|
harperdc posted:660,000 plus in less than two months is pretty amazing all told. If this were the model UFC was using where they were using it to supplement their revenue and not giving up any profits right now this would be correct. If UFC were at 67,000 subscribers instead of way over their projections you could say "It's been 1 month since they rolled out, they just started the hyped Chael/Silva TUF and they have a lot of upcoming live events on there too, they should get to their breakeven point pretty easily." WWE sacrified the majority of their Wrestlemania profit to get as many people as they could signed up right away. They pushed the PPV angle with WM as the centerpiece really hard and it was the biggest selling point of the network. They pushed this thing really hard for the last two months and even brought Hogan back to help with the push. With their biggest card played they are slightly more than halfway to their breakeven point for the year and 2/3s of the way to their projection for the year and breakeven point for future years. They are 1/3 of the way to the low point of 2 million subscribers they promised for the future. Are they going to find 330,000 more subscribers this year for B PPVs and the back catalog? I doubt they do this year. That's not fatal and they've found enough people to try it out for now and I'm guessing can grow it enough from here that they can lower costs and make a small profit on the network. If the price point were such a selling point there would have been more buyers for WM. Now, maybe they still did 350,000 PPV buys in North America on PPV and in reality they found an additional 300,000 people to buy the Network who wouldn't buy on PPV (assuming WM would've done 650 this year in North America.) Then, hey, by showing the Network is stable and cheap they'll convert those PPV buyers next year or the year after if they still run WM. It's not a dire number, it's just not a good or impressive one. It's not going to be a failure and that's good. Like a lot of WWE's business lately it's "fine."
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
It's tough to tell if it's a good number or not. Investors clearly expected it to be higher. It'll also be interesting to see what their retention rate is following Wrestlemania (and in 6 months). I wonder if this forces them to rush to put up some older content or if they continue the slow drip. I streamed on a PS3 and it was flawless. Had one minor hiccup near the end where it seemed to skip back 5 seconds and then went on fine. This should bode well for them going forward. But I do think one of their biggest streaming hurdles will be when ISPs clamp down like they did on Netflix. Having a million people streaming a 3-hour event on a Sunday night surely raises some flags at the ISPs. And we already know they are none too happy with losing their PPV cut.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
Hey, they uploaded 40 more ECWs. They're up to mid-95 now so get your cruiserweights before they escape to Nitro. Still just a few scattered WCCWs and where's my goddamn Sgt. Slaughter alley fight Vince 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
I think the biggest reason The Network isn't pulling in bigger numbers is that 6 month commitment thing. I know that turned me off when they initially announced there would be a commitment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 10:24
|
|
|
How long does it take for live stuff to get uploaded? Had to go to bed before RAW was over last night and really want to see the end of it. Was kinda disappointed that stuff like RAW isn't played live on the network. I just figured it would be on there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
cheesetriangles posted:How long does it take for live stuff to get uploaded? Had to go to bed before RAW was over last night and really want to see the end of it. Was kinda disappointed that stuff like RAW isn't played live on the network. I just figured it would be on there. That's pretty much the one thing the Network needs but won't get for a while (and then only if contract renegotiations with the various cable companies work out). Right now you can't stream the weekly cable shows legally anywhere and the only quick legal on-demand upload is through Hulu, with the Network putting the shows up at least 30 days after airing. I agree, though, I'd loving love it if the Network just streamed all the aired content they put out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
Raw will never be on the Network and it shouldn't be. It would make no sense. Maybe they can negotiate putting it up sooner than 30 days, but if that screws over other contracts there's no reason to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 11:52
|
|
|
They already stream PPVs, why wouldn't it make sense to stream other live content?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 12:07
|
|
|
flatluigi posted:They already stream PPVs, why wouldn't it make sense to stream other live content? because they make an assload more money not doing that
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
The Boogieman appears to be embedded in the network logo animated sequence. I caught this as I was loading last night's Raw Backstage Pass from VOD. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
flatluigi posted:They already stream PPVs, why wouldn't it make sense to stream other live content? If you make the entire product insular to just the Network (and no actual network is going to let you simulcast on the internet so they'd have to leave TV completely) then you lose out on a huge revenue stream and exposure. It would be beyond insane to move Raw or Smackdown to the Network. The entire purpose for Raw and Smackdown now is drive people to buy the Network. They have to be available to people in order to do that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 12:57
|
|
|
Dave said in his podcast with Bryan and Mike today that there probably just isn't that many people that would pay $10 for Wrestlemania that wouldn't pay $70. As one of those people I'm just surprised there wasn't a bit more in that category.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 13:00
|
|
|
Thauros posted:Dave said in his podcast with Bryan and Mike today that there probably just isn't that many people that would pay $10 for Wrestlemania that wouldn't pay $70. Saying that WWE is selling Wrestlemania for $10 is a bit of a stretch. First of all the minimum amount is $60. But for that $60 you get 5-6 PPVs and all the other WWE Network stuff. Much better value than paying $70 for a single show. It seems like a world of difference in value to me and now that the network has proven that it can hold up with a major event I would be struggling to see the logic in buying a PPV. Plus, the WWE Network is so much more accessible in my opinion. To pay for a conventional PPV you have to pay a TV subscription and have the infrastructure for that available to have the opportunity to pay for it. And then you pay the extremely high price for each event, to only watch once, live only. While it is true that the WWE Network is only "available" in one country at the moment, which severely limits its audience, once they open it up I see it being a much more favourable method for worldwide viewers. I mean I can't personally order a PPV conventionally because I can't get subscription TV but anyone with an internet connection can get the network. Even my middling 500kB/s DSL connection streamed Wrestlemania in HD for 6 hours perfectly. I'm so happy with how it is working. I think their strategy of pushing the network so hard while limiting signups to one country is nonsense and they need to fix that. It makes all their advertising for it not to be going out worldwide to be wasted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
jtm33 posted:Saying that WWE is selling Wrestlemania for $10 is a bit of a stretch. First of all the minimum amount is $60. But for that $60 you get 5-6 PPVs and all the other WWE Network stuff. Much better value than paying $70 for a single show. It seems like a world of difference in value to me and now that the network has proven that it can hold up with a major event I would be struggling to see the logic in buying a PPV. They're bound by contracts internationally that have to expire before they can offer the Network.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:They're bound by contracts internationally that have to expire before they can offer the Network. I thought this has been in the works for ages? What makes their United States contracts so special? It seems poorly planned if they are launching in only one country and wasting all their advertising on a limited audience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
jtm33 posted:I thought this has been in the works for ages? What makes their United States contracts so special? I'm not 100% sure but I know a large part of the issue internationally is that some/all of the major events are specials tied into the TV package rather than PPV events depending on the country. That issue affects their ability to offer the Network in those countries. Because none of the major events in the US are tied directly to TV rights deals, it's easier to do the Network thing here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
TV politics sure is complicated. The network could be so much better without it all, I hope it survives this weird transition period.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
I'm inclined to agree with Dave and Bryan in that next year Wrestlemania won't be on the Network and maybe not even Rumble or Summerslam. But I don't think they'll also raise the price. They'll probably do one or the other. I'd say it'll probably be removing the big PPVs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:I'm inclined to agree with Dave and Bryan in that next year Wrestlemania won't be on the Network and maybe not even Rumble or Summerslam. But I don't think they'll also raise the price. They'll probably do one or the other. I'd say it'll probably be removing the big PPVs. I'm still of the mindset that if they can keep the product hot for the next couple months, word-of-mouth is going to get them to a nice number subscriber wise. We're in week 7 and they've got 667k. It takes time to win back people who have left. The more the word spreads about the content and the reliability of the stream, the more success they'll have. I know a lot of that is me being overly optimistic but just from chatting with people at work, family members, old friends, etc., it seems there's a reluctance to buy in, but the few who have are loving it. That's obviously not of statistical significance, but I'm just making a gut prediction that I think this will continue to grow in terms of how big of a deal it is as the summer wears on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Has there been any word on what the actual buyrate of Mania through normal means?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:I'm inclined to agree with Dave and Bryan in that next year Wrestlemania won't be on the Network and maybe not even Rumble or Summerslam. But I don't think they'll also raise the price. They'll probably do one or the other. I'd say it'll probably be removing the big PPVs. Which will be suicide, because no casual fan is going to put up $120 a year to get 8-9 B-shows. It's very unlikely they're going to have the PPVs on the UK version of the Network anyway since they signed a deal with Sky to have all the PPVs on Box Office. I think the number of subs they get when that launches will tell them a lot about how key those big shows are to the things success.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:51
|
|
Deadpool posted:I'm inclined to agree with Dave and Bryan in that next year Wrestlemania won't be on the Network and maybe not even Rumble or Summerslam. But I don't think they'll also raise the price. They'll probably do one or the other. I'd say it'll probably be removing the big PPVs. I think this is a bad move. I cancelled after the free trial, and only resubbed an hour before Mania to watch that. I don't think I would continue my subscription if they removed the big events. I'm sure a lot of others would as well. I like the VOD catalogue a lot, but don't really have the time to get enough use out of it to make it worthwhile without also getting the big events.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
How much do they charge for PPVs in the United States? I have heard varying numbers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 14:57
|
|
|
Them trying to go back to PPV for one or two events a year would be suicide as it would allow the cable companies to just straight up tell them to gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
jtm33 posted:How much do they charge for PPVs in the United States? I have heard varying numbers. 60 bones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
This is a one way street, they can't back off now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:I think the biggest reason The Network isn't pulling in bigger numbers is that 6 month commitment thing. I know that turned me off when they initially announced there would be a commitment. This is my reason for not ponying up for it. I'm a casual fan at best, and like where the product is right now, but I've drifted away from it before. I don't know if I'd have time to sit and watch a bunch of old PPVs, awesome as they were. A month-by-month deal ala Netflix for $15 I could go for.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
I finally have real internet today, the bad news unblockus trial ran out. Anyone recommend a cheap [or even free] VPN service? I saw someone mention a £20 /year service but I cannot find it for the life of me now!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
simosimo posted:Anyone recommend a cheap [or even free] VPN service? I saw someone mention a £20 /year service but I cannot find it for the life of me now!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
jtm33 posted:How much do they charge for PPVs in the United States? I have heard varying numbers. Non-Mania shows are $45 SD and $55 HD on my cable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
simosimo posted:I finally have real internet today, the bad news unblockus trial ran out. Anyone recommend a cheap [or even free] VPN service? I saw someone mention a £20 /year service but I cannot find it for the life of me now! Unlocator is $60 a year and what I use.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
Xenoletum posted:Them trying to go back to PPV for one or two events a year would be suicide as it would allow the cable companies to just straight up tell them to gently caress off. njsykora posted:Which will be suicide, because no casual fan is going to put up $120 a year to get 8-9 B-shows. It's very unlikely they're going to have the PPVs on the UK version of the Network anyway since they signed a deal with Sky to have all the PPVs on Box Office. I think the number of subs they get when that launches will tell them a lot about how key those big shows are to the things success. Yeah, I can't see any way they could try to shift the big PPVs off the Network on to PPV and have it work out better vs just trying to push more Network subs somehow
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Sky Shadowing posted:You weren't watching on two separate devices, were you? If you were they may have called you out on it and cancelled it- terms of service stated only 1 device at a time. If this is anything like MLB.tv, then that won't be an issue. Between my brothers and my dad, we've had simultaneous streams of that going on different IP addresses for years. I only originally purchased the WWE Network right when it started because all of the FAQs going out said you could have two simultaneous streams. Netflix has also been allowing a few streams to work at a time as well. I'm sure as long as you aren't doing an unreasonable amount of sharing, 5 or more in my opinion, it won't matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
njsykora posted:Which will be suicide, because no casual fan is going to put up $120 a year to get 8-9 B-shows. I agree entirely, I think they would lose much fewer subscribers if they raised the price to $15/mo as opposed to them moving Mania/Rumble off the network.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Went with unblockus as their trial was good. Sitting here with WCCW on the iPad while I work. Just so cool, I hope WWE make a bomb with subscribers. This is before ALL raws/smackdowns are online. Roll on Sunday Night Heat!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Valeyard posted:Yeah, I can't see any way they could try to shift the big PPVs off the Network on to PPV and have it work out better vs just trying to push more Network subs somehow The return of In Your House specials for Saturday nights only!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
Are WWE DVD's free of any licensing/retail deals/red tape so it's a matter of time before all of WWE DVDS like Mankind/Rock/Austin's DVD's are online? Still looking forward to Bobby Heenans DVD!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:16
|
|
|
simosimo posted:Are WWE DVD's free of any licensing/retail deals/red tape so it's a matter of time before all of WWE DVDS like Mankind/Rock/Austin's DVD's are online? Still looking forward to Bobby Heenans DVD! Barring some music they may have licensed specific to the DVDs, yea, they're free to use. I'm sure they'll continue this one per week every Saturday night thing. This weekend's looks to be the John Cena Experience DVD unless they made a new two-hour Cena doc specific to WM 30, which I doubt. Also, the listing for tonight has changed from two 30 minute Journey to Wrestlemania things to one hour-long Journey episode centered around Daniel Bryan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
getting the PPVs on the Network is the selling point for me. Everything else is a convenience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:38 |
|
|
coconono posted:getting the PPVs on the Network is the selling point for me. Everything else is a convenience. Yeah, if they moved the 'major' ppvs off of the Network, I would drop it as fast as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2014 17:27
|
|