WWE Network Thread

Moneymaker

I think RAW really overdoes it and it ruins the flow of the show when watching live, but anyone sensible knows ads are an important part of just about anything these days and there is a happy medium that can be found. They get their bonus revenue, we still get our PPVs from the 90s and the likes.

It's bad business to leave money behind and that's what they are doing right now.

Ape Lincoln

Moneymaker wrote: »

It's bad business to leave money behind and that's what they are doing right now.

Considering the numbers signed up as it stands and how that includes non-USA subs they could have made more money with a traditional TV network station than the online/over-the-top.

If you think about the logistics of putting ads on the network it might be tricky or at least awkward. Would you air them before every title including the back catalogue or just on the livestream? Only the most popular library titles?

I'm not sure how many people put on the livestream and watch it as a normal channel but I rarely do. Can't say I know much about ad rates and all that marketing jazz but I would imagine that they would need to show advertisers specific numbers that will definitely see their ads. At present they may not even be sure how many of the subs are actually in the USA.

Their pay-per-view events are the biggest attraction and they have ads and product placement anyway. I dunno what sort of coin they get for Raw ads which gets 3-4 million viewers - the rates are lower other companies get for similar - but the networks are obviously way lower.

And adverts are somewhat of a deterrent (to me anyway, don't know how people in USA would feel about them.

Jester252

Ape Lincoln wrote: »

Considering the numbers signed up as it stands and how that includes non-USA subs they could have made more money with a traditional TV network station than the online/over-the-top.

If you think about the logistics of putting ads on the network it might be tricky or at least awkward. Would you air them before every title including the back catalogue or just on the livestream? Only the most popular library titles?

I'm not sure how many people put on the livestream and watch it as a normal channel but I rarely do. Can't say I know much about ad rates and all that marketing jazz but I would imagine that they would need to show advertisers specific numbers that will definitely see their ads. At present they may not even be sure how many of the subs are actually in the USA.

Their pay-per-view events are the biggest attraction and they have ads and product placement anyway. I dunno what sort of coin they get for Raw ads which gets 3-4 million viewers - the rates are lower other companies get for similar - but the networks are obviously way lower.

And adverts are somewhat of a deterrent (to me anyway, don't know how people in USA would feel about them.

Plenty of online streaming services have ads, it won't be hard to implement. Also they will use the number of subs as a metric for the ads when selling space.

Palo Alto

Stop encouraging adverts guys! It would seriously make me consider binning my sub.

Deadlie

Why don't think just open it up internationally? The fact that anyone who is tech savvy outside the states can get it means that its technically possible to roll it out internationally, right? If I could sign up without all the Nola, DNS stuff, I would.

Ape Lincoln

Ape Lincoln wrote: »

Considering the numbers signed up as it stands and how that includes non-USA subs they could have made more money with a traditional TV network station than the online/over-the-top.

If you think about the logistics of putting ads on the network it might be tricky or at least awkward. Would you air them before every title including the back catalogue or just on the livestream? Only the most popular library titles?

I'm not sure how many people put on the livestream and watch it as a normal channel but I rarely do. Can't say I know much about ad rates and all that marketing jazz but I would imagine that they would need to show advertisers specific numbers that will definitely see their ads. At present they may not even be sure how many of the subs are actually in the USA.

Their pay-per-view events are the biggest attraction and they have ads and product placement anyway. I dunno what sort of coin they get for Raw ads which gets 3-4 million viewers - the rates are lower other companies get for similar - but the networks are obviously way lower.

And adverts are somewhat of a deterrent (to me anyway, don't know how people in USA would feel about them.

The big advertisers and the networks in the US don't like wrestling at all. For the number of viewers Raw has the network doesn't make as much as other shows would. Getting better targeting of ads on the network and better rates could cut out the middleman of the network and increase revenue nicely without huge amount of ads.

hallo dare

Product placement advertising during a match is the way to go. Same as UFC. Michael overthetop cole would be in his element spouting crap like "this match was brought to you live by universal studios" or something like that. And advertising on the ramp and ring mat, that way nobody has to suffer advert breaks.

leggo

Think someone has suggested this already but a tiered plan is the way to go here. $9.99 includes adverts, $11.99 gets you in ad free. Loads of apps do the same so people are bedded in on the concept.

gnfnrhead

The fact that the network doesnt include Raw is the big mistake they made.

rovert

gnfnrhead wrote: »

The fact that the network doesnt include Raw is the big mistake they made.

It isn't up to WWE. USA Network has the absolute power on that.

gnfnrhead

rovert wrote: »

It isn't up to WWE. USA Network has the absolute power on that.

Then they shouldnt have launched the network. Why on earth would you put so much into something without your main attraction? "Watch the PPV's and then.... ehhh.... any random crap we can find?"

Rjd2

I see your point but the WWE does need a somewhat mainstream platform which is why they will always stay on proper telly, 4 million people are not going to subscribe to the network:P

Wrestling is not hot these days and hasn't been for a while,taking your biggest draw away from the masses would not be canny.

And of course the USA network would be fuming if Raw ended up on the network.

jaykhunter

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Then they shouldnt have launched the network. Why on earth would you put so much into something without your main attraction?

You are right, the main draw of WWE is PPVs and RAW. They're just trying to make the most money possible, by having their TV deal AND their own Network. They also need TV to rope in new viewers. Obviously it's not working as they're at half the number of American subs needed to break even.

To clarify their position, WWE spent $75 million starting up the Network over the last 4 years. To get back to where they were before that (2010's financial state) they'd need 2 million subscribers from 2016 onwards until 2020.

rovert

The Dangerous Divas Countdown show was fun.

Fandango was the MVP contributor. Really funny in parts.

They showed AJ Lee breaking down meeting Lita!

Glad Beth Phoenix and Sherri Martel got featured as much as they did.

Moolah? Boo hiss boo.

Sunny will always bum me out she had the Wrestling world at her feet from a looks, charisma, Wrestling psychology from a manager's stand point and super sharp as a guest commentator 1996-early 1997. Then fell off HUGE.

gerrybbadd

rovert wrote: »

The Dangerous Divas Countdown show was fun.

Fandango was the MVP contributor. Really funny in parts.

They showed AJ Lee breaking down meeting Lita!

Glad Beth Phoenix and Sherri Martel got featured as much as they did.

Moolah? Boo hiss boo.

Sunny will always bum me out she had the Wrestling world at her feet from a looks, charisma, Wrestling psychology from a manager's stand point and super sharp as a guest commentator 1996-early 1997. Then fell off HUGE.

Sunny was awesome. The original Diva. Her fall from grace was such a disappointment, she really could have done anything. She was an awesome manager!

PTH2009

gerrybbadd wrote: »

Sunny was awesome. The original Diva. Her fall from grace was such a disappointment, she really could have done anything. She was an awesome manager!

where was Chyna and Victoria in that list ?? even Molly Holly

Blue_Dabadee

WWE Network is like wine, it will get better with age.

I want to see more Reality TV shows on the network maybe they could do a ripoff of MTV's Cribs by that i mean they have a show showing the houses of WWE Superstars or former WWE Superstars.

beakerjoe

mxph3 wrote: »

WWE Network is like wine, it will get better with age.

I want to see more Reality TV shows on the network maybe they could do a ripoff of MTV's Cribs by that i mean they have a show showing the houses of WWE Superstars or former WWE Superstars.

"Heres the rental car I sleep in when Im on the road. "

Monokne

rovert wrote: »

Sunny will always bum me out she had the Wrestling world at her feet from a looks, charisma, Wrestling psychology from a manager's stand point and super sharp as a guest commentator 1996-early 1997. Then fell off HUGE.

HUGE is very appropriate when it comes to Sunny.

Pentecost

Monokne wrote: »

HUGE is very appropriate when it comes to Sunny.

In my head she'll always be the Sunny of 1995/1996. Jaysus, as a young lad back then it's fair to say she was memorable!

rovert

Interfering with yourself

Pentecost

Repeatedly, if memory serves.

gerrybbadd

Pentecost wrote: »

Repeatedly, if memory serves.

It was those damn boob tubes she used to wear when she managed the Body Donnas. Sweet jumping Jesus!

Ape Lincoln

jaykhunter wrote: »

To clarify their position, WWE spent $75 million starting up the Network over the last 4 years. To get back to where they were before that (2010's financial state) they'd need 2 million subscribers from 2016 onwards until 2020.

To put that into perspective I think they lost about $40mill on WWF New York. Can't remember the figures for what they lost on WBF and XFL.

At some point they will have to accept that they won't get two million US subscribers and will probably up the price. There was a feeling back in the 90s with the In Your House shows that charging full whack for them might harm the buyrate but afaik it didn't. Maybe that's apples and oranges but there are clever/sneaky ways to put the price up without making them look bad eg. a higher price for a shorter sub and cheaper/same price for longer/yearly subs.

leggo

Ape Lincoln wrote: »

To put that into perspective I think they lost about $40mill on WWF New York. Can't remember the figures for what they lost on WBF and XFL.

At some point they will have to accept that they won't get two million US subscribers and will probably up the price. There was a feeling back in the 90s with the In Your House shows that charging full whack for them might harm the buyrate but afaik it didn't. Maybe that's apples and oranges but there are clever/sneaky ways to put the price up without making them look bad eg. a higher price for a shorter sub and cheaper/same price for longer/yearly subs.

Their main problem isn't getting to 2 million subs, that's probably doable over a long enough timeline considering the $10p/m selling price will mean a PPV will come along that enough fans go "**** it, I'll cave." The problem I see them having is retaining that, because WWE have an awful habit of losing interest in their latest pet project (most recently: Twitter, Tout, the app, Batista etc) and moving onto a new one, whereas they absolutely have to keep interested in the Network and creating/releasing new content or people will just drop subscriptions once the novelty wears off.

jaykhunter

leggo wrote: »

Their main problem isn't getting to 2 million subs, that's probably doable over a long enough timeline considering the $10p/m selling price will mean a PPV will come along that enough fans go "**** it, I'll cave.

I know you mean (that $10 isn't much) but what PPV matchup could WWE feasibly do to get 2 million people to input their credit card? That's like half of RAW's audience. They can't just order it once, WWE need a constant 2 million over years.

leggo

Oh I don't think it'd be one match, like I said over the course of time enough matches/events would be able to spur up 2 million subscriptions cumulatively. For example huge Shield fans might go for Ambrose/Rollins, Money in the Bank would drum up interest and casuals would go for the likes of SummerSlam, the Rumble and Mania. I don't think getting 2 million individual subs is unrealistic over the course of a year or two. The problem is getting them all recurring at the same time. I'm not sure their core market is vast enough to get that return.

But we're in unchartered territory here, I don't think even WWE are aware of all of the factors that can swing things one way or another yet, so who knows?

jaykhunter

I hope you're right man (I want the Network to succeed, it's a fantastic service) even in the Attitude Era maybe they could almost scrape 2 million subs IMO. Converting free customers into consistently paying ones is really difficult. I don't think the "half the price, double the people will buy" type of thinking actually works. I do hope they manage it.

rovert

BOOM
http://network.wwe.com/shows/vault/saturday-nights-main-event



In some ways they tell the story of WWF's 1980s than their Pay Per Views.

Ape Lincoln

This has died on my android. I did the DNS setup, mock locations/ fake GPS free thing but after I login it just gives me an account page. The app seems to think I'm not subscribed.

Working fine in PS3 but SNME hasn't been added