|
|
Post by BØRNS on Apr 2, 2014 12:37:52 GMT -5
The WWE Network is a premium, paid, subscription based service, and yet the core WWE program is not available for us customers. WTF is up with that? The most recent episode of Raw is from 3 months ago! I can understand WWE wanting us to watch live, but for many of us who miss it (like I frequently do), our only resort is to stream online- which is usually full of ads and/or virus risks.
Why can't they just put Raw up after it goes off air, or even the next day? Why is there a 3 month lag time?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Apr 2, 2014 12:43:19 GMT -5
Not sure why the wait is so long, but we do have to wait at least some time because of deals they have with the USA Network and Hulu to air Raw.
|
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Apr 2, 2014 12:45:12 GMT -5
Because they have television contracts. This is that really fun moment where fans need to understand that WWE is a business, and they really like money.
|
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Apr 2, 2014 12:52:11 GMT -5
Because they have television contracts. This is that really fun moment where fans need to understand that WWE is a business, and they really like money. I understand they want money. But when your entire die-hard fanbase is paying a monthly subscription, it seems logical to have their centralized program "on-demand". I feel like the WWE Network hits the periphery. Sure you can watch old PPVs and some random programming, but I don't know if it should really be called a "network" if the current "connection" (Raw) is missing. Right now, Raw is your starting point. That's how you know what's going on. I understand they want viewers to watch Raw on USA, but you can't watch Raw on USA if you miss it. There are no full re-runs. And I'm 99.9% positive WWE is making more money off the "Network", than their deal with Hulu. I bet the only reason why they are still partnered with Hulu is because of some contract, because it doesn't make sense for WWE to not want to run their content exclusively on the Network (outside of Raw/SD!). |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Apr 2, 2014 13:08:34 GMT -5
The Hulu thing most likely is a contract. They are looking for a new TV deal, one that may include them being able to put Raws & Smackdowns on the Network within a week or two possibly. I mean, that's just what I'm thinking since it seems smart.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrIaNMeRcY on Apr 2, 2014 13:15:23 GMT -5
BØRNS, RAW is re-aired although in edited form on Mun2 and Universal HD. As for SmackDown, it is re-aired also on Mun2 and Uiversal HD. Here is their re-airing times: RAW on Mun2: 7-10 PM Eastern on Wednesday's and from 4-7 PM on Sunday's/7 AM Eastern on Sunday's with Spanish commentary RAW On Universal HD: 7-10 PM Eastern on Saturday's and from 12-3 AM Eastern on Sunday's SmackDown on Mun2: 9 PM Eastern Saturday to 1 AM Sunday. SmackDown on Universal HD: 10 PM-12 AM Eastern on Saturday's and from 3-5 AM Eastern on Sunday's For those who don't know, Mun2 and Universal HD are both properties of Comcast/NBC Universal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brunt's Left Foot on Apr 2, 2014 13:31:38 GMT -5
Because they have television contracts. This is that really fun moment where fans need to understand that WWE is a business, and they really like money. I feel like the WWE Network hits the periphery. Sure you can watch old PPVs and some random programming, but I don't know if it should really be called a "network" if the current "connection" (Raw) is missing. Right now, Raw is your starting point. That's how you know what's going on. I understand they want viewers to watch Raw on USA, but you can't watch Raw on USA if you miss it. There are no full re-runs. And I'm 99.9% positive WWE is making more money off the "Network", than their deal with Hulu. I bet the only reason why they are still partnered with Hulu is because of some contract, because it doesn't make sense for WWE to not want to run their content exclusively on the Network (outside of Raw/SD!). No, it doesn't. In fact we're lucky to get live PPVs on the Network. That in itself pays back the $10 a month. Why would WWE give up $250m from their TV deal to put Raw on the Network? That makes zero business sense. Also WWE airs highlights of Raw on the Network. It's called "This Week in WWE". They also air recaps on Superstars. So there is definitely a way to keep up with major storylines in WWE if you don't have USA. |
|
|
|
Post by BrIaNMeRcY on Apr 2, 2014 13:55:48 GMT -5
Brunt's Left Foot, the WWE is looking to get more money in rights fees for RAW & SmackDown. Your post pretty much nail's everything the WWE wants. To put everything into perspective, as long as USA Network is giving the WWE $$$, RAW is going to remain three-hours every week.
|
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Apr 2, 2014 14:07:51 GMT -5
I imagine the lapsed time is something written into their contract with NBC Universal. I'd say it's quite likely that some of the discourse between WWE and NBCU during contract negotiations was WWE's desire for full control of their content (ie, the right to make it available on the Network as soon as they'd like.) Major networks don't like that, because I assume, unlike services like Hulu Plus, there's absolutely nothing in it for them. If you can watch Raw on the Network at 11:05pm Monday night, or the next day, it immediately makes watching the live broadcast less desirable to many individuals. Unlike DVR, watching it on the Network would offer absolutely nothing in the way of ratings, leading to a decline in television viewership, leading to a decline in advertising dollars.
I'm sure WWE would love to be able to air their flagship programs whenever they want on the Network, but from a business standpoint, it's simply not feasible, and it's not conducive to a successful business model right now. Perhaps they can work out a deal that gives their TV partner a cut of Network subscriptions to make the option more lucrative, but I don't see it happening.
At the end of the day, WWE isn't going to give up its mainstream presence on a national television station just to appease people who'd rather wait a day and watch it on the Network. The Network is meant to compliment and enhance WWE's weekly TV programming, not replace it or make it obsolete.
|
|
|
|
Post by @Sweetbob on Apr 2, 2014 15:08:58 GMT -5
The television money will be 100x the amount they would get if they only had it on WWE Network.
Also, they would lose all the casual fans and those without home internet access (yes, there are still people w/o internet access).
|
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Apr 2, 2014 15:47:56 GMT -5
"How did you first become a fan of WWE?"
"I heard some people talking about it at school so I watched it on TV and liked it. How about you?"
"Oh, I just blindly bought into a $60 commitment for something that I'd never heard of or seen before."
"Really? That doesn't seem like something a real person would do."
"I'm not a real person. I'm a fictional example designed to demonstrate why WWE can't just abandon TV and move absolutely everything to the network."
|
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Apr 2, 2014 15:53:25 GMT -5
Common sense be damned.
|
|
Dante, The Voc
Main Eventer
If I'm not online, I'm on the toilet
Joined on: Dec 5, 2010 9:48:02 GMT -5
Posts: 1,374
|
Post by Dante, The Voc on Apr 2, 2014 15:54:07 GMT -5
"How did you first become a fan of WWE?" "I heard some people talking about it at school so I watched it on TV and liked it. How about you?" "Oh, I just blindly bought into a $60 commitment for something that I'd never heard of or seen before." "Really? That doesn't seem like something a real person would do." "I'm not a real person. I'm a fictional example designed to demonstrate why WWE can't just abandon TV and move absolutely everything to the network." This is a great point. I'm all for having quality wrestling shows like Main Event and NXT solely on the network, but you need a free way for fans to view your product and not only gain interest in it, but immerse yourself in the latest and biggest focal points of the product. |
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Apr 2, 2014 17:11:51 GMT -5
BØRNS, RAW is re-aired although in edited form on Mun2 and Universal HD. As for SmackDown, it is re-aired also on Mun2 and Uiversal HD. Here is their re-airing times: RAW on Mun2: 7-10 PM Eastern on Wednesday's and from 4-7 PM on Sunday's/7 AM Eastern on Sunday's with Spanish commentary RAW On Universal HD: 7-10 PM Eastern on Saturday's and from 12-3 AM Eastern on Sunday's SmackDown on Mun2: 9 PM Eastern Saturday to 1 AM Sunday. SmackDown on Universal HD: 10 PM-12 AM Eastern on Saturday's and from 3-5 AM Eastern on Sunday's For those who don't know, Mun2 and Universal HD are both properties of Comcast/NBC Universal. Are those broadcast in languages other than English? |
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Apr 2, 2014 17:25:05 GMT -5
I understand they want money. But when your entire die-hard fanbase is paying a monthly subscription, it seems logical to have their centralized program "on-demand". I feel like the WWE Network hits the periphery. Sure you can watch old PPVs and some random programming, but I don't know if it should really be called a "network" if the current "connection" (Raw) is missing. Right now, Raw is your starting point. That's how you know what's going on. I understand they want viewers to watch Raw on USA, but you can't watch Raw on USA if you miss it. There are no full re-runs. And I'm 99.9% positive WWE is making more money off the "Network", than their deal with Hulu. I bet the only reason why they are still partnered with Hulu is because of some contract, because it doesn't make sense for WWE to not want to run their content exclusively on the Network (outside of Raw/SD!). No, it doesn't. In fact we're lucky to get live PPVs on the Network. That in itself pays back the $10 a month. Why would WWE give up $250m from their TV deal to put Raw on the Network? That makes zero business sense. Also WWE airs highlights of Raw on the Network. It's called "This Week in WWE". They also air recaps on Superstars. So there is definitely a way to keep up with major storylines in WWE if you don't have USA. We're lucky? Let's make one thing clear. We're not "lucky" to get anything. We're paying a price for the network (it's not free). That's part of OUR contract. It's not Christmas for us, it's economics. Sorry to sound rude, but I was on the fence about getting the network in the first place. And undoubtedly they are going to increase the prices soon, so your proposed "luck" may be short-lived. WWE is throwing us a small bone to sign up and get in the routine of paying that monthly subscription so when it goes up, people don't cancel. And I wasn't buying every pay-per-view. I'm probably netting 0 in my wallet by having the network. I did not say they should exclusively broadcast Raw on the network and remove it from TV. In my opinion, their "highlights" suck. They're shortened, edited to push their agenda, etc. I'm fine with watching Raw, and I can do some self-editing of my own (called fast-forward). I don't care for a 30 second recap of a match. Don't get me wrong, I don't *want* to sit through three hours of Raw. But I'd like to be able to, especially when I support WWE continuously both through the network, and other means (merch, tickets, etc.). Of course, the alternative to not watching Raw on the network (which you can't), is to stream. And if you stream, WWE isn't gaining a thing. So I'd think that WWE would rather have paying "network" customers than streamers. It's just ironic to me that their most foundational show isn't offered on their "oh-so-over-the-top, best-thing-ever-since-sliced-bread, revolutionary media platform" Double-U Double-U EEE Network!!!   ... or is it -->  ? |
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Apr 2, 2014 17:29:48 GMT -5
The television money will be 100x the amount they would get if they only had it on WWE Network. Also, they would lose all the casual fans and those without home internet access (yes, there are still people w/o internet access). I'm not suggesting them taking Raw off TV. |
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Apr 2, 2014 17:31:09 GMT -5
"How did you first become a fan of WWE?" "I heard some people talking about it at school so I watched it on TV and liked it. How about you?" "Oh, I just blindly bought into a $60 commitment for something that I'd never heard of or seen before." "Really? That doesn't seem like something a real person would do." "I'm not a real person. I'm a fictional example designed to demonstrate why WWE can't just abandon TV and move absolutely everything to the network." I never said they should abandon TV. From where are you all getting this idea? |
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Apr 2, 2014 17:31:23 GMT -5
No, it doesn't. In fact we're lucky to get live PPVs on the Network. That in itself pays back the $10 a month. Why would WWE give up $250m from their TV deal to put Raw on the Network? That makes zero business sense. Also WWE airs highlights of Raw on the Network. It's called "This Week in WWE". They also air recaps on Superstars. So there is definitely a way to keep up with major storylines in WWE if you don't have USA. We're lucky? Let's make one thing clear. We're not "lucky" to get anything. We're paying a price for the network (it's not free). That's part of OUR contract. It's not Christmas for us, it's economics. Sorry to sound rude, but I was on the fence about getting the network in the first place. And undoubtedly they are going to increase the prices soon, so your proposed "luck" may be short-lived. WWE is throwing us a small bone to sign up and get in the routine of paying that monthly subscription so when it goes up, people don't cancel. And I wasn't buying every pay-per-view. I'm probably netting 0 in my wallet by having the network. I did not say they should exclusively broadcast Raw on the network and remove it from TV. In my opinion, their "highlights" suck. They're shortened, edited to push their agenda, etc. I'm fine with watching Raw, and I can do some self-editing of my own (called fast-forward). I don't care for a 30 second recap of a match. Don't get me wrong, I don't *want* to sit through three hours of Raw. But I'd like to be able to, especially when I support WWE continuously both through the network, and other means (merch, tickets, etc.). Of course, the alternative to not watching Raw on the network (which you can't), is to stream. And if you stream, WWE isn't gaining a thing. So I'd think that WWE would rather have paying "network" customers than streamers. It's just ironic to me that their most foundational show isn't offered on their "oh-so-over-the-top, best-thing-ever-since-sliced-bread, revolutionary media platform" Double-U Double-U EEE Network!!! ... or is it --> ? It's not on The Network because it can't be. When it can be, it will be. |
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Apr 2, 2014 17:31:46 GMT -5
"How did you first become a fan of WWE?" "I heard some people talking about it at school so I watched it on TV and liked it. How about you?" "Oh, I just blindly bought into a $60 commitment for something that I'd never heard of or seen before." "Really? That doesn't seem like something a real person would do." "I'm not a real person. I'm a fictional example designed to demonstrate why WWE can't just abandon TV and move absolutely everything to the network." This is a great point. I'm all for having quality wrestling shows like Main Event and NXT solely on the network, but you need a free way for fans to view your product and not only gain interest in it, but immerse yourself in the latest and biggest focal points of the product. See above 2 posts above. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Apr 2, 2014 17:31:46 GMT -5
Of course, the alternative to not watching Raw on the network (which you can't), is to stream. Or watch it on TV. |
|
