Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

WWE Network Thread

1…103104106108109…241

Comments

  • #3152
    Beefy78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    Agent Coulson wrote: »
    I can see this being the last contract Sky do with the WWE after this one ends thought If the Network is and running for a number of years with good subs I can see the WWE moving totally to the Network with everything.

    Moving everything to the Network would kill them as they have no way to make new fans without TV. Raw and Smackdown are sales pitches for PPVs and now the Network and they need to get as many eyes as possible onto them.

    Far more valuable to Sky than the PPVs is the many, many hours of TV scheduling that WWE fill for them - hours which BT Sports would snap up in a heartbeat. WWE needs someone to show their weekly shows and Sky needs the shows to fill their scheduling which is why their partnership has run as long as it has.


  • #3153
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,272 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Moving away from TV now would kill them alright.

    In 5 years it may be a totally differnt landscape for how the world views things with fibre brodand band on the increase around the world and faster and faster speeds coming more and more people will start to cut the cord.

    You can see now from just normal TV how much of it is watched online with the like of Hulu, Netflix, Amazon Prime, HBO Go and if you look at pirated torrents getting as many viewers as what is seen as normal tv these days.

    Having the Network up and running for 5 years gives the WWE time to judge and increse the price point of the Network to make it worth cutting the cord completely.

    Technology is moving faster and faster and we as viewers as catching up with it quicker than we ever have in the past.


  • #3154
    DM_7
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 18,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭DM_7


    TV may well be moving to an on demand environment where people watch the shows they want where they want but that only really works on the web where lots of shows come together in one place.

    As it is someone like sky has all its key shows available on demand through your sky box so TV is still convenient.

    Anyway if your show is made in a studio and a big part of your money is not generated by people turning up at the studio, in their thousands and paying to watch then you can go online only.

    If you are running a company where you make piles of money from merchandising and live events it wouldn't make sense to put your programming all in one online place hidden behind a paywall. They need greater exposure than that would provide to put bums on seats in arenas.


  • #3155
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,272 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    DM_7 wrote: »
    TV may well be moving to an on demand environment where people watch the shows they want where they want but that only really works on the web where lots of shows come together in one place.

    As it is someone like sky has all its key shows available on demand through your sky box so TV is still convenient.

    Anyway if your show is made in a studio and a big part of your money is not generated by people turning up at the studio, in their thousands and paying to watch then you can go online only.

    If you are running a company where you make piles of money from merchandising and live events it wouldn't make sense to put your programming all in one online place hidden behind a paywall. They need greater exposure than that would provide to put bums on seats in arenas.

    It's already hidden behind a paywall now! How much does Sky Sports cost it's NOT free.


  • #3156
    Beefy78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    Sky Sports costs money but it also has a large viewership and is the best deal that they could get. If WWE could get the BBC or ITV to pay them millions of dollars for their TV rights then they'd snap theirs arms off.

    It was why they tried to move to Channel 4 back in 2000.


  • Advertisement
  • #3157
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,272 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Beefy78 wrote: »
    Sky Sports costs money but it also has a large viewership and is the best deal that they could get. If WWE could get the BBC or ITV to pay them millions of dollars for their TV rights then they'd snap theirs arms off.

    It was why they tried to move to Channel 4 back in 2000.

    150k viewers isn't large when these Islands have nearly 70 million people.

    It's to do with money and as I said in 5 years that may change as technology moves on.

    Tv's now come with apps instead of channels so in five years we maybe able to pay for and watch what we want not what the likes of Sky BBC RTE restrict us to watching.

    Most people watch these online services on consloes now we are moving more away from normal... Sky go BBC iplayer RTE player apps are becoming the norm now.

    So where will it be in 5 years.


  • #3158
    DM_7
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 18,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭DM_7


    Agent Coulson wrote: »
    It's already hidden behind a paywall now! How much does Sky Sports cost it's NOT free.

    Its not free no, but Sky Sports does not only show WWE so provides more exposure as people subscribing for other reasons can still tune in. They also have kid friendly WWE on Sky 1 at the weekend.

    It would make no sense to restrict it so much that the only way to see WWE was to purchase a WWE specific service. It would need to stay part of a larger platform.


  • #3159
    colmufc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 609 ✭✭✭colmufc


    Agent Coulson wrote: »
    It's already hidden behind a paywall now! How much does Sky Sports cost it's NOT free.

    superstars and other shows are on sky 1 there the shows that are aimed at kids bringing in the new fans ya I know sky1 is ot free but it's much more widely available , also kids these days have youtube and all the Web at there hands full of wwe stuff to watch


  • #3160
    Beefy78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    Agent Coulson wrote: »
    150k viewers isn't large when these Islands have nearly 70 million people.

    It's to do with money and as I said in 5 years that may change as technology moves on.

    Tv's now come with apps instead of channels so in five years we maybe able to pay for and watch what we want not what the likes of Sky BBC RTE restrict us to watching.

    Most people watch these online services on consloes now we are moving more away from normal... Sky go BBC iplayer RTE player apps are becoming the norm now.

    So where will it be in 5 years.

    But no one is going to pay to watch a WWE app on a smart TV without first watching the TV shows. The TV shows are nothing more than three hour adverts and they need to be seen by as many people as possible.

    Sky have far more than 150k subscribers btw. I don't believe they publish the exact number but BT Sports have already shifted half a million subscriptions and Sky will have far more than that and a disproportionate number of those will be in the WWE's key demographic.

    EDIt - if you're saying 150k is the audience of RAW then that sounds about right but it is exposed to far more. The point isn't the number of people who watch today it is the number of people who have the ability to watch tomorrow. If they switch the whole lot away from TV to a dedicated app or network then they lose the ability to generate new fans.


  • #3161
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,272 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Sky 1 is still behind a paywall maybe not as big a one as Sky sports but it's still a paywall compared to BBC,RTE etc etc.

    The WWE where ever it goes around the world goes behind a paywall because that is where money is made!

    What I am saying and everyone seems to ingnore is I am talking abpout 5 years into the futurewhen The Sky contratct is up and the world of viewing TV has changed!


  • Advertisement
  • #3162
    Beefy78
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,166 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    No one is ignoring that but the fundamental point remains unchanged which is that they will still need TV to generate new fans.

    EDIT - It does go behind a payway in most places because free-to-air state broadcasters won't touch it with a bargepoll but if they did then that would change everything.

    The NFL is a good example - they moved Monday Night Football in the Uk to the BBC. It was a free deal and they actually turned down money from alternatives (Sky I think) because even though the BBC stuck it only behind the red button and didn't advertise it at all the NFL realised the potential greater exposure that broadcasting on a flagship corportation like the BBC brings with it.


  • #3163
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,272 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    DM_7 wrote: »
    Its not free no, but Sky Sports does not only show WWE so provides more exposure as people subscribing for other reasons can still tune in. They also have kid friendly WWE on Sky 1 at the weekend.

    It would make no sense to restrict it so much that the only way to see WWE was to purchase a WWE specific service. It would need to stay part of a larger platform.


    Yep, wrestling is cold these days, the last thing they would want to do is get to isolated. Casual fans are not going to subscribe to the network or even stumble onto it like they can when they are watching tv.


  • #3164
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,272 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Beefy78 wrote: »
    But no one is going to pay to watch a WWE app on a smart TV without first watching the TV shows. The TV shows are nothing more than three hour adverts and they need to be seen by as many people as possible.

    Sky have far more than 150k subscribers btw. I don't believe they publish the exact number but BT Sports have already shifted half a million subscriptions and Sky will have far more than that and a disproportionate number of those will be in the WWE's key demographic.


    Well as is prove you right now people aren't even paying to see the Network either right now even with the likes of USA in the states being used to promote it for $9.99 live for 3 hours every Monday night.


    As I will say again I am not talking about now I am talking about 5 years time when contracts end.

    People said 20 years Sky Sports wouldn't work who would pay to watch something that was always free.

    Time moves on and the future of tv is online.


  • #3165
    DM_7
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 18,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭DM_7


    Agent Coulson wrote: »
    Sky 1 is still behind a paywall maybe not as big a one as Sky sports but it's still a paywall compared to BBC,RTE etc etc.

    The WWE where ever it goes around the world goes behind a paywall because that is where money is made!

    What I am saying and everyone seems to ingnore is I am talking abpout 5 years into the futurewhen The Sky contratct is up and the world of viewing TV has changed!

    I don't think it is being ignored, I just don't see them moving all programming to a WWE only subscription service.

    TV was worth 160 million dollars last year, an increase on the previous year. Live events were worth over 100 million

    Realistically a WWE specific service like the Network is designed to replace the PPV and DVD market, not television.


  • #3166
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,272 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    colmufc wrote: »
    superstars and other shows are on sky 1 there the shows that are aimed at kids bringing in the new fans ya I know sky1 is ot free but it's much more widely available , also kids these days have youtube and all the Web at there hands full of wwe stuff to watch

    This is what I am saying the future of watching tv be it WWE or whatever is moving away from the normal channels to online.


  • #3167
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,272 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    DM_7 wrote: »
    I don't think it is being ignored, I just don't see them moving all programming to a WWE only subscription service.

    TV was worth 160 million dollars last year, an increase on the previous year. Live events were worth over 100 million

    Realistically a WWE specific service like the Network is designed to replace the PPV and DVD market, not television.

    Get 1.6 million subscribers world wide a month paying $9.99 and the WWE are making that much every year online.


  • #3168
    Gonzo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 17,489 Mod ✭✭✭✭Gonzo


    It's all or nothing for me, not interested in a compromised version of the Network, a sky based channel would be even worse, it would involve sticking to their schedule, we would not have access to everything and they will jack the price up for viewers in Ireland just like the way we pay over the odds for everything Sky related compared to viewers in the UK.


  • #3169
    DM_7
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 18,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭DM_7


    Agent Coulson wrote: »
    Get 1.6 million subscribers world wide a month paying $9.99 and the WWE are making that much every year online.

    And lose exposure going forward, the Network can exist and do well without RAW and Smackdown on it.

    RAW had 3.8 million viewers last week, on USA network alone. No way would it be in their best interest to move RAW to a WWE specific service like the Network and lose exposure as it would hit live events and remove the chance of casual viewers seeing the product.

    They need those shows where large numbers of people can easily access them, if that is on TV as we know it today or a larger on demand/streaming service Online.


  • #3170
    Monokne
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,953 ✭✭✭Monokne


    I cannot believe anyone would ever suggest moving Raw to the network. Do you understand business at all??


  • #3171
    Rjd2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,272 ✭✭✭✭Rjd2


    DM_7 wrote: »
    And lose exposure going forward, the Network can exist and do well without RAW and Smackdown on it.

    RAW had 3.8 million viewers last week, on USA network alone. No way would it be in their best interest to move RAW to a WWE specific service like the Network and lose exposure as it would hit live events and remove the chance of casual viewers seeing the product.

    They need those shows where large numbers of people can easily access them, if that is on TV as we know it today or a larger on demand/streaming service Online.


    Agreed, WWE is a niche entertainment wing these days, alienating their biggest form of exposure to the masses which is television isn't practical and won't be for a long time.

    Maybe if the product was in a boom era, but not now, business suicide.


  • Advertisement
  • #3172
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 61,272 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Well with the Network now doing advertisements limted as they are over time they will become not so limited this will also effect how the WWE moves forward.

    The WWE has always been build on word of mouth in the play ground not every kids family can afford to pay for SKY, USA or what ever channel it is shown on around the world. So this is how they built a fan base that goes to live events and buys merch but may never have seen it on TV or PPV.

    In the last few years it has been easier for these kids to see it online on Youtube or torrents for free but still never is it on TV or PPV.

    Sky may get 150k viewers of RAW every week but hundreds of thousands more talk about in the play ground than ever watch it.

    So who knows where it will be in 5 years is what I am saying.

    I could be totally wrong!

    But I would have a good guess I am closer to the mark than those who think it won't change at all and will stay the same.


  • #3173
    ShagNastii
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,396 ✭✭✭ShagNastii


    This really sucks. I think everyone has it spot on.

    I'm very much in the all or nothing camp but I've conceded the fact that the UK network is destined to be a TV channel tagged onto Sky Sports 1,2,3,4,5.

    The price tag that Sky paid (much like the soccer) is stupid money. But it's stupid money that needs to be paid to make WWE exclusive. With the network about this investment is as good as void. Sky wouldn't allow a Premier League network and this is of the same.

    WWE have come out of this looking seriously bad. Serious amount of venom fired McMahons way on twitter yesterday and today.


  • #3174
    DM_7
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 18,720 Mod ✭✭✭✭DM_7


    Who says it will stay the same? It will evolve but its unlikely to be hidden behind a paywall on the network. Maybe it will be streamed free on the network or some other site in 10 years.

    There is a reason they put stuff on Youtube now, its free so people can watch it, share it. Within reason they will always need to maximise the number of people who can see their shows. Going from TV in 170 countries to subscription only in one place online wouldn't work out so well long term, imo.


  • #3175
    da_hambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 274 ✭✭da_hambo


    Unbelievable that yesterday it worked on my phone without vpn, wifi etc. Survivor Series 1992 was being played live. Mr Perfect going on about turkeys. And then last night tried again and Media Not Available. So I read this thread and found out the reason. Ah well back to the US version makes no difference really only that I cant watch it on the go.


  • #3176
    colmufc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 609 ✭✭✭colmufc


    Agent Coulson wrote: »
    This is what I am saying the future of watching tv be it WWE or whatever is moving away from the normal channels to online.

    the future of tv is mixed standard broadcasting and on line , as someone else said it's a matter of people stumbling across the product that gets new people watching , set scheduled programmes is what kids get there interests from and when they see wwe and if they like it they will loom it up more but a 6-9 yr old will never just look up wrestleing without the exposure of a standard broadcaster


  • #3177
    cena
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,183 ✭✭✭✭cena


    its been delayed until further notice.

    Has to be sky delaying it


  • #3178
    Garseys
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,448 ✭✭✭Garseys


    cena wrote: »
    its been delayed until further notice.

    Has to be sky delaying it

    Well not exactly, WWE have delayed it due to the Sky issue.


    There's so many stories and rumours with this, I don't know who to believe.


  • #3179
    Its Only Ray Parlour
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 393 ✭✭Its Only Ray Parlour


    Garseys wrote: »
    There's so many stories and rumours with this, I don't know who to believe.

    Believe in the Shield.


  • #3180
    Garseys
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,448 ✭✭✭Garseys


    Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »
    Believe in the Shield.

    I missed a joke by saying I don't know who to Bo-lieve.

    I'll get my coat...


  • Advertisement
  • #3181
    Ageyev
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭Ageyev


    Sky have denied having anything to do with the Network's delay.
    On Monday, the launch of the WWE Network in the United Kingdom was delayed indefinitely just 20 minutes before it was set to go live. Many people were pointing fingers at Sky Sports, which carries WWE programming and pay-per-views in the UK. Dave Meltzer stated on Wrestling Observer Radio that Sky was unhappy about WWE giving away Survivor Series for free on the Network, when Sky Box Office would be selling the same show at £14.95.

    Since then, Sky.com community manager issued the following statement denying any involvement:

    “Hi all, Please be advised that the the delay on the WWE Network is in no way related to Sky. As previously advised, this is an independent service which Sky will not be providing.”

    http://www.sescoops.com/sky-sports-denies-blocking-wwe-networks-uk-launch


    http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Shows-you-love/WWE-Thread-2014/td-p/1554517/page/36


Advertisement