Self-congratulatory charity work in WWE

[Loss]

I don't want to in any way criticize WWE for doing this, because they are hardly unique in doing charity to improve their public image. And regardless of their motivations, there are people who benefit from what they do. But are most other big companies as obvious about their self-interested philanthropy?

 

I just listened to Dave talk about how WWE promotes Cena's Make-a-Wish stuff and he made some great points. I think in their minds, those are the types of things that will make fans eventually start supporting Cena, but I actually think that's part of the reason people boo him. It makes me feel for Cena because he has never wanted his Make-a-Wish work spotlighted, but WWE sort of co-opted that to get themselves over in the media.

 

Anyway, I'm not so much looking at the ethical issues around this. It's more to point out how cynical it comes across on television. WWE's constant self congratulations can get really old really quickly. In fact, it often sometimes works against their other goals because while they are in many ways master manipulators, the one thing they really have trouble projecting is sincerity. I guess you could say that was the biggest factor in Daniel Bryan's rise.

 

I want to think about historical examples. I know about Dr. Death's face in turn in Mid South that was based on his real-life heroic actions, but they weren't so heavy-handed about it. Is the inability to come off as authentic on this type of stuff something that applies to all wrestling or just to this company?

[Matt D]

I have no idea how to embed tweets, but:

 

https://twitter.com/stephmcmahon/status/581881800659591168

 

I know this got a ton of heat with Keller at the time.

[Loss]

Yeah, and she tweeted that right before Connor Michalek's HOF induction.

[ohtani's jacket]

I dunno. The WWE have had a partnership with the Make-a-Wish foundation since the mid-80s, are the biggest sponsors of the charity among the major American "sports" organisations and have granted something like 5,000 wishes. The average Joe watches a short vignette, gets a bit teary-eyed, enjoys a feel good moment then forgets about it instantly. The amount of work that goes into fulfilling that wish, coupled with the wishes that don't make vignettes, dwarfs whatever goodwill or PR they get from it. Just about every sports organisation involved in Make-A-Wish run vignettes about their involvement, as does the charity itself. I'm sure the current WWE management lack tact when it comes to this sort of thing, but at the same time Cena granting 500 wishes is newsworthy and would make the press regardless of whether Cena was a wrestler. So long as they kept sponsoring the charity and continue to grant kids' wishes, I don't think it really matters how they frame it. I watched a random vignette on YouTube about the WWE's involvement in the Make-A-Wish foundation and it seemed sincere to me. At least it was handled in a sincere fashion:

 

[Matt D]

I do get a kick out of it when they post something about a wrestler granting his first wish, especially if it's a guy like Bray Wyatt or 2012 Jack Swagger.

[DMJ]

I'm not sure I agree that Cena's charity work is a reason people don't like him. I think the reasons, in 2015, are mostly that there's a Simpsons-esque "Can't somebody else do it?" sentiment regarding who should be in the main event, Cena's outright goody two shoes gimmick does not appeal to the older, more cynical demographic, and that the "Let's Go Cena/Cena Sucks" chants is a thing that happens every night because its by design. Even at house shows or more pro-Cena cities, that chant can be heard. Also, as much as the WWE promotes Cena as their heroic ace, let's remember that everyone from R-Truth to CM Punk to even Daniel Bryan (lesser degree) and definitely Owens and Rollins most recently have had, as one of their major talking points, that they are some version of an "Anti-Cena." Hell, even Edge had that as part of his "edge" 10 years ago. Cena being the "handpicked, PG-friendly Hulk Hogan clone" is kind of the go-to insult against him made by heels and the WWE has gone out of their way to make that clear and, more importantly, profit from it. Cena could never grant a wish again and I don't think any single person will say "Now that's more like it! Fuck kids with cancer! Cena's new attitude is great because he's indifferent and self-centered just like Stone Cold and I relate to that more!"

 

If anything, I think the 500 wishes is a bit closer to Cena's track record of excellent matches this year. It is yet another clear example that Cena is a hard ass worker and that you can hate the character, you can hate the "preferential booking," you can hate the clothes, but at the end of the day, if you don't respect John Cena as a performer and as a humanitarian, you're blind. Granted, if Cena ever pulls a Cosby, we can all go back to hating him, but till that happens, anybody that hates John Cena because he grants wishes to children with terrible diseases and the WWE promotes it is hating on the least "hate-worthy" aspect of the deal.

[Loss]

I think a more clear way to phrase my point would be that no one is booing Cena because of his charity work, but segments like that aren't going to flip the script either. And I do think that's at least part of the motivation for WWE doing those video packages. I think it might work if it seemed at all sincere, but it doesn't. Whether it is or not is something only the people involved know, and I'm not aiming to comment on that. Just on how it appears. So the question is, while WWE is not a unique corporation in that they are charitable to improve their public image, are they uniquely bad at disguising their intentions? And historically, have other wrestling companies been better at using honorable actions in real life to get over a babyface without seeming so heavy handed about it? Like I said, it doesn't matter what their intentions are if people benefit from what they do, but the video packages do at least seem manipulative.

[Al]

I've seen worse. MLB's "Stand Up 2 Cancer" promotion feels like an advertisement for Mastercard.

[clintthecrippler]

Yeah, there are plenty of reasons to attack WWE, but every time I see someone complaining about them self-promoting their charity/PR work - and someone complaining about WWE's promotion of Twitter trends and social media - I always sincerely think it's a "wrestling bubble" lack of awareness. Most major sports leagues and broadcast have those sorts of promo/PR items aired during telecasts of their games, and social media plugs are everywhere these days as well( "tell @AMCNetwork what you think of tonight's episode of The Walking Dead" before coming back from commercial).

 

WWE's motives for promoting charity work are no more nefarious than any other large-scale company that has a charity/philanthropy division.

[JerryvonKramer]

I'm convinced he doesn't get more cheers because they don't make the heels evil enough.

 

If he's out there doing charity work, you need the heel to be kicking orphans in the face, or whatever. It's Jim Ross's tired point, but heels need heat.

[JerryvonKramer]

I watched all of Game of Thrones recently, and I think that show proves that even in 2015, you can really put heat on heels.

[Mad Dog]

Cena kind of expertly trolls the people that come to the shows to boo him. They're getting worked as much as the people cheering him.

 

I kind of found the Daniel Bryan stuff with that one kid from earlier this year came off way more exploitative than the Cena stuff.

[Loss]

Yeah, there are plenty of reasons to attack WWE, but every time I see someone complaining about them self-promoting their charity/PR work - and someone complaining about WWE's promotion of Twitter trends and social media - I always sincerely think it's a "wrestling bubble" lack of awareness. Most major sports leagues and broadcast have those sorts of promo/PR items aired during telecasts of their games, and social media plugs are everywhere these days as well( "tell @AMCNetwork what you think of tonight's episode of The Walking Dead" before coming back from commercial).

 

WWE's motives for promoting charity work are no more nefarious than any other large-scale company that has a charity/philanthropy division.

 

I'm not attacking their motives. I am questioning their ability to at least appear sincere about it. It's not a question of good or bad for me, and I don't even know that they shouldn't promote their charity work, given their image problems. But again:

 

(1) Does it seem more or less sincere than when other companies do it? To me, it seems less so, but admittedly, that could be because I am too jaded and know too much about the people in power in WWE.

 

(2) In the past, when other wrestling companies have attempted to use real-life events to get over a babyface, has it been so obviously phony, or did it seem more sincere?

[Loss]

In other words, it is probably somewhere between Dr. Death turning babyface in Mid South because he saved a few lives and the USWA running sappy videos to repair Lawler's image after charges of statutory rape. But which is it closer to?

[Mad Dog]

Somewhere in the middle but closer to Dr. Death than Lawler.

[JerryvonKramer]

Loss, I think one of the big differences with other companies is that the corporate spokespeople are not on-air heel authority figures the audience has been taught to dislike for the past ... ooh 17 years.

[jushin muta liger]

Yeah, there are plenty of reasons to attack WWE, but every time I see someone complaining about them self-promoting their charity/PR work - and someone complaining about WWE's promotion of Twitter trends and social media - I always sincerely think it's a "wrestling bubble" lack of awareness. Most major sports leagues and broadcast have those sorts of promo/PR items aired during telecasts of their games, and social media plugs are everywhere these days as well( "tell @AMCNetwork what you think of tonight's episode of The Walking Dead" before coming back from commercial).

 

WWE's motives for promoting charity work are no more nefarious than any other large-scale company that has a charity/philanthropy division.

Took the words out of my mouth. With WWE I think for them, they have to go even harder with the charity work because of the general public's view of the WWE as a circus. It's important for them to project that image compared to other performers/athletes. I've heard and met people who have met WWE talent and said that they are the nicest and personable compared to athletes and actors.

[Loss]

That's part of it. But if not for stuff like Hogan's USO tour, the Michael Landon Awards segments, etc., there probably wouldn't be a need for this thread.

[Al]

 

Yeah, there are plenty of reasons to attack WWE, but every time I see someone complaining about them self-promoting their charity/PR work - and someone complaining about WWE's promotion of Twitter trends and social media - I always sincerely think it's a "wrestling bubble" lack of awareness. Most major sports leagues and broadcast have those sorts of promo/PR items aired during telecasts of their games, and social media plugs are everywhere these days as well( "tell @AMCNetwork what you think of tonight's episode of The Walking Dead" before coming back from commercial).

 

WWE's motives for promoting charity work are no more nefarious than any other large-scale company that has a charity/philanthropy division.

 

I'm not attacking their motives. I am questioning their ability to at least appear sincere about it. It's not a question of good or bad for me, and I don't even know that they shouldn't promote their charity work, given their image problems. But again:

 

(1) Does it seem more or less sincere than when other companies do it? To me, it seems less so, but admittedly, that could be because I am too jaded and know too much about the people in power in WWE.

 

(2) In the past, when other wrestling companies have attempted to use real-life events to get over a babyface, has it been so obviously phony, or did it seem more sincere?

 

I think #1. WWE isn't much different from most publicly traded companies in many aspects, but one tends to get more upset when they're so knowledgeable about the inner workings of the company.

[Loss]

I'm not "upset", but otherwise, that's probably true. This thread is intended to be a discussion about their skills at promoting their charitable actions, not that they do promote them at all, or what their reasons are for being charitable in the first place. Are they good at it? Does it have the desired effect of softening their image? Has it ("it" being the videos shown on television, not the actual act of charity) helped their ad rates? Does it work?

[Mad Dog]

Corporate culture is kind of disingenuous by nature. The WWE doesn't really feel any different than any other big corporate entity patting itself on the back.

[KrisZ]

ESPN made a HUGE deal over Cena's Make-A-Wish work this weekend.....Today Show as well

[Sean Liska]

I was at SummerSlam. Footage of Cena's 500 wish got very polite and respectful applause from the crowd. And then he came out and everyone passionately hated him.

 

Cena just is what he is at this point and it's never changing unless they turn him heel. If they put him in the HOF next year he would probably get a standing ovation. But young adult men love to hate his character. And they pay very good money to do it - you couldn't get a lower level secondary market ticket for SummerSlam for less than $500 and Cena drew a far larger response than anyone on the show.

[Ready_Willing_Gable]

That's what irks me about today's fans. Fair play that a good portion of the fans don't genuinely think he sucks, as that's just deluded. Just presumably the aim of perma-booing him is the anti-"big match John" mindset people who don't want him in the Hogan position. When he's getting by far the biggest reactions on shows, it's gone from being a protest, to him just looking like the big draw. McMahon's have got your money in their pockets and they ain't gonna change a damn thing about how they book and promote Cena. If you hate it that much, stay at home.

[Loss]

The trouble with Cena is that he has to be their top babyface to maintain the status quo, but they can't really grow their audience a huge amount as long as he's their top babyface either. They've taken the safe route, perhaps wisely.