Did SmackDown usher in the era of "even-steven" booking?

The Query

Matt D. writes:

Chris,
Do you think that there might be a statistical correlation between the birth of smackdown and the start of the "even-stevens" booking in the WWF? If not, then maybe with the death of WCW and the end of the Monday Night wars? If so, is it something that dropped with the brand split and less TV or maybe rose after Lesnar left and WWE might have been less apt to push someone as The Man? 
Any thoughts?

Initial Thoughts

It's a good question. Obviously, there's challenges in quantifying what "even-steven" booking really refers to. Are we talking about person A and person B trading wins between each other? Are we talking about a lack of people being treated as "special" and exempt from losing? Are we discussing the idea that as a whole even the "pushed" wrestlers are losing at random moments to opponents that should be "beneath" them? (That's a lot of "quotes", eh?)

I could approach this by looking at some form of OCELOT ratings where we see what percentage of wrestlers "move up" a significant amount in rankings over a period of time and how that compares across eras. We could do that. However, that's not how I decided to approach it.

My approach

1. Collect and process WWF/WWE results from 1980-2013 from CageMatch
2. Filter to TV/PPV matches (excluding Dark Matches)
3. Calculate win-loss records for each wrestler and total number of TV/PPV matches by year
4. Include all wrestlers that have at least 20% of the maximum number of TV/PPV matches for that year (i.e. Bryan/Cesaro had most TV/PPV matches in 2013 at 102 so cut-off would be 21 matches meanwhile Tony Garea lead the 1981 list at 41 matches so cut-off was 9 matches)
5. Categorize each wrestler's annual win-loss record into one of four categories: High [Above 71%], Mid [between 54% and 71%], Low [35% to 53%], Very Low [below 35%]. (These four buckets were chosen so that across the entire time-period, there would be an even distribution in each bucket.)
6. Calculate what percentage of wrestlers from each year fall into each bucket over time.

Results

Distribution of Wrestlers by Televised/PPV Win Record by Year

Year	High (71%+)	Mid (54%-70%)	Low (35%-53%)	Very Low (<35 p="">	Total
1980	12	4	3	10	29
1981	12	7	2	12	33
1982	20	5	7	17	49
1983	21	3	4	21	49
1984	23	9	4	18	54
1985	34	3	2	24	63
1986	29	14	2	22	67
1987	34	14	6	24	78
1988	34	12	4	25	75
1989	33	7	4	16	60
1990	40	3	4	21	68
1991	29	10	4	16	59
1992	35	7	3	17	62
1993	31	8	3	21	63
1994	33	2	0	21	56
1995	19	19	8	16	62
1996	10	11	9	10	40
1997	4	20	18	6	48
1998	3	20	21	10	54
1999	0	15	29	7	51
2000	1	17	26	6	50
2001	1	24	21	5	51
2002	4	26	27	12	69
2003	7	32	30	8	77
2004	5	22	29	15	71
2005	9	22	24	14	69
2006	7	23	34	14	78
2007	11	18	28	18	75
2008	2	25	24	17	68
2009	3	19	28	11	61
2010	2	20	33	16	71
2011	3	22	21	21	67
2012	5	17	19	15	56
2013	7	26	20	11	64
Total	523	506	501	517	2047

Analysis

• I think the "even-steven" booking may have started before SmackDown began. 
• From 1980 to 1994, the middle tiers (win records between 35%-54%) only compromised about 19% of the wrestlers. 
• In 1995 and 1996, appears to be the inflection point where the number of people in the very top echelon (previously 48%) and the very bottom (previously 33%) started to drop. 
• From 1997 to 2004 (the outermost bounds of what could be called the "Attitude Era"), there was very few people who were "protected" on top. However, it's a very rag-tag group ranging from top-of-the-card performers (Steve Austin, Kurt Angle, Brock Lesnar, Chris Benoit, Undertaker, Goldberg, Rock) to unusual midcarders (Steve Blackman, Dan Severn, Hugh Morrus, Rodney Mack, Val Venis, Jazz).
• From 2005 to 2013, the percentage of wrestlers that had very high winning records was a little more consistent year-over-year: Batista, Big Show, CM Punk, John Cena, Sheamus, Undertaker. There was also several "flavors-of-the-month" which slip in such as Umaga, Snitsky, Alberto Del Rio, Heidenreich, Mark Henry, Ken Kennedy, Rob Van Dam and Ryback.

Full list of wrestlers by year available at indeedwrestling.com.

Notes: This doesn't differentiate between tag teams and singles matches. Losses are not qualified by whether they were clean or whether it was DQ/Count-Out/interference/etc.

Analysis by Chris Harrington (@mookieghana)

What we learned during the Q3 results from WWE...

Here's my "brief" synopsis of what we learned during today's Q3 results and Conference Call:
by Chris Harrington (chris.harrington@gmail.com); @mookieghana on Twitter

1. WWE will be launching in the U.K. using over-the-top technology in November. WWE Network is still unavailable in Italy, Germany, UAE, Japan, India, Thailand, Malaysia. Plans for those countries are yet to be announced.

2. WWE is abandoning the 6-month commitment model starting 11/1. Current subscribers will be "migrated" to the non-commitment model starting in December. For what it's worth, the $12.99 no-commitment model had attracted 23,000 subscribers by quarter end.

3. WWE is offering a free month to new subscribers for November. "We know sampling will be a big part of this business,” Mr. Barrios told the WSJ.

4. WWE received $50M in partial pre-payment in October from a recently completed TV Rights deal. (Could be Canada or India.) WWE also took a "$4.0 million impairment of an equity investment" this quarter. It's unknown what exactly this was candidates could include Phunware, Tout or even something like Marvel Ventures. Barrios hinted it was a technology-related investment when asked by an analyst.

5. WWE ended the quarter with 731,000 paid subscribers to the WWE Network (703,000 U.S. and 28,000 International) as of September 30, 2014. That 28,000 number does include the Rogers Canada subscribers.

6. WWE Network Advertising (which began 10/13 with Pepsi, Mattel, K-Mart, Take-Two Interactive and Pure Talk USA) isn't expected to generate enough meaningful revenue that WWE was going to adjust their overall economic model.

7. Since launch, WWE has attracted approximately 971,000 unique subscribers. However, only 75.2% remain as of September 30.

• 2/24 to 3/31 (+519k, lost -24k) - these have hit 6-month renewal
• 4/01 to 4/06 (+182k, lost -10k) - these will hit 6-month renewal first week of October.
• 4/07 to 6/30 (+167k, lost -134k) - these will hit 6-month renewal in Q4
• 7/01 to 9/30 (+286k, lost -255k)

8. WWE has finalized their TV distribution agreements in US, India, Canada, Mexico and UAE along with previous deals in UK and Thailand. This brings the company through about 2018 on "Key TV Contracts" for revenue estimates. Expect these seven distribution agreements will raise WWE TV Rights from ~$130M (2014) to ~$235M (2018).

9. WWE's new narrative is that the WWE Network is pushing "domestic transactions". Basically, they're promoting B-level PPVs are getting far more viewers with the $9.99/month WWE Network than they were when they were stand-alone, high-priced PPV offerings.

10. Misc Numbers: Raw (+2%) and SmackDown (+3%) TV ratings are up. Social Media is now over 420 million followers. North American attendance is down 7% (5100 fans) and event sponsorship revenue has dropped. International attendance is up 15% (7700 fans) but WWE ran 8 less int'l shows than last year. Licensing is up because of a "higher effective royalty rate" with the Video Game. WWE Studios only lost $0.4M this quarter (versus $7.4M last year when you include the Film Impairment charges in 2013). Corporate & Other costs have gone up $7.6M because of severance/restructuring charges ($2.1M) and talent development, brand marketing and expansion of WWE international infrastructure. "Charge of $1.8 million to write down certain assets associated with the Company's gamification initiative."

There was a lot of talk about churn and questions about specific markets (i.e. how is Canada doing?) but WWE wouldn't get into very clear numbers. They remain convinced that the OIBDA outlook for 2015 is on track.

I'm sure at least one list-bait site will want to turn this into a ten-page slideshow so I went ahead and made it easy for ya.

chris.harrington@gmail.com

WWE Q3 2014 - Your Links

Key Performance Indicators: through September 30, 2014 -- (Warrior DVD continues to limp along in sales)

Q3 2014 Results -- 731k subs as of 9/30; 971k subscribers since the service ever started; 28k int'l subscribers active in 9/30; no more $12.99 plan/no more 6-month commitment; UK should roll out OTT in November

Trending Schedules -- yes, Canada is part of OTT Subscription numbers.

WSJ Article on WWE Q3 Results -- good breakout of key #s.

WWE Earnings Presentation Slides -- really good breakouts

Estimating Canadian WWE Network Subscribers through Rogers (Q3)

Regarding the estimate for Canadian WWE Network subscribers.

Population of the US is 316M. Population of Canada is 35M. (Source) Historically, WWE reported a "Domestic PPV" number which included US, Canada and Puerto Rico. While Canada is only 10% of the population, PPV buys from Canada were higher - I'd estimate more in the 15% of the total "domestic" buys range. That's a 1.5x multiplier.

Average buys for the normal PPVs (let's exclude WrestleMania, Royal Rumble and SummerSlam) from 2011-2013 was about 120,000 "domestic" buys. We'll assume that's about 102,000 from the US/Puerto Rico and 18,000 from Canada.

In the US, there's about "98 million homes that have cable" (WON 1/20/2014, subscription required). Nielsen estimates there are "116.3 million homes in the US" which have "at least one operable TV/monitor with the ability to deliver video via traditional means of antennae, cable set-top-box or satellite receiver and/or with a broadband connection." If we take the midpoint of these two, let's say the US market for accessing WWE PPVs would be 107M.

Prior to launching the WWE Network, WWE was getting about 102,000 PPV buys out of 107,000,000 "eligible" homes. That's about 0.1%. Let's assume that at least 80% of the Q2 700,000 WWE Network subscribers are located in the United States (560,000 US WWE Network subscribers).  So, 560,000/102,000 = 5.5x multiplier. That is, we're seeing about 5.5x the "normal" US PPV baseline in WWE Network Volume (due to the lower price).

In Canada, only Rogers Communications is offering a version of the WWE Network. That's a base of 5.2 million cable subscribers. Assuming that we're seeing about the higher-per-capita rate of Canadian WWE fans (0.15% in Canada instead of 0.10% in US), that would be 7,500 PPV buys at regular price. using the 5.5x multiplier, that would suggest about 41,000 Canadian WWE Network subscribers. Keep mind the price in Canada is more like $12/month so I'm not even factoring in some price elasticity due to a 30% markup against the domestic/global WWE Network price.

Thus, that's why I would expect that WWE will record something in the range of 40,000 to 50,000 WWE Network subscribers in Canada. Whether they'll actually explicitly tell us that in the Q3 update, remains to be seen!

Trying to estimate the Q3 WWE Network Subscription Number

Let's start with what we know:

WWE Network
03/31/14: 495,000 subscribers (10-Q; filed 5/2/14)
04/07/14: 667,287 subscribers (Press Release 4/7/14)
06/30/14: 699,750 subscribers (10-Q; filed 8/1/14)

There's some additional data-points hidden in the 10-Q releases.

3/31/14
Q1 Network Segment Net Revenue: +$18,432,000
Q1 Network Segment OIBDA:-$3,589,000
Q1 PPV Buys: 677,400
Q1 Revenue/Buys: $20.00
Q1 PPV Revenue Calculated: $20.00 x 677,400 = $13,548,000
Q1 WWE Network Revenue: $18,432,000 - $13,548,000 = $4,884,000
Q1 Paid Subscription Days: 29 days (2/24/14 to 3/31/14 with a one-week free trial)
Q1 Estimated Subscriptions at Midpoint: $4,884,000 / $9.99 = 488,889 subscriptions on 3/16/14

6/30/14
Q2 Network Segment Net Revenue: $43,235,000
Q2 Network Segment OIBDA:-$7,347,000
Q2 PPV Buys: 1,058,600
Q2 Revenue/Buys: $22.51
Q2 PPV Revenue Calculated: $22.51 x 1,058,600 = $23,829,000
Q2 WWE Network Revenue: $43,235,000 - $23,829,000 = $19,406,000
Q2 Paid Subscription Days: 91 days (4/1/14 to 6/30/14)
Q2 Estimated Subscriptions at Midpoint: $19,406,000 / $9.99 = 647,511 subscriptions on 5/15/14

Since Q2 number, there's been two big developments:
I) First round of six-month subscriptions coming up for renewal
II) Global Launch of the WWE Network

Let's combine known/derived information.

A. 02/23/2014: no subscribers
B. 03/16/2014: 488,889 subscribers
C. 03/31/2014: 495,000 subscribers
D. 04/07/2014: 667,287 subscribers
E. 05/15/2014: 647,511 subscribers
F. 06/30/2014: 699,750 subscribers

A to B: growth at 23,280/day
B to C: growth at 407/day
C to D: growth at 24,612/day
D to E: decline at 520/day
E to F: growth at 1,136/day

There's several pieces to the current WWE Network subscription number:
a) Subscribers to the domestic WWE Network who have renewed
b) Subscribers to the domestic WWE Network who are still in their initial six-month subscription
c) Subscribers to the global OTT WWE Network
d) Subscribers to the Rogers/Canadian "WWE Network"

We know that at least 495,000 subscribers will have their subscription come up for renewal before Q3. In reality, it's logical to conclude that the entire WrestleMania crowd (667,287) ought to be up for renewal (though I suspect some of these people were involved in the 128,000 cancellations from Q2).

Let's assume that WWE Network retention could range from low (I'll say 70%) to high (I'll say 90%).
With the "WM base" that would range from 467,000 (70%) to 534,000 (80%) to 601,000 (90%).
Let's take the midpoint (534,000).

Subscribers to the domestic WWE Network who have joined after WrestleMania and are still in their initial six-month period would probably be around 137,000. Let's assume they are still active.

Then you have the international roll-out on August 12.
There's essentially two pieces: the international OTT service and the Canadian Rogers service.

If we look at the original Q1 growth for the domestic service (13,750/day), the international roll-out could range from 5% to 40% as robust. After 50 days, international subscriptions could range from 34,375 (5% of domestic ramp-up) to 68,750 (10%) to 171,875 (25%) to 206,250 (30%) to 275,000 (35%).

I'm going to go with about 15% which would suggest about 103,125 international WWE Network OTT subscriptions.

The Canadian/Rogers' number is even harder to guess. It could be tiny or relatively large. For now, I'll go with 50,000.

Subscriptions = non-renewal base + renewed base + int'l OTT + Rogers
Subscriptions = 137,000 + 534,000 + 103,125 + 50,000 = 824,125.

Q3 prediction of 800,000 to 825,000 seems to be a popular bet.

Analysis: Chris Harrington (@mookieghana) / chris.harrington@gmail.com

Streaming Services Update

As we eagerly await the latest update on WWE Network subscriber numbers (WWE Q3 earnings and conference call tentatively scheduled for 10/30), today is a good opportunity to catch up on the latest news and developments in the area of over-the-top streaming video services.


HBO GO

First up is yesterday's news from Chairman and CEO of Home Box Office, Inc. Richard Plepler that HBO would be launching a "stand alone" version of their popular HBO Go service.

Variety immediately speculated on some questions around what this service may look like:

• Would it have the full library of past and current HBO programming? 
• Would it cost more than the normal monthly HBO pay-TV price? 

Already, we've seen a few answers emerge to address these questions. New York Post media Reporter Claire Atkinson tweeted that according to executives the "HBO GO OTT will be the full monty... not a lightweight version." And the Wall Street Journal reported that "according to a person familiar with the matter... the fee for the new service isn’t expected to be any cheaper than... average monthly cost for an HBO subscription ($15)."

CEO Plepler noted there is already "10 million broadband-only homes" and that "large and growing opportunity that should no longer be left untapped." Certainly, with sky-high piracy rates for popular HBO shows like Game of Thrones, there's a healthy appetite for the original content. However, how much that will translate into recaptured revenue from new U.S. subscriptions remains anyone's guess.

HBO Go is already available as an internet-only option in the Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark). This is no doubt a response to the rapid growth of Netflix in this same area. This area of the world has been a fertile ground for over-the-top subscription services with some analysts connecting this to the acceptance and growth created by Spotify (a Swedish company).

NETFLIX

As the SNL Kagan's analysis highlights, Netflix has continued to robustly grow their domestic streaming subscribers numbers over the last three years while HBO has only gently increased their domestic subscriber ranks.

As the chart above demonstrates, Netflix has continued to acquire new members. However, the company's stock did drop more than 20% when announced Q3 results which did not match original forecasts. It should be stressed that Netflix still added 3 million new members (1 million US, 2 million int'l) but they didn't meet the original target of 3.7 million new members.

Interestingly, the company is pointing the finger of blame on "slightly higher prices we now 
have compared to a year ago. Slightly higher prices result in slightly less growth, other things being 
equal, and this is manifested more clearly in higher adoption markets such as the US." The letter to shareholders goes on to note that the "large positive reception to Season Two of Orange is the New Black" seems to have offset the "late Q2 and early Q3 the impact of higher prices".

It does seem remarkable that a $1 price increase in the U.S. in May would have such a blunt impact on subscription growth. As CEO Reed Hastings told the Associated Press, "There is slightly more (pricing) sensitivity than we thought".  (It would appear the new drinking game is around the word "slightly".)

WWE NETWORK

One reoccurring theme from reading articles about Netflix and HBO Go is that content is still king.

The strength of these services is built on the high-quality programs they create and rights they control. It's an important lesson that if you're implementing a price adjustment, they'll need to time it strategically. In WWE's example, one would expect that would be around premium event such as WrestleMania. 

Still, I don't expect that we'll see what Robert Routh said during the Q1 conference call, "all you need is one House of Cards or one Game of Thrones and obviously subscriptions for WWE network will go off the chart."

In attempt to generate additional revenue, this week the WWE announced they are adding limited video advertising to the WWE Network. I outlined all the important elements in my B/R article (15-30 seconds, every fourth stream, initial sponsors include Pepsi, Mattel and Kmart). 

Certainly, more established services such as Netflix and HBO Go have eschewed advertisements while smaller services with smaller subscription bases such as Hulu Plus (6+ million) continue to utilize them. Why? "(T)o reduce the monthly subscription price of the service."  With WWE still struggling to hit a million subscribers, it makes far more sense for them to follow Hulu Plus' model instead of Netflix or HBO Go.

One positive step for the WWE Network is that there's a new Chief Digital Officer (Lou Schwartz) whose responsibilities include overseeing "product development and operations for WWE Network." While the company has recently been doing cost-cutting, it's good to know that executive positions, particularly in the digital media space, aren't going to stay vacant forever.

OTHER

A new player in the streaming media space include "CBS All Access" ($5.99/month), The USA Network just launched their new app "USA Now" (and companion "SyFy Now"). 

WWF 1963-1993 Wrestlenomics

I've been going through the archived results from TheHistoryofWWE, In particular, I've been looking at 1963-1993.

The recorded record for WWF shows after Monday Night Raw was established is fairly solid. Most of those results have been cataloged into the databases at CageMatch and WrestlingData. Things are much more spotty for results from the 1960s, 1970s and even early 1980s.

Periodically, I like to audit the current results up at History of WWE and see how complete the record is/is not.

Old results are always challenging because there's a lot of name/spelling issues in the results and everything is (understandably) far less complete. You also have a lot more lines that say "also featured" and "included". These notes often don't get put into databases as wrestling appearances but really should be included because they can represent a large hunk of appearances for some wrestlers.
(I've tried my best to include these appearances in my "match database" that I built.)

The History of WWE - All Events 1963-1992 pages

year	events	matches	matches per card		year	events	matches	matches per card
1963	296	1222	4.13		1978	491	3182	6.48
1964	294	1271	4.32		1979	437	2843	6.51
1965	259	942	3.64		1980	481	3033	6.31
1966	356	1271	3.57		1981	474	3092	6.52
1967	296	1167	3.94		1982	499	3555	7.12
1968	260	1124	4.32		1983	605	4092	6.76
1969	230	1185	5.15		1984	688	4591	6.67
1970	250	1225	4.90		1985	704	4872	6.92
1971	238	1143	4.80		1986	745	4386	5.89
1972	276	1405	5.09		1987	750	4744	6.33
1973	232	1175	5.06		1988	631	4268	6.76
1974	215	953	4.43		1989	617	3926	6.36
1975	343	1528	4.45		1990	613	4181	6.82
1976	400	2178	5.45		1991	499	3878	7.77
1977	469	2792	5.95		1992	494	3697	7.48

Keep in mind that results I used contain a lot more than just WWWF results.

There's lots of results from Toronto, Pittsburgh and international shows (often joint promotions) such as tours with Japanese companies. Still, it's interesting to see some of the trends that emerge.

Here's a look at the average number of matches reported per card:

Isn't it remarkable how the average number of matches per card has shot up over time?

It goes from about four (1960s) to five (early 1970s) to six (late 1970s) to more than six (1980s) to more than seven (1990s). I believe that this is a combination of lots of factors. 

The further back you go, the record grows less complete. Oftentimes, only the title matches (especially a world title match) are called out on the cards. The matches from the undercard may be missing. Also, some of these spot shows could actually had far less matches than today's lavish house shows. Lastly, television tapings, particularly the infamous marathon television tapings for syndicated programming from the 1980s and early 1990s, can skew the matches/card metric.

year	events	att record?	% of events		year	events	att record?	% of events
1963	296	21	7%		1978	491	21	4%
1964	294	20	7%		1979	436	14	3%
1965	259	23	9%		1980	481	55	11%
1966	356	11	3%		1981	474	71	15%
1967	294	12	4%		1982	499	72	14%
1968	260	10	4%		1983	605	87	14%
1969	229	20	9%		1984	688	195	28%
1970	250	19	8%		1985	704	311	44%
1971	238	15	6%		1986	745	331	44%
1972	276	10	4%		1987	750	367	49%
1973	232	21	9%		1988	632	258	41%
1974	215	21	10%		1989	617	238	39%
1975	344	17	5%		1990	613	287	47%
1976	401	15	4%		1991	499	226	45%
1977	468	40	9%		1992	494	284	57%

This looks at what proportion of the wrestling events actually have any sort of "attendance" record connected with it. For the first fifteen years, the percentage is hovering at/below 10%. Things get a lot more complete in the early 1980s (when the Wrestling Observer Newsletter comes along) and by 1985, it's closing in on more than 40% of the events.

When you're trying to evaluate "drawing power" for WWWF champions, these sorts of sample size differences make it tough. Consider, between 1963-1972, Sammartino had well over 1,500 matches. However, there's only records (in this dataset) covering about 67 crowds over ten thousand people. Conversely, in Hulk Hogan's 325 matches between 1985 and 1986, there's over 125 shows with 10k+ crowds. While WWF was extremely hot in the Hulkamania Rock 'n' Wrestling era, it's disingenuous to simply compare the where I have 642 attendance records (1985/1986) and where I only have 161 attendance records (1963-1972). 

However, you can look at "drawing power" from within the same time period among WWF stars.

For instance, consider WWF tours with and without Hulk Hogan appearing between 1984-1989. I found 97 cities which had attendance records for shows that both did and did not include Hulk.

Location	No Hogan	w/ Hogan	diff
Albuquerque, NM -- USA	2,522	7,593	5,070
Anaheim, CA -- USA	3,917	8,250	4,333
Arena St. Louis, MO -- USA	5,454	10,575	5,121
Atlanta, GA -- USA	3,021	4,658	1,637
Auburn Hills, MI -- USA	6,900	13,750	6,850
Baltimore, MD -- USA	8,132	11,489	3,356
Binghamton, NY -- USA	2,422	5,900	3,478
Birmingham, AL -- USA	3,120	12,000	8,880
Boston, MA -- USA	10,524	12,707	2,184
Buffalo, NY -- USA	5,829	9,038	3,209
Calgary, AB -- CANADA	8,500	15,000	6,500
Chicago, IL -- USA	7,713	12,527	4,814
Cincinnati, OH -- USA	3,830	7,981	4,151
Cleveland, OH -- USA	6,671	13,250	6,579
Columbus, OH -- USA	3,353	21,333	17,980
Dallas, TX -- USA	1,460	2,994	1,534
Dayton, OH -- USA	1,000	8,000	7,000
Denver, CO -- USA	4,842	7,019	2,177
Des Moines, IA -- USA	2,000	11,000	9,000
Detroit, MI -- USA	8,473	12,263	3,790
East Rutherford, NJ -- USA	8,054	14,335	6,281
Edmonton, AB -- CANADA	9,500	12,500	3,000
Erie, PA -- USA	2,276	4,850	2,573
Foxboro, MA -- USA	12,000	23,000	11,000
Fresno, CA -- USA	4,486	7,725	3,239
Glens Falls, NY -- USA	5,833	8,500	2,667
Greensboro, NC -- USA	1,800	2,835	1,035
Halifax, NS -- CANADA	5,667	7,500	1,833
Hamilton, ONT -- CANADA	10,560	15,500	4,940
Hartford, CT -- USA	6,244	11,730	5,486
Hershey, PA -- USA	4,687	7,767	3,080
Houston, TX -- USA	5,575	5,375	(200)
Huntsville, AL -- USA	9,000	6,781	(2,220)
Indianapolis, IN -- USA	7,000	8,352	1,352
Jackson, MS -- USA	2,086	4,500	2,414
Joe Louis Detroit, MI -- USA	20,000	20,997	997
Kansas City, MO -- USA	3,323	6,929	3,605
Kiel Auditorium  - St. Louis, MO -- USA	4,067	6,387	2,320
Landover, MD -- USA	5,589	12,977	7,388
Las Vegas, NV -- USA	3,833	10,807	6,973
Little Rock, AR -- CANADA	2,452	3,800	1,348
London, ONT -- CANADA	3,918	2,500	(1,418)
Long Island, NY -- USA	7,255	12,473	5,218
Los Angeles, CA -- USA	8,277	12,336	4,058
Louisville, KY -- USA	1,189	3,587	2,398
Madison, WI -- USA	4,100	7,557	3,457
Maple Leaf Gardens  Toronto, ONT -- CANADA	17,500	18,000	500
Memphis, TN -- USA	750	4,475	3,725
Miami, FL -- USA	3,041	5,104	2,063
Milwaukee, WI -- USA	4,402	13,993	9,591
Minneapolis, MN -- USA	2,750	7,660	4,910
Montreal, QC -- CANADA	12,737	16,167	3,429
MSG New York City, NY -- USA	17,407	19,259	1,852
Nashville, TN -- USA	6,482	9,000	2,518
New Haven, CT -- USA	4,155	9,850	5,695
New Orleans, LA -- USA	1,800	6,267	4,467
Oakland, CA -- USA	7,519	11,810	4,291
Oklahoma City, OK -- USA	2,175	3,472	1,297
Omaha, NE -- USA	5,831	9,443	3,612
Orlando, FL -- USA	5,600	9,200	3,600
Osaka, Japan -- JAPAN	13,000	5,841	(7,159)
Paris, France -- FRANCE	12,000	12,000	-
Peoria, IL -- USA	3,789	10,500	6,711
Philadelphia, PA -- USA	9,210	12,934	3,724
Phoenix, AZ -- USA	6,084	11,820	5,736
Pittsburgh, PA -- USA	9,327	12,546	3,219
Pontiac, MI -- USA	2,400	25,406	23,006
Portland, ME -- USA	3,270	8,550	5,281
Portland, OR -- USA	4,000	6,750	2,750
Providence, RI -- USA	6,321	8,500	2,179
Richfield, OH -- USA	6,214	11,793	5,579
Richmond, VA -- USA	6,250	8,955	2,705
Rochester, NY -- USA	2,974	8,238	5,264
Rockford, IL -- USA	1,917	10,000	8,083
Sacramento, CA -- USA	5,282	7,880	2,598
Salisbury, MD -- USA	7,000	6,850	(150)
Salt Lake City, UT -- USA	5,562	7,200	1,638
San Antonio, TX -- USA	9,000	6,000	(3,000)
San Diego, CA -- USA	5,871	10,875	5,004
San Francisco, CA -- USA	7,189	10,500	3,311
Seattle, WA -- USA	5,900	16,000	10,100
South Bend, IN -- USA	2,586	10,749	8,163
Springfield, IL -- USA	4,217	8,302	4,086
Springfield, MA -- USA	4,153	6,133	1,980
St. Louis, MO -- USA	3,879	6,131	2,252
Syracuse, NY -- USA	2,120	6,000	3,880
Tacoma, WA -- USA	7,731	15,068	7,337
Tampa, FL -- USA	4,000	9,780	5,780
Tokyo, Japan -- JAPAN	10,000	11,000	1,000
Toledo, OH -- USA	5,433	8,881	3,448
Toronto, ONT -- CANADA	9,849	12,810	2,961
Vancouver, BC -- CANADA	4,233	16,000	11,767
Wheeling, WV -- USA	3,334	7,190	3,857
Wichita, KS -- USA	10,000	7,932	(2,068)
Winnipeg, MB -- CANADA	3,600	11,894	8,294
Worcester, MA -- USA	2,000	9,805	7,805
Youngstown, OH -- USA	2,900	6,000	3,100
Median	5,433	9,038	3,605

The initial exercise suggests that in over 90% of the cities, shows with Hogan drew remarkable more than shows without Hogan.

This is certainly not a perfect dataset. There are apples-oranges comparisons including matinees versus evening shows, television tapings versus house shows, pay-per-views versus spot shows, etc. However, the general trend is very telling.

Sure, Hogan was a big attraction the first few times. However, what happens with the Immortal One comes to your town more than a handful of times? Does his drawing power "hold up"?

Let's look at the 44 cities which had at least four visits from Hogan (along with some shows where Hulk Hogan was not there). Again, we must have attendance records available.

City	Hogan Appearances (w/ att. Record)	First Three Hogan	Remaining	Difference	No Hogan	Judgment
Philadelphia, PA -- USA	33	12,370	12,991	620	9,210	Flat (5%)
MSG New York City, NY -- USA	28	25,795	18,475	(7,319)	17,407	Down (-28%)
Chicago, IL -- USA	24	7,500	13,245	5,745	7,713	Up (77%)
Los Angeles, CA -- USA	23	8,667	12,886	4,219	8,277	Up (49%)
Boston, MA -- USA	22	14,233	12,466	(1,767)	10,524	Down (-12%)
Minneapolis, MN -- USA	22	10,500	7,211	(3,289)	2,750	Down (-31%)
Kiel Auditorium  - St. Louis, MO -- USA	19	7,647	6,150	(1,497)	4,067	Down (-20%)
Pittsburgh, PA -- USA	18	14,667	12,121	(2,545)	9,327	Down (-17%)
Oakland, CA -- USA	15	10,733	12,079	1,346	7,519	Up (13%)
East Rutherford, NJ -- USA	14	15,918	13,903	(2,015)	8,054	Down (-13%)
Landover, MD -- USA	14	15,400	12,316	(3,084)	5,589	Down (-20%)
Richfield, OH -- USA	14	13,333	11,373	(1,961)	6,214	Down (-15%)
Houston, TX -- USA	13	3,300	5,997	2,697	5,575	Up (82%)
Toronto, ONT -- CANADA	12	11,407	13,278	1,871	9,849	Up (16%)
Hartford, CT -- USA	10	10,833	12,114	1,281	6,244	Up (12%)
Milwaukee, WI -- USA	9	9,784	16,097	6,313	4,402	Up (65%)
Long Island, NY -- USA	9	12,945	12,237	(707)	7,255	Flat (-5%)
Baltimore, MD -- USA	9	11,367	11,550	183	8,132	Flat (2%)
Kansas City, MO -- USA	9	6,333	7,226	893	3,323	Up (14%)
Detroit, MI -- USA	8	14,167	11,121	(3,046)	8,473	Down (-22%)
San Francisco, CA -- USA	8	7,667	12,200	4,533	7,189	Up (59%)
Miami, FL -- USA	8	3,974	5,782	1,807	3,041	Up (45%)
Providence, RI -- USA	7	8,667	8,375	(292)	6,321	Flat (-3%)
Cincinnati, OH -- USA	7	7,123	8,625	1,502	3,830	Up (21%)
Denver, CO -- USA	7	7,454	6,693	(762)	4,842	Down (-10%)
Montreal, QC -- CANADA	6	20,333	12,000	(8,333)	12,737	Down (-41%)
Omaha, NE -- USA	6	9,115	9,771	656	5,831	Flat (7%)
Hershey, PA -- USA	6	8,833	6,700	(2,133)	4,687	Down (-24%)
Atlanta, GA -- USA	6	5,500	3,815	(1,685)	3,021	Down (-31%)
Maple Leaf Gardens Toronto , ONT -- CANADA	5	17,833	18,250	417	17,500	Flat (2%)
Tacoma, WA -- USA	5	19,746	8,050	(11,696)	7,731	Down (-59%)
Phoenix, AZ -- USA	5	11,067	12,950	1,883	6,084	Up (17%)
Sacramento, CA -- USA	5	7,133	9,000	1,867	5,282	Up (26%)
Pontiac, MI -- USA	4	29,875	12,000	(17,875)	2,400	Down (-60%)
San Diego, CA -- USA	4	10,500	12,000	1,500	5,871	Up (14%)
Arena St. Louis, MO -- USA	4	11,167	8,800	(2,367)	5,454	Down (-21%)
New Haven, CT -- USA	4	9,033	12,300	3,267	4,155	Up (36%)
Buffalo, NY -- USA	4	8,833	9,651	818	5,829	Flat (9%)
Rochester, NY -- USA	4	8,450	7,600	(850)	2,974	Down (-10%)
Fresno, CA -- USA	4	7,300	9,000	1,700	4,486	Up (23%)
Salt Lake City, UT -- USA	4	4,933	14,000	9,067	5,562	Up (184%)
Wheeling, WV -- USA	4	6,987	7,800	813	3,334	Up (12%)
Memphis, TN -- USA	4	4,067	5,700	1,633	750	Up (40%)
Dallas, TX -- USA	4	2,126	5,600	3,474	1,460	Up (163%)

Ultimately, here was the tally:

• 20 cities were UP more than 10% in average attendance in the later Hogan appearances compared to the initial ones. 
• 17 cities were DOWN more than 10% in average attendance in later Hogan appearances compare to the initial ones.  
• 7 cities were FLAT which meant overall attendance for those Hogan shows after the initial trio was within the +/- 10% of the original Hogan attendances. 

One might argue that there's a slightly negative trend, but the average drop in attendance across the cities was 300 people which doesn't really seem very substantial to me.

There are places like Boston or St. Louis or Minneapolis or Denver or Montreal where it looks like Hogan's repeat appearances might have diminished in effectiveness. Bruno's drawing record at MSG is certainly much stronger (and lengthier) than Hogan's. However, I think it might be an over-simplification to ignore examples of Chicago or Milwaukee or Miami or Phoenix where it appears that Hogan held up just fine with repeat appears. In all, it seems to be a mixed bag.

Honestly, there's the counter-argument that Hogan went back to these cities because it was clear he was still a draw there and it's really about the cities they didn't book because they didn't feel Hogan was going to pop the house. I'd have to keep digging to really make a strong determination.

Hope this was interesting to you faithful readers. All analysis by Chris Harrington. 

Twitter: @mookieghana

Email: chris.harrington@gmail.com