Matt Farmer Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 A friend with the company, who is on the lower end of the spectrum. He'll work occasional house shows and TV, very rarely Raw and has been with the company for many years now. He showed me his royalty check, 2 years ago or so from his video game royalties and it was $65,000. His downside was maybe double that amount, so his royalty from the game was a HUGE part of his salary! Did the royalty count against the Downside, or was it in addition to the Downside? On other words: $130K downside + $65K video royalty + other stuff above the downside or $130K downside with $65K royalty going against it and other stuff going against it until finally some amount popping over $130K If it's the first, I doubt they're going to have a tough time finding guys on the "low end" willing to make $130K guaranteed + $10K video royalties + modest PPV add-ins taking all of it up over $150K rather easy. Unless the indy circuit is paying all those people who would love to get into the WWE a hell of a lot more than I'd expect. A friend with the company, who is on the lower end of the spectrum. He'll work occasional house shows and TV, very rarely Raw and has been with the company for many years now. He showed me his royalty check, 2 years ago or so from his video game royalties and it was $65,000. His downside was maybe double that amount, so his royalty from the game was a HUGE part of his salary! Did the royalty count against the Downside, or was it in addition to the Downside? On other words: $130K downside + $65K video royalty + other stuff above the downside or $130K downside with $65K royalty going against it and other stuff going against it until finally some amount popping over $130K If it's the first, I doubt they're going to have a tough time finding guys on the "low end" willing to make $130K guaranteed + $10K video royalties + modest PPV add-ins taking all of it up over $150K rather easy. Unless the indy circuit is paying all those people who would love to get into the WWE a hell of a lot more than I'd expect. A friend with the company, who is on the lower end of the spectrum. He'll work occasional house shows and TV, very rarely Raw and has been with the company for many years now. He showed me his royalty check, 2 years ago or so from his video game royalties and it was $65,000. His downside was maybe double that amount, so his royalty from the game was a HUGE part of his salary! Did the royalty count against the Downside, or was it in addition to the Downside? On other words: $130K downside + $65K video royalty + other stuff above the downside or $130K downside with $65K royalty going against it and other stuff going against it until finally some amount popping over $130K If it's the first, I doubt they're going to have a tough time finding guys on the "low end" willing to make $130K guaranteed + $10K video royalties + modest PPV add-ins taking all of it up over $150K rather easy. Unless the indy circuit is paying all those people who would love to get into the WWE a hell of a lot more than I'd expect. it was in addition to. That why some of the low to mid card guys were able to make 200k plus a year. (Before taxes & expenses) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 WWE rumored to have re-signed with NBCUniversal, announcement likely coming on Thursday: http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/2014/5/11/5707194/wwe-rumored-to-have-re-signed-with-nbcuniversal-announcement-likely Looks like an exclusive deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Farmer Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 The article stated they had a good shot at achieving their goal of doubling or tripling their right fees. I would assume if they infact did achieve that goal they would not remain quiet about it. They would be screaming it from a mountain top. Another interesting bit about that piece is it mentioned there are many serious suitor's. That's almost the opposite of what I have heard, and that WWE itself was rather shocked at the small amount of actual serious purchasers there were/is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 The article stated they had a good shot at achieving their goal of doubling or tripling their right fees. I would assume if they infact did achieve that goal they would not remain quiet about it. They would be screaming it from a mountain top. Another interesting bit about that piece is it mentioned there are many serious suitor's. That's almost the opposite of what I have heard, and that WWE itself was rather shocked at the small amount of actual serious purchasers there were/is. That actually sounds more believable to me, but Meltzer didn't give that indication on his radio show. He didn't know how much they got, but from the way he was talking it sounded like they got at least one better offer from elsewhere and NBCU decided to match it. The way he was talking made it seem like a doubling of the rights fees wasn't out of the question. Regarding WWE not shouting the news from the rooftops, I think NBCU wanted to be the ones to make the big announcement during broadcast upfront week on Thursday. I think that's why everything has been so tight lipped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 If WWE leaves NBCU, I wonder if A) Raw will remain three hours and Smackdown stays on Friday nights or gets moved to a larger TV audience night Regarding the 3-hours, I expect Raw to stay that way for awhile. For one thing, haven't they essentially sold the international deals on the premise of 3 hour raws? Secondly, WWE doesn't really care about the creativity hit when you offset it with pure, hard cash. They don't want to be taking less money just to make their lives easier. Thirdly, if they did resign with NBCU, USA was at the forefront of pushing the three-hour Raws, so it's not going away anytime soon - especially when the first hour isn't dying a terrible death. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/2014/5/15/5722104/details-on-wwe-tv-rights-deal-with-nbcuniversal-stock-plunges Over the past six months, the Company has negotiated television distribution agreements in the U.S., U.K. and Thailand, and is in the midst of discussions regarding the distribution of WWE content in India. The Company estimates that it will increase the average annual value of these key television agreements to approximately $200 million, representing an increase of more than $90 million, that is nearly three times (3x) the increase achieved in the previous round of negotiations.... As shown below, the Company estimates that the WWE Network, on a global basis, will require 1.3 million to 1.4 million subscribers at "steady state" for the WWE Network's incremental OIBDA to offset the complete cannibalization of the Company's Pay-Per-View and SVOD businesses. At 1.3 million to 1.4 million subscribers, the Company's Network segment, which includes the results of WWE's Network, Pay-Per-View and SVOD businesses, would generate OIBDA results of $40 million, (+/- 10%), which is on par with the OIBDA profits generated by the Company's Pay-Per-View and SVOD businesses in 2012.... The rate of subscriber adoption is a critical determinant of the Company's projected future financial performance. If WWE Network achieves approximately one million subscribers by year-end 2014, it would yield a 12-month average of 650,000 subscribers for the year. This rate of adoption in 2014 translates to an estimated 2014 OIBDA loss ranging from $35 million to $45 million, and a 2014 Net loss ranging from $45 million to $52 million. If WWE Network achieves an average of 2 million to 2.5 million subscribers for 2015, the Company's 2015 OIBDA is expected to range from $125 million to $200 million, and 2015 Net income expected to range from $57 million to $105 million. Actual subscriber levels and financial performance could vary materially based on various factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 So all this work WWE has done in an attempt to clean up their image has meant almost nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbo Slice Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 God, and I thought my subscriber estimation of 800k was high. They want at least 2 million for 2015???? They expect to double the Network subscribers in 18 months? I might ask John if he can drop that Konnan quote we love so much...damn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 So all this work WWE has done in an attempt to clean up their image has meant almost nothing. They never bothered to attempt to do it to the folks who mattered. They spend all their time running away from real sports comparisons until they realize that's where the fat TV money comes from. Then they decide they want to be treated like real sports, only you have folks who cover real sports for a living like Colin Cowherd on ESPN regularly mocking wrestling fans for being "booger-eaters". Yeah, he's a douche canoe, but his voice is the one that gets heard by millions on TV and radio and he's not the only one re-enforcing the stereotype. WWE never seems to bother doing anything to change the impression of his audience to the folks he wants to get paid by. Racing purists don't like that NASCAR has evolved from the old days of moonshine runners and fights in the infield, but they get a blank check from every major network every time their TV deal is up for renewal. It didn't seem to hold them back that their fans had the same "poor white trash redneck" stereotype us rasslin fans do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 It's also hard to try to brand themselves sports programming while having characters like Bray Wyatt and Kane on the roster. They can't really have it both ways, can they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 No, but they keep trying and it's why they weren't able to get a bigger increase. Also I notice how they quietly moved the goalposts in that release mentioning a 3x increase world wide in TV rights fees where every investor conference call leading up to today stated they expected 2-3x increase in US alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 So much crunched data and articles, all for nothing because the world refuses to cooperate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Kind of hard to blame the world when you can turn on RAW and see bad horror movie rehashes and evil Russian angles straight out of 1985. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 The world didn't screw Chris; WWE did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Liska Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 It's also hard to try to brand themselves sports programming while having characters like Bray Wyatt and Kane on the roster. They can't really have it both ways, can they? I really don't think they would get a big rights increase even if they had Bill Watts and Jim Ross breaking down every match like it was a college football game. It's wrestling. Two dudes pretending to fight. You can look at 80s territories that had a more sports-like approach and they generally didn't have a fancy white-collar audience with prestigious advertisers. From what I saw on TV, the Crockett and Mid-South audiences weren't always the best and brightest of society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 It's not my point, it's WWE's. They were trying to get live sports dollars while making their television product more theatrical than ever. I don't understand their end game there, or how they possibly thought that would work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Also, I wasn't saying the work done over the last couple of months wasn't useful, even if WWE didn't get their way. In some ways, it shows how amazing it was that things ended up as low as they seem to and can be a case study for value vs perception or who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 To be fair, even though WWE is more episodic soap opera than real sporting competition, people watch it live at levels very close to the major sports. For that reason, it was the right comparison to make. Personally, I think it's the better route to go down than comparing themselves with the most popular scripted dramas in television. WWE may be more theatrical than ever, but it's not like the quality of their writing has improved in tandem. Many of their characters are still stereotypical one-dimensional characters (see Rusev and Lana), while those that aren't, their character motivation is usually a mess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Man...that stock today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm funk Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 To be fair, even though WWE is more episodic soap opera than real sporting competition, people watch it live at levels very close to the major sports. For that reason, it was the right comparison to make. True WWE also seems way more mainstream acceptable in recent years. Maybe it's the hidden hand of NBCU involved on some of it.....but WWE stuff is covered on TMZ, lots of athletes and celebs are admitted fans on twitter and all that jazz, ESPN is peppered with rasslin references, lots of people in the hip hop community are open fans of the sport.......it feels way more mainstream right now than it has in the past, to me anyway The demographic argument about advertisers re: wrestling has always rubbed me the wrong way. It seems self-fulfilling as much as anything. Personally, the adverts during your average episode of RAW are shit that I would never buy or have interest in. I'm not the only 'rasslin' fan who feels that way either. I don't need high-brow adverts, but the whole idea of treating wrestling fans like they're the lowest common denominator has always bothered me, because it simply isn't true. There is still that stereotype that all rasslin fans are slack jawed inbreds with no purchase power or whatever the heck people think Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 I think a lot of those generalizations are unfair too. However, market research (I don't remember who did it, but I remember it being covered in the WON) showed that the majority of their fans aren't college educated and their income levels are lower than the average for fans of every major sport. That's hard stigma to overcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strummer Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 other than the pre and post shows and the desk cutaways how are they presenting a real sports product? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sek69 Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 WWE is in an unusual place in that obviously they aren't a real sports product, but at the same time they aren't the usual TV drama/comedy/soap opera either. I guess in a sense they are portraying the matches as athletic contests, but invoking kayfabe in 2014 just seems wrong. What I don't get is advertisers see wrestling fans as all inbred morons who don't spend money, but WWE is a billion dollar company. Where do they think that money comes from? Even if its parents buying stuff for kids, someone's still spending actual dollars in the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
efrim Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 I would love to see the market research on WWE fan demographics. Just seeing the amount of money parents casually blow on merch at live events, I can't imagine the figures are so dire that there isn't a way to spin it correctly. I feel like the WWE's biggest liability may be a lack of serious corporate talent. Unless they catch lightning in a bottle with a zero profile young guy, no corporate branding wizard is going to waste their time on what is basically a corporate backwater where their upside is third in the company pecking order whenever Vince dies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eduardo Posted May 16, 2014 Report Share Posted May 16, 2014 Speaking of market research and fan demographic, I remember Meltzer mentioning several times how along with the WNBA, that WWE has the most liberal audience of all sports. What study did that info come from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.