|
Doubling the price of the Network seems like a good way to make that subscriber number drop even more!
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
The_Rob posted:Can someone explain why this number is atrocious? Over half a million in 6 months for a product this niche sounds pretty drat good. Especially considering it is attempting am entirely new way to do live events. Other than they thought more people would join why is this the worst number ever? The breakeven compared to the old ppv model is somewhere over 1 million due to sale cannibalisation, and the biggest draw for subscriptions, Mania, only brought in 667k with a good number of them only planning to 'buy' Mania and likely not looking to re-up for the back half of the year. So this might well be the peak number of subsciptions for the year, as Summerslam is inside the 6 month window.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Haha wait a minute, we're not getting WWE Network legitimately in Canada? So is this pay-tv channel just the live stream from the Network? Hahaha Rogers sucks so much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
Blasmeister posted:Is the reality that the majority of internet fans, who should have been all over this, will simply never pay money for PPV no matter the price/ease of legal options? That's a drat shame if so The reality is there simply wasn't that many people THAT interested in wrestling to begin with. It's not really a revelation to say that most people here know exactly how to pirate a WWE PPV and most of us still bought the Network knowing that, so I'd find it hard to believe there's a substantial group of people who just won't ever pay. Sure, they exist, but I don't think that's the overwhelming issue here. The pool of people they're trying to draw from is just much smaller than they wanted to pretend it was and the way to hit your marks is to draw in fans from the boom period on nostalgia but you STILL can't get the Raws and Nitros that those people remember and they're STILL not doing anything to market to those people. I know plenty of people who watched during the Attitude Era who don't have a clue what the Network really is or entails because the drat thing is only promoted during WWE shows, which they haven't watched for like 12 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Doubling the price of the Network seems like a good way to make that subscriber number drop even more! I know I want to pay $20 a month to sometimes watch an old show, 4 Main Events and 4 NXTs when I have the time to, and a fresh PPV that will probably have all the matches I've seen 4 times on Raw that month!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:26
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Doubling the price of the Network seems like a good way to make that subscriber number drop even more! It's still $10 a month if you commit for 6.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
This is the WWE. When things don’t go their way immediately, it’s time to go right back to the well! Forget taking the time to see things through, it has to be right NOW! Although, I might be missing something, so if I’m wrong please correct me. 9.99 a month x 700,000 subs (rounded). So over one month, that’s $6,993,000 in gross revenue from the Network and (roughly and rounded) $42 million over six months just from the Network. Does the WWE really get nearly $7 million in buys/fees per monthly pay-per-view?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:So is this pay-tv channel just the live stream from the Network? Hahaha Rogers sucks so much. Yeah seriously, I can't even imagine. I'll be very curious to get more details on this. I wonder if they'll limit online subscribers to Rogers customers. Glad I signed up ages ago with Unblock US. gently caress Rogers
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:The reality is there simply wasn't that many people THAT interested in wrestling to begin with. It's not really a revelation to say that most people here know exactly how to pirate a WWE PPV and most of us still bought the Network knowing that, so I'd find it hard to believe there's a substantial group of people who just won't ever pay. Sure, they exist, but I don't think that's the overwhelming issue here. I do also wonder how much of it is WWE's apparently very old audience's reluctance to embrace technology. Maybe the cable tv channel might end up successful in canada because the people who'd use a streaming service already probably know how to use a VPN and have the network?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:This is the WWE. When things don’t go their way immediately, it’s time to go right back to the well! Forget taking the time to see things through, it has to be right NOW! I think the problem is more that they've sunk so much money into the startup that a paltry 7 million (which, I imagine, Xbox, Apple, PSN etc are all getting a piece of) hardly makes up for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
CobiWann posted:This is the WWE. When things don’t go their way immediately, it’s time to go right back to the well! Forget taking the time to see things through, it has to be right NOW! WWE thinks of The Network the way the US thinks of the Post Office, in that it should be completely self-funding as quickly as possible. That $7m isn't enough to do that, even if it weren't being divided up between Vince knows how many companies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
I will never not laugh at corporate thought. When things don't happen right exactly at the moment you want it to then is a total failure. To fix that we will take away things people liked about it in the first place and then wonder why people don't want it. The corporate world is so shortsighted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:The reality is there simply wasn't that many people THAT interested in wrestling to begin with. It's not really a revelation to say that most people here know exactly how to pirate a WWE PPV and most of us still bought the Network knowing that, so I'd find it hard to believe there's a substantial group of people who just won't ever pay. Sure, they exist, but I don't think that's the overwhelming issue here. Yeah I specifically remember "Every RAW. Every Nitro." being told to reporters at the initial unveiling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
They need roughly half the Raw viewership to subscribe in order to get revenue back to 2013 PPV levels. Given their good viewers per household numbers it's probably above 60%
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:WWE basically told investors that they would have tons of subscribers and were investing expecting that. Their numbers were total bullshit too, it was like "Well 100 million homes have internet access, we only have to get ONE PERCENT to subscribe"
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:I will never not laugh at corporate thought. When things don't happen right exactly at the moment you want it to them is a total failure. Then to fix that we will take away things people liked about it in the first place and then wonder why people don't want it. The corporate world is so shortsighted. If you think about it, it's a really perfect analogy for how WWE treats their product as a whole, too. Oh, Cesaro didn't get over the way we wanted when we wanted? Take away his swing, make him job out to Kofi twice in a row.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Yeah I specifically remember "Every RAW. Every Nitro." being told to reporters at the initial unveiling. No that was never said by anyone officially. Only rumors before the Network announcement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
maxallen posted:Their numbers were total bullshit too, it was like "Well 100 million homes have internet access, we only have to get ONE PERCENT to subscribe" It was even better, they had some huge inflated number of wrestling fans they said existed in the States. A number much higher than the amount of people that watch Raw every week. They used that number as their launching point for the Network, never wondering why, if there were so many wrestling fans, they can't even get 1 million of them to buy their PPVs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Yeah I specifically remember "Every RAW. Every Nitro." being told to reporters at the initial unveiling. No they said every PPV ever at the unveiling. The every Raw & Nitro was a rumor that went around beforehand. e: gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:They need roughly half the Raw viewership to subscribe in order to get revenue back to 2013 PPV levels. Given their good viewers per household numbers it's probably above 60% Is that the longterm sustainability figure or just the "what we need to break even in 2014" figure
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
I think they announced The Monday Night Wars show on announcement, not specifically every Raw/Nitro (Although they should have those, too).
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Really though, the reason this number is so terrible is the almost complete lack of growth combined with the fact that international PPV numbers have been hit very hard, meaning that the international expansion of the Network probably won't do too much for the product. It's not just 700,000 subscribers being below what they want, it's 700,000 subscribers with not all that much room to grow, and once again, this is before anybody who isn't finding a way to sneak out of their commitment can cancel, so this could easily be the peak number until WM31.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:37
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:It was even better, they had some huge inflated number of wrestling fans they said existed in the States. A number much higher than the amount of people that watch Raw every week. They used that number as their launching point for the Network, never wondering why, if there were so many wrestling fans, they can't even get 1 million of them to buy their PPVs. Well forget buying the PPVs - I mean I for one never bought (and never would have bought) a WWE PPV for $60. That's an outrageous price. That said, if you look at it far more sensibly, you're talking getting 25% of your weekly raw viewership to subscribe, and 25% is a ridiculously high target. E: sportsgenius86 posted:Is that the longterm sustainability figure or just the "what we need to break even in 2014" figure
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
I'd even be willing to settle for SOME nitros but we can't even have that
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:No they said every PPV ever at the unveiling. The every Raw & Nitro was a rumor that went around beforehand. Not to do with Raw & Nitro, but Joey Styles did tweet this: quote:OH MY GOD! ECW is back on network television on @WWENetwork! All of ECW's PPVs & ECW's weekly TV show will be available on demand 24/7! All of ECW's TV isn't on the Network.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:Is that the longterm sustainability figure or just the "what we need to break even in 2014" figure
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:39
|
|
|
The funny thing is that the WWE Network has got me to watch the most wwe television I have watched since I was in high school. I'm broke as gently caress and there is no way I am going to spend 60 bucks for a ppv. 10 bucks I can do really easily.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:40
|
|
|
I assume that this number means that Wrestlemania definitely won't be on the Network next year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Well regardless of how small the base for this might actually be in reality and the long term sustainability, it's still an incredible deal for me right now and I'm gonna take full advantage while it lasts and let WWE worry about the rest. I just hope they roll out the Monday Night Wars thing soon because that first episode was so drat good you guys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:I will never not laugh at corporate thought. When things don't happen right exactly at the moment you want it to then is a total failure. To fix that we will take away things people liked about it in the first place and then wonder why people don't want it. The corporate world is so shortsighted. This is how public companies often work, because they have to be much more accountable to investors. They often don't have the liberty of just absorbing losses for a couple of years while they try to make something work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Not to do with Raw & Nitro, but Joey Styles did tweet this: They have to edit out all the music and most of the chairshots, that takes time, especially when at least two ECWers I can think of are pretty much "just" their music (New Jack, Sandman).
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I assume that this number means that Wrestlemania definitely won't be on the Network next year. I would doubt it wouldn't be - without WM you'll severely undercut your network buys and then you've sunk this even more. I think everyone here is going a little crazy over what this'll mean (yeah probably less original content, lower costs all around), but they've spent 3+ years making the network, they dropped $100 million or something on it, I expect if it was a sinking ship they'd ride it right into the floor of the ocean rather than give up. They've absolutely destroyed the PPV market and they'd be lucky if the baseline for PPV buys went from 100k to 50k. Not to mention that in 5-10 years, PPV might not be a viable option anymore in any case. E: Professor Funk posted:This is how public companies often work, because they have to be much more accountable to investors. They often don't have the liberty of just absorbing losses for a couple of years while they try to make something work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Yeah seriously, I can't even imagine. I'll be very curious to get more details on this. I wonder if they'll limit online subscribers to Rogers customers. I guess it could be good if you're already a Rogers customer and have no interest in any of the on-demand stuff on the Network (what's the point though) since you won't be eating into their ludicrous bandwidth caps. Everyone else is boned though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:The funny thing is that the WWE Network has got me to watch the most wwe television I have watched since I was in high school. I'm broke as gently caress and there is no way I am going to spend 60 bucks for a ppv. 10 bucks I can do really easily. And with time, people will come around in the same way. They just totally hosed themselves with their ridiculous predictions and Vince's inability to see beyond immediate stock prices. Had they been willing to deal with temporarily deflated stock and stand behind some initial losses with confidence, they wouldn't look like bozos. But ever the egotist, Vince wanted to have his cake and eat it right away, too, and now he's got something that in all honesty is probably NOT as big of a failure as it will be viewed, but is going to be perceived really negatively by the public because he's an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Professor Funk posted:This is how public companies often work, because they have to be much more accountable to investors. They often don't have the liberty of just absorbing losses for a couple of years while they try to make something work. I know that. That is why I laugh at corporate culture. It is stupidly short sighted and childish. If they don't get exactly what they wanted the moment they want it they just give up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:The funny thing is that the WWE Network has got me to watch the most wwe television I have watched since I was in high school. I'm broke as gently caress and there is no way I am going to spend 60 bucks for a ppv. 10 bucks I can do really easily. I frequently make over $60 a day and I wouldn't even spend that on a PPV.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:They have to edit out all the music and most of the chairshots, that takes time, especially when at least two ECWers I can think of are pretty much "just" their music (New Jack, Sandman). I'm not saying that they don't have a good reason, I was just using that as an example of someone from WWE publicly saying something would be on the Network and then it not being there I was looking to see if anyone actually said Raw & Smackdown archives would be on the Network, and came across that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:45
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I assume that this number means that Wrestlemania definitely won't be on the Network next year. Unless they've completely given up on the venture, that would be a really terrible decision. They'd be better off doubling down on the event and if they really do have Sting-Undertaker, that needs to be shoved to god and everybody on every single sports channel known to man for a month leading up to the show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:48
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I assume that this number means that Wrestlemania definitely won't be on the Network next year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:Unless they've completely given up on the venture, that would be a really terrible decision. They'd be better off doubling down on the event and if they really do have Sting-Undertaker, that needs to be shoved to god and everybody on every single sports channel known to man for a month leading up to the show. So what you're saying is WM31 won't be on The Network.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:50
|
|