Why does /pw/ tend to scapegoat smarks for "ruining wrestling" instead of the company's creative or booking? It comes off as running defense for a shitty product.
>>21015861It doesn't even come off as, it IS running defense.
>>21015861WWE fucking SUCKSLMAO
>>21015861>It comes off as running defense for a shitty productIt is.Remember that paid marketing teams infest this board.
>>21016119Just like AEW. What a coincidence.
The general consensus on the IWC throughout most of the 80's up until AEW came about was that Vince ruined wrestling and that the only thing that matters is how good the matches are, not how good the promos, the hype or the personalities are.The logic for "good matches are most important" makes sense. If you go to a show and see a great match, you would think, "What if the other matches were great too?". And you might think, "All these matches were so good. If other people saw them, this promotion would do so well and be popular". Again, it makes total sense on paper.But the theory has been tested. AEW has the greatest matches ever in history on a weekly basis according to Meltzer. Yet, it still hasn't come close to really taking on WWE. ROH built a whole promotion around good matches only and the company never really got past an indy level. Various indies have done nothing but put on good matches and never even got close to where ROH was. WWE's supposedly at its lowest point ever according to the same people above because of ads, celebrities, the pushes of people like Jey Uso, the lack of Ilja Dragunov on TV and the focus on Bloodline, yet it is still doing better than AEW is.That's what the core of the argument is. It's not a defense of WWE, but WWE is making more money than any promotion ever has. They are doing something right. It may be worthwhile to figure out what it is. And according to Meltzer's ratings, it's definitely not "having good matches".
>>21015861because the "product" turned to shit the very moment it started pandering to smarks
>>21015861Self loathing.
>>21015861Because everything wrong in wrestling can be ultimately pointed to originating from smarks, and very particularly the what the word means, marks that are smart to the business but still mark out and pay out. Adam Cole like champs, Garganos, tiny ass niggas with no real charisma from NXT gold and black all the way to current day. Paying for Bucks flippyshows, paying for pointless hardcore bullshit...It's all the smarks doing
>>21016251^Shat GTP.
>>21015861E drones hated this thread.
>>21016251Good post, agreed
>>21015861Because smarks glaze people like Ospreay. Doesn't matter how you book him, he's still going to have the same kind of shitty wrestling match that is killing the business
>>21016501Nah it's just a boomer. That dude has been making similar posts for 20 years now. Some of them can be insightful.
>>21019571Appreciate it!
>>21016251Agree with some parts of this, disagree with part of your conclusion.WWE does put out a better product than AEW in terms of what viewers want to watch. People don't just want "good matches" - they want compelling storytelling.But WWE's record profits have nothing to do with that. Its mainstream status is lower than ever and normies will tell you it's more unwatchable than ever. The reason it's drawing as much money as it is is that every aspect of the product has been monetized to a degree that was never the case when the company was at its peak. And a lot of that is due to a chance in business model. In the past, viewers were the customers and the show was the product. That's not the case anymore. Now, the viewers are the product and advertisers are the customers. The show is just a means by which to gain access to the viewers. Shows don't have to be "great", they just have to be "good enough" to draw back loyalists who have been watching most of their lives because it's an easy watch. But it does little to draw new viewers.
