Hey Scott,
For all the talk here about WWE's plummeting ratings and poor creative, there is one thing to note: pay-per-view numbers seem to be on a rise in 2012.
Now, let's say we throw away the big numbers for Wrestlemania 28, Extreme Rules, and Summerslam as those can all be attributed to returning past stars like Rock and Lesnar, rather than the current product. BUT what to make of the numbers for the "B" shows doing so (relatively) well?
- Over the Limit (headlined by Cena-Ace and Punk-Bryan) was up 27,000 from 2011.
- No Way out (Cena-Show and Punk-Bryan-Kane) was up 24,000 from 2011.
- MITB (Punk-Bryan with AJ as ref, plus the MITB matches) was down 5,000 buys from 2011. But one could say that MITB '11 was a bit of an aberration as it featured Punk-Cena in Chicago, which most would say was WWE's best built match in years.
- And then the news today at Night of Champions did pretty well at 189,000 buys, up 20,000 from 2011.
So is there anything to glean from this? Are fans enjoying the product moreso than we would assume? Maybe there's a residual effect from Rock and Lesnar, in that they've reconditioned some fans into ordering PPVs again?
Another thought: perhaps the Punk reign has actually been successful, in that hardcore fans will pay to see a wrestler they really like defend in what they know will be a really good match. Or at the least, the Punk-Bryan-AJ storyline could be considered a success.
Lastly, I'd say that the NOC buyrate shows that Punk-Cena still has some juice to it, and perhaps WWE's smartest move would be to keep the belt on Punk this Sunday and then run variations of the Punk-Cena feud at Survivor Series and TLC.
So, are there any silver lining for WWE, or are these numbers meaningless?
-Worst in the World
Now, let's say we throw away the big numbers for Wrestlemania 28, Extreme Rules, and Summerslam as those can all be attributed to returning past stars like Rock and Lesnar, rather than the current product. BUT what to make of the numbers for the "B" shows doing so (relatively) well?
- Over the Limit (headlined by Cena-Ace and Punk-Bryan) was up 27,000 from 2011.
- No Way out (Cena-Show and Punk-Bryan-Kane) was up 24,000 from 2011.
- MITB (Punk-Bryan with AJ as ref, plus the MITB matches) was down 5,000 buys from 2011. But one could say that MITB '11 was a bit of an aberration as it featured Punk-Cena in Chicago, which most would say was WWE's best built match in years.
- And then the news today at Night of Champions did pretty well at 189,000 buys, up 20,000 from 2011.
So is there anything to glean from this? Are fans enjoying the product moreso than we would assume? Maybe there's a residual effect from Rock and Lesnar, in that they've reconditioned some fans into ordering PPVs again?
Another thought: perhaps the Punk reign has actually been successful, in that hardcore fans will pay to see a wrestler they really like defend in what they know will be a really good match. Or at the least, the Punk-Bryan-AJ storyline could be considered a success.
Lastly, I'd say that the NOC buyrate shows that Punk-Cena still has some juice to it, and perhaps WWE's smartest move would be to keep the belt on Punk this Sunday and then run variations of the Punk-Cena feud at Survivor Series and TLC.
So, are there any silver lining for WWE, or are these numbers meaningless?
-Worst in the World
I wouldn't say they're meaningless, but 2011 was a BAD year for PPV. Like, discounting Wrestlemania, one of the worst ever, so really it's an improvement over the bottom of the barrel. Wrestlemania from this year apparently creeped over the all-time buyrate record just this past week, so everything else is basically gravy anyway. I don't think that the 5K-20K deviation in the buys is enough to draw much in the way of conclusions about, though. Especially when the final numbers usually end up looking fairly different from initial estimates. Sometimes it's just that a few extra people had nothing to do on the Sunday and felt that, say, Punk v. Cena was an interesting enough main event to check out.
When ppvs were $30 I could see buying a show for the hell of it. I remember snagging the occasional WCW show at the last minute just because, fuck it, the Horsemen vs Flock tag match or some cruiser stuff should be good. At the current prices, it would have to be a pretty great card to justify a last minute purchase.
ReplyDeleteStat geekery is so boring. Doesn't mean anything important to anyone who cares about entertainment for artistic reasons.
ReplyDeleteIt happens but I think those impulse buys are a (small) factor of card strength. I impulse bought UFC 143 for reasons like Scott said. Was planning on going out that night, plans fell through. Called up a neighbor and asked if he wanted to split a pizza and watch the UFC. The exact thought in my mind was "maybe Nick Diaz will do something stupid".
ReplyDeleteCertain guys have that kind of drawing power where they can pull in that tiny amount of impulse buys.
What people find entertaining for artistic reasons is subjective. Statistics are objective.
ReplyDeleteFWIW, WWE stock was at 10.40 a year ago and now it's in the low 8s. That's a 20% drop.
ReplyDeleteAside from angles and workrate, which are the lynchpins of wrestling "art", professional wrestling is about drawing and making money (nothing you don't already know). I, for one, am happy we have access to financials, ppv buys and stock prices. It gives us an accurate portrail of how business is actually doing as opposed to before they were public when they could lie their ass off.
ReplyDeleteTrying to discredit higher PPV buys with "artistic reasons" is probably the biggest reach since a burning bush talking.
ReplyDeleteIn other WWE is doing good news, they are the #5 YouTube channel.
Look at page 4: http://www.snl.com/interactive/lookandfeel/4121687/Key-Performance-Indicators.pdf
ReplyDeleteNothing has really changed. Any gain is offset by how absolutely dreadful the Feb. PPV did this year.
Also interesting that WM 26 was basically a bomb & this year's WM wasn't all that much higher than last year's.
Totally agree with this. I also think that it keeps us sane, knowing whether or not our hemming and hawing is justified.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I'm with you. I personally enjoy following both sides of the business -- that is, what's going on in the ring and what's going on behind the scenes. I'd dare say it is even fun to track all of this stuff, but I can see why it's not everyone's cup of tea.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with what *I think* Ryan and a few others are getting at though -- as a *fan* of the wrestling program itself and not as businessman, the arguments among some fans get overly simplistic and statistics are often thrown around in questionable ways.
E.g. they don't like Cena, Punk, or wrestler X as a fan, so they use the statistics as a weapon to "objectively" justify something ridiculous, "see, it's all their fault". Obviously, things are much more complicated than that. Obviously the concerns of a fan are different than the concerns of a
business person -- as a fan, you can enjoy the hell out of the product on the screen even when the business is terrible or hate it when things are good financially.
Still though, the statistics give some indication of the overall trend of the company, which alone is fascinating to look at IMO.
Did some more digging. The buyrates they pulled from 2000 through the Austin heel turn at WM17 just boggle the mind.
ReplyDeleteRoyal Rumble 2000: 590,000 buys
No Way Out 2000: 480,000
Wrestlemania 2000: 824,000
Backlash 2000: 675,000
Judgement Day 2000: 420,000
King Of The Ring 2000: 475,000
Fully Loaded 2000: 420,000
Summerslam 2000: 570,000
Unforgiven 2000: 605,000
No Mercy 2000: 550,000
Survivor Series 2000: 400,000
Armageddon 2000: 465,000
Royal Rumble 2001: 625,000
No Way Out 2001: 590,000
Wrestlemania 17: 1,040,000
Backlash 2001: 375,000 (the party ends)
It used to be the case that same-day impulse PPV buys made up something like 85% of orders.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that is still the case, but if it is, then I can see how increasing the price point beyond the cost of inflation might hurt those buys tremendously -- it's hard to stomach such an expensive purchase when you don't have a tremendous amount of emotional investment in the decision to buy it or not.
Some of those numbers are a little bit inflated, most notably WrestleMania which did less than a million buys (much closer to 950k). Even still though, if you hacked 10 or 15% off of each of them, you'd still be looking at numbers that murder anything they do today.
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing quite like a well placed bunt.
ReplyDeleteThat is insane.
ReplyDeleteThat was a crazy bunt
ReplyDeleteI always find it funny how the term "draw/drew money" is used in wrestling. Like it wouldn't be uncommon for a wrestler to toast another at a wedding with "We drew a lot of money together". How could you? After all the money we drew together!
ReplyDeleteI hate the sacrifice bunt with a passion as it makes no sense in the context of simply giving away an out (yes, I subscribe to metrics). With that said, holy shit that bunt was a thing of beauty. Too bad the Giants kinda blew it with only 1 run though.
ReplyDeleteBunts are incredibly productive.
ReplyDeleteStatistically, they're not. You did just post above that "statistics are objective", right?
ReplyDelete"Let's take a look at our scenario again. Looking at the stats for 1993-2010, with a runner on first and no one out, MLB teams scored .941 runs from that point to the end of the inning. If you sacrifice the runner to second, which means you have a runner on second with one out, MLB teams scored .721 runs. In other words, by moving that runner up a base by giving up an out, you're likely to to score .220 fewer runs.
Now take a look at the second chart, which shows the chances that any runs will score in an inning in different situations. With our runner
on first and no outs, there's a .441 chance a run will score. By moving
that runner to second with a sacrifice bunt, you now have a .418 chance of scoring a run in the inning. Again, by making that move your chances
of scoring have decreased by .033."
Sigh. Do I really have to explain this to you in real life terms? With a guy on first and nobody out, it's pretty likely that the result is going to be a double play or a strikeout. The bunt eliminates both of them. Come on man. I'm not saying its always a good idea, but in a low scoring game against a quality pitcher with a below average hitter, it's the best idea. I don't care what stupid math you break out.
ReplyDeleteStupid math? lol. Data analysis of all the mlb baseball games for over 2 decades is stupid math?
ReplyDeleteJust stop.
I wonder what the distribution is between domestic and international buys. Domestic buyrates have been collapsing for years, but apparently buyrates have been going up internationally because PPVs are more widely available than they used to be.
ReplyDeleteIt could be something as simple as the UFC holding 3 fewer PPVs this year. Another explanation could be the Youtube pre-show, which gives WWE a chance to try to sell the PPVs at the last minute.
The cards could also have been a factor. Over the Limit 2011 was a wholly forgettable show headlined by Cena VS Miz. I can see Punk VS Bryan drawing more buys easily. Capitol Punishment was headlined by R-Truth VS Cena. Big Show is a better draw than R-Truth. Night of Champions 2011 was headlined by the horrendous Punk-HHH-Nash feud. Night of Champions 2012 was headlined by Punk VS Cena. HIAC's buyrate won't be comparable to last year because WWE eliminated the 2nd October PPV. Still, it wouldn't surprise me if HIAC 2012 did a worse buyrate than both HIAC 2011 and Vengeance 2011. Since the last PPV, Raw has not only done their worst rating since before the Attitude Era, but they have actually broken that record 3 times in the last month, with the go-home show falling below a 2.5.
uh oh, Flair4dagold is on the jazz again with statistics. Anyone opposing should be prepared to lose and lose royally.
ReplyDeleteThe "no competition is bad competition" idea has been beaten to death but it's true. The company doesn't seem to see a reason to get better and therefore keep getting worse. There have been some positives like bringing back Paul Heyman at a near full time capacity but that's not enough.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the appropriate term for wrestling from 2010 to now is the "Part Time Era." They pretty much punt a majority of the calendar year and just accept that they're only going to make real money when they bring in Rock or Lesnar. Maybe something surprising happens in terms of something positive occurring, but that's highly unlikely.
I guess that WWE is lucky that Rock and Lesnar were really young when they got over huge.
Sigh. Good argument.
ReplyDeleteYeah. I forgot that they don't play the games anymore, they just compare spreadsheets.
ReplyDeleteAs usual, I agree with Worst in the World here. I really don't think you can discount the increases in buyrates. Not only did Punk's reign stop the bleeding, it topped last year's numbers. 20,000 people are a lot of folks who "had nothing to do on a Sunday." I purchased two PPVs this year, which is two more than I did last year. Yes, Lesnar and Rock played a part, but so did Punk and Bryan. With Cena technically main eventing, I don't think you can give him credit for PPV buys for his matches with Big Show and Big Johnny--nobody paid to see those.
ReplyDeleteI thought July-September was a period of strong booking and wrestling. Unfortunately, the 3 hour Raws felt bloated. But, yes, I feel the Punk reign has been a moderate success (I'd be very interested in seeing the DVD numbers for his documentary) and everything with Bryan and AJ was captivating.
However, this last month has turned into the Sheamus and Cena show, and they basically play the same character at this point. Cena is normally involved in two interview segments and Sheamus gets a 15 minute match EVERY week now (they're decent matches, but c'mon, let's see more variety).
I think the simplest explanation is that UFC PPVs have been exponentially weaker this year, and some of those fans spent that money on WWE instead.
ReplyDeleteDespite the shitty TV product and inane booking, the PPVs have had entertaining matches with a pretty talented roster. I would bet a portion of the uptick, however small, is credit to others feeling the same way.
ReplyDeleteSo you mean to tell me that it's much better for a sub-par hitter to actually attempt a hit rather than easily bunting and advancing hitters?
ReplyDeleteBesides after the pretty shitty in-fielding I've seen during this playoffs, give me a bunt.
but interpreting statistics is not.
ReplyDeleteVery true.
ReplyDeleteMaybe a significant number of wrestling fans who want to see good wrestling, which WWE PPV delivers fairly regularly, have begun avoiding the TV shows (because, well...) and are buying the PPVs to see good matches. The PPV pre-show will catch you up on all the feuds anyway.
ReplyDeleteUnforgiven, the September PPV in one of the weaker periods of the year, drew 600K buys. That's insanity. I know that was HHH/Angle in a pretty hot feud. I don't recall who the Rock defended against. Was it Undertaker and Kane?
ReplyDeleteI'm not telling you anything. This is pretty in-depth research by baseball statisticians. Giving away an out with a man on first dramatically reduces your chances of scoring him. You choose to dig your head in the ground and ignore this? Go for it, but there's a reason why the vast majority of GM's (if not all of them) have moved towards sabermetrics in every facet of their job.
ReplyDeleteWWF/E has been public since Oct. 1999, so those are the numbers they reported.
ReplyDeleteYou may be thinking domestic vs. worldwide - as WM17 did 950k domestic (which was & probably still is a record).
Is that you, Ken Macha?
ReplyDelete"Pretty likely"? How does a bunt decrease the chances of the *next* guy striking out?: Or popping out? Or hitting a fly ball to LF that doesn't advance the runner?
ReplyDeleteA bunt slightly increases the chance that you'll score exactly one run. If all you really need is one run, then okay. It GREATLY decreases the chances that you'll score MORE than one run.
Now, game theory says that a manager who NEVER bunts is at a disadvantage in and of itself, because the defense doesn't need to play for it. But outside of a few token sacrifices to keep the other teams guessing just enough for it to be worth it, I really can't stand sac bunts in the early innings with anyone besides the pitcher. Not that it applies to last night's situation, but bunts are NOT "incredibly productive."
This isn't new-math spreadsheet Moneyball WAR xFIP Fangraphs gee-whizzery, either. Earl Weaver was saying this shit 40 years ago. He knew a thing or two about winning actual games.
I love you guys. So convinced that you're right that you don't even address other people's arguments.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying you do it down 8-2 in the second inning with Cabrera up. But there are a many situations, like last night, where it is absolutely the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteNice work here, man. Wish I'd gotten in on it while it was hot. I know you're too nice to, but I'm tempted to say that anyone who could read that quote, and still advocate for the sacrifice bunt should be sterilized.
ReplyDeleteNow that this twit is on your side, I know I'm right.
ReplyDeleteWhat's it like inside that bubble of yours, Dougie? I legitimately don't know whether to laugh at, or pity you calling me a "twit", given that it's safe to surmise my IQ is at least 30 points higher than yours. The cruelest part is that the IQ gulf is what prevents you too from realizing it.
ReplyDeleteMy bubble? You're kidding right? If you look 'hive-mentality' up in the dictionary, 3 of the 5 examples are smarks, sabre-heads and Grant Morrison fans. The other two are Prog Metal enthusiasts and Ron Paul supporters.
ReplyDeleteIf only clever zingers were a legitimate substitute for logic and data. In that reality, you would certainly be Mensa-material.
ReplyDeleteHave to agree with those that figure the upswing is from people who are buying the PPVs based solely on the card, as opposed to the storyline(s).
ReplyDeleteThe weekly shows have been on a slow-but-steady decline for a decade now, but there are still many fans who have stopped watching the shows but still keep tabs on what's going on, who's being pushed, and who's having good matches. For instance, I doubt many people were clamoring for a Cena/Laurinaitis feud, and even fewer were willing to pay for a match between the two, but having Punk/Bryan on same the card seemed to have more than made up for the former.
Further, this logic holds true even for the part-timers - I think most will agree that the Rock/Cena, Brock/Cena, and Brock/Trips programs were all poorly booked, but the matches themselves still drew big money. To a lesser extent, Punk/Jericho, Sheamus/Bryan, Punk/Bryan, and last month's Cena/Punk programs were poorly built, but the audience was pretty much guaranteed twenty-minute, 4* matches with those.
While history has certainly shown that the "entertainment" half of "sports-entertainment" tends to draw more than the "sports" half, good wrestling is still enough to help keep the product afloat. Certainly more than when BOTH the wrestling and the writing are poor.
It's also a good shortcut for their weekly shows to take. Yes, it'd be great to come up with three entertaining hours of scripted comedy and drama every Monday, but when the ideas aren't coming, at least throw some good matches out there; it's a better strategy than unfunny comedy and limp drama with nothing but two-minute matches.
You realize that you have never presented an argument of any kind right? Just several ways to try and call somebody dumb with nothing behind it. Next time, bring something. Anything. Because blowing you out of the water is boring me.
ReplyDeleteSome of the numbers are accurate and what the WWE reported -- WM 2000 for example, but many of them are Meltzer reported numbers or WWE leaked preliminary estimates.
ReplyDeleteThe WWE reported themselves officially in 2003 that WM X7 drew a total of about 950,000 buys. Originally they stated WM 2000 drew over a million buys as well, but revised the numbers down.
There are some issues with either his (Meltzers) math or his sources for some of the other shows too in the late 1990s and early 2000s, because they don't line up with the size of the PPV audience in some cases or in other cases the audience size he's using varies wildly for a WCW PPV occurring in the same month.
Flair made a more than sufficient argument. There's really nothing to add to it. You didn't counter him with anything except your usual, tired deflection. In this case, trying to stereotype sabermetrics in general in an unflattering light, rather than actually addressing Flair's specific evidence. You more than demonstrated that having a genuine argument about the value of sabermetrics is (unsurprisingly) completely beyond your intellectual capabilities.
ReplyDeleteWhen I applauded Flair for acquitting himself, and the truth, as well as he did, you proceeded to call me a "twit" in one of your not nearly as funny as you think-zingers. When I pointed out how ludicrous the very idea of you calling me a twit was, you launched into your usual self-destruction of deflection and one-liners. That you somehow managed to perceive this exchange as "blowing (me) out of the water" just serves to illustrate my contention that you are, in fact, a complete fucking moron.
Seriously, you are terrible at this. You have no argument, no backing, no nothing. You just spent a hundred words saying the equivalent of 'you dumb'. I'm sure that impresses the other hvac guys, but I see right through you. Tell you what, I'll give you 24 hours. Do some research, try and form some thoughts. I'll check in on you later.
ReplyDeleteI mean it for all entertainment, not just wrestling. I find any discussion of box office with movies, ratings with TV, sales with music, or even to a degree stats in sports to be really boring and beside the point. Some people dig it, I just don't follow along with the mindset. To me, any entertainment should be about visceral enjoyment first and foremost, and stats are just a way of codifying that visceral enjoyment into concrete terms, and I feel like that just marginalizes some awesome stuff and over-inflates some serious garbage. But to each their own.
ReplyDeleteCall him more names. That shit's awesome.
ReplyDeleteThere are few things on the internet I like as much as watching you rape someone with baseball stats.
ReplyDeleteWarms my heart.
So CM Punk=money?
ReplyDeleteI'm not ignoring, I don't think anyone is(hell there's a show on ESPN based on Numbers), but I mean in the situation I can see why they did it and it won us the game.
ReplyDeleteFailed to come up with anything? Oh well. You should be used to it by now.
ReplyDelete