Introducing the Worked-Shoot Era of WWE

[zrinkill]

Good work by WWE.

I know from what I've watched, and read, about TNA that they've attempted to do this type of thing for a while but they fail miserably at it. It's the people they have running their company though, and not so much their wrestlers, that can't seem to work it right.


I've seen their silly little backstage, after show, promos where they're always trying to make it seem more 'real' but those come off as so hokey and stupid. But, again, it's because of who they have running the show and calling the shots. If they had quality management I believe they'd pull it off very well as well.

Its really a shame because back in 2006-2007 when Angle first arrived they had some amazing matches and vendettas between Joe and Kurt.

It quickly died away with some of the silly stuff you see today and really went down hill when Hogan got involved.

 

[DallasGirl50]

Hogan is in for a boatload of upcoming bad publicity which is already starting...Linda just released a book in which she claims for most of their marriage that he was physically abusive. There are 2 sides to every story but the burgeoning gossip industry eats that stuff up. She also claims he was addicted to any number of drugs...i saw an online blurb about her book the other day.

 

[daschoo]

It's far from #2 out of #2, in UK its #1 out of much more than 2, it draws upwards of 200,000 viewers for iMPACT while WWE draws less than 140,000 for PPV's which air for free and around 120k for RAW, less than that for SD. TNA wasn't even in the UK before Hogan & Bischoff arrived, in a year and a half they have overtaken WWE in a market they have been in for atleast a decade+.

Sorry bud but I'm highly dubious about your numbers there. WWE is on the biggest sports channel in the country and is broadcast live, whereas TNA is shown on a channel that a hell of a lot of folk don't even know they have with impact going out 5 days after in the U.S. and ppv's 3 days after. I've never looked into the numbers because quite frankly I don't care but from speaking to the casual fan or folk who don't particularly watch it they're a LOT more aware of the WWE and whats happening in their programming.
I'd maybe be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if the second half of that paragraph wasn't so wrong. TNA wasn't in the UK before Hogan and Bischoff? I don't know where you read that but frankly its bollocks. As much as I wish Scotland wasn't a part of the UK I'm fairly certain we are and I can tell you that I was watching impact and TNA ppvs on my television long before that pair showed up (and being a lot more entertained). I went to a TNA house show shortly after they'd signed Angle, hell I remember watching Daniels v Joe v AJ for the X division title being broadcast here. The only thing I can think of is that the channel carrying TNA went bust and it took a few weeks for someone else to pick up the rights which happened shortly before Hogan was announced. To say TNA is number 1 here is a push but to say its number 1 due to Hogan is laughable.

edit: just noticed you said number 1 out of much more than 2. what other promotions? I'm assuming you mean local promotions but since none of them are televised in any way shape or form and generally perform in clubs and small sports halls in front of a couple of hundred people I don't think you can really include them in any comparisons.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Sorry bud but I'm highly dubious about your numbers there. WWE is on the biggest sports channel in the country and is broadcast live, whereas TNA is shown on a channel that a hell of a lot of folk don't even know they have with impact going out 5 days after in the U.S. and ppv's 3 days after. I've never looked into the numbers because quite frankly I don't care but from speaking to the casual fan or folk who don't particularly watch it they're a LOT more aware of the WWE and whats happening in their programming.
I'd maybe be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if the second half of that paragraph wasn't so wrong. TNA wasn't in the UK before Hogan and Bischoff? I don't know where you read that but frankly its bollocks. As much as I wish Scotland wasn't a part of the UK I'm fairly certain we are and I can tell you that I was watching impact and TNA ppvs on my television long before that pair showed up (and being a lot more entertained). I went to a TNA house show shortly after they'd signed Angle, hell I remember watching Daniels v Joe v AJ for the X division title being broadcast here. The only thing I can think of is that the channel carrying TNA went bust and it took a few weeks for someone else to pick up the rights which happened shortly before Hogan was announced. To say TNA is number 1 here is a push but to say its number 1 due to Hogan is laughable.

edit: just noticed you said number 1 out of much more than 2. what other promotions? I'm assuming you mean local promotions but since none of them are televised in any way shape or form and generally perform in clubs and small sports halls in front of a couple of hundred people I don't think you can really include them in any comparisons.

Here you go:
http://pwinsider.com/article/59829/wwe-and-tna-uk-ratings.html?p=1

WWE AND TNA UK RATINGS
By Ian Hamilton on 2011-07-13 15:06:39 UK Ratings for the week ending July 3, 2011:
Raw (from June 27)
- drew 152,000 viewers in the live airing (+35,000/+30% on last week)

SmackDown (from July 1)
- drew 96,000 viewers in the first airing (-21,000/-18%)

TNA (from June 23)
- drew 236,000 in the first airing (+43,000/+22%)
- drew 126,000 on a Saturday night replay



I have not once seen RAW beat TNA in 2011 in the UK. I assumed there would be local promotions on TV there, guess I was wrong I know there are local promotins, here and I assumed NWE would atleast have TV, fair assumption considering the crowds they draw, and maybe they were on before Hogan, but I know the numbers have surged since the Hogan regime has started, drawing a lot more viewers than WWE.

 

[daschoo]

Here you go:
http://pwinsider.com/article/59829/wwe-and-tna-uk-ratings.html?p=1

WWE AND TNA UK RATINGS
By Ian Hamilton on 2011-07-13 15:06:39 UK Ratings for the week ending July 3, 2011:
Raw (from June 27)
- drew 152,000 viewers in the live airing (+35,000/+30% on last week)

SmackDown (from July 1)
- drew 96,000 viewers in the first airing (-21,000/-18%)

TNA (from June 23)
- drew 236,000 in the first airing (+43,000/+22%)
- drew 126,000 on a Saturday night replay



I have not once seen RAW beat TNA in 2011 in the UK. I assumed there would be local promotions on TV there, guess I was wrong I know there are local promotins, here and I assumed NWE would atleast have TV, fair assumption considering the crowds they draw, and maybe they were on before Hogan, but I know the numbers have surged since the Hogan regime has started, drawing a lot more viewers than WWE.

do your numbers take account for the fact that the first airings for raw and smackdown are at 2am? thats going to hurt raws particularly as theres not a lot of people are going to sit up until 4am if they have to be up for work at 7am. tna by comparison finishes at midnight which is a lot more manageable for people with work the following morning.

 

[zrinkill]

do your numbers take account for the fact that the first airings for raw and smackdown are at 2am?

:laugh2:

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Worked shoots at one time could work because back in the pre-ECW era, wrestling promotions refused to acknowledge each other unless they were a member of the NWA. So you would get a pretty popular wrestler jumping promotions, say...Ricky Steamboat...and they would act like he was a rookie or he just went into some type of hiatus. And in particular, fans back then were more likely to be fans of any promotion than today where they are more or less loyal to one promotion and that's it.

Now, it's shocking only in the sense that it's different from the norm.

And the WWE has never really handled these type of angles very well.

Wrestling isn't rocket science. It's about getting conflict, building up the heat, promoting the showdown and then getting the pop at the payoff.

Today what we see with wrestling is that they get the pop first, get the showdown next and skip building up the heat. The heat is such a key element and these so-called brilliant TV writers completely neglect it. Go back to the original formula and use modern day characters and angles and you won't have to worry about doing these worked shoots to begin with.










YR

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Sorry bud but I'm highly dubious about your numbers there. WWE is on the biggest sports channel in the country and is broadcast live, whereas TNA is shown on a channel that a hell of a lot of folk don't even know they have with impact going out 5 days after in the U.S. and ppv's 3 days after. I've never looked into the numbers because quite frankly I don't care but from speaking to the casual fan or folk who don't particularly watch it they're a LOT more aware of the WWE and whats happening in their programming.

I'd maybe be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if the second half of that paragraph wasn't so wrong. TNA wasn't in the UK before Hogan and Bischoff? I don't know where you read that but frankly its bollocks. As much as I wish Scotland wasn't a part of the UK I'm fairly certain we are and I can tell you that I was watching impact and TNA ppvs on my television long before that pair showed up (and being a lot more entertained). I went to a TNA house show shortly after they'd signed Angle, hell I remember watching Daniels v Joe v AJ for the X division title being broadcast here. The only thing I can think of is that the channel carrying TNA went bust and it took a few weeks for someone else to pick up the rights which happened shortly before Hogan was announced. To say TNA is number 1 here is a push but to say its number 1 due to Hogan is laughable.

edit: just noticed you said number 1 out of much more than 2. what other promotions? I'm assuming you mean local promotions but since none of them are televised in any way shape or form and generally perform in clubs and small sports halls in front of a couple of hundred people I don't think you can really include them in any comparisons.

Great post. But you're wasting your time. He read it at PWI insider, who never gets anything wrong according to him (Despite the fact that they've been proven to get things wrong numerous times) so it's a fact.

do your numbers take account for the fact that the first airings for raw and smackdown are at 2am? thats going to hurt raws particularly as theres not a lot of people are going to sit up until 4am if they have to be up for work at 7am. tna by comparison finishes at midnight which is a lot more manageable for people with work the following morning.

Dont waste your time with the kid. He believes anything, and everything, that PWI insider or the people on his favorite forum tell him to believe.

He's quite fond of going way over the top with his comments and trying to pass them off as facts as well. Like the comments about how "the majority of ROH fans prefer this over that".

lmao!

I highly doubt, in fact I'd bet money, that you haven't talked to the majority of ROH fans you haven't got a single clue how many ROH there out there, let alone actually spoken to them to get any accurate 'majority' of anything.


And yes they're the #2 out of 2. I'm not going to count little local promotions or smaller parts of the industry that are only big in one place or another.

WWE and TNA are shown in multiple places, as you mentioned, but those other promotions in Japan and Mexico and stuff are not shown in loads of places and, for example, around here the only Mexico wrestling you get is if you special order the channel on satelite that carries it.


There are 2 huge companies. 2.

WWE and TNA.

One is on top. The other is the one losing. Period.

Being 2nd out of 2 means you're last. Period.


So, forgive me, if I don't find TNA being the 2nd best big time promotion, world wide, as being an accomplishment.


I'm still hopeful, however, that one day the TNA owners, management, whoever will get their heads out, put the right people in charge, and they'll grow and become bigger and better than WWE. If they do that it's great because it forces WWE to be bigger and better.

Wrestling fans win.

 

[JustDezIt]

R2A gettin owned in this thread

 

[Cowboy Brian]

So by your assine logic Pepsi has accomplished nothing? Same logic applies, similar competition levels, dozens of small sodas and a distant 3rd rc cola, lets hear this excuse.

Great post. But you're wasting your time. He read it at PWI insider, who never gets anything wrong according to him (Despite the fact that they've been proven to get things wrong numerous times) so it's a fact.





Dont waste your time with the kid. He believes anything, and everything, that PWI insider or the people on his favorite forum tell him to believe.

He's quite fond of going way over the top with his comments and trying to pass them off as facts as well. Like the comments about how "the majority of ROH fans prefer this over that".

lmao!

I highly doubt, in fact I'd bet money, that you haven't talked to the majority of ROH fans you haven't got a single clue how many ROH there out there, let alone actually spoken to them to get any accurate 'majority' of anything.


And yes they're the #2 out of 2. I'm not going to count little local promotions or smaller parts of the industry that are only big in one place or another.

WWE and TNA are shown in multiple places, as you mentioned, but those other promotions in Japan and Mexico and stuff are not shown in loads of places and, for example, around here the only Mexico wrestling you get is if you special order the channel on satelite that carries it.


There are 2 huge companies. 2.

WWE and TNA.

One is on top. The other is the one losing. Period.

Being 2nd out of 2 means you're last. Period.


So, forgive me, if I don't find TNA being the 2nd best big time promotion, world wide, as being an accomplishment.


I'm still hopeful, however, that one day the TNA owners, management, whoever will get their heads out, put the right people in charge, and they'll grow and become bigger and better than WWE. If they do that it's great because it forces WWE to be bigger and better.

Wrestling fans win.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

R2A gettin owned in this thread

Not really ignoring facts can make anyone look good

 

[zrinkill]

R2A gettin owned in this thread

I just wonder if he will ever make that thread he said he wanted to make about CM Punk really leaving and everyone who doubts it eating crow.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

I just wonder if he will ever make that thread he said he wanted to make about CM Punk really leaving and everyone who doubts it eating crow.

Waiting for the aftermath, still speculate hes gone or leaving. Ive read he signed a legends deal, keeping him in the WWEmpire but not a full time wrestler, others say he resigned, others say extension to summerslam others say hes already gone

According to colt in a podcast today hes leaving, but he would cover a work for punk so dont take that credibly

 

[daschoo]

Not really ignoring facts can make anyone look good

I'm not ignoring the "facts" of your numbers, rather explaining why impact has a higher rating than WWE.

Impact airs on a channel that is free to view and available in every household in the UK with a television. The channel is a new and obscure channel but nonetheless it is a free channel that is part of the basic package built in to your television. As an aside you could probably make an argument that if TNA was as popular as you make out the channel carrying it previously wouldn't have gone out of business as advertisers would have been falling over themselves to buy ads when it was on.
WWE in comparison is broadcast on a channel that requires a monthly subscription therefore has a much lower potential audience (I'm sure with your love of tv numbers you can find the % of households in the UK with a subscription to skysports)

Impact is shown at 10pm on a Tuesday night meaning its finished by midnight, not exactly an early night if you've got work in the morning but its not that horrendous.
Monday Night Raw is broadcast live meaning that it starts at 2 o'clock Tuesday morning and finishes at 4, surely it must be obvious to you that something being shown at that time is not going to have a very good viewership?
I was wrong regarding Smackdown by the way, its broadcast at 10pm although its probably worth noting that its 10 o'clock on a Friday night when a lot of the target audience are going to be in the pubs/clubs.

You're saying that you look bad in this thread because people are ignoring the facts. I live in the UK, I've explained to you that TNA is not more popular here than WWE and given you reasons for that statement. You seem to be of the opinion that an American website is a more reliable source than someone who actually lives here though so I'd say you're doing a fairly decent job of ignoring stuff yourself.

I prefer TNA, I prefer the product although the stuff with Punk has been the best thing any company has put out in years. I would however watch Raw every week as well if it was on at a reasonable time and I had the spare cash to spend on TV channels. For people mocking TNA as number 2 from 2 I think its worth remembering where they both were 10 years ago. WWE was already a massive global brand when TNA was starting out. TNA has managed to build a loyal (sometimes overly so) fanbase and get television deals. They've started to attract big names and have become more mainstream. I think they've achieved a lot but from WWE's power and standing when they started TNA are never going to be the biggest company, that doesn't mean they're a failure.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

So by your assine logic Pepsi has accomplished nothing? Same logic applies, similar competition levels, dozens of small sodas and a distant 3rd rc cola, lets hear this excuse.

lol

Pepsi had to actually EARN their #2 spot during their LONG history.

When TNA started there was nothing but WWE. WCW was gone, ECW was gone.

They became #2 by virtue of there being NO ONE ELSE but WWE.

That's not an accomplishment. I'm sorry that you think it is or are trying to put it in the same light as something like a long standing soda company and don't understand the difference.

And, yes, being #2 out of 3 (even if there had only ever been 3 in the companies history) is still better than trying to champion the fact that they're #2 out of the 2 companies that have been there in their entire existence.

I dont know why I bothered to unblock you. I'm the idiot for thinking you'd ever start coming with anything more substantial other than what you were told by PWI.

I'm not ignoring the "facts" of your numbers, rather explaining why impact has a higher rating than WWE.

Impact airs on a channel that is free to view and available in every household in the UK with a television. The channel is a new and obscure channel but nonetheless it is a free channel that is part of the basic package built in to your television. As an aside you could probably make an argument that if TNA was as popular as you make out the channel carrying it previously wouldn't have gone out of business as advertisers would have been falling over themselves to buy ads when it was on.
WWE in comparison is broadcast on a channel that requires a monthly subscription therefore has a much lower potential audience (I'm sure with your love of tv numbers you can find the % of households in the UK with a subscription to skysports)

Impact is shown at 10pm on a Tuesday night meaning its finished by midnight, not exactly an early night if you've got work in the morning but its not that horrendous.
Monday Night Raw is broadcast live meaning that it starts at 2 o'clock Tuesday morning and finishes at 4, surely it must be obvious to you that something being shown at that time is not going to have a very good viewership?
I was wrong regarding Smackdown by the way, its broadcast at 10pm although its probably worth noting that its 10 o'clock on a Friday night when a lot of the target audience are going to be in the pubs/clubs.

You're saying that you look bad in this thread because people are ignoring the facts. I live in the UK, I've explained to you that TNA is not more popular here than WWE and given you reasons for that statement. You seem to be of the opinion that an American website is a more reliable source than someone who actually lives here though so I'd say you're doing a fairly decent job of ignoring stuff yourself.

I prefer TNA, I prefer the product although the stuff with Punk has been the best thing any company has put out in years. I would however watch Raw every week as well if it was on at a reasonable time and I had the spare cash to spend on TV channels. For people mocking TNA as number 2 from 2 I think its worth remembering where they both were 10 years ago. WWE was already a massive global brand when TNA was starting out. TNA has managed to build a loyal (sometimes overly so) fanbase and get television deals. They've started to attract big names and have become more mainstream. I think they've achieved a lot but from WWE's power and standing when they started TNA are never going to be the biggest company, that doesn't mean they're a failure.

Once again another excellent post. I changed my mind. Don't waste your time. For the people who actually pay attention, or want to learn beyond what PWI or a fan forum tells them, this is good information.

I appreciate it.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Waiting for the aftermath, still speculate hes gone or leaving. Ive read he signed a legends deal, keeping him in the WWEmpire but not a full time wrestler, others say he resigned, others say extension to summerslam others say hes already gone

According to colt in a podcast today hes leaving, but he would cover a work for punk so dont take that credibly

What you mean is you're going to pull a PWI and hope that at some point, anywhere in the future (even if it's 5 years from now) that Punk leaves so you can thump your chest and say "I was right".

As it was pointed out, long ago, you would never admit you were wrong, that you're precious PWI had gotten it wrong, and that your fan forum 'smarks' had gotten it wrong.

Now you're throwing out rumors about legends deals, he's actually left, blah, blah, blah.


Take a little look at history with Vince when it comes to his title. He's not putting that title on Punk if they don't have something already in place.

Every since Blaze walked out with the Women's title and showed up on WCW with the belt to throw in the trash Vince takes absolutely no chances.

He even screwed Hart, probably his most loyal company man at the time, out of the belt when Hart had a month left on his deal because he feared Hart would take the belt with him.


If CM Punk was simply extended a short time, or was flying with no deal, he wouldn't have the belt.

Period.

 

[zrinkill]

CM Punk Storyline Expected to Continue Outside WWE

WWE is attempting to continue the CM Punk storyline in such a fashion that, while his name and likeness are banned from WWE television, they're trying to get Punk booked on late-night talk shows and other news-grabbing entities. The idea is that Punk will continue to taunt WWE with their own world title while WWE tries to, in story, forget that he exists.

http://www.wrestlingnewssource.com/feed_news-20281-CM_Punk_Storyline_Expected_to_Continue_Outside_WWE.php

Sorry its not PWInsider ..... :laugh2:

 

[Cowboy Brian]

lol

Pepsi had to actually EARN their #2 spot during their LONG history.

When TNA started there was nothing but WWE. WCW was gone, ECW was gone.

They became #2 by virtue of there being NO ONE ELSE but WWE.

That's not an accomplishment. I'm sorry that you think it is or are trying to put it in the same light as something like a long standing soda company and don't understand the difference.

And, yes, being #2 out of 3 (even if there had only ever been 3 in the companies history) is still better than trying to champion the fact that they're #2 out of the 2 companies that have been there in their entire existence.

I dont know why I bothered to unblock you. I'm the idiot for thinking you'd ever start coming with anything more substantial other than what you were told by PWI.







Once again another excellent post. I changed my mind. Don't waste your time. For the people who actually pay attention, or want to learn beyond what PWI or a fan forum tells them, this is good information.

I appreciate it.

No, I don't listen to everything PWI says, I read it all. The ratings are the ratings, not exclusive to PWinsider.


& when TNA started it drew 100 people into an "asylum", it started off nowhere, smaller than regular indys and grew, how the **** did it start 2/2? when I know of 3 local indys on long island that drew bigger crowds than TNA when TNA started off?

Your wrong, and won't admit it. It's the same freakin' thing as the cola comparison as TNA rose up through the ranks from nothing but a company started by Jeff Jarrett taking a half mortgage out on his house & is now worth tens of millions, if not a hundred million dollar company that employees hundreds of people, with many of them making a great living. It's a amazing accomplishment that people laugh at for a reason I will never understand since it's illogical.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

I'm not ignoring the "facts" of your numbers, rather explaining why impact has a higher rating than WWE.

Impact airs on a channel that is free to view and available in every household in the UK with a television. The channel is a new and obscure channel but nonetheless it is a free channel that is part of the basic package built in to your television. As an aside you could probably make an argument that if TNA was as popular as you make out the channel carrying it previously wouldn't have gone out of business as advertisers would have been falling over themselves to buy ads when it was on.
WWE in comparison is broadcast on a channel that requires a monthly subscription therefore has a much lower potential audience (I'm sure with your love of tv numbers you can find the % of households in the UK with a subscription to skysports)

Impact is shown at 10pm on a Tuesday night meaning its finished by midnight, not exactly an early night if you've got work in the morning but its not that horrendous.
Monday Night Raw is broadcast live meaning that it starts at 2 o'clock Tuesday morning and finishes at 4, surely it must be obvious to you that something being shown at that time is not going to have a very good viewership?
I was wrong regarding Smackdown by the way, its broadcast at 10pm although its probably worth noting that its 10 o'clock on a Friday night when a lot of the target audience are going to be in the pubs/clubs.

You're saying that you look bad in this thread because people are ignoring the facts. I live in the UK, I've explained to you that TNA is not more popular here than WWE and given you reasons for that statement. You seem to be of the opinion that an American website is a more reliable source than someone who actually lives here though so I'd say you're doing a fairly decent job of ignoring stuff yourself.

I prefer TNA, I prefer the product although the stuff with Punk has been the best thing any company has put out in years. I would however watch Raw every week as well if it was on at a reasonable time and I had the spare cash to spend on TV channels. For people mocking TNA as number 2 from 2 I think its worth remembering where they both were 10 years ago. WWE was already a massive global brand when TNA was starting out. TNA has managed to build a loyal (sometimes overly so) fanbase and get television deals. They've started to attract big names and have become more mainstream. I think they've achieved a lot but from WWE's power and standing when they started TNA are never going to be the biggest company, that doesn't mean they're a failure.

I was not referring to you and was going to reply with a longer message from my PC, not my phone.

I did not know that RAW aired live, thought it aired taped as SD does. Either way, SD and iMPACT air at similar times, ableit different days, the Friday downfall in the US for SD is substantial, but it is not the nearly 150,000 people out of 236,000 difference.

RAW airing taped probably would draw around 200,000 then and no I did not know that it was on a paid channel. I know TNA draws huge crowds in the UK, and thank you for making the fair point that TNA is not a failure, they've accomplished a ton in their very small history, and will soon be taking iMPACT on the road. This year they drew 5,000 people to an iMPACT on the road in March, how much did WWE PPV Over the Limit draw? 6,500.


1,500 difference for a PPV v. a TV show? That's a wash, yet supposedly TNA is laughable company that has accomplished nothing and WWEmpire is the greatest thing since sliced bread even when its main character says poopy.

 

[zrinkill]

How “worked” was CM Punk’s “shoot” promo now?

I think it’s safe to say that now, looking back at it, the promo may have been all from the mouth of CM Punk but there were definitely some bullet points the creative team wanted him to hit.

Paul Heyman and Brock Lesnar
CM Punk vs Stone Cold
ROH and Colt Cabana
John Laurinaitis and HHH

http://camelclutchblog.com/how-worked-was-cm-punks-shoot-promo-now/


Great Read and a welcome break from the ignorance of the "mark".