|
|
Post by BØRNS on Jun 4, 2020 14:21:18 GMT -5
WHAT?!? How is WWE more profitable and saving money? If that were the case, WWE would have stopped running live events years ago. WWE makes a ton of money selling tickets and merchandise with their live event, TV broadcasts, and PPVs. WWE has most certainly lost profit as they haven't had paid admission in nearly three months. The majority of their income comes from their tv contracts and the blood money. Live attendance has been declining for a while and in conference calls they'd attribute it to Cena not being there and injuries. In Q4 of 2019 they lost money doing live shows. They're no longer paying people to run their trucks and production all over the world, or renting out large venues that don't sell out. The 2020 Q2 call is coming up soon and we'll know much more about actual numbers (they've only given a projection to stockholders which they'll hit now that they laid off a bunch of people and stopped construction on new headquarters). I point people to wrestlenomics when it comes to WWE financials. I haven't found anyone as adept at breaking down their numbers that aren't trying to build confidence in their investors to buy stock. I pm'd you a link. Thanks, I checked our the link you sent. I still find it super hard to believe that if live events have been operating at a loss for so long, then why would they continue with them? Is that claim only including ticket sales over expenses? Is it including merchandise? If domestic live events are no longer profitable then it's their fault. The tickets are overpriced and WWE gives no reason to attend outside special effort shows like MSG shows. WWE should just do more international tours because they command both higher ticket prices and sales. WWE knows which domestic markets are graded and how they perform. If the demand is not there, they either have to adjust ticket prices, give the fans reason to attend, or pack up and stop complaining. Their stock deserves to drop, and I call in to the shareholders meetings to be informed of these issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Yambag Jones on Jun 4, 2020 14:34:05 GMT -5
The majority of their income comes from their tv contracts and the blood money. Live attendance has been declining for a while and in conference calls they'd attribute it to Cena not being there and injuries. In Q4 of 2019 they lost money doing live shows. They're no longer paying people to run their trucks and production all over the world, or renting out large venues that don't sell out. The 2020 Q2 call is coming up soon and we'll know much more about actual numbers (they've only given a projection to stockholders which they'll hit now that they laid off a bunch of people and stopped construction on new headquarters). I point people to wrestlenomics when it comes to WWE financials. I haven't found anyone as adept at breaking down their numbers that aren't trying to build confidence in their investors to buy stock. I pm'd you a link. Thanks, I checked our the link you sent. I still find it super hard to believe that if live events have been operating at a loss for so long, then why would they continue with them? Is that claim only including ticket sales over expenses? Is it including merchandise? If domestic live events are no longer profitable then it's their fault. The tickets are overpriced and WWE gives no reason to attend outside special effort shows like MSG shows. WWE should just do more international tours because they command both higher ticket prices and sales. WWE knows which domestic markets are graded and how they perform. If the demand is not there, they either have to adjust ticket prices, give the fans reason to attend, or pack up and stop complaining. Their stock deserves to drop, and I call in to the shareholders meetings to be informed of these issues. I believe merch is a separate category. I know that live event attendance has been dropping for years, but I'm not sure how long they operated at a loss. I know Q4 for sure. What makes it worse, is that WWE doesn't pay for lodging or vehicles. Talent pays for that out of pocket. It makes that loss even more staggering. Yet, they keep increasing ticket prices. They might lose even more viewers and subscribers if they successfully get someone to run their PPVs. |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jun 4, 2020 17:12:38 GMT -5
The majority of their income comes from their tv contracts and the blood money. Live attendance has been declining for a while and in conference calls they'd attribute it to Cena not being there and injuries. In Q4 of 2019 they lost money doing live shows. They're no longer paying people to run their trucks and production all over the world, or renting out large venues that don't sell out. The 2020 Q2 call is coming up soon and we'll know much more about actual numbers (they've only given a projection to stockholders which they'll hit now that they laid off a bunch of people and stopped construction on new headquarters). I point people to wrestlenomics when it comes to WWE financials. I haven't found anyone as adept at breaking down their numbers that aren't trying to build confidence in their investors to buy stock. I pm'd you a link. Thanks, I checked our the link you sent. I still find it super hard to believe that if live events have been operating at a loss for so long, then why would they continue with them? Is that claim only including ticket sales over expenses? Is it including merchandise? If domestic live events are no longer profitable then it's their fault. The tickets are overpriced and WWE gives no reason to attend outside special effort shows like MSG shows. WWE should just do more international tours because they command both higher ticket prices and sales. WWE knows which domestic markets are graded and how they perform. If the demand is not there, they either have to adjust ticket prices, give the fans reason to attend, or pack up and stop complaining. Their stock deserves to drop, and I call in to the shareholders meetings to be informed of these issues. there’s numerous reasons a company may run at a loss. wcw was in the red financially for years and wasn’t shut down - why wouldn’t turner just get rid of it? if they are making money hand over fist through their tv contracts and Saudi Arabia deal, then running at a deficit for live shows temporarily may not be a large concern. if it became a massive deficit, then it may be looked at more critically. it makes more sense for wwe to dominate the market and ensure their promotion’s perception of being a premier brand even if it comes at a cost. |
|
|
|
Post by BØRNS on Jun 4, 2020 21:11:25 GMT -5
Thanks, I checked our the link you sent. I still find it super hard to believe that if live events have been operating at a loss for so long, then why would they continue with them? Is that claim only including ticket sales over expenses? Is it including merchandise? If domestic live events are no longer profitable then it's their fault. The tickets are overpriced and WWE gives no reason to attend outside special effort shows like MSG shows. WWE should just do more international tours because they command both higher ticket prices and sales. WWE knows which domestic markets are graded and how they perform. If the demand is not there, they either have to adjust ticket prices, give the fans reason to attend, or pack up and stop complaining. Their stock deserves to drop, and I call in to the shareholders meetings to be informed of these issues. there’s numerous reasons a company may run at a loss. wcw was in the red financially for years and wasn’t shut down - why wouldn’t turner just get rid of it? if they are making money hand over fist through their tv contracts and Saudi Arabia deal, then running at a deficit for live shows temporarily may not be a large concern. if it became a massive deficit, then it may be looked at more critically. it makes more sense for wwe to dominate the market and ensure their promotion’s perception of being a premier brand even if it comes at a cost. Yes, I understand that it is sometimes beneficial to run with a loss, but the trend continues to become worse (I call in to the quarterly shareholders' meeting and this is always a point of conversation). I agree that there is no better way to engage fans than to have them attend a live event of some sort. I know that I become more invigorated as a fan after attending a show and I am more likely to watch more closely to the product, buy some merch, and get me to pre-order tickets to a future show they usually announce that night. I totally get that. I've stopped going to non-televised events, and that's mainly because I am within an hour's radius of TV taping venues in San Jose, Sacramento, Oakland, and San Francisco (and I may drive 2 hours to Fresno for a taping if I'm so inspired). It's common for WWE to be in the region for a weekend and hold a string of 3-4 shows between these venues, including Raw, SmackDown, and a PPV if it falls right. I find it becomes a waste of time and money to go to non-televised live events when the frequency and accessibility of TV tapings are so good here. We usually get these string of shows around twice a year or so. Not to mention that there is no difference between ticket prices to a non-televised show and a Raw/SmackDown. What I have a problem with is how they are communicating these "losses". When WWE is not reporting merchandise and other revenue being collected, it does not paint an accurate picture. I know a thing or two about business and it's all about how you present your data. As pure attendance figures drop, WWE responds by increasing ticket prices, which is a reasonable thing to do. BUT, as you know, sometimes you can make more money when more people buy tickets at a lower price than fewer buying at a higher price. WWE has become so saturated in the domestics US that I think the fans have become fatigued, in particular with non-televised live events. Unless you're taking your kid(s) for a birthday, going with a friend just for the hell of it, or live in a more remote area where WWE doesn't come by often, it's probably not worth attending. The quality of the roster with the split shows now, the number of bigger names who don't normally work house shows now, and the lack of spectacle compared to TV, it just isn't justifiable for the same price. And you have to factor in cost of gas, drive time, parking, taking time off from work or school, likely grabbing food on the way there or back, and even the cheapest tickets, the house show will probably cost a few hundred dollars - and that's saying nothing of merch. Like I said, poor attendance is 100% WWE's fault. The whole COVID issue has just accelerated the inevitable problem once WWE can resume their live shows. A lot of people will not have the confidence to return to arenas for a long time. A lot of people will not have the disposable money to blow on a live event, and especially a non-important house show. A lot of people will not be motivated to attend shows because of WWE's creative direction and lack of star-power working a house show. With such an extreme adjustment to WWE's production now in a fan-less environment, we'll have to wait and see how the fans respond. I'm sure many will happily pay to go to a show because they haven't been able to go for several months. But to me, it's not right to say that the house shows are "losing money" and that WWE is "more profitable" without live events if they're not accounting for ALL revenue collected. I understand that not all live events are profitable and are still run at a loss in an effort to not piss off the fans who bought tickets. But WWE would be stupid not to learn from such experiences and adjust aspects of their operations. One more big consideration is all the unearned revenue WWE ordinarily holds from months of ticket sales. They no longer have this, so again, I just cannot believe they are more profitable now than before. Their costs are lower because they're not traveling, but they're surely not generating more revenue to surpass their net income from before. But to bring this back around to pay cuts, like you said, if the talent and employees are not spending out of pocket on their expenses, a 20% pay cut should still allow them to make more money than before. Thougts? |
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jun 4, 2020 21:43:58 GMT -5
BØRNS, you made a series of great points there. the value of the house show has greatly depreciated for numerous reasons, and the market is over saturated. my personal take is that there isn’t a need for those levels of live house shows, but that’s from a fan’s perspective. obviously numerous wrestlers depend on the house show market for continuous work. when we’re seeing such grandiose matches on tv, it’s difficult for house shows to not leave a bit of a bad taste in the consumer’s mouth. and that’s to no fault of the performers. you make an interesting point about having less expenses and therefore the 20% being covered for. I can’t speak on that myself.
|
|
