The Cycle Theory - Do you buy into it?

Miakal

How many of you buy into the theory that there is a down or up cycle in the wrestling business?

I do not buy into it at all.

Here are my reasons...

*Saying that there is a cycle to wrestling implies that the owners, bookers, writers, and wrestlers have no role in their given product. This means that no matter what happens wrestling will be popular and then unpopular, with no bearing coming from the active parties of the company. How could this possibly be? It can't.

*How come there were no cycles in WCW, ECW, AJPW or NJPW? This is Papa's idea but I'm stealing it. It's absolutely true. If pro wrestling had cycles then it would apply to all companies.

*WWF/E has only really had two major ups and downs. Sure, WWWF had some smaller cycles but this doesn't really count. The product wasn't national then. Some of the circuits did well, others didn't, and sometimes business changed. A business change doesn't always mean that it follows a cycle or pattern.

I think the cycle theory is false. Ia lso think it proves how McMahon uses his product in the Main Stream. He finds a trend, he milks the cash (up "cycle") out of that trend until it's absolutely dead (down "cycle") and then moves on. This isn't a cycle, it's how McMahon does things. And that's McMahon---not other wrestling comapnies, just one.

The theory doesn't hold water.

Let's hear some arguments and opinions though.

Dusk

Its total Bullshit... an excuse made up to cover a decling product ratherthen take responsibilty and notice the fact that no one wants to see a fake champ that refuses to job.

Drunksader

I think you could argue that entertainment spending declines with the economy, which would explain in part WWE's decline, but technically that should only affect PPV buyrates and perhaps the RAW rating (since PPVs cost money and RAW is only on cable). But since Smackdown!'s ratings have declined as well, you can't really argue that people aren't willing to either spend money on PPVs or to buy cable (the prices of which are coming way down.)

Look at wrestling like you would any other TV show - it gets ratings when people are interested in the content. When interest lags, the ratings fall and the product is said to be in decline. Just b/c WWE has had ups and downs in ratings doesn't necessarily mean that viewer interest in wrestling operates in cycles.

You could argue that WWE's key demographic has gotten older and doesn't watch as much wrestling. The natural argument to that would be that this demographic would be filled as younger fans got older and got more interested. Hence the issue - if content is stale, you're not securing new fans. This gets even worse if you rehash old angles and wrestlers that the older demographic (which we agree suffers from a declining viewership as a natural process).

If you stick w/the demographic angle, you can blame the decline in ratings on the fact that WWE is trying to court people who are watching less and less wrestling as they get older while losing new fans in the process. WWE needs to overhaul the product and stir things up (and by that I do not mean another Billy/Chuck storyline) to get new fans interested. Vince tries to do this by courting mainstream entertainment, but it's hardly a guarantee for viewership.

In conclusion, while you can't claim that wrestling is a cyclical business (something I once believed in), you can argue that the demographic that watches wrestling is indeed cyclical - old fans tune out, new fans tune in. But this cycle only takes place if the product is strong enough to attract the younger end of the demographic while remaining somewhat palatable to the older end of the demographic (you don't want to shoe them out the door, especially if they're having kids that one day will watch the programming.) Regardless, WWE has to address the fact that Hogan, Piper, Steiner, and the rest of the Geriatric Allstars aren't going to bring home the bacon for teenagers who didn't grow up watching them in their prime.

eye cannt spel

Now its HHH's Fault because the product is Sh*t? No, Its the bookers,writters. See my whole point? You just STATED that it is HHH's fault, You didnt say thats your opinion. Now, Do you care to show some proof once again? I doubt it, See as you HAVE NONE. Because THERE ISNT ANY. God, will you give it a rest already? Its proven that there is no proof of this, So for the sake of other people, and for the sake of my poor computer (I almost threw outta the window) Give it a rest!

Thank you.

AudioSavior

I almost think that is not ECS who just wrote that because I agree with him, he seemed normal for once and was actually kind of funny. Keep in mind I will prolly never say that ever again.

Acid_Drop

[quote:post_uid0="eye cannt spel"]Its proven that there is no proof of this[/quote:post_uid0]
wheres the proof?

AudioSavior

oh stop it already. He has a point. N one knows for sure HHH runs raw. We all are sure of it but it can't be proven. educated guesses etc but that is not even the point. I know it you know it ECS doesn't believe it and that is where it ends. until someone comes out and says they saw him have control over what happens there is no proof. End of topic. Move on.

Miakal

I totally agree with you Ida. Who cares about this Triple H crap? Besides, this is a post about cycles in the business. Do they exist or not? So far everyone is saying no. Let's keep it on that topic.

Woodifvh

Nope, the use of cycles as a reason is total bullshit. Its due to an unimaginative product relying on wrestlers past their primes with no stories to work with. And even even if Hogan, HHH, Nash, Piper and all the other has beens could wrestle they still dont' have any storylines worth a damn.

Drunksader

So I take it no one agrees w/my demographic pseudo-cycle point?