Is there a WWE Cycle? And Is WWE Ignoring the Smarks?

[Kimura Kid]

I was thinking last night about the Smarks being unhappy with the booking. I imagine that people making the decisions aren't that out of touch with what the WWE Universe wants & expects from their wrestling product. It made me start thinking about why fans aren't getting what they want. It's almost blatant the way WWE turns it's back on what the Fans want. I think it's not an accident. I think it could possibly be a bigger plan in place to "Create" another Boom in wrestling.

Some may think I'm nuts or crazy but is it too much to think that the decision makers in WWE are depriving Smarks of what they want in order to create another boom in wrestling? Not for nothing but gearing the business back to Kids isn't bad buisness for WWE either. WWE has built a brand new audience in this PG Era and Those same children will grow tired of the current product and will then bear witness to the "New Attitude Era". Basically I feel like the WWE might be making the business sort of like a Cycle. Right now we are currently in the late 80's of professional wrestling, when it was geared towards kids (Like Myself) those same kids became Die Hard wrestling fans. And I think that building a new generation of wrestling fans is also part of why we are seeing the "Cycle" in wrestling. Eventually things will chang, New fans and old fans alike will grow tired of the current state of wrestling and it will bring a "New Attitude Era" to professional wrestling.

Because the way things are currently run it's obvious the WWE isn't listening to it's fans or Smarks and that's what made wrestling so popular back in the attitude era. It was all about giving the fans what they wanted. And it was benificial to everyone involved. There has to be a master plan and a reason why we are being ignored. And this was the most logical thing I could come up with.

Psycho advised it was deserving of it's own thread...Originally posted in the Wrestling Ramble thread.

[Psycho666Soldier]

For the sake of the conversation, I'll post my piece I said in the Ramble Thread.

I don't think you're off-base with that assumption. While perhaps the WWE doesn't ALWAYS go actively against what the fans want(particularly the die-hards), it seems they pick and choose in a way that stifles some people at times. Understood that not every internet darling is going to get a big push immediately, but things like Cesaro dropping the belt unceremoniously not only go against what the smart marks want, but what would work well in general! There is definitely a cycle, but the question is whether or not the WWE are doing this all on purpose or whether they're still trying to milk every last drop of the "era for the kids" before finally moving on to greater pastures.

It's a subject that always takes a lot of guess-work and assumptions, but there has to be an answer somewhere.

I'd also like to add that I don't think the WWE is outright IGNORING their fans. There have been moments that have proven otherwise, especially with live crowds. But I will say it seems at times they are too selective on when they act on fan reaction.

[Cewsh]

I don't know if it's even possible to please both smarks and casual fans at the same time, sadly.

[The Rogerer]

I'll start off by saying that I don't like saying that wrestling is a cycle. It implies that when things are bad, then it's inevitable that they will get much better again.

[Psycho666Soldier]

I don't know if it's even possible to please both smarks and casual fans at the same time, sadly.

Having more consistency and properly concluding storylines/championship reigns would be a good start.

[The Law]

My thoughts here are disconnected and incoherent, so I'm just going to bullet point this one:

-I can almost guarantee you Vince McMahon doesn't read internet wrestling websites. Neither does Stephanie McMahon, in all likelihood At the same time, I can almost guarantee that most if not all of the writers do. Vince is the decision-maker, and so he's not taking into account what the smart marks want. On the other hand, he's being pitched ideas by the writers, so there's some balance there.

-WWE should not cater to smart marks. The hardcore smarks, the people like us who are posting on internet message boards, account for a very small percentage of their fan base. Also, many smart marks are so committed to being contrarian that there's really no way to please them: they want something until they get it, at which point they change their mind and decide that it sucks.

-I think WWE does a better job of listening to their fans than people give them credit for. John Cena continuing to be a babyface despite being booed by half the crowd is a definite exception to that rule, but for the most part the guys they push are the ones who get the strongest responses. Say what you want about Randy Orton and Sheamus, but they get pops.

-It's a mixed process: WWE identifies guys who they think have potential and they push them. Guys get more heat when they get pushed, but how much heat they ultimately get is a combination of their ability and their push. As Steve Jobs once said "How are they going to know what they want until we tell them what they want?"

-I think Zack Ryder and Daniel Bryan are the two guys on the roster whose reactions don't match their push most. Ryder is a jobber who gets a upper midcard response, Bryan is a midcarder who gets a main event response.

-Ryback is pretty heatless (outside of the "Feed Me More" chants) for a main eventer. Jack Swagger is the same. They're committed to both guys, which is good. Sometimes it takes time for guys to get over. At the same time, you need to give up on guys at some point. Swagger is getting pretty close to that point.

I don't really have an answer here beyond "No, WWE is not engaged in an elaborate plot to ignore their fans to try to start the next Attitude Era."

[Kimura Kid]

I don't know if it's even possible to please both smarks and casual fans at the same time, sadly.

Is that what you think is happening here? You think the WWE is trying to please all of it's fans? Doesn't seem to be working though does it? Are the casual fans happy with the current product?

I'll start off by saying that I don't like saying that wrestling is a cycle. It implies that when things are bad, then it's inevitable that they will get much better again.

I understand that and I'm not saying that Wrestling has been a Cycled product. What I'm implying is that maybe they've decided to start a cycle her and or in recent past.

What WM was it "Where it all begins again" Maybe it's been a plan since then?

I will say that I do believe that it is inevitable wrestling will get better. But that's a difference of opinion for a whole different thread.

[MMH]

I don't know if it's even possible to please both smarks and casual fans at the same time, sadly.

I think it is to an extent. If you please the smarks (I hate these terms) and give them what they like I reckon generally the casuals will just start liking the same stuff.

But then the smarks will hate it...yeah you are probably right.

[Psycho666Soldier]

I think it is to an extent. If you please the smarks (I hate these terms) and give them what they like I reckon generally the casuals will just start liking the same stuff.

But then the smarks will hate it...yeah you are probably right.

It's about finding that middle ground, and while WWE seems to be working towards it, they still have yet to find it.

[The Law]

There are no grand plans in wrestling. Particularly in the current environment of producing almost ten hours of original programming every week, they are so focused on putting their shows together that they aren't thinking years or even months down the road. They might have a few ideas sketched out for Wrestlemania next year, and maybe one idea for Summerslam, but beyond that they're just focused on what's happening on Raw this week. I bet they probably haven't even finalized the card for Extreme Rules yet, much less concocted a grand plan for the next few years of wrestling. And they shouldn't. In the long run, we are all dead. I have no idea what the world will look like in three years, or what will be popular, or who will be on the roster. They should focus on putting a good product on TV every week. If they write an interesting show featuring dynamic characters interacting with each other and exploring interesting issues that people want to see the rest will take care of itself.

[chatty]

I think its as simple as this.

They have a new Hogan type superstar in Cena who kids love and buy all his merchandise etc (making them money) so the company revolves around him and what he does, booking him strong and making sure the kids still want to buy his merch and tune in to see him. Most people from our generation (well 80s/90s) have probably dropped off watching in a general sense so they are fcusing on a new era of fans who will watch for the next twenty years.

Anyone who has been to a show will see how many Cena T-shirts are selling so as a business it would be daft to ignore that. Still though that's only half hour of a three hour show so they have shit like Santino/Brodus/Khali there as well (Khali gets some damn big pops from the kids - I was well surprised).

For us we get Punk who is really mostly aimed at our market but he still has to take the passenger seat as no matter how good he is, he just doesn't do major business on a Cena level. Then theirs others down the card who just have to bide their time until they get beaten of Cena and will be used accordingly.

And thats that. The minority might like a better product but they dont do big cash so it stays the way it is until either someone can somehow dislodge Cena or the kids grow sick of him and then they'll move along with what does best business.

As poor as the product is at times, they are getting huge buyrates still (maybes not as big as the Attitude era but times were different then) and making loads of money so can't really blame them. Its probably us fans who are out of touch, outgrown it etc rather than the company being that way. I'm pretty sure someone who built an empire on it knows the score.

[Jaymz]

I don't believe that there is one grand plan. There are a number of smaller plans, which sometimes work nicely, enabling creative to choose from a number of logical opponents at any given time.

My issue with the planning is the general treatment of storylines.

In bygone years, Wrestlemania was like the Superbowl of wrestling. It was the end of the season, the biggest day of the year, and where feuds ended. This year: Cena vs Rock was the only feud that came to an end. Every other match on the card felt like a regular PPV match, just another stepping stone or a throwaway match.

I feel that with the roster being as large as it is, the schedule as tough as it is, leaks being the way of life and WWE trying to tap into fast moving social media, I fear that there's a sense of WWE trying to placate rather than entertain the viewers in some cases. major turns have to go through the shades of grey, while anything on the undercard can be conveniently changed on a whim without rhyme or reason, or even an explanation at some point.

In short, is there a plan? There are many plans, and I expect that significant feuds and turns are probably planned for the next 6-9 months or so, but those plans rapidly change in such a way that the product isn't a long-term scripted story with definitive end points.

[chatty]

Plus they have no competition which means they can play the safe card everytime. Their isnt much gambling on surprise elements as their used to be simply because they have a formula that works and nothing to offer an alternative if people dont like the product. They keep enough around for people to stay watching wrestling and then cater to the generals.

[Tainted Eclipse]

I think it's as simple as the fact that the creative team, management and the backstage politics involved coalesce to form a company that is right now incapable of putting on good television programming. The glaring problems with week-to-week WWE booking go far beyond "not listening to the smarks," "pandering to the kids" or whatever complaint you want to lodge -- it's largely boring, short sighted, and often utterly incomprehensible booking clearly lacking any quality of planning, creativity, or even effort. It defies believe how bad and above all bland they are able to make RAWs sometimes. And I really don't like to be the guy complaining about WWE booking, but at this point it is impossible to say they are presenting a high quality product creatively.

Casual fans and smart fans respond to good wrestling programming, and there's a lot of space to make both happy. Smarks love workrate-heavy matches, and I'm sure plenty of casual fans appreciate a fairly short, exciting match on the RAW undercard. After years of hating him, it seems smarks have largely come around to Mark Henry after a period of great booking and good character work. It's not hard. WWE can perfectly well be putting on a product with John Cena on the top, that is kid friendly, but with good angles, good wrestling and pushing enough of the smark darling (Daniels, Punk, Cesaro, Ziggler -- guys who are legit talented) into good, well booked, prominent angles to make smarks happy.

I don't think there's any master plan creatively going on in the WWE. Just the opposite, I think it's mass incompetence. And maybe it's logical for them not to care, if they have a business machine going where they can make money without putting a lot of effort into booking a high quality product, maybe they don't NEED to care.

[MMH]

It's about finding that middle ground, and while WWE seems to be working towards it, they still have yet to find it.

I think the main thing is they need to stop worrying about who gets beat and who doesnt because oddly enough they have made wins and losses mean nothing unless you are their chosen guy. So their chosen wrestlers never get big wins because they are beating people who already lose all the time anyway. If that makes any sense at all?

[Cewsh]

Having more consistency and properly concluding storylines/championship reigns would be a good start.

Sure. Easier said than done, of course.

Is that what you think is happening here? You think the WWE is trying to please all of it's fans? Doesn't seem to be working though does it? Are the casual fans happy with the current product?

I think WWE believes that both the smarks and the casual fans will come around to whatever product they put out, as that is pretty much exactly what has taken place for decade, barring that awful 3 year period in the 90s where they very much did not. But attempted to cater to both audiences specifically or cater to either one alone would almost certainly result in a mess of a show that was all over the place in tone and influence. WWE just runs WWE shows, the way that they always have. And it's just enough to pull in both sides. While I would agree that there are certainly ways they could improve on their own formula, ultimately that formula is the right one for them, and works as well as anything ever has.

Bear this in mind. We're talking about two sections of the fanbase who disagree directly on almost every point. One sides loves Cena, the other hates him. One side loves CM Punk the other side hates him. This difference was illustrated best in the mid 00s where Smackdown became must watch television for smarks, as they flipped out over how great it was. And yet the ratings were on a steady march downwards, because the casual fans had zero interest. Nobody on this site is a casual fan, so it's hard to relate to their viewpoint, but it is often VERY different, and theirs is still the most powerful voice.

Mostly because they actually like things.

[Psycho666Soldier]

Sure. Easier said than done, of course.

I don't really believe this. They make obviously dumb choices on the regular. How hard would it have been to hold off on the Kofi/Cesaro match one or two more weeks to at least establish a purpose or reason behind it? I understand they have a huge roster and need to account for everybody, but if WWE would stop blowing their fucking load every five seconds, we might actually see more decisions making sense instead of leaving us scratching our heads every other week.

[Psycho666Soldier]

I think the main thing is they need to stop worrying about who gets beat and who doesnt because oddly enough they have made wins and losses mean nothing unless you are their chosen guy. So their chosen wrestlers never get big wins because they are beating people who already lose all the time anyway. If that makes any sense at all?

Yes, that makes perfect sense. It's one of WWE's biggest flaws right now. They throw wins and losses around like it's nothing. Yes, Ziggler is a heel. Yes, he tends to be a chicken-shit heel. Yes, that means he'll hardly win in clean circumstances. But why would we put him in matches week after week that he's destined to lose? How hard is it to give him a jobber or a mid-carder beneath his level that he can look good against until the big matches?

The same goes for the champions especially. Why the hell is Barrett, the Intercontinental Champion, losing so frequently on free TV? "Oh, we need to get Ryback over this week." PUT HIM AGAINST SOMEONE WHO ISN'T A FUCKING CHAMPION!!! It's ok for a champ to get occasional losses to show that someone else might be better and has a shot at the belt, but what do you gain from having your champion losing every other week or so? In some cases, EVERY WEEK! It's maddening! Do they honestly think it's that good of an idea?

[Ringo]

Pretty sure they only did the Kofi/Cesaro change for Boston. It's pretty dumb and shows how little they care about that title, but that's why. Wouldn't be surprised if Cesaro has been told he'll be winning it back within a couple of weeks. I agree with your general point though - just not necessarily that example. There are all kinds of simple little things they could do (because they have done them in the past) and avoid.

I hate how they give away matches people have wanted to see for ages with no real build and then only do it properly on a big stage after we've already seen the wrestlers meet several times. The lack of planning is infuriating at times.

The Del Rio face turn/title change was a bit like that. They did it on Smackdown and then it was like they remembered the Rumble was coming up so decided to do a rematch with the exact same stipulation, only much less intrigue.

[Psycho666Soldier]

Pretty sure they only did the Kofi/Cesaro change for Boston. It's pretty dumb and shows how little they care about that title, but that's why. Wouldn't be surprised if Cesaro has been told he'll be winning it back within a couple of weeks. I agree with your general point though - just not necessarily that example. There are all kinds of simple little things they could do (because they have done them in the past) and avoid.

I actually didn't even think about that. Good point, there. And yes, I knew it wasn't the best example, it was just what came to mind. Glad to see you agree with the general point, though.

I hate how they give away matches people have wanted to see for ages with no real build and then only do it properly on a big stage after we've already seen the wrestlers meet several times. The lack of planning is infuriating at times.

The Del Rio face turn/title change was a bit like that. They did it on Smackdown and then it was like they remembered the Rumble was coming up so decided to do a rematch with the exact same stipulation, only much less intrigue.

THIS! This is one of my BIGGEST ISSUES with the WWE right now. They find a great match-up and just give it away week after week. Sure, give them a hyped match from to test how well they do on the TV show, but if it's good, THAT DOESN'T MEAN RUN THE SAME MATCH EVERY DAMNED WEEK! Totally diminishes the marquee power of future matches. It's a good thing Bryan and Ziggler are so good or else that match-up would have lost its luster by now.

[The Rogerer]

I think the discussion about talent being misused is overexaggerated. I came back thanks to the Rock being at the Royal Rumble, and I've found lots of things to keep me watching - Daniel Bryan, The Shield, Cesaro, Punk, Swagger, Del Rio, Barrett and others. It doesn't particularly matter what is happening with any of these people, as they're on TV at least once a week and I get to see them. If anything, they're not suffering from not being in the main event because there's nothing going on in the main event at all. The only storyline of any sort left in the WWE is the Shield, and the Shield have no discernable direction or goal beyond what they have decided that week.

So whather someone like Cesaro is at the bottom of the card or the top, it won't make a difference as there's no real buildup or interest to the feuds beyond "We had a match so we're going to have another match". This is a problem that goes the whole way through the company and they need to give people proper momentum. Ultimately you have to create desires for people - what do these wrestlers want to achieve beyond 'winning the match'? What obstacles are there for them beyond someone beating them up?

The product is just running without any direction. Complaining about the mid card champions is just a small part of the problem. Cesaro could have been light heavyweight chamption back in the day and had more direction with that smaller title. I'm not saying the Attitude stories were better, because a lot of them were woeful, but they always tried to come up with a reason for things happening, good or bad.

[Andy]

Of course they can't make a product that all of their fanbases will love all of the time but they can definitely make improvements.

In a way I hate suggesting improvements on a message board like this. Like everyone else here, I'm just a fan with no knowledge of the workings of the company or industry as a whole. BUT, there are things that happen or don't happen which just boggle the mind. Orton vs Sheamus a couple of weeks ago being one of them. Having their champions lose all the time being another.

It also seems absolutely bonkers to me that three hour Raws seem to have actually lowered the quality of the midcard. It's just baffling. Give these talented young guys a bit of time every weeks to establish characters, build feuds and have matches. Talent like Rhodes, Sandow, Bryan, Cesaro and Barrett could be used so much more effectively cos they're so talented. And I don't see where any compromise has to be made here. These guys are capable of winning over all the different groups in WWE's fanbase and the time is there for them to do it if it's used efficiently and effectively. There's no reason it would have to use up any Cena time or anything.

[Jacknife]

This is the best WWE cycle:

[Andy]

Also the lack of care about wins and losses absolutely does my head in, as has been said. That's not necessarily a 'smark' thing either. So they finally pull the trigger on a Ziggler title run. Guys like us love it. But to other people who watch wrestling, they see him win and then see him lose his first match as champion, clean, to another heel, after nothing more than a bounce off the ropes. It's just bullshit. How do they expect people to care about him? How can he get over? Yeah he's a chicken shit heel and an underdog so let him cheat, let him steal one, even let him walk off. They make it so hard for their unestablished talent to get over.

[chatty]

Some of the booking whims annoy me. More so recently where they have been piss farting about starting feuds then just forgetting them:

Jericho/Ziggler - never really blew it off despite it actually have a very good build.

Ryback heel turn - they started this a few months back with him walking out the ring and then being pissed at Sheamus then forgot about until they needed a monster to ultimately feed to Cena - minor but just shows they aren't booking even a week ahead.

Starting the Bryan/Kane break and then completely forgetting it and going as was (not as bad because their characters are based on this) but still indecisive booking.

Sheamus/Barrett - It was a nothing feud based on nothing but still very pointless.

Barrett/Dallas - I presume this one was because Dallas is terrible and they wanted to get him back off the main roster.

Henry/Orton - started to go in this direction then killed it dead with no acknowledgement.

Just some examples of my head. I mean if they want to go in another direction fine but would it be so hard to put them in a match the following week to blow it off, they could even use it to change to the direction they want to go with say a run in for eg.

[Andy]

Yep, that's another thing that does my head in.

Jericho/Ziggler would've been great for Mania, they at least should've had a match to properly end their feud.
Ryback heel turn would've been good when they teased it with Sheamus and Orton. Would've given him a much needed win probably too.
They started building towards ADR and Rosa being paired up then binned it.
They broke up Rhodes Scholars then immediately put them back together.

[chatty]

Also I thin one of their biggest problems (which also is one of their biggest assets) is part timers, they make a mess of the card all coming back at the same time and through it the rest of the full time roster looks weak to the point where it takes them months to get them back to any semblance of credibility. Then just as they start to climb the ladder, the part timers return.

I'm hoping this ends after Mania 30 and whilst I love the old guys \\i just wish they would buggar off and let the new guys take charge now.

[chatty]

Yeah and Kaitlyn/Cody and Truth/Kofi repairing/feud as more examples

[chatty]

More mult-man tag matches are needed imo - would solve a fair few problems in one go.

[Andy]

See I don't think part timers coming back should necessarily harm anyone else. None of Brock, Trips, Rock or Taker have at any point directly squashed anyone or anything and they've only gone up against the people they're actually facing. Yeah it restricts the time afforded to others but we've got three hours of Raw, two of SD, plus Superstars and the Saturday thing. That's more than enough time to build say 9 or 10 feuds at Mania time.

They tape Superstars before Raw so it'll always have a fairly big crowd - why not relegate the US title to Superstars for a few months when there's more people on Raw? Give it half of that show every week. Just build it up even if it's not getting the same amount of coverage.

[Cewsh]

They were doing that for awhile on Main Event, and it was working like a charm.

[OD50]

I hate how they give away matches people have wanted to see for ages with no real build and then only do it properly on a big stage after we've already seen the wrestlers meet several times. The lack of planning is infuriating at times.

This.

Back in the day they knew how to build up anticipation for matches. The trick is definitely not to give the match away for free on television ten times before the PPV.. Duh.

[The_Mike]

I'll start off by saying that I don't like saying that wrestling is a cycle. It implies that when things are bad, then it's inevitable that they will get much better again.

I agree with this. I also think talk of a cycle is and out-dated handwave for explaining away why business is in a slump. The cycle does not actually exist. A cycle has to go round more than once, otherwise it's just a circle. People keep looking at the past 5+ years as WWE's mid-90s period and are awaiting the inevitable Attitude Era, but what makes them think it is inevitable? How often did we have an Attitude Era? It happened once. Wrestling as an industry has gone up and down a bit over the decades, like any other industry, but I really see the idea of a boom and bust cycle as a myth, and an excuse for WWE to rest on its creative laurels and keep making reasonable amounts of money without ever having to take risks. They took risks to start the Attitude Era because the alternative was to die. Why would they do that when there is no competition and their bland product is the only real product available? The industry changed before because it had to. It doesn't right now, so it's not going to randomly wake up one morning and find itself letting AJ take her shirt off and John Cena flip everybody off.

I do think there is an impish petulance in how the WWE deals with the industry's most vocal and hardcore fans, though. Trolling them on occasion can be funny, we've got to be able to laugh at ourselves if we're going to tear every broadcast apart, but there's this peculiar habit the WWE has of taking things that the fans grow to love organically and destroying them, while taking things the fans rebuff and simply doing it over and over again. Cena is the embodiment of it, naturally. Recently, the fans don't want to see Orton vs Sheamus and essentially hijack the match, so WWE gives them Orton vs Sheamus again, on a broadcast they advertised using the antics of the previous weeks' fans. It sends a clear message that we'll take what we get, and they'll take out of us what they want. But it is not only recent, I honestly haven't been happy with the direction of WWE overall since about 2002. It's part of why I don't watch anymore: it's been a decade since I didn't have a ton of things to complain about. Yes, yes, tell me I'm ridiculous for having kept watching so long and that I'm obviously impossible to please and whathaveyou, but my main point is that I'm not a WWE fan, I'm a wrestling fan, and it has become clear that these things are not the same and WWE are trying their hardest to communicate that to us. I guess I finally listened.

[lotjx]

I have never heard a human being get booed out of a building like Cena at Mania and I have been at hockey elimination playoff games where there is actually something real on the line. In any series, there is going to be a guy or two that you learn to hate. Yet, it was nothing compared to the shit that was leveled at Cena. WWE is complacent. That is their major sin. They are complacent with their top star, their mid card and their PPVs. When Punk made himself a star, they still refused to make him the number one guy. Punk choose to go heel, because there was no other option for him. When they have someone like that saying Fuck it, then there is the massive problem.

They refuse to make changes and when they do, they find some way to go back to square one. We are back to square one with Cena as champ and with the company. They are going to continue to build and feed Cena monsters and we will continue to watch to some degree. The kids will love it til they grow up and then move on to something else. The big problem for the WWE is eventually time will catch up with the Cena fans.

[Tainted Eclipse]

There have been plenty of times I've enjoyed watching certain shows week in week out, but they usually weren't the main product -- ie, RAW. 2004-2007 I didn't much care for what was going on on RAW but loved Smackdown, especially in 2006. 2009 ECW was an amazing show and I enjoyed it greatly week in week out. Now it's pretty much a whole company centered around RAW, Smackdown is a flat out C-show with no identity, and there's no side-show like ECW doing its own thing.

[Andy]

The problem with the theory of Cena fans growing up is it's not like the supply of kids has dried up. At Mania and Raw this year, the Cena merchandise was selling more than anything else by a long long way. That included kids that barely seemed older than toddlers right the way through to young teenagers plus women and surprisingly more guys than I expected. He's a money maker and we can't expect a business to deliberately ignore the big money in favour of anything else.

[OD50]

There have been plenty of times I've enjoyed watching certain shows week in week out, but they usually weren't the main product -- ie, RAW. 2004-2007 I didn't much care for what was going on on RAW but loved Smackdown, especially in 2006. 2009 ECW was an amazing show and I enjoyed it greatly week in week out. Now it's pretty much a whole company centered around RAW, Smackdown is a flat out C-show with no identity, and there's no side-show like ECW doing its own thing.

I can't stand Raw but NXT is pretty damn great. I guess it's kind of what WWECW used to be.

[RuneEdge]

This talk about the business being in a cycle was discussed at least once before, and that was quite a while back. To be honest, I felt a little more optimistic about things at the time of reading it but lets face it, nothings changed and probably wont change any time soon.

Truth is, since the WWE went public, Vince started to care more about people outside the business rather than pleasing the fans he already had. Corporate image, brand exposure, those are the things more important to Vince right now. I'd like to think I'm wrong but I honestly believe Vince would be more impressed if you were the #1 trend worldwide for an hour during RAW than if you put on a 5 star match and got really over on that same show.

[The_Mike]

Truth is, since the WWE went public, Vince started to care more about people outside the business rather than pleasing the fans he already had. Corporate image, brand exposure, those are the things more important to Vince right now. I'd like to think I'm wrong but I honestly believe Vince would be more impressed if you were the #1 trend worldwide for an hour during RAW than if you put on a 5 star match and got really over on that same show.

This. Wrestling has become simply one of numerous mechanisms for making money, rather than the raison d'etre of the company. And they're a business and that's their goal and their right and all that capitalist bullshit, but that doesn't make it less annoying that they essentially have started selling a very different product. It's like Coke suddenly only selling water: sure, they are still a drinks company because you can drink it, but I can get flat, tasteless liquid from any old tap. Now I have to dig through mountains of waterbottles to find the occasional sweet, syrupy coke.

[Cewsh]

So why not drink Pepsi?

[The Rogerer]

Because they can barely get it in the bottle (TNA)

[Merchant4Ever]

Cewsh made a great point earlier saying, the casual fans "actually like things."

I love wrestling and enjoy getting on this site, but let's be honest, 95% of the comments on here are very negative. As a business owner, you don't try to please the people who are cynical about your product. You play to your home base, and that is what the writers are doing.

As far as wrestling being on a "cycle," I don't think it is. Because as others have pointed out, once these Cena fans become rebellious teenagers, it doesn't matter because there are thousands of new 5-12 year olds who love Cena.

I think what we are seeing is the result of no competition, but more importantly, the result of being a publicly traded company. The PG era is the era of making advertisers happy, shareholders happy, and Linda's potential voters happy. As far as wrestling goes, that means take fewer risks, push guys who the kids like, and don't choke Justin Roberts by the tie.

[The_Mike]

Because they can barely get it in the bottle (TNA)

Exactly. Now I have to get taste I used to love from an off-label brand that has weird packaging that shimmers. Not that it isn't good quality, but people look at me funny if they catch me drinking it.

[Psycho666Soldier]

Great job on getting the discussion started, Kimura.

[Beer-Belly]

I said it elsewhere, but I think it would be a good idea to market the World Heavyweight title as the more wrestling oriented title. It wouldn't be that hard, and it would actually justify having two major championships.

[lotjx]

Cewsh made a great point earlier saying, the casual fans "actually like things."

I love wrestling and enjoy getting on this site, but let's be honest, 95% of the comments on here are very negative. As a business owner, you don't try to please the people who are cynical about your product. You play to your home base, and that is what the writers are doing.

As far as wrestling being on a "cycle," I don't think it is. Because as others have pointed out, once these Cena fans become rebellious teenagers, it doesn't matter because there are thousands of new 5-12 year olds who love Cena.

I think what we are seeing is the result of no competition, but more importantly, the result of being a publicly traded company. The PG era is the era of making advertisers happy, shareholders happy, and Linda's potential voters happy. As far as wrestling goes, that means take fewer risks, push guys who the kids like, and don't choke Justin Roberts by the tie.

And when the Wrestelmania buyrate comes back lower than expected then what. The ratings nose dived this week. WWE has a base of 2.75 to 2.5 million viewers each what happens when they go below that. We all know that WWE wants their own channel, what happens to Raw and Smackdown? They are going to need exclusive content and the kiddy shows won't cut it. What happens to the advertisers then? The other problem too is that kiddies don't order the PPVS, the parents do as do the big chain restaurants along with the smarks. Being PG thankfully has not gotten Linda elected and probably never will. If WWE wants to say fuck the smark fans that is their right, but what they have to realize that all the social stuff going on right now is the a good chunk of the smark fans.

[Cewsh]

1. WWE is not "PG Era" anymore. The angles have become noticeably more reality based and serious than they were a few years ago.
2. If WWE had zero smark fans, they would be thrilled beyond belief. That's the simple truth. They tolerate us and occasionally cater to us. But we're so, so shitty for their business.
3. The ratings drop on the same week every year.

WWE has a great many problems. But let's not make smoke where there's no fire.

[Jimmy Zero]

The thing that I've always thought was weird about WWE's almost exclusively targeting the kiddie crowd with juvenile bullshit like Cena in the post-Attitude era is that, invariably, those kids get older and their tastes mature. For some reason, WWE's product really hasn't. I don't understand why they seem to have such a love it or leave it attitude for fans who are older than 15 and are tired of fart jokes and tee hee hee sexual innuendo.

A hypothetical (that probably isn't really all that hypothetical): a kid who was in the 10-14 age group and was initially drawn into WWE by Cena at least 5 years ago would be knocking on the door of their early 20's, by now. What's there for them? CM Punk and...? Cena is still doing the same stuff he was doing when they first became interested in the product. He has literally not developed his character, AT ALL, in the time that this hypothetical kid has been a fan. I'm not even talking a heel turn, but at least some new dynamic to his character.

There's been nothing. It makes no sense to me that WWE does absolutely nothing to retain fans that aren't 12, while still providing things that kids can get behind. It's not like it's this impossible task. Yeah, they'll throw us a bone ever now and then (Brock, for instance), but by and large, fans over the age 12 that aren't functionally retarded are afterthoughts. And Cena isn't the only one who's been doing the same old song and dance for years now, either, he's just the most highly visible and most obvious choice. Sheamus and Orton also immediately come to mind as guys so god damn boring that I'd change the channel any time they'd come out.

I gave up on watching WWE programming about 6 months ago, and only check in periodically with the wrestling side of these forums to see what's going on. Other than some repackaging of a few guys, it still sounds like the same old boring crap that caused me to completely lose interest 6 months ago. I don't need blood and guts and Foley getting mutilated to be entertained, but the way it was when I stopped watching was, I felt, insulting to my intelligence as a long time WWE fan. I don't know if WWE is ignoring smarks, but I do think they're ignoring people who have grown up with WWF/E and expect to be taken into some sort of consideration on a regular basis with the presentation of their product.

[Cewsh]

New kids turn 6 every day.

[mth]

1. WWE is not "PG Era" anymore. The angles have become noticeably more reality based and serious than they were a few years ago.

This isn't really relating to the topic of the thread but just something I wanted to mention after reading this point...
....did anyone else count how many times they said 'ass' on RAW the past couple of weeks? For the longest time during the PG era, they've been shying away, replacing it with 'butt' and other synonyms, etc. but seems they've gone softer on it and are letting it fly. Pretty sure I heard it on RAW almost half a dozen times.
Just an observation. Times might be a-changing ever so slightly.

[Kyle_242]

Smarks exist in every business, they're just called something different. Fans like to complain, and it's because they care. But because they care, they'll typically give you your money regardless. So it's true, catering to smarks isn't the best way to go about business, just like catering to hardcore fans in general almost always hurts your profit more than helps it.

But that doesn't mean that the complaints aren't valid, either. And, despite what's been said in this thread, I think it's exactly that "casual" market that the WWE is hurting.

Kids that love John Cena are going to keep watching, until they grow hair on their testies. I wouldn't call them casual, I'd call them fans. Disgruntled fans like us are going to keep watching for a variety of reasons, but mostly because we've watched it our entire lives already. It's the guys who rocked Stone Cold shirts in the Attitude era and shared crotch chops with their friends (!?) that they've completely lost. Wrestling's not "cool" anymore, you don't see it anywhere outside of fandom. Mind you, that's not entirely the WWE's fault, the rise of MMA did more damage than anything. But really, the WWE has done nothing to fill that void, either.

I don't know when they decided that going safe and predictable instead of trying to improve and kickstart the business was the MO, but it's exactly that reason that I give them very little of my time these days. I'm not calling myself a casual fan, wrestling will always be a part of me, but I'm saying that I can certainly see why most people don't care. The WWE gives them no reason to.

[Jimmy Zero]

New kids turn 6 every day.

So?

[Simmo Fortyone]

The purchasing power of the population aged 5-14 is far, far greater than that of those aged 15-30. Kids having an influence on how their parents spend their disposable income is a much, much bigger market than teenagers and young adults' disposable income. Therefore advertisers (and also the 'E) target those markets as there is far more opportunity to attract dollars. Look at things such as breakfast cereal, action figures, collector cards, candy bars and pretty much anything advertised during cartoons. Are any of those ads targeted at adults? Hell no. They're targeted at kids. Any adults who happen to consume the product are just bonus income.

I haven't looked at an annual report for a while, but I'm pretty sure the 'E are still making absurd amounts of money. Anyone who thinks the 'E is anything other than a money-making venture are absolutely kidding themselves. Ergo, if it ain't broke...

[Cewsh]

So, if they're aiming at children, why would it matter to them if those children grow out of their product?

[Simmo Fortyone]

It doesn't. I wasn't replying to you.

NOT EVERYTHING'S ABOUT YOU, EDGECUTIONER. CHRIST.

[Judas Iscariot]

They're obviously doing something tremendously wrong, because Vince McMahon is a millionaire who SHOULD be a BILLIONAIRE.

[kangus]

Maybe it's part of the hidden agenda of the media to keep telling us Vince is only a millionaire so he avoids paying extra taxes.

[Cewsh]

It doesn't. I wasn't replying to you.

NOT EVERYTHING'S ABOUT YOU, EDGECUTIONER. CHRIST.

I WAS REPLYING TO JIMMY YOU EGOMANIAC

[takerson]

They're obviously doing something tremendously wrong, because Vince McMahon is a millionaire who SHOULD be a BILLIONAIRE.

You wanna know WHY he's not a Billionaire....

[Andy]

Going back to the original point about cycles - I do think it moves in cycles in a sense. Maybe cycles ain't the right word to use because I don't think we'll see returns to the likes of the Attitude Era. But the product evolves constantly and I don't think it'll stay as it is now for much longer.

I am as big a fan of the Attitude Era as they come, but I don't want to see any sort of Attitude Era mk2 created. There's actually a lot of stuff I'd be fairly uncomfortable with these days. The amount of blood and the amount of violence towards women being the main things.

But I still think the Attitude Era was the best period of wrestling ever and I do think WWE is capable of creating a product with just as muh quality. They may not get the mainstream success of time gone by but in my opinion the roster they have right now is as good as it was at the height of the Attitude Era.

If they developed feuds and characters effectively, they really could produce something special because all the components are there.

[kangus]

I could see the WWE Universe helping #violencetowardswomen trend on twitter.

[Judas Iscariot]

If they developed feuds and characters effectively, they really could produce something special because all the components are there.

This is the problem and it's the only problem.

The E doesn't need to go back to the Attitude Era. They can't and they don't have the competition to need to.

But they need a fucking direction with shit and they have none.

Cesaro and Barrett immediately scream to mind about how they have no fucking idea what to do with anyone. I know they're both NOT AMERICAN, but they had these builds and then they vanished like a fart in the wind.

I will always go back to Zack Ryder. Fucking guy gets himself over with the crowd. Subverts how the company works. Gives birth to the social media trend. Gets the US Title based upon crowd reaction that can't be ignored. Immediately gets buried.

It doesn't make any sense.

There are no feuds outside of half thought out main event ones.

When WWE was WWF, the card was based on captivating feuds from top to bottom. A lot of them involved stables that got people over.

Now we have The Shield and they seem to actually be handled well, but we're going to have to see with them.

[kangus]

To be fair, it was quite clear Zack Ryder's limited ring skills and no 'it' factor really wouldn't have allowed him to sustain his momentum for much longer regardless of how WWE handled him.

[kdestiny]

I also like the fact that the guys who Cesaro and Barrett did have a feud with have or have had the other's title (Kofi and Miz).

I really quite enjoyed the program Miz had with Cesaro, but it was cut and then he beat Barrett at WM. I feel like there are so many good characters in the midcard that feuds shouldn't be that difficult.

[Judas Iscariot]

To be fair, it was quite clear Zack Ryder's limited ring skills and no 'it' factor really wouldn't have allowed him to sustain his momentum for much longer regardless of how WWE handled him.

I really don't think he has limited ring skills because of himself. I think he can go in the ring but got roped into the same 5 moves of doom that everyone else does. He can clearly flop around better than most of the roster when it comes down to it.

The gimmick wasn't going to propel him to main event status but it could have been developed. He never had the chance. Instead he got himself over using the same social media WWE hated but then embraced to the point it makes people want to vomit, and just as he won that title was thrown into that God awful Cena/Kane storyline, dropped the title to a WWE guy in Swagger, and then was swept under the rug.

I don't blame him at all for bitching, and given his latest Z! True Long Island Story, I hope he either gets something going for himself or goes out in an IWC blaze of glory.

For whatever that's worth.

[Judas Iscariot]

I also like the fact that the guys who Cesaro and Barrett did have a feud with have or have had the other's title (Kofi and Miz).

I really quite enjoyed the program Miz had with Cesaro, but it was cut and then he beat Barrett at WM. I feel like there are so many good characters in the midcard that feuds shouldn't be that difficult.

That's the thing.

The midcard is built on gimmicky characters so everyone can see where everyone is going. The main event is made of less gimmicky characters who got over and don't have to rely on the gimmicks as much anymore.

That the vaunted Stephanie-led, soap opera writer Creative Staff can't build feuds around midcard gimmicks boggles my mind.

Again, I know that the Attitude Era is never coming back, but there were brilliant midcard feuds that outshone some of the main event feuds back in the day just because that shit writes itself.

[Judas Iscariot]

Also, there was less scripting back then for promos.

That HHH is making NXT not rely on scripts but have to come up with things on their own based on bullet points gives me faith in him running the company.

But we'll see.

I'm gonna watch RAW tomorrow (or something) and bitch about Dean Ambrose not burning down the arena, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

[kangus]

Also, let it be known, Jack Swagger is one promo away from being the biggest heel, by far, in the company.

[Judas Iscariot]

And how should that promo go?

[kangus]

It would certainly endorse recent events. Of course they would never ever ever ever do that, and obviously shouldn't but it's certainly there for the taking if the WWE wanted to.

[Judas Iscariot]

Oh, right, U.S. citizens blowing shit up. Gotcha.

[Andy]

All that would do is make Zeb the biggest heel in the company. Swagger is fucking dull, nothing about him interests me.

[kangus]

haha, that is true for sure. Dirty Dutch's talents are wasted on Swagger.

[Andy]

The other thing that annoys me is they have double the weekly TV time that the Attitude Era had. Use it to build characters and feuds you cuuuuuuuuuunts. It can still be PG and if would be far better than Orton vs Barrett every week for no reason with the champion losing every time fffggnnnnnn

[Judas Iscariot]

The other thing that annoys me is they have double the weekly TV time that the Attitude Era had. Use it to build characters and feuds you cuuuuuuuuuunts. It can still be PG and if would be far better than Orton vs Barrett every week for no reason with the champion losing every time fffggnnnnnn

Do they only have double?

RAW is three hours. Smackdown is two. Main event is one. Saturday Morning is half an hour. The online shows have to add a couple more hours between them, right?

Then there's NXT which we don't even get on TV here.

And they fucking do nothing with it.

Again. He's a millionaire who SHOULD be a BILLIONAIRE.

[Andy]

I was thinking Raw, SD, Superstars, Main Event and SMS. I wasn't even including NXT although I did forget about Heat which was basically the home of the LHW title for Malenko's entire reign.

[Hlebsfall]

You also need to remember that two hours of Raw each week is taken up by recaps and whoring out Tout And Twitter.

[Fanny Batter]

There's so much dead air on the shows it's ridiculous. It's like they write the show, it comes to an hour and half, so they streeeeeeetch everything, throw in five film trailers and recap the three main occurrences twice. It's a really tiring TV show. Seems a pretty simple formula to me, have the main-event built in the first segment, have a lot of snappy, fun stuff in hour one with backstage segments setting everything up for later on, then they can give time to those things because they've been built up. I HATE HATE HATE seeing matches between relevant wrestlers going 20 minutes (entrances/ad break included) without any hype, the result is irrelevant because we've no reason to care why it's happening so it's a waste of 20 minutes and the waste of a match we could have been sold into watching if we were allowed to get invested in the conflict between the characters.

[kangus]

This just popped into my head: one thing I don't like at all right now is the bureaucratic method of managing RAW. Okay so we have Vicky and Brad and Booker T and Teddy but in terms of match decisions one has to check with other, and that person has check with another person and nobody seems to be in charge and it's just stupid.

[GtheMVP]

I see the logic in returning to a more pg cartoon style product, like the Rock n Wrestling Hogan era, to draw families and create a new generation of fans, but WWE doesn't have to cater to over protective moms to get new kids watching. If a product is cool, or seen as the cool thing, kids will flock to it and drag their parents out, or at the very least, nag the shit out of their parents to get what they want.

WWE's pg approach opens them up to more exposure, like be a star things, pg friendly advertising that was unavailable to them before, and opportunities for political aspirations. I wouldn't be shocked to see Stephanie take a stab herself at some point. Vince has an obsession with being accepted into the mainstream, and it's really killing the offering.


If WWE just wants a new generation of fans growing with the business, they don't need to go the poopy jokes direction. There have never been more shitty parents then there are today. Look how many kids can get their parents to buy them Grand Theft Auto, Halo, or Call of duty games. They are entertainment pieces not meant for 7 top 10 yearolds, yet they're largely dominated by them.

Cool sells, and the WWE product we saw last week was about as cool to kids as a parent dressed up in a Kiss outfit. The Rock n Wrestling era was silly, but I can't recall anything as rotten as Kali, Hornswaggle and Natalyia back in those days.

WWE doesn't have to be xrated to be over with most of its fans, but holy fuck it's corny. Coupled with inconsistent story telling and booking, and we have a recipe for massive ratings disasters. I wonder how low they'll have to go before there's a real shake up.

[Jimmy Zero]

So, if they're aiming at children, why would it matter to them if those children grow out of their product?

Because it would make more sense (re: $$$) to aim at new children fans as well as trying to hang on to the ones that have grown up on WWE?

Why maintain a status quo if you don't have to?

I'm not saying it has to be one or the other. There's more than enough time on WWE programming to satiate both sections of fans. Instead of jerking off on their "social media score," which I had no idea was an actual thing until Michael Cole started squealing about it constantly, how about put more actual content on the shows?

[ReDPath]

The cliff notes for those who won't be watching that guy. The fine point in bold, thought it was funny.

"Forcing us/telling us to like Fandango because he has a fake celeb status"

"Throwing out a guy because he has a sign that said 'Raw is Generico' who is apparently signed to the company, will they throw me out if I have a sign that says WCW is better?"

"You can't take a goofball, fake marine dressed like Vanilla Ice, and turn him into Hulk Hogan. Its not gonna work"

"Apparently according to their logic, smarks love him"

"They mock the smart fans with the fake heel stuff, and blatantly ignore them"

"33 million viewers for one show in 1988, now they barely get 3 million"

His rant on TNA

"Kurt Angle jobbing out to losers every week"

[Cewsh]

I really don't think that that is an either/or proposition. The shows are the way they are because the content creators of Raw are in flux with no head writer, and the content creators of Smackdown are given very little to work with since their product is seen by so many fewer people. Whenever the show quality dips, these issues seem to branch out into a million other concerns that people have about the product based on how they think it should be, and those concerns tend to disappear when the shows become more interesting.

I'm not trying to belittle the ideas in here, many of them are issues that WWE needs to address moving forward. But every company has frustrating ways that they could improve in to the betterment of all. This one is doing especially badly, creative wise, due to a very obvious measurable thing that happened, (the Raw head writer last year was a megalomaniac who was fucking things up, he got fired a month before Wrestlemania and he still hasn't been replaced.) Everything else is window dressing.

[OD50]

I credit Kurt for trying to put over/build young talent. Whether they're losers or not is another thing. How many veterans sans Chris Jericho actually does this?

As for Raw... I hate it. Turn it into a (approx) 90-minute version of NXT.. Instant success.

[kangus]

I would job clean to you, OD50.

[OD50]

I would job clean to you, OD50.

Kudos, nothing like a good old fashioned clean job.. Guess I fit the mold of washed up veteran better though, I guess I need to start putting some young guys over.

[Kimura Kid]

Great job on getting the discussion started, Kimura.

Yeah Thanks, Wish I could of been apart of the discussion more than I have been. But this weekend was super busy. The thread is a bit overwhelming to go back and rehash. But this has been an amazing read and I have a more educated understanding of what I think the issue is. And that was the point of the thread. So, Thank you and everyone else who has contributed to the thread.

[Cewsh]

Definitely a great thread, and an overdue one.

[Kimura Kid]

The cycle does not actually exist. A cycle has to go round more than once, otherwise it's just a circle. People keep looking at the past 5+ years as WWE's mid-90s period and are awaiting the inevitable Attitude Era, but what makes them think it is inevitable? How often did we have an Attitude Era? It happened once.

Yeah I have to disagree, Maybe I didn't use the proper terminoligy. When I say the attitude era I just mean a Boom in Wrestling. I disagree about it only happening once. Go back and look at the wrestling business in the late 80's and how much of a change the business went through. It was significant......it was HUGE!!! Then the Attitude Era Came..and the business was forever changed...or was it?

We seen at least 2 Booms in Wrestling, At least 2.

Wrestling as an industry has gone up and down a bit over the decades, like any other industry, but I really see the idea of a boom and bust cycle as a myth, and an excuse for WWE to rest on its creative laurels and keep making reasonable amounts of money without ever having to take risks. They took risks to start the Attitude Era because the alternative was to die. Why would they do that when there is no competition and their bland product is the only real product available? The industry changed before because it had to.It doesn't right now, so it's not going to randomly wake up one morning and find itself letting AJ take her shirt off and John Cena flip everybody off.

I think your not looking at the big picture. The Attitude era was born because of what was happening in WCW. A lot of people like to credit the Attitude Era when Truly it was 3 Guys that revolutionized the wrestling business and led to the Attitude era, And those three guys are Hogan, Hall & Nash and the creation of NwO and Hogans Heel Turn. Change doesn't always have to happen when your about to die or business isn't good. It's also when there is a hunger to better the product to create more revenue. WCW Forced WWE to be creative and take risks because they already were....and were kicking WWE's ass week after week.

Not for nothing but Vince passed up on the very decision that created the Monday night wars & Attitude Era. Vince was unwilling to pull the trigger on Hogans heel turn....and look what it did for the Wrestling Business. Risk isn't something Vince takes unless being backed in to a corner, But that doesn't mean it's a good decision.......because history proves the otherwise.

[Cewsh]

I would say there have been at LEAST 4 different boom periods. The 50 television boom, the 70s worldwide NWA growth boom, the 80s cable/VCR/PPV boom and the 90s live television boom.

They're virtually always preceeded by a technological leap forward, making it more convinient for people to find their product and enjoy it.

[Kimura Kid]

Aren't we in the Midst of the Social Media Boom???

Where is the Boom? haha!!

Not Doubting you but if what you say is true, We should have already seen a Boom. And we aren't.

[Cewsh]

Aren't we in the Midst of the Social Media Boom???

Where is the Boom? haha!!

Not Doubting you but if what you say is true, We should have already seen a Boom. And we aren't.

No, not really. Just because there's a technological advance doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean that there will be a boom. WWE has bet heavy on social media taking them places, and unfortunately, betting on the internet has been a pretty huge net loss for a lot of companies. Booms often accompany technological advances, but the DVD came and went with no boom, same with Blueray, home entertainment systems, websites, apps, the home computer. All of it.

[OD50]

The latest technology leap has made it too easy to access shit almost. That, and that there's way too much of said shit floating around..

Damn, I remember watching SummerSlam '88 some time in October and still thinking it was the greatest thing ever. PPV's generally aired about three months following the shows here in Europe back in the 80's. Still was great.

And this latest social media boom or whatever it is doesn't exactly add anything to the product.. Not to me at least.

[Psycho666Soldier]

No, not really. Just because there's a technological advance doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean that there will be a boom. WWE has bet heavy on social media taking them places, and unfortunately, betting on the internet has been a pretty huge net loss for a lot of companies. Booms often accompany technological advances, but the DVD came and went with no boom, same with Blueray, home entertainment systems, websites, apps, the home computer. All of it.

That said, when/if the next "boom" hits, Social Media will play a HUGE part in how successful that boom will be. If only because it's given more fans a way of being vocal about their opinions directly to the WWE, and not just smart marks.

[Kimura Kid]

No, not really. Just because there's a technological advance doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean that there will be a boom. WWE has bet heavy on social media taking them places, and unfortunately, betting on the internet has been a pretty huge net loss for a lot of companies. Booms often accompany technological advances, but the DVD came and went with no boom, same with Blueray, home entertainment systems, websites, apps, the home computer. All of it.

Gotcha!! I really need to learn how to use the proper wording. I feel like a mongo rereading my posts.

"Not Doubting you but if what you say is true, We should have already seen a Boom. And we aren't"

That quote would almost imply that I was calling bullshit on your correlation between Technoligy and Wrestling Booms. And nothing could be farther from the truth. I 100% Agree with you. I'm just an idiot that can't relay what I'm trying to say in a effective manner.

Everyone look out at the Wilfreds!! Cuz I'm a complete idiot sometimes!! lol!!

[Cewsh]

Haha, don't be so hard on yourself, man. It's all good.

[Kimura Kid]

I'm just poking fun at myself. Haha! All in good fun.