|
I didn't see it mentioned in here, but in the latest Wrestling Observer, its mentioned that the 2014 Elimination Chamber ppv won't be included on the day of launch. The earliest it can go up on the network will be March 25th. Just a heads up for the few people that were talking about not ordering it and then just watching it the next day when the network launches.
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:You can't blindly apply the full $10 to the PPVs. There's probably a lot of overhead that goes along with running the network, so at most you can give them $5 per subscriber but it wouldn't shock me if it's closer to $2. Thats true, while they are cutting out the middle man on PPV sales, there will still be a bit of overhead to it, and what that overhead actually totals won't be known until after the network launches, also apparently the article I read saying $10-15 off each buy was wrong, according to WWE's press release they get 20.08 roughly per buy, and with the extra hour of programming I would be shocked if that goes up by much for Mania. So it will be interesting to see if talent morale goes up after this years Wrestlemania after the first post network payday happens. Honestly the only reason I have any real interest in the numbers is because of the small amount of stock I hold in the company.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Astro7x posted:In the same regards, the $11-$15 figure per PPV is not profit, but revenue. Yes, but that revenue is solely for the PPV. The $10/month sub fee has to cover the entire network. Depending on how many people they had to hire to help run it, how much they are paying MLBN, the cost of servers, the cost of original content, if they have to pay people currently under contract more to compensate them appearing on new content, etc. I could go on. My point is simply that people like to pull the "well they need x amount of people paying $10 a month to make up for lost PPV revenue" by using the $10 figure as an absolute, when it's far from it. e: I trust the break even point of ~1 million subs that WWE released in that document that was posted earlier in the thread, they seem to have really done their research on this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Havoc904 posted:I didn't see it mentioned in here, but in the latest Wrestling Observer, its mentioned that the 2014 Elimination Chamber ppv won't be included on the day of launch. The earliest it can go up on the network will be March 25th. Just a heads up for the few people that were talking about not ordering it and then just watching it the next day when the network launches. I know, it's been known and in the OP for like a month now!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:Yes, but that revenue is solely for the PPV. The $10/month sub fee has to cover the entire network. Depending on how many people they had to hire to help run it, how much they are paying MLBN, the cost of servers, the cost of original content, if they have to pay people currently under contract more to compensate them appearing on new content, etc. I could go on. My point is simply that people like to pull the "well they need x amount of people paying $10 a month to make up for lost PPV revenue" by using the $10 figure as an absolute, when it's far from it. That's a good Point IcePhoenix, I'll still be watching the numbers closely, my grandfather bought me that stock as a birthday gift back in 2012, and always told me if the price dropped below 9 dollars to sell it. I guess he paid under 9 bucks a share, not like it's a huge payday, only 35 shares, was just one of those gifts he got me cuz of my love of wrestling, but I guess at this point I am going to just have to trust WWE's research and hope noone hosed it up and hope that whatever they do get off the network helps to grow the company and make talent happy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Brokenogre posted:That's a good Point IcePhoenix, I'll still be watching the numbers closely, my grandfather bought me that stock as a birthday gift back in 2012, and always told me if the price dropped below 9 dollars to sell it. I guess he paid under 9 bucks a share, not like it's a huge payday, only 35 shares, was just one of those gifts he got me cuz of my love of wrestling, but I guess at this point I am going to just have to trust WWE's research and hope noone hosed it up and hope that whatever they do get off the network helps to grow the company and make talent happy. Conidering they're more than double that I think you'll be alrght hanging on to it for a while longer. That's a really cool gift, too. I'd guess (I'm not a stock analyst but I had to take a couple accounting classes where we spent time working on them so I have a vague understanding) the two most important numbers for WWE are going to be the initial subscriber count and the amount of people that resub six months later, so keep an eye out for that. If those numbers are both solid I'd say you won't have to worry about selling the stock via ultimatum for quite a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
MassRafTer posted:Directv was open to carrying the premium version of the network. Why should cable companies not being thrilled about WWE's TV network idea (which would violate their PPV agreements as well) be mentioned in this release? Just because they didn't sign off on one of Vince's hair brained schemes doesn't mean they have to be cool with him doing something that harms their business and breaks agreements. I really hope this was one of those business meetings where things turned into VINCENT KENNEDY MCMAHON DAMMIT situations. I don't know much about the cable/dish infrastructure but I doubt the money that changes hands totally goes towards maintenance and expansion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:Conidering they're more than double that I think you'll be alrght hanging on to it for a while longer. That's a really cool gift, too. Eh my biggest concern is PPV paydays go down talent gets restless and a chunk of the upper card either not working well or actually decides to take a CM Punk leading to the product taking a big hit and therefor a sudden dip in stock price
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
If you have WWE stock, I highly suggest you get out now. The TV deal they signed in '05 after Spike burned them was renewed at the end of 2009, when RAW ratings averaged over a 3.5. Last year's RAW rating averaged just barely over a 3. The company's arguing that losing 0.1 per year over a five year deal warrants "doubling or tripling" of their fees. On top of that they're launching a revolutionary network that's pissed off every content provider by loving them out of PPV fees with zero notice (DISH has already pulled Elimination Chamber so that's 10-15% of American households gone before the Network even launches) and running pre- and post-shows for their major television programming (which wrecks the concept of using WWE as a strong lead-in), not to mention on-demand content and a new lineup of their own original programming being competition to what they're airing. If NBC Universal was willing to increase the rights to the level Vince was seeking, they would've offered it, it would've been signed and we wouldn't have gotten to this open negotiating period. They're only here because Vince needs rival bidders to run up the price to where he wants it, and the only one that's even remotely rumored is the new Fox Sports 1 and that's an incredibly dicey proposition. They would leverage it as a strong lead-in for their attempt at a Sportscenter-killer at 11pm, but wrestling on a sports channel goes against their very makeup. They'd also likely mandate going off right at 11 with zero overruns to avoid having the sports-only crowd choosing ESPN because they want sports updates instead of a pro wrestling over-run, and then you have Vince probably being petty and pushing the big overrun to the Network to try to draw fans to the post-RAW show instead of staying on FS1. Other than that there's really nobody out there putting in bids that I'm aware of. tl;dr: WWE's selling programming that's losing viewers year after year, and launching an internet network that goes counter to the rest of the winning network's programming (& gets pushed heavily on the programming itself) and pisses off the major TV carriers the winning network needs to get their programming to the masses, oh and WWE wants to at least double what they made back when they were hotter and not defying their overlords at every turn. The stock is incredibly high now on speculation on potential gains via the TV deal and the network; I would wager there's pretty much zero chance the TV deal comes out close to what Vince is speculating, so the stock's going to dip at least a bit in the short-term. If the network launch struggles to reach expectations as well the stock is going to take a nosedive. e: yeah I should've posted this before I went to lunch v  v
StupidSexyMothman fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
I like the part where you're A: posting this in the Network thread, and B: completely misunderstanding how the landscape of TV has changed over the last 5-6 years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
I know I come to the Wrestlehut for all my stock advice
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
The stock advice is better than whatever passes for jokes in the discussion thread tbh
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
I guess that's my fault for speculating what the network could mean in relation to talent happyness and how that could translate to stock prices. Sorry about that. As it is I wasn't really looking for stock advice as much as I was saying that I own stock and there for am concerned how the network might effect it, hell even if all 35 shares I own become worthless it won't matter like i said it was a birthday gift, it was more just general speculation on my part on how it could be effected in relation to the network.
Brokenogre fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Whatever goons put all their eggs into the WWE Stock basket need to out themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Red posted:Whatever goons put all their eggs into the WWE Stock basket need to out themselves. I put all my money into Rise Above Hate merchandise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
You know looking at that list of programing WWE put out I didn't see Monday Night War posted on it, I am wondering if that means it is being held back for a while. E: the programing lineup I am referring to http://www.wwe.com/inside/wwe-network-programming-lineup-26182163
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Brokenogre posted:You know looking at that list of programing WWE put out I didn't see Monday Night War posted on it, I am wondering if that means it is being held back for a while. They specifically mention it at the bottom of that article though, and show it on the main page, so I dunno? http://www.wwe.com/wwenetwork
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
Or it could be On-Demand only, in that they already somewhat produced the series for COD.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:They specifically mention it at the bottom of that article though, and show it on the main page, so I dunno? Ya I noticed that but it seems like all the other known shows have a start date and time, and that one was mysteriously omitted, wondering its just being held back or if they haven't decided when it starts
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
if the stock drops, WWE will start issuing its own cyptocurrency and claim they're bajillionaires.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
oldskool posted:If you have WWE stock, I highly suggest you get out now. Oh word?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:13
|
|
|
oldskool posted:If you have WWE stock, I highly suggest you get out now. A 3.0 in 2014 vs. a 3.5 in 2009 isn't quite the gap you think it is. The nature of TV has changed so much in the last few years that a simple ratings comparison really provides very little necessary context. The WWE's leverage comes from being an entity that a fairly consistent group of people watch as it airs, as opposed to recording and viewing later. It gains value from being a steady entity compared to most other weekly television, being new every single week of the year and, despite decreases, still being one of the most viewed shows on cable television. Wrestling might go against the idea of sports network programming on a very general level, but FOX Sports 1 is struggling for ratings and outside of select college football games, it has nothing that draws even close to what WWE programming does. In order to get into homes at launch, it settled for very low carrier rates. A property like WWE comes with a large built-in audience and provides the leverage the network needs in order to get a higher per-customer rate. Additionally, they want to use WWE to drive up Fox Sports Live's ratings, so they'd probably encourage an overrun more often than not as it would end the WWE's programming well into the programming on other networks, thus making people more likely to just remain on FS1 because it's too late to get into something else on another channel. Making them end at 11 pm is basically saying "Hey, we want you to have a chance to leave our channel for alternative programming." The people who want ESPN at 11 p.m. are already choosing ESPN. And while the PPV issue is certainly a big one for a multitude of reasons, I don't really think anyone is worried about their channel being blackballed because of potential association with the WWE.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
The thing about WWE programming is that, even with the lower rating, isn't losing Raw going to potentially bump USA from the #1 spot?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:The thing about WWE programming is that, even with the lower rating, isn't losing Raw going to potentially bump USA from the #1 spot? Last year it wouldn't but it would have made things very close.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:The thing about WWE programming is that, even with the lower rating, isn't losing Raw going to potentially bump USA from the #1 spot? Meltzer has certainly said it's a much bigger risk than it has been in the past. A year or two ago, losing Raw would still have left them at the top, now, it's not so clear-cut. And the notion that NBC/U would offer the world right away is silly. You offer a good, but not great deal to begin with, unless you KNOW there's a better deal coming when the exclusivity ends. If you suspect there's nothing better, or at least not significantly so, out there for them, then when the market opens up, WWE's position weakens. Now that could easily backfire and Fox could offer exactly what Vince is after, effectively forcing NBC to dig deep or lose out. But before that point, there's no incentive for them to offer more than they think it's worth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
MassRafTer posted:Last year it wouldn't but it would have made things very close. Does this take into account that Raw goes to a competitor, meaning it would receive the bump USA did?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:The WWE's leverage comes from being an entity that a fairly consistent group of people watch as it airs, as opposed to recording and viewing later. It gains value from being a steady entity compared to most other weekly television, being new every single week of the year and, despite decreases, still being one of the most viewed shows on cable television.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
WWE's stock is probably overvalued some because of the current hype for the Network and Mania 30, but I doubt it's in SELL NOW territory- especially if you've got all of 35 shares.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Minidust posted:This is very true. And even wildly popular, successful shows tend to have very short shelf lives. Something like Jersey Shore got crazy amounts of attention but they only made, what, like 3 seasons of it? And the survival rate of new shows is ridiculously low to begin with. Having the decent-but-dependable ratings that WWE offers might be more desirable to a network than taking a gamble to find the next big blockbuster. Especially as successful reality or scripted content gets more expensive year-on-year, with talent salaries inflating hugely for the biggest shows (think stuff like the Friends cast making $1mil+ per episode of the last couple of seasons). So something like WWE is attractive because you're paying a set rate for an extended period AND getting more original content out of it than you would from something traditionally scripted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Batista posted:Does this take into account that Raw goes to a competitor, meaning it would receive the bump USA did? If it went to a direct competitor I imagine it would but I doubt Fox Sports1 is anywhere near USA. That might be a different story if it went to FX or ESPN or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
Havoc904 posted:I didn't see it mentioned in here, but in the latest Wrestling Observer, its mentioned that the 2014 Elimination Chamber ppv won't be included on the day of launch. The earliest it can go up on the network will be March 25th. Just a heads up for the few people that were talking about not ordering it and then just watching it the next day when the network launches. Just pay for the network and stream it guilt free since you've paid for it already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
The huge number WWE expects comes from the contract NASCAR signed, while the WWE gets similar ratings with more events, they share a lot of that demo so there's zero reason to not expect that much money. The trickier things are the digital requirements they wanted that they now do internally.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
I was wondering where WWE Classics On Demand would fit into all this, and according to Wikipedia it was officially shut down last month. Huh, I had no idea, but I guess they've been de-emphasizing that service for a while now. Makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Batista posted:Does this take into account that Raw goes to a competitor, meaning it would receive the bump USA did? It does. Raw wouldn't go to one of USA's closest competitors. If it went to Spike I think they go into the top 10, and on FS1 it would becoming a top 25 network.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:The thing about WWE programming is that, even with the lower rating, isn't losing Raw going to potentially bump USA from the #1 spot? Yea. USA built a nice little nest of well-watched original programming but a lot of those shows have ended or are in their decline, so I'm guessing they probably value having a stable entity like WWE more than people realize. MJBuddy posted:The huge number WWE expects comes from the contract NASCAR signed, while the WWE gets similar ratings with more events, they share a lot of that demo so there's zero reason to not expect that much money. NASCAR brings in more ad money despite less viewers, so there's a decent amount of reason to think they won't hit that amount of money. Regarding, FS1, I think the problem with signing there is that there's a better than not chance that Fox Sports 1 would just use WWE to get the network off the ground and then dump them in favor of legit sports programming once they've increased viewership and carrier rates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
NASCAR is in probable decline though, I believe, while WWE stands to grow with their younger audience and significantly better numbers with minority demos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:Regarding, FS1, I think the problem with signing there is that there's a better than not chance that Fox Sports 1 would just use WWE to get the network off the ground and then dump them in favor of legit sports programming once they've increased viewership and carrier rates. Would they be able to just "dump them" though? WWE wants to get locked into a long-term contract, from what I've heard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Would they be able to just "dump them" though? WWE wants to get locked into a long-term contract, from what I've heard. I meant as in the end of the contract as opposed to during the contract. I doubt they get more than 5 years but who knows
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
epitasis posted:NASCAR is in probable decline though, I believe, while WWE stands to grow with their younger audience and significantly better numbers with minority demos. WWE's audience has been trending older for years. I don't know for sure but I'd guess it is older than it has been since the national expansion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
MassRafTer posted:WWE's audience has been trending older for years. I don't know for sure but I'd guess it is older than it has been since the national expansion. Sadly WWE can't sell beer like the major weekend sports. I mean, outside of the actual venues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2014 00:32
|
|