There are a lot of headlines coming out of today's WWE financials for Q4 2010 and Vince McMahon's conference call. Here are some of my thoughts...

-Alarming drops in PPV buys from 2009 to 2010. I was outspoken against the price raise from $39.95 to $54.95 (for HD, which most people consider standard viewing now, especially those who can afford PPVs regularly). Even a $5 price raise for non-HD to $44.95 I thought was going to do damage. I think it did. There are other factors, including online illegal pirating of PPV feeds, that is eating into the numbers, but the economy is not a great excuse. The economy was worse in 2009 than 2010. How bad were the numbers? Hell in a Cell dropped 25 percent. Bragging Rights dropped 25 percent. TLC dropped 10 percent. Only Survivor Series went up, from 235,000 to 244,000.

-Even with the price raise, PPV revenues dropped from Q4 in 2009 to Q4 in 2010, from $16.3 million to $13.8 million. If WWE is willing to take another step back in order to rebuild their PPV audience, a price drop is in order. I just don't think - as the DVD industry recently and the CD industry before that found out - people are willing to pay such high prices. It looks like price gouging. In the long run, for PPV to survive, WWE has to lead the way in dropping the price. I'd even argue for a drastic drop to $24.95. Rebuild that base in a couple years go back up to $34.95 and stay there.

-If they dropped the price of PPVs, PPV revenue figure would likely drop for at least a year, but I believe it would give them a better chance to avoid the complete disappearance of PPV as a major revenue source in the long-run. The erosion can be reversed with reasonable pricing, as interpreted by a fanbase that has so many cheap or free choices now compared to just 3-5 years ago.

-House show revenue was also down 15 percent in the U.S. and 11 percent overseas, which is one piece of evidence that passion for the product in general has also sagged overall.

-In his report at PWTorch earlier, one big fact James Caldwell pulled from all of the data is that in 2007 WWE reported 2.1 percent more PPV revenue compared to TV rights revenue, whereas in 2010 WWE reported 44.7 percent more TV rights revenue than PPV revenue. That's a big flip, and it's one of the reasons WWE continues to push so hard to pop big TV ratings even sometimes at the expense of PPVs. I think it's a false choice as there are ways to sustain TV ratings strategically and more efficiently than just giving away big name match-ups every week, sometimes on short notice. But that's another editorial for another day.

-Otherwise a lot of the revenue categories were relatively steady. The biggest drop was DVD sales, down $4.6 million (44 percent), but licensing revenue was up $4.3 million to offset it.

-It'll be interesting how the WWE Network develops. The future may be along these lines for many entities, including the NFL and even Oprah with her own themed-network. The "middle-man" such as USA Network may be less important as the TV landscape changes and the way people access shows changes, with moves toward Hulu, Netflix, and OnDemand programming. It could be a great channel for pro wrestling fans, given WWE's incredible library of wrestling shows it owns from past decades of WWF and then-competitors. Being able to watch, sequentially, many past pro wrestling shows, past PPVs, the original Tough Enoughs, house shows from Boston Garden and MSG, Tuesday Night Titans, the 24/7 Roundtables, and more could fill considerable time, although it's likely they'd branch out beyond just pro wrestling shows on a WWE network with some reality-style shows, combat-themed game shows, and movies that match their action-adventure targeted demographics.

-Vince McMahon talking about a new-star initiative being on display at WrestleMania makes me think Undertaker will be facing Wade Barrett, not someone from the outside. Barrett, even in losing, would benefit from being in such a high-profile angle and match. If they go with Triple H vs. Undertaker, it makes short-term business sense, but it might be a lost opportunity to elevate someone else. Barrett is ready, I believe, for that lofty position. Having C.M. Punk, Miz, and Alberto Del Rio opposite established stars Randy Orton, John Cena, and Edge, will further cement McMahon's comments that WM is going to be used as a tool to elevate new stars. When asked to name the next potential Cena, McMahon included Orton on his list along with Del Rio and Miz. Orton is more of the Cena generation than Miz is, and Orton has probably peaked as a draw. He just doesn't seem to have much beyond what we've seen. My judgment might be clouded by his half-hearted house show performance against Miz that I saw last Friday night at Target Center in Minneapolis. It must be a bit of a letdown to Dolph Ziggler, Drew McIntyre, Cody Rhodes, C.M. Punk, even Wade Barrett that McMahon doesn't list them along with Del Rio and Miz.

Please Recommend or Like This Article on Twitter or Facebook

KELLER BLOG: Paul Heyman alliance with C.M. Punk - where does it go from here?

KELLER'S WWE SUMMERSLAM PPV BLOG: Results and analysis throughout the show including Lesnar vs. Triple H, Cena vs. Punk vs. Show

KELLER: C.M. Punk is not best utilized as a tweener, despite a recent reader poll; he should be all out heel

Comment on this Article Below