Updated daily from the corner cubicle, Torch columnist James Caldwell's weekday blog focuses on hot topic current events and other items of interest from around wrestling.
Updated Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The end of last night's Raw has generated plenty of talk and debate, which is exactly what WWE wanted. At least it's talk that could lead to something tangible for business. We received plenty of reader feedback weighing in on both sides of the argument so I'll break down the general pros and cons of how WWE concluded last night's Raw.
- Pro: Even if people weren't tuned in for the conclusion of Raw, they certainly heard about it or will hear about it in time for Raw next week. WWE has a built-in audience for the first quarter-hour of Raw next week to see how WWE tells the story of the end of the match.
Because WWE will have the audience at least paying attention, they have an opportunity to regain some viewers if they have a fantastic idea in mind for the payoff. If the payoff is a disappointment, similar to the big reveal of Hornswoggle as Vince's son, then this trick will turn off viewers who might be willing to give WWE another chance to on a tricky angle.
The payoff will certainly involve William Regal, who has tremendous momentum after winning the King of the Ring tournament and showing toughness against Mr. Kennedy on last night's show. If WWE has a great idea in mind for Regal as one of the centerpieces of the show, with this representing the start of increased exposure for Regal, then the payoff could be worth one controversial finish. We know Regal is more than capable of pulling off solid performances each week, so it's up to WWE to win over viewers who disliked the finish.
- Con: The problem with the conclusion of the match is that the heel challenger was in jeopardy. WWE had the roles reversed when it should have been Triple H in jeopardy of not only losing, but also losing the WWE Title. Since the hero wasn't in peril and the belt wasn't in jeopardy of changing hands, the intrigue for finding out the result was reduced.
Also, for many people with a certain personality-type, the match was more frustrating than intriguing. I can speak to that because I have the mindset that I absolutely must see the conclusion of matches or sports games. I can't just turn off the TV during a 20-point blow-out in an NBA game. Maybe there will be a fight or something amazing that will happen even if the game is practically over with a lopsided score. So, I've spent many a late night watching NBA playoffs basketball because I simply cannot turn off the TV until the game has concluded.
This is the long-term damage department where viewers with similar personalities might tune out next time WWE advertises a PPV-quality match on free TV, because in the back of their minds they'll remember this match and doubt will creep in that WWE will provide a legit finish. Those viewers won't want to wrap themselves up in the emotions of the match again just in case WWE pulls the rug out from under them.
- Conclusion: WWE needs to be careful with the follow-up and deliver a good payoff for viewers who invested 22 minutes of their lives in a match that didn't end. Sure, most viewers have short-term memory and they'll slowly return even if the payoff sucks, but over time, the long-term damage will be felt next time WWE digs into the bag of tricks. People care about this because they're talking about it, but people will stop caring if WWE doesn't deliver. WWE can't afford to lose the viewers who are still tuning in these days.
***
Updated Monday, April 28, 2008
On the PPV where Triple H won the WWE Title after a lengthy quest to regain the belt, a serious tone was set for the Backlash PPV before the first match even started. I don't believe that's a coincidence.
That tone was the formal ring introductions for MVP vs. Matt Hardy for the U.S. Title. It seemed like no big deal at the time, but it added to the drama of the match and established the serious nature of the PPV, which was then carried out through the rest of the show.
The show followed the template established by TNA with their Joe vs. Angle build-up at Lockdown. I'm sure there are folks who were paying attention to that, or it could be that WWE simply decided to take a more serious approach to the PPV. Regardless, Triple H's title victory will be remembered hand-in-hand with that approach.
It started at the King of the Ring tournament on Monday when the majority of the matches featured clean finishes. William Regal captured the crown using his submission finisher after using a more aggressive mat-based attack that looked more realistic than what we're used to seeing on Raw.
It carried over to Smackdown when C.M. Punk and Edge wrestled a fantastic TV match that featured a clean finish, but gave Punk serious points for hanging with the #1 Contender to the World Title.
The KOTR tone carried over to the PPV where Shawn Michaels used a variety of submission holds and a mat-based attack on Batista. Randy Orton was determined to get people to buy into one of his three holds with the extended reverse chinlock on Hunter. Undertaker effectively incorporated his MMA-inspired attacks. Even Khali tried to bust out some submissions, but even if they put the audience to sleep, it fit the tone of the show.
It remains to be seen whether this was the start of a new approach to presenting the WWE product. WWE has the talent at the top of the card to pull it off, but it will take dedication from WWE management when ratings don't initially reflect a desire from some fans to see a more serious approach. WWE has shortened the attention span of their audience with the funny ha-hah stuff over the years that trying to get them to buy into serious TV wrestling will be a tough task.
Certainly, WWE doesn't need to do-away with the mid-card acts that add a lighter fare to the show. Balance is key, and filling in the gaps between the serious content creates a more watchable product for all fans.
But, the takeaway is that WWE can draw a more quality viewer than just accumulate a number of viewers who will tune in for the b.s. wrestling, but never spend a dime on a PPV. WWE taking a more serious approach means quality viewers over quantity of viewers. I believe that's the right approach, even if TV viewership takes a hit.
If WWE only draws 4.5 million TV viewers doing a majority of serious wrestling, but they get 300,000 buys for an off-brand PPV, that's better than drawing 5.0 million TV viewers for a majority of comedy ha-hah and only drawing 250,000 buys.
Doing serious wrestling will alienate a portion of the audience thanks to WWE's short-term thinking over the years with heavy reliance on comedy ha-hah (e.g. 2006 with DX vs. Spirit Squad) at the top of the card.
But, if there's ever a time to start fresh, now is the time, especially with Triple H as new champion after Regal set the course of action on Raw and Joe vs. Angle established the template earlier this month at Lockdown.
LATEST PRO WRESTLING TORCH NEWSLETTER #1037 (16 PAGES)
This issue begins with a cover story on the annoucement on Raw that Mike Adamle is the new Raw G.M... Wade Keller's BBL features a number of other shocking G.M. possibilities for WWE to consider... Page 2 Buzz with Jason Powell features his exclusive insider news galore... Pat McNeill continues his series of articles reviewing the history of Summerslam... Bruce Mitchell continues his series of Ric Flair DVD Liner Notes with a focus on "Nature Boy" Buddy Rogers htis week... Part four of the "Torch Talk" with Doug Basham... Sean Radican reviews in detail the ROH PPV before it's offered nationally on PPV... Plus the Torch Newswire, Top Five Stories, reports on Raw, Smackdown, and Impact, and more......
