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

Wrestling Podcasts

1818284868790

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 614 ✭✭✭TheQuietBeatle


    Vince is achieving what he set out to do, the show is aimed at a younger market and all in all they have been doing extremely well financially over last 5 years or so.

    The creative is aimed at the market they're chasing. For anyone over the age of 16 it's not aimed at you. That's why it has pooper scooper references in scripts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,611 ✭✭✭✭ERG89


    For anyone over the age of 16 it's not aimed at you. That's why it has pooper scooper references in scripts.

    Yeah the kids these days are all about pooper scoopers. Good thing Vince is in charge now, he knows the market for those 60 years younger than him. :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,929 ✭✭✭Monokne


    Vince is achieving what he set out to do, the show is aimed at a younger market and all in all they have been doing extremely well financially over last 5 years or so.

    The creative is aimed at the market they're chasing. For anyone over the age of 16 it's not aimed at you. That's why it has pooper scooper references in scripts.

    The audience they have retained most of is 50+, the audience they have lost most of is under 18.

    So if what Vince is setting out to achieve is drive off younger viewers while presenting a product that is targeted at them, then yes, he is achieving what he set out to do.


  • Registered Users Posts: 614 ✭✭✭TheQuietBeatle


    They're making more money now than the attitude era even with inflation taken into account (Q1 being the exception).

    AEW will tailor to the adult market, everybody wins.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,929 ✭✭✭Monokne


    J. Marston wrote: »
    Anyone think he has burned bridges by exposing Vince and the WWE's creative process like that?

    Vince wants the guys who bury him back worse than he wants the guys who are nice about him back.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,929 ✭✭✭Monokne


    They're making more money now than the attitude era even with inflation taken into account (Q1 being the exception).

    AEW will tailor to the adult market, everybody wins.

    This.

    Vince can afford to set fire to half a billion dollars (the XFL) and still be obscenely rich because of how the TV market is.

    If AEW were to be competitive in terms of ratings (which I can't see happening), that might spur Vince to change the creative process. But as long as he is the unquestioned number 1 in wrestling and making money hand over fist, why bother? He probably feels he's earned the right to present his dreadful product by making himself so filthy rich and untouchable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    Monokne wrote: »
    The audience they have retained most of is 50+, the audience they have lost most of is under 18.

    So if what Vince is setting out to achieve is drive off younger viewers while presenting a product that is targeted at them, then yes, he is achieving what he set out to do.

    Ah dude, you need to get away from this lazy, tunnel-visioned analysis that doesn't take into account the full picture. This has been explained to you before and you need to accept it as fact.

    Audiences across all sports, and all of TELEVISION, are trending along the exact same demos. Reason-being: young people sit down and watch less and less TV (in the traditional sense) across the board. Incidentally, WWE are also one of the strongest entities of their kind going when it comes to engaging fans in areas that they are paying attention to, e.g. social media, on-demand viewing, YouTube etc. They put the likes of the NFL, Premier League and UFC to shame in many of these aspects. I say that as an unbiased consumer of all of the above. The only big league product I follow that I can say beats WWE in this regard is the NBA.

    Which is what the answer is to the obvious question, "Wait so if everything everyone is saying is true and WWE is dying...why are they worth more than they ever have been before?!"

    But nobody wants to ask that question, even when it's sitting right there (it's literally getting danced around in this very discussion), because it doesn't fit the narrative people want to believe. The narrative that's mainly peddled by Dave Meltzer. The same Dave Meltzer who is good friends with the guys who run WWE's competitors, it's no secret, and has helped them publicly in building their promotion. So if your answer to this is "But Dave said...", well then I'm sorry, but he's let you down with his reporting here because it doesn't actually paint the full picture.

    I don't even have a dog in this fight. I enjoyed Double Or Nothing and, if AEW do well, happy days! But this kind of stuff is total waffle.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭Sirsok


    Hey Manchester United are still profitable, and doesn't mean they are not stuck in a rut.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    But that's not the conversation we're having. The point Monokne is making is, "WWE are failing as a family product because young people are switching off." But actually, that's just the case around the board with television in general and they're far ahead of a lot of the pack in serving areas that young people do follow. It's like saying Facebook are failing because young people don't use the parent site, forgetting that they also own Instagram and WhatsApp, both of which are thriving. Or Disney are failing because we haven't had a good Mickey Mouse movie in years, while ignoring the MCU and Star Wars.

    It's finding facts to suit the argument people want to make rather than looking at the facts in full and assessing the situation for what it is.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,678 ✭✭✭lawlolawl


    leggo wrote: »
    But that's not the conversation we're having. The point Monokne is making is, "WWE are failing as a family product because young people are switching off." But actually, that's just the case around the board with television in general and they're far ahead of a lot of the pack in serving areas that young people do follow. It's like saying Facebook are failing because young people don't use the parent site, forgetting that they also own Instagram and WhatsApp, both of which are thriving. Or Disney are failing because we haven't had a good Mickey Mouse movie in years, while ignoring the MCU and Star Wars.

    It's finding facts to suit the argument people want to make rather than looking at the facts in full and assessing the situation for what it is.

    Yeah, but what is the alternative venture that WWE is offering that is doing well?

    The XFL?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,816 ✭✭✭Pentecost


    lawlolawl wrote: »
    Yeah, but what is the alternative venture that WWE is offering that is doing well?

    The XFL?

    I think the argument is that their alternatives to watching their shows are Tweets and Facebook/Instagram posts etc. I would absolutely believe that they reach a bigger audience that way I’m just not sure how that will pan out for them long term without impacting their biggest revenue stream of TV rights?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    See the way the market is going it’s because they have those streams that keeps them valuable. Since younger people don’t watch the majority of TV the traditional way, anything at all that forces people to tune in tonight or be irrelevant gains huge value. Sports and event TV (which wrestling slots in the middle of) are the only things that you can’t really watch on-demand for the most part and will never depreciate. The next step actually benefits WWE because it’s likely along the lines of YouTube TV taking over from traditional networks, so being an early leader in the market makes that a smooth transition if/when it happens and they can just earn the money they make from TV that way instead. They’ll probably do better jumping to that platform, in fact, when the audience is ready to follow and I’d say they’ll be one of the early adapters who’ll do so as the NFL, NBA etc are more embedded with TV companies in terms of their business model.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,816 ✭✭✭Pentecost


    I’m still struggling to see how they monetise it beyond deals with Facebook and YouTube etc which seems unlikely. They don’t need WWE. Fox etc are not forking out hundreds of millions for people to watch WWE on other platforms.

    It’s a concern for the next contract probably as I imagine the deal is fairly ironclad in terms of payment but it’s hard to see where the payments come from in the long run outside of network subs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,678 ✭✭✭lawlolawl


    Both of their new TV deals could see Raw/Smackdown getting cancelled (as in, taken off TV) with them still getting paid the agreed amount and being tied up so they can't sign with anyone else for however many years they signed for.


    Basically, if Fox can find something that costs less than Smackdown but generates more money then they can shelve Smackdown or drop it down to one of the smaller channels they own.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,816 ✭✭✭Pentecost


    lawlolawl wrote: »
    Both of their new TV deals could see Raw/Smackdown getting cancelled (as in, taken off TV) with them still getting paid the agreed amount and being tied up so they can't sign with anyone else for however many years they signed for.


    Basically, if Fox can find something that costs less than Smackdown but generates more money then they can shelve Smackdown or drop it down to one of the smaller channels they own.

    Doesn’t surprise me either, but goes back to my point about the long term. Outside of broadcasting live on the network, what’s the plan when TV are a lot less interested?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,611 ✭✭✭✭ERG89


    Pentecost wrote:
    I’m still struggling to see how they monetise it beyond deals with Facebook and YouTube etc which seems unlikely. They don’t need WWE. Fox etc are not forking out hundreds of millions for people to watch WWE on other platforms.

    The numbers they did on Facebook were pretty dire & they gave up on it by changing the line-up of the mixed match challenge about 100 times. They don't earn anything from YouTube.
    People are losing interest in what they are selling as ultimately it's not a hot property right now. If people were still engaging you'd at least audibly hear it every week when the shows are on but you don't. 5 hours a week of mainly bad shows is a turn off for any new fan. You can binge watch a Netflix series that much but you can't shove bad wrestling down people's throats.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    Lads ye’re not getting it. Facebook, YouTube etc are looking to basically get into the TV market and have already enquired about buying rights to the Premier League and NFL. Whether it’s with them or someone else (maybe TV companies embracing the future), that’s how things will go eventually, because if young people watch stuff that way eventually they won’t be ‘young’ anymore. We’ll be the old ones who don’t matter, in the same way I imagine there are people who still think the best way to watch something is on VHS, and they’ll just be the vast majority of the market that gets catered to. Then it’s just like any other TV deal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,366 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Wade Keller has a two part interview with the former dean ambrose. Jesus I'm only starting and WWE behind the scenes sounds nuts.


  • Registered Users Posts: 48,990 ✭✭✭✭Lithium93_


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Wade Keller has a two part interview with the former dean ambrose. Jesus I'm only starting and WWE behind the scenes sounds nuts.

    The cliff notes I've read are the tip of the proverbial iceberg.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,366 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Lithium93_ wrote: »
    The cliff notes I've read are the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

    Yeah I saw those in the news thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 48,990 ✭✭✭✭Lithium93_


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Yeah I saw those in the news thread.

    There's also this, it seems he's opening up a lot more.

    https://25yearslatersite.com/2019/06/01/jon-moxley-has-a-lot-to-say-on-wwe-aew-japan-the-indys-more/


  • Registered Users Posts: 39,366 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    Well I'm an hour in and I can confirm that the former dean ambrose does laugh and is funny. And he's not saying groundbreaking stuff on how to fix the WWE product but it makes sense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,082 ✭✭✭✭J. Marston


    Laughed at the part where he talked about when Roman told him he had to say "Sufferin' Succotash" in a promo and he asked Dean how can he make it sound cool.

    Poor Roman.


  • Registered Users Posts: 461 ✭✭jface187


    I never saw any of Dean stuff on the indies. Only his WWE stuff. He clearly had something but they never let him be himself.

    I listen to the talk is Jerico podcast and he came across great.
    Was keen to hear the Wade one. There a ton of ads in it plus 15 minutes off the top of plugs ( I know it's how they make there money). But this Wade guy is awful. I'm only half way through but three times his asked "What does the rest of the roster think?" and three times Dean has said he doesn't know. I want to know what Dean thinks, not what Titus O'Neil thoughts on the whole thing are.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,678 ✭✭✭lawlolawl


    Quote from an ESPN article about the Moxley/Jericho podcast:


    Jericho says the response to his "Talk Is Jericho" interview with Moxley has been "insane." The WWE legend and current AEW star said the podcast became the most-downloaded episode of the show within 10 hours. In 36 hours, it doubled the previous No. 1 episode.

    Jericho's interview with Moxley was published four days after Moxley's run-in debut that closed AEW's inaugural show Double or Nothing on May 25. While it has been a hot topic in the wrestling community, fans aren't the only ones taking notice.

    According to Jericho, current WWE talent has reached out to him about it.

    ”I have heard from a lot of people who are working there saying, ‘I can’t wait to do my version in X amount of months,’” Jericho told ESPN.


  • Registered Users Posts: 48,990 ✭✭✭✭Lithium93_


    Some cliff notes from the 2nd part of Moxley's interview with Wade Keller, covers Lesnar at Mania, the awkward Stone Cold Podcast.
    There was no effort to the Brock build up, he tried to get them to go with it and even got in Brocks face which was all unscripted

    He talks carrying a red wagon the week before and how stupid it was and tried to talk to Brock and wanted to try to work with him to set up **** and Lesnar told him don't worry about it

    They didn't even rehearse the match, Brock didn't get in town until the night before WM

    in the Austin interview, he didn't want to talk about his childhood and Austin said something that pissed him off and he mentally shut down but he loves Austin and wants to be on his podcast

    He said a producer who did the interview asked him what kind of **** he wants to talk about on it and he said he did not want to dig up his childhood and they still did it. He doesn't blame Austin, more so the producer.

    http://nodq.com/news/561482787.shtml


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    More of same. You can both feel for him and, at the same time, be frustrated by him. The original Moxley character is based on his rough upbringing, so demanding he doesn’t talk about it when he’s happy to trade off it when it suits is a bit John Delaney of him tbh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,043 ✭✭✭NITRO95


    https://soundcloud.com/prowrestlingonly/days-of-thunder-a-large-man-appears

    Days of Thunder is the WCW Thunder rewatch podcast that nobody asked for but we did anyway. Hosted by Dave Ryan and myself Lee Malone, we chronologically review every episode of Thunder with the simple question of ; 

    If you only watch Thunder, just how much sense would WCW storylines and Pay Per View's make?

    You can find us on Twitter @WCWThunderP;od @thedaytodave @Malone_713


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,773 ✭✭✭Sirsok


    https://soundcloud.com/kclr96fm/sport-darragh-moran-wrestling-sunday-scoreline-16-06-2019

    Got to chat with Angel Cruz ahead of Wrestlerama, about Irish Wrestling


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 461 ✭✭jface187


    NITRO95 wrote: »
    https://soundcloud.com/prowrestlingonly/days-of-thunder-a-large-man-appears

    Days of Thunder is the WCW Thunder rewatch podcast that nobody asked for but we did anyway. Hosted by Dave Ryan and myself Lee Malone, we chronologically review every episode of Thunder with the simple question of ; 

    If you only watch Thunder, just how much sense would WCW storylines and Pay Per View's make?

    You can find us on Twitter @WCWThunderP;od @thedaytodave @Malone_713

    I would say the Storylines would make sense as Thunder became a Nitro recap show, like Smackdown was and is becoming again. Fair play for doing it do.


Advertisement