Tuesday, July 11, 2017

WWF Officers - May 1989 - 1999

From 1989 application to the Idaho Secretary of State for Titan Sports to conduct business.



1990 Officers..


1991 Officers...


1992 Officers...


1994 Officers...

1996 Officers...


1998 Officers...


1999 Officers...


Wednesday, July 05, 2017

WWE H1 2017 (January 2017-June 2017) Records

WWE 2017 H1 (January 2017 through June 2017 records)

WWE (includes live & televised events - other = handicap matches, battle royals & royal rumbles)

Sami Zayn: 83 matches [59 singles matches (13-46) = 22.0% win, 22 tag matches (20-2) = 90.9% win, and 2 other matches]
Kevin Owens: 80 matches [47 singles matches (24-23) = 51.1% win, 32 tag matches (2-30) = 6.3% win, and 1 other match]
Dean Ambrose: 79 matches [63 singles matches (54-9) = 85.7% win, 13 tag matches (11-2) = 84.6% win, and 3 other matches]
Jinder Mahal: 78 matches [45 singles matches (14-31) = 31.1% win, 30 tag matches (2-28) = 6.7% win, and 3 other matches]
Nia Jax: 77 matches [23 singles matches (11-11-1) = 50.0% win, 54 tag matches (3-50-1) = 5.7% win]
Sasha Banks: 77 matches [21 singles matches (8-12-1) = 40.0% win, 56 tag matches (52-3-1) = 94.5% win]
Cesaro: 77 matches [6 singles matches (2-4) = 33.3% win, 69 tag matches (26-41-2) = 38.8% win, and 2 other matches]
Charlotte Flair: 77 matches [32 singles matches (5-26-1) = 16.1% win, 42 tag matches (13-29) = 31.0% win, and 3 other matches]
AJ Styles: 77 matches [66 singles matches (19-46-1) = 29.2% win, 10 tag matches (8-2) = 80.0% win, and 1 other match]
Karl Anderson: 77 matches [12 singles matches (1-11) = 8.3% win, 62 tag matches (27-35) = 43.5% win, and 3 other matches]
Tyler Breeze: 76 matches [2 singles matches (1-1) = 50.0% win, 72 tag matches (27-45) = 37.5% win, and 2 other matches]
Sheamus: 76 matches [5 singles matches (2-3) = 40.0% win, 69 tag matches (26-41-2) = 38.8% win, and 2 other matches]
Fandango: 76 matches [2 singles matches (1-1) = 50.0% win, 72 tag matches (27-45) = 37.5% win, and 2 other matches]
Big Cass: 75 matches [18 singles matches (18-0) = 100.0% win, 54 tag matches (18-35-1) = 34.0% win, and 3 other matches]
Neville: 75 matches [69 singles matches (58-11) = 84.1% win, 6 tag matches (1-5) = 16.7% win]
Baron Corbin: 74 matches [59 singles matches (19-40) = 32.2% win, 13 tag matches (1-12) = 7.7% win, and 2 other matches]
Bayley: 73 matches [29 singles matches (17-12) = 58.6% win, 44 tag matches (40-3-1) = 93.0% win]
Alexa Bliss: 73 matches [38 singles matches (29-8-1) = 78.4% win, 35 tag matches (3-31-1) = 8.8% win]
Bray Wyatt: 73 matches [41 singles matches (19-21-1) = 47.5% win, 31 tag matches (5-26) = 16.1% win, and 1 other match]
Roman Reigns: 72 matches [52 singles matches (39-9-4) = 81.3% win, 16 tag matches (14-2) = 87.5% win, and 4 other matches]
Dolph Ziggler: 72 matches [60 singles matches (16-44) = 26.7% win, 8 tag matches (0-8) = 0.0% win, and 4 other matches]
Epico: 72 matches [1 singles matches (1-0) = 100.0% win, 67 tag matches (3-63-1) = 4.5% win, and 4 other matches]
Becky Lynch: 71 matches [38 singles matches (5-32-1) = 13.5% win, 29 tag matches (25-4) = 86.2% win, and 4 other matches]
Titus O'Neil: 71 matches [20 singles matches (5-15) = 25.0% win, 49 tag matches (1-47-1) = 2.1% win, and 2 other matches]
Primo: 70 matches [n/a, 66 tag matches (3-62-1) = 4.6% win, and 4 other matches]
Luke Harper: 70 matches [46 singles matches (26-20) = 56.5% win, 21 tag matches (12-9) = 57.1% win, and 3 other matches]
Luke Gallows: 70 matches [5 singles matches (2-3) = 40.0% win, 62 tag matches (27-35) = 43.5% win, and 3 other matches]
Aiden English: 69 matches [34 singles matches (0-34) = 0.0% win, 33 tag matches (1-32) = 3.0% win, and 2 other matches]
Natalya: 69 matches [32 singles matches (3-27-2) = 10.0% win, 33 tag matches (6-27) = 18.2% win, and 4 other matches]
Carmella: 67 matches [26 singles matches (7-18-1) = 28.0% win, 37 tag matches (4-33) = 10.8% win, and 4 other matches]
Chad Gable: 67 matches [1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win, 65 tag matches (42-23) = 64.6% win, and 1 other match]
Shinsuke Nakamura: 66 matches [32 singles matches (29-3) = 90.6% win, 34 tag matches (34-0) = 100.0% win]
Mojo Rawley: 66 matches [35 singles matches (27-8) = 77.1% win, 27 tag matches (23-4) = 85.2% win, and 4 other matches]
Jason Jordan: 66 matches [n/a, 65 tag matches (42-23) = 64.6% win, and 1 other match]
The Miz: 65 matches [50 singles matches (7-42-1) = 14.3% win, 12 tag matches (1-11) = 8.3% win, and 3 other matches]
Curt Hawkins: 65 matches [42 singles matches (0-42) = 0.0% win, 21 tag matches (0-21) = 0.0% win, and 2 other matches]
Rhyno: 63 matches [2 singles matches (1-1) = 50.0% win, 59 tag matches (41-18) = 69.5% win, and 2 other matches]
Tye Dillinger: 63 matches [34 singles matches (25-9) = 73.5% win, 28 tag matches (25-2-1) = 92.6% win, and 1 other match]
Randy Orton: 62 matches [39 singles matches (32-7) = 82.1% win, 22 tag matches (13-9) = 59.1% win, and 1 other match]
Kalisto: 62 matches [40 singles matches (26-14) = 65.0% win, 18 tag matches (18-0) = 100.0% win, and 4 other matches]
Samoa Joe: 60 matches [22 singles matches (13-9) = 59.1% win, 38 tag matches (1-37) = 2.6% win]
Heath Slater: 59 matches [1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win, 56 tag matches (38-18) = 67.9% win, and 2 other matches]
Apollo Crews: 59 matches [36 singles matches (19-17) = 52.8% win, 19 tag matches (15-4) = 78.9% win, and 4 other matches]
Alexander Wolfe: 59 matches [5 singles matches (2-3) = 40.0% win, 53 tag matches (23-27-3) = 46.0% win, and 1 other match]
Konnor: 58 matches [3 singles matches (0-3) = 0.0% win, 53 tag matches (1-52) = 1.9% win, and 2 other matches]
Kassius Ohno: 58 matches [42 singles matches (37-5) = 88.1% win, 16 tag matches (12-4) = 75.0% win]
Enzo Amore: 57 matches [2 singles matches (0-2) = 0.0% win, 53 tag matches (17-35-1) = 32.7% win, and 2 other matches]
Viktor: 57 matches [2 singles matches (0-2) = 0.0% win, 53 tag matches (1-52) = 1.9% win, and 2 other matches]
Killian Dain: 57 matches [12 singles matches (10-2) = 83.3% win, 43 tag matches (21-20-2) = 51.2% win, and 2 other matches]
Seth Rollins: 56 matches [28 singles matches (22-5-1) = 81.5% win, 28 tag matches (26-2) = 92.9% win]
Aleister Black: 56 matches [46 singles matches (41-5) = 89.1% win, 9 tag matches (8-1) = 88.9% win, and 1 other match]
Sin Cara: 55 matches [15 singles matches (9-6) = 60.0% win, 39 tag matches (37-1-1) = 97.4% win, and 1 other match]
Curtis Axel: 54 matches [10 singles matches (4-6) = 40.0% win, 41 tag matches (21-19-1) = 52.5% win, and 3 other matches]
Asuka: 54 matches [36 singles matches (34-0-2) = 100.0% win, 18 tag matches (18-0) = 100.0% win]
Jimmy Uso: 54 matches [2 singles matches (0-2) = 0.0% win, 51 tag matches (30-21) = 58.8% win, and 1 other match]
Andrade Almas: 53 matches [34 singles matches (10-24) = 29.4% win, 19 tag matches (1-18) = 5.3% win]
R-Truth: 53 matches [n/a, 50 tag matches (48-1-1) = 98.0% win, and 3 other matches]
Goldust: 53 matches [n/a, 50 tag matches (40-9-1) = 81.6% win, and 3 other matches]
Jey Uso: 53 matches [1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win, 51 tag matches (30-21) = 58.8% win, and 1 other match]
Rich Swann: 52 matches [42 singles matches (22-20) = 52.4% win, 10 tag matches (8-2) = 80.0% win]
Bo Dallas: 51 matches [11 singles matches (2-9) = 18.2% win, 37 tag matches (1-35-1) = 2.8% win, and 3 other matches]
Roderick Strong: 51 matches [24 singles matches (18-6) = 75.0% win, 27 tag matches (23-3-1) = 88.5% win]
Naomi: 49 matches [21 singles matches (17-3-1) = 85.0% win, 27 tag matches (24-3) = 88.9% win, and 1 other match]
Braun Strowman: 49 matches [44 singles matches (24-15-5) = 61.5% win, 2 tag matches (2-0) = 100.0% win, and 3 other matches]
Bobby Roode: 48 matches [20 singles matches (20-0) = 100.0% win, 28 tag matches (1-27) = 3.6% win]
Gentleman Jack Galla:  47 matches [29 singles matches (17-12) = 58.6% win, 17 tag matches (14-3) = 82.4% win, and 1 other match]
No Way Jose: 47 matches [36 singles matches (28-8) = 77.8% win, 11 tag matches (9-1-1) = 90.0% win]
Liv Morgan: 46 matches [21 singles matches (11-10) = 52.4% win, 22 tag matches (12-10) = 54.5% win, and 3 other matches]
Sonya Deville: 46 matches [28 singles matches (17-11) = 60.7% win, 15 tag matches (4-11) = 26.7% win, and 3 other matches]
Patrick Clark: 46 matches [42 singles matches (6-36) = 14.3% win, 3 tag matches (0-3) = 0.0% win, and 1 other match]
Montez Ford: 45 matches [6 singles matches (4-2) = 66.7% win, 39 tag matches (19-19-1) = 50.0% win]
Ruby Riot: 44 matches [24 singles matches (18-4-2) = 81.8% win, 19 tag matches (16-3) = 84.2% win, and 1 other match]
Tony Nese: 44 matches [27 singles matches (9-18) = 33.3% win, 17 tag matches (4-13) = 23.5% win]
Oney Lorcan: 44 matches [38 singles matches (14-23-1) = 37.8% win, 5 tag matches (3-2) = 60.0% win, and 1 other match]
Akam: 44 matches [1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win, 43 tag matches (31-11-1) = 73.8% win]
Rezar: 43 matches [n/a, 43 tag matches (31-11-1) = 73.8% win]
Tucker Knight: 43 matches [n/a, 42 tag matches (23-18-1) = 56.1% win, and 1 other match]
Mandy Rose: 43 matches [17 singles matches (4-13) = 23.5% win, 24 tag matches (4-20) = 16.7% win, and 2 other matches]
Otis Dozovic: 43 matches [n/a, 42 tag matches (23-18-1) = 56.1% win, and 1 other match]
Austin Aries: 42 matches [39 singles matches (15-24) = 38.5% win, 3 tag matches (2-1) = 66.7% win]
Big E: 42 matches [2 singles matches (2-0) = 100.0% win, 39 tag matches (9-30) = 23.1% win, and 1 other match]
Tamina: 41 matches [15 singles matches (0-15) = 0.0% win, 22 tag matches (10-12) = 45.5% win, and 4 other matches]
Nikki Cross: 40 matches [26 singles matches (7-18-1) = 28.0% win, 11 tag matches (5-6) = 45.5% win, and 3 other matches]
Angelo Dawkins: 40 matches [1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win, 39 tag matches (19-19-1) = 50.0% win]
Elias Samson: 40 matches [32 singles matches (13-19) = 40.6% win, 8 tag matches (0-8) = 0.0% win]
Mickie James: 39 matches [16 singles matches (2-14) = 12.5% win, 23 tag matches (17-5-1) = 77.3% win]
Eric Young: 39 matches [14 singles matches (6-8) = 42.9% win, 25 tag matches (9-14-2) = 39.1% win]
Noam Dar: 39 matches [22 singles matches (7-15) = 31.8% win, 17 tag matches (1-16) = 5.9% win]
Finn Balor: 39 matches [27 singles matches (23-4) = 85.2% win, 12 tag matches (12-0) = 100.0% win]
Riddick Moss: 38 matches [9 singles matches (0-9) = 0.0% win, 29 tag matches (4-25) = 13.8% win]
Ember Moon: 38 matches [26 singles matches (17-9) = 65.4% win, 10 tag matches (9-1) = 90.0% win, and 2 other matches]
Akira Tozawa: 37 matches [31 singles matches (21-10) = 67.7% win, 6 tag matches (5-1) = 83.3% win]
Dana Brooke: 37 matches [8 singles matches (2-6) = 25.0% win, 29 tag matches (12-17) = 41.4% win]
Alicia Fox: 37 matches [7 singles matches (3-4) = 42.9% win, 30 tag matches (16-14) = 53.3% win]
John Cena: 37 matches [27 singles matches (14-13) = 51.9% win, 9 tag matches (8-1) = 88.9% win, and 1 other match]
Mustafa Ali: 37 matches [27 singles matches (11-16) = 40.7% win, 10 tag matches (8-2) = 80.0% win]
Peyton Royce: 37 matches [14 singles matches (3-11) = 21.4% win, 20 tag matches (9-11) = 45.0% win, and 3 other matches]
TJ Perkins: 36 matches [29 singles matches (8-21) = 27.6% win, 7 tag matches (4-3) = 57.1% win]
Kofi Kingston: 36 matches [2 singles matches (2-0) = 100.0% win, 33 tag matches (7-26) = 21.2% win, and 1 other match]
Aliyah: 36 matches [13 singles matches (1-12) = 7.7% win, 20 tag matches (15-5) = 75.0% win, and 3 other matches]
Tino Sabbatelli: 35 matches [6 singles matches (1-5) = 16.7% win, 29 tag matches (4-25) = 13.8% win]
Erick Rowan: 34 matches [28 singles matches (1-27) = 3.6% win, 6 tag matches (0-6) = 0.0% win]
Johnny Gargano: 33 matches [2 singles matches (1-1) = 50.0% win, 31 tag matches (22-8-1) = 73.3% win]
Ariya Daivari: 33 matches [22 singles matches (5-17) = 22.7% win, 11 tag matches (3-8) = 27.3% win]
Billie Kay: 33 matches [9 singles matches (1-8) = 11.1% win, 21 tag matches (9-12) = 42.9% win, and 3 other matches]
Chris Jericho: 33 matches [17 singles matches (4-13) = 23.5% win, 13 tag matches (9-4) = 69.2% win, and 3 other matches]
Kona Reeves: 33 matches [32 singles matches (2-30) = 6.3% win, 1 tag matches (0-1) = 0.0% win]
Rusev: 32 matches [16 singles matches (2-14) = 12.5% win, 14 tag matches (1-13) = 7.1% win, and 2 other matches]
Tommaso Ciampa: 31 matches [n/a, 31 tag matches (22-8-1) = 73.3% win]
Drew Gulak: 30 matches [20 singles matches (7-13) = 35.0% win, 10 tag matches (2-8) = 20.0% win]
Steve Cutler: 29 matches [22 singles matches (8-14) = 36.4% win, 7 tag matches (1-6) = 14.3% win]
The Brian Kendrick: 29 matches [23 singles matches (9-14) = 39.1% win, 6 tag matches (2-4) = 33.3% win]
Hideo Itami: 29 matches [16 singles matches (11-4-1) = 73.3% win, 13 tag matches (12-1) = 92.3% win]
Cezar Bononi: 28 matches [24 singles matches (4-20) = 16.7% win, 4 tag matches (0-4) = 0.0% win]
The Big Show: 27 matches [11 singles matches (6-4-1) = 60.0% win, 11 tag matches (11-0) = 100.0% win, and 5 other matches]
Matt Hardy: 26 matches [2 singles matches (2-0) = 100.0% win, 24 tag matches (21-2-1) = 91.3% win]
Jeff Hardy: 26 matches [2 singles matches (2-0) = 100.0% win, 24 tag matches (21-2-1) = 91.3% win]
Kimberly Frankele: 26 matches [13 singles matches (0-13) = 0.0% win, 11 tag matches (2-9) = 18.2% win, and 2 other matches]
Cedric Alexander: 25 matches [18 singles matches (9-9) = 50.0% win, 7 tag matches (5-2) = 71.4% win]
Blake: 24 matches [14 singles matches (2-12) = 14.3% win, 10 tag matches (2-8) = 20.0% win]
Gran Metalik: 24 matches [17 singles matches (10-7) = 58.8% win, 7 tag matches (5-2) = 71.4% win]
Pete Dunne: 24 matches [16 singles matches (14-2) = 87.5% win, 8 tag matches (1-7) = 12.5% win]
Macey Estrella: 24 matches [15 singles matches (4-11) = 26.7% win, 8 tag matches (3-5) = 37.5% win, and 1 other match]
Murphy: 24 matches [18 singles matches (12-6) = 66.7% win, 6 tag matches (6-0) = 100.0% win]
Drew McIntyre: 23 matches [19 singles matches (17-2) = 89.5% win, 4 tag matches (4-0) = 100.0% win]
Adrian Jaoude: 22 matches [20 singles matches (8-12) = 40.0% win, 2 tag matches (1-1) = 50.0% win]
Lince Dorado: 20 matches [14 singles matches (2-12) = 14.3% win, 6 tag matches (4-2) = 66.7% win]
Tyler Bate: 20 matches [14 singles matches (13-1) = 92.9% win, 6 tag matches (6-0) = 100.0% win]
Simon Gotch: 20 matches [n/a, 18 tag matches (1-17) = 5.6% win, and 2 other matches]
Xavier Woods: 19 matches [1 singles matches (1-0) = 100.0% win, 17 tag matches (7-10) = 41.2% win, and 1 other match]
Dash Wilder: 19 matches [2 singles matches (1-1) = 50.0% win, 17 tag matches (9-8) = 52.9% win]
Uriel Ealy: 19 matches [1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win, 17 tag matches (1-16) = 5.9% win, and 1 other match]
Scott Dawson: 18 matches [n/a, 18 tag matches (9-9) = 50.0% win]
Nikki Bella: 18 matches [5 singles matches (3-1-1) = 75.0% win, 13 tag matches (13-0) = 100.0% win]
Gabriel Ealy: 18 matches [n/a, 17 tag matches (1-16) = 5.9% win, and 1 other match]
Trent Seven: 17 matches [9 singles matches (3-6) = 33.3% win, 8 tag matches (7-1) = 87.5% win]
Lacey Evans: 16 matches [6 singles matches (1-5) = 16.7% win, 8 tag matches (6-2) = 75.0% win, and 2 other matches]
Lana: 16 matches [16 singles matches (12-4) = 75.0% win, n/a]
Mark Andrews: 16 matches [11 singles matches (5-6) = 45.5% win, 5 tag matches (4-1) = 80.0% win]
Emma: 16 matches [1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win, 15 tag matches (1-13-1) = 7.1% win]
Bianca Blair: 15 matches [6 singles matches (1-5) = 16.7% win, 7 tag matches (2-5) = 28.6% win, and 2 other matches]
Lars Sullivan: 15 matches [9 singles matches (9-0) = 100.0% win, 6 tag matches (1-5) = 16.7% win]
Wolfgang: 14 matches [11 singles matches (4-7) = 36.4% win, 3 tag matches (2-1) = 66.7% win]
Sarah Bridges: 13 matches [6 singles matches (1-5) = 16.7% win, 5 tag matches (0-5) = 0.0% win, and 2 other matches]
Dan Matha: 13 matches [12 singles matches (1-11) = 8.3% win, n/a, and 1 other match]
TJP: 12 matches [9 singles matches (5-4) = 55.6% win, 3 tag matches (2-1) = 66.7% win]
Brennan Williams: 12 matches [12 singles matches (1-11) = 8.3% win, n/a]
Joseph Conners: 11 matches [5 singles matches (1-4) = 20.0% win, 6 tag matches (0-6) = 0.0% win]
Dylan Miley: 11 matches [8 singles matches (5-3) = 62.5% win, 3 tag matches (0-3) = 0.0% win]
Tian Bing: 11 matches [9 singles matches (6-3) = 66.7% win, n/a, and 2 other matches]
Jeet Rama: 11 matches [9 singles matches (8-1) = 88.9% win, 1 tag matches (1-0) = 100.0% win, and 1 other match]
Demitrius Bronson: 10 matches [7 singles matches (3-4) = 42.9% win, 3 tag matches (0-3) = 0.0% win]
Sage Miller: 10 matches [5 singles matches (3-2) = 60.0% win, 4 tag matches (3-1) = 75.0% win, and 1 other match]
Jack Swagger: 9 matches [n/a, 9 tag matches (6-3) = 66.7% win]
Babatunde Aiyegbusi: 9 matches [8 singles matches (7-1) = 87.5% win, n/a, and 1 other match]
Darren Young: 8 matches [1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win, 7 tag matches (5-2) = 71.4% win]
James Drake: 8 matches [3 singles matches (0-3) = 0.0% win, 5 tag matches (0-5) = 0.0% win]
Victoria Gonzalez: 7 matches [n/a, 5 tag matches (3-2) = 60.0% win, and 2 other matches]
Kishan Raftar: 7 matches [6 singles matches (1-5) = 16.7% win, 1 tag matches (0-1) = 0.0% win]
Dori Prange: 7 matches [4 singles matches (2-2) = 50.0% win, 3 tag matches (2-1) = 66.7% win]
Danny Burch: 7 matches [5 singles matches (0-5) = 0.0% win, 2 tag matches (1-1) = 50.0% win]
Samir Singh: 6 matches [1 singles matches (1-0) = 100.0% win, 4 tag matches (0-4) = 0.0% win, and 1 other match]
Brock Lesnar: 6 matches [5 singles matches (5-0) = 100.0% win, n/a, and 1 other match]
Tyson T-Bone: 6 matches [5 singles matches (2-3) = 40.0% win, 1 tag matches (0-1) = 0.0% win]
Saxon Huxley: 5 matches [2 singles matches (0-2) = 0.0% win, 3 tag matches (3-0) = 100.0% win]
Sawyer Fulton: 5 matches [5 singles matches (3-2) = 60.0% win, n/a]
Sunil Singh: 5 matches [n/a, 4 tag matches (0-4) = 0.0% win, and 1 other match]
Chris Atkins: 5 matches [5 singles matches (0-5) = 0.0% win, n/a]
Dan Moloney: 5 matches [2 singles matches (0-2) = 0.0% win, 3 tag matches (1-2) = 33.3% win]
Danielle Kamela: 5 matches [2 singles matches (0-2) = 0.0% win, 2 tag matches (0-2) = 0.0% win, and 1 other match]
James Ellsworth: 5 matches [3 singles matches (3-0) = 100.0% win, 1 tag matches (0-1) = 0.0% win, and 1 other match]
Sam Gradwell: 5 matches [4 singles matches (2-2) = 50.0% win, 1 tag matches (1-0) = 100.0% win]
Ho Ho Lun: 5 matches [2 singles matches (0-2) = 0.0% win, 3 tag matches (1-2) = 33.3% win]

Highest Winning Percentage (5+ matches)
Asuka: 54 matches (52-0-2) = 100.0% win
Brock Lesnar: 5 matches (5-0) = 100.0% win
R-Truth: 51 matches (49-1-1) = 98.0% win
Shinsuke Nakamura: 66 matches (63-3) = 95.5% win
Tyler Bate: 20 matches (19-1) = 95.0% win
Nikki Bella: 18 matches (16-1-1) = 94.1% win
Jeff Hardy: 26 matches (23-2-1) = 92.0% win
Matt Hardy: 26 matches (23-2-1) = 92.0% win
Drew McIntyre: 23 matches (21-2) = 91.3% win
Jeet Rama: 10 matches (9-1) = 90.0% win
Finn Balor: 39 matches (35-4) = 89.7% win
Aleister Black: 55 matches (49-6) = 89.1% win
Naomi: 49 matches (42-6-1) = 87.5% win
Babatunde Aiyegbusi: 8 matches (7-1) = 87.5% win
Seth Rollins: 56 matches (48-7-1) = 87.3% win
Sin Cara: 54 matches (46-7-1) = 86.8% win
Dean Ambrose: 77 matches (65-11-1) = 85.5% win
Kassius Ohno: 58 matches (49-9) = 84.5% win
Ruby Riot: 43 matches (34-7-2) = 82.9% win
The Big Show: 24 matches (19-4-1) = 82.6% win
Hideo Itami: 29 matches (23-5-1) = 82.1% win
Goldust: 51 matches (41-9-1) = 82.0% win
Roderick Strong: 51 matches (41-9-1) = 82.0% win
Tye Dillinger: 62 matches (50-11-1) = 82.0% win
Mojo Rawley: 62 matches (50-12) = 80.6% win
Roman Reigns: 71 matches (54-13-4) = 80.6% win
No Way Jose: 47 matches (37-9-1) = 80.4% win
Sasha Banks: 77 matches (60-15-2) = 80.0% win

Lowest winning Percentage
Curt Hawkins: 63 matches (0-63) = 0.0% win
James Drake: 8 matches (0-8) = 0.0% win
Chris Atkins: 5 matches (0-5) = 0.0% win
Aiden English: 67 matches (1-66) = 1.5% win
Konnor: 56 matches (1-55) = 1.8% win
Viktor: 55 matches (1-54) = 1.8% win
Erick Rowan: 34 matches (1-33) = 2.9% win
Primo: 68 matches (3-64-1) = 4.5% win
Uriel Ealy: 18 matches (1-17) = 5.6% win
Simon Gotch: 18 matches (1-17) = 5.6% win
Epico: 70 matches (4-65-1) = 5.8% win
Gabriel Ealy: 17 matches (1-16) = 5.9% win
Kona Reeves: 33 matches (2-31) = 6.1% win
Bo Dallas: 49 matches (3-45-1) = 6.3% win
Emma: 16 matches (1-14-1) = 6.7% win
Kimberly Frankele: 24 matches (2-22) = 8.3% win
Dan Matha: 12 matches (1-11) = 8.3% win
Brennan Williams: 12 matches (1-11) = 8.3% win
Titus O'Neil: 70 matches (6-63-1) = 8.7% win
Sarah Bridges: 11 matches (1-10) = 9.1% win
Joseph Conners: 11 matches (1-10) = 9.1% win
Riddick Moss: 38 matches (4-34) = 10.5% win
Rusev: 31 matches (4-27) = 12.9% win
The Miz: 63 matches (8-53-2) = 13.1% win
Patrick Clark: 45 matches (6-39) = 13.3% win
Natalya: 69 matches (9-58-2) = 13.4% win
Tino Sabbatelli: 35 matches (5-30) = 14.3% win
Cezar Bononi: 28 matches (4-24) = 14.3% win
Kishan Raftar: 7 matches (1-6) = 14.3% win
Danny Burch: 7 matches (1-6) = 14.3% win
Carmella: 67 matches (11-55-1) = 16.7% win
Blake: 24 matches (4-20) = 16.7% win
Nia Jax: 77 matches (14-61-2) = 18.7% win
Mandy Rose: 41 matches (8-33) = 19.5% win
Samir Singh: 5 matches (1-4) = 20.0% win
Ho Ho Lun: 5 matches (1-4) = 20.0% win
Dan Moloney: 5 matches (1-4) = 20.0% win


If we just look at matches that were shown on television and/or WWE Network:

Tony Nese: [31 matches, 17 singles matches (7-10) = 41.2% win 14 tag matches (4-10) = 28.6% win ]
Gentleman Jack Galla:  [30 matches, 17 singles matches (8-9) = 47.1% win 12 tag matches (10-2) = 83.3% win ]
Noam Dar: [29 matches, 18 singles matches (7-11) = 38.9% win 11 tag matches (1-10) = 9.1% win ]
Mustafa Ali: [27 matches, 22 singles matches (9-13) = 40.9% win 5 tag matches (4-1) = 80.0% win ]
Sami Zayn: [26 matches, 19 singles matches (8-11) = 42.1% win 5 tag matches (3-2) = 60.0% win ]
Cesaro: [25 matches, 6 singles matches (2-4) = 33.3% win 17 tag matches (7-8-2) = 46.7% win ]
Jinder Mahal: [25 matches, 16 singles matches (10-6) = 62.5% win 6 tag matches (2-4) = 33.3% win ]
The Brian Kendrick: [24 matches, 18 singles matches (8-10) = 44.4% win 6 tag matches (2-4) = 33.3% win ]
Sheamus: [24 matches, 5 singles matches (2-3) = 40.0% win 17 tag matches (7-8-2) = 46.7% win ]
Kevin Owens: [24 matches, 16 singles matches (9-7) = 56.3% win 7 tag matches (2-5) = 28.6% win ]
Luke Gallows: [24 matches, 4 singles matches (2-2) = 50.0% win 17 tag matches (7-10) = 41.2% win ]
Neville: [24 matches, 18 singles matches (17-1) = 94.4% win 6 tag matches (1-5) = 16.7% win ]
Ariya Daivari: [23 matches, 16 singles matches (5-11) = 31.3% win 7 tag matches (3-4) = 42.9% win ]
Akira Tozawa: [23 matches, 18 singles matches (15-3) = 83.3% win 5 tag matches (4-1) = 80.0% win ]
Rich Swann: [22 matches, 15 singles matches (9-6) = 60.0% win 7 tag matches (5-2) = 71.4% win ]
TJ Perkins: [22 matches, 15 singles matches (5-10) = 33.3% win 7 tag matches (4-3) = 57.1% win ]
Nia Jax: [22 matches, 16 singles matches (8-7-1) = 53.3% win 6 tag matches (3-3) = 50.0% win ]
Karl Anderson: [22 matches, 2 singles matches (1-1) = 50.0% win 17 tag matches (7-10) = 41.2% win ]
Sasha Banks: [21 matches, 14 singles matches (8-5-1) = 61.5% win 7 tag matches (4-3) = 57.1% win ]
AJ Styles: [21 matches, 17 singles matches (7-9-1) = 43.8% win 3 tag matches (2-1) = 66.7% win ]
Big Cass: [21 matches, 4 singles matches (4-0) = 100.0% win 14 tag matches (5-8-1) = 38.5% win ]
Charlotte Flair: [21 matches, 12 singles matches (4-7-1) = 36.4% win 9 tag matches (3-6) = 33.3% win ]
Roman Reigns: [21 matches, 15 singles matches (9-5-1) = 64.3% win 2 tag matches (0-2) = 0.0% win ]
Dolph Ziggler: [21 matches, 14 singles matches (5-9) = 35.7% win 3 tag matches (0-3) = 0.0% win ]
Becky Lynch: [20 matches, 13 singles matches (4-8-1) = 33.3% win 7 tag matches (3-4) = 42.9% win ]
Dean Ambrose: [20 matches, 14 singles matches (5-9) = 35.7% win 3 tag matches (1-2) = 33.3% win ]
Baron Corbin: [20 matches, 15 singles matches (5-10) = 33.3% win 3 tag matches (1-2) = 33.3% win ]
Drew Gulak: [20 matches, 14 singles matches (7-7) = 50.0% win 6 tag matches (2-4) = 33.3% win ]
Alexa Bliss: [20 matches, 14 singles matches (8-6) = 57.1% win 6 tag matches (3-3) = 50.0% win ]
Bayley: [18 matches, 12 singles matches (5-7) = 41.7% win 6 tag matches (3-3) = 50.0% win ]
Randy Orton: [18 matches, 13 singles matches (8-5) = 61.5% win 4 tag matches (2-2) = 50.0% win ]
Enzo Amore: [18 matches, 2 singles matches (0-2) = 0.0% win 14 tag matches (5-8-1) = 38.5% win ]
Cedric Alexander: [18 matches, 13 singles matches (7-6) = 53.8% win 5 tag matches (4-1) = 80.0% win ]
Austin Aries: [17 matches, 14 singles matches (11-3) = 78.6% win 3 tag matches (2-1) = 66.7% win ]
Fandango: [17 matches, 2 singles matches (1-1) = 50.0% win 13 tag matches (6-7) = 46.2% win ]
Epico: [17 matches, 1 singles matches (1-0) = 100.0% win 13 tag matches (3-10) = 23.1% win ]
The Miz: [17 matches, 10 singles matches (3-6-1) = 33.3% win 4 tag matches (1-3) = 25.0% win ]
Samoa Joe: [16 matches, 12 singles matches (10-2) = 83.3% win 4 tag matches (1-3) = 25.0% win ]
Tyler Breeze: [16 matches, 1 singles matches (1-0) = 100.0% win 13 tag matches (6-7) = 46.2% win ]
Seth Rollins: [16 matches, 12 singles matches (6-5-1) = 54.5% win 4 tag matches (2-2) = 50.0% win ]
Titus O'Neil: [16 matches, 12 singles matches (3-9) = 25.0% win 3 tag matches (1-2) = 33.3% win ]
Primo: [16 matches, n/a 13 tag matches (3-10) = 23.1% win ]
Lince Dorado: [16 matches, 12 singles matches (0-12) = 0.0% win 4 tag matches (2-2) = 50.0% win ]
Bray Wyatt: [16 matches, 11 singles matches (5-6) = 45.5% win 4 tag matches (2-2) = 50.0% win ]
Carmella: [15 matches, 9 singles matches (7-1-1) = 87.5% win 6 tag matches (4-2) = 66.7% win ]
Braun Strowman: [15 matches, 10 singles matches (4-3-3) = 57.1% win 2 tag matches (2-0) = 100.0% win ]
Mickie James: [15 matches, 9 singles matches (2-7) = 22.2% win 6 tag matches (2-4) = 33.3% win ]
Curt Hawkins: [14 matches, 10 singles matches (0-10) = 0.0% win 2 tag matches (0-2) = 0.0% win ]
Kalisto: [14 matches, 10 singles matches (6-4) = 60.0% win n/a ]
Chad Gable: [14 matches, 1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win 12 tag matches (7-5) = 58.3% win ]
Naomi: [14 matches, 9 singles matches (6-2-1) = 75.0% win 5 tag matches (2-3) = 40.0% win ]
Chris Jericho: [14 matches, 9 singles matches (2-7) = 22.2% win 2 tag matches (2-0) = 100.0% win ]
Natalya: [14 matches, 8 singles matches (2-5-1) = 28.6% win 6 tag matches (3-3) = 50.0% win ]
Jimmy Uso: [14 matches, 2 singles matches (0-2) = 0.0% win 11 tag matches (7-4) = 63.6% win ]
Jason Jordan: [13 matches, n/a 12 tag matches (7-5) = 58.3% win ]
Luke Harper: [13 matches, 8 singles matches (1-7) = 12.5% win 2 tag matches (1-1) = 50.0% win ]
Bo Dallas: [13 matches, 8 singles matches (2-6) = 25.0% win 3 tag matches (1-2) = 33.3% win ]
Jey Uso: [13 matches, 1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win 11 tag matches (7-4) = 63.6% win ]
Big E: [13 matches, 2 singles matches (2-0) = 100.0% win 10 tag matches (7-3) = 70.0% win ]
Rhyno: [13 matches, 2 singles matches (1-1) = 50.0% win 9 tag matches (4-5) = 44.4% win ]
Apollo Crews: [12 matches, 7 singles matches (4-3) = 57.1% win 1 tag matches (0-1) = 0.0% win ]
TJP: [12 matches, 9 singles matches (5-4) = 55.6% win 3 tag matches (2-1) = 66.7% win ]
Heath Slater: [12 matches, 1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win 9 tag matches (4-5) = 44.4% win ]
Finn Balor: [12 matches, 9 singles matches (5-4) = 55.6% win 3 tag matches (3-0) = 100.0% win ]
Mojo Rawley: [12 matches, 5 singles matches (3-2) = 60.0% win 3 tag matches (2-1) = 66.7% win ]
Gran Metalik: [12 matches, 7 singles matches (2-5) = 28.6% win 5 tag matches (3-2) = 60.0% win ]
Curtis Axel: [12 matches, 8 singles matches (4-4) = 50.0% win 2 tag matches (1-1) = 50.0% win ]
Dana Brooke: [11 matches, 8 singles matches (2-6) = 25.0% win 3 tag matches (2-1) = 66.7% win ]
Jeff Hardy: [11 matches, 2 singles matches (2-0) = 100.0% win 9 tag matches (7-1-1) = 87.5% win ]
Matt Hardy: [11 matches, 2 singles matches (2-0) = 100.0% win 9 tag matches (7-1-1) = 87.5% win ]
Oney Lorcan: [10 matches, 10 singles matches (3-6-1) = 33.3% win n/a ]
John Cena: [10 matches, 6 singles matches (4-2) = 66.7% win 3 tag matches (2-1) = 66.7% win ]
Peyton Royce: [10 matches, 6 singles matches (3-3) = 50.0% win 3 tag matches (2-1) = 66.7% win ]
Rusev: [10 matches, 3 singles matches (1-2) = 33.3% win 5 tag matches (1-4) = 20.0% win ]
Shinsuke Nakamura: [10 matches, 7 singles matches (4-3) = 57.1% win 3 tag matches (3-0) = 100.0% win ]
Tye Dillinger: [10 matches, 6 singles matches (5-1) = 83.3% win 3 tag matches (0-2-1) = 0.0% win ]
Tyler Bate: [10 matches, 10 singles matches (9-1) = 90.0% win n/a ]
Eric Young: [9 matches, 4 singles matches (2-2) = 50.0% win 5 tag matches (3-1-1) = 75.0% win ]
Roderick Strong: [9 matches, 5 singles matches (3-2) = 60.0% win 4 tag matches (1-2-1) = 33.3% win ]
Akam: [9 matches, 1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win 8 tag matches (7-1) = 87.5% win ]
Xavier Woods: [9 matches, 1 singles matches (1-0) = 100.0% win 7 tag matches (5-2) = 71.4% win ]
Aleister Black: [9 matches, 9 singles matches (8-1) = 88.9% win n/a ]
Ember Moon: [9 matches, 7 singles matches (5-2) = 71.4% win 1 tag matches (0-1) = 0.0% win ]
Pete Dunne: [9 matches, 9 singles matches (8-1) = 88.9% win n/a ]
The Big Show: [9 matches, 4 singles matches (2-1-1) = 66.7% win 1 tag matches (1-0) = 100.0% win ]
Alicia Fox: [9 matches, 7 singles matches (3-4) = 42.9% win 2 tag matches (1-1) = 50.0% win ]
Andrade Almas: [9 matches, 9 singles matches (4-5) = 44.4% win n/a ]
Killian Dain: [9 matches, 3 singles matches (2-1) = 66.7% win 5 tag matches (4-0-1) = 100.0% win ]
Kofi Kingston: [9 matches, 2 singles matches (2-0) = 100.0% win 6 tag matches (5-1) = 83.3% win ]
Viktor: [8 matches, n/a 6 tag matches (1-5) = 16.7% win ]
Elias Samson: [8 matches, 7 singles matches (4-3) = 57.1% win 1 tag matches (0-1) = 0.0% win ]
Sin Cara: [8 matches, 6 singles matches (2-4) = 33.3% win 1 tag matches (0-1) = 0.0% win ]
Johnny Gargano: [8 matches, 1 singles matches (0-1) = 0.0% win 7 tag matches (4-3) = 57.1% win ]
Rezar: [8 matches, n/a 8 tag matches (7-1) = 87.5% win ]
Dash Wilder: [8 matches, 1 singles matches (1-0) = 100.0% win 7 tag matches (4-3) = 57.1% win ]
Nikki Cross: [8 matches, 6 singles matches (2-3-1) = 40.0% win 1 tag matches (1-0) = 100.0% win ]
Konnor: [8 matches, n/a 6 tag matches (1-5) = 16.7% win ]
Scott Dawson: [7 matches, n/a 7 tag matches (4-3) = 57.1% win ]
Aiden English: [7 matches, 3 singles matches (0-3) = 0.0% win 2 tag matches (1-1) = 50.0% win ]
Asuka: [7 matches, 7 singles matches (6-0-1) = 100.0% win n/a ]
Kassius Ohno: [7 matches, 4 singles matches (2-2) = 50.0% win 3 tag matches (1-2) = 33.3% win ]
Hideo Itami: [7 matches, 6 singles matches (3-2-1) = 60.0% win 1 tag matches (0-1) = 0.0% win ]
Billie Kay: [7 matches, 3 singles matches (0-3) = 0.0% win 3 tag matches (2-1) = 66.7% win ]
No Way Jose: [7 matches, 5 singles matches (3-2) = 60.0% win 2 tag matches (0-1-1) = 0.0% win ]
Tommaso Ciampa: [7 matches, n/a 7 tag matches (4-3) = 57.1% win ]
Alexander Wolfe: [7 matches, n/a 7 tag matches (5-1-1) = 83.3% win ]
Tucker Knight: [6 matches, n/a 6 tag matches (4-2) = 66.7% win ]
Erick Rowan: [6 matches, 5 singles matches (1-4) = 20.0% win 1 tag matches (0-1) = 0.0% win ]
Liv Morgan: [6 matches, 3 singles matches (1-2) = 33.3% win 2 tag matches (1-1) = 50.0% win ]
Aliyah: [6 matches, 4 singles matches (0-4) = 0.0% win 1 tag matches (1-0) = 100.0% win ]
Mark Andrews: [6 matches, 6 singles matches (3-3) = 50.0% win n/a ]
Drew McIntyre: [6 matches, 6 singles matches (6-0) = 100.0% win n/a ]
Ruby Riot: [6 matches, 4 singles matches (1-2-1) = 33.3% win 1 tag matches (0-1) = 0.0% win ]
Bobby Roode: [6 matches, 6 singles matches (6-0) = 100.0% win n/a ]
Otis Dozovic: [6 matches, n/a 6 tag matches (4-2) = 66.7% win ]
Tamina: [5 matches, 3 singles matches (0-3) = 0.0% win 2 tag matches (2-0) = 100.0% win ]
Danny Burch: [5 matches, 5 singles matches (0-5) = 0.0% win n/a ]
Trent Seven: [5 matches, 5 singles matches (2-3) = 40.0% win n/a ]
Nikki Bella: [5 matches, 2 singles matches (0-1-1) = 0.0% win 3 tag matches (3-0) = 100.0% win ]
Wolfgang: [5 matches, 5 singles matches (3-2) = 60.0% win n/a ]

Highest Televised Winning Percentage
Neville: 24 matches (18-6-0) = 75% win
Akira Tozawa: 23 matches (19-4-0) = 82.6% win
Austin Aries: 17 matches (13-4-0) = 76.5% win
Carmella: 15 matches (11-3-1) = 78.6% win
Big E: 12 matches (9-3-0) = 75% win
Matt Hardy: 11 matches (9-1-1) = 90% win
Jeff Hardy: 11 matches (9-1-1) = 90% win
Tyler Bate: 10 matches (9-1-0) = 90% win
Pete Dunne: 9 matches (8-1-0) = 88.9% win
Aleister Black: 9 matches (8-1-0) = 88.9% win
Akam: 9 matches (7-2-0) = 77.8% win
Killian Dain: 8 matches (6-1-1) = 85.7% win
Kofi Kingston: 8 matches (7-1-0) = 87.5% win
Rezar: 8 matches (7-1-0) = 87.5% win
Xavier Woods: 8 matches (6-2-0) = 75% win
Alexander Wolfe: 7 matches (5-1-1) = 83.3% win
Asuka: 7 matches (6-0-1) = 100% win
Drew McIntyre: 6 matches (6-0-0) = 100% win
Bobby Roode: 6 matches (6-0-0) = 100% win
The Big Show: 5 matches (3-1-1) = 75% win
Nikki Bella: 5 matches (3-1-1) = 75% win

Lowest Televised Winning Percentage
Lince Dorado: 16 matches (2-14-0) = 12.5% win
Primo: 13 matches (3-10-0) = 23.1% win
Curt Hawkins: 12 matches (0-12-0) = 0% win
Luke Harper: 10 matches (2-8-0) = 20% win
Rusev: 8 matches (2-6-0) = 25% win
Viktor: 6 matches (1-5-0) = 16.7% win
Erick Rowan: 6 matches (1-5-0) = 16.7% win
Konnor: 6 matches (1-5-0) = 16.7% win
Aiden English: 5 matches (1-4-0) = 20% win
Danny Burch: 5 matches (0-5-0) = 0% win
Aliyah: 5 matches (1-4-0) = 20% win
Ruby Riot: 5 matches (1-3-1) = 25% win

Monday, June 05, 2017

WWE Demographics - Female/Male split

WWE demographics is a subject that seems to come up regularly. And the outstanding question: who is WWE targeting for their shows?

Since WWE became a publicly traded company in 1999, they have released a lot more information about their revenue streams and viewership. However, since audience demographics is not a generally accepted accounting principle, they are very inconsistent about how, when and why that information is released.

In general, we’ve seen the audience always been at least 60% male. Sometimes the female audience grows (in recent years), which I partially credit towards a greater emphasis on “serious” women’s wrestling on WWE programming along with the addition of several reality shows (Total Divas, Total Bellas) on female-centric E! network. When WWE is reporting demographic splits, they usually include all programming, or at least all programming they can use which will paint a picture of a more diverse demographic.

There has been talk lately about how a diminishing fanbase of young men has resulted in a larger proportion of female fans in the WWE Raw audience (not necessarily a larger female audience, just a larger proportion of female fans due to the attrition in men).

Here’s what I can tell you from the data I’ve seen:

(See my earlier post on this from July 2014.)

Today, WWE’s corporate webpage has a FAQ that asks, “Who watches WWE programming?” with the answer “WWE is watched by 11 million fans each week in the United State alone. Our diverse audience spans generations of fans. Approximately 36% of WWE’s audience is female and 17% are under the age of 18.”
http://corporate.wwe.com/faq

Covering period of November 2014 to September 2015, WWE broke out their audience as such:
· 63% Male / 37% Female
· 38% (50+) / 21% (35-49) / 23% (18-34) / 18% (2-17)
(Source: December 2015 WWE Investor Presentation)

For the full year 2014, WWE listed their demographics as:
· 62% Male / 38% Female
· 37% (50+) / 22% (35-49) / 22% (18-34) / 19% (2-17)
(Source: March 2015 WWE Investor Presentation)

An earlier profile from September 2012 put the demographic split as:
· 65% Male / 35% Female
· 28% (50+) / 25% (35-49) / 23% (18-34) / 24% (2-17)
· 66% White / 19% Black-AfricanAmerican / 21% Hispanic / 16% Other
(Source 2012 WWE Investor Presentation)

A January 2013 Wrestling Observer Newsletter noted that the Christmas Eve 2012 episode of Raw skewed “64% male”.

An earlier 2011 investor document lists the gender distribution as:
· 66% Male / 34% Female
· 29% (50+) / 25% (35-49) – 22% (18-34) / 24% (
(Source 2011 WWE Investor Presentation)

In terms of independent research, Scarsborough Research published research in 2013 covering “more than 200,000 US residents age 18 and older living in 77 of the country’s biggest markets” and looking at gender, age and education level for fans of Boxing, UFC and WWE. The results were summarized in the 4/22/13 issue of Sports Business Daily: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2013/04/22/In-Depth/Fight-fan-avidity.aspx

Gender
US Pop.
Boxing
UFC
WWE
Men
48.4%
72.4%
74.6%
62.8%
Women
51.6%
27.6%
25.4%
37.2%

According to a June 25, 2007 article called “Wrestling Marketing Muscle” in Broadcasting & Cable, in 2006, a Wake Forest University Medical Center survey found that “teens who watched wrestling, particularly females, were more prone to instigate violence when they date.”

In 2005, WWE released a “primer” about the company which summarized Nielsen Media Research as:
• 71% male/29% female
• 73% are 18 or older / 37% are between the ages of 12 and 34 / 23% are between the ages of 18 and 34 / 50% are 34 or younger / 14% are younger than age 12

Dave Meltzer notes in the Feb 18, 2002 issue of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter that the Stephanie/HHH “wedding angle” on Raw on 2/11/02 (against the Olympics) caused a large increase in female viewers while there was a huge decrease among male viewers who were likely switching to watch the Olympics. There was an interesting ratings change where the bikini contest (Stacy/Torrie) on Raw actually lost 125,000 viewers from the previous segment which Dave attributed to the greater composition of female viewers on that night.

In March 10-20, 2000, WCW commissioned a likability study of the WCW e-mail database list which was administered by LA’s Grace Market Research. They collected 1,400 completed surveys – it was 92% male / 8% female with 83% Adult / 17% non-adult. This is a similar thing that occurred with many other online surveys of wrestling fans which appear to get disproportionate response from male fans.

In 2000, according to a April 10, 2000 Advertising Age article “Wrestling has a chokehold on cable fans”, Ray Giacopelli, VP-research for USA Networks, “says WWF broadcasts skew 70/30 male-female, and Jim Rotshchild, WWF’s senior VP-sales, says females are the WWF’s fastest-growing audience segment”.

A June 1999 article in “Discount Merchandiser” quotes WWF’s Jim Bell (SVP of Licensing & Merchandising at WWF) that “WWF's wrestlers target a more pin-pointed audience, namely, young males and some females in their mid-teens and up. Rather than focusing on superheroes, WWF shows have their feet planted firmly in a reality that evokes strong emotions. In the 1980s, however, WWF went after a more varied "family" audience. "When it was family entertainment, it was a softer show" he says. "We were trying to be everything to everybody." Most changes have taken place over the last 18 to 24 months. “

In April 1991, Skip Desjardin, the “manager of PPV marketing for Titan’s World Wrestling Federation” claimed in an article with Multichannel News that, We're going after more family-oriented demographics," he said. "Whereas boxing, I believe, attracts a male demographic, we've found that 52 percent of our viewers are female." (I would strongly challenge the validity of this number.)

In the March 4, 1991 Wrestling Observer Newsletter, Dave Meltzer had an interview in Nye Lavalle who is a manager at SMG (The Sports Marketing Group) who designed a survey in November 1989 for 2,060 men & women, all 18+ from 175 key areas. It equated WWF with “pro wrestling” throughout the article. It noted that “pro wrestling as the most disliked sport of the 114 different sports listed in the survey”. Lavalle noted to Meltzer that: “WWF wrestling is twice as popular among males as it is among females, which as far as sports goes, is not a bad ratio. In comparison, boxing is four times as popular among males, as is auto racing, while boat racing is nearly five times as popular among males and NFL football, which was the most popular sport in the United States, was three times as popular among males. The two-to-one ratio pro wrestling has is very similar to the male-female ratio of the NBA and Major League Baseball. Sports like gymnastics and figure skating, both of which did surprisingly well in the survey, both have a two-to-one popularity in favor of women; while Pro. Beach Volleyball was the closest sport to having a 50-50 ratio.”

In 1989, Steve Beverly, editor of the then pro-wrestling newsletter Matwatch, wrote a thesis at Auburn University about pro-wrestling called, “A HISTORY OF PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING AS TELEVISION PROGRAMMING FROM: 1941-1989”. He talks a lot of female viewership of pro-wrestling talking about announce Castleman talking to housewives in the audience in the 1948 DuMont programming and the female audience attention that showman Gorgeous George received (similar to Liberace’s popularity) garnered.

This is something I'll continue to dig into and document over time.

-Chris Harrington, Wrestlenomics Radio.

Thursday, June 01, 2017

WWE CFO George Barrios at JPMorgan Global Technology Media and Telecom Conference


You are listening to a recorded webcast of the presentation originally presented Monday, May 22, 2017 at 9:20 AM .



George Barrios "takes lead on Strategy, Finance, Technology and Business Development"

In 2016, record revenue for the company - about $190 million outside of North America. It's all part of the continuing transformation of the underlying business model.

5 years ago: About 5% came through digital platform; today about 1/3 does.
10 years ago: 10-15% was "direct to consumer", today about "half revenue"

Tripling revenues outside North America.


A little bit more digital
A little bit more direct to consumer

About 2/3 come from media and 1/3 is tickets & consumer products

Media EcoSystem: Three Pillars

1. Social & digital platform [YouTube is dominant AVOD platform; WWE is #1 sports channel with NBA as #2; more consumption that FIFA/Olympics]
2. Traditional TV [600m homes around the world; 5b hours consumed; 5hrs live weekly; 260hrs annually; partners NBCU/USA; BSkyB in UK; Ten Sports/Sony in India; OSN in Middle East - India is largest market; #2 is US and South Africa is #3)
3. Direct to Consumer delivery

From a consumption standpoint, on traditional TV, India is our largest market; number two market is the US and number three market is South Africa, in terms of average viewers.

In our "direct to consumer", our most premium content (our playoffs) - storylines culminate and championships change hands. Reality series & animation.

We're almost at 8,000 hours of content available to our "most passionate fans".

DTC network is where we "super-serve our most passionate fans."
Large platform on AVOD. Continue to be a big deliverer of eyeballs on pay TV.
We’re now the 5th largest direct to consumer video service in the United States.
That gives you some context.

Questions by David Karnovsky (Media, J.P. Morgan)

(4:00) Q: Let’s start on the Network. You provided a long-term target, I think, of three to four million subs. Where are you on the way to the goal and what are the catalysts to get you there?
A: One of the things we look at, and it’s public information. When we launched, we did a lot of primary research to say, “How big do we think the opportunity can be?” And what we thought globally was three to four million subscribers.

I don't know if everyone remembers, when Netflix their SVOD service and they were migrating from the DVD business, they actually set a long-term target for themselves in terms of US subscribers, kind of say in the long arc of time they could get to 60 million to 90 million subs; they're around 80% there to the 60m after eight years almost. We're three years in and we're just over 52% to the low end of our range of three million, so that's where we stand today. The business continues to grow year-over-year and we'll continue to invest it in and push it forward.

(5:10) Q: For background, for those less familiar, who is the fan who is using the WWE Network? How is it that you manage the content there to ensure that you're not cannibalizing one of your other video windows?
A: Yeah. It’s really important. There's players out there, and it's not about good or bad strategy, it's just different on depending on where you sit, they’re players out there who say, "I'm going to put it all direct to consumer, I’m going to put that same content on Pay TV and put similar on AVOD-support" - it’s the same content on the three platforms. That works for them.

For us, we have different content on three platforms as you were getting to.

You can enjoy a lot of WWE on AVOD, you can enjoy a lot of WWE on Pay TV and we always say the Network is for the superfan - it's not for every WWE fan - and there you get everything WWE including our most premium content, what we used to called the pay-per-views which isn’t available anywhere else. And that’s how we tier our content and that tiering word is really important internally.

We talked about this digital and direct-to-consumer transformation…

If you went back six years ago, if we created a piece of video, there was only one way to get it to a fan. We had to partner with a network and we had to create multiple partnerships to reach globally, in a capacity-constrained environment because of linear television (24 hours) - and then if we get that working, we'd deliver that video.

Today, I can do that and I can also put a piece of video into any broadband-enabled home in the world and monetize it either through advertising or monetize it through subscription direct-to-consumer. To your question, the Network definately within a tier is for a superfan.

*tells story about his brother-in-law who watches WWE Network*
(8:00) Q: One of the underappreciated benefits, in our view, of a direct relationship with your consumers has to be the data and analytics that you’re able to receive. How important of a benefit has this been for you in terms of understanding your fans and growing fanbase and limiting churn?
A: Anybody who knows me and has gotten to work with me has known that by nature, I’m a pretty data-intensive person and always have been. Vince & I were talking about something else the other day and I said ‘Having the Network over the last three years has completely changed the way that I think about media’; because as a creator and purveyor of content you, historically you had so little access to how that content was consumed - the best you had were averages based on 1% of the homes - you know whether it’s Nielsen or Kantar, whichever service you subscribe to - today you can see by the minute how different people… how they consume the content; we see cohorts that are created in our subscriber base; not everyone watches the same things in the same way. I was telling Vince, ‘All that data and it’s orders of magnitude greater than any data we ever had before about our consumer, it’s changed how I think about the media business in general. Not just our business but the business outside our four walls.’

That’s high level context. From the day-to-day, the easiest way to describe it is that when we launched, we had one segment in our consumer base. That was “you are a subscriber”. Soon we had two segments - either active subscriber and inactive subscriber.

Today, we have about 10,000 segments. They’re not all actionable. They’re not all actionable from a marketing or engagement standpoint. When you crosstab all sources of data we have and that includes what you watch, when you watch it, what device you watch it on, how you pay, what country you’re on, 3rd party data overlays - that’s where the 10,000 - when you crosstab all of that, just the math, that’s thousands of segments. Probably have about thirty or so that are actionable, but it went from having one.

Today that actionability was “how do we drive engagement?” - so we see what kind of fan you are, so we message you - and say “hey you’re watching this / you like this / we really think you’ll like this” and similar this fan has a different behavior and we can tailor the messages a little more - both on the engagement and promotional side on reactivating the inactive subscribers, we can tailor the message more towards those cohorts, as well.

The data has been incredibly enlightening.

We’re starting to begin marrying the data from the network with our ticket data, with our commerce data, I always like to say, today it’s “a video relationship”. I don’t know - go three, four, five years in the future, what you’ll see is that WWE Network will be hub of how we interact with our most passionate fans in all the different ways that we touch them - not just video. Video predominately, because that’s what we are at our core, but we think there’s opportunities to go beyond that and kind of strengthen that relationship.

To your point, long-winded answer, the direct to consumer element, and I talk about this and sometimes people don’t get it - I feel it every day - going from going from very little of your transactions or your relationships direct to consumer to half, driven by the digital transformation, we’re a different business today.

(11:40) Q: If I could push on that a little more, did you have moments or epiphanies that you were able to learn something about your fanbase that wasn’t there before? How does that affect your decision-making in everything that you do?
A: Yeah, there were some tactical elements along the way. Early on, on the Network, we saw consumption of different type of talent and we’d talk about that internally and we’d give that to Vince and the creative team. I think there were decisions made about maybe what talent we might bring back for events and so on based on that. That’s at the tactical level.

I always say, at the broader level, it’s less about a specific action afterwards, but you talk about change in our “mental model” of our fans - when we launched the Network, in our minds, these pay-per-views would be what people consumed. That’s really what it was for.
We put a big VOD library out there because we have a big library so we could, we started with 1,500 hours and as I mentioned we’re close to 8,000. Mental model was “it’ll be the PPVs.” The reality is it’s not that.

Last year, we averaged almost 200 hours per subscriber consumption. Massive amount if you think about it’s almost 30 minutes a day. Obviously it’s lumpier than daily. 30 minutes a day.

And so we only had 45-50 hours of those special events - only about 25% of the total consumption per subscriber were the live specials. That was a total.. it just changed the way we thought about our business and really demonstrated the value of the archive which is one of the differences we had with sports.

I thought.. To me, that was one of the biggest revelations that we had - exactly just how much passionate and how much hunger there was for our video content.

(13:35) Q: I think you said about 100,000 hours of library content is what you have - how do you think about about rolling that out over time?
A: We have over 100,000 hour library archive that includes b-roll, multiple angles and so on. That’s a broad number. But basically, if you looked at, as we’ve announced, new thresholds - you can kind of do the math - we’re adding anywhere between 100 to 200 hours a month from that archival library to the Network - so we’ll keep doing that along the way because we see that there’s real value to it.

I always say “of the archive content, no one piece of content gets viewed a lot, but all the content gets viewed.” That’s.. you talk about data, you see that there’s these viewership cohorts. Not everyone using the Network is looking at the same thing. The vast majority of them are looking at the pay-per-views, but as you start going to the archive, that’s where you see start seeing clusters forming people - either by era, by superstar, by wrestling promotion - there’s just clusters of different viewership behaviors.

(14:50) Q: So as you learn more and are better able to segment your fanbase, does this increasingly open up the possibility for opening up price tiers or packages for the Network?
A: We’ve always said from a wonky business perspective, if you can segment your demand curve, you maximize revenue. By definition, you want tiers, because that’s how you can optimize revenue. The key is being able to differentiate the product and create value proposition at different price points and if you get that wrong, you can damage the existing business. So that’s the, kind of, intellectual context.

So because of the first point, you definitely what to be able to differentiate - we are looking at it.

People have written that they see us testing things in the market and we are consistently testing that. No plans as of yet, but if I had my druthers, we’ll figure out a tiering model that really brings value to our audience. And, you know, if we can sit back here three or four years from now, you can look and say “yeah, we now have a tiered product.”

You have to be careful. If you don’t do it well, it has really negative second.. first and second order consequences so if we’re going to do it we want be sure that we have something that really works for the consumer.

(16:10) Q: Okay. We don’t believe the WWE currently offers the Network through wholesale partners. And we’ve heard from others some other companies that we cover that go direct-to-consumer that this has been a great way for them to reduce churn. You know, is this something you’ve considered, you know, and is the bottleneck here more around price or data relationship?
A: Yeah, so we’re agnostic on whetherit’s wholesale or retail. I think you hit on it.

What we’re not agnostic on:
#1: What are the economics of the relationship?
#2: We want access to user identification, the email account usually being the primary ID.
#3: We want access to consumption data of our content similar to what have now with direct-to-consumer.

So if we can get those three things, we’re open to working with everyone. And we’ve had conversations. We haven’t engaged in one of those partnerships yet because we haven’t gotten comfortable across all three dimensions that I’ve mentioned. My guess is that one day that’ll happen.

The other element I’ll say when you talk about other partners because we’ve talked to some of those folks as well. Keep in mind the point about who the Network subscriber is. We’re not out trying to get people who aren’t familiar with WWE and engaging on our other platforms to become Network subscribers. That would be illogical. This is the premium tier. It’s got the premium content. Almost by definition, you have to be a fan already of WWE, you have to be engaged already and you want more.

If I’m a general entertainment network, subscription network, and I’m competing with a Netflix or HBO or whomever, and the whole world is my market and that’s my competition - those wholesale relationships, I think, can be a little bit more valuable.

In our case, we’re talking to the potential network subscriber every day on Facebook, on YouTube, on traditional TV - so it’s a little.. so that tiering makes it a little bit different when you think about us versus others.

(18:15) Q: How’s the WWE Network doing abroad? Do you find that your content produced in the US travels or do you see a need to produce more local content to in order to support a local fanbase?
A: You know, If you look at our core TV content that we’ve been delivering around the world for at almost thirty years, we provide it in over twenty languages.

In India, you can get it in English; you can get it in Hindi - and our most watched show is a version of Raw in Hinglish - a combination of Hindi and English. It’s our most watched show in India. We’ve been producing localized language, it’s the same video, but language localization for a long time.

On the Network, it’s a US product so it’s a $9.99 dollar price offered around the world. We’ve been able to get about 25% of our subs to come outside of the US - primarily skewing towards English-speaking countries and the percentage of the population who are WWE fans that speak English in other countries as well.

That’s where the product is today. It worked out great for us.

We now do more revenue internationally on the Network than we did internationally in the PPV business - if you look at that one model that has been cannibalized on the new model. So it’s been great.

The question for us, and it’s similar to tiering, different.. it’s the same kind of analysis: “Do you think you can really drive even more subscription growth in particular markets by going in a fully localized product like Netflix does or HBO does?”

And that’s something we’re still taking a look at but not something that imminent.We still think there’s run-rate in the way that we’ve structured it. But again, if I went out two years, three, four years from now, if I had to put money down, do I think we’ll have at at least one other language, the Network available in a fully localized form? I think so. But again, nothing imminent.

Q: How about foreign content viewed domestically - you’ve mentioned about Netflix, they’ve talked about taking a show that’ve produced for Brazil and showing it in the US market. Do you think, you know, a US WWE fan would be interested in shows centered for the UK or another market?
A: That’s non-WWE I.P.?
Q: No, that’s WWE I.P. But more locally produced for a UK market.

A: Sure. We’re doing that. We started kind of organically about a year and half ago. We did an event in Japan, Beast from the East, primarily our NXT talent. And airing live from different times in the world from Japan, different types of consumption. Not exactly.

More recently we did UK championship with UK talent. Not the folks you’d see in Raw or Smackdown. Obviously it did well in the UK on the Network. We were interested to see. I think it gets to that passionate wrestling fan in other parts of the world. They also tuned in to consume…
I think what you’ll see over time, and it gets to that localization question you were asking. Little by little, more and more of the localization of their core content.

I mentioned that Hinglish show, we thought that model worked so well, we did something similar in the Middle East with OSN. So it’s a clips-highlight show, so it’s not exactly something like the UK Championship, but it’s hosted with local Middle Eastern talent - on camera talent, in language. Matter of fact, I was just watching - It just debuted.

I think you’re going to see more and more of that - so whether it’s in YouTube or Facebook localizing the content, traditional TV localizing the content, or on our own network localizing the content, you’ll see more and more.

Round that, again not exactly what you’re saying, but somewhat tangential, when you look at our developmental group… So WWE has our stars that you see on traditional TV and social media and on the Network and on our specials, but we also have a developmental system - anywhere between 50 and 100 talent are training to be the next superstars. Our minor league, if you will.

The media from that, we create media for that talent sits on our Network on a show called NXT. But where I was getting on that localization...

Today, about half of our talent comes from outside of the US - massive change for us. We’ve always been global and we’ve had an international talent base. But not to that scale. We just had a tryout in the Middle East in Dubai primarily for Middle Eastern and India talent.

So again, back to this localization, I always say: every day, a little bit more digital, a little bit more direct-to-consumer, a bit little more global. That has tentacles across the organization including talent recruiting and development and video that we’ll ultimately create from that.

(23:15) Q: I just want to get one more on the Network. As you...
A: I could talk about the Network forever, so yeah.
Q: We’ve got to get to TV at some point. As you look potentially add content to the pipeline, would it ever make sense to add or partner with other wrestling federations? Something like a Ring of Honor or even adjacent sports that your fans might be interested in?

A: I think they’re something there. It’s always priority and what one comes first.

We recently announced a deal with ICW and Progress which are wrestling promotions in the UK. So we’re thinking about best way to utilize that content. As you know we’ve been fairly active over the years in purchasing wrestling libraries, video libraries, a lot of which you can see on the network. So we think there is a home for that - it’s just a matter of priority.

(24:05) Q: Alright, let’s switch it over to Television. Relative to other live TV properties, and I think in particular the major sports leagues, the rights fees that you receive whether it’s on a viewer-basis or viewer-hour-basis is substantially lower. What do you think is driving that and can that gap be closed over time?
A: Yeah, I mean, the one thing that I’ll say - that type of analysis depends on which market you’re in. I’d argue that in some markets we’re kind of right in the range, I think you’re referring to the US... (Yup) I always say time will tell. I always think the most important thing that we can do is to continue to strengthen the brand, both at the consumer level, which we’ve always done a pretty good job at getting audiences passionate about engaging and watching our product but also just as importantly on the business-to-business level, I think if we keep doing that, that’s what we can control. We can’t control how someone else wants to behave in a commercial discussion. But if we can control that, I think that’s really important.

The second element is, as we mentioned before, and we’re only five or six years into it, you know, if you’re a content owner today, you have multiple ways to monetizing, delivering that content around the world and I think over time, my sense is, that’s just going to become more and more of a potential opportunity as people get more and more comfortable consuming content that way as business models harden around that both ad and subscription supported, I think the future, if you’re a content owner and rights owner, and we own 100% of our IP, you’re in as good a position as can be but it’s hard to say what the future holds specifically.

(25:57) Q: You have a major renewal cycle, I think it starts in 2019, that last one ended in 2014. In the TV ecosystem is fairly different now than it was then. It’s likely to change further. So when you consider what’s different, including, you know, less live viewership, more delayed, more cord-cutting/shaving/nevering, how do you think these factors are going to impact the value that your partners place on WWE? Mainly what’s different now versus 2014?
A: Yup. First off, I think we’re talking about US specifically because what you just described, the economics are different...
Q: Leaving aside the renewals in UK and India in 2019.
A: Yup, the US renewal, the current deal expires at the end of September 2019. UK and India which are the next two largest at the end of ‘19. To your point, there’s a big event on the horizon for WWE.

As far as the US ecosystem, we’ve talked first of all at the micro-level, we can control it - which is: engage fans and get the brand as good a place as possible, that’s within our control. In terms of the ecosystem, I always say that for a content owner there is a bear case and bull case.

The bear case is: boy this ecosystem is damaged or subscriber losses are more significant or pace of subscriber losses changes. The ecosystem is damaged and it becomes difficult for anyone to extract economics including the owner or creator of the content. That’s the bear case.
I think the bull case for a content owner is the ecosystem is under pressure and the folks who aggregate content (i.e. networks) are under even more pressure than ever before, to have as much viewership to remain as fully distributed as possible, you know, to not be skinny-bundled because of impact on both affiliate fees and the ad model.

So in that case, in that case the bull case for content owner is, boy there’s even more demand for anyone can that aggregate eyeballs. And we can certainly aggregate eyeballs. We’re one of the largest deliverers of live eyeballs in the United States.

So, I think there’s a bear case/bull case. I think the world is changing so quickly it’s hard to know which kind of one, which model where in that range, where the future goes...

So,internally, our engine is about build the brand up on a B2B basis. And just make sure people are engaging with our content. If we do that, then we’ll let the kind of chips fall where they may.

(28:25) Q: You just talked about brand. What’s the perception of the WWE brand now versus you know five years ago. I am thinking I turn on Monday Night Raw on the NBC-Universal owned network and there’s Enzo & Cass and they’re doing a commercial for Universal’s new water park in Orlando. I mean that type of endemic promotion has to be, I assume, highly valuable for your partners, right?
A: Yeah, I think if you went back and watched Monday Night Raw in 2013, let say, or 2014, and kind of did the ad roster, you know, who’s advertising? Which is a measure of that, who is getting close to the brand. And then you look at today. And you gave one example.

It’s been a… I don’t think it’s an overstatement to say there’s a sea change there in who is advertising, the breadth of the categories on Raw, so, you can see that. I think there’s other elements.

You know, It wasn’t too long ago, probably two years ago, a very senior person at ESPN when asked about covering WWE said “We don’t cover that.” And literally, three months later, ESPN was at SummerSlam. Six months after that they did SportsCenter from WrestleMania and about three months after that launched a WWE vertical on ESPN.com. And shortly thereafter FoxSports did the same. And that all happened after a very senior person said, “We don’t cover that.”

I think that to me is the perception, the B2B perception changes. And not so much the consumer. The fans always been a fan. That’s B2B. We’ve done a lot of hard work. Our partners around the world, including USA have done a lot of hard work.

But I would not undersell or discount our repositioning, as kind of.. Y’know.. it sounds a little bit over-the-top, but this digital and direct-to-consumer powerhouse has changed the way that the B2B world looks at us.

You can’t.. You cannot diminish the fact that we’re the number 1 sports video property on YouTube in the World. We’re the number two Sports brand on Facebook in the world. We’re the fifth largest direct-to-consumer video service in the world. You’ve got the three big aggregators and then MLB and then us. And everybody else is behind us,.
I think the B2B community.. Companies have changed. We have a parade of people coming through Stamford just wanting to sit down & talk. Kind of, how are you guys doing this? How do you think about it? Can we talk about your data stack?

We’re way behind a Netflix or an Amazon in terms of utilizing data to really engage engagement but what we’ve learned that we’re way ahead of a lot of other people. And they’ve learned that too.

And so I think all of that gets to that repositioning of the brand and again, you know and again we’ll see how it manifests itself but there’s been a lot of work internally and we feel pretty good about it. I think everyone internally feels it’s in the best place it’s ever been.

(31:40) Q: You mentioned the UK and India are a little different. I want to talk about India specifically. When I got up this morning, top trending item in Twitter is that Jinder Mahal is new Smackdown champion. What does that say about WWE’s commitment for that market?
A: This were a lot of agape mouths in the Barrios household last night when that happened. We were excited. My wife is part Indian, so my kids were part Indian. So we were all excited on multiple levels.

Look, I’ve said before, we’ve been global and the talent base has been global for a long time. We’re more global today than it’s ever been before.

In India, which the pay TV market is in the early, early stages. We have more viewers in India of our traditional longform weekly content than any in the world. So it’s a critically important market.

I think having an Indian champion can only help, hopefully but.. India is a little bit of a crown jewel for WWE, you know, because given its scale, given its GDP growth, given the current levels of engagement that we have with the brand, it’s almost just don’t screw it up, it’s just so good. So hopefully we’ll do a lot better than.. just not do that.

(33:20) Q: We haven’t touched on a few subjects, nothing on social yet. Just on distribution, we’ve seen digital players like Amazon, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook all recently, you know, show an interest in live content and there’s industry talk in the next major sports renewal cycle, you know, you might see TV and digital get unbundled. What’s your thoughts about potentially distributing through a platform like that?
A: Yeah, I mean.. It’s no different than any other platform when you value the traditional world over the past where you said if I’m going with a partner there’s different elements: The economics obviously, but also what’s the strength of their platform, how distributed are they, what’s their reach, um, do we think there’s a good fit with the brand ‘cause the cross-promotion is important.

So I think.. You know.. We kind of… We can get all starry-eyed about digital but at the end of the day it’s a pipe delivering bits and bytes and it’s video content and everyone is trying to do the same thing: engage people.

So, I think it’ll come down to the traditional evaluation which is: What’s the scale? What’s the reach? What’s the engagement levels? And that’s important. Right? Long-form viewing is different today on digital platforms than it is on traditional - change eventually. The point is when will it change and has it changed and will it change by the time you did a renewal? It’ll change eventually. When will it change? And the economics, are the economics right? I would be shocked if at some point they’re not all competing with each other, The question is that in two years, one year, five years, ten years out? I don’t know.
But I would agree David that recently in the marketplace that digital players are really getting a little more aggressive than they have in really trying to secure premium content. So, it will be interesting.

(35:00) Q: We didn’t leave much time to talk about WWE in social and digital in general but it’s somewhere where you guys maintain such a huge and tremendous presence. Why is it an area so important to you? And for investors specifically, how do we think about how material it is in terms of financials?
A: Yeah, I mean, every piece of content that we create has one of four potential uses and sometimes multiple:

#1: Engage current fans
#2: Bring in new fans
#3: Monetizing directly through ads or subscription
#4: As a promotional tool to bring your fans to other products like the Network.

So for us social started out as engage 24/7, bring in new fans, promote other products. We’re now monetizing through a greater degree with our ad-shares on the digital platform.

Stating the obvious, global scale, it’s a landgrab like attention always is.
For the last seven years, before it was cool to do so, it was a strategic priority internally.
Vince pulling senior team and saying literally, “this is a landgrab and we’ve got to grab our unfair share.”

So far we’ve done a pretty good job.

* end of talk *

transcription: Chris Harrington (wrestlenomics.com)

Sunday, May 07, 2017

WWE Royalties Lawsuit - 5/5/17 ruling

Required Reading

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Marcus Bagwell and Scott Levy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.; WCW, Inc.,
filed 11/7/16

DEFENDANT WWE’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS AMENDED COMPLAINT
filed 12/2/16

RULING RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 44) by United States District Judge Janet C. Hall
ordered 5/5/17

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOT DISMISSED - COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT—FAILURE TO PAY ROYALTIES
"Count I alleges breach of contract, stemming from WWE’s refusal to pay royalties on money derived from the WWE Network."

NOT DISMISSED - COUNT II: (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY)
"Count II alleges a breach of fiduciary duty, grounded in the same failure to pay royalties."

NOT DISMISSED - COUNT III: (VIOLATION OF THE CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, C.G.S. §42-110A, ET SEQ.)
"Count III claims that WWE violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (“CUTPA”)."

NOT DISMISSED - COUNT IV: Breach of Contract- Failure to Pay Royalties Within 90 Days Following the of End of Quarter
"Count IV asserts another breach of contract claim, this one stemming from WWE’s failure to pay royalties within ninety days of the end of each fiscal quarter."

DISMISSED COUNT V: Declaratory Relief
"Count V seek declaratory relief, asking for a declaration that the WWE Network qualifies as a “WCW Video Product” and a “WWF Video Product” under the relevant contracts"

DISMISSED COUNT VI: Declaratory Relief
"Counts VI seek declaratory relief that Bagwell is paid royalties because of his 2001 contract with a WWE-affiliated entity."

NOT DISMISSED - COUNT VII: Successor Liability
"Count VII alleges that WWE is liable for the “debts and liabilities” of World Championship Wrestling, Inc."

DISMISSED COUNT VIII: Breach of Contract
"Count VIII asserts a third claim for breach of contract, arising out of WWE’s refusal to allow Bagwell to examine WWE’s books and records."

DISMISSED COUNT IX: Unjust Enrichment
"Last, Count IX claims that WWE has been unjustly enriched."
---------------------------------------
JUDGE'S DECISION
  • All claims against WCW, Inc. are dismissed.


  • Counts V and VI, for declaratory relief, are dismissed because plaintiffs have failed to oppose WWE’s arguments for dismissal and because declaratory relief appears duplicative of the breach of contract claims.


  • Plaintiffs may seek declaratory relief as a remedy, rather than as a freestanding cause of action. 


  • Count VII is dismissed because plaintiffs’ contracts with WCWI did not entitle them to royalties. 


  • Last, Count IX is dismissed because unjust enrichment claims are not cognizable where an express contract governs the subject matter undergirding the unjust enrichment claim.
  • The Motion to Dismiss Counts I, II, III, IV, and VIII is denied.

---------------------------------------

Detail on decision not to dismiss "Count I: Failure to Pay Royalties on WWE Network Proceeds" 

Direct Sale
"The contractual provisions that plaintiffs cite in their claim for royalties require royalty payments on money derived from “the direct sale” of pay-per-view or non-pay-per-view videos." (page 13)
"Ultimately, the court concludes that neither party’s proffered interpretation is foreclosed by the contract’s plain language." (page 14)
"The WWE Network is neither movable nor tangible, and thus does not qualify as a 'good' under the Uniform Commercial Code." (page 15)
"In any event, there can be little doubt that WWE is selling something to subscribers to the WWE Network. WWE understandably avoids using the word “sale”—or any variation thereof—in describing its interaction with WWE Network customers. Put colloquially, however, WWE sells subscriptions to the WWE Network, enabling subscribers to view content (both pay-per-view and non-pay-per-view videos) to which they would not otherwise have access. Nothing in the Booking Contract, copyright law, or any portion of Connecticut state law so limits the term “direct sale” as to unambiguously foreclose plaintiffs’ claims. That being the case, WWE’s arguments for dismissal that are grounded in the argument that “direct sale” does not—as a matter of law—cover the provision of streaming video on the WWE Network are not persuasive." (page 16)

Video Product
"Next, WWE argues that streaming video on the WWE Network does not qualify as a “Video Product,” as that term is defined in the Booking Contracts." (page 16)
 "The court is unpersuaded by WWE’s argument that the final clause in the definition of “Video Products” refers unambiguously and exclusively to physical objects." (page 17)
 "Last, the court is not persuaded by WWE’s suggestion—raised for the first time in its Reply—that sporadic references to the Internet elsewhere in the Booking Contracts forecloses inclusion of streaming videos in the definition of “Video Products.” (page 19)
"For the reasons set forth in detail above, WWE’s Motion to Dismiss certain of plaintiffs’ claims because they rely on a reading of “Video Products” that includes the WWE Network’s streaming videos is denied."  (page 20)

Calculating Royalties
"WWE next argues that plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Booking Contracts would “render other relevant provisions of the Booking Contracts impossible to apply and would lead to an absurd result.” In response, plaintiffs assert that calculating WWE’s royalty obligations “is purely a mathematical issue that can be determined by experts and this court at a later time.” (page 20)
"However, the court does not believe, at least at this stage of the litigation, that giving effect to plaintiffs’ interpretation of the royalty provisions would lead to an absurd result. There are likely several plausible ways to calculate the royalty payments plaintiffs demand. For example, it might be that the proper way to perform the royalty calculation is to determine the number of times a specific video on the WWE Network is viewed as compared to the total number of video views, divide the gross sales derived from the WWE Network in that proportion, and create the talent royalty pool to be paid to the wrestlers appearing in the specific video from 5% of that value. To be clear, the court is not holding here that a particular method of calculating any royalty obligation on the part of WWE is the correct way, but rather offers a plausible method to show that plaintiffs’ interpretation of the Booking Contracts does not appear to render them unworkable." (page 21)
"Therefore, notwithstanding WWE’s arguments to the contrary, it does not appear that a determination that plaintiffs are entitled to WWE Network royalties would lead to an absurd result." (page 22)

-------------------------

Read the ruling:

RULING RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 44) by United States District Judge Janet C. Hallordered 5/5/17


-----------------------------------

EDIT: The Second Amended Complaint on the WWE Royalties Case was filed 5/19/17: https://www.scribd.com/document/349138407/20170522-WWE-Royalties-Second-Amended-Class-Action-Complaint-Bagwell-Levy

Exhibits on 2nd Amended Complaint: https://www.scribd.com/document/349139805/20170522-WWE-Royalties-Exhibits

-----------------------------------

https://twitter.com/mookieghana/status/865625223751622658

Also, in the WWE CTE case, the plantiffs attempted to use Judge Hall's opinion to justify that WWE had successor obligations related to ECW/WCW wrestlers and file a sur-reply but WWE wasn't willing to play ball at all;  https://www.scribd.com/document/348865435/WWECTE-PLANTIFFS-DEFENDANTS-MOTIONS-TO-FILE-SUR-REPLY-BRIEF-IN-REFERENCE-TO-DEFENDANTS-MOTION-FOR-SANCTIONS