WWE Network Thread

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Monokne

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

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.

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.

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.