The actual content of the last few WWE shows has been\u00a0overshadowed by the rather more pressing question of\u00a0how the WWE Network is doing. \u00a0For those joining us late,\u00a0or\u00a0who are simply blog readers who\u00a0don’t follow this\u00a0wrestling stuff between monthly posts,\u00a0let’s recap.<\/p>\n
Since the 1990s the basic model of\u00a0major wrestling promotions in the US has been monthly PPV\u00a0promoted by\u00a0weekly TV shows. \u00a0The WWE Network attempts to break that model, offering the same\u00a0“PPV” shows on a Netflix-style streaming service, along with a substantial on-demand back catalogue and some genuinely desirable\u00a0new material such as\u00a0NXT<\/em>, at a monthly price that\u00a0vastly undercuts the PPV providers. \u00a0This makes the WWE\u00a0an early adopter, in terms of being a reasonably substantial content provider trying to cut out the distributors entirely and sell directly to audiences. \u00a0Hence, the performance of the Network is – or ought to be – of interest beyond the wrestling bubble.<\/p>\n But\u00a0Network prices are so much lower than PPV that\u00a0in order to break even on the exercise, you have to get vastly more subscribers than you\u00a0had in terms of PPV buyers. \u00a0(Yes, they’re\u00a0saving on the\u00a0cable companies’ cut – but it’s not quite that simple, because of the cut charged by\u00a0digital intermediaries like Apple TV, and the costs that they’re now incurring on maintaining a streaming service.)<\/p>\n Now,\u00a0if you cut the price, demand should rise. \u00a0This is elementary.<\/a> \u00a0But – and this is\u00a0also elementary<\/a> –\u00a0it doesn’t follow that\u00a0the increase will be large enough to make up the difference. \u00a0The WWE is currently learning this the hard way, having apparently vastly overestimated the number of subscribers they were going to get. \u00a0Certainly the projections they gave to the markets have proved horrendously over-optimistic.<\/p>\n The official line is that everything is fine now because they’ve done a raft of cost-cutting and fired a bunch of people, so that now the break-even point is much, much lower. \u00a0Another way of putting this is that they’re losing so much money on the exercise that they’ve had to\u00a0do a round of drastic cuts. \u00a0Even more terrifying\u00a0is the fact that a substantial number of customers – we’re talking over 10% here – actually cancelled within the minimum subscription period\u00a0of\u00a0six months. \u00a0There\u00a0are<\/em> ways to do this – which essentially involve not paying and getting cut off – but the fact that so many people were willing to do this indicates that many Network subscribers are either\u00a0unusually keen to find ways out of their\u00a0contracts, or\u00a0simply alarmingly short of money.<\/p>\n In short, the\u00a0Network is – right now – a massive failure, but\u00a0having set new expectations about the\u00a0value of the product, and having alienated the PPV providers, the company can’t go back. \u00a0The international roll-out is\u00a0in progress, and will reach the UK in October –\u00a0though with the WWE having only just signed\u00a0a new multi-year deal with Sky at an increased price, one wonders what the service\u00a0\u00a0will actually contain.<\/p>\n For my money, there are two big\u00a0errors in the WWE’s assumptions. \u00a0One is that, psychologically, a\u00a0six-month subscription is not the same thing as a one-off purchase, and people simply don’t compare the\u00a0prices in the way that pure logic would suggest that they should. \u00a0A six month commitment\u00a0feels<\/em> bigger even though it isn’t. \u00a0Offering a monthly\u00a0subscription at a slightly higher price\u00a0– which they’ve just started doing – may solve that problem.<\/p>\n The other is that\u00a0Raw<\/em> and\u00a0Smackdown<\/em> alone already account for five hours of free television on wrestling per week – and\u00a0very few people\u00a0have\u00a0both the time and the inclination to watch all of that. \u00a0So the WWE is asking people to pay for\u00a0a product that they’re already not watching for free. \u00a0(And this feeds back to the first point – why would you subscribe for a whole channel\u00a0of WWE when you’re well aware that you don’t even watch all the material available for free?) \u00a0The answer to this point has to lie in making the\u00a0monthly shows particularly attractive, whether that be through particularly compelling matches, or through particularly compelling storylines. \u00a0It’s difficult to see what other answer there can be.<\/p>\n Summerslam<\/em>\u00a0does not particularly tick those boxes, being largely a set of rematches from last month’s show, which in turn was widely regarded as\u00a0underachieving. \u00a0But while in theory this is\u00a0one of\u00a0the big shows of the year, in practice next month\u00a0is more important, because that’s when the people who signed up for\u00a0Wrestlemania<\/em> will come due for renewal.<\/p>\n 1. \u00a0WWE World Heavyweight\u00a0Title: John Cena\u00a0\u00a9 v Brock Lesnar.<\/strong>\u00a0 Brock Lesnar is on a part-time contract which only allows for a certain number of dates per year – hence him being largely absent from regular television and appearing principally on PPV. \u00a0Broadly, the story here is that Lesnar is the latest opponent being thrown at Cena by the Authority in an attempt to get the title off\u00a0him, but that’s largely secondary to\u00a0trying to position this as a straightforward big match between major stars.<\/p>\n These two last fought at\u00a0Extreme Rules<\/em> 2012 when, inconveniently, Cena won. \u00a0In fact, because he’s not part of the core\u00a0roster, Lesnar loses an awful lot; the company\u00a0seemed for a long while to see his role as primarily to put over new talent who would be of greater importance in the long run. \u00a0Um, and John Cena.<\/p>\n In theory this is all quite sensible. \u00a0In practice\u2026 I don’t really care about Brock Lesnar. \u00a0I never really have, since his return. \u00a0Interestingly,\u00a0his appearances on PPV\u00a0(pre-Network) apparently\u00a0made a difference to\u00a0US buys, but not so much internationally. \u00a0It may well be that Lesnar’s continued aura in the US is tied to his successful stint in the UFC, which Americans care about rather more than international audiences.<\/p>\n Regardless\u2026 Lesnar beat the Undertaker at\u00a0Wrestlemania<\/em>,\u00a0ending\u00a0his winning streak. \u00a0And that pretty much demands that he has to go on to a major role. \u00a0Plus, they need a big match for next month’s show, in which case they’ll probably want him in the main event again. \u00a0And it’s not as if John Cena is dependent on the title for his position; if anything, his periodic reigns as champion serve mainly to re-establish the importance of the title, which is generally rather secondary to the importance of John Cena. \u00a0So all this points towards Lesnar winning the title to\u00a0enjoy a short reign. \u00a0The match should be perfectly fine.<\/p>\n 2. \u00a0Brie Bella v Stephanie McMahon.<\/strong> \u00a0Yes, really. \u00a0A women’s match in the semi-main event slot, and not even one for the\u00a0title. \u00a0This stems from the company having to extricate itself from a storyline\u00a0originally set up\u00a0after Daniel Bryan was injured. \u00a0The idea was that Bryan, who\u00a0had only just become champion after a lengthy chase, would\u00a0resist the\u00a0(evil) company’s\u00a0attempts to strip him of the title. \u00a0Part of that\u00a0involved his wife Brie getting herself fired rather than\u00a0see\u00a0Bryan stripped of the title.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, Bryan then turned out to be rather more seriously injured than had been allowed for, so that he wasn’t able to come back any time soon after all. \u00a0Oops. \u00a0That left Brie\u00a0under contract but in limbo,\u00a0leading to a storyline in which Stephanie McMahon (as one of the principal evil owner figures right now) continues to vindictively persecute Brie’s sister Nikki, building to the old “I’ll drop the charges if you give me the match” schtick to result in Brie versus Stephanie.<\/p>\n This is at least the pay off for a major storyline, and it makes a pleasant change for\u00a0the women to actually\u00a0have<\/em> a major storyline. \u00a0But in terms of the actual match quality, who knows? \u00a0Stephanie\u00a0did<\/em> wrestle occasionally in the Attitude Era, and she was the women’s champion for much of\u00a02000 – but the angle there was that she had stolen the\u00a0title,\u00a0hardly ever defended it, and her few title defences were abortive\u00a0screwjobs. \u00a0I remember her having a good match with Trish Stratus at\u00a0No Way Out<\/em> in 2001\u2026 but that’s over a decade ago. \u00a0Common sense says there’s going to have to be a heck of a lot of smoke and mirrors on this one, and Brie presumably has to win.<\/p>\n 3. \u00a0Roman Reigns v Randy Orton.<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0These two were part of the four-way title match last month. \u00a0Reigns\u00a0didn’t win, but he’s plainly being groomed for stardom, so by all appearances this is him being paired off with a strong heel (and\u00a0a more\u00a0experienced one who can usually be relied on for good matches) to give him a major win on a big show. \u00a0From Reigns’ standpoint, he’s working\u00a0his way up the ranks on his way to another title match. \u00a0For Orton, he’s\u00a0grudgingly acting as a hired gun so he can get\u00a0another shot at the title himself. \u00a0Fairly straightforward stuff. \u00a0Reigns almost certainly has to win.<\/p>\n 4. \u00a0Lumberjack match: Dean Ambrose v Seth Rollins.<\/strong> \u00a0A rematch of a match advertised for last month which didn’t actually happen – they did a backstage brawl leading to Ambrose being thrown out of the building, followed by two further brawl segments later in the show. \u00a0This is, of course, false advertising –\u00a0though the WWE could reasonably argue that nobody would have been able to make that complaint if\u00a0they had simply started the match and done a quick DQ, and that\u00a0what they did was still more satisfying than that. \u00a0Nonetheless, it’s a remarkably dimwitted approach for a company that really needs to convince people\u00a0about the desirability of their shows.<\/p>\n In theory this builds anticipation for the rematch (assuming you trust that it’ll take place). \u00a0In practice\u2026 they’ve made it a lumberjack match,\u00a0which involves surrounding the ring with other wrestlers, ostensibly to ensure that nobody leaves. \u00a0Lumberjack matches are almost invariably worse than regular matches because\u00a0in order to make use of the gimmick you have to do tons of outside brawling\u00a0with the lumberjacks, while at the same time\u00a0the actual match has to be confined strictly to the ring. \u00a0Congratulations, WWE – you’ve managed to take\u00a0a match I actually\u00a0was<\/em> looking forward to last month, and turned it into one I have no interest in any more.<\/p>\n Ambrose probably needs the win more, but it could go either way without making a huge difference to the long run.<\/p>\n 5. \u00a0WWE Divas Title: AJ Lee\u00a0\u00a9 v Paige.<\/strong>\u00a0 Rematch from last month, when it was a bit of a mess. \u00a0Paige is being turned heel, which certainly seems like a more fruitful role for her, and closer to what worked for her in developmental. \u00a0The angle here is a bit confused, largely because the writing and acting aren’t really up to conveying the concept. The idea\u00a0seems<\/em> to be that Paige is in denial about her own heel turn, insists on acting as if AJ was her best friend in the world, and\u00a0has occasional bouts of heel behaviour which she completely downplays afterwards. \u00a0To pull this off, you really need a more successful babyface character (or a more emphatically rejected babyface character) than Paige has ever had as a main roster wrestler. \u00a0So it isn’t working. \u00a0At any rate, I assume AJ wins again, since it doesn’t seem to make a great deal of sense to trade the belt back to Paige so quickly.<\/p>\n 6. Flag match:\u00a0Rusev v Jack Swagger.<\/strong> \u00a0Another rematch from last month, where they\u00a0idiotically decided to name check the Ukraine in Lana’s opening promo, and then deny that that was what they were referring to at all. \u00a0(What she actually said was something along the lines of “recent current events”, but come on.) \u00a0It was an okay match last month, where the formerly villainous patriot Swagger made more headway against the evil Russian Rusev than anyone else has, before losing anyway by count-out. \u00a0So now we’re doing it as a flag match. \u00a0Exactly what that\u00a0means\u00a0<\/em>hasn’t been clearly explained, probably because nobody’s defined it yet. \u00a0It usually means either “loser waves the winner’s flag”, or “win by capturing your opponent’s flag”. \u00a0The latter seems more likely here, since that allows Swagger to win without pinning Rusev, thus setting\u00a0up a rubber match in September without having to pin Rusev. \u00a0But it’s not a gimmick that desperately interests me.<\/p>\n