Agreed. I'm not saying they aren't also looking PPV buyrates, ratings, etc. But if the topic of conversation is reactions, there's no way it doesn't bother them that their top stars don't get the desired reactions even among the people actually watching.
I honestly think it bothered them back in 2007. I don't think it really does today. They've basically began to shrug
However much money they're making off Roman now, they have to understand they'd be making much more if people actually liked the guy. Those other stars you mentioned may appeal to fewer demogrpahics, but looking at that from a different perspective, it would behoove them to stop trying to have one guy who appeals to everyone, at least for the time being. If you have Bayley, Ambrose, Roman, Styles, Rollins, and The New Day, and all of them appeal to different demos in different ways, then you try to move them all into positions to maximize profit from those demos while covering each other. At least until you have someone that can genuinely appeal to everyone (and is also around all the time, unlike Cena [who I'm still not convinced has near the universial appeal of a Rock or Austin, but for the sake of argument, I'll go with it]).
Here's the thing - just to use a very simple example. If you have 10 people, and if you have Roman Reigns, who six people love and will spend $100 in merch/meet and greets/etc. on and whom four people hate and will spend $0, that sounds bad.
But, what if the replacement is say, AJ Styles, who everybody likes, but all 10 of those people will only spent $50 a piece on. So you have a more univerally loved figure, but you makes less money on them.
Finally, I think that's what they are doing. Not in the most efficient way, but if you really think that the fact Roman has been largely put against Internet darlings isn't a plan, I don't know what to tell you.
Because let's be clear, the last person to legit pop a rating on Raw, at least to my knowledge, is Goldberg. A nostalgia act from the 90's who has only wrestled, what, 3 matches. Roman isn't moving the needle anymore than anyone else on the show, and the "mixed" reaction to him is certainly a part of that.
Sure, but if I'm Vince, that's an argument to keep pushing the guy I want if nobody is popping ratings or moving merch. Part of the reason why Austin's push got elevated is his quarter hours started going up and he started to move more merch than expected.
I know people like to quote that silly CM Punk like about a millionaire who should be a billionaire, but if Kevin Owens, AJ Styles, or Sami Zayn were actually popping ratings outside of normal or having massive merch numbers, they would get pushed ahead of Reigns.
And yes, the internet will likely hate whoever the next guy/girl (cause I think we're past the point where the next big star can only be a dude) is. That's what internet communities do: hate anything the "filthy casuals" like. The WWE's current problem is that their audience has dwindled to the point that the internet fans are filling up far more of those arenas than they did when Rock and Austin were out. So they can't just ignore them, because they're the ones in the arenas, buying the tickets and merch, and booing the fuck out of Roman Reigns.
They can't ignore them, but you can leave them sated by signing all their indy favorites because the WWE is the only place where you can actually make money.
You can only forsake the hardcore for the casuals when the latter greatly outnumber the former. And WWE has so little cache in current mainstream pop culture, and (relatively speaking) so few eyes on the product, they're not really there.
You also can't focus only on the hardcore fan and not book to try to bring in the causal fan. After all, if the WWE had listened to the Internet in 1996, they would've fired The Rock and I don't know, put Marc Mero in the main event or something.
The truth is, the WWF got lucky that they were able to slowly change the product in '97 enough by having fan favorites like Bret & Shawn in prominent positions while they pushed new people to the top and shifted the product.
No, and the post you quoted doesn't claim that. The argument is that with the same focus from the company other superstars could pull equal or even better numbers.
Except, outside of the conspiracy theories of the Internet, if people were selling more merch, they'd get more merch. I mean, look at The New Day. They get a new piece of crap every other week. Because it sells.
If Dean Ambrose, AJ Styles, Kevin Owens, or whomever were actually selling an outsized bit of merch based on their push, the WWE would shift things. But, they aren't, so they don't.
who cares what the nerds thought when wrestling was pulling in 5.0s on two different shows on a monday night
we're right today with our complaints because there's a clear downward trend in business. keep pushing reigns as the main event guy if you keep wanting 2.0 ratings. he's not a draw to casuals or hardcore fans. figure it out.
I've continually said, Reigns may not be the guy, but neither is Rollins, Styles, Balor, Owens, Zayn, or Cesaro. They'll be riding the ship down to 2.0 as well if they were the top guy.
If you only play games once or at least not right after beating it the first time, I think you'll love it.
