Could Linda McMahon Becoming A Senator Actually Be A Bad Thing For The WWE?
by Matthew DiRienzo on Aug 4, 2010 12:20 PM EDT
in WWE
Email
Print
November 2, 2010 could be one of the biggest days in the history of the WWE. On that day, we'll find out if Linda McMahon is going to be the next U.S. Senator from Connecticut (yes, she still has to win the Republican primary on August 10th but she has out raised her opponents 5 to 1 and her lead is almost double of her nearest competitor. Only something drastic will cause her to lose the nomination). If Linda wins the general election in November and becomes a U.S. Senator, her husband, Vince and the WWE are probably going to enjoy some fantastic benefits that come along with having one of their "own" in the federal government. Yet, if she is elected, it could hurt the WWE more than it could benefit.
In June 2008, the WWE changed its TV Parental Guideline rating from TV-14 to PG. In the press, Linda described the change in an effort to keep fans from "cradle to the grave". From James Caldwell at PWTorch:
Appearing at the UBS Media Conference in New York City this afternoon, WWE CEO Linda McMahon described the company's strategy of getting kids hooked on the WWE product at a young age. This is especially true with the recent introduction of WWE Kids Magazine and wwekids.com to relate the WWE product to a younger demographic. Linda McMahon described it as a "from the cradle to the grave" strategy to build generational loyalty to the WWE brand.
Yet, most experts would say that the change from TV-14 to PG was less about a change in the company's strategy and more about Linda throwing her hat into the Connecticut Senate race a few months later. From John Danz, Jr., at NewsBlaze.com:
WWE changed their rating from TV-14 to PG in February of 2009 to so conveniently coincide with the owner's wife Linda's bid for Congress. There's my first problem - self-interest. They changed the rating to suit HER interests and not the interest of the millions and millions of fans that keep the company afloat and line Vince's pockets. Selfish, self-serving nonsense.
Is it a coincidence that the WWE changed their strategy to a more kid friendly approach around the same time Linda was announcing her candidacy for the U.S. Senate? No. In this day and age of politics, candidates will use and do whatever to win. Her opponents aren't going to point out that she ran one of the most successful entertainment companies in the world for over two decades. Instead, they are (and have) going to point out that she promotes sex, violence, drug use, etc. A change was needed so she could counter what was going to eventually going to come up. However, the change to a PG rating has upset experts and fans alike. From Inside Pulse Wrestling's Aaron Glazer:
Or perhaps, the problem is, as Raffi Shamir discusses, that the WWE is just getting too child friendly. There is a case to be made that any child watching cable television from 9pm -11pm is expecting a more risqué product than the WWE currently delivers. There is also the fact that the much-maligned Attitude Era drew more children than the WWE's current child-centered product currently does.
If Linda wins in November, don't expect the WWE to instantly change their strategy again because she is no longer running for a Senate seat. Most likely, what will happen is that the WWE will continue its kid friendly, PG approach until Linda leaves office. This is because in this today's politics, the 24 hour news cycle and the lovely sound bites that come with it will always leave Linda open to attacks if the WWE changes back towards what it was doing during the wildly entertaining and successful "Attitude Era". There is no way Linda is going to want to take questions from reporters about something controversial in the WWE while she is in the process of trying to pass a bill. Not to mention the trouble she would have trying to explain why the WWE changed back to TV-14 after she won and then why it changed back to PG again when reelection time came around.
So far, the change to a PG rating hasn't hurt the WWE. Sure, their TV ratings and PPV numbers are down, but they are still making money hand over fist with their merchandising, live events and other revenue streams. According to their 2010 first quarter reportings, they are up in almost every category compared to 2009, but that trend may not continue if they continue to sail along with the PG approach.
Consider this, according to Linda the new shift to PG was to make sure they had their fans from "cradle to the grave", but in fact, due to the decline in ratings since the "Attitude Era", one can make the argument that they are losing fans instead of keeping them. Subsequently, the same shift in strategy that might be gaining them younger viewers is going to be the same reason these viewers stop watching later in life. As pointed out by Cageside's AniMal34 yesterday, the WWE is already losing its older fans to MMA (mainly the UFC) and other outlets, because they are failing to involve storylines and characters that resonate with an older audience. While fans understand they are not going to be getting real fighting while watching the WWE, they still want something that isn't marketed directly to children. Consequently, Linda's "cradle to the grave" strategy may be more like "cradle to they're teenagers".
This means if Linda is the next Senator from the State of Connecticut, expect the same kid friendly WWE for at least the next six years, if not more, which may lead to a further decline in pro-wrestling.
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I agree in spirit.
There are so many factors involved in the WWE’s decline in ratings. Personally, I think an audience our age (folks who witnessed WM 3 etc.) would still tune in if they pushed the right people and if the in-ring product was actually consistent and solid. For every Jericho or Evan Bourne, there’s a Mark Henry or Sheamus who can’t really work in the ring. The WWE doesn’t know how to play to their wrestlers’ strengths and smaller, more talented guys get buried month in and month out.
Plus, money-wise, I think the PG move by the WWE is a good thing for them. I think they realize that they can’t compete with the UFC when it comes to young male demographic. It sucks for the old fans like ourselves, but at least pro wrestling will still have a presence in our entertainment culture. I’m guessing there’s a new Ric Flair, Stone Cold or the Rock just waiting to get on TV to entertain our asses and get us interested again.
RIP, Coach Wooden.
Thank you, Geoff Petrie.
i think you are being unfair to Mark Henry he’s been pretty damn solid since his ECW run. also as much as we pay attention to it the in ring product sadly has very little to do with the sucess of a wrestling promotion, the wrestling during the Attitude Era kinda sucked but no one cared because the talent was there, the characters were great and the storylines were fresh, different and exciting. quite simply the talent isn’t there right now to make the shows interesting and fresh any more.
It's hard to say if what talent they have...
when wrestlers are only given 3 minute matches and hardly get the opportunity to cut a promo.
I see your point about Mark Henry’s improvement but I highly doubt he can have a quality ten minute PPV match with just anybody on the roster. I’ve seen him get gassed in his televised matches and there’s no way he’s ever going to carry a co-main event at a PPV. Diversity is a good thing but Mark Henry doesn’t do anything for me IMHO.
As far as talent goes, in the Attitude Era, you had HBK, The Rock, Mankind, ’Taker, Owen, Bret Hart, all in their prime. Malenko, Angle and Benoit also began their tenures near the end of the Attitude Era.
There’s no better story than two great wrestlers in the ring, which was emphasized over and over again in the Attitude Era.
RIP, Coach Wooden.
Thank you, Geoff Petrie.
Despite my hatred of WWE PG, I think that the WWE was smart to cater to older fans with its WWE on Demand service. The Nexus angle has me more interested in the WWE than I have been in years and the On Demand service gives me some old school action so that I’m satisfied.
Also, there’s no way in hell Linda wins this Senate race so PG may become a thing of the past soon.
Been a Reds fan since 1996 and am desperate for a playoff run.
Consequently, Linda’s “cradle to the grave” strategy may be more like “cradle to they’re teenagers”.
It’s probably worth noting here that the median Raw viewer age is almost 40. So that jibe doesn’t fit. A better jibe would be Heyman’s spiel about Vince producing grandpa programming.
as of right now
but those are hold overs from the Attitude Era and before. Eventually, they are going to die off and there won’t be a generation to replace them if the new generation of fans stop watching once they hit their teens or early 20’s
by Matthew DiRienzo on Aug 4, 2010 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Most likely, PG will be around for a long while, whether or not Linda becomes Senator. As a long-term business strategy, it makes a lot more sense. Positioning the company as a family-friendly company gets them a greater range of advertisers, licensing partners, sponsors, etc., that they wouldn’t have otherwise. Advertisers who aim their goods at people in the 30s and 40s (say, car companies) aren’t going to waste their ad dollars on Raw. Also, I could see a young fan being more likely to spend more money on WWE-related product over the next ten years than an older one.
Plus, if they were to drop the PG rating in November, and they started adding the (bleeped-out) swearing and almost-nudity that they graced us with during the Attitude Era, do you think that all the fans that had drifted away would come back in droves? Unlikely. Also, they didn’t go PG until 2008, and it’s not like they were some kind of ratings juggernaut at the time.
“PG” in and of itself isn’t the problem, anyway—the problem is that the creative team doesn’t know how to write a PG-rated show without actually writing FOR little kids. I mean, most of us grew up watching wrestling on Saturday mornings after cartoons. WWF Superstars was essentially a PG show (excluding things like Ron Bass cutting up Beefcake with his spurs, and that was X’d out anyway), and it was entertaining as all hell.
Yes, if they go the current PG route for the next twenty years, I could see it ending up being more of a “cradle to they’re teenagers”, but part of what made the Attitude Era successful was the timing: it hit just when those of us who watched during the Hogan Era had become older and wanted an edgier product, which is why ECW and the nWo struck a chord with us. If they stick with PG for now, I can see them trying to create a new Attitude Era a few years down the road when the current kids get older.
Great post.
Thanks for dropping in with your thoughts.
Forget it Donny, you're out of your element.
Cagesideseats.com
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Cageside Seats
Related FanShots on Cageside Seats
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
