WWE pushing to get an Emmy

[trick]

They saw that Sami Zayn/Bobby Lashley segment from a few weeks ago and decided to make an Emmy push

Here's a live look into the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences watching that segment:

 

[HipHopStan]

Can you imagine if they won? Cole and crew would be shilling it worse than the $9.99 deal from a few years ago. "WELCOME TO ANOTHER EPISODE OF THE EMMY AWARD WINNING - WWE RAW."

 

[The Rainmaker]

Tonight's Raw show... for your emmy consideration

 

[woof]

"WWE's controversial decision to become TV-PG paid off long-term as evidenced by The Hollywood Reporter's recent behind-the-scenes report of Fox's record $1 billion deal to air SmackDown Live on the Fox broadcast network. Per the report:"


As if plenty of programming on network television isn't already TV-14....as if WWE wasn't already on NBC, and Fox-owned MyNetworkTV in the past.

It's absolutely helped them change what sponsors are willing to advertise during their programming and increase their value to networks in turn.

They weren't running "high end" TV-14, they were viewed as seedy trash TV-14 that was chasing after a gutter audience and for a long time it made their product worth less than their ratings should have had them.

Going (back) PG and cleaning themselves up is inarguably one the best decisions they have ever made, financially.

 

[2CT]

Can you imagine if they won? Cole and crew would be shilling it worse than the $9.99 deal from a few years ago. "WELCOME TO ANOTHER EPISODE OF THE EMMY AWARD WINNING - WWE RAW."

i'm still tryna figure out what awards has "the award winning WWE Network!" won

 

[LastManStanding]

of all the phenomenal documentaries WWE has produced over the years and they really think the WWE 24: Empowered propaganda is the one to go with?

it's not even in the top ten WWE 24 episodes and there are only like what? 12-15 episodes so far?

and that's not a knock at women's wrestling at all, but that shyt was completely over the top with the "look at us! we're creating something for everyone to pat us on the back for!"

 

[Rayzah]

Desperate for any and all acclaim from the mainstream, even if they have to coerce it. They just can't accept they are carnies. Pathetic.

OR how about this, they could actually TRY to produce emmy winning content.. Its ironic that they say they care about critical acclaim but they seemingly are mailing it in weekly and playing it safe.. the wwe24 docs are there only chance, but not the womens empowerment one, that's just them trying to take advantage of the feminist agenda angle the media has been pushing.

 

[Norrin Radd]

 

[straightcash]

It's absolutely helped them change what sponsors are willing to advertise during their programming and increase their value to networks in turn.

They weren't running "high end" TV-14, they were viewed as seedy trash TV-14 that was chasing after a gutter audience and for a long time it made their product worth less than their ratings should have had them.

Going (back) PG and cleaning themselves up is inarguably one the best decisions they have ever made, financially.

There's TV-14 for language and there's TV-14 for violence. Not only the storylines but the action was toned down as well. Lets say that effects sponsors as well....but low ratings doesn't? TV in general might be doing pretty bad now, but WWE's ratings went on a downward dip over a decade ago.

Most importantly, i'm not an advertiser. I'm just an ex-fan, and like many ex-wrestling fans had to stop watching WWE because of where things went. This is our perspective.

I used to be a huge Smackdown fan during the JBL / Guerrero / Brock Lesnar "ruthless aggression" eras, Smackdown was never vulgar like Raw was with the Edge / Trish / Women's division at the time. But the action and violence went down across the board, and the storylines became corny. What advertising memo says it has to be corny? Things could have been handled in a slightly different manner without going full-on cartoonish.


Most importantly, what you said about advertisers had little to do with my OP about TV-14 programming already being on network TV including WWE in the past. You think FOX doesn't air Family Guy or other other "adult" themed cartoons and shows they've had on? Did WWE know a decade ago they were going to be on Fox but only if they went PG? I call bullshyt on that, if anyone thinks that.

 

[straightcash]

Going (back) PG and cleaning themselves up is inarguably one the best decisions they have ever made, financially.

What do you mean "back to PG"? The TV ratings system in general was only introduced in 1997.

If WWE by any chance was rated PG the first few months, it's likely because violence used to receive a lower rating than it does now. Compare PG-13 films from the 90s vs PG-13 films from now. You can't even show blood or the physical impact of gunviolence without being slapped with rated R.

 

[woof]

There's TV-14 for language and there's TV-14 for violence. Not only the storylines but the action was toned down as well. Lets say that effects sponsors as well....but low ratings doesn't? TV in general might be doing pretty bad now, but WWE's ratings went on a downward dip over a decade ago.

Most importantly, i'm not an advertiser. I'm just an ex-fan, and like many ex-wrestling fans had to stop watching WWE because of where things went. This is our perspective.

I used to be a huge Smackdown fan during the JBL / Guerrero / Brock Lesnar "ruthless aggression" eras, Smackdown was never vulgar like Raw was with the Edge / Trish / Women's division at the time. But the action and violence went down across the board, and the storylines became corny. What advertising memo says it has to be corny? Things could have been handled in a slightly different manner without going full-on cartoonish.


Most importantly, what you said about advertisers had little to do with my OP about TV-14 programming already being on network TV including WWE in the past. You think FOX doesn't air Family Guy or other other "adult" themed cartoons and shows they've had on? Did WWE know a decade ago they were going to be on Fox but only if they went PG? I call bullshyt on that, if anyone thinks that.

Low viewership affects advertising and sponsors, but when advertisers and sponsors view your targeted audience -- right or wrong -- as inbred hicks and/or scumbags with no money and they don't want to be connected in any way to the product you're putting out, you could have higher total viewership and it doesn't matter either... which is exactly the problem WWE was well-known to have and why previous TV deals came in short of expectations. They had to do a massive clean-up and longterm overhaul to their image to improve their bottom line no matter what channel they were going to be on in the future and, given how their sponsorships and TV deals have blown up despite a smaller number of consumers, there's really no debate that they did the right thing for themselves by taking the steps they did. PG polished up image x network desperation for stream and DVR proof products = billions of dollars.

Going PG isn't why the product quality is shyt either; them being a mix of lazy, stubborn, and out of touch is. They could jack the rating back up to TV-14 tomorrow and what they'd turn out would still suck.

And "back to PG," as in back to more of a "family friendly" product, as WWE was prior to the Attitude and Ruthless Aggression Eras for pretty much its entire existence.

 

[reigun]

Top stars Roman Reigns, The New Day, Charlotte Flair and Braun Strowman are also scheduled to appear.

Please don't make them wear their gear.

 

[September]

i'm still tryna figure out what awards has "the award winning WWE Network!" won

WWE Slammy for Best Streaming Service

 

[straightcash]

Low viewership affects advertising and sponsors, but when advertisers and sponsors view your targeted audience -- right or wrong -- as inbred hicks and/or scumbags with no money and they don't want to be connected in any way to the product you're putting out, you could have higher total viewership and it doesn't matter either... which is exactly the problem WWE was well-known to have and why previous TV deals came in short of expectations. They had to do a massive clean-up and longterm overhaul to their image to improve their bottom line no matter what channel they were going to be on in the future and, given how their sponsorships and TV deals have blown up despite a smaller number of consumers, there's really no debate that they did the right thing for themselves by taking the steps they did. PG polished up image x network desperation for stream and DVR proof products = billions of dollars.

Going PG isn't why the product quality is shyt either; them being a mix of lazy, stubborn, and out of touch is. They could jack the rating back up to TV-14 tomorrow and what they'd turn out would still suck.

And "back to PG," as in back to more of a "family friendly" product, as WWE was prior to the Attitude and Ruthless Aggression Eras for pretty much its entire existence.

That's entirely misleading. Previous TV deals were worth less because WWE had competition, first from the WCW and then from TNA. WWE wasn't seen as must-have content because there were plenty of shows that brought an audience and for cheap without having to deal with the logistics of live TV and of stars getting injured/sick.

Now with television viewership dwindling, WWE is seen as a must-have because it comes with an audience that will always tune in. They can always expect to get a 1.5 rating, maybe a 2.0 on a good day, and with it moving to network TV that will be regular occurrence. The live TV format also now works towards its favor because it forces people to tune in.

There is nothing to suggest WWE's previous audience was just hicks and people who don't buy stuff.

 

[2CT]

WWE Slammy for Best Streaming Service

so they brag about an award they gave themselves?

you serious or you just cracking jokes