What are the pros and cons to going to TV-14?

[Crayo]

I hope my post wasn't completely lost here.

 

[seabs]

Re: RE: What are the pros and cons to going to TV-14?

Tbh WWE are sort of doing the right thing to "gain" viewers, by making it more social. People forget that WWE, well, wrestling in general is COMPLETELY different than it was 10 or so years ago. Wrestling then was cool to watch. People watched it more than real fighting. That won't happen now. The shoot, Jericho's return vignettes, all created social buzz. That brought in viewers. They need mainstream spotlight. If they were TV-14, I doubt TMZ and the like would actually cover some of their stories now. I doubt many media outlets like chatshows would even host their superstars.

WWE just needs to completely reinvent itself. Bring back the edge, bring back the midcard, bring back the story-lines for all divisions. That needs to start with a major, major story-line, like an invasion angle or something. Or perhaps trial it. Have Johnny Ace completely "take over" the board of directors, he's in complete power of WWE. WWE goes "attitude" for 2 months, it's completely reinvented. If ratings improve, they find a way to make it permanent. If nothing changes or it gets worse, then they act from there. Doesn't have to be attitude, just something more edgy. Nothing wrong with testing.

This works and can be done under a PG banner, early WWECW recreated the AE to an extent and never really drew.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[Crayo]

I know it sounds stupid, but I think if it was done to RAW, the a-show, the headline for WWE, it would draw. people could say "what's the difference?", it's RAW... live SmackDown supershows never draw like RAW, why? Because it's SmackDown, it's not RAW, even though it's effectively the same show right?

RAW is the home. If RAW changes, WWE changes. If SmackDown changes, you have RAW.

 

[seabs]

Re: RE: What are the pros and cons to going to TV-14?

I know it sounds stupid, but I think if it was done to RAW, the a-show, the headline for WWE, it would draw. people could say "what's the difference?", it's RAW... live SmackDown supershows never draw like RAW, why? Because it's SmackDown, it's not RAW, even though it's effectively the same show right?

RAW is the home. If RAW changes, WWE changes. If SmackDown changes, you have RAW.

It could theoretically work, similar to Punks change angle which could have been golden. I'm not against TV 14 by any means, I just can't justify the change currently. It would need to happen on Raw to show their serious but would it begin to annoy people in similar effect to Punks breaking of kayfabe? Not to mention all the scoffing and its not what it used to be chants. Plus you change things too much you risk cutting off a large revenue stream in the kids. What people tend to miss is an adult will usually buy a shirt and a hat at best, whilst a kid will buy the hat, shirt, necklace, replica belt and DVD. You piss off the parents they'll drag their kids out. The positives are potentially huge for your idea but its a risk especially since he has stockholders now,Vince can't do what ever he wants he has to please the board.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[Lockard 23]

As mentioned, the rating doesn't automatically guarantee that the television ratings will rise or drop. Some things, such as the boom of UFC/MMA, or the success of Jersey Shore, appeal to an older demographic, but you can be PG and still maintain success, obviously. I think it's in WWE's best interests to remain PG for the time being. I think it's silly to think that the WWE will absolutely never go back to TV-14, though. Just not anytime soon.

The only thing that will change ratings is if the actual product improves, and that means creating storylines, angles and wrestlers that people care about and will pay money to see. The NWO, which is one of the greatest wrestling storylines (imo) of all time and helped give WCW a big two year run at the top, was done in what was pretty much a PG environment.

 

[Asskicker]

The problem with WWE is their lacking of confidence in their superstars. They should give guys a chance like they did back then. Vince gave Rocky a chance as he was just some soon to be future endeavored face who people booed but Vince gave him a chance and now look at where Rock's at. They also lack passion in creating actual storylines that will draw people to it and they just have to be confident in their superstars and their abilities.

 

[seabs]

Re: RE: What are the pros and cons to going to TV-14?

The problem with WWE is their lacking of confidence in their superstars. They should give guys a chance like they did back then. Vince gave Rocky a chance as he was just some soon to be future endeavored face who people booed but Vince gave him a chance and now look at where Rock's at. They also lack passion in creating actual storylines that will draw people to it and they just have to be confident in their superstars and their abilities.

This is the problem, no matter what the rating is you've got to give the guys a chance. Who thought the ruthless aggression kid with the horrible hair cut and blue trunks would be the man ? Or the ring master? Probably the best answer in the thread tbh.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[Snowman1]

Back in the TV-14 era, you could send a Diva out there wearing a bubble-wrap bikini, stay for the matches which were glorified softcore porn at times, then eventually pick up the latest Playboy and see her wearing slightly less. (See Sable) The male viewers ate it up, yet they still played their characters well so the females found a way to like them as well.

Why did I just talk about the Divas? Because it's really the only thing affected by this. Windy hit the nail on the head (as usual): TV-PG isn't a problem at all. WWE knows that the logo and/or John Cena are what brings fans to the product, so they truly have no incentive to write a good show.

 

[Stopspot]

As many on here have stated TV 14 doesn't guarantee ratings or drawing. Violence levels should never and I mean NEVER! Be more important then story line and building of characters and feuds. If they do this right. They could draw people to watch no matter the rating the show had.

 

[seabs]

Re: RE: What are the pros and cons to going to TV-14?

Ratings won't draw if storylines suck, which is the case in TNA. I agree PG is better business-wise as kids are going to want the merch, but it's a downer on the entertainment value. It's a fact that since PG has been implemented, crowds have gone mild and ratings have plummeted. Just go to youtube and you'll see how much better the crowds are

The crowds were better in the 80s also being PG doesn't effect it, we've seen with Punk, Ryder and Orton that guys can get madly over as you say its down to stories not whether they're TV 14 or PG. You can be entertaining under PG as Punk vs Jericho has shown, its down to booking not being PG. If they turned TV 14 they could well book it to shit and it would still be as dull as it is at times now. The main point I'm trying to say is there is no direct link between being being entertaining and being TV 14.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

__________

Ratings won't draw if storylines suck, which is the case in TNA. I agree PG is better business-wise as kids are going to want the merch, but it's a downer on the entertainment value. It's a fact that since PG has been implemented, crowds have gone mild and ratings have plummeted. Just go to youtube and you'll see how much better the crowds are

The crowds were better in the 80s also being PG doesn't effect it, we've seen with Punk, Ryder and Orton that guys can get madly over as you say its down to stories not whether they're TV 14 or PG. You can be entertaining under PG as Punk vs Jericho has shown, its down to booking not being PG. If they turned TV 14 they could well book it to shit and it would still be as dull as it is at times now. The main point I'm trying to say is there is no direct link between being being entertaining and being TV 14.

Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

 

[Rysenberg]

WWE became less edgy when it went PG, not because of it, it was purely coincidental I think. Well maybe not coincidental, but it was not directly because of the PG rating.

In the 6 months or so leading to the PG switch there was lots of changes which took the edge off the show. They stopped using blood and cursing as much. They changed the arenas to what they are today, not like the old ones. They changed the setup, like in Raw they changed the colour of the ring ropes from red to white and they made the arena lighter. They even changed the look of the Raw and Smackdown logos. A combination of all those things made the show feel a lot more kid orientated and a lot less edgy. It wasn't because of the rating itself that these things changed it was because they wanted to aim it at kids.

These things could easy change back without the rating changing, so no I do not feel it's because of the rating itself that the show is less edgy and no I do not feel changing the rating would make much difference to viewers.

 

[Crayo]

I didn't mean test TV-14 seabs, I meant test a more edgy product. Push the boundaries of PG as far as you can go, have it effectively just like it was years ago in the ruthless aggression era. Replicate it and test how it goes.

 

[Saylor]

This is the subject that no one can agree on and everything stated is basically opinions, not forgetting opinions can't be wrong. With that being said, either way I'm still going to watch WWE regardless whether it's PG or TV-14. So, if that doesn't effect me, I don't get why it doesn't effect others. The reason why it doesn't effect me is because I know I can still enjoy the show without it being TV-14. TV-14 does slightly make it interesting however you've got to understand from a business perspective and business standpoint. In the long run PG is better for the company while TV-14 can be however it'll lose the big fan base WWE already have. WWE are just doing what any other company would do and that's be able to think about the future of the company and do what's right for the company. It's essential that WWE keeps it's biggest fan base and ensures that they are making money, if they're making money then they're doing the right thing. PG is getting viewers which is all that matters, if PG's working then why should they change?

 

[Leo C]

It's not really the PG rating, it's crappy booking. PG is not such a big limitation, so why not create great stories and characters? That would solve the problem.