Nothing happens in the wrestling world without controversy. Wrestling fans are some of the most obnoxious know-it-alls in the world of geeks but their abrasiveness is tempered by their loyalty. They complain because they care. Mostly, I think they're like heroin junkies chasing their first high; smarks are always looking to recreate the thrill they got when they first saw the storyline that got them hooked.
The WWE Network is the newest controversy, finally shutting up the fans that were disappointed that mediocre-but-well-known wrestler Batista returned and took the main event at Wrestlemania.
The network is, I think, an exciting development, not just in the world of wrestling but for television in general. The WWE is attempting a large-scale internet outlet, offering archived material, new programming and, most importantly, their pay-per-views, for ten dollars a month. The network will offer a 24-a-day broadcast-style channel and an on-demand library.
In typical smark fashion, the complaints run from appallingly stupid to actually pretty smart. Some are concerned with the little alterations that come from problems with music licensing or swear-bleeping. Others are rightfully concerned about the WWE's tendency to change history--famous little mistakes being erased.
A more practical--and unavoidable--problem is that the network is unable to present new episodes of its cable shows until a month after they air. This is due to their deals with the USA and Spike networks and it puts a real crimp in the network's effectiveness in engaging viewers with what's going on right now.
My personal concern--above my general antipathy towards the WWE--is that the archived material isn't as extensive as it could be. Back when the promotion was taking over the world, Vince McMahon showed a lot of prescience. Instead of letting rival promotions collapse into obscurity, he bought them, which meant he owned their video material. The WWE basically owns the history of wrestling.
So far, they've done a good job repackaging that material. The WWE documentary series is generally excellent, if you get over the aforementioned alteration of history (but that's what smarks are for, anyway). But it appears that the documentaries and the original, raw programs (the weekly shows that other promotions ran) aren't on the network in the large numbers that they could be. I'm more interested in watching old stuff.
This article in Vice brings up another question that's been nagging at me: What does the network mean for the storyline structure?
Back when wrestling was a spectator entertainment rather than a televised entertainment, the idea was that the promotion did small shows all around the circuit, building up storylines. The storyline would set up a big show in a major city, where scores would be settled and heels would get their comeuppance. The smaller shows were promotions for big arena shows.
Early wrestling television followed the same policy. In between matches, the wrestlers would get on the microphone and tell the audience about the next big event.
Vince McMahon had a bigger idea. He took that model and married with a now-forgotten technology--closed-circuit programming. I don't know the mechanics, but major boxing events and one-time specials like Evel Knievel's Snake Canyon jump, were piped into theaters and other places that charged admission to watch the live broadcast. Using that format, McMahon created Wrestlemania.
Wrestlemania is the one wrestling event that nearly everyone has heard of. It's the wrestling Super Bowl; in truth, it's just the biggest big-show of the wrestling business model. The period after the real Super Bowl is Wrestlemania season and, for three months, the promotion builds up the excitement, driving fans into a frenzy wondering what is going to happen there.
The first two Wrestlemanias were offered via closed-circuit and were successful enough that they didn't break the company as they could have (it was a huge gamble for McMahon) but Wrestlemania III was the watershed.
III was the first offered via pay-per-view through cable systems and thus was the first blow-off event (bringing feuds to a climax) available in fans' homes. It was an enormous moneymaker and the WWE found its business model.
Again, this was taking the old format, small shows promoting one big show, and adjusting it to fit a national audience.
The WWE eventually built up its pay-per-view schedule so that there are twelve a year, roughly one a month, and has that format down to a science. The stakes of the pay-per-views from January to April all revolve around Wrestlemania matches--who will face off in the main event? Who will get to challenge for the various titles? The weekly cable shows all build up to the monthly pay-per-views.
Here's where the WWE Network comes in. The regular pay-per-views cost cable subscribers around $40-50; Wrestlemania is $60 or more. The new network offers those specials included in its $10-a-month subscription.
Some of the smarks are hollering their mantra, "They're leaving money on the table!" They're assuming that all the people that bought the PPVs on cable are going to switch to the network and then the promotion will lose all that money. This is pretty shallow thinking.
For one, do they think that a company with a 2.7 billion market cap is just going to change its strategy on whim, without thinking? The WWE is taking a gamble, sure, but they've probably thought long and hard about it.
I think they're probably trying to atomize their market. Because of the cost of PPV, most fans don't buy them to watch by themselves. At $10 a month, they can. By lowering the cost, they're opening the market to individual buyers who can watch on their phones, computers or televisions.
They've also taken a lesson from other online media. While some people will always pirate their entertainment, most consumers who pirate do so when there is no other online outlet. iTunes and Netflix showed this to be the case. And WWE PPVs are heavily pirated--the network is a way to harness those viewers.
(In addition, the WWE's business is not reliant on PPV revenues. It has so many other streams that this one can stand some destablilizing.)
But what the Vice article brings up and what has been on my mind is this: Won't this have an impact on wrestling's fundamental model? The structure for 60+ years has been storylines promoting the big blow-off show.
Theoretically, no. There will still be cable shows promoting the PPVs. But the company's motivation to make every PPV successful is drained--network subscribers are paying whether the storylines are hot or not.
This can be a good or bad thing. For one, taking the pressure off can remove the edge of hysteria that tinges the lesser PPVs. It could also correct one of the biggest faults of the medium's format, rushing storylines. Not being driven to make the end of the month count in a big way every time could allow more complex and dynamic stories to emerge.
If the positives are going to happen, it will probably be after an extended period of limpness. The WWE has had a writing problem for a long time. The staff is too small, for one, and divided between work-for-hire television writers, who don't usually have a wrestling background, and long-time wrestling insiders. The writing is centrally controlled by Vince (though less so these days) and his daughter Stephanie and her husband, wrestler Triple H. (I think they'd be better off following the Law & Order model, by which the different brands are managed by individual executive producers who have the next best thing to final authority.)
I imagine that, if the network takes off, we'll see the urgency of the stories decline for some time before someone with pull on the inside catches on to the possibilities of a post-blow-off era.
No comments:
Post a Comment