Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure

Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Wrestling Board => Topic started by: Thin Lizzy on July 31, 2014, 11:42:58 AM

Title: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: Thin Lizzy on July 31, 2014, 11:42:58 AM
Only added 33k in subscribers for a total of 700k.

With all that promoting, they only upped the subscription number by 5%.

People just don't need any more unnecessary bills, even if it's only $10 a month.
Title: Re: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: littleguns on July 31, 2014, 01:57:53 PM
They lost 128K
Title: Re: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: Grape Ape on July 31, 2014, 02:56:48 PM
Disappointing, yes, but I still think this is the future of TV in general.

They are probably suffering a bit from account sharing.  I'm not sure if there's parameters in place to prevent that.
Title: Re: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: Thin Lizzy on July 31, 2014, 03:27:33 PM
Disappointing, yes, but I still think this is the future of TV in general.

They are probably suffering a bit from account sharing.  I'm not sure if there's parameters in place to prevent that.

I agree, but, I think they jumped the gun. If everyone had smart tvs and watching the internet was no different from tv, this thing would work, but, they're still showing their flagship show, Raw, on the USA network. So, for most people, there's no reason to get the WWE Network.

Title: Re: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: MCWAY on July 31, 2014, 08:54:13 PM
What's the point of watching WWE network, if they're going to give WrestleMania 30 away for free on NBC this weekend?

Let's see: Punk leaves; Bryan is out (perhaps for good); and did I mention they did the absolute GAYEST move in WrestleMania, if not WWE, history (i.e. ENDING UNDERTAKER'S STREAK....especially with Lesnar who then goes on hiatus for 4 months)?

I wonder why WWE network is struggling.
Title: Re: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: Montague on August 02, 2014, 03:23:48 AM
What's the point of watching WWE network, if they're going to give WrestleMania 30 away for free on NBC this weekend?

Let's see: Punk leaves; Bryan is out (perhaps for good); and did I mention they did the absolute GAYEST move in WrestleMania, if not WWE, history (i.e. ENDING UNDERTAKER'S STREAK....especially with Lesnar who then goes on hiatus for 4 months)?

I wonder why WWE network is struggling.


The network offers a lot more programming than WM. In fact, I'm impressed by the program offerings it boasts. However, I believe the company shot itself in the foot as far as PPV revenue by including it in the network package.
Title: Re: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: Thin Lizzy on August 02, 2014, 05:12:28 AM

The network offers a lot more programming than WM. In fact, I'm impressed by the program offerings it boasts. However, I believe the company shot itself in the foot as far as PPV revenue by including it in the network package.

Without the PPVs included, you'd have to think the subscriber numbers would be dramatically lower.

IMO, they should've waited a few years until everyone has smart tvs. At that point they could show all their programming, including Raw and Smackdown, on the network, and use an advertising model instead of a monthly fee, and, then charge extra for special events like Mania and the Royal Rumble.
Title: Re: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: MCWAY on August 04, 2014, 07:23:04 AM

The network offers a lot more programming than WM. In fact, I'm impressed by the program offerings it boasts. However, I believe the company shot itself in the foot as far as PPV revenue by including it in the network package.

Indeed! Getting 14 PPVs for the price of one or two is just plain STUPID. I remember nearly 20 years ago when they started the "In Your House" series of PPVs. They were marketed as a ppv-lite to persuade you to order the big 4 (SummerSlam, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, and a WrestleMania).

But they were only two hours long, until mid-1997 when they bumped "In Your House: Ground Zero" to three hours. But that didn't even sell out until they switched the main event from Bret Hart vs. The Patriot (WWF title match) to Shawn Michaels vs. Undertaker.
Title: Re: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: funk51 on August 04, 2014, 12:36:31 PM
 :o they get rid of guys like this and keep twinks like the miz,   people want to see the freaks.
Title: Re: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: MCWAY on August 04, 2014, 02:23:51 PM
:o they get rid of guys like this and keep twinks like the miz,   people want to see the freaks.

Ezekiel Jackson became irrelevant once The Corre disbanded.

Giant Gonzalez was a freak, too.
Title: Re: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: The Showstoppa on August 05, 2014, 12:53:43 PM
Good
Title: Re: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: littleguns on August 07, 2014, 03:59:20 AM
I am guessing cuts are not over. There is still plenty of enhancement talent aka jobbers they can get rid of, Mr Woo-Woo-Woo (f'in useless), Heath Slater and others
Title: Re: WWE Network - Brutal Disappointing Numbers
Post by: MCWAY on August 08, 2014, 10:54:47 AM
I am guessing cuts are not over. There is still plenty of enhancement talent aka jobbers they can get rid of, Mr Woo-Woo-Woo (f'in useless), Heath Slater and others

They just whacked Del Rio.