Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Hardtime: Underlying Cycles In WWE's Product

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    137

    Hardtime: Underlying Cycles In WWE's Product

    Hardtime: Underlying Cycles In WWE's Product

    When wrestling fans discuss different title reigns, their lengths and numbers attributed to certain wrestlers, a question that arises is “Will Bruno Sammartino’s seven year WWWF Title reign ever be surpassed?” And almost always, the answer is no. They say today’s audience doesn’t have the patience for another seven year reign. And while that is true, most of the reason can be credited with how WWF altered their product, going back to 1985.

    When WrestleMania was announced, the biggest wrestling extravaganza of all time, fans were lead to expect something big. And while the event arguably doesn’t stand the test of time, it delivered back then. It was a success, and while this was on closed circuit television, it started the successful concept for WWF called pay per views. Once Hulk Hogan, then reigning champion, beat Andre The Giant at WrestleMania 3, there was no challenger more credible. How do you sell WrestleMania 4? You vacate the title, hold a night long tournament, and the excitement of a new champion being crowned sells the show.

    A cycle started where big storylines climaxed at WrestleMania, with significant parts happening at other pay per views. In what became an almost annual tradition, the WWF’s World Title changed hands at WrestleMania. Fans expected something important in late March/early April, and Title changes are naturally more notable than successful title defenses.

    WrestleMania, Monday Night Raw, and monthly pay per views started underlying cycles in the product.

    Before Monday Night Raw, most of WWE’s tv shows (Superstars, Challenge, Prime Time Wrestling, All American Wrestling) were really just shows where hosts talked up ongoing events. The live event report, ongoing feuds, upcoming pay per views, etc. We got taped matches, taped green screen promos, but overall not much happened. Prime Time Wrestling was mostly just Bobby Heenan and Gorilla Monsoon bantering over WWF related topics.


    The overall purpose of these shows was not to bring shock value, but to draw out and develop storylines. (Saturday Night Main Event could be considered an exception, but this show was only on once a month, and after a while it was aired considerably less, so its overall contributions to the product lessened)

    When Monday Night Raw started, the entire format of the WWF changed. The change didn't start at first, but the wheels were in motion. Raw was designed to give us something special, week in and week out. Some types of major storyline advancements would take place, and we'd get more developments in stories then we got before. This snowballed into a show where the viewers expected shock value for two straight hours. Considering this and that most of the new footage for the WWF was coming from this show, it shaped the overall product of the WWF.



    But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. During the Monday Night Wars is when I feel WWF programming really hit the mark with how Raw was structuring their shows. The structure was geared towards weekly excitement, not slow developments. A roaring boil, not a low simmer. In order to compete with Monday Nitro, WWF tried to give us something thrilling almost every segment. You could argue it came at the expense of well crafted narratives between good and evil, but it was made up for in the product becoming a non-stop rollercoaster ride.

    When we watched Superstars or Prime Time Wrestling back in the day, we might see a sneak attack from one feuding wrestler to another, but more often than not, we got two separate interviews, each trashing the other. Overall, the product was more geared towards character development rather than plot advancements. Everything was more focused on wrestlers selling themselves rather than intricate plot twists.

    A byproduct of storylines is they make the audience form an emotional connection with the wrestlers involved. As they go through different rivalries, big matches, back stabbings, new alliances, love interests, etc., fans take those twists and turns with them. After enough of drops, loops and sidewinders of these rollercoaster rides, fans get burned out with said wrestler.


    Pay per views increasing from four to twelve a year made substantial alterations. Before there were usually only four main times a feud could be culminated. Sometimes rivalries would go on for two ppvs and span half a year. Vince McMahon didn't need to throw monkey wrenches into wrestler's storybook lives to sell twelve pay per views a year, and thus there was less of a chance for fans to become emotionally burned out with wrestlers too soon.


    Look at Hulk Hogan in 1987. He focused on facing Andre The Giant at WrestleMania 3, then defeated his team at Survivor Series that year (there was no Summer Slam yet). He formed an alliance with Randy Savage, and his rival Andre with Ted Dibiase. Hogan wrestled Andre to a double dq at WM 4, and "The Mega Powers defeated “The Mega Bucks” at the first Summer Slam. Once friction started between them, the Mega Powers “exploded” at WrestleMania 5. In a three year span, the Hulkster really only went through two major programs: against Andre (with Dibiase eventually added in) and aligning with and going against Macho Man.

    When the In Your House pay per views supplemented the Big Four and King Of The Ring, major stars now went through more feuds a year. Their shelf life became shorter, in that the time came sooner that fans became jaded with them.

    With Monday Night Raw demanding so much plot progression, there were even more ups and downs for wrestlers packed into their programs. A beat down to end Raw, their rival costing them a title, having a close ally attacked, all things that made the emotional rides stronger and more intense.

    Look at John Cena in 2005. He started focusing on the Royal Rumble, and lost. He won a tournament to challenge JBL at WrestleMania 21 for the WWE Title, and won that too. Throughout the rest of 2005 on pay per view he wrestled JBL (rematch), Chris Jericho twice, Christian, Kurt Angle multiple times, Shawn Michaels, and had Raw storylines with Eric Bischoff, Carlito and Chris Masters. While Cena was a good draw for the next ten years, many fans grew tired of him, and within a few years considered him stale. (Reading through posts in the IWC, no longer the minority voice it once was, can show this to you.) In 2008 he was pushed to the backburner, losing in feuds to Triple H, JBL and Batista.

    In Sammartino’s time, there were no pay per views. Fans didn't need thrilling plot developments on a consistent basis. They didn’t have these expectations. He and Bob Backlund being champion for years was reasonable then. Backlund’s character didn’t need to go through emotional, tumultuous incidents every week. There were no pay per view cycles, no Monday Night Raw, thus fans took longer to grow impatient with wrestling characters.

    John Cena has been the face of WWE since 2005. But he hasn’t always been champion, and he hasn’t always had the most spotlight. Similarly, once the ppv cycle started, Hogan took a year off from being champion, and for a while Ultimate Warrior was arguably getting more spotlight. This isn't Sammartino's era, the brightest stars will burn out if they're not careful.


    The concepts of WrestleMania and Monday Night Raw have transformed the WWE landscape. Underlying cycles have developed where wrestlers need to go through more storylines in order to sell more pay per views, and get over the concept of Raw. WrestleMania lead to twelve pay per views a year, meaning that many more plot twists for wrestlers like John Cena, Batista, Triple H, etc. When Vince McMahon bet the company on WrestleMania 1's success, I don't think he fathomed the long term effects.

    (Thanks to Skitz for critiquing this column.)
    Last edited by RIPbossman; 07-13-2015 at 05:00 PM.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    1,764
    I think it's a reflection of a larger chain in society, as the average attention span got shorter and shorter over time (which can be seen reflected in almost every medium) there was more pressure to produce something significant at a faster and faster rate. Of course it was WCW that truly blazed the trail as far as this change went in terms of mainstream TV, the first few years of Raw are pretty sparse until they were forced to adapt their game. Nowadays I think there's just far too much WWE television, and the ironic result is that the quantity is so overwhelming that it often feels like not much actually happens. I drifted away from WWE somewhat in early 2014, and part of the reason is that I would look at a PPV card and ask myself why the matches were happening, and all too frequently I couldn't come up with any reason, just guys haphazardly thrown together in an attempt to fill the tremendous amount of time they had on their hands. That's part of the reason why I think NXT has resonated so much with longtime fans, it's just 1 hour per week and the focus is back on character and story development instead of constant major happenings. NXT will features 1 or at most 2 significant matches a week, and often 2 or 3 relative squashes aimed solely at giving the people involved a firm foundation to build on. It's very old school, in it's way.

    Nice column RIP, it's surely a different world than it once was.

  3. #3
    Senior Member American Mikey P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    491
    The three hour Raw IMO is really hurting wrestling. There use to be PPvs that were shorter than that. There are only so many spots that you can hit in a match before stuff gets over exposed.

    Id go back to the two hour Raw with about 6 MAJOR PPVs a year and special events filled in between. Personally I dont need a PPV every month. I think the NXT model is the way to go....but I have also left out all the other stuff that actually makes WWE run..like sponsers, net work deals, ect...so I guess the answer is not as easy as it seems.

    As I complain the WWE just had one hell of a 3 hour Raw tonight haha.

  4. #4
    Senior Member JacobWrestledGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,539
    I am already burnt out on KO and Cena, in terms of what they can bring in the ring.

    Hopefully, Summerslam can be a fatal 4 way, Cesaro, KO, Cena and Rusev.
    And Jacob wrestled with God.



    I believe I can fly!
    I believe I can touch... your intestines and liver inside.


  5. #5
    It's time! JCool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    568
    Bossman, great topic idea. I think you could even grow this idea into a few more parts, going deeper into the change in cycles over each "era". It may not be of interest to you to do so, but I think you could do it.
    The essay style form you employed here largely worked, although you started to address your points in a chronological order and then you started to flip back and forth between old and new by the end. I get that there needed to be a comparative element though to ensure the reader understood how the cycle changed the WWE product. It would've been more comprehensive if you had included how the WWE Network is modifying the cycle as well. Perhaps that could be a Part II.

    Again, great stuff. Quite an interesting analysis.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    137
    mizfan- You're right, today's society has a short attention span, you're spot on about how so much programming makes it feel like nothing happens. Nitro did force Raw to add more shock value, and the MNW probably burned out millions of fans by the end.

    American Mikey P- Spots, and general false finishes, do get over exposed today. You're right, less programming isn't an easy answer.

    JacobWrestledGod- If there weren't so many pay per views to sell, Cena and Owens probably wouldn't have fought yet.

    J-Cool- I don't think I'll do a part 2. Thanks for the idea though. I did need to flip back and forth at the end to tie everything up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •