|
I didn't watch raw but I heard Cesaro vs Cena was a 4* PPV quality match?
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
fatherdog posted:They probably should have turned Sheamus heel and turned Cesaro face and had them feud. Without turning Sheamus, though, turning Cesaro face would still have resulted in him being in a muddled mess right now because all the other top heels are occupied, so he'd be having endless midcard matches with Del Rio or something. You can't turn Sheamus heel, he's the Irish John Cena! E: Can I just say I really really really hate Stephanie, and it has nothing to do with her character or whatever, she's just a painfully wooden actress who over acts everything and I wish she'd get off my TV. maxallen fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|