The Rajah Debates Round 1 - #7 kangus vs. #10 Honey Badger - CLOSED!

[Cewsh]

VS.

Welcome to the Rajahdome, where these brave competitors will now begin their debate. But before we begin, please take a second to review the rules. If you disobey them, then I will edit or even delete your post, requiring you to start over from scratch. Be warned.

- All debates will be comprised of 3 posts by each competitor, each with a word cap of 250 words.

- You have only 72 hours to complete all three posts. If you don't finish then that is on you.

- Those 6 posts must be staggered. You can't make your next post until the other debator has had their turn.

- Pictures, gifs and videos can be used in literally unlimited amounts to support your point.

- No editing of posts is allowed, and if you go second, your first post must NOT be a rebuttal of the other person's first post as that would grant an unfair advantage.

- Order will be determined by a coin flip just before the debate begins.

- The winner will be chosen equally from 4 sources. 2 judges, a reader write in vote, and a poll which will be posted on the main page along with your debates which will allow the greater Rajah audience to vote on your words.

And now it's time for our next debate topic!

WWE is the king of the wrestling industry. An unstoppable money making juggernaut that rules the entire industry with an iron fist and has made itself synonymous with the concept of professional wrestling itself. It's nearly impossible to imagine how it could ever fall apart to the point where the promotion would have to close it's doors, but it's your job to be the predictor of doom. So look at everything from the product to the business model to the financial forecast for the future and tell me...


IF WWE WERE TO CLOSE IN THE NEXT 5 YEARS, WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST LIKELY CAUSE?




The Coin Flip Indicates That kangus Will Go First!

[kangus]

Ensuring the WWE remains a prominent, successful, and probably most importantly a profitable business annually is no small feat, to put it mildly. There are budgets to be made and adhered to. There are travel concerns, arena concerns and talent concerns. TV deals to made and even an entire WWE Universe to consider! Now If any of these departments and others are not managed correctly then the entire operation could be comprised.

However, there is nothing more important and crucial to the WWE`s bottom line than the WWE Network. Launched in 2014 and now with an estimated 1.63 million paid subscribers and a significant contributor to the company`s quarterly profit margins, the WWE Network is not merely only a proverbial cog in the WWE`s financial wheel; it`s a material lifeline that keeps the business afloat. But what the WWE Network provides goes beyond dollars and profit. With the ability to be accessed by any mobile platform combined with the millennial generation`s willingness to accept and pay for a subscription based service that provides content; the WWE Network has forged a place in the consumer landscape whose impact cannot easily be overstated.

Therefore, a deterioration of this service as a result of a critical loss of subscribers would be nothing short of catastrophic for the WWE. Simply put, if someone were to say in five years the WWE would no longer be in business, it could be expected that the primary cause the downfall was the failure of the WWE Network.

[Honey_Badger]

While the WWE is undoubtedly recording record high revenues from multiple avenues, there are areas of the company losing money while other areas are profiting money for the company.

The WWE continues to profit from their television reach not only in North America, but also in countries such as India, Middle East and Asian markets. Television helps drive sponsors and viewership, which in return drives profit. The WWE’s 2017 Q2 television profits were $30.8 million. These profits are nearly $8 million higher than their next largest generator, which is live events. Television profits help to offset corporate expenses and depreciation from other areas of the company, and allow for continued investment in areas such as Network, social media and globalization. The WWE recently launched two Live TV shows in India and Middle East, completing a deal with African based broadcaster SuperSport.

That said, ratings have dropped anywhere from 4%-9% each year, while cable TV is projecting only a 1.5% decrease in subscribers year-over-year for the next 10 years. Is this number alarming, yes, but nowhere near the disproportionate drop in viewership in WWE programming since 2009.
Why do I mention this, you ask? Simple. In order to sustain profits and grow investments, while supporting sponsorship, the WWE must find a way to succeed in the ever-changing cable TV market or they will falter. Companies invested 9.25B in TV advertising in 2016. Companies want to invest in growing markets like the NFL and NBA, not a declining television show.

Answer: Television.

[kangus]

I begin by noting that my opponent made one of the most egregious errors one can make in a debate and that is he failed to answer the question. He presented an overview regarding television ratings and why they are important to WWE but did not explicitly link this to the question at hand. Nonetheless, I move onward.


Treating WWE TV programming as trivial would be a mistake and a serious miscalculation. But how can it be believed that further degradation of an already damaged property, as my opponent admits, would be the most likely cause of WWE`s complete demise? Television has become a compromised medium and as Netflix, Amazon, WWE Network and Hulu among many others have successfully proven is that it's possible to transfer or create weekly episodic programming, and other forms of viewer content, on a platform other than traditional television.


On the other hand, the elimination of the WWE Network would be a critical blow to the WWE. It would unequivocally be a logistical and consumer nightmare. Programming generated by the network would be gone and it would be almost impossible, not to mention highly irresponsible, to transfer that content onto a antiquated medium such as television. WrestleMania and all of other events would by necessity become PPV's again. How are you going you convince consumers who have been conditioned by nominal subscription fees to fork over $49.95 or more for events when that model was barely viable before the WWE Network was even an option?

[Honey_Badger]

I answered the question. Losing television deals and share would hurt this business much more than the Network failing. The WWE relies on their weekly television shows to bring in new viewers while driving profit through sponsorships. They utilize these profits to offset loses created by corporate expenses and future investments, including the WWE Network. The Network will never bring in a new viewer, and with a paid subscription it's difficult to drive revenue through sponsorships while adhering to a no-commercial platform. And admitting that television is potentially declining is not admitting you're right, it further proves my point that 5 years from now if TV is in a steeper decline, the WWE may directly see a negative effect, losing potential sponsors, profit and growth. WWE does not rely on the network to survive, but they do rely on television deals and ratings to drive profits in order to maintain a profitable company.

Again, I never said cancel the network. I answered the question by stating that without television deals and live viewership via cable TV, there may not be a company profitable enough to support a $9.99 network.

[kangus]

A profitable company? This is about survival and that's it. I'm certainly not disputing the amount the revenue WWE TV programming brings in. But the question is 'if WWE were to close in the next 5 years, what would be the most likely cause?' If someone were to say that in five years the WWE wouldn't have a TV deal anymore, obviously they would be operating in a diminished capacity BUT operating nonetheless. As I've explained, consuming content in a variety of ways on a variety of online platforms has never been made easier today, much less five years from now. My opponent wonders about a $9.99 online subscription model but that overlooks revenue generated from other sources within the company. Additionally, if the TV deal were to fall through, guess what? That subscription fee probably would be raised from $9.99 to a number palatable to a consumer base that does not rely on TV like it's 1995. Let's be honest, If WWE were to lose their TV agreements the company would undoubtedly suffer but it would have options which would allow prolonged sustainability.


Now what if WWE were to lose the Network? How are they going to reach their most important demographic, a demographic that consumes online content like no other generation before them? How are they going to compete in a world that's becoming more sophisticated and competitive with the breadth and scope of online content on a daily basis? How are they going to survive?

[Honey_Badger]

How will they survive without the Network? The same way they have for 25+ years, by marketing, live events and sponsorships via TV. The Network is like dessert after dinner, you don't need it to survive, but it's nice to offer it to your fan base. Sure, you can survive without dessert, but can you survive with the steak dinner?

Television continues to drive new viewers. A new fan to the business is not going to push out $10 a month to sample the product in hopes of catching on, but they will stop flipping channels to watch Raw or SD!.

I think you also underestimate cable TV. There are currently still 92.1 million cable tv subscribers in this country. 92.1 million. Can the WWE sustain losing 92.1 million potential viewers? Plus, with a goal of international globalization, cable tv success is as important as ever. As mentioned in my first post, the WWE has launched live shows on cable based networks in India, Middle East and Africa, where cable TV is thriving. They can't afford to lose the profits and potential reach of new business and new consumers.

The Network is a delicacy, not a necessity. You mention thriving in an age of online consumption, well, there are many ways to consume information online and via social networks, and the network is not the end all be all solution, itut it's a fine treat.

[Cewsh]

THIS DEBATE IS CLOSED!

VOTING MAY NOW BEGIN!

Votes without an explanation will not be counted.

[Psycho666Soldier]

This was a VERY tough draw to vote on. kangus came out with a monster opener that seemed undebatable. Honey_Badger fired off with an interesting counter with decent points, but nothing that seemed to undo kangus' argument. Until HB's second and third post. Where kangus made his mistakes was where HB made points that he almost brushed off. This particularly bit stuck with me:

The WWE relies on their weekly television shows to bring in new viewers while driving profit through sponsorships. They utilize these profits to offset loses created by corporate expenses and future investments, including the WWE Network. The Network will never bring in a new viewer

That line alone was strong enough to win the debate.

But kangus came back hard in his final post, hammering home the point that the world is evolving, and while cable's decline would harm WWE massively, WWE not being able to keep up with the online-content trend would bury them were that to come to fruition. HB fought valiantly in his third post, but he could not really convince me that the WWE Network was just a dessert. WWE have risked too much money in creating the Network to let it fail at this point, and kangus debated with that understanding.

Perhaps hammering weaknesses in other WWE revenue streams could have done more to strengthen Honey's point, but in the end, he was up against a better choice argued by a master of debates(tried very hard to not say master debater), leaving kangus victorious in my eyes.

But were kangus to have just the slightest weaker argument, HB would have ran away with this.

[Rip]

Excellent debate on both sides, well thought out and reasoned by both but to me Honey Badger edges it, his point that the WWE survived for years without the Network stuck with me, an almost throwaway point that seemed to slip through like an ear worm and just sit there tapping away as I read, and re-read both sides.

Sometimes it's the littlest things that make a difference, and for me that little aside was enough to split a very close well debated topic.

[Badger]

Tightest debate so far, had to re-read it a few times. By the slimmest of margins, kangus's point about PPV prices being jacked up again with the loss of the network when we're so used to the cheap price could have a more damaging effect than losing a TV deal.

kangus

[Dodgy Browne]

Cool and smart debate from both parties.

Kangus takes my vote. I believe the demographic is changing as well, which makes his Network arguement a bit stronger. Hell, I never watch WWE on television.
I see WWE surviving better in the online-only world than the tv-only world.

[PurePlayer]

Honey Badger

I am not sure what kangus was trying to pull by saying HB didn't answer the question. The argument he mentioned how the WWE survived all those years without the network and how television brings huge revenue to the WWE gives him the nod. This was a great debate.

[lotjx]

Kangus. He pointed out the pitfalls of the Network. I also believe the WWE is being a bit shady with the Network. If the fanbase views as an afterthought then they are losing real money. As long as they have just ok ratings, the networks will keep them on. Kagnus was a bit shady with saying HB didn't answer the question even though he did. To me, Kagnus was always on the offense and didn't really feel like he needed to defend his answer.

[Nash Diesel]

Honey Badger

I think HB sold me on the concepts of the WWE needing TV to bring in new viewers, the WWE existing well before the Network, and the point about how the lack of sponsors on the Network versus the amount on t.v. that helps the WWE thrive were just hard for Kangus to truly discredit.

[Zyphlin]

Honey Badger took this for me in a close, CLOSE battle. The argument regarding how TV is the feeder for the Network is what put me over the edge, as it was a solid one at this point in time. 5 years from now, I think Kangus's future notion of the reality of the entertainment media may be a more compelling option. As it stands, he didn't do a good enough job to convince me that TV was going to be significantly less impactful in the next 5 years, and thus the necessity of it's success for the network to succeed remains there.

Essentially...Kangus's argument convinced me that the WWE would be in some level of trouble if the network failed. Honey Badger convinced me that all the trouble that the WWE would suffer from the network failing would occur if TV failed (because it's the feeder of the network), PLUS significantly more problems because TV is so vital to everything else it does as a feeder as well.

Honey Badger.

[DaSaintFan]

Kangus started off HOT... and I mean hot in the first two posts...and at first I thought it was a run-away

But then Honey Badger NAILED it in post #3... as he saved his best argument for the end... 92.1 billion viewers. IF he had thrown that anywhere else in the argument, I think Kangus could have given a legitimate response (subscription numbers or something), but by saving it for his last argument, and thus no response allowed to it.

I've got to give it to Honey Badger.. Kangus got off two great bullet shots early (opening argument, and the 1st counter), but Honey saved the cannonball shot for the end.. and is the one that's left standing.

Vote: Honey Badger

[Mazer]

HB.

Kangus had strong points. His point about the conditioning rang particularly true. The second post's shot across the bough at HB for allegedly not answering the question was a minus for me. Didn't seem supported by the way I read the first posts, and didn't seem germane as presented. kangus rebounded nicely on the third post. His final paragraph was a strong look at the future.

HB's points about the network being more ancillary currently were difficult to overcome. He pointed out that they could "survive" without the network. Even though Kangus's third post was strong, I don't think there was enough to override HB's arguments about how reliant the network is on tv currently.

[Jarrod1983]

Honey Badger

Another good debate with excellent points. HB in the end saying they survived before the network and they would after and the importance of TV bringing in new viewers really swayed me.

[Romford Pele]

Kangus

He argued very well that the Network is the most important thing and the changing demographic.

[Kdestiny]

Gotta go HB. While Kangus I felt had a better choice, HB seemed to shut down and counter what Kangus said for the most part. The changing of the audience was a good hit for Kangus, but I think HB did more overall to prove his point and counter Kangus.

[Cewsh]

VOTING IS OVER!

Rajah Forums Vote:

Honey Badger 8
Kangus 5

Rajah Main Page Vote:



Judge JP Vote:



AND YOUR WINNER IS...

HONEY BADGER
(3-0)