|
triplexpac posted:I assume that this number means that Wrestlemania definitely won't be on the Network next year. God, I wonder how they would have the announcers justify/spin it…it would be worse than Mike Tenay announcing that, “because the fans demanded it,” TNA would be moving back to Thursdays from Mondays.
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
They hosed up by not saying WM30 was a special bonus, giving them an out for 2015.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
how would they even reconcile that with their having all PPVs on demand? put it up on demand 30 days later like they would RAW?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
Blasmeister posted:how would they even reconcile that with their having all PPVs on demand? put it up on demand 30 days later like they would RAW? That's what they did with the PPV that aired the day before the network launched.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
So I assume the next straw we grasp at is deciding your 9.99 a month just gets you the live stream, however, for just 7.99 more, you can get the Vault Upgrade on your account...
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Blasmeister posted:how would they even reconcile that with their having all PPVs on demand? put it up on demand 30 days later like they would RAW?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
Blasmeister posted:how would they even reconcile that with their having all PPVs on demand? put it up on demand 30 days later like they would RAW? "And if you buy the Wrestlemania 31 DVD, you'll get a special one-time-use code that unlocks unlimited viewing of WM31 on The Network!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
If you pull Wrestlemania 31, just fold. Just cut your losses and fold because that's it. It's a shot venture once you do that. Completely finished. That only ends one of two ways. People buy Wrestlemania and say gently caress the Network. People keep the Network and just pirate Wrestlemania. You'd have to be loving delusional to think most of the Network subscribers would keep the Network AND buy Wrestlemania. So that's probably what will happen because Vince.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
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. The way I see it, they're offering every PPV for $20 a month now. So you'll get a bunch of people paying $20 for Wrestlemania, but those same people would pay the usual $60-70 if you didn't offer it on the Network. People aren't going to just not watch Mania. I may be wrong, I just see taking Mania off the Network as being the kind of short-sighted thing they'd do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Which caps the subscriber base at around 600K for half the year and 400K for the rest. Let's figure the recent peak Rumble and Summerslam buys are an accurate estimate of the number of people willing to pay anything for WWE outside of Mania. I'm assuming that the 'one time cost' will now be a year commitment rather than six months, otherwise that's not a new plan at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:I'm assuming that the 'one time cost' will now be a year commitment rather than six months, otherwise that's not a new plan at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Can you legally do something like give away free subscriptions if you buy WWE stock? I know Geico gives a "loyalty" discount on your insurance if you hold Berkshire-Hathaway stock. Maybe WWE could do the same for their own stockholders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:01
|
|
|
Wait, I skimmed this so let me get this right. We have to have Rogers and even then it's more expensive and we don't get anything on demand? This would have been the first time I legally paid every month for WWE programming, but not now. Ill steal the American network like a few friends have. gently caress you WWE/Rogers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Can you legally do something like give away free subscriptions if you buy WWE stock? It would definitely be interesting if they did that, especially since the stock is probably about to go down reaaaal soon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Can you already pay $60 at once? It's not a new plan by human standards, but 60x1 is distinct from 10x6 for corporate purposes. Ah actually that's true, I guess you can't do $60 upfront. I always wondered why they didn't do that rather than taking ten bucks each month. Paulocaust posted:Wait, I skimmed this so let me get this right. We have to have Rogers and even then it's more expensive and we don't get anything on demand? This would have been the first time I legally paid every month for WWE programming, but not now. Ill steal the American network like a few friends have. gently caress you WWE/Rogers. That's how I read it too and it makes sense because it's the most bonetown anti-customer move that one could make and that's basically Rogers corporate mantra.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
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. Yeah, and they weren't just bullshitting their investors, they were bulshitting themselves. Meltzer brings up that survey all the time, they seriously believed there were 60 million US households with wrestling fans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Paulocaust posted:Wait, I skimmed this so let me get this right. We have to have Rogers and even then it's more expensive and we don't get anything on demand? This would have been the first time I legally paid every month for WWE programming, but not now. Ill steal the American network like a few friends have. gently caress you WWE/Rogers. Not 100% clear if you're able to buy the regular web service in Canada. They announced the TV deal with Rogers, which to me would imply exclusivity because why would Rogers let them undercut them with the internet deal? Edit: Okay, to me this reads that the WWE Network will NOT be available online in Canada. Notice they don't mention Canada at all in the over-the-top section, and they call it the "US Version": quote:International A vailability: The Company plans to make the U.S. version of WWE Network available on an over - the-top basis starting August 12th in over 170 countries and territories, including Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mexico, Spain and the Nordics, among others. The network is expected to be live in the U.K. by October 2014. Plans for the network in Italy , UAE, Germany , Japan, India, China, Thailand and Malaysia will be communicated at a later date. Here's another bit, saying that Rogers has the rights to the WWE Network in Canada. Which means that it's Rogers' call how it's rolled out in our fine nation (which means we're hosed): quote:Critical aspects of this strategy include making WWE Network available in international markets and completing a new partnership with Rogers Communications, which provides the rights to distribute the network in Canada triplexpac fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:04
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:I assume that this number means that Wrestlemania definitely won't be on the Network next year. So what if you drop Wrestlemania from the Network? That fairweather section of the audience is unfazed because they were sticking to the traditional model anyway, and now you've just alienated your actual subscribers and killed much of the appeal for people who were on the fence. I don't get it. People keep saying that the Network might have to drop Wrestlemania, but I really don't understand what the upside of that would be for WWE. Minidust fucked around with this message at 15:07 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
I think it's way too early to say what they will or won't do with the network as far as Mania and other PPVs go.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Paulocaust posted:Wait, I skimmed this so let me get this right. We have to have Rogers and even then it's more expensive and we don't get anything on demand? This would have been the first time I legally paid every month for WWE programming, but not now. Ill steal the American network like a few friends have. gently caress you WWE/Rogers. It seems like it'll be the same price but just the livestream. If you want the US version of the network, it's real easy to just use a VPN and get it legally that way. Don't steal a network. WWE need to get on that whole cancellation thing though, they shouldn't be making it that easy to get around the 6 month commitment
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Minidust posted:This way of thinking doesn't make any sense to me. Presumably, Wrestlemania has a built-in audience, and of that audience you have a set of people who aren't interested enough to stick with the product year-round. Despite the investor panic, nothing has really happened to damage that audience. If those people continue to buy Wrestlemania on traditional PPV, how does that hurt WWE? I'm sure Vince would rather convert them to Network subscribers, but that's still some traditional PPV revenue that he hasn't lost. There is literally no upside, we believe that Vince/WWE is dumb enough that they would drop Wrestlemania in a wacky scheme to try to make more money by selling it as a PPV-only because we either have no faith in them or we understand enough of how they think and act in a given situation through observation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
Minidust posted:This way of thinking doesn't make any sense to me. Presumably, Wrestlemania has a built-in audience, and of that audience you have a set of people who aren't interested enough to stick with the product year-round. Despite the investor panic, nothing has really happened to damage that audience. If those people continue to buy Wrestlemania on traditional PPV, how does that hurt WWE? I'm sure Vince would rather convert them to Network subscribers, but that's still some traditional PPV revenue that he hasn't lost. The upside that people want to pretend exists there is that Network subscribers would also pay $60 for Mania in addition to retaining their subscriptions, when it's far more likely that, if Mania is the only PPV not on the Network, they just pirate it and save the $60.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:The upside that people want to pretend exists there is that Network subscribers would also pay $60 for Mania in addition to retaining their subscriptions, when it's far more likely that, if Mania is the only PPV not on the Network, they just pirate it and save the $60. I'm not arguing it makes sense, I'm arguing that WWE would be crazy and hit the panic button thinking that 800,000 buys at $60 a pop is better than $20. Mania is a huge influx of cash for them and I could see them wanting to maximize that while they figure the Network out. It could be they scale back on the Network to make it work with the 700,000 or so hardcore fans that will stick with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
WWE's stock is up 10% this morning, so I'm guessing investors just accepted the cheery press release like idiots and missed the actual data
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:WWE's stock is up 10% this morning, so I'm guessing investors just accepted the cheery press release like idiots and missed the actual data My guess is people are feeling more bullish than expected because of the advanced international release date.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
Eh, I'd say this is largely good news except for poor Canada. Truly, what do they have to live for? Overseas rollout. Solid numbers for what is a seriously niche product. Not the numbers they said, but probably the numbers they expected from the US market alone. The product, despite what some would say, I feel warrants $10. I would say it is even solid for $15. The alternative is paying full price for the PPVs or not seeing them at all. I'd rather see them, since now they cost roughly the same as a bad takeout. Can you really say 3 hours of entertainment and other stuff you might watch is worth less than a takeout? If anything, I feel the WWE might have slipped up by not offering the archives, and then adding the PPVs as an added incentive if you payed a few dollars more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:24
|
|
|
E: THIS IS A WEIGHTED AVERAGE INCLUDING 53 DAYS (1/1 TO 2/23) WITH 0 SUBSCRIPTIONS.Page 3 of the results posted:The average level of subscribers over the 6-month period through June 30, 2014 was 409,000 UltimoDragonQuest fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
We'll know exactly how WWE feels for sure based on how many times they fire Sandow dressed as different people today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:So about those trial gimmicks inflating numbers. Oh god.  Would this then be the number of paying subscribers? rare Magic card l00k fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Haha holy poo poo, 400,000?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Good thing the stock market closes immediately in the morning after stocks rise a little bit and not later in the day after news like that can spread and sink in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
CM Punk yanked his parachute cord at precisely the right time, it would seem. The man is a prophet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
That 409,000 number is a six-month average for the purposes of the report so isn't it basically factoring in two months of zero?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:That 409,000 number is a six-month average for the purposes of the report so isn't it basically factoring in two months of zero? That's the only explanation that makes sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:34
|
|
|
Stock is up 9% right now. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
The WWE Network was a lethal dose of poison!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
flashy_mcflash posted:That's the only explanation that makes sense to me. I looks like a doomsday number but if you pull off a 600k 2nd half you've just forged ~50% growth when in reality you've falling 10% from Mania.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
For my fellow Canadians, this press release clarifies things a bit:quote:ROGERS AND WWE ANNOUNCE LANDMARK TELEVISION AND WWE NETWORK AGREEMENT So the channel may be offered even if you don't have Rogers. For example, I have Bell-Alliant FibreOP, but I still have a package that includes Sportsnet and Sportsnet 360, stations owned and distributed by Rogers. Likewise, TSN is owned by Bell, but my parents, who have Rogers cable, get TSN. Rogers will distribute WWE Network to other cable providers. If I can get a 24/7 wrestling channel for ten bux a month and I can PVR poo poo I am happy. Zack_Gochuck fucked around with this message at 15:45 on Jul 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
oldpainless posted:The WWE Network was a lethal dose of poison! The bloody burps are set to begin! Huzzah!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 15:41
|
|