|
In response to
""Okay, we're desperate for positives. What's the best thing we can say about the company other than money?" "Uhh...something Peacock, maybe?" -- nm"
by
David
|
I read an article recently that I think had the first coherent explanation for WWE's strategy (other than just being sold). Apparently HHH said in
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
Feb 3 '22, 15:07
|
some interview that WWE was essentially no longer interested in making stars. That nobody should be bigger than the WWE. That seems to comport with a lot of their moves (other than the way they've built up Reigns and still rely on Lesnar). But it essentially argues for structuring the business as a product with interchangeable pieces. That people watch WWE because they put a consistent glitzy product out that people understand and can immerse in. Somewhat like Disney to a degree. I think that completely misreads the room of wrestling fans, but it's almost like they think they can be a product for a larger group of less invested fans that just want to see the show but aren't so invested in the characters. It explains why being leaner and more cost-effective makes sense and focuses on pure bottom line from the cost side (sort of expecting that there's a ceiling on the revenue side). Again, I think that they're generally wrong and it will ultimately fail, but it was the first thing I read that actually made it sound like a plan rather than just haphazard stupid decisions.
|
Responses:
|
