043
they couldnt break a million subscribers legitimately, they had to give away their network for FREE to break a million. then they gave away their network FOR FREE for wrestlemania.
>everything is fine
>>1461048
>Paul
>>1460460
>all this excuses
RAW was unwatchable tripe during the Reign of Terror and got outdrawn by the Smackdown 8.
HHH should break his neck instead
Higher TV ratings = more people watching Raw & Smackdown = more people signing up to the Network to watch PPVs.
So yeah, until Raw and Smackdown are on the Network TV ratings are still very important.
Bullshit, you can still watch better tv without interruptions on cable, streaming is unreliable.
>>1460222
Pretty much.
The majority of money is coming from sponsors, merchandise, tv deals, syndication, and network revenue.
Ratings don't mean shit to Vince as all that great revenue outways the declining ratings.
>>1460523
>he headlined the biggest WM in history last year with 100k in attendance.
Why do people keep using this as an argument? It's Wrestlemania. People buy tickets regardless of the card. I'd buy a ticket every year if I could afford it.
And lets not forget, it was one of the worst Wrestlemanias, and the main event was a part of that utter stinkfest.
>>1461505
>sponsors, merchandise, tv deals, syndication,
All of those are dependent on ratings.
>"outways"
You fucking imbecile.
>>1461505
>outways
t. retard smark
>>1461505
35% of their revenue comes from tv (compared to 23% for the network) therefore they need ratings to not be shit as it's their main source of revenue and feeds into network growth
>>1461505
>outways
Smarks are so fucking stupid. You can't take anything they say seriously.
Well he's not wrong, RECORD LOW RATINGS and all three hours of Raw are still top ten every week.
>>1460308
This.
I can't believe morons still believe the "<x> form of media distribution is dying" meme
>radio comes out = newspapers are dead!
>tv comes out = movie theaters are dead!
>streaming comes out = cable is dead!
Yet they're all still. Fucking. Here.
Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, and tons of other shows are pulling in great numbers on network and cable TV. Maybe overall ratings are down, but over the last 40 years we went from having 3 channels, to 7, to 30, to 60, to 200, to 1,000, to streaming + onDemand, etc. The lake has grown so large that some parts are really shallow.
WWE is at it's lowest point in it's history creatively. THAT's why it's ratings are so low.
>>1461868
This years Superbowl could be the Jaguars vs. the Browns and it would still do record ratings.
WM is a mainstream event in 2016. It's not a gauge of WWE's popularity.
You forget that SmackDown! could have higher ratings because it was on network television, UPN, MyNetworkTV, CW, whatever. Free to receive in most big cities and outlaying areas close enough to poorer families that couldn't afford cable.
>>1466523
yeah smackdown was based cause you could see it on upn. raw was on spike which was a channel u had to pay for
I'm 28 and hardly know anyone my age who has cable. The few who do only use it to watch sports. Everyone watches shows streaming now.
There is a lot of truth to what HHH is saying. They'll still try to hold on to TV contracts as long as they can though.
Also, Raw is typically still the highest rated Monday night cable show. If the low ratings were really all due to bad content, and not changing mediums, you'd expect it to be rated relatively low compared to other shows.
>>1466591
no, its not
>>1466507
Print newspapers practically are dead, tons have gone under in the last decade and most have shortened staff and content. And cable ratings across the board are much lower than in the 90s.
It's fucking stupid to think that streaming services have absolutely nothing to do with lower ratings.
>>1466594
Yes it is. It is always at least top five.
>>1466604
>Print newspapers practically are dead
They've been saying that for 40 years.
