Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 23:55:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 16:55:30 GMT -5
It's not about "us." If they were caught lying about this number, it would kind of piss off their share holders. That's a big deal. I was gonna mention something about that. Wouldn't they get in serious trouble with their shareholders if they lied about the number of subscribers the Network had? I'm not sure too familiar with the stock market and what they could get away with, so that's why I ask. I would think so, but I can't find anything on Google that would help support a yes or no on that one. I would figure if they got caught lying about subscribers, their stock would take a huge hit. It's really not a risk worth taking for them, nor could they really afford to. |
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jan 29, 2015 23:28:53 GMT -5
The title clearly states that this was not written by Mark Madden. Read the title wrong, and seeing as you post everything Mark Madden writes, I wouldn't have been shocked. Either way, no, they aren't lying about subscribers. Anyone saying otherwise is flat out wrong. 1.I'm not going to do that any more. It pisses too many people off. 2. Proof? |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 23:55:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2015 23:34:40 GMT -5
Read the title wrong, and seeing as you post everything Mark Madden writes, I wouldn't have been shocked. Either way, no, they aren't lying about subscribers. Anyone saying otherwise is flat out wrong. 1.I'm not going to do that any more. It pisses too many people off. 2. Proof? Check any other post I made. Also, I don't think you realize how bad of a hit they'd take for lying to share holders. |
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jan 30, 2015 0:01:36 GMT -5
1.I'm not going to do that any more. It pisses too many people off. 2. Proof? Check any other post I made. Also, I don't think you realize how bad of a hit they'd take for lying to share holders. If this turns out to be true, then they wouldn't have lied. They used word play to mislead everyone. Dishonest? Yes. A lie? Not in corporate America. In the end, I doubt they'd catch much flak from shareholders, if any. They certainly wouldn't be the first company to use some fast talking bullcrap to make their company and its bad decisions look good. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 23:55:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 0:17:12 GMT -5
Check any other post I made. Also, I don't think you realize how bad of a hit they'd take for lying to share holders. If this turns out to be true, then they wouldn't have lied. They used word play to mislead everyone. Dishonest? Yes. A lie? Not in corporate America. In the end, I doubt they'd catch much flak from shareholders, if any. They certainly wouldn't be the first company to use some fast talking bullcrap to make their company and its bad decisions look good. You must be joking. They would catch MAJOR flak from their shareholders if they flubbed the numbers. Nobody is denying or questioning the numbers outside of the residential idiots of the IWC. Nobody. |
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Jan 30, 2015 0:46:12 GMT -5
yes, I'm pretty sure they're lying with statistics. I think it's a cumulative aggregate since the network began. So if someone subscribed, cancelled, and resubscribed, it'd count as "two" subscriptions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 23:55:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 1:21:37 GMT -5
yes, I'm pretty sure they're lying with statistics. I think it's a cumulative aggregate since the network began. So if someone subscribed, cancelled, and resubscribed, it'd count as "two" subscriptions. And you're wrong. That's okay. |
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jan 30, 2015 9:22:20 GMT -5
If this turns out to be true, then they wouldn't have lied. They used word play to mislead everyone. Dishonest? Yes. A lie? Not in corporate America. In the end, I doubt they'd catch much flak from shareholders, if any. They certainly wouldn't be the first company to use some fast talking bullcrap to make their company and its bad decisions look good. You must be joking. They would catch MAJOR flak from their shareholders if they flubbed the numbers. Nobody is denying or questioning the numbers outside of the residential idiots of the IWC. Nobody. That's not true at all. Check the link. You WWE marks are so far up Vince's ass it's like you have Stockholm Syndrome. |
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jan 30, 2015 9:22:30 GMT -5
If this turns out to be true, then they wouldn't have lied. They used word play to mislead everyone. Dishonest? Yes. A lie? Not in corporate America. In the end, I doubt they'd catch much flak from shareholders, if any. They certainly wouldn't be the first company to use some fast talking bullcrap to make their company and its bad decisions look good. You must be joking. They would catch MAJOR flak from their shareholders if they flubbed the numbers. Nobody is denying or questioning the numbers outside of the residential idiots of the IWC. Nobody. That's not true at all. Check the link. You WWE marks are so far up Vince's ass it's like you have Stockholm Syndrome. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 23:55:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 10:13:47 GMT -5
You must be joking. They would catch MAJOR flak from their shareholders if they flubbed the numbers. Nobody is denying or questioning the numbers outside of the residential idiots of the IWC. Nobody. That's not true at all. Check the link. You WWE marks are so far up Vince's ass it's like you have Stockholm Syndrome. I'm not even a WWE mark lol. Try again, bub. And yes, lying about subscriber numbers would get them flak. You'd be an idiot to say otherwise, but you know, whatever floats your boat. |
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Jan 30, 2015 11:19:43 GMT -5
You must be joking. They would catch MAJOR flak from their shareholders if they flubbed the numbers. Nobody is denying or questioning the numbers outside of the residential idiots of the IWC. Nobody. That's not true at all. Check the link. You WWE marks are so far up Vince's ass it's like you have Stockholm Syndrome. Yes. The guy with sigs and avatars like Palmer is a WWE mark. Sure thing. yes, I'm pretty sure they're lying with statistics. I think it's a cumulative aggregate since the network began. So if someone subscribed, cancelled, and resubscribed, it'd count as "two" subscriptions. If this was the case they would have reached a million a while ago. As of last report they were at 700,000 or so. Why is it so hard to believe they would get 300,000 more from launching it worldwide finally? You anti-WWE marks are quite hilarious but unfortunately, it's you guys that cause the other trolls of the site to group logical people in with you guys, giving others a bad name. |
|
|
|
Post by theMOESIAH on Jan 30, 2015 16:47:32 GMT -5
That's not true at all. Check the link. You WWE marks are so far up Vince's ass it's like you have Stockholm Syndrome. I'm not even a WWE mark lol. Try again, bub. And yes, lying about subscriber numbers would get them flak. You'd be an idiot to say otherwise, but you know, whatever floats your boat. The title of the article actually was "Was the WWE Misleading with Network Numbers" but I couldn't get that to fit as the title of this thread. I wanted the note about this not being written by Mark madden in there so people would satisfy read it. I figured it would cause problems but I was hoping that people read the whole thing before responding. It's fixed now. As for the WWE mark thing, if your aren't then I apologize. I took your IWC idots remark was a personal shot towards me and assumed that's what I was dealing with. That's not true at all. Check the link. You WWE marks are so far up Vince's ass it's like you have Stockholm Syndrome. Yes. The guy with sigs and avatars like Palmer is a WWE mark. Sure thing. I'm only on the mobile version. No sigs or avatars. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Apr 19, 2024 23:55:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 17:41:03 GMT -5
That's not true at all. Check the link. You WWE marks are so far up Vince's ass it's like you have Stockholm Syndrome. Yes. The guy with sigs and avatars like Palmer is a WWE mark. Sure thing. yes, I'm pretty sure they're lying with statistics. I think it's a cumulative aggregate since the network began. So if someone subscribed, cancelled, and resubscribed, it'd count as "two" subscriptions. If this was the case they would have reached a million a while ago. As of last report they were at 700,000 or so. Why is it so hard to believe they would get 300,000 more from launching it worldwide finally? You anti-WWE marks are quite hilarious but unfortunately, it's you guys that cause the other trolls of the site to group logical people in with you guys, giving others a bad name. Mia Yim should be in NXT dammit. I hate how a lot of people are actually still butthurt about how the rumble went down, that they assume everybody feels the same way and cancelled their network. It really us hilarious how debating their points with logic makes us all WWE marks. |
|
|
|
Post by Next Man’s Knowing Rock on Jan 30, 2015 18:31:04 GMT -5
The number was something like 870000 "domestic" and 130000 international (can't remember the exact numbers now but Meltzer posted them, dunno whether they were in the press release or if he got them from WWE). The numbers would have to be current, not cumulative.
|
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Jan 30, 2015 18:34:13 GMT -5
I'm amazed that there are people here who spend so much time trying to discredit WWE. God forbid we just be happy that the network is a success. God forbid we just try to enjoy it.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Kevstaaa on Jan 30, 2015 19:12:16 GMT -5
I'm amazed that there are people here who spend so much time trying to discredit WWE. God forbid we just be happy that the network is a success. God forbid we just try to enjoy it. That's the insane thing. Like, even if you're upset with the outcome of the Royal Rumble and frustrated with the product, why would any wrestling fan want the WWE Network to fail? |
|
|
|
Post by marino13 on Jan 30, 2015 19:14:17 GMT -5
I'm amazed that there are people here who spend so much time trying to discredit WWE. God forbid we just be happy that the network is a success. God forbid we just try to enjoy it. That's the insane thing. Like, even if you're upset with the outcome of the Royal Rumble and frustrated with the product, why would any wrestling fan want the WWE Network to fail? I don't get it. Wish I had the time or effort to put so much of myself into hating on something. Life is too short for that s**t. |
|
