Is the WWE making more money in the PG era?

[SpReEfOrAlL]

The WWE clearly is using the PG era to make money. But could they really be making more than the attitude era? I know they probably make more money off of toys and apparel, even though the sales didnt exactly suck in the Attitude era. But ratings and PPV buys are no where near what they used to be. I don't think its even close PPV wise.

So do you think the WWE is making more money in the PG era? Do they make enough money off toys, shirts and dvds to outweigh the fact that people arent watching as much as they used to?

[Celtics_Champs]

Is the money the reasoning? I thought it was Linda's campaign?

[skbucks1985]

The question is a bit specious. Are they making as much as they were in the Attitude Era? Of course not. The audience isn't near as large. But I don't attribute that to the shift to PG, I attribute it to the fact that today's wrestler's aren't as talented as the guys during the Attitude Era. Even if it was still attitude era type storylines that doesn't change the fact that Cena isn't nearly as talented as The Rock, Orton isn't nearly as talented as SCSA, The Miz isn't nearly as talented as HHH. Why the talent pool is shallower despite the fact that theoretically it should be deeper because they have a much stronger stranglehold over the industry than they did during that period is another issue altogether.

[jigga_man]

The question is a bit specious. Are they making as much as they were in the Attitude Era? Of course not. The audience isn't near as large. But I don't attribute that to the shift to PG, I attribute it to the fact that today's wrestler's aren't as talented as the guys during the Attitude Era. Even if it was still attitude era type storylines that doesn't change the fact that Cena isn't nearly as talented as The Rock, Orton isn't nearly as talented as SCSA, The Miz isn't nearly as talented as HHH. Why the talent pool is shallower despite the fact that theoretically it should be deeper because they have a much stronger stranglehold over the industry than they did during that period is another issue altogether.

Exactly. Some smarks think if the wwe just turns cena heel, and make thing a bit edgier, it'll be just like it was ten years ago, and it's not happening. The difference in the talent level now, compared to the attitude era is enormous.

[Hilltop]

A lot of the characters and angles are played out too. People are also a lot more jaded and have much higher expectations.

Back in the Attitude Era, my memory of wrestlers was always that of a cartoon character. They were colorful, had catchphrases, costumes, and portrayed stereotypes and all sorts of things. Even the lamest gimmick would fly back then. Coming up with a shtick like that is tougher these days. There's just so much less to play around with compared to before.

[Coach Smiley]

it's possible they are due to the fact that their business model has improved over the last 10 years, sure their PPV is down but they are making pretty impressive profits every quarter and they have honed and expanded their business quite a bit

For that reason I don't think it's necessarily fair to compare talent of today vs. talent of yesterday in terms of drawing power, yes in some measures like attendance or whatever but it has a lot to do with how WWE positions itself as a business. Which is why I am suspect when people say Austin was a bigger draw than Hogan, because they were working on two different platforms given their timing, for example WWE had better t-shirt distribution and marketing than they did during the Hogan days, so Austin may sell more shirts

[Wo1verine]

Ever since they switched to PG, wrestling has been very boring to me..

[Coach Smiley]

I dunno, it got boring to me after wrestlemania 20, I'm actually getting back into now I don't really care what the rating is good booking doesn't need swearing and naked chicks, I grew up on 80s wrestling which was super clean but still super awesome

[dean12]

chicks in the wrestling are to attract the men. nothing any other propaganda.