WWE is as unpopular as ever

>WWE is as unpopular as ever
>networks are paying more and more for it
How the fuck did WWE pull this off? What happened in the later 2010s that caused big media giants to start throwing money at a unpopular and failing product?

Attached: 4AE19DF3-26C9-40ED-8220-E4EE47916A12.jpg (1116x726, 146.1K)

Because networks are failing way harder than WWE so they will try fucking anything to keep ratings stable.

One part inflation, one part a dying medium that is more desperate for content, one part negotiated the deal when the owner's wife was a Presidential cabinet member.

People started watching drama and most other TV on demand or via streaming. Sports was affected less than anything else due to being a live event. WWE got grouped in with sports in terms of being live entertainment so broadcasters paid them out the ass.

Newsflash, traditional TV is dying. Millennials and Zoomers are all about streaming, and I say that as a Millennial myself. And to that end, I haven't watched live TV in over two years. So basically, these networks are willing to pay absurd amounts of money for anything that will slow the rot, and like it or not, WWE still pulls in some of the highest figures in its timeslot.

WWE isn't actually failing. The Neilson ratings are a lie and are 2 million viewers behind for us because of streaming services.

What other anons have said so far about networks dying, plus WWE is more popular globally than they ever were. So while the relevance of wrestling in the US is lower than ever, they're likely doing better numbers in other markets.
The International Olympic Committee, for example, makes a fuckton of money from broadcasting rights, but that's not just from NBC. They're earning deals from networks globally.

>traditional TV is dying
So why are ratings for everyone else on traditional TV not showing the same twenty year nosedive that WWE is?

Because WWE has also turned to shit over the past 5 years. The decline started before that, but things have been really shit recently.

networks are desperate for content that someone else produces, especially if it has a built-in audience, and even more so if that audience doesn't wholly overlap with their existing audience.

Besides football what other tv shows that have been running for the last 20 years haven't experienced a significant drop in ratings?

TV ratings across the board are down, more or less. The only real exceptions are news and sports. Maybe "dying" was a strong word on my part. But I'd like it radio vs TV. Who would listen to radio over TV? And radio is very much alive, but it has a small targeted audience. TV is going that way too. TV will become niché, like radio. TV will be mostly focused on live sports, as that's one of the only true reliable draws left.

>running for the last 20 years
Disingenuous requirement that makes zero real difference, intended only to exclude the mountains of examples of television shows continuing to draw an audience. The core assertion of all this "tv is dead!" shit is that nobody watches TV, and so WWEs decline is owed to that. But it isn't true, people still watch TV when they want to. They just don't watch WWE.

Boomers watch TV. The way kids and young adults look at is "why would I wait for a certain time, to watch one episode of this, and there's adverts every 5 seconds?" And they're exactly right. That style of doing things is getting more and more unpopular, as it should. If you still watch traditional TV, more power to you bro. But the medium is changing, already has, massively. If you can't see that, that's your mistake.

You brought up the 20 year nosedive, retard. Can't you hold a thought in your head for a few minutes?

TV rights for everything across the board are inflated atm. It seems very bizarre to me that networks are willing to pay so much. Fucking Peacock took a $900 000 000 loss for NBC in 2020 and no one batted an eye.

Attached: Orange Cassidy.webm (853x480, 2.88M)

Continual decline for 20 years has nothing to do with requiring that any comparison be a 20 year old show, that's a non sequitur. If you need me to explain this to you, or why one doesn't relate to the other, you're too stupid for this conversation. Go post a Kevin Nash meme or some greentext.

>Fucking Peacock took a $900 000 000 loss for NBC in 2020 and no one batted an eye.
NBC makes like $30 billion per quarter.

Haha this is hilarious. You don't even know what a non sequiter is lol

>only boomers watch TV!
Another irrelevant argument. Other shows are on that same TV that "only boomers watch", so why aren't their ratings in the same gutter with WWE? Declined since the 90s, yes, anywhere to the same degree, no. WWE loves blaming streaming, when their product started dying before anybody ever heard of Netflix.

>If you need me to explain this to you, or why one doesn't relate to the other, you're too stupid for this conversation.
stupid people make this claim when they know they're too stupid to actually explain what they mean

I do, and used your non sequitur as a plain example of one. Now I guess is the part where you "haha" seethe post and make vague non-arguments while trying to save face, hoping nobody will notice what a mindless twerp you are. Work on reading comprehension so that maybe this will stop happening to you some day.

>water is wet
>the sky is blue
>if you need self evident things explained to you, you're stupid
I see what you mean, it's clearly a cover. I mean, what else could it be? An acknowledgement that some people are past a threshold for stupidity, beyond the point where they're worth a conversation that requires three posts of definition and explanation for every one post of meaningful content?