Whats up with the extremely dull crowd?

Lovelyguy

Hi all

I've been a casual Wrestling fan the last 15 years or so, though in the last couple of years I rarely see anything. I saw a repeated RAW yesterday where Sheamus fought Barrett & Mark Henry afterwards. Then the Shield & John Cena appeared. I couldn't help but notice the absolute blandness of the crowd, who didn't seem to respond positively or negatively to anything.

Is this a new phenomenon or was it a once off? I remember the days when a Val Venis/Road Dogg match (two mid carders) would get a huge response.

glenjamin

Pretty standard. There's about half a dozen crowds where you will actually get chanting, cheering, etc. The likes of Toronto, Boston, New York, Chicago, and London are the best crowds. Sad because the crowd can really make a difference to making a dull show a memorable one.

Machismo Fan

WWE's steady erosion of their hardcore adult audience in favour of kids.

Lord TSC

Machismo Fan wrote: »

WWE's steady erosion of their hardcore adult audience in favour of kids.

This is really the simple answer. I reckon you could write a book about the problem though.

For one, WWE have developed an inability to give anyone a consistent push. New people debut, do well for a few weeks and then suddenly just start losing constantly in random matches with no meaning. As such, no one wants to ever get behind anyone because there's no long term point.

There's only two acts that WWE have pushed well in recent times; Cena and The Shield. The majority of fans refuse to or simply cannot get behind Cena due to his childish promos, inability to sell anything and his constant destruction of any new act he comes up against. Kids cheer him because he's superman, and then they don't get behind anyone else because, quite simply, there is no one else on his level. The Shield are getting good reactions, but there's still the fear that there's no point getting behind them too much cause people have been burned too much in the past. Meanwhile, the only person who manages to compete with Cena on a crowd reaction level is Bryan, and WWE seems to be doing everything they can to kill that.

Storylines, meanwhile, rarely make sense, never are three dimensional and often simply fizzle out. Titles mean nothing since they are hot-potato-d around. Some, like Punk, try to make them mean something but see all their work undone by the likes of Cena in seconds. The WHC tends to be given to someone who has spent months losing on end. The IC and US titles are jobber titles. The tag titles haven't been defended for ages in a proper story.

All of this combines to create a sense of "Why bother" among a lot of fans...and then when you do get an active crowd, it tends to be because they've turned on the show and are bored, so want to make a statement about how bad the product is (e.g. the Post-Mania crowd).

rossie1977

Machismo Fan wrote: »

WWE's steady erosion of their hardcore adult audience in favour of kids.

observer wrote:

An interesting statistic about the age of WWE's audience is that only 21% of their US audience is under the age of 18, despite the PG product. During the Attitude Era, that number was almost 40%.

full breakdown of wwe audience

* 21% are between the ages of 2-17.

* 23% are between the ages of 18-34.

* 26% are between the ages of 35-49.

* 30% are 50 and older

nielsen media research january 2012

Machismo Fan

rossie1977 wrote: »

full breakdown of wwe audience

That's the TV audience rather than those who attend events, plus with kids comes parents who couldn't care less about the product. There are other reasons (constant stop-start pushes, 3 hour shows, a horrendously booked midcard) but the lack of passionate adult fans at live events is the main one in my book.

rossie1977

live audience is still majority adults at wwe tv shows, i attended raw in birmingham in november and adults outnumbered kids 10 to 1 easily

look at the crowd lines coming into the building at the start of these clips, no question its max 21-25% kids in these clips, what you are not seeing anymore at wrestling shows is the spring break crowd that followed wwf and wcw around in the late 1990s, the kids stuff is a complete myth, look at attitude era videos and there are lots of kids in the audience

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SlTR-LpZ7w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7dqPw--ZcE

rossie1977

i also think wwe do a sh*t poor job amplifying the crowd noise (maybe its so that certain chants are not audible on camera or something)

compare the real live version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cGSwo9jr08

to wwes version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r98lkivUsZk

Stereomaniac

So do you think (pardon the term if it offends anyone) smarks buy tickets to T.V shows where they wouldn't normally go to house shows? Thanks for those videos by the way. I'm nostalgic!

Lord TSC

rossie1977 wrote: »

live audience is still majority adults at wwe tv shows, i attended raw in birmingham in november and adults outnumbered kids 10 to 1 easily

It's not really fair to compare shows in England to ones in America though. In America, there's an over saturation in the wrestling industry. In terms of companies, you've got WWE, TNA, ROH and a crazy number of Indys rolling into town on a regular basis. Compare that with Ireland and England where, for the most part, you've got two shows a year, maybe three if TNA come over. So when WWE does come over this side of the Atlantic, they jack up the prices knowing it's going to be a sell out, and a lot of wrestling fans who don't get to go to many shows flock in.

Likewise, showing videos from PPVs tend to give skewed visions as well. Generally when adults do decide to go to a show, they choose TV tapings and PPVs. Compare it to, for example, the house shows in Dublin where the majority of the crowd are most definitly kids and their families.

Mania tends to be the most important AND most expensive show of the year, and subsequently the most "adult" crowd of the year. The night after Mania is a fall out of that, whereby people who have spent a lot of money going to Mania stay for the aftermath show. England shows tend to be known as the second most smarky of the year now (to the extent WWE actively advertised it as such this year), again due to the number of people who spend quite a bit of money going; these people tend to be young adults. Adults with money get to pick what shows they go to, and by and large pick the same shows every time in the same set of locations.

Don't base your view on who comprise the average WWE audience on PPV shows and shows in England. You've got to do it based on the meaningless Raws held the other 51 weeks a year, and the house shows they run three times a week.

rossie1977 wrote: »

full breakdown of wwe audience

* 21% are between the ages of 2-17.

* 23% are between the ages of 18-34.

* 26% are between the ages of 35-49.

* 30% are 50 and older

nielsen media research january 2012

What I'd love to see are figures for the breakdown of "money spent on WWE" in comparison. Because when you take on board things like kids bringing multiple family members vs the individual adult smark, pirating of PPVs, etc, I have a feeling that the 21% of people between the ages of 2 - 17 are responsible for an overwhealming majority of the cash influx into the company

GTR63

Lovelyguy wrote: »

I couldn't help but notice the absolute blandness of the crowd, who didn't seem to respond positively or negatively to anything.

Its hard for fans to get behind and believe in guys as wwe have stopped/started so many wrestlers pushes it is staggering. On top of this the storylines tend to be a bit dull too. This week we saw a Lesnar destroy his erm bosses office, Am I meant to feel sorry for HHH going to Ikea and replacing then having to put together new furniture. Then this upcoming week we are getting to see a dance contest. That great, right :rolleyes:

rossie1977

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Likewise, showing videos from PPVs tend to give skewed visions as well. Generally when adults do decide to go to a show, they choose TV tapings and PPVs. Compare it to, for example, the house shows in Dublin where the majority of the crowd are most definitly kids and their families.

houseshows have more kids everywhere no question, tv shows are mostly adults though, i truly believe if cena was not around wwes 2-12 fanbase would be tiny right now

Don't base your view on who comprise the average WWE audience on PPV shows and shows in England. You've got to do it based on the meaningless Raws held the other 51 weeks a year, and the house shows they run three times a week.

been to dozens of shows in the states, raws, all big 4 ppvs over the past 12 years, like i said its no longer the spring break crowd, by 2002 the spring break crowd were all but gone, in recent years i have noticed it more and more, in miami last year there was barely any wrestling fans out partying on the saturday night, with 70,000 wrestling fans in town southbeach bars should have been packed but they were nowhere near, after mania 26 about only about half a dozen wrestling fans in the one bar in downtown phoenix after the show

What I'd love to see are figures for the breakdown of "money spent on WWE" in comparison. Because when you take on board things like kids bringing multiple family members vs the individual adult smark, pirating of PPVs, etc, I have a feeling that the 21% of people between the ages of 2 - 17 are responsible for an overwhealming majority of the cash influx into the company

a breakdown for each group probably doesn't exist, but taking first quarter 2013

(1) TV Rights Revence - $37.5 million
(2) Licensing Revence - $24.0 million
(3) Live Events - $21.0 million
(4) PPV Revenues - $15.1 million
(5) Digital Media - $9.0 million
(6) Home Ent./DVD - $7.0 million
(7) Venue Merch. - $5.1 million
(8) WWE Studios - $1.9 million
(9) WWE Mag. - $1.6 million

the dvd one probably tells us alot, top selling dvds for the past 6 months seem to overwhelmingly favour an older group of buyers

jaykhunter

Extremely dull crowd due to years of an extremely dull product.

WWE has been slow to change and make new stars. No competition, so no jumping ship, safe booking, and building stars from the ground up means no breakout stars. Like Orton's been in WWE for 11 years and he's in his 30s, and he won't catch fire/be the next Austin because he's not fresh. As opposed to someone catching fire within 2-3 years of being in WWE (Austin, Rock, Brock, Angle etc). I know Bryan's doing well but he's not booked anywhere near being able to successfully main event month after month.

Look at WWF/WWE's product in 92, 94, 96, 98, 00, 02, 04 : Vastly different rosters and outlooks. But 05-09, then going PG 09-present have felt largely the same, if you remove most of the main eventers. I'd go so far as to say that when you remove HHH, HBK, Taker, Batista etc you didn't replace the main event, you removed the main event : so we're left with mostly mid-card and opening card. Punk and Cena, and that's about it. We're missing a whole tier of super-hot draws/main-eventers. If guys like Sheamus, Ryback, Del Rio etc left today, in a few months, most of the audience wouldn't remember or care. So dull crowds bear that out.

DM_7

Teamshadowclan wrote: »

Likewise, showing videos from PPVs tend to give skewed visions as well. Generally when adults do decide to go to a show, they choose TV tapings and PPVs. Compare it to, for example, the house shows in Dublin where the majority of the crowd are most definitly kids and their families.

I think Rossie meant live as in the shows we see on tv -not people that go to house shows that are obviously live them but not live to anyone not in attendance as they won't ever see them.

takamichinoku

Three hour show with an hour of superstars before that.

Steve Austin wouldn't have endured three hour shows imo, what chance has john cena?

GTR63

takamichinoku wrote: »

Steve Austin wouldn't have endured three hour shows imo, what chance has john cena?

Sorry for being predictable but What?
Are you saying Austin wouldn`t get as over in a 3 Hour show format?

ShagNastii

I think what he's saying is that the crowd can't remain high octane for four+ hours, no matter who is in the ring.

krudler

jaykhunter wrote: »

Extremely dull crowd due to years of an extremely dull product.

WWE has been slow to change and make new stars. No competition, so no jumping ship, safe booking, and building stars from the ground up means no breakout stars. Like Orton's been in WWE for 11 years and he's in his 30s, and he won't catch fire/be the next Austin because he's not fresh. As opposed to someone catching fire within 2-3 years of being in WWE (Austin, Rock, Brock, Angle etc). I know Bryan's doing well but he's not booked anywhere near being able to successfully main event month after month.

Look at WWF/WWE's product in 92, 94, 96, 98, 00, 02, 04 : Vastly different rosters and outlooks. But 05-09, then going PG 09-present have felt largely the same, if you remove most of the main eventers. I'd go so far as to say that when you remove HHH, HBK, Taker, Batista etc you didn't replace the main event, you removed the main event : so we're left with mostly mid-card and opening card. Punk and Cena, and that's about it. We're missing a whole tier of super-hot draws/main-eventers. If guys like Sheamus, Ryback, Del Rio etc left today, in a few months, most of the audience wouldn't remember or care. So dull crowds bear that out.

exactly, of the newer talent its only Cena who's gotten a mega push, and he's no longer new talent he's a 10 year veteran now, after him who's the face of the company? Punk? he's a better heel, Sheamus isn't a big enough draw even though he's a solid talent. Orton is as boring as hell has been coasting along the last few years. Taker and HHH are basically retired. There's nobody right behind Cena to take over being the top draw, not like back in the days of Rock/Austin/HHH/Angle/Taker where if someone got injured there was enough top tier talent to replace them or push in their place. It's fine building Cena up at the number 1 guy, but when there's nobod right behind him to replace him then if he's injured you're in trouble.

It's WWE's own fault really, they push someone, run out of ideas or lose interest and then a guy who was hot for a few weeks or months is back in the midcard with nothing to do. look at The Shield, right now they're the best thing in it since Punk is out, but where do they go from here? knowing creative they'll split them up or have them in mid card feuds with hastily made 3 member teams of guys with nothing else to do.

GTR63

ShagNastii wrote: »

I think what he's saying is that the crowd can't remain high octane for four+ hours, no matter who is in the ring.

4 Hours? Nobody ever gets a genuine reaction on superstars so they hardly go hoarse a few hours in
They don`t reply for acts 40 minutes into the show either. I`d also put part of this down to the constant changes in the writing team and of direction too.

takamichinoku

GTR63 wrote: »

Sorry for being predictable but What?
Are you saying Austin wouldn`t get as over in a 3 Hour show format?

Man, on Raw back then, Austin was in damn near every segment for the 2 hours. Can you imagine one guy being on screen for three whole hours each week?
He'd've gotten over, absolutely. No way he would've gotten as over.

Mind you, I still think Austin would've been horrendously overexposed by the turn of the millennium if he hadn't his injury problems. It meant they had no choice but to hold something back for people to salivate over.

bobby_says_hi

Over the years WWE have started performing in larger venues haven't they? Large venues with lots of people make it harder for the sound to be heard. As far as I know they don't mic up the stands. The sound mixer(s) is/are at ringside so that/those microphone(s) pick up sound from whatever's in their range. So crowds won't seem lively at all unless they're screaming at the top of their voices. I watched a match from a PPV where it sounded like the crowd didn't give two sh!ts about it at all but then I watched a video of the same match recorded from an iPhone and the crowd is almost defeaning. So the crowds are reacting but they're just not getting picked up by the sound unless they're screaming at the top of their voices

The NXT crowds are always much more lively. It's mostly due to having a smaller arena but those fans always give good reactions despite sitting through three or four tapings a night. People who seem to barely get reactions on TV tend to get more pops and chants if they wrestle on NXT. The Usos get respectable reactions on regular TV but they get great pops on NXT. Layla got what sounded like dead crowds when she wrestled in the UK tapings but on NXT they were cheering her over miss popularity herself Paige