|
|
Post by BØRNS on Apr 2, 2014 17:33:35 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. A lot of people have time conflicts. I shouldn't have to center my life around WWE's programming. I thought that was suppose to be the appeal of the 24/7 WWE Network? |
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Apr 2, 2014 17:48:15 GMT -5
A lot of people have time conflicts. I don't think that excuse ever works in court if someone gets caught for illegal downloading and streaming. The reality is that people are used to watching Raw for free on television, not paying $10 a month to watch it. Thus adding Raw to the network does nothing for the network's appeal -- because people are used to watching it for free. And adding it to the network would breach contracts, thus removing the existing ways to watch the show for free just for the sake of allowing people to watch it for $10 a month. Doesn't benefit the viewer, because they're now losing the opportunity to watch Raw for free and a show that should be free is now taking up schedule space on a service that they're paying $10 a month for. Doesn't benefit the company, because they're losing hundreds of millions in rights fees and any opportunity to bring in new fans and eventually dying because of it. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 19:44:52 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2014 17:51:18 GMT -5
Cuz-
Stone
Cold
Said
So
|
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Apr 2, 2014 18:01:53 GMT -5
A lot of people have time conflicts. I don't think that excuse ever works in court if someone gets caught for illegal downloading and streaming. The reality is that people are used to watching Raw for free on television, not paying $10 a month to watch it. Thus adding Raw to the network does nothing for the network's appeal -- because people are used to watching it for free. And adding it to the network would breach contracts, thus removing the existing ways to watch the show for free just for the sake of allowing people to watch it for $10 a month. Doesn't benefit the viewer, because they're now losing the opportunity to watch Raw for free and a show that should be free is now taking up schedule space on a service that they're paying $10 a month for. Doesn't benefit the company, because they're losing hundreds of millions in rights fees and any opportunity to bring in new fans and eventually dying because of it. LOL. I never said "I" stream. And you omitted the rest of my quoted message... hmmm... But I agree with you, I don't think that excuse would work in court, either. What ever happened to WWE saying that the Network has every episode of Raw and SD?I could have sworn they said that during their grande unveiling in Vegas? Why does everyone keep bringing up removing Raw from television? That's not what I'm even talking about. |
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on Apr 2, 2014 18:09:17 GMT -5
Aren't classic Raw's on the network?
|
|
|
|
Post by Next Manufactured’s Sweater on Apr 2, 2014 18:10:53 GMT -5
I don't think that excuse ever works in court if someone gets caught for illegal downloading and streaming. The reality is that people are used to watching Raw for free on television, not paying $10 a month to watch it. Thus adding Raw to the network does nothing for the network's appeal -- because people are used to watching it for free. And adding it to the network would breach contracts, thus removing the existing ways to watch the show for free just for the sake of allowing people to watch it for $10 a month. Doesn't benefit the viewer, because they're now losing the opportunity to watch Raw for free and a show that should be free is now taking up schedule space on a service that they're paying $10 a month for. Doesn't benefit the company, because they're losing hundreds of millions in rights fees and any opportunity to bring in new fans and eventually dying because of it. LOL. I never said "I" stream. And you omitted the rest of my quoted message... hmmm... But I agree with you, I don't think that excuse would work in court, either. Sorry, I wasn't saying that you do. I was just pointing out that time conflicts with a show's airing aren't a valid excuse for anything really. Nope. They lied about every home video release being on the network, but they never said every episode of Raw and Smackdown (as far as I saw). Because the reason that the newest episode of Raw aren't on the network isn't just for WWE's fun. It's because putting them there would breach the existing contracts, which would remove Raw from television. |
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Apr 2, 2014 18:16:08 GMT -5
Aren't classic Raw's on the network? Correct, but what's important about yesterday's news?, or, rather "those are a part of their archives" |
|
|
|
Post by @Sweetbob on Apr 2, 2014 18:21:15 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. It's rumored that in their next TV deal, they want to re-air RAW & Smackdown later in the week on WWE Network. |
|
|
|
Post by Brunt's Left Foot on Apr 2, 2014 18:44:39 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 -->  ? Okay, lucky wasn't the right word. Good value is. Getting every live PPV for $10 a month plus all the other content is good value. Expecting WWE to give up $250m so they can air Raw on the Network is completely unrealistic. If you didn't buy the Network for the live PPVs, why did you subscribe? WWE clearly said Raw wouldn't be on the Network, so if you signed up expecting it then you only have yourself to blame. Of course the highlights are shortened, that's the whole point of highlights. It's not WWE's job to predict what you do and do not like on Raw. They provide Raw, if you like it you watch, if you dislike it you turn it off (or fast forward to the parts you do want to watch). WWE's highlights contain the most important parts of the show. Say hypothetically you love Xavier Woods. He's a very very small part of Raw, why would they include him in the highlights? They highlight the most over wrestlers aka the wrestlers MOST people want to see. Wouldn't it make more sense to support WWE by watching their most important avenue the way they intended, on TV? You seem to have a very narrowly focused mind. You are only thinking about your needs and wants, and not considering WWE and USA's point of views. If you're WWE, why would you destroy the main way you make money? If you are USA, why would you want your highest rated show broadcasted elsewhere? It makes no sense for these companies to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by BrIaNMeRcY on Apr 2, 2014 18:54:54 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? Nope, just English and Spanish. |
|
|
|
Post by iamkrang on Apr 2, 2014 19:12:18 GMT -5
A lot of people have time conflicts. I shouldn't have to center my life around WWE's programming. I thought that was suppose to be the appeal of the 24/7 WWE Network? They invented this awesome thing called DVR. The selling point is the extensive library and PPVS. WWE is capitalizing on making money off of people who prior to WWE Network illegally streamed the PPV. If they get 10 dollars a month from that person they are accomplishing their goal. WWE RAW on the Network makes 0 business sense. They want a TV deal for RAW and Smackdown similar in value to that of MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Apr 2, 2014 19:16:43 GMT -5
If you want to see what happened on Raw sooner, watch Main Event, Superstars, or Smackdown, and they'll highlight literally everything of importance (sometimes twice!).
|
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Apr 2, 2014 19:17:10 GMT -5
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 --> ? Okay, lucky wasn't the right word. Good value is. Getting every live PPV for $10 a month plus all the other content is good value. Expecting WWE to give up $250m so they can air Raw on the Network is completely unrealistic. If you didn't buy the Network for the live PPVs, why did you subscribe? WWE clearly said Raw wouldn't be on the Network, so if you signed up expecting it then you only have yourself to blame. Of course the highlights are shortened, that's the whole point of highlights. It's not WWE's job to predict what you do and do not like on Raw. They provide Raw, if you like it you watch, if you dislike it you turn it off (or fast forward to the parts you do want to watch). WWE's highlights contain the most important parts of the show. Say hypothetically you love Xavier Woods. He's a very very small part of Raw, why would they include him in the highlights? They highlight the most over wrestlers aka the wrestlers MOST people want to see. Wouldn't it make more sense to support WWE by watching their most important avenue the way they intended, on TV? You seem to have a very narrowly focused mind. You are only thinking about your needs and wants, and not considering WWE and USA's point of views. If you're WWE, why would you destroy the main way you make money? If you are USA, why would you want your highest rated show broadcasted elsewhere? It makes no sense for these companies to do that. I often do not get home until after Raw, so that's why I can't watch it live. If I could I would. But you would think WWE would have an alternative way if watching, especially directly through them. Yes I subscribed to the network because of the good value. I typical ordered a ppv or two per year, so yeah it was logical for me to get it to see the ppvs. It's just ironic that of all things on WWE's premium service that Raw is not offered. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Apr 2, 2014 19:19:31 GMT -5
A lot of people have time conflicts. I shouldn't have to center my life around WWE's programming. I thought that was suppose to be the appeal of the 24/7 WWE Network? Raw is just like every other show. It airs in its dedicated timeslot and you can watch it then, DVR it, tape it on VHS, or miss it. That's how television works. Obviously, their TV contract dictates that they can't put it up that quickly or they would. But you can watch literally everything of importance on WWE.com in clips the second the show goes of the air, so why are you so worried? |
|
