Thursday, January 9, 2014

Why The WWE Network Is Much Ado About Nothing

The WWE Network appeared to be Vince McMahon’s white whale. Turns out it was merely a trout.

The culmination of nearly three years of self-promotion, rumors, dreams and promises about the WWE Network came Wednesday night at CES 2014. In the end, the WWE Network isn’t even a network at all.

wwe network
If you missed the particulars, the WWE Network costs you $9.99 per month and includes access to WWE’s vast video library – every WWF, WCW and ECW pay-per-view ever, for example – as well as every current WWE pay-per-view, including WrestleMania.

Those two bits of news had hardcore wrestling fans practically dancing in the street for joy. They did the math. They know that ordering every WWE show in 2014 would have cost them close to $700. Now, that number is down to a mere $120. They’ve just saved $580! And they get every pay-per-view ever!

If the goal of the WWE Network was to appease hardcore wrestling fans, then the announcement Wednesday was a success. Or was it?

The network, the WWE said, would be available on “every device” and listed out every mobile and computer contraption one can imagine. Thank God, too, because I’ve wanted to watch WrestleMania V on my cell phone for years!

“Every device” is not true though. It is missing one relatively important device – your television.

Yep, the WWE Network has agreements with a grand total of zero cable carriers. Sure, you could hook up your Roku or laptop to your television, but it’s not the NFL Network or the MLB Network or ESPN. The WWE has essentially created its own YouTube and asking you to pay $10 a month for it.

Vince McMahon used to proudly proclaim his, um, ahem, were the size of grapefruits. Apparently, the WWE chairman has been castrated.

There is no other explanation for the WWE rolling out the wussiest version possible of their network on Wednesday.

The reasons are obvious. They have pumped the network to investors and stockholders and advertisers for so long that eventually, something had to be produced.

When the idea was first floated in 2011, the network appeared to be the WWE’s attempt to jump on board with America’s professional sports league and create its own cable channel. In its infancy, there were grand ideas – from WWE sitcoms to even purchasing live sports rights.

Those grand ideas, obviously, never came to fruition.

Even by WrestleMania time in 2013, the idea was still to create a true television network, albeit one that resembled HBO as opposed to ESPN. As this April 2013 Variety article points out, the WWE wanted to air all pay-per-views on television for subscribers – akin to the boxing model used by HBO and Showtime. In boxing, only big events like Floyd Mayweather fights make it to pay-per-view. In wrestling, WrestleMania would act as Money Mayweather.

Even those plans never came to fruition. That fall 2013 launch date came and went like so many others before it.

In December, the WWE made it known that they were going to aggressively pursue a new television rights deals for its weekly live programming – namely Raw and Smackdown.

And this is where the WWE messed up. It is why the WWE Network will never be on your television and why it will eventually peter out and fail like so many other WWE ventures.

The NFL Network is a powerful brand because it airs an NFL game every Thursday night. The league turned down what would have been absurd rights fees – how much would NBC pay for the NFL on NBCSN or Fox on Fox Sports 1? – to take a risk and build up its network. The NFL Network now gets $1.13 from each of the 72 million homes that get the network every single month.

That would mean just about a BILLION dollars every year for the NFL. Sorry for the all-caps, but it was necessary.

Monday Night Raw isn’t Thursday Night Football, but it’s not that far off. In a world of fractured audiences and copious viewing options, WWE programming remains among the most valuable in the cable landscape. The USA Network is the most watched cable network in large part due to Raw. SyFy’s largest audience each and every week is SmackDown. Why else would you watch ION except for WWE Main Event?
The opportunity was there for McMahon and company – move the shows to your own network, turn it into a basic cable channel and print money for the rest of time.

Instead, the corporate WWE lacked the guts – the grapefruits, if you will – to do it. Vince McMahon was afraid. The same man who tried to create a bodybuilding league, the same man who dared to take on the NFL, the same man who fought the U.S. government and won – he did not want to risk everything again. This is not the same man who bet his life on the first WrestleMania. Nor is it the same company.

The WWE mantra, both behind the scenes and on-camera, has become “play it safe.” That’s why Daniel Bryan never gets his chance. That’s why CM Punk’s historic WWE title reign ended in such a depressing manner. That’s why John Cena and Randy Orton remain main eventers despite fan apathy.

What did the WWE announce on Wednesday? In essence, nothing. There is zero risk. There is also a minute chance for success.

WWE has already been providing classic content on-demand for nearly a decade through its WWE Classics on Demand service, originally called WWE 24/7. I had it through Comcast for a few years. They aired a lot of old matches and original shows. It cost about $7 a month. It was alright, but I moved on.

They have also been providing classic content on-demand online for nearly the same amount of time. They also have put matches – full-length matches – on YouTube for several years.

The only change is the fact the live pay-per-views are on the WWE Network and that’s where the devil lies in the details.

Maybe I’ve buried the lead again, but it is literally impossible for the WWE Network, as currently constructed, to work.

Most casual fans buy one WWE show a year in WrestleMania. If you sign up for the WWE Network, you have to commit to six months at $9.99, essentially the same price as WrestleMania. They want to rope you in for a whole year, so that casual fan gives the WWE $120 per year instead of $60.

The problem is that the casual fan will likely have no interest in the WWE Network. 14,000 hours of programming available on-demand is a fun number to throw out there – but do you have 14,000 hours to sit around and watch wrestling?

The ones that will be drawn to the network, as stated above, are the hardcore fans that buy multiple pay-per-views per year. The WWE, in a bizarre move, is actually submarining their own revenue in an effort to show off their shiny new toy.

It’s a corporate move as old as time. Revenue will go down from pay-per-views but the WWE will point to the subscriber numbers as if that will appease investors. If you’ve ever been in a conference room with investors, you’ve seen this charade play out. It usually doesn’t work long-term.

After three years of bluster, the WWE had to produce something. They did the best they could. They shined up the poop real good. They made a big splash. They got Twitter talking. They are likely slapping backs today in Stamford.

Deep down, though, they know. This is not what they wanted. An on-demand library? They already tried to sell that – and no one bit. The WWE 24/7 service attracted 115,000 subscribers in 2007 – bringing in a whopping $1 million in revenue, not exactly the $1 billion the NFL Network brings in.

They are now throwing every pay-per-view and WrestleMania on top in a desperate attempt for relevancy.

Wednesday night’s announcement was the corporate equivalent of a Hail Mary. The ball will be in the air for the next 47 days until the WWE Network – in reality, just a streaming service – is launched. The WWE will plaster ads for it everywhere and anywhere until then.

By including WrestleMania, the subscriber numbers will look good. The investors will nod. The hardcore fans will be overjoyed with the available content. It will appear to be a success.

Do not be fooled. By Feb. 24, 2015, the WWE Network will take its rightful place next to the WBF, the XFL and The Marine 3 as spectacular failures.

Follow me on Twitter

183 comments:

  1. I think you are wrong... This is exactly what the WWE needed to do. This way, you get what you want. If it were packaged with Cable I'd have to pay $120 dollars/month for the Digi package with set-top box in addition to the $10/mo for this channel. This circumvents the whole "ala carte" cable pricing problems and gives fans what they want, when they want it for a price they can afford.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you don't pay for cable now? Your view is probably different from the majority of people, since 114 million people have cable in their homes. So that $120/month (or whatever they pay) is already happening.

      I pay for cable. I pay for cable because I like watching television. If I wanted to watch wrestling on my computer, I already can. And for free. It's called YouTube.

      Delete
    2. Here's the thing though Sean. Some of us actually don't want to pay for Cable because the shows we like to watch are already on Hulu and Netflix respectively. So to me, this is an EXCEPTIONAL option. And as far as "not being on your television" goes, if you've got an XBOX 360, or PS3, or PS4, or anything like that, you're going to watch WWE Network on your TV.

      I don't blame them at all for going this route. They get picked apart and only get 40% of their income from PPV Buys, so this is a perfect opportunity for them to earn those losses back by gaining subscribers.

      This will be the best idea Vince has had in a LONG, LONG time.

      Delete
    3. ?? He's already had this idea. They tried charging people on WWE.com to watch old matches & shows. And no one did. So they made it free.

      So it's not that great of an option if it already failed, no?

      And they used to stream PPVs online too. Guess what? They stopped that as well because no one was buying it.

      Delete
    4. the most important difference: "reasonable price".

      there is a difference between paying 1.50$ per match (or how much was it? I can't even remember) or having people pay a reasonable amount for all of it.

      Delete
    5. "how much was it? I can't even remember"

      It was $7.99 per month.

      Delete
    6. People are crazy if they think this will succeed.the wwe been putting out crap for years and their profits been dropping every year now. macman wanted a tv channel but every cable and satellite company told him no because they know it want work.The wwe is just putting out crap that some people are gullible enough to buy.this is why the wwe is making less and less profits every year.the majority of people no crap when they see it.

      Delete
    7. Sean, thanks for a great analysis! Too bad so many people (judging by the comments below) prefer to think with their heart instead of using their brains. People, please, this is not love/hate WWE article, this is a writing piece examining potential downsides of WWE's business decision. You may not agree with it and time may prove Sean wrong, but these are valid points and simply ignoring them is not a prudent choice a business-oriented person.

      Here is another excellent piece on the same subject with some other very logical points: http://www.mmafighting.com/2014/1/10/5294574/evaluating-wwe-network-vs-ufc-fight-pass

      BTW, here is one interesting question for you the heart-minded WWE fans: if all WWE PPVs are carried on the new network and, most likely, cable companies will soon stop carrying WWE PPV at all (either because everyone signs for the network and no one buys PPVs from cable anymore or because cable companies decide not to carry WWE PPVs anymore as a way to punish WWE for undercutting cable profits), can you still call them PPVs if you are not paying for them in a "pay-per-view" style, but as a part of 6-month subscription package to on-demand service? If the PPVs are not PPVs anymore, but once a month Sunday specials do you think they will be of the same quality as PPVs used to be? Are you not losing, as a WWE fan, on a chance to tell WWE owners (by buying PPV or not) if you approve of the creative direction?

      Delete
    8. Cable is dying. Television in general, is dying. If you did your research, you'd know it was ridiculous it is to try defending the launch of a new cable channel in 2014.

      Sorry, but this article is way off. WWE made a great decision. If it's not successful, it'll be because of limited offerings or something of that nature; nothing to do with the mere fact its a streaming service.

      Delete
    9. I have to agree with Anonymous.... Cable is dying.. Why do you think Netflix and Hulu are booming.. people are going away from Cable. WWE made an awesome decision... A buddy of mine and me like to watch Wrestling.. but we would never pay $60 a month for a PPV. We were watching all the PPV for free Online Anyway.. and with this Deal from WWE, we are going to spend the $10 and watch all the PPV. And I feel alot of people will do the same. This article is a bit on the Harsh Side. Now if only UFC would do the same, that would be GREAT.... Im already watching UFC PPV online for Free Also.. but I would spend $10 a month to be able to watch all the PPV in HD.. but I will NEVER spend $60 per PPV... EVER!!

      Delete
    10. In regard to the PPV revenue they wouldn't necessarily be losing all that much money. They would save on not having to distribute to cable companies. Does anyone know if the each OnDemand show in the library they will have will be included or extra? I have yet to see anything that actually states that you won't have to pay for each show. They only say it's included in the price. OnDemand is included with certain cable subscriptions but you have to pay for movies. Just a thought.

      Delete
    11. EASIEST WAY TO WATCH



      1. Join http://wwebattleground.com


      2. on any device


      3. all top wrestling events


































































































































































































































































































































































      Delete
  2. That's a... strange response to this announcement. You want to KEEP cable? Streaming services are so much better than cable. Almost everyone that I know has cancelled their cable as soon as they got a streaming device (I do AppleTV, but I know plenty of people who love Roku too.) This is WWE actually doing the RIGHT thing for the first time since... well, since before they bought WCW anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apple TV is essentially the same thing as a cable provider, except with way less options and channels. Uh, pass.

      Delete
    2. yeah i'm going to cancelmy direct tv, and netflix for this talking about savings!

      Delete
    3. forget 6 months can i sign up for the next 5-10 years right away! youtube doesnt' have everything.

      Delete
    4. I am disappointed this won't be offered on cable/directv/dish network. I canceled my dish service for 3 years and downloaded tv shows/used netflix. The biggest problem is I don't live in an area where I can get network television for free so in order to get football or any other network sporting events I HAVE to have cable or some type of TV service. Since I have to have that anyway I would be more than willing to pay $9.99 a month to add WWE Network to my Directv. I don't know that I would be willing to do it streaming and use my limited internet (150 GB a month) in order to stream wrestling. I will end up paying extra in the internet overages.

      Delete
    5. Sean, you say "Apple TV is essentially the same thing as a cable provider, except with way less options and channels."...Really? I have Apple TV and I rent from iTunes on it AND stream ESPN, ABC, and Disney LIVE as well as watch EVERY NHL and MLB game on it for FAR LESS than cable. I pay $140 a month for Comcast. And yes, while I DO get LOTS of channels (including sports and premium movie channels), the majority of my viewing habits are network (NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX). Guess what channels on cable I watch? USA, SyFy, and ESPN (and NFL Network when my team plays since I am out of market). My point here is that with WWE Network (hopefully) being a "channel" on AppleTV, I can now pay $120 a YEAR for just that, use my Netflix subscription for less than that a year, and use my HULU subscription (which isn't even mine to begin with, it is a friend's login), on top of downloading from torrents and already be in the black. I still don't see how Apple TV is "essentially the same thing as a cable provider" when I get to choose what I want to watch and pay FAR less.

      Delete
    6. Josh, the key phrase in your tirade is "on top of downloading from torrents" - I download everything "from torrents" and I am not alone, i.e. any internet-literate wrestling fan can do it and most do. Why would I now pay for it if I can still get it for free???

      Delete
  3. 100% agree. Once everyone's 6-month subscriptions expire, it'll be over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree 100%. There are too many issues already with the network. I would rather pay a higher price for a PPV n see the match instead of missing part of it due to the site crashing and missing the whole thing.

      Delete
  4. I still have the 24/7 and would rather keep that but its going away after this month. im pretty bummed. i like watching things on TV too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. plug your,cpu/laptop/ps3/ps4 into your tv

      Delete
  5. This is better for their target audience, children. Yes, the adults pay the bills, but this allows kids to watch on ipads, ipods, on laptops, pc, etc. Mom and Dad can still watch TV or very easily hook up the computer to the tv. Youtube is crap, I can't believe youre using YouTube to justify this article. The quality is extremely inconsistent and only a tiny percentage of WWE's library is available on YouTube. The problem with cable is getting the network to be available on every provider. The NFL Network wasn't in my parents' area (Dayton, OH) until recently. WWE Network will be available worldwide in late 2014. That would never happen with cable. Online is their best bet and it's a growing trend.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If online is their best bet, why did they spend 3 years trying to get a cable network started?

      Delete
    2. They wanted to go the Network TV Route (2011), but when it came righ t down to it, it was "Best For Business" for them to do this digitally, and control their income stream, rather than being slaves to the Networks and Satellite Companies. If they pulled Raw and Smackdown from USA and Syfy respectively (which they wont do), then those channels would take a huge hit. So I am glad they didn't launch this in 2011, would have been a HUGE disaster on the levels of the XFL.

      Delete
    3. Online streaming wasnt nearly as popular 3 years ago as it is now. I had cable 3 years ago and I could never imagine paying for it again. This is an infinitely better, more accessible option. You wouldnt be able to watch whatever you wanted whenever you wanted with a cable channel. They tried for 3 years to get most cable providers to carry the channel. Like I said before, thats extremely difficult considering it took the NFL network almost 10 years to do that. Even if I had cable I wouldnt be able to enjoy the channel like I'll be able to online. Being able to watch something anywhere and anytime is a much better, much safer option than only being able to watch it on a tv.

      Delete
    4. So, Drew, how do you watch Raw every week? Or SmackDown? Because you cutting the cord is awful for the WWE.

      Delete
    5. The timing is simply not right for a true cable network. Niche cable channels that only show one thing have all but vanished- there's TCM, Comedy Central (because "comedy" is a very broad category indeed), the sports channels and that's basically it.

      Ideally the time to launch a true cable channel that was all-wrestling all the time would have been the '00s, after WWE acquired WCW (and their massive tape library). Now they've got the content but it wouldn't bring in the numbers.

      As for cutting the cord being "awful" for the WWE, remember that the WWE's TV programs don't bring in a lot of money because the wrestling audience is considered low income and they don't draw high dollar advertisers. WWE still gets a good deal from NBC Universal, and Raw and Smackdown are explicitly NOT streaming on the Network (at least not as they happen), but this whole thing seems like long-term looking towards new sources of revenue.

      Granted, that doesn't mean it can't fail. But I like the chance they're taking.

      Delete
    6. Sean, i watch RAW every week on USA (or via DVR after the fact when I am not home on Monday Nights or, you know, taking care of my 4 year old). Since I already pay Comcast $9.99 for my DVR service, if I drop them altogether, I can either a) watch RAW on demand on the WWE Network (which is frankly no different than DVR) or b) watch it on some other site that streams it live. There are ways to watch things other than the traditional channels.

      Delete
    7. Again, Josh, you just admitted that you can watch a WWE show online for free, so why pay $10 per month for something you can already get for free???

      Delete
    8. Sean, I pay for hulu+ just too watch raw and smackdown why not just pay wwe themselves for the same content.

      Delete
  6. biggest question: why SHOULD Vinnie risk so much if can "play it safe" (like you claim) and still have a good chance of making money of it?

    this is not 1984/1985 anymore, you know with other wrestling promotions of similar size around that also try to expand to became a national known company. WWE pretty much "became" wrestling. even if someone doesn't like it (like me, being one of those mentioned "hardcores") it is the simple truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To your first question, he doesn't have to risk anything. But he doesn't have a "good" chance of making money. The WWE has already spent at least $50 million (and that's before the upcoming marketing blitz) to get this launched. So the odds of it being successful are not good.

      To your second point, the original goal of the Network was to move the WWE in a league with the NFL or the NBA and move past the niche "wrestling" product that they are. By creating a streaming service, they are essentially becoming more niche.

      Look I love wrestling and I love old wrestling -- I just don't get the excitement around this announcement. It was just a bunch of bullplop shined up. No one is going to renew their subscriptions past the mandatory 6 months.

      Delete
    2. Why do people always talk about WWE like they're the only wrestling company? Last I checked, TNA had a nationally televised TV show and PPV deals with all major providers. Every major show from NJPW (the top company in Japan) is available on iPPV. All of the major indies have their shows on iPPV these days and the largest indy (Ring of Honor) has a television program broadcast over-the-air in much of the country. WWE has plenty of competition and those competitors put on better shows, but because some people are unwilling to step outside of their comfort zone and watch a wrestling program that doesn't have WWE's outrageous production values they just complain about how much WWE sucks all the time.

      On the subject of the WWE Network, I'm more interested in it in this form because a service that provides access to WWE programming from when they didn't suck is better than a television network that would probably heavily promote the awful current WWE. Still, I'm probably not going to subscribe because I'm happy with the WWE's competition and don't really have the time to watch old WWE.

      Personally, I don't know if WWE would have been better off pulling their shows from the existing networks and trying to start their own network. Its entirely possible that cable providers still wouldn't carry the network and then WWE would not be on TV at all, putting them in a tough situation. I think WWE should have put their focus into improving their core product, which has been terrible for years (and getting progressively worse), rather than trying to launch a TV network or a streaming service. If WWE were able to make wrestling popular again, as it was in the late 1990s, then they could get their television network that they want so badly.

      Delete
    3. biggest question: why SHOULD Vinnie risk so much if can "play it safe" (like you claim) and still have a good chance of making money of it?

      Very simple answer: wrestling PPV industry is shrinking every month because of constantly increasing pricing, over-saturated wrestling market (due to increased reliance on TV shows) and worsening economy.

      I also see three other potential problems for WWE with the launch of their streaming network:

      First, PPV carriers will not like it - this is maybe not that significant, however, the PPV carriers are also cable carriers and sometimes also owners of TV channels.

      Second, I do not think that USA channel will be excited that RAW will now be available online via a WWE site right after it aired on cable TV. Therefore, I am also doubtful of the projected high increases in fees WWE gets from USA's parent company.

      Third, and most important, creating an on-demand streaming service which has all the WWE, WCW and ECW PPVs (and likely later also their past TV shows) will over-saturate the WWE market and may very well cause significant declines in live TV ratings due to a changing habit of watching wrestling by WWE fans. Furthermore, WWE fans may find that old staff is actually better than current staff - will not be surprised by that.

      Delete
  7. "While the upcoming “WrestleMania 30” and other PPVs will be part of the WWE Network’s subscription package, those events will still be sold through cable and satellite providers as they are now."

    "...cable and satellite providers aren’t clamoring to launch new networks as they grapple with escalating programming costs, rights fees and cord-cutting customers."

    "WWE also saw how its fans consume five time more digital content than the average online viewer and are twice as likely to own a subscription to a streaming service. Over 60% of its fans have also said they would likely watch the WWE Network on TV through an Internet-connected device like a video game console, Roku or Apple TV box, while 30% would watch on a computer and 7% on mobile devices."

    http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/wwe-network-to-launch-in-february-as-streaming-service-1201036864/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's some high quality WWE BS there. Come back at me when the WWE Network has 3 million subscribers (60% of WWE fans).

      Just because someone wants to watch TV through the Internet doesn't mean they want to PAY for the right to do so.

      Delete
  8. Cord-cutting is real dude. I can get Netflix, Hulu, and WWE Network all for 30 bucks/month, rather than pay $115 for cable. I can also be resourceful and find other ways to watch live sports and other network programming because I'm not a moron.

    http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-BW306_CABLE_G_20120807180033.jpg

    This wasn't playing it safe. This was betting on the future. Vince has seen the Netflix approach work the past few years. He saw several other sports channels (P12 network, Fox Sports 1, B1G Network) fight tooth and nail to get proper carriage. He's seen dozens of carriage disputes over the past few years, as certain providers fight networks over fees.

    He doesn't want that. He's cutting out the middle man. It's a great idea. As for PPV revenue... WWE only sees about half of that anyway. So take SummerSlam 2012. It had 358k buys. That's $8.95 million in revenue. If they hit 895,000 subscribers, they make it back.

    But SummerSlam's really popular. What about... Payback 2013? 186k buys = 4.65 million in revenue. So they only need a half-million subscribers to go over the top. 4 million people watch RAW every week. that won't be an issue.

    They're also working with MLB Advanced Media to set this up. They have created the wildly successful MLB.tv. They have more than 2 million subscribers. You are completely looking at this the wrong way. Cable and satellites are fading in influence. WWE is seeing this. UFC is too - http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/1/9/5288870/ufc-fight-pass-review-of-the-ufcs-new-digital-network.

    Time to get with times Sean. I want to watch my WWE everywhere, and i'll be able to through this. At a less expensive price too. Saddle up or be left behind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) If Vince was betting on the future, he wouldn't have spent 3 years trying to get a cable network launched. This was Plan C.

      2) "If they hit 895,000 subscribers, they make it back." They make back the revenue from ONE SHOW. What about the other 12 PPVs of lost revenue?? Just to make up what SummerSlam and Payback make, they would need 1.5 million subscribers. That is NEVER happening.

      3) "Saddle up or be left behind"
      I'm not even sure what that means but I'm going to watch Raw on USA every week just like you do. So what am I leaving behind??

      Delete
    2. Bro. I just explained to you all the reasons Vince decided a cable network was a bad idea. Do you refute all the data that says more and more individuals, couples, and families are choosing to cut the cord?

      Saddle up or be left behind, bro.

      Delete
    3. Sean, on your point #2 - if they get 895,000 subscribers, they earn $8.95M per month for (at least) 6 months. That more than makes up for the $4-$5M in monthly PPV revenue lost from the B-level PPV shows.

      Delete
    4. "I just explained to you all the reasons Vince decided a cable network was a bad idea."

      You WWE fanboys cannot be this dense, right?

      Vince did not decide anything!!! All the cable companies told him NO!!

      Delete
    5. "if they get 895,000 subscribers, they earn $8.95M per month for (at least) 6 months."

      They LOSE money if they don't hit 1 million subscribers. They said it during the presentation!

      And they already wasted $50 million in the past 3 years trying to launch a cable network.

      And even if they hit all those milestones, they will have achieved it by submarining their own PPV revenue.

      The WWE says the PPV market is dead (a lot like the idiots here saying cable is dead) but Floyd Mayweather just sold 2+ million buys in September.

      I cannot stress this enough: The WWE Network announcement is NOT what the WWE wanted, AT ALL. But damn, Vince McMahon knows his fanboys will buy anything...

      Delete
    6. You are talking about a Mayweather fight that happens every 14 months. If Floyd fought EVERY SINGLE MONTH on ppv, I can guarantee the ppv numbers would be MUCH lower. Comparing a boxing PPV to a scripted tv special that you pay for every month is unfair.

      Delete
    7. Josh M, can you not read???

      Sean was debunking the WWE myth that the pay-per-view market is dead/dying. It can't be if a boxing card exceeds 2 million buys. UFC cards have exceeded 1 million buys many times.

      Apart from WrestleMania, the wrestling market is dying on pay-per-view.

      Delete
    8. Because it is over saturated. If WWE ppv's were, say, 6 a year instead of 12, people would be more willing to shell out $60 per card. But EVERY SINGLE MONTH is overkill, which is why I (along with probably millions of others) will GLADLY pay $9.99 a month to WWE directly and see 12 ppv's a year. It is simple math.

      As I am not a UFC fan, do they run ppv's every month as well?

      Delete
    9. UFC puts out a PPV about once every two months. And you are acting like Floyd Mayweather is the only boxing PPV every year -- there are others (like Manny or Canelo) that also do far above a WWE buyrate.

      The WWE killed its own pay-per-view market by delivering crap. In 2000, when the product was hot, the numbers were crazy each and every month. Backlash 2000 (a show I attended and was awesome) did 600,000 buys, just a month after WrestleMania.

      The point is, people will pay for GOOD content. The WWE has crappy content right now and have screwed the fans over too much (hi Daniel Bryan) to get people to pay.

      Delete
    10. "As I am not a UFC fan, do they run ppv's every month as well?"

      2013:

      Feb 2nd: UFC 156
      Feb 23rd: UFC 157
      Mar 16th: UFC 158
      Apr 27th: UFC 159
      May 25th: UFC 160
      Jun 15th: UFC 161
      Jul 6th: UFC 162
      Aug 3rd: UFC 163
      Aug 31st: UFC 164
      Sep 21st: UFC 165
      Oct 19th: UFC 166
      Nov 16th: UFC 167
      Dec 28th: UFC 168

      To answer your question: technically, no. But UFC had MORE pay-per-views in 2013 (13) then the WWE (12). Early estimates would indicate that UFC have generated approximately 2'000'000 more PPV buys then the WWE.

      So much for your "over saturated" theory then.

      Delete
  9. "“Every device” is not true though. It is missing one relatively important device – your television."

    This is probably the silliest part of a pretty silly article. I'm more than likely getting the Network. I have a PS3 and a 360. I can't exactly get the images from those consoles beamed directly to my retinas, so I'm gonna have to do -something-... I dunno...

    ...like connect the damn things to my television. Wow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for making my point for me. You need something in addition to your television to have it on your television. Thanks for playing!

      Delete
    2. Not to mention several smart-TVs already have a WWE app which has been available for ordering PPVs via the internet. Hell, lets take a look at the list: http://www.wwe.com/inside/how-to-watch-wwe-pay-per-views-26131207

      Watch WWE pay-per-view events on:

      Samsung SMART TV and Blu-ray player (Get the WWE App in the Samsung SMART TV Hub)
      The Sony Entertainment Network via your Sony PlayStation
      Xbox Live (Get the official WWE App in the Xbox Live Hub)
      Tablet (Download the WWE App)
      Mobile device (Download the WWE App)
      Laptop/desktop computer (How to Watch)
      TV (How to Watch)

      This is just how you could order the PPV before, albeit at the steep price tag of 45-55 dollars an event. These same apps will likely all be re purposed for the network, allowing for access to the same content and more for a much more reasonable price tag.

      At the end of the day, for the price of Wrestlemania, I also get 5 more months of PPVs, The service is worth it for that alone.

      Delete
    3. I don't think you know how business works. Giving people 5 PPVs for free is NOT sustainable long-term. Like, you get that right?

      A "Buy 1, Get 5 Free" promotion is not a workable business model.

      Delete
    4. "You need something in addition to your television to have it on your television."


      Think about this for a second. You said this. If they launched a TV network you would still need something in addition to your TV to get it your TV. That would be a cable box.

      Delete
    5. Tayfitzsimmo, you took the words out of my mouth (er, keyboard). Sean clearly missed the memo that in 2014, we all need a CABLE BOX to watch something on our TV through our cable providers (yes I know you can still do coax to digital tv, but you don't get all of your channels). And to top it off, guess what? The cable companies CHARGE YOU FOR A BOX RENTAL!. I paid $99 for my AppleTV and I never have to pay for anything again with it other than subscription fees to my streaming services.

      Delete
    6. You guys are still missing the main point: for the price of WM, which gets less than 1 million buys in US, you can have 6 months of WWE streaming on-demand network which includes WM.

      What does it mean? It means that a maximum WWE can get for the network is less than 1 million subscribers. NOT MORE! Why not more? Because $60 is still very expensive for most people to pay for something that you can download online for free, not to mention that every PPV match now days has already been on "free" TV or son will be there. Simply put, out of ca. 4-5 million of US customers who watch WWE TV shows every week, only less than a million are willing to spend the money even on the biggest WWE early event. Therefore, where would you get more than a million customers willing to pay $120 per year when currently about half of a million only pay $60-70 once a year for WM?

      That is a simple math. How about a more complicated one: how about the fact that of less than a million of US WWE fans who buy WM each year perhaps half will not want to subscribe to a streaming service because they are not that much internet-savvy or simply do not want to break a TV tradition? Would those ca. 500,000 WM paying PPV customers sign for the network in addition to buying a WM PPV on cable? I doubt.

      Thus, at best, WWE is looking for 500,000 to 1,000,000 subscriptions to its network comes February. Will it happen? I do not know, but I doubt given the economy, the free internet downloads, the ability to share one WWE network subscription among a group of friends. More importantly, as has been pointed, the WWE market is over-saturated with many TV hours, stale and boring roster, and having the same guy to lead the creative for decades. I suspect many initial subscribers will not extend their service for the next 6 months as why pay $60 when you can watch the same guys/girls in the same matches with the same booking on "free" TV every week?

      Delete
  10. The reason for switching to Over the Top is because cable is dying. I hate paying an enormous cable bill every month for many channels that i don't watch. This is a great deal for the network, $120 for all the PPV and Wrestlemania. Plus wwe classics was different it had a very limited library each month. This author is ridiculous

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not all of us are single, Will. That cable bill is expensive because we have girlfriends or wives or children that watch things other than what I like.

      Delete
    2. I have a wife and a child. We make a decent living. We barely watch what is offered on TV. Also, because I am not a moron, I know how to watch things online or download them to watch on my iPad or AppleTV.

      Delete
    3. Josh, for the third time, you do not make sense: why would you pay $10 a month if you already refuse to pay for the cable since you are not a moron and can find anything you want online for free???

      Delete
    4. Don't worry, Josh. A few (extremely vocal) people here apparently still live in 1993 when cable was still the only thing out there for video-oriented entertainment. I couldn't agree more with you. My family all *vastly* prefer streaming now. Couldn't have been happier with my decision to drop my silly cable back in 2006. I'm flabbergasted why anyone would still have cable in 2014.

      Delete
    5. I would pay $10/month for WWE as it shows live PPV's, a live streaming channel, and archived content. That is essentially what I want. Netflix is $10/mo without something live streaming, but I still enjoy that. If NBC, ABC, and FOX essentially do that now with HULU and that is $8/mo. The only thing I want to watch live is sports (and WWE). I don't download games. As far as illegal streaming goes, I would RATHER pay $10/month to WWE so i can watch the PPV's online and RAW/Smackdown on demand at a higher quality. It doesn't mean I still won'y stream on other sites live on Monday nights.

      Delete
  11. I, too, wish for the death of anything that would change the status quo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, streaming pro wrestling is really going to change the status quo.

      Wait, what's that? The WWE offered streaming PPVs in 2000? And having been putting full-length matches online (for money!) for the last decade?

      Yeah, a real gamechanger. Oh how I wish someone had invented watching old wrestling matches online before now...

      Delete
    2. OMG Sean, you are an idiot! Streaming to your PC 15 years ago is WAYYYY different than now. With devices like PS3/4, XBOX, Roku, AppleTV, iPads, iPhones, tablets, you name it, there are MORE ways to watch what you want, when you want. How can you compare 15 years ago to now??? I guess you still drive around in a car with a tape deck.

      Delete
    3. Pretty sure either Sean is a troll with way too much time on his hands, or an old man who time travelled from 20 years in the past. As I'm reading these comments, I can't even count many times he countered logically sound points with ignorance about cable still being relevent. Don't even waste your time on him.

      Delete
    4. ^ Actually, I take that back. Sean most likely works for the cable company, in some capacity. When you consider his ignorant backward thinking and that it makes no sense whatsoever, this makes all the sense in the world. Nobody else could otherwise defend cable as being relevent in 2014... and so vehemently.

      And yes, I know this is Sean's blog.

      Delete
    5. This comment has to be the stupidest one I have read yet. Tell the estimated 111.5 million Americans who watched Super Bowl XLVII that cable television isn't relevant. By the way, less then a million people watched an internet stream of the game. Guess that makes cable in 2014 relevant.

      Delete
    6. What a stupid argument. The Superbowl is always broadcast on national over-the-air networks in America. With a wire hanger and some tinfoil I could watch the Superbowl in high definition, a trick I learned in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy where the cable companies were the slowest responding 'utility' out of all of them to restore service.

      Delete
    7. I don't understand how people can say cable TV isn't dying. They are losing subscribers by the thousands each month. Cable companies have even said that Broadband is the future and there might be a point where the video service is gone. Why do you think Slime Warner and Comcast want to merge? To protect themselves.

      Delete
  12. "Thanks for making my point for me. You need something in addition to your television to have it on your television. Thanks for playing!"

    LOL, Seriously? If you have cable you have to have a cable box to watch it on your TV. Lots of people already use their gaming systems to stream Netflix or Hulu, this is no different. This Network is appealing to those kinds of people, not people like you who are still stuck int eh stone ages, relying on cable for your entertainment. You don't have to watch it on a computer, just like you don't have to watch Netflix or Hulu on a computer. Hell, you don't even have to watch Youtube on a computer anymore. It isn't 2006 anymore, live in the now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Anonymous WWE Fanboy, for proving my damn point. The success of the network does not depend on wrestling geeks who will slurp anything Vince McMahon puts out there.

      The success will depend on people "stuck in the stone ages" that like to watch television on television.

      There's also the not so insignificant fact that the WWE has TRIED THIS BEFORE and it failed. It's not new!!!!! They've been trying to get people to watch wrestling online for the past 13 years and it's never worked to a point where they made ANY money. Why would it work now??

      Delete
    2. Simple: It is all together in one network, with new content, and ALL THINGS AVAILABLE PLUS PPV's. The package deal is better than the a la carte deal or pay per match, or pay per ppv. Putting this on one "network" makes it much easier to access anything, anytime, without having to plop down $$ each time.

      I am curious how you feel about MLB, NHL, and NBA offering all of their games online via a single app (yes, I know you can watch on TV as well, but you need CABLE TV for it). Let's be honest, not many people watch the sports networks unless there is a game on that network. how is this any different other than it is offered online instead of through your cable provider?

      Delete
  13. This is a very short sighted article. When you have people who haven't watch wrestling IN YEARS saying they will subscribe to the network, you know you have a winner.

    That said, their target is 1 million subscribers. With the current buzz, they literally could hit 1 Million subscribers the first day. They will be WrestleMania type money every single month with just those subscribers. Add in the worldwide audience, and the WWE will be making the most money it has ever done in 2015.

    As for your TV comments, dude......most PCs and Laptops come with HDMI out...and that is only necessary if you don't own a Roku, Apple TV, Xbox 360, Kindle Fire, PS3 or PS4. Its moot, you will be able to watch it on TV....and on the go.....and at the airport waiting for your delayed flight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) 1 million subscribers is 25% of their audience, or every single person that ordered WrestleMania last year. Impossible.

      2) WrestleMania, at 1 million buys, makes about $60 million. So it is literally impossible to make "WrestleMania money" unless they somehow get 150% of their Raw audience to sign up.

      3) The VAST majority of Americans (i.e., not wrestling dorks who invade my blog) watch cable television. There are 114 million homes in America with cable. How many have a Roku? Give me a break.

      Delete
    2. #1. Very possible. Fans of the current product and fans of the historic product will flock to this. People who watch PPV streams on the internet because they didn't want to fork over $50 a month to buy it will. People who went to WWE Blast Areas to avoid forking $50 a month will watch it. 1 million buys is really a very low estimate based on the response.

      2. The other PPVs only receive 150K-300K buys. At a guaranteed 1 million subscribers, the other 11 shows will be making as much money as WrestleMania did on PPV only.

      3. Didn't TWC , Comcast, Dish and DirecTv all report they lost more customers then they gained in 2013? The model of watching TV is changing, and McMahon saw it and is taking a gamble on it. ESPN is working on the same concept as WWE is doing. Many people see where the industry is heading, and as long as cable providers demand an arm and leg for service, people will continue to cut the cord. Speaking for me, once ESPN starts their streaming services where I don't need a cable account, my cable is being cut.

      Delete
    3. there are also 62M homes with at least 1 wrestling fan ( a number quoted from the announcement) if just 1/4 of these homes subscribe that is 15.5M subscribers who are each shelling out a mere $10/month or a total $155M PER MONTH in Gross(pre tax) revenue from the network

      Delete
    4. Only 4 million people watch Raw every week, for free. And you think they are going to get 4x as many people to pay $10 a month to watch wrestling? Good lord.

      PS - there are not 62 million homes w/ a wrestling fan. That is bullshit of the greatest magnitude.

      Delete
    5. "Didn't TWC , Comcast, Dish and DirecTv all report they lost more customers then they gained in 2013?"

      Cable, as an industry, lost 113,000 subscribers in Q3 2013. That is 0.01% of the total number.

      The "cord-cutting phenomenan" is a media-driven creation that, so far, has no basis in reality. Yes, people may be using things like Hulu or Netflix or Roku or PS3 to watch TV, but they are not cutting the cord.

      Are some people? Yes. But they are extreme outliers.

      Besides, the WWE would be SCREWED if people cut the cord, since Raw & SmackDown air on cable every week.

      Delete
    6. Worldwide. The WWE Network will be WORLDWIDE by this time next year. Canada, Japan, Mexico and the UK can't get enough of the WWE product. 4 Million watch RAW in the United States only, what are the worldwide numbers? Far greater than you thought. Many people in those countries are trying to find proxies in order to order the network at launch instead of waiting a year, thats how huge this things is. Add subscribers up worldwide, and you could literally have 5 Million subscribers easy, and that without effort, since they offer all PPVs on the show,

      Now, tell me again how the WWE Network is much to do about nothing on a worldwide scale when they launch worldwide sometime within the next year.

      Delete
    7. "what are the worldwide numbers? Far greater than you thought."

      Raw in Canada draws about 400,000 per week. In the U.K., it's about 100,000. Hmm, little shy of 5 million there.

      But thanks for the laugh.

      Delete
    8. Dude, really.....so the other 60 countries where RAW airs on a weekly basis don't make up numbers? Anywho, UFC fans are just hating because UFC Fight Pass isn't what the WWE Network is. Get past the hate of WWE and you see a business model that is more stable than the current PPV model. WWE Net is not only drawing people who currently watches it, but it will draw people who like the old stuff....the ones who watched during the Attitude /Monday Night War era, the Golden Age era, as far back as the Burno era. This network was well planned out and wouldn't be as successful if they were on traditional Tv because cable wouldn't have allowed them to carry the PPVs on the network nor would they be able to have 24/7 on demand of all 300 pay per view events. You can hate all you want, but most people say that this is a gamechanger and will open other ententes such as ESPN to jump into a la carte streaming.

      Delete
    9. I live overseas and I can attest that there will be a good number of subscribers. Many cable/satellite companies in the Middle East, India and Asia do not carry much WWE programming.

      Putting the WWE Network on cable would not reach as much people and the control would be with the cable companies. Also, of course Vince will play it safe as he has shareholders to answer to.

      Delete
    10. Hey Sean, I know this is your blog and all...but do you just make shit up?

      "2) WrestleMania, at 1 million buys, makes about $60 million. So it is literally impossible to make "WrestleMania money" unless they somehow get 150% of their Raw audience to sign up."

      Wrong. Wrestlemania selling 1 million buys would net WWE somewhere around $25-30 million, not $60 million. They do not keep all the money. That would be equivalent to about 2.5 to 3 million Network subscribers, which is within the range expected (2-4 million).

      "3) The VAST majority of Americans (i.e., not wrestling dorks who invade my blog) watch cable television. There are 114 million homes in America with cable. How many have a Roku? Give me a break."

      Wrong. There were about 84.5 million pay-TV subscribers at the end of 2012 - that number has since declined slightly. - http://www.mrgco.com/blog/cable-vs-satellite-vs-iptv-subscribers-in-the-us/

      "PS - there are not 62 million homes w/ a wrestling fan. That is bullshit of the greatest magnitude."

      Show me a source. I don't think WWE was saying "there are 62 million homes who pay us money all the time" but rather that there are 62 million homes with at least one person living there who is somewhat interested in wrestling. Has attended a live event, watched Raw or Smackdown on occasion, plays wrestling video games, used to watch back in the 80s, whatever.

      Delete
    11. OK, if 62 million figure is correct and WWE never had more than 6 million people watch it TV show in the last decade than one of two is happening here: either there are different 4-5 million people watching RAW every week (that is from the 62 million wrestling fans pool) or of those 62 million wrestling fans only 4-5 million are WWE fans (i.e. less than 10%) which means that most wrestling fans (more than 90% of them) do not want to touch anything WWE-related. Since the latter is more likely, what is true: 90% of wrestling fans do not want to even glance at WWE or 62 million wrestling fans figure is WAY over-estimated?

      Delete
  14. The Network would have failed if it was a traditional TV network for several reasons:

    1: No Pay Per View events on the show
    2: They wouldn't make anything near the $10 per subscriber on a premium tier
    3. There most likely wouldn't be an extensive archive on demand service like the one we are seeing now. If it was, it sure wouldn't be on cable.

    For them, doing it this way is a risk, but based on just about every single report on it, is a risk that paid off. You may not see it, but the industry experts do and they say it's a smash hit and would probably alter the way we watch TV forever (their words, not mines.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please tell me what industry expert has said that. Because all I've read today is DirecTV saying they are going to cancel showing WWE PPVs.

      And how the hell do you know the risk paid off?

      Delete
    2. All 8 people who still subscribe to DirecTV will surely be upset.

      Delete
  15. Dude....a $10 converter from your local electronics store can hook your ipad/cell phone to your tv's hdmi. Awesome picture, I do it all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You're also completely ignoring the fact that WWE makes a FRACTION of the total PPV revenues. 1 million Wrestlemania buys at $60/pop = $60 million yes. But thats not WWEs take home. All the cable companies take their huge payouts and wwe is left with a much smaller amount. With WWE Network, its all theirs. This Sean guy is a shortsighted clown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WWE gets about 50-60% of the PPV revenues. So that's technically a fraction, but a big one.

      And if cable is the enemy, why is Vince begging NBC to pay him big bucks to keep Raw on USA?

      Delete
    2. Actually, its 17.50 off of 50 that the WWE is making. Which is roughly 40/60. Secondly. SyFy and USA is going to have to make a huge offer to keep WWE as Spike/Viacom is prepared to make a offer that eclipse what the WWE is making off of their current contract. Get your story straight before you start spouting off.

      Delete
    3. No it's not. It's 50/50. All their financial records are public. Just read the article on DirecTV wanting to cancel WWE PPVs. Cable company gets half, WWE gets half.

      Delete
  17. Wow. Talk about a bitter wrestling fan. Dude...this is the best thing WWE has done in...forever! I suggest you stop watching because you obviously stopped being a fan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For you...this is the best thing the WWE has done in forever FOR YOU.

      They needed to create the best thing in forever for causal fans. Not us hardcore fans.

      This is a business-related blog post. I am not debating the merits of whether it's good or bad that a wrestling nerd can watch SuperBrawl 2 whenever they want.

      It's the fact that the audience who cares about that is so small, it's inconsequential.

      Delete
    2. Yeah but you know nothing about any sort of business so you should not be writing about it. Your position, as it relates to business, would be picked apart by 11 year olds in a business basics class. You know nothing about business and that is why your post and all your replies come across so ridiculously. All the analogies and math you use are broken. It does not matter if wwe wanted a traditional cable channel. They have stumbled onto something that will make them a lot more money, offer much more value to the consumer and take the next step.

      Companies like hbo and espn would LOVE to do what the wwe is doing and would do it in a second if it were not for the repercussions of breaking contracts with cable and satellite companies. They KNOW they could make more money going directly to the consumer and sharing their vast libraries with consumers. Someone else mentioned that the HBO Go package destroys any hbo offering by any satellite or cable company. You literally have access to HBO's entire library which no third party provider is cable of doing on their behalf. Right now though, hbo has contracts and subscribers but if hbo could get $15 a month from users directly instead of sharing it and offer a superior product they would and will. It is only a matter of time before companies with deep content libraries go Ala carte. Espn is a horrible example because espn owns very little compelling content. All the actual events they air belong to the leagues themselves. All Espn could sell ala SITEcarte are old sports centers, around the horns and maybe an ocassional pool tournament they produce. MLB already does a lot with Internet content delivery and will continue to do more. A real NFL network ala wwe network would crush the cable based NFL network. With a massive library of games, specials and NFL films it would be and will be killer.

      So run back to your lemonade stand business neophyte.

      Delete
  18. Sean - get with the times old man! Mainstream TV is dying. Also, think about the worldwide income this will generate. If it was cable only, it would only be available in the US. With this model, anyone, anywhere in the world can subscribe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ESPN makes $500 million a month from just cable fees. Yep, sure is dying.

      Delete
    2. And ESPN is looking to get into a la carte streaming as well, just like the WWE Network.

      Delete
    3. No they're not. They have ESPN3, which airs games that they can't find a TV home for. But you need a cable subscription to access it.

      ESPN is NOT selling their stuff online for $9.99 per month. Why? Because it limits their revenue to only people that are watching.

      When they charge EVERY subscriber $5 per month, they get money from everyone, even the vast majority who do not watch the channel for a second.

      That was the goal of the WWE Network. But no cable company would bite on that. Thus, this is what they came up with as a virtual Plan J.

      Delete
  19. I skipped to the bottom, so if someone said this already, that's my bad; but what you're saying is you want a CABLE NETWORK dedicated 24/7 to WWE content? Meaning you want to set your DVR to record Summerslam 92 when it plays at 1:30pm 2 Fridays from now? Yeah, that's WAY BETTER than just having access to their full library at all times and watching it on your xbox. You're right. Sh*t, I'm going to cancel my whole internet and just stick with cable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're missing the point. For this to be sucessful, it has to appeal to ALL fans - not just wrestling nerds like you & me.

      The casual fans does not giving a flying youknowhat about SummerSlam 1992.

      The purpose of this blog post (which every idiot who has commented has missed) was to expose the fallacy of this proposition and why it will fail.

      They tried this already with WWE 24/7. It maxed out at 100,000 wrestling nerds.

      Bottom line: this is a NICHE offering for a NICHE audience. And for you and me that's great. The WWE needs a MASS offering for a MASS audience if they want to make money.

      That's all. It's not going to make money, period.

      Delete
    2. Also - HBOGO on Apple TV is 100x better than HBO the channel + HBO onDemand on my Cable box.

      Delete
    3. It's going to make my money. And I hate the product right now. WWE 24/7 was a crappy onDemand cable service with very limited content.. These two things don't even compare.

      Delete
    4. Arrgh, that's my point dude. They already make your money! You're a hardcore wrestling fan! They needed to make the money of the casual fan.

      And to say 24/7 had limited content is absurd and you know it.

      Delete
    5. 2 things:

      1. 24/7 was limited. If I want to watch Starrcade 86, I couldn't go to 24/7 and bring it up. Same with watching a random episode of WWF Superstars, World Wide Wrestling, Georgia Championship Wrestling, NWA Power Hower, etc, etc, etc. Now I can watch any random show I want to.

      2. Listening to both local and national sports talk radio, a medium that never talks about wrestling period...and on the off chance they do, they bash the product to no end.....many people (host and callers) said they would buy it. All have different reasons for buying it, but those are buys the WWE would never have seen without the network. When you have people that haven't watched the product in 10,15,20,25 years saying they plan to buy WWE Network,,,you hit gold.

      Delete
  20. This guy must know something that the media industry analysis do not know....I find that funny, very funny. All WWE needs for this thing to be successful is to have 1 million subscribers worldwide. Most people think they can they can get that within the first 24 hours, if not by WrestleMania at the absolute latest, and that is just in the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is the end of WWE. I liked the 90's WCW vs WWF days, but the past is the past. There isn't enough time to watch Survivor Series or King of The Ring from 1995. You could give me $10 a month and I wouldn't watch 3 hours of the PPV's that McMahon is putting out now. It was fun while it lasted.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't get where you're going with "zero risk". If this thing goes belly up- and though I'm in favor of it, it could happen- they'll have really burned some bridges with PPV providers and audiences that may not feel like going back to $50 a pop for Extreme Rules or Money in the Bank. Right now every PPV the WWE has is marginally profitable, even Battleground and Over the Limit and so on. They're basically saying goodbye to that money for a potential greater payout.

    But I think you're being a little too hasty dividing wrestling fans into the casuals who maybe buy Wrestlemania, and the hardcore fans who buy everything. Right now for me it's a careful decision whether I want to buy a given PPV- it might rule, but if it sucks there's $50 gone. If I opt out the WWE gets nothing- but now they get my $10 a month even if their present booking reaches TNA levels.

    I think their perspective now is that the current model isn't sustainable. And it may not be. If this succeeds it'll change how wrestling is presented the same way 'Mania did. And honestly, I kinda want it to. Instead of being based on big per-month payouts their schedule becomes more flexible because their revenue stream is more reliable.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Vince has basically screwed a part of his fan base by putting this on the internet instead of a tv network. Alot of wwe fans live in areas of the country that can only get internet service from companies that put monthly data caps on the amount of content a person can download.People are not going to pay for a service when they can only watch in limited quantities.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Moving Raw and Smackdown to a cable network was never the plan. And wouldn't have worked. Raw and Smackdown need to stay on broadcast TV so WWE can attract casual fans and make money off of tv rights fees. They;d kill their chance to grow if they moved Raw and Smackdown over. Even the NFL has billion dollar tv rights outside of their network. So they didn't risk anything by givening away one game on their network.

    Yes, Vince was turned down by the Cable Companies. But a streaming services is forward thinking and could be a very big success. Besides if no one really does subscribe than PPVs will not suffer on traditional cable. And they only lose what they put in. But I see this being more successful than that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Raw has always been on a cable network, starting on USA to TNN/Spike and back to USA. Smackdown started on UPN, a syndicated broadcast network and then moves to USA's sister station SyFy when WWE had a falling out with UPN/CW.

      Delete
    2. You are crazy Vince didn't want this stop lieing .vince said it his self he wanted a 24hr wwe network channel but every cable and satellite company told him no.vince even TRYED to buy a tv station that was for sale but it fell through to.so if he didn't want a tv channel then why do he go to every cable and astilbe company and when they all told him no he TRYED to buy a station.so stop lieing or stop talking about something you don't kno about because you sound stupid with your remarks

      Delete
  25. This will only make companies like TAN bigger cause older fans who can afford the network but chose not to have another bill just watch wrestling will do just as the wrestlers do and jump ship to TNA and ect... kids are the target audience but cum on what parents you know will add another bill to their list so their kid can watch stuff these for free. They are burning bridges. The idea is nice but as far as Raw and Smackdown they should leave it on television for the audiences that WWF started with. The common low income family that literally built the WWE. Not the upper class. Tickets were literally like 25 to 50 bucks.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It's called Chromecast and it is gonna change everything. I would simply Chromecast WWE to my TV. Currently only using it for my movies/tv shows but the tech is already there. Far better than AppleTV etc and the whole Google Sunday ticket/etc is gonna be the future someday. Them or Amazon with those huge server farms...

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi. Two things about your post.

    1 - How in the actual Hell do you get a BILLION from NFL Network? The math you threw down said $1.13 from each and every one of the 72 million homes who have NFL Network. Real quick, 1.13 * 72 million equals, like, almost $81 million and some change. I think you added an extra number onto your calculator there.

    2 - Just sayin'...comparing WWE Network to a $10/month Youtube channel would be like comparing Netflix to an $8/month Youtube channel, and Netflix has nearly 30 million subscribers in the US alone. You don't have to be a "hardcore" movie and TV fan to subscribe to Netflix.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The author must work for some cable corporation. This is 2014...the writing is on the walls for the cable industry but they (like the music industry) are going to dig their heels in and wait for the walls to come crumbling down around them. This is a forward thinking decision by McMahon and the WWE and I feel it will pay huge dividends to both the WWE and it's subscribers. Cable is draconian and antiquated and there is less and less reason for it to exist everyday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with you, down to your assessment of the author's profession.

      Delete
  29. Wwe made 19 dollars a ppv with an average 250,000 buys. That's 4.75 million bucks a ppv. They will earn the full 10 dollars with at least one million subscribers in a low end scenario and earn 10 Million a ppv. And I bet they have more subscribers than that in the end.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The author of this article clearly hates the future. I'm glad so many people have chimed in to call Sean on his B.S. I have been waiting for YEARS for network TV and independent cable channels to figure this out and charge me a la carte to stream their networks. And of course, a pioneer entrepreneur has it up and running first. Once a conglomerate like CBS/ Disney-ABC/ NBC-Universal realizes that a subscriber will pay $4.99 a month for each basic cable channel, the streaming will begin and the cable companies will evolve to a data model instead of a "Tee-Vee" model from 30 years ago.

    And WWE paved the way. Not too shabby for a 'wrasslin company. Ha.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But he hasn't pioneered anything. A video-streaming, subscription service already exists - on YouTube. WWE aren't even the first wrestling company to offer archive pay-per-views and DVD compilations on demand for a monthly cost. It's called TNA Wrestling Plus.

      The only difference is that TNA Wrestling Plus is simply an extension of TNA's current official YouTube Channel, and the WWE Network will likely cost in excess of $200 million to eventually get it up and running. It's lunacy.

      I can get every WCW, WWE and ECW pay-per-view on YouTube. Same with the all the classic episodes of RAW, SmackDown, Nitro, Thunder, etc. Same with the WWE Home Video compilations. WrestleMania is shown for "free" on cable television several months after it's premiere. Why on Earth would I pay these idiots $9.99 a month to watch what I want see for free online?

      Delete
    2. Let's see, pay 10 bucks a month for a guaranteed 720p stream of each monthly PPV or hunt down a reliable stream hosted on scrupulous websites loaded with malware loading ads that might get around adblock. WWE is partnering with the MLB.TV people, they stream up to 15 live baseball games daily during the baseball season and it's raved as one of the best sports streaming apps in the US.

      As for old content on youtube, the quality of the upload varies from "holy crap this is quality" to "recorded on a potato". I still can't find a good quality clip of The Rock throwing Austin off of a bridge.

      This is coming from someone that is currently angry with the direction the company has taken since the Royal Rumble and is part of the "not buying the Network" portion of the fanbase, but I can't deny the backend WWE is working with since I'm a huge baseball fan as well.

      Delete
  31. So r u gonna be able to watch wwe on cable or on dish?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Raw and Smackdown are not leaving USA/SyFy and the PPVs will still be offered. Main Event will still be on Ion TV at least until their deal expires. The Network will air NXT and Superstars weekly tapings along with the monthly live PPVs.

      Delete
  32. So many "opinions" in this article that do not make any sense.. that it is not even worth my time to comment on it.

    Comments that some of these people are leaving are laughable. Just get your $9.99 ready and shut your mouth. This is a homerun. Noone watches TV anymore. Its all DVR and hulu. Go ahead ... say it aint.... crickets. Have a good day.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So you can't get the WWE network on your cable service? That's about as big a problem as not being able to get it on rabbit ears. Or on DVD or VHS. Or on newsreels at the cinema. This service isn't for dinosaurs who can't figure out where to plug the phone line in on their wifi router. It's for people who are ready for the 21st century and can't understand why they still have to pay for the Golf Channel and Fake News and QVC just to watch WWE.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vince is going to loose his butt off.the fact is a couple of cable and satellite company decided they will not carry wwe ppv any longer and a few more are thinking about it.he will also loose money on DVD and blueray sales to because no one is going to buy them because they will be free on the wwe app,well I guess only hardcore wreastling fans buy them and they will have the wwe app to so they want have to buy them .
      I'm also tired of hearing from wwe nuts about the greedy satellite companies.the fact is that Netflix is going up in price and you I'll only beable to list 2 things to watch it on so if you have kids it will not wok for you,on top of that it is apps like this that is causing the Internet prices to rise

      Delete
  34. This is what I'd like to do to Sean, 30 seconds of Ghetto Blasters
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYCkv5q4mqM

    ReplyDelete
  35. It's obvious Sean has no clue what he is spewing. Sounds like an anti-WWE mark just grasping at straws. Ill bookmark this fail blog just to troll once the Network doubles the money they put into it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah I was thinking the same thing Tyler.
      Better make sure we bookmark this blog to see how wrong these whiners are.
      Oh wait, do these dInosaurs even know what a bookmark is?

      Delete
    2. Please, please do. Remember, the WWE needs 1 million subscribers just to turn a profit. They will come nowhere close to that.

      And I would like you two to remember me when you read the first "WWE Network is a failure" story.

      And I want you to know how wrong you were.

      Delete
    3. 3 million last i checked dip shit

      Delete
  36. I am at a loss with a lot of the comments against those of us that still watch TV.

    We are huge Wrestling fans in our family. We watch all of the shows every week and buy all of the PPV's. I am not about to go out and buy a devise just so that I can watch what I already do on my Large TV (yes we still watch TV on verizon).
    Some people do not find it comfortable to sit and watch something on our phone or a handheld device or on our computer. We want to be able to just sit back, hit the remote and watch what what want when we want. I am not about to buy an Xbox or play station just to watch a show on my TV screen. We buy all the PPV and yes, it is very expensive...but why should we go out and buy a device for $300-$400 just to watch one particular network. We are very happy with Verizon and see no reason to "switch" to your more "modern" forms of watching shows...as you call it. So it becomes a wait and see. I will stick to my dinosaur ways !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A roku is 69 dollars. An appletv is 100 dollars. A google chromecast is 35 dollars. All can deliver the totality of the network to any tv.

      The technological ignorance of the author and some of the responders is shocking. So you will pay $600 a year to watch all the ppvs on your tv but won't spend $69 plus 9.99 a month to do the same plus much much more?

      Delete
  37. Seriously, who are all these internet service providers that put caps on their service?
    Hell.... I live in the boonies of Grantsville, Utah and use as much internet as I want to stream Netflix, Hulu Plus, Youtube, ect.
    No, obviously cable isn't dead yet because baby boomers are still feeding the greedy *******s, but it is dying a slow death.
    Sean sounds like me back in 2006 when I said HDTV's weren't anything special, and were too expensive to be sustainable. Now you can get one for 100 bucks at the pawn shop.

    Streaming services are the new digital television, and soon even cable companies will be moving in that direction (assuming that they're not already).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you not pay attention to the news? http://blog.seattlepi.com/techblog/2014/02/14/time-warner-customers-your-data-may-get-capped-under-comcast/

      Delete
  38. This business model works fine for Netflix, it'll work fine for WWE.

    ReplyDelete
  39. what is WWE Network lonch in india and dish/kable tv

    ReplyDelete
  40. So it might have turned out that the WWE Network wasn't what it was meant to have been but it looks like its still going to be popular.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I will say that I don't think that the WWE made a mistake with the way that they did the WWE network the mistake is not working with cable and satalite providers to offer the WWE network through them as well that way everyone would have an option on how they want to subscribe to the WWE network as some prefer ordering it through cable or dish or direct TV some prefer the streaming method the only problem with the streaming method is most internet providers don't offer unlimited internet and people will have to pay a lot more in the long run if they watch the WWE network a lot I on the other hand do have unlimited internet and an xbox 360 so I am good either way

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bingo! You win. The WWE Network is really, really good for some people, but it's not good for everybody and THAT is the problem.

      Delete
  42. well, ive searched and searched for the app on my samsung tv, it was there last night but today cant seem to find it, can somebody tell me where the hell its at?

    ReplyDelete
  43. This was an enlightening article. I was never quite sure what the WWE network was all about besides the thousands and thousands of hours of wrestling archives being available to watch for a few dollars a month. I agree with your point . Who the hell would watch 14,000 hours of wrestling? Most of the matches/content features on the best of pay per views are garbage filler matches.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need to be enlightened a lot more if you think the WWE Network is only about watching archival footage (although that this is a terrific feature). It's A LOT more than that.

      Delete
  44. This is one of the worst analysis' I have read on anything ever.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Why does Sean OLeary keep signing is as "Anonymous" so he can argue as someone else IN FAVOR of his opinion? Pretty lame, Sean.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is incorrect. I always put my name to my comments, unlike you.

      Delete
  46. its obvious that this sean guy is a knuckle dragging third world ape who woudnt know inovation if it hit him in the face

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your confusing innovation with desperation.

      There is nothing innovative about what the WWE is doing. In fact, the technology has been in place to do this for about 3-4 years. They never did that because they knew they'd lose money.

      Delete
  47. I wonder who was the retard that donated their windows 98 computer to this sean guy he such a knuckle dragging third world ape

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see you really like the phrase "knuckle dragging third world ape" but why would a third-world ape have a computer?

      Delete
    2. Yeah I don't know why some are stooping to calling names here, but I'm so glad I get emails on this because the arguments are extremely entertaining.
      On a side note, I tried to subscribe to the WWE Network yesterday morning, and couldn't even get through to the website because of high traffic. I had to wait until last night to even get through and subscribed.
      I don't think even the WWE realized how big this thing would be.
      Hell even Stone Cold Steve Austin said he was going to get the WWE Network on his podcast. The guy is almost 50 years old, and is more redneck than the author of this article.
      (Also, Steve has no contractual obligations to the WWE if that's what the OP was thinking.)

      Delete
  48. Derek

    Same here, Just started to watch some of the shows like WrestleMania 5 it seems like when Robin starts singing within 30 Seconds it freezes. Now WrestleMania 17 don't seem freeze.

    I have a Wi-Fi smart TV and I get there it freezes when a show starts. They have a lot of work to do. I have Spotify and no song freezes and or Utube most of the clips don't freeze as much as the WWE Network. Why put something out there if it freezes and then they said I can watch any show which I wanted to watch Elimination Chamber which its nowhere to be found.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Well Sean it looks like your theory that nowhere near a million people would sign up for this wwenetwork was pretty inaccurate. Early reports suggest far more than a million have signed up and what you get for 10 bucks a month far exceeds expectations. Sorry dude you were very wrong on this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) Where do you see this?

      2) It's a free trial week.

      3) The WWE themselves said that 1 million was an unrealistic goal for launch during their last earnings call and said they now think they could get 1 million by the end of the year.

      Thanks for reading.

      Delete
  50. Biggest reason it makes sense is money. A traditional television or cable network by WWE would be very hard to get up and going and in addition to that they would only get a fraction of the subscription fee because they would have to split it with their partners. With a streaming network after subtracting what it costs to deliver the stream the rest of the money goes straight to WWE.

    Cable and satellite aren't dead but the trend and stats consistently show a growing number of people leaving those options. Moreso cable than satellite but both have seen losses from year to year. Cable's losses were in the double digits in percentage while satellite's wasn't.

    So honestly in the situation where it would be hard to launch a cable channel and even if successful you don't get all the revenue for it why go that route when you can go the route this generation is more apt to utilize and you control everything.

    It is true WWE has spent the last few years exploring all options to see which model would work best. From a traditional cable channel to a premium subscription based cable channel like HBO to the streaming channel option they ultimately went with.

    Personally I think the network is likely to be successful for them. Many people will sign up alone for the savings to be able to watch all the PPV's. They will lose out on PPV revenue once the network is rolled out worldwide. But also note they don't see all of the revenue from PPV buys. They have to split that with the PPV companies, TV partners, etc.

    Now where the network will fail is if they don't continually refresh content and keep it stocked with newer stuff. They definitely need more original new programming to heighten interest.

    It's a true test on what their reach is and if their fans want that much wrestling in their lives but I'd be surprised if it's a colossal failure like the XFL was. Initially it seems interest is high but the truer test will be once the free trial people are weeded out.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Could you post confirmation of the included ppv's being forever? Cuz everything I recall says for the year. So I've been thinking the ppvs were a come-on and they'll decide later on whether to keep it that way.

    That said, I'm loving the network, it's low on certain content but more will come. I bought an apple tv for the sole reason of watching it canada. I noticed I got a credit back on my card for the amount I paid for the network and wondering if I'm about to get cut off.

    Anyway, this was the sort of move they had to make. Some things could have been done different but I don't regret supporting it. Hell the day i turned it on, it fed me behind the scenes plus main event at wrestlemania, a classic mr perfect promo, nxt, promo for legends house which is going to be a blast, and a round table of great names discussing who was the best outlaw character. There's some good stuff here. But yeah, appealing to casuals with any Pay to watch wrestling gimmick is an uphill battle. All I know is I just watched playboy buddy rogers in "Blow Alway Diet" and if they take my network away, imma lose my $@#!.

    ReplyDelete
  52. While the rollout of WWE Network has been rough around the edges, I personally have not experienced any problems. I think the "make or break" will come the weekend of WrestleMania XXX. If issues aren't fixed by then, WWE may have a real mess on its hands. I don't anticipate there being many, if any, issues left though.

    I'm a hardcore wrestling fan, but I'm not always a WWE fan. I'm also a fairly hardcore geek, webmaster and tech guy. What WWE has done is pretty phenomenal, and compares well to both what MLB.TV and UFC have done with their online channels. WWE has finally found a way to convince me to give away my hard earned money. Unlike with just a pay-per-view event that lasts a few hours and is gone, I feel like I'm getting a lot more value out of this by being able to watch programming 24/7.

    While your main gripe is that this isn't available on a cable network, I don't think that is an issue for the majority of people. The truth is that people DO NOT want to be tied down to a television to watch video programming anymore. They want the option to sit down in front of the television and vegetate, and you can most certainly do that with a Roku or game device connected to your TV. However, they also want to be able to watch that same content sitting at a computer, or with their laptop, tablet or smartphone anywhere they might be. Cable and satellite providers have only recently decided to tap into that market with "on demand" apps, and now WWE has done this as well.

    In the end, this could be a lot of money straight into their pockets, both by fans directly buying from the company, and the reduced overhead of having to market their products to traditional broadcasters.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I would love to do WWE Network however, I do not have unlimited internet so the streaming would use what I do have. I have looked into the network and just seems that I would pay more for it in the long run since I would use gb. I still watch raw and smackdown and main event. I was excited about this until I found it was streaming and not an actual tv channel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's always going to be unlimited internet in most areas, because when Comcast doesnt offer it..... someone else Will. There's a reason internet companies had to start offering it back in the day. Nobody was going to pay for it by the megabyte any longer.

      On a WWE Network note, I'm watching WCW Bash at the Beach '93 right now, and am enjoying Ricky Steamboat face Steve Austin.
      I'm sold for only 9.99 a month if Wrestlemania is streamed in this great quality.
      Westernmost is the deal Maker and the deal breaker.

      Delete
  54. To some extent i am very much agree with what you have written. Specially the "POOP" thing. I don't think so that only US have crazy diehard mad fans of WrestleMania, but what they did, limited it only to USA. a place where the event is going to take place. People can buy the tickets and physically went their. What about us? people outside the USA. we can't go to Louisiana, atleat if we could catch the action live online. Thanks to the blessing of technology i got the solution. I bought VPN and get over with the censorship of WWE Network. Try PureVPN and you will see the difference too.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Great article and I think you hit the nail on the head on just about every issue. In my case, as much as I'd like to be positive about the WWE Network, I can't anymore. I thought if I were patient they would eventually fix all of the problems, but they've still yet to fix the biggest problem: the frame rate. The WWE Network looks like a low budget movie, not like sports broadcast. WWE Network is streaming at a low frame rate making the action look like a movie. I hope they correct the frame rate on WWE Network, but until they do I'm just considering it a $10 a month loss that thankfully ends in August.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Haha. I'll bet the 667000 subscribers that the network has as of April really sticks in your craw. This network is a bona fide success. There are 0 down sides to this thing. It streams perfectly. It's content is unmatched and it will surpass 1000000 subscribers by years end. In hindsight your article failed not the network.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That number was a complete & total failure. The stock dropped 30% on the news. Every day that it is short of 1 million, it is losing money. It will never, ever hit 1 million subscribers.

      So thank you for hands down the stupidest comment left on my blog, for which there is fierce competition on this post alone.

      "This network is a bona fide success." <--- completely and totally untrue.

      Delete
    2. "That number was a complete & total failure." <--- completely and totally untrue.

      Yes, 667,000 is a little lower then they would have liked but it's not a failure especially considering Wrestlemania still did close to 400,000 traditional PPV buys domestic which is way more then anybody expected and shows that their still a good amount of room for growth since a lot of people still went the traditional rout. They should easily hit at least 750,000 by the end of the year which is still short of the 1 million break even number but they always have the option of raising the price to 12.99 or 14.99(which is probably the price they should of launched with in the first place) and that will lower there break even number. Overall they're in good but not great shape with the network and I think they(unlike you) realize that this is a long term play and giving up just because it doesn't completely work right away would be the stupidest thing they could do.

      Delete
    3. Hey Sean.....WWE Network has 1 Million Subscribers!!! :)

      Delete
    4. Hey Sean...WWE Network has over 1 Million Subscribers! Never say never!! :)

      Delete
  57. Fierce competition on this post alone?? Haha. Sorry but I get notified every time there is a post on this specific thread and it hits maybe twice a month. So if your poor info on that is any indication than this whole thread is a true failure. By the way you should recheck your numbers. 30 percent was not accurate. Yes it did fall but it wasn't 30. Also they want 1000000 subs by years end and as I already said they are well over half way there. Your words that they will never hit it will be another testament to your failing blog here. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  58. You can say anything you want about WWE Network but the one thing you can't call it is flawless. It's the opposite because it doesn't matter if you get lucky and it doesn't freeze, the videos are still messed up and there's no TV (with or without motion interpolation) or device capable of playing it properly of fixing the problem. As it is now, it will always play in the wrong frame rate so I say it's a useless product because wrestling is supposed to look like live sports and not film. I really hope they fix it or just do away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. http://all-wwe-wrestlemania.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  60. What's amazing is six months later, Sean is correct - the WWE NETWORK is a failure and Vince is now bleeding money. All of you fan boys need to think before you post, no way Vince gets 1.5 million to sign up. I know that will make all of you cry since you have no lives, but this was a mistake and for every cable company that drops PPVs, Vince will need more subs to make up for the revenue. I guarantee you next year there will be an additional fee for WM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, it looks like you were right. The WWE Network up and folded, and no one got to watch WrestleMania for 9.99... Oh wait, yes they did.

      Delete
  61. 667,000 subscribers is an utter failure. First, they have to keep EVERY one of those subscribers and get more than 300,000 more. That won't happen. Also, since when did 667,000 become 1 million. Vince will never hit that number.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Vince will never hit that number."

      Maybe not within the timeframe he had hoped for, but he's now at 1.3 million subscribers. Any other predictions, Nostradamus?

      Delete
  62. Really a very nice post! It’s something I have never thought about, really, but it makes a whole lot of sense. Thanks for sharing the valuable information regarding watch live TV on mobile devices.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I want to see all content in HD without having to attach my computer to the tv leaving wires to trip over walking thru my living room. They should work a deal with the big cable companies so instead of paying 10 dollars a month I would pay 15 on top of my cable bill. The cable companies would get 5$ a month from every customer and I would be able to watch all the old matches and ppv in HD on my TV without cables running across my living room floor.

    ReplyDelete
  64. heres the main problem I pay for cable and DVR i work 12 hour shifts so when I sit down for TV i watch what I want due to DVR WWE network is unable to be used on my DVR so i wont waste my money wish I could give McMahon some money

    ReplyDelete
  65. 1.3 million subscribers and still growing. Must suck to be completely and utterly wrong and not man enough to own up to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure what planet you live on, but the WWE Network is losing millions of dollars per month and about half of that number are people that aren't paying.

      Delete