Internet: Good or bad for professional wrestling?
- Thread starter Crayo
- Start date
-
Welcome to "The New" Wrestling Smarks Forum!
I see that you are not currently registered on our forum. It only takes a second, and you can even login with your Facebook! If you would like to register now, pease click here: Register
Once registered please introduce yourself in our introduction thread which can be found here: Introduction Board
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 47,754
- Reaction score
- 14,050
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 33
KevinLockard23 said:
Disagree. Spoilers from dirtsheets are a tough pill to swallow at times. Imagine how amped we all would have been for Brock's return if it was completely out of left field instead of us all sitting in the Raw thread thinking "Oh boy I hope Brock comes out"
It would have been 10 X as exciting as it was.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2011
- Messages
- 63,815
- Reaction score
- 6,080
- Points
- 1
- Location
- United Kingdom of Ambrose
- Website
- wweforums.net
I think it's both good and bad from the perspective of the WWE brass and creative staffs. For fans, I think it's overly beneficial.
Good (for both): It drives viewer numbers up simply because it gets people involved/interested in the product. It's why politicians saturate the airwaves in the last couple of weeks before an election (at least they do in the US; I don't know what they do in the UK or elsewhere). More ads creates more name recognition creates more interest creates more people engaged and taking part, i.e., watching Raw and Smackdown, means more merchandise sales and PPV buys. This obviously benefits WWE, but it also allows for more people to be brought in that the crowd will react to (Lesnar, Rocky, Jericho, also Maria Menounos (sp?), Snooki, Floyd Mayweather). The smarks may not care about the celebrity involvement, but it brings in more viewers and more money, which allows them to pay the guys we want to see who might not otherwise return because they demand higher pay than the average worker.
Good (for fans) and bad (for brass/creative, at least to an extent because it creates challenges they don't always know how to respond to): The Internet creates more possibilities for discussion/spoilers/etc. that were not as widespread before it existed. This leads to some interesting things (and sometimes even interesting storylines.....*rim shot*), because it often seems to force guys to maintain the illusion. How many of Punk's/Rock's/Laurinatis'/etc.'s tweets are really the thoughts of Phil Brooks/Dwayne Johnson/errrrr, John Lauriniatis/etc., and how many of those tweets are designed to further a character point or a storyline? Does Zack Ryder act like that all the time or is he "on" when filming the Youtube shows and posting tweets and FB statuses (stati?)? This has led to some neat little points of storylines and some neat little discussions here and elsewhere asking these questions and many others.
So....uh, yeah. It's both good and bad.
wk
Good (for both): It drives viewer numbers up simply because it gets people involved/interested in the product. It's why politicians saturate the airwaves in the last couple of weeks before an election (at least they do in the US; I don't know what they do in the UK or elsewhere). More ads creates more name recognition creates more interest creates more people engaged and taking part, i.e., watching Raw and Smackdown, means more merchandise sales and PPV buys. This obviously benefits WWE, but it also allows for more people to be brought in that the crowd will react to (Lesnar, Rocky, Jericho, also Maria Menounos (sp?), Snooki, Floyd Mayweather). The smarks may not care about the celebrity involvement, but it brings in more viewers and more money, which allows them to pay the guys we want to see who might not otherwise return because they demand higher pay than the average worker.
Good (for fans) and bad (for brass/creative, at least to an extent because it creates challenges they don't always know how to respond to): The Internet creates more possibilities for discussion/spoilers/etc. that were not as widespread before it existed. This leads to some interesting things (and sometimes even interesting storylines.....*rim shot*), because it often seems to force guys to maintain the illusion. How many of Punk's/Rock's/Laurinatis'/etc.'s tweets are really the thoughts of Phil Brooks/Dwayne Johnson/errrrr, John Lauriniatis/etc., and how many of those tweets are designed to further a character point or a storyline? Does Zack Ryder act like that all the time or is he "on" when filming the Youtube shows and posting tweets and FB statuses (stati?)? This has led to some neat little points of storylines and some neat little discussions here and elsewhere asking these questions and many others.
So....uh, yeah. It's both good and bad.
wk
It gives them more success and they can expand with youtube/twitter and better connect with fans. The fact spoilers get out is their own fault. Have smackdown live, problem solved and no spoilers. Plus it'd give it the feeling that comes with watching live TV. ie more exciting.
Good to keep up with wrestlers who use Twitter. So you can see what they are doing and where they are. Second part is YouTube. The place you can see older matches and dig in older feuds, so you can see and know what has been. Then there are the people who discuss wrestling. I don't know if it's good or bad for WWE, but they sure as hell can't boycot it.