View Single Post
Old 01-07-2018, 05:47 PM   #43
Mr. Nerfect
 
Posts: 60,912
Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dastardly Dale Newstead View Post
They could potentially make more over time by taking risks but I get what you mean.l
Yeah, this is true. This is kind of where I am on the whole three-hour thing. "But they get more money for the more time." Yeah, but you take the risk, sharpen the product, bring more people in, increase ratings, PPV buys (when that was a thing), Network subs, and hopefully capita per head. Is it better to fill up an arena and get a 3.0 for a two-hour show where people buy all this merchandise, or is it better to get a 1.0 for a three-hour show where the arenas aren't full and a few people buy some merchandise.

NOTE: This is not an accurate description of current WWE. I think the current per capita is actually quite high, but it's a hyperbolic example. A hot product is going to generate more money than that third hour cooling Raw is.
Mr. Nerfect is offline   Reply With Quote