Uneconomical booking

This past Monday on WWE Raw, Dolph Ziggler took a bump from the top of a ladder, over the top rope to the floor below.

You'd forgotten about that, hadn't you?

Of all the ridiculous and unnecessary bumps in wrestling since that kind of thing became the norm in the late 90s, the countless Ultimate X style matches that are long forgotten and never drew a penny for anyone, this may have been the most pointless in wrestling history.

It was nothing more than a punchline; the exclamation point on another zany Sheamus joke. There was no reaction to the bump, in fact the only reminder it ever happened was that Ziggler wore a little bandage and Sheamus briefly targeted the leg when they wrestled each other a couple of hours later. That's right: just a couple of hours after taking a bump from the top of a ladder in the ring to the floor, Ziggler wrestled a back-and-forth match. What's more, it was against Sheamus, the man who pushed the ladder over. And it just felt like a normal match. It could have been Alberto Del Rio vs Kofi Kingston or Randy Orton vs Antonio Cesaro or Daniel Bryan vs Wade Barrett or indeed any of the previous Sheamus vs Dolph Ziggler matches we've already witnessed on Raw, Smackdown and pay-per-view. They all blend into each other.

When you are giving so much away, without reflecting on the ramifications of any of it, that's dangerous and short-sighted. When you're giving so much away for three hours every single week, that could lead to a terminal decline.

It's simply unsustainable. Nobody and nothing seems important in WWE any more. We've seen most wrestlers in every possible situation, the main exceptions right now being Ryback and The Shield, though that may only be because they are so new to the scene.

On an episode of Raw a couple of months ago there were five singles matches which featured one former or current world champion against another former or current world champion. Criminally, none of these matches were advertised before the show began, and at no point did anyone act as though it was out of the ordinary. It was just treated as another episode of Raw.

It stops new stars reaching the same level that their predecessors did. When nothing is treated like a big deal, it is defined as not being a big deal. Dolph Ziggler is one of the most promising new wrestlers to come along in years, but already it feels like we've seen him in every possible situation against every possible opponent, at least from the full-time crew. What's more, he seems to have lost far more of those matches than he has won.

The only dream matches that involve Ziggler, or John Cena or CM Punk or anyone else on Raw every week, are matches with part-time and semi-retired wrestlers. That is not a good situation to be in, and there is a direct correlation; if The Undertaker or The Rock or Brock Lesnar or Triple H were on Raw every single week, wrestling and cutting promos and taking big bumps and doing guest commentary week after week after week, with everyone acting as though it's not a big deal, they would be lesser stars too.

By reflecting on big bumps and storyline advancements, and by making matches between stars feel special, WWE could go a long way towards making the best of a bad situation, that being the impossible three-hour Raw format. If a wrestler took a ladder bump and was then off TV for a few weeks selling the effects, that would make every future ladder bump mean more. If matches were anticipated for weeks in advance, with the commentators telling us what a big deal it will be when the face of the company meets the World Champion, or the Intercontinental Champion goes one-on-one with the United States Champion (with video montages of all the great IC and US champs over the years, and discussions about what it would have been like to see The Ultimate Warrior vs Lex Luger in 1988, or Bret Hart vs Rick Rude in 1992, or Goldberg vs The Rock in 1998), those matches may not be so quickly forgotten.

Yes, on this week's Raw there was not only a ladder bump to the floor, but a meeting of the US and Intercontinental champions, and a match-up between the company's top star and its World Champion. And none of it meant anything.

This doesn't come down to differing booking philosophies. It is a case of WWE simply being plain wrong; doing something that has never led to sustained success in any wrestling promotion anywhere, ever. It's like WWE is driving a really nice car but it only does five miles to the gallon. It used to do forty to the gallon, and it could do forty to the gallon again if only they stopped and thought about all the bad habits they've developed, and fine tuned the engine and changed the way they drive it, and fixed the fuel pump and the air filter and the leak in the fuel tank, and kept the oil topped up. But their bad habits are now so ingrained that they actually think it's better driving with a leaking fuel tank and a dodgy air filter. this analogy is getting a bit weird now, so here's a different one:

Eastenders probably averages one murder a year, which is ridiculous when you think about it, but at least they build a huge story arc around it, the ramifications of which sometimes last for years.

Now, imagine if there was a murder in Eastenders every week. Not only that, but these murders regularly happen with no storyline build up. Sometimes you might have an inkling that something is going to happen ten minutes before a murder occurs, other times a murder might happen at random with no build up and no reaction. And often, after a murder in Albert Square, everyone just moves on and ignores it; there is no reaction and there are no ramifications. if the WWE creative team was writing Eastenders, that's what it would be like.

And to take the analogy even further, the acting could be out of this world, but that wouldn't be enough. In Dolph Ziggler, and CM Punk and Daniel Bryan and numerous others, WWE has a fantastically skilled crew of wrestlers, but they are completely let down by the structure of the wrestling promotion that employs them. It is a structure that makes everything seem less than it is, the very opposite of what "promotion" is all about.

Until WWE addresses that fatal flaw, they will continue to find that they can put any matches between any wrestlers on Raw and it won't make a difference to the rating. They can have wrestlers fall off ladders, go through tables, or even hit each other with hammers, but none of it would mean anything.

They need to fine tune their approach. Otherwise, that car may chug along at five miles to the gallon for months or even years, but it will eventually break down completely.

So to sum up, wrestlers have too much tv time thus we no longer anticipate seeing them as much. Because of so much tv time all ideas are used up therefore no special ideas are saved for special occassions i.e pay per views.

Sorry if this seems harsh but this is a very long winded article with a ridiculous comparison to Eastenders (not for the first time).

Sometimes I wonder when wrestling fans stopped being wrestling fans and became so interested in the business side of it.

I make no apologies for being fascinated by the wrestling industry, and 'the business side of it' is what I usually prefer to talk about.

I'm genuinely interested to know why you think the Eastenders analogy is ridiculous. Do you think that WWE is economical with its booking? Or do you not care? In which case why did you bother to comment?

It is an analogy I use a lot, but in my eyes there is a good reason for that. I could use movies or novels to present a similar analogy. Ultimately we are talking about a scripted narrative and many of the rules are the same. The one I'm particularly focussing on here is the maximisation of storytelling tools.

You may feel that I should just switch off and enjoy it for what it is, and if that's what you choose to do then it's entirely up to you. But personally my interest in wrestling is on a different level to that. Not a better or higher level, just a different one.

If you disagree with the premise of the article, I'd love to hear a defence of WWE's booking policy, and even moreso if you can point to a wrestling promotion that enjoyed long-term success through this kind of approach.

I just find it sad that when you watch Ziggler take a bump for example, that is what you're thinking about. An interest in the business side of the industry is very intersting and all but letting it supercede your enjoyment of the product is difficult for me to understand I guess.

I did think my post was a bit harsh and I am sorry for that.

The Eastenders comparison just makes no sense to me. Apart from both being scripted they are completely different forms of entertainment.

Unfortunately on a whole I don't actually disagree with your point.

I agree a lot with what you say, I saw Dolph taking that bump on Monday and immediately thought "they can't have much plans for him" if so why risk him in such a nothing segment with no real pay-off? Its just Dolph being Dolph and a mixture of them and himself using a bump as a way of being useful, it was pointless

Now, onto the Eastenders analogy, or any soap opera for that matter, I'm not a fan of them and I've never felt they where relevent, here's why, Soaps are taped what, 6/8 weeks in advance, they're recorded within the safety of the TV Set and this then allows directors/producers/writers an opportunity to play out their long term planning, on the other-hand Wrestling is live in front of a live audiance, they sometimes have to react to what the live audiance are demanding, something the safety of closed door filming on a soap set doesn't need to worry about, 14,000 fans won't suddenly turn up and start cheering for Phil Mitchell while he's trying to play the bad guy, Soaps don't need to worry about public opinion of their characters because they're allowed to let them develop for themselves, on the otherhand Pro Wrestling relies on the public opinion on their characters and if/when that changes the storylines often need to change with it

That comparison is absolutely true gaffer, but it's not the point I was making. I was pointing specifically to storytelling tools, or props. Eastenders has murders, car crashes and fires; the wrestling equivalent would be turns, stipulations, and big bumps.

The same way they wouldn't have a murder or a car crash every single week in Eastenders, they wouldn't have wrestlers turning or talking huge bumps every week on Raw. You use those tools sparingly so they have the maximum effect. That is where the Eastenders comparison in my article begins and ends, and that's why I feel that it is a fitting one.

I've got to be honest crips, i found it a really difficult read. I get the jist of what you are saying but it was like reading a Scott Hall shoot.

The WWE will never 'break down completely'. The USA Network have recently stated they are happy with the viewing figures of the 3hr show so the WWE aren't under pressure there. They will always get a TV deal regardless. The ratings issue is WWE's problem, they are the ones who want it to be higher. The revenue will always tick along, the future of the company will never be in jeopardy. But if they want higher ratings then yes its up to them to alter the format of the show accordingly. Personally i think doing away with the brand split has had a bearing on it, seeing guys twice a week on either show is perhaps a bit overkill. Keep Raw guys on Raw and Smackdown guys on Smackdown, naturally the booking on each show would be more solid and when/if the brands were to cross in something like what used to be a Wrestlemania Interpromotional match, ie - Shawn Michaels vs Kurt Angle Wrestlemania 21, it draws.

But the product isnt in decline. I think you're being a tad pessimistic and over the top crips to be honest.

As for you, MIG, finding me sad!!

Well, I do frequent an online wrestling forum. And I've got a train set. And I'm a huge fan of the cult 80s Australian show Prisoner Cell Block H. I'm also a vegan, which according to WWE commentators is pretty much the nerdiest thing anyone in the world could be. So you might be onto something.

But don't pity me for observing wrestling through a particular type of lens. I like it that way.

Cheers H, I appreciate the opinion even if I disagree with a couple of your points.

So I come across like a deluded, arrogant, inebriated waster? That's probably not ideal, I've got to be honest.

I understand that, but while you wouldn't have a murder in a soap every week or let's say every month, its very different from the ever changing World of Pro Wrestling where they may feel the need to turn guys monthly (not the same guys obviously) due to the reaction or lack of from the crowd, Live Wrestling TV has fed the urge for instant gratification no matter how big or small the pay-off is

I don't agree with how it is just giving my opinion why it is, you're point's valid though

Of course not, i appreciate the effort put into it, i just found it a tad sporadic. But i do understand the point you are making.

The arena's are always full, PPV buyrates are solid, merch sales are solid, ratings are steady if not spectacular. I just dont see why the WWE would have any sudden concern? Ratings will never be what they used to be anyway, especially as WWE.com post videos of Raw and Smackdown on their own website the very next day.

Sorry if that sounds a tad ignorant.

My question would be; What would you do differently?
Using the analogy of Eastenders I wouldn't say is a great one, nor other soaps as they too have become overly predictable and increasingly aimed at an audience that likes to consider itself intelligent for spotting the blind obvious 2 minutes before it occurs, every year you know on Christmas Day there will be a death/birth/affair revealed, sometimes all three. They often portray as bad racial or sexual stereotypes as WWE, the continued matriach led families with bumbling cuckolded husbands, the teenagers that go off the rails, the bad guy who smokes but after proving popular turns face, its all very formulaic itself.

I agree in wrestling that's too many throwaway matches now with little to no build up each week but that's born from the modern culture of wanting everything now, what's the alternative? Every week the top stars just squash the mid carders or jobbers, the crowd go flat as it becomes even more of a snoozefest and predictable, or it goes down the Teddy Long tagteam route?

crippledtart wrote:As for you, MIG, finding me sad!!

Well, I do frequent an online wrestling forum. And I've got a train set. And I'm a huge fan of the cult 80s Australian show Prisoner Cell Block H. I'm also a vegan, which according to WWE commentators is pretty much the nerdiest thing anyone in the world could be. So you might be onto something.

But don't pity me for observing wrestling through a particular type of lens. I like it that way.

I wasn't saying you are sad. I was saying it makes me sad that someone can watch something entertaining and be sat there thinking of the business repurcussions.

I think Crips has a perfectly valid point and it's certainly true that at the current rate WWE is probably booking itself into a hole.

I think the main problem from a WWE's point of view is the changes they have made to wrestling are pretty much irreversible. Wrestling stayed the same for decades on decades where the main eventers only wrestled at big events, big spots were incredibly rare and storylines were usually quite simple.

With Vince McMahon's national promotion and then the Attitude Era which gave a lot away at once (you only have to look at the small space of time it actually covers compared to say the Rock 'n' Wrestling or territories to see how short-termist it was.) You can't go back on that, WWE cannot now stop the big names like John Cena and CM Punk from wrestling every week, as that is what people expect, you cannot go to giving away bumps only now and again as people expect to be given bumps on a near constant, weekly basis. WWE have essentially opened up Pandora's box and there is no going back.

"The arena's are always full, PPV buyrates are solid, merch sales are solid, ratings are steady if not spectacular. I just dont see why the WWE would have any sudden concern? Ratings will never be what they used to be anyway, especially as WWE.com post videos of Raw and Smackdown on their own website the very next day."

Well, to be ultra-pessimistic, I would point to WCW in 1998. Full arenas, much better buyrates, TV ratings and merch sales than WWE is currently experiencing, more stars, and a mainstream cool factor.

By 2001, out of business.

I'm not saying that to be a doom-monger, or even to argue your point about WWE's business health. But it's definitely worth ackowledging that it's not completely beyond the imagination that WWE could be heading for trouble.

There are a lot of similarities. WCW had no long-term booking plan for 99% of its roster, and as a result wrestlers who could have been built up to step into the shoes of Hogan, Flair, Savage, etc were instead put in a position where they repeatedly looked weak, and not like stars of the same magnitude. Much like The Rock, Triple H, The Undertaker and Brock Lesnar today, there was a clear distinction in the way the supposed "true" stars were represented compared to the wrestlers who could have eventually stepped into their shoes if built up and protected.

It's also the mistakes like throwing things out on free TV with little or no build-up. Again, similarities to Hogan vs Goldberg in 1998.

You're right that WWE is doing ok from a business perspective at the moment, in as much as they are making a profit and satisfying their shareholders. As for USA Network, there was some clever wording from WWE regarding their contentment with the "third hour" (which, in WWE speak, is not the third hour of the show, but rather the hour that previously wasn't part of the timeslot, ie the first hour in layman's terms. The reason for this strange logic is simply that the first hour (or "third hour", if you're WWE) draws more viewers than the third hour (or "second hour", if you're WWE. I think), because a lot of the audience tunes out well before the end, presumably due to the length of the show. I'm sure USA is forgiving about ratings dropping to the mid-2s, but if they continue to fall there will eventually be a breaking point. USA Network isn't a charity.

"I agree in wrestling that's too many throwaway matches now with little to no build up each week but that's born from the modern culture of wanting everything now, what's the alternative? Every week the top stars just squash the mid carders or jobbers, the crowd go flat as it becomes even more of a snoozefest and predictable, or it goes down the Teddy Long tagteam route?"

I referenced it in the original article. You build things up. You talk about things as though they are important. If you're going to have a big bump like that on TV, do it in the context of a heated feud and react to it like something major has occurred and somebody has crossed a line, and have the victim stay off TV for a couple of weeks to sell how devastating it is to fall from the top of a ladder over the top rope to the floor. When you give away IC champ vs US champ, focus on the histories of the titles, and show montages of previous title holders (it doesn't have to be something from 1979, it can be Steve Austin, The Rock, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Goldberg, John Cena) and talk about the prestige of the two belts. If there is to be a match between John Cena, the top star in the company, and the World Champion The Big Show, announce it a month in advance and build up to it. Have wrestlers and past wrestlers talk about how heavy Big Show is and how persistent and tenacious Cena is, and reference their past battles, and make the fans anticipate the chance to see those two go head-to-head.

This isn't ground-breaking, it's what used to be second nature. And of course the likes of us know that Big Show has been an inconsistent character, and that John Cena and Big Show have had some pretty rubbish matches, and we know that Kofi Kingston is nowhere near the level of past IC title holders and so on, but wrestling is all about exaggeration and hype. And the fans who watch Raw religiously but with a degree of naivety to the backstage mechanisms - which is, by the way, the overwhelming majority - want to feel like what they are watching is special. It keeps coming back to the same thing: WWE's job should be to take something average and make it seem great.

I dont know if its just as someone who watches Eastenders, but I get and have used the soap analogy. I think it is because of the kayfabe nature of both, you have to let yourself believe in characters that are a constant, and they also have no break, no series end, its just continuous, which gives us no break from them.

Kay Fabe's point is true too, WWE need to react to the here and now, and they have done that (fantastically in my opinion) with Ryback. Although I think nowadays they are far too desperate to react to every trend on twitter that sometimes they go extremely short-termist and forget the benefit of a considered approach. TNA did it too with Austin Aries. The premise itself wasn't bad, but the panic to be on the button forced them into a title run that seemed ill thought through and was overshadowed by Aces and Eights, whilst curtailing a year long feud that should have culminated in Roode v Storm at BFG for the title.

Its not the train set that makes you sad, its when you sit down next to it refusing to play for an hour because of major delays in service.

I dont really buy into the WCW comparison because WCW and WWF were massive competition for eachother at the time. If WCW were the only mainstream promotion at the time and the WWF didnt exist then things might have been different. TNA aren't anywhere near a level where they are a legitimate threat as competition so as things stand the WWE are in a league of their own in terms of being the all-conquering promotion. The ball is very much in their court to do what they want with it, whereas in the late 90s WCW and WWF the ball was very much shared.

From a fans perspective, and not a business one, I agree with Crips. Nothing seems big or important anymore. For me? Its down to 2 things. Commentary and Gimmick PPVs.

Right now on commentary we have ONE commentater worth their salt, JBL. JBL brings the passion and fire that the others simply dont. The King has been phoning it in for years. Matthews, while a decent play by play guy, is certainly no JR or Joey Styles. Micheal Cole used to have it, but its burned out long ago. He cant sell a big moment like he used to.

Gimmick PPVs, most notably HIAC and EC have completely marred these matches. The Elimination Chamber should have stayed as a rarity. We got the first 2 in the space of 9 months then didnt see it again for nearly 2 and a half years. The first 3 were epic, brutal, and featured a whos who of the business. Since 2009 we've had greats such as Ted Dibiase Jnr, The Great Khali, Mike Knox and Santino Marella. A match of this magnetude not only loses appeal when its over exposed, but when guys with no right to be there are shoe horned in to fill numbers.

HIAC is the same. This used to be the "Be all and End all" of fueds. HBK vs Undertaker, Mankind vs Undertaker, Cactus Jack vs Triple H, Triple H vs Jericho, Batista, Nash. All of these matchs where the end of fueds, and all didnt disappoint. Since 2009 there have been TEN Hell in a Cell matches (only 9 made it to TV). And of all 9 2 of them are memorable, the 2 most recent. Undertaker vs Triple H and CM Punk vs Ryback (which is only remembered because it was <2 months ago). Nearly all of these matches didnt need to be in the Cell, but where shoe horned in and the match has lost all its appeal.

These are but just a few things that have lost impact, for me anyway. Crips Kofi Kingston analogy is spot on. Things will only be big if WWE makes them big.

Both perfect examples of WWE not understanding why things are popular. I dont understand why King is still a commentator. He could be a GM or a Manager and be far less annoying yet still get the pop they desire. The only improvement of late has been Michael Cole being less of a heel. Every so often he can still get it right, but only on big occasions does he try. JR cared about what was going on in every match, Michael Cole would happily miss things to discuss twitter.

The only thing I'd disagree with is that EC is a bad gimmick PPV. I hate all the others, including Extreme Rules and the pretending that its a mad hardcore night, but because of Elimination Chamber's place on the calendar and how it is deemed the final hurdle to Wrestlemania, it is wonderful as part of the road to WM. I think it helps that it then gives us a 6 week or so gap to Wrestlemania, its a less saturated night.

TLC and HIAC are the worst in my opinion. HIAC is so cheap now. If TLC didn't exist we may have been able to have CM Punk v Jericho in a ladder match rather than a Chicago Street fight.

Its little things that would make a big difference. Number one contenders matches that had any sort of backstory or explanation, less rematches without justification, more natural booking rather than Ryback, Kane and D Bryan vs The Shield in a TLC because we have to as its the TLC PPV.

Mr H wrote:I dont really buy into the WCW comparison because WCW and WWF were massive competition for eachother at the time. If WCW were the only mainstream promotion at the time and the WWF didnt exist then things might have been different. TNA aren't anywhere near a level where they are a legitimate threat as competition so as things stand the WWE are in a league of their own in terms of being the all-conquering promotion. The ball is very much in their court to do what they want with it, whereas in the late 90s WCW and WWF the ball was very much shared.

Of course WWE has competition, it doesn't have competition in wrestling but that's irrelevant. WWE has more competition now than it has ever done in its life and it's worrying that they don't seem to have reacted to this.

For example, people will choose to go on the internet, watch a drama, watch a film rather than watch WWE, while in the past this was always possible, it is so much more easy now, there is so much choice and people are so fickle to switch over that WWE has to be careful that it's fan-base isn't filtering away, particularly as the fans they have now are getting older and more irritated with the product with possibly no new generation to replace them.

If WWE died tomorrow, you wouldn't necessarily switch over to a different wrestling program, something else would fill the hole. WWE may not have another major wrestling company to compete with, but it has everything else and I'd say at the moment it's losing.

Crimey, you're like a brother to me

I'd disagree somewhat on the fans getting older and having no replacement based on personal experience of introducing my kids to wrestling recently and they both love it, I can see that repeating with most fans that as they become fathers they'll then take their kids along to watch and rediscover the magic of wrestling with them, I certainly have of late seeing them watch through it through less cynical eyes.

Crimey wrote:

Mr H wrote:I dont really buy into the WCW comparison because WCW and WWF were massive competition for eachother at the time. If WCW were the only mainstream promotion at the time and the WWF didnt exist then things might have been different. TNA aren't anywhere near a level where they are a legitimate threat as competition so as things stand the WWE are in a league of their own in terms of being the all-conquering promotion. The ball is very much in their court to do what they want with it, whereas in the late 90s WCW and WWF the ball was very much shared.

Of course WWE has competition, it doesn't have competition in wrestling but that's irrelevant. WWE has more competition now than it has ever done in its life and it's worrying that they don't seem to have reacted to this.

For example, people will choose to go on the internet, watch a drama, watch a film rather than watch WWE, while in the past this was always possible, it is so much more easy now, there is so much choice and people are so fickle to switch over that WWE has to be careful that it's fan-base isn't filtering away, particularly as the fans they have now are getting older and more irritated with the product with possibly no new generation to replace them.

If WWE died tomorrow, you wouldn't necessarily switch over to a different wrestling program, something else would fill the hole. WWE may not have another major wrestling company to compete with, but it has everything else and I'd say at the moment it's losing.

Obviously Crimey, you are stating the obvious. Everything has competition but I was picking up on crips' point about WCW going out of business because of competition in the same business. I think the product is as popular as ever worldwide, the WWE brand is a juggernaught which won't be folding anytime soon because a few sceptical internet wrestling fans have pointed out some current flaws in bookings and ratings.

As soon as the product becomes edgier again you can guarantee ratings will soar. The wrestling purists may disagree but the casual fan isn't interested in booking, backstage politics or in depth wrestling discussion. They want to see a full on tear up, blood, swearing and attitude. Teenagers would love it, nostalgic fans would love it. Such is society these days that that's just the way it is. At some point, an edgier product will return to the WWE and I'd put money on ratings rising because of it.

http://v2journal.com/uneconomical-booking.html

Thought i would put this up on the journal...