Want more wrestling news, rumors, and results? Be sure to visit PWInsider.com and PWInsiderXtra.com.
You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q and A at pwinsider@gmail.com.
If you could make one change to the WWE booking process, what would it be?
Sometimes “one change” is actually a whole lot of changes. They are interrelated and take more than a sentence to explain so let’s go macro first, then we can go micro.
Remember back in the Attitude Era when the motto was “Anything can happen”? Well in short, they have to get back to that.
I am not saying that everything back then was good. Clearly, it wasn’t. Anyone that saw Choppy Choppy knows that.
But what was good was usually fantastic, and that is what kept people coming back for more. The bigger question is, “Why was the good stuff so good”? That is where the micro part comes in. There are a lot of reasons that wrestling was so hot and compelling back then, especially compared to today. So let's get to it.
*First and foremost, talent was protected. Back then, there were five or six guys at all times that you would believe could be WWE champion at any time. If Steve Austin was walking around with the belt, you believed that The Rock could beat him. Or The Undertaker. Or Mankind. Or Triple H. Or Kurt Angle. Or…..you get my point. Now? Well, that leads us to another problem.
*Predictability. How often do you watch a PPV and know exactly who will win before the match even starts? The answer is every single show. For the fans that are drawn in by good storytelling, and they are the ones that expand the audience, today’s WWE has very little appeal to them. They aren’t huge fans of critiquing the actual match. They want it to be the pay off to the storyline. When you don’t engage them, they tune out. And it’s very clear that they have. If you go back to the first three hour Raw, the show did over six million viewers. At the time they were drawing a little over four million a week for Raw, and they went right back to it shortly thereafter. That tells you that almost two million people were following on the periphery, just looking for a reason to come back. There are still people in that position today.
*Protection along the way. Part of the problem with predictability comes from the fact that too many talents are not protected along the way. Just look at Braun Strowman and Samoa Joe before him. Both guys got some major heat on Brock Lesnar and yet both lost to a simple F5. Guys kicked out of numerous finishers in other matches on the show (including John Cena and Roman Reigns), but one F5 and Strowman and Joe are done. The public sees that and thinks “that guy isn’t a main-eventer”. I am not saying both needed to beat Brock (though I am not saying that they shouldn’t either) but taking one finisher and losing doesn’t protect them at all. It actually weakens them. Contrast that with NXT where guys come out stronger in losses than some on the main roster do in wins. It is telling.
*Pushing older talent at the expense of younger talent. Last year Kevin Owens was the champ for months. Then we got to WrestleMania season and they brought in Bill Goldberg to beat him for the belt and take on Brock Lesnar at Mania for the Title. Some fans only tune in at Mania time and what did WWE tell them? No new talent for you to see, the two older guys are better than them all! Goldberg and Brock should have been a co-main event, not a main event Title match. Use them to show the once a year fan that you have restocked the cupboard, not that it’s bare. And hey, if someone decided to give Raw a shot tomorrow and doesn’t see the champion, that also tells them that the guys that actually are appearing aren't top guys. Putting the Title on a part timer repeatedly is bad business. Why should a fan of storylines watch a show that the most important guy doesn’t even bother attending? The irony is that it appears Vince is keeping Brock strong so that when Reigns beats him at WrestleMania, it will really mean something to the fans. He obviously isn't hearing them now.
*Paying more attention to the pulse of the crowd. Vince is lucky. People actually pay HIM to come and tell them who they like and who they don't. I am not saying to give them everything they want, but to ignore them altogether is just amazing to me. As I have said before, if people demanded a column on comic books and it got a ton of clicks, we would be covering comic books. Give the people what they want.
*Overscripting. I get that WWE wants to make movies and all, but the move away from bullet points to entire verbiage being scripted out is a major problem as it puts talents in a position to say things that just don’t get over, and also keeps them from being able to ad lib when lines they have been given are bombing. The more they bomb, the less chance they have to get over, and a lot of stuff that they are told to say bombs.
*Make Dad want to take junior to the show because he finds it interesting. And herein is another major problem WWE has. TV-PG is fine and that isn’t the issue. The lack of cohesiveness in the stories and the actual presentation is. Adults notice when things don’t make sense, even if kids don’t. The Simpsons has been around so long because it engages parent and child. WWE should get back to doing that too. If Dad is interested by the show, he is more apt to spend money and take Junior to watch it.
So to answer your question, the “one” change I would make is to get away from all of the things that they are doing now from a storyline standpoint and get back doing things that do work. I don't see it happening while Vince is in charge and isn't challenged however.
You can send us questions for the PWInsider.com Q and A at pwinsider@gmail.com.
If you enjoy PWInsider.com you can check out the AD-FREE PWInsider Elite section, which features exclusive audio updates, news, our critically acclaimed podcasts, interviews and more by clicking here!
Bang On Casino
