Roman Reigns

[Boss Rock]

Having thought about this for a bit today, the idea that turning Roman heel is some panacea that will inevitably end in him being a wildly cheered babyface is stupid. John Cena's rise to the top started with him as a heel and yet once he turned babyface and became The Guy in the company people turned on him. Yet the vocal detractors didn't stop him from turning into the undisputed top star in wrestling for pretty much the past decade. Would turning Cena heel in 2006 or 2007 really have made him a bigger star or helped him sell more brightly colored merchandise to angry smarks once he turned face again?

 

"But it worked for The Rock!" ignores that The Rock was a complete and total breakaway from Rocky Maivia and also that The Rock is a special kind of talent that I'm not sure wrestling had ever seen before and we certainly haven't seen since. There also really isn't a direct comparison because people rejected Rocky Maivia from the start unlike Roman who was well liked during The Shield and even during the start of his singles run and the smarkity smarks didn't really start turning on him on until they started to think he was "stealing" Bryan's spot.

 

I think the difference between Cena and Roman is that Cena was able to do good business relatively quickly as top guy despite being booed where Roman has not. Other than being a decent merch seller (and not what you want from a top guy), he's really made no meaningful impact on TV ratings or ticket sales.

[goc]

Did I miss where TV ratings suddenly started going up when Cena's big push started? Because you look at a graph and it's a big downward trend since 2002.

[Boss Rock]

They never reached the peaks of Austin and Rock sure, but they went back up 2005-2007 after the Reign of Terror and JBL's run.

[stro]

By "decent" do you mean biggest merch mover on the active roster? Because that's what Roman is, second only to Cena. The only guys to have made a meaningful impact on ratings in the past few years are Sting and Goldberg. Besides that, the WWE brand is the draw, not individual guys, and that's been something they've been transitioning to for many years now. So "he's not helping ratings" or "he's not selling tickets" isn't a valid measurement of a guy's worth to WWE anymore. WWE moved on from that model, yet fans are still stuck on it, much like fans are still stuck on the "the top face getting booed means he's a failure" after the paradigm for what a top face in WWE is changed over a decade ago.

[Matt D]

It's happened throughout wrestling history. The whole Eddie Graham idea of "listening to the crowd." Heel gets familiar enough with the crowd that he starts to get over with pockets as a face and that pressure builds up. There are generally cool elements to being a bad guy, especially a tough/edgy bad guy. He goes babyface.

 

It's pro wrestling 101. I absolutely think that Cena would have ultimately been more over with everyone as a babyface if he spent a year as a heel at some point. I think it would work with Reigns. I especially think it would work with Reigns because 1) He's become an extremely good pro wrestler, 2) he'd make a great heel right now because he has so much to be resentful about and 3) he can portray the exact sort of heel that would get him over huge as a face with all facets of the audience after a certain point. We've basically already seen that.

 

I get that you're annoyed with people or whatever, and I'm sick of explaining to people why Reigns is actually a really good pro wrestler and having them not even want to engage on the conversation, too, but that doesn't mean that a heel turn wouldn't make him a bigger face in the end. It absolutely would. I don't think the Cena Sucks/Let's Go Cena stuff has actually been a boon to business relative to what something more definitive could have done. I honestly don't.

[Boss Rock]

But are his merch numbers what you want from a top guy? And before Sting and Goldberg, Daniel Bryan was doing killer TV numbers. And the whole selling the brand model is arguably one of the biggest reasons they're having problems with ratings and attendance right now. The company's biggest periods of success are when they had a top guy (who the crowd actually liked) to get behind. Guys like Austin, Hogan, and the Rock. And the company was pretty dang successful when pushing those guys.

 

And the model of a top face used to be who was almost always who was doing the best TV numbers and selling the most tickets, which is when a promotion was always at its most successful.

[goc]

I'm not sure where the "Daniel Bryan was doing killer TV numbers" thing comes from because I have pretty much never seen that anywhere. TV ratings were one of the things that were being used against giving him a bigger push. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1687101-does-raws-low-rating-spell-trouble-for-daniel-bryans-main-event-push

 

As far as the "Cena would have been more over as a babyface if he'd turned heel" thing I just think it's completely false. They built the boos into his character with the "Rise Above Hate" stuff I don't think you could have turned him without permanently damaging his "Never Give Up" type of appeal and as soon as he turned back the "grr Vince sucks" people would have whined about "Super Cena" being back.

 

You can't compare modern crowds to stuff Eddie Graham had to deal with because there wasn't a sizable portion of the crowd going to shows in Florida in the 70s & 80s that were determined to be anti-whatever Eddie Graham wants to do.

[Matt D]

I'm not sure where the "Daniel Bryan was doing killer TV numbers" thing comes from because I have pretty much never seen that anywhere. TV ratings were one of the things that were being used against giving him a bigger push. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1687101-does-raws-low-rating-spell-trouble-for-daniel-bryans-main-event-push

 

As far as the "Cena would have been more over as a babyface if he'd turned heel" thing I just think it's completely false. They built the boos into his character with the "Rise Above Hate" stuff I don't think you could have turned him without permanently damaging his "Never Give Up" type of appeal and as soon as he turned back the "grr Vince sucks" people would have whined about "Super Cena" being back.

 

You can't compare modern crowds to stuff Eddie Graham had to deal with because there wasn't a sizable portion of the crowd going to shows in Florida in the 70s & 80s that were determined to be anti-whatever Eddie Graham wants to do.

How do you know they didn't create that portion to a large extent by not listening to the fans? Vince sure as hell isn't going out there and shutting his eyes and listening. (Unless he really is blind!)

[goc]

In 2017 there are far better metrics to pay attention to than just arena crowd reactions.

[Matt D]

In 2017 there are far better metrics to pay attention to than just arena crowd reactions.

 

Do you think they've properly utilized that data to maximize their profits?

[goc]

 

In 2017 there are far better metrics to pay attention to than just arena crowd reactions.

 

Do you think they've properly utilized that data to maximize their profits?

 

I'm gonna say yes since it's been a very long time since they've not had a profitable year.

[stro]

Wrestling 101 doesn't mean dick in 2017 when 5 year olds can read spoilers while their mom looks at Facebook, the Young Bucks are the most popular act outside of WWE, and one of the most enjoyed things last year was the absurd Broken Hardys saga. The idea of "this is what you're supposed to do because that's how you did it 20-30-40 years ago" is dead. The only part of WWE that functions on wrestling 101 logic is NXT, which was intentionally set up to be like an old school territory to set it apart from mainline WWE.

 

WWE does not function on that logic, so seeing something and thinking xyz should happen because that's wrestling/booking 101 and then getting frustrated when it doesn't is an exercise in futility. Turning Roman doesn't make sense under modern WWE logic, because he keeps crowds engaged and sells the most merch anyway. I really doubt the 30 year old dudes in the audience are going to buy his gauntlets and vests because he turned heel, but the kids do now and it's making them a lot of money. Risking sure money for possibly better storylines is certainly not something WWE is willing to do.

[Matt D]

Wrestling 101 is 95% of the time just simple logic and coherence.

[Boss Rock]

I'm not sure where the "Daniel Bryan was doing killer TV numbers" thing comes from because I have pretty much never seen that anywhere. TV ratings were one of the things that were being used against giving him a bigger push. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1687101-does-raws-low-rating-spell-trouble-for-daniel-bryans-main-event-push

 

As far as the "Cena would have been more over as a babyface if he'd turned heel" thing I just think it's completely false. They built the boos into his character with the "Rise Above Hate" stuff I don't think you could have turned him without permanently damaging his "Never Give Up" type of appeal and as soon as he turned back the "grr Vince sucks" people would have whined about "Super Cena" being back.

 

You can't compare modern crowds to stuff Eddie Graham had to deal with because there wasn't a sizable portion of the crowd going to shows in Florida in the 70s & 80s that were determined to be anti-whatever Eddie Graham wants to do.

He was drawing the highest ratings in 2014.

 

http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_77624.shtml#.WQjpwfnyvct

 

http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_78083.shtml#.WQjqC_nyvct

 

http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_78252.shtml#.WQjqKfnyvct

[stro]

Wrestling 101 is 95% of the time just simple logic and coherence.

Which is not at all how WWE has operated for years, so I don't know why anyone would expect them to suddenly start back up. Wrestling 101 says you turn John Cena when crowds were booing him 3 months into his title reign. Instead, the hate got worse and worse and worse and yet Cena became the biggest star the industry had produced since Rock and Austin, and he's ended up making the company more money than anyone.

[Matt D]

 

 

Wrestling 101 is 95% of the time just simple logic and coherence.

Which is not at all how WWE has operated for years, so I don't know why anyone would expect them to suddenly start back up. Wrestling 101 says you turn John Cena when crowds were booing him 3 months into his title reign. Instead, the hate got worse and worse and worse and yet Cena became the biggest star the industry had produced since Rock and Austin, and he's ended up making the company more money than anyone.

Has he?

[stro]

 

 

Wrestling 101 is 95% of the time just simple logic and coherence.

Which is not at all how WWE has operated for years, so I don't know why anyone would expect them to suddenly start back up. Wrestling 101 says you turn John Cena when crowds were booing him 3 months into his title reign. Instead, the hate got worse and worse and worse and yet Cena became the biggest star the industry had produced since Rock and Austin, and he's ended up making the company more money than anyone.

Has he?

 

Yes. He hit that point a few years back, too. He's sold more merch than any talent in history. Also headlined like 7 of the top 10 biggest grossing WWE events in history.

[Matt D]

Controlled for inflation? I don't know. It's like blaming Sting for 1992. Sure, you can do it, but it's not the whole picture. Plus we're dealing with a counter-factual. Could he have drawn more if they turned him? I think so. You don't. Neither of us can prove it. Do we think that there was a boom at any point in the period after 2001? It sure doesn't feel that way. Are they just better at getting money out of a smaller pool of people?

[stro]

Controlled for inflation? I don't know. It's like blaming Sting for 1992. Sure, you can do it, but it's not the whole picture. Plus we're dealing with a counter-factual. Could he have drawn more if they turned him? I think so. You don't. Neither of us can prove it. Do we think that there was a boom at any point in the period after 2001? It sure doesn't feel that way. Are they just better at getting money out of a smaller pool of people?

This plus expanding and running a lot more international shows. WWE reached the saturation point in the US a long time ago which is why they've been constantly breaking into new markets every year for the past decade as opposed to doing a few Euro tours, Canada, and a Japanese tour. I don't know that turning Cena would or wouldn't have made more or less money. I'm not arguing for it either direction. What I am saying is that WWE not going with "wrestling 101" booking when it came to Cena sure worked out pretty well for them, and there's no reason to think it won't work out with Roman as well.

[Matt D]

 

Controlled for inflation? I don't know. It's like blaming Sting for 1992. Sure, you can do it, but it's not the whole picture. Plus we're dealing with a counter-factual. Could he have drawn more if they turned him? I think so. You don't. Neither of us can prove it. Do we think that there was a boom at any point in the period after 2001? It sure doesn't feel that way. Are they just better at getting money out of a smaller pool of people?

This plus expanding and running a lot more international shows. WWE reached the saturation point in the US a long time ago which is why they've been constantly breaking into new markets every year for the past decade as opposed to doing a few Euro tours, Canada, and a Japanese tour. I don't know that turning Cena would or wouldn't have made more or less money. I'm not arguing for it either direction. What I am saying is that WWE not going with "wrestling 101" booking when it came to Cena sure worked out pretty well for them, and there's no reason to think it won't work out with Roman as well.

 

Actually, isn't what you're saying that they found ways to deal with the dwindling returns of not picking up new US fans? You can't say this is the saturation point when we've seen booms before. And they had to find ways to deal with the dwindling returns because Cena WASN'T bringing in the same amount of fans as stars of previous generations, right? So obviously, while they've managed that shortfall by tapping new markets and finding new revenue streams, maybe it didn't work all that well for them because they had to do so in the first place?

[stro]

 

 

Controlled for inflation? I don't know. It's like blaming Sting for 1992. Sure, you can do it, but it's not the whole picture. Plus we're dealing with a counter-factual. Could he have drawn more if they turned him? I think so. You don't. Neither of us can prove it. Do we think that there was a boom at any point in the period after 2001? It sure doesn't feel that way. Are they just better at getting money out of a smaller pool of people?

This plus expanding and running a lot more international shows. WWE reached the saturation point in the US a long time ago which is why they've been constantly breaking into new markets every year for the past decade as opposed to doing a few Euro tours, Canada, and a Japanese tour. I don't know that turning Cena would or wouldn't have made more or less money. I'm not arguing for it either direction. What I am saying is that WWE not going with "wrestling 101" booking when it came to Cena sure worked out pretty well for them, and there's no reason to think it won't work out with Roman as well.

 

Actually, isn't what you're saying that they found ways to deal with the dwindling returns of not picking up new US fans? You can't say this is the saturation point when we've seen booms before. And they had to find ways to deal with the dwindling returns because Cena WASN'T bringing in the same amount of fans as stars of previous generations, right? So obviously, while they've managed that shortfall by tapping new markets and finding new revenue streams, maybe it didn't work all that well for them because they had to do so in the first place?

 

 

That's not really what I'm saying, but I guess you could look at it that way. WWE peaked in the US and was on the decline before Cena was even in the equation, but became a more global product under him, increasing TV rights fees under him, going back to yearly stadium shows for WM under him, all while he's sold the most merch of any talent ever and become the only even halfway mainstream star since Rock and Austin. It's hard to say he hasn't worked out well for them. Out of the top 10 most profitable years in WWE, 5 are in the Cena era. With some wacky financial fuckery, 2016 was actually the most profitable year in company history.

 

By most metrics, Cena is the GOAT. His reign on top is really kind of unprecedented. I did the math a few years back. Cena had more televised matches in one year than Hogan had his entire Hulkamania run. But you know...for 10 fucking years straight. Insanity.

[Jimmy Redman]

I think people see the "line" as going straight down since the Attitude Era, when in fact it went down from 2002-2004 and then picked back up once Cena came in. Before drawing power became as obfuscated as it is now, Cena was a demonstrably big draw.

[Matt D]

Could he have been a potentially bigger draw as a singular entity over the last many years if they turned him for a while ten years ago?

[Jimmy Redman]

Could he have been a potentially bigger draw as a singular entity over the last many years if they turned him for a while ten years ago?

 

Honestly I don't know. And we'll never know.

 

But if pushed I would guess that a Cena turn would have taken away a part of his unique appeal - as a guy who basically exists to be an anathema to the adult male audience. Part of that was his steadfast refusal to turn heel, which is what those people wanted him to do. Whether the trade off of a heel turn allowed those people to come around on him and become his fans enough to offset that, that is the question. I'm honestly not sure that it would have.

 

It's easy to forget now that booing the top face is en vogue, but when Cena happened it was a crazy, unique thing. A top babyface who is rejected by a large part of the audience BUT is still a massive draw. We'd had unpopular or failing babyfaces before, but none who were still making so much money that you couldn't turn them or demote them. But somehow with Cena, it worked, because in the first place, he had a massive and rapidly expanding fan base that went to shows and spent money and he basically cornered a whole new generation of kids to be his fans. And in the second, the people who hated him didn't stop going to shows or spending money (well at least, not enough of them did), but instead they kept going and spending money and just booed Cena hoping that he'd go away. But he didn't go away, he was making them too much money. So they kept booing louder, and his fans kept cheering louder, and suddenly the Cena Thing happened.

 

The people who rejected Cena were the ones who ultimately, and ironically, kept him on top forever, because booing and rejection simply became a part of his charm, and not a way to signal to the company that he shouldn't be pushed as a top babyface anymore.

 

This was all fine and dandy when it was Cena's special thing, but now...it's happening again. Over the years there have been isolated incidents of crowds booing the face because they're in a smark town or they like the heel better or whatever, but now it's actually Happening Again. The vocally dominant adult male crowd has decided to reject Roman as the top babyface. They do this by going to shows and booing the shit out of him. The problem is that this no longer works. All it does is embolden his fans to cheer louder creating the "Lets Go Cena / Cena Sucks" atmosphere that WWE loves, and it tells WWE that this guy is getting the most noise out of the crowd, how cool is this, we have the next Cena. The more they boo, the more WWE will want to push him. It's a game to WWE now, trying to troll half the crowd as much as they can to elicit the biggest reaction out of them because they like how it looks on TV, and they know they're getting their money either way.

 

The smarts have outsmarted themselves, and I still don't think they understand that. They turned their only weapon against an unwanted push (short of not watching) into a marketing tool for WWE.

[Matt D]

On the one hand, I'll buy an argument that he only has his longevity due to this weird twist of fate (along with his ability to wrestle as an Ace of course and his workaholic attitude and the make-a-wish stuff). On the other, who else were they going to push? I think he gets pushed consistently either way, especially during the years and years of a split brand.