The Wrestlenomics of 2014 G1 Climax Tournament

I haven't listened to Rich & Joe's Preview Show at Voices of Wrestling nor do I plan to watch any of the New Japan Pro Wrestling coverage on USTREAM. However, that doesn't mean I won't compete in the excellent G1 PICK 'EM TOURNAMENT! But how does an ignorant gaijin like myself know who they should choose? Obviously, we're going to harness THE AWESOME POWER OF WRESTLENOMICS.

(I literally googled "cheesy lightning bolt graphic" to find that gem.)

There are 112 matches in the G1 tournament.  We know the lineups for 110 and the last two are the wrestlers with the most points wrestling for 1st/2nd place and 3rd/4th place. Unfortunately, news broke today that Kota Ibushi has officially been removed as a competitor (due to the lingering effects of a concussion). We don't know the replacement.  Therefore, I ran my simulation assuming that Kota was in the tournament, and then flipped the few matches he won back to his competitor (woohoo! Festus gets some points!).

I started by pulling all NJPW cards since January 2013 from CageMatch. That covered 176 events and 1,329 matches. This included over 125 wrestlers, but only about eighty with 5 or more matches.  I calculated everyone's win/loss records for singles/tag matches since January 2013.

New Japan Pro Wrestling - Win/Loss Records since January 2013 (5+ matches)

Next, I calculated "feud statistics" looking at everyone's individual singles records against one another along with tag results. (I learned, for instance, that Sho Tanaka and Yohei Komatsu have had 26 singles matches during this time where they racked up a stunning 21 draws.  For those counting, Komatsu is ahead 3:2 in terms of wins since January 2013.) Among G1 competitors, Minoru Suzuki and Toru Yano are split 3-3 in singles matches and Okada leads Tanahashi 2:1. (Again, the timeframe is just since January 2013.)

For each match I looked at several factors:

• What are their singles records against each other?
• What are their tag records when they faced off with each other/
• Who has the higher overall singles winning percentage?

Night 1 - 7/21/14

• A Block: Tomohiro Ishii (41%) vs. Bad Luck Fale (75%) = no singles encounters; 8 tag matches (Tied at 4 matches each) --- Bad Luck Fale
• A Block: Shelton Benjamin (47%) vs. Doc Gallows (0%) = no singles encounters; 3 tag matches (Benjamin leads 2:1) --- Shelton Benjamin
• B Block: Hiroyoshi Tenzan (25%) vs. Karl Anderson (40%) = 2 singles matches (Anderson leads 2:0); 4 tag matches (Anderson leads 4:0) --- Karl Anderson
• A Block: Satoshi Kojima (50%) vs. Yuji Nagata (63%) = no singles encounters; 33 tag matches (Kojima leads 21:12) --- Yuji Nagata
• B Block: Toru Yano (44%) vs. Minoru Suzuki (62%) = 6 singles matches (Tied at 3 matches each); 48 tag matches (Minoru Suzuki leads 24:23) --- Minoru Suzuki
• B Block: Tetsuya Naito (57%) vs. Yujiro Takahashi (39%) = 3 singles matches (Naito leads 2:1); 37 tag matches (Naito leads 27:10) --- Tetsuya Naito
• B Block: Togi Makabe (56%) vs. Hirooki Goto (50%) = 1 singles match (Makabe leads 1:0); 5 tag matches (Makabe leads 4:1) --- Togi Makabe
• A Block: Hiroshi Tanahashi (65%) vs. Kota Ibushi (50%) = no singles encounters; 1 tag match (Ibushi leads 1:0) --- Hiroshi Tanahashi
• A Block: Shinsuke Nakamura (75%) vs. Katsuyori Shibata (61%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- Shinsuke Nakamura
• B Block: A.J. Styles (100%) vs. Kazuchika Okada (69%) = 3 singles matches (Styles leads 3:0); 2 tag matches (Styles leads 2:0) --- A.J. Styles

Night 2 - 7/23/14

• A Block: Satoshi Kojima (50%) vs. Tomohiro Ishii (41%) = 2 singles matches (Tied at 1 matches each); 3 tag matches (Ishii leads 2:1) --- Tomohiro Ishii
• A Block: Shelton Benjamin (47%) vs. Bad Luck Fale (75%) = 1 singles match (Fale leads 1:0); 1 tag match (Fale leads 1:0) --- Bad Luck Fale
• B Block: Hirooki Goto (50%) vs. Yujiro Takahashi (39%) = no singles encounters; 22 tag matches (Goto leads 17:5) --- Hirooki Goto
• B Block: Tetsuya Naito (57%) vs. Lance Archer (33%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- Tetsuya Naito
• A Block: Yuji Nagata (63%) vs. Kota Ibushi (50%) = 1 singles match (Nagata leads 1:0); no tag encounters --- Yuji Nagata
• A Block: Shinsuke Nakamura (75%) vs. Davey Boy Smith, Jr. (50%) = 3 singles matches (Nakamura leads 2:1); 10 tag matches (Smith leads 6:4) --- Shinsuke Nakamura
• B Block: Toru Yano (44%) vs. A.J. Styles (100%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- A.J. Styles
• B Block: Hiroyoshi Tenzan (25%) vs. Kazuchika Okada (69%) = no singles encounters; 3 tag matches (Tenzan leads 3:0) --- Kazuchika Okada
• B Block: Togi Makabe (56%) vs. Karl Anderson (40%) = no singles encounters; 40 tag matches (Anderson leads 28:12) --- Togi Makabe
• A Block: Hiroshi Tanahashi (65%) vs. Doc Gallows (0%) = no singles encounters; 22 tag matches (Gallows leads 15:7) --- Hiroshi Tanahashi

Night 3 - 7/25/14

• A Block: Kota Ibushi (50%) vs. Doc Gallows (0%) = no singles encounters; 1 tag match (Gallows leads 1:0) --- Doc Gallows (Originally had Ibushi winning but switched prediction due to his injury)
• B Block: Lance Archer (33%) vs. Karl Anderson (40%) = no singles encounters; 9 tag matches (Anderson leads 5:4) --- Karl Anderson
• B Block: Hiroyoshi Tenzan (25%) vs. Yujiro Takahashi (39%) = 1 singles match (Yujiro Takahashi leads 1:0); 13 tag matches (Tenzan leads 12:1) --- Yujiro Takahashi
• A Block: Tomohiro Ishii (41%) vs. Shelton Benjamin (47%) = no singles encounters; 10 tag matches (Ishii leads 6:4) --- Shelton Benjamin
• B Block: Tetsuya Naito (57%) vs. Toru Yano (44%) = 1 singles match (Yano leads 1:0); 7 tag matches (Naito leads 6:1) --- Tetsuya Naito
• A Block: Katsuyori Shibata (61%) vs. Davey Boy Smith, Jr. (50%) = 1 singles match (Shibata leads 1:0); no tag encounters --- Katsuyori Shibata
• A Block: Yuji Nagata (63%) vs. Bad Luck Fale (75%) = no singles encounters; 4 tag matches (Nagata leads 3:1) --- Bad Luck Fale
• B Block: Hirooki Goto (50%) vs. Minoru Suzuki (62%) = 1 singles match (Minoru Suzuki leads 1:0); no tag encounters --- Minoru Suzuki
• A Block: Hiroshi Tanahashi (65%) vs. Satoshi Kojima (50%) = 1 singles match (Kojima leads 1:0); no tag encounters --- Hiroshi Tanahashi
• B Block: Togi Makabe (56%) vs. Kazuchika Okada (69%) = 2 singles matches (Tied at 1 matches each); 18 tag matches (Makabe leads 13:5) --- Togi Makabe

Night 4 - 7/26/14

• A Block: Satoshi Kojima (50%) vs. Bad Luck Fale (75%) = no singles encounters; 1 tag match (Fale leads 1:0) --- Bad Luck Fale
• A Block: Shelton Benjamin (47%) vs. Davey Boy Smith, Jr. (50%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- Davey Boy Smith, Jr.
• B Block: Hiroyoshi Tenzan (25%) vs. Minoru Suzuki (62%) = 1 singles match (Tenzan leads 1:0); 1 tag match (Tenzan leads 1:0) --- Hiroyoshi Tenzan
• B Block: Hirooki Goto (50%) vs. Toru Yano (44%) = no singles encounters; 8 tag matches (Goto leads 6:2) --- Hirooki Goto
• A Block: Kota Ibushi (50%) vs. Tomohiro Ishii (41%) = 1 singles match (Ishii leads 1:0); 4 tag matches (Ibushi leads 4:0) --- Tomohiro Ishii (originally had Ibushi winning but his injury changed this)
• B Block: Togi Makabe (56%) vs. Lance Archer (33%) = 1 singles match (Makabe leads 1:0); 1 tag match (Archer leads 1:0) --- Togi Makabe
• A Block: Yuji Nagata (63%) vs. Shinsuke Nakamura (75%) = 1 singles match (Nakamura leads 1:0); 1 tag match (Nagata leads 1:0) --- Shinsuke Nakamura
• B Block: Tetsuya Naito (57%) vs. A.J. Styles (100%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- A.J. Styles
• B Block: Kazuchika Okada (69%) vs. Karl Anderson (40%) = 2 singles matches (Okada leads 2:0); 18 tag matches (Anderson leads 12:6) --- Kazuchika Okada
• A Block: Hiroshi Tanahashi (65%) vs. Katsuyori Shibata (61%) = 1 singles match (Tanahashi leads 1:0); 4 tag matches (Tied at 2 matches each) --- Hiroshi Tanahashi

Night 5 - 7/28/14

• A Block: Tomohiro Ishii (41%) vs. Doc Gallows (0%) = no singles encounters; 4 tag matches (Tied at 2 matches each) --- Tomohiro Ishii
• B Block: Hiroyoshi Tenzan (25%) vs. Lance Archer (33%) = no singles encounters; 20 tag matches (Tenzan leads 12:7) --- Lance Archer
• A Block: Satoshi Kojima (50%) vs. Davey Boy Smith, Jr. (50%) = 1 singles match (Smith leads 1:0); 20 tag matches (Kojima leads 12:7) --- Davey Boy Smith, Jr.
• B Block: Minoru Suzuki (62%) vs. Yujiro Takahashi (39%) = 1 singles match (Minoru Suzuki leads 1:0); 10 tag matches (Minoru Suzuki leads 6:4) --- Minoru Suzuki
• B Block: Toru Yano (44%) vs. Karl Anderson (40%) = 1 singles match (Yano leads 1:0); 4 tag matches (Anderson leads 4:0) --- Toru Yano
• A Block: Katsuyori Shibata (61%) vs. Shelton Benjamin (47%) = 1 singles match (Benjamin leads 1:0); no tag encounters --- Katsuyori Shibata
• B Block: Hirooki Goto (50%) vs. A.J. Styles (100%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- A.J. Styles
• A Block: Hiroshi Tanahashi (65%) vs. Bad Luck Fale (75%) = no singles encounters; 16 tag matches (Fale leads 12:4) --- Bad Luck Fale
• A Block: Kota Ibushi (50%) vs. Shinsuke Nakamura (75%) = 1 singles match (Nakamura leads 1:0); 1 tag match (Ibushi leads 1:0) --- Shinsuke Nakamura
• B Block: Tetsuya Naito (57%) vs. Kazuchika Okada (69%) = 1 singles match (Okada leads 1:0); 43 tag matches (Naito leads 28:14) --- Kazuchika Okada

Night 6 - 7/31/14

• A Block: Doc Gallows (0%) vs. Bad Luck Fale (75%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- Bad Luck Fale
• A Block: Yuji Nagata (63%) vs. Davey Boy Smith, Jr. (50%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- Yuji Nagata
• B Block: Togi Makabe (56%) vs. Yujiro Takahashi (39%) = 3 singles matches (Makabe leads 2:1); 43 tag matches (Makabe leads 38:5) --- Togi Makabe
• A Block: Satoshi Kojima (50%) vs. Katsuyori Shibata (61%) = 1 singles match (Kojima leads 1:0); no tag encounters --- Katsuyori Shibata
• B Block: Hirooki Goto (50%) vs. Karl Anderson (40%) = no singles encounters; 20 tag matches (Goto leads 11:9) --- Hirooki Goto
• B Block: Minoru Suzuki (62%) vs. Lance Archer (33%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- Minoru Suzuki
• A Block: Shinsuke Nakamura (75%) vs. Shelton Benjamin (47%) = 3 singles matches (Nakamura leads 2:1); 20 tag matches (Benjamin leads 11:9) --- Shinsuke Nakamura
• B Block: Hiroyoshi Tenzan (25%) vs. A.J. Styles (100%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- A.J. Styles
• B Block: Kazuchika Okada (69%) vs. Toru Yano (44%) = 1 singles match (Okada leads 1:0); 1 tag match (Okada leads 1:0) --- Kazuchika Okada
• A Block: Hiroshi Tanahashi (65%) vs. Tomohiro Ishii (41%) = 2 singles matches (Tied at 1 matches each); 32 tag matches (Tanahashi leads 20:12) --- Hiroshi Tanahashi

Night 7 - 8/1/14

• A Block: Satoshi Kojima (50%) vs. Shelton Benjamin (47%) = no singles encounters; 1 tag match (Kojima leads 1:0) --- Satoshi Kojima
• B Block: Toru Yano (44%) vs. Lance Archer (33%) = no singles encounters; 2 tag matches (Yano leads 2:0) --- Toru Yano
• B Block: Yujiro Takahashi (39%) vs. Karl Anderson (40%) = 1 singles match (Anderson leads 1:0); 3 tag matches (Anderson leads 3:0) --- Karl Anderson
• A Block: Davey Boy Smith, Jr. (50%) vs. Doc Gallows (0%) = no singles encounters; 8 tag matches (Gallows leads 5:3) --- Davey Boy Smith, Jr.
• B Block: Hiroyoshi Tenzan (25%) vs. Hirooki Goto (50%) = no singles encounters; 1 tag match (Goto leads 1:0) --- Hirooki Goto
• A Block: Kota Ibushi (50%) vs. Bad Luck Fale (75%) = no singles encounters; 3 tag matches (Fale leads 2:1) --- Bad Luck Fale
• B Block: Togi Makabe (56%) vs. Tetsuya Naito (57%) = no singles encounters; 1 tag match (Naito leads 1:0) --- Tetsuya Naito
• B Block: Minoru Suzuki (62%) vs. A.J. Styles (100%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- A.J. Styles
• A Block: Yuji Nagata (63%) vs. Katsuyori Shibata (61%) = no singles encounters; 7 tag matches (Shibata leads 6:1) --- Yuji Nagata
• A Block: Shinsuke Nakamura (75%) vs. Tomohiro Ishii (41%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- Shinsuke Nakamura

Night 8 - 8/3/14

• A Block: Tomohiro Ishii (41%) vs. Davey Boy Smith, Jr. (50%) = 1 singles match (Smith leads 1:0); 11 tag matches (Smith leads 7:4) --- Davey Boy Smith, Jr.
• B Block: Hiroyoshi Tenzan (25%) vs. Toru Yano (44%) = 1 singles match (Tenzan leads 1:0); 34 tag matches (Tenzan leads 25:9) --- Hiroyoshi Tenzan
• A Block: Yuji Nagata (63%) vs. Shelton Benjamin (47%) = 1 singles match (Benjamin leads 1:0); 2 tag matches (Tied at 1 matches each) --- Shelton Benjamin
• A Block: Satoshi Kojima (50%) vs. Doc Gallows (0%) = no singles encounters; 3 tag matches (Gallows leads 3:0) --- Satoshi Kojima
• B Block: Hirooki Goto (50%) vs. Tetsuya Naito (57%) = no singles encounters; 2 tag matches (Naito leads 2:0) --- Tetsuya Naito
• B Block: Lance Archer (33%) vs. A.J. Styles (100%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- A.J. Styles
• B Block: Togi Makabe (56%) vs. Minoru Suzuki (62%) = no singles encounters; 1 tag match (Makabe leads 1:0) --- Minoru Suzuki

Night 9 - 8/4/14

• A Block: Kota Ibushi (50%) vs. Katsuyori Shibata (61%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- Katsuyori Shibata
• B Block: Kazuchika Okada (69%) vs. Yujiro Takahashi (39%) = no singles encounters; 12 tag matches (Tied at 6 matches each) --- Kazuchika Okada
• A Block: Hiroshi Tanahashi (65%) vs. Shinsuke Nakamura (75%) = 3 singles matches (Tanahashi leads 2:1); 30 tag matches (Tanahashi leads 16:13) --- Hiroshi Tanahashi
• A Block: Kota Ibushi (50%) vs. Davey Boy Smith, Jr. (50%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- Davey Boy Smith, Jr.
• B Block: Lance Archer (33%) vs. Yujiro Takahashi (39%) = no singles encounters; 1 tag match (Archer leads 1:0) --- Yujiro Takahashi
• A Block: Yuji Nagata (63%) vs. Doc Gallows (0%) = no singles encounters; 3 tag matches (Nagata leads 2:1) --- Yuji Nagata
• B Block: Togi Makabe (56%) vs. Hiroyoshi Tenzan (25%) = no singles encounters; 1 tag match (Tenzan leads 1:0) --- Togi Makabe
• B Block: Tetsuya Naito (57%) vs. Minoru Suzuki (62%) = 1 singles match (Naito leads 1:0); 1 tag match (Naito leads 1:0) --- Tetsuya Naito
• A Block: Katsuyori Shibata (61%) vs. Bad Luck Fale (75%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- Bad Luck Fale
• A Block: Satoshi Kojima (50%) vs. Shinsuke Nakamura (75%) = no singles encounters; 3 tag matches (Kojima leads 2:1) --- Shinsuke Nakamura
• B Block: A.J. Styles (100%) vs. Karl Anderson (40%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- A.J. Styles
• A Block: Hiroshi Tanahashi (65%) vs. Shelton Benjamin (47%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- Hiroshi Tanahashi
• B Block: Hirooki Goto (50%) vs. Kazuchika Okada (69%) = 3 singles matches (Okada leads 2:1); 15 tag matches (Goto leads 10:5) --- Kazuchika Okada

Night 10 - 8/6/14

• A Block: Satoshi Kojima (50%) vs. Kota Ibushi (50%) = no singles encounters; 1 tag match (Kojima leads 1:0) --- Satoshi Kojima 
• A Block: Davey Boy Smith, Jr. (50%) vs. Bad Luck Fale (75%) = no singles encounters; 2 tag matches (Tied at 1 matches each) --- Bad Luck Fale
• B Block: Hiroyoshi Tenzan (25%) vs. Tetsuya Naito (57%) = 1 singles match (Tenzan leads 1:0); 2 tag matches (Tenzan leads 2:0) --- Hiroyoshi Tenzan
• B Block: Minoru Suzuki (62%) vs. Karl Anderson (40%) = 1 singles match (Minoru Suzuki leads 1:0); 3 tag matches (Minoru Suzuki leads 3:0) --- Minoru Suzuki
• B Block: Togi Makabe (56%) vs. Toru Yano (44%) = no singles encounters; 16 tag matches (Makabe leads 13:3) --- Togi Makabe
• B Block: A.J. Styles (100%) vs. Yujiro Takahashi (39%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- A.J. Styles
• B Block: Kazuchika Okada (69%) vs. Lance Archer (33%) = 2 singles matches (Okada leads 2:0); 7 tag matches (Archer leads 4:3) --- Kazuchika Okada
• A Block: Hiroshi Tanahashi (65%) vs. Yuji Nagata (63%) = no singles encounters; 1 tag match (Nagata leads 1:0) --- Hiroshi Tanahashi
• A Block: Tomohiro Ishii (41%) vs. Katsuyori Shibata (61%) = 2 singles matches (Tied at 1 matches each); 1 tag match (Shibata leads 1:0) --- Katsuyori Shibata
• A Block: Shinsuke Nakamura (75%) vs. Doc Gallows (0%) = no singles encounters; 5 tag matches (Gallows leads 3:2) --- Shinsuke Nakamura

Night 11 - 8/6/14

• A Block: Hiroshi Tanahashi (65%) vs. Davey Boy Smith, Jr. (50%) = 1 singles match (Tanahashi leads 1:0); 1 tag match (Smith leads 1:0) --- Hiroshi Tanahashi
• A Block: Yuji Nagata (63%) vs. Tomohiro Ishii (41%) = no singles encounters; 8 tag matches (Nagata leads 7:1) --- Yuji Nagata
• A Block: Kota Ibushi (50%) vs. Shelton Benjamin (47%) = 1 singles match (Benjamin leads 1:0); no tag encounters --- Shelton Benjamin
• A Block: Katsuyori Shibata (61%) vs. Doc Gallows (0%) = no singles encounters; 2 tag matches (Tied at 1 matches each) --- Katsuyori Shibata
• A Block: Shinsuke Nakamura (75%) vs. Bad Luck Fale (75%) = 2 singles matches (Tied at 1 matches each); 16 tag matches (Tied at 8 matches each) --- Draw (they are tied in win percentage, singles and tag!)
• B Block: Togi Makabe (56%) vs. A.J. Styles (100%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- A.J. Styles
• B Block: Hirooki Goto (50%) vs. Lance Archer (33%) = 1 singles match (Goto leads 1:0); 1 tag match (Archer leads 1:0) --- Hirooki Goto
• B Block: Tetsuya Naito (57%) vs. Karl Anderson (40%) = 1 singles match (Naito leads 1:0); 6 tag matches (Naito leads 5:1) --- Tetsuya Naito
• B Block: Kazuchika Okada (69%) vs. Minoru Suzuki (62%) = 2 singles matches (Tied at 1 matches each); 26 tag matches (Okada leads 15:11) --- Kazuchika Okada
• B Block: Toru Yano (44%) vs. Yujiro Takahashi (39%) = 1 singles match (Yano leads 1:0); no tag encounters --- Toru Yano

Final Projected Points

A Block	Points
Bad Luck Fale	19
Hiroshi Tanahashi	18
Shinsuke Nakamura	17
Katsuyori Shibata	12
Yuji Nagata	12
Davey Boy Smith, Jr.	10
Shelton Benjamin	8
Satoshi Kojima	6
Tomohiro Ishii	6
Doc Gallows	2
Kota Ibushi	0

B Block	Points
A.J. Styles	20
Kazuchika Okada	16
Tetsuya Naito	14
Togi Makabe	14
Minoru Suzuki	12
Hirooki Goto	10
Hiroyoshi Tenzan	6
Karl Anderson	6
Toru Yano	6
Yujiro Takahashi	4
Lance Archer	2

Night 12 - 8/6/14

• Finals: Bad Luck Fale (75%) vs. A.J. Styles (100%) = no singles encounters; no tag encounters --- AJ Styles
• 3rd Place: Hiroshi Tanahashi (65%) vs. Kazuchika Okada (69%) = 4 singles matches (Okada leads 2:1); 32 tag matches (Tanahashi leads 19:12) --- Kazuchika Okada

Of course, all of this reflects my complete cluelessness about New Japan plans and who they are pushing. But it's something.

Chris Harrington
chris.harrington@gmail.com
@mookieghana

Published WhatCulture Articles

All of my published WhatCulture articles thus far..

7/15/2014:	10 Remedies For An Ailing WWE Network	…. 59383 views
6/28/2014:	7 ECW Stars That Failed In WWE	…. 20892 views
6/25/2014:	WWE Reveals Surprising Numbers For Extreme Rules	…. 3194 views
6/23/2014:	12 WWE Stars Who Got Lost In The Mix	…. 42085 views
6/17/2014:	Has WWE Killed Their PPV Business?	…. 4891 views
6/14/2014:	Is WWE TV Becoming Stagnant?	…. 2349 views
6/9/2014:	6 Things You Need To Know About ECW’s Wrestlenomics	…. 22490 views
6/3/2014:	Is WWE Becoming Stagnant?	…. 7316 views
6/3/2014:	WWE WrestleMania 30 Buys Has Shocking Implications For Network	…. 6565 views
5/29/2014:	10 Least Successful WWE Tag Teams Of The Last 20 Years	…. 40202 views
5/28/2014:	33 Wrestlers That Have Appeared In The Most Video Games	…. 21144 views
5/28/2014:	3 Big Dilemmas WWE Network Must Face	…. 8469 views
5/24/2014:	Calculating Global Demand For WWE Network	…. 1906 views
5/18/2014:	10 Key Questions To Ask Monday’s WWE Conference Call	…. 3395 views
5/16/2014:	WWE’s New TV Deal: What We Know	…. 3448 views
5/13/2014:	Surprisingly Large MLS Deal Fuels Speculation On WWE TV Rights	…. 2556 views
5/7/2014:	WWE Investors Remain Confused Over Domestic TV Rights Negotiation Delays	…. 2287 views
5/1/2014:	WWE’s Q1 Conference Call – Everything We Learned	…. 2569 views
4/29/2014:	What WWE Investors Want To Learn At Thursday’s Q1 Update	…. 2373 views
4/26/2014:	What Is The Future Of Domestic WWE PPV?	…. 4088 views
4/22/2014:	WWE Wrestler Death Rates Investigated	…. 2811 views
4/18/2014:	WWE Analysis: Is Daniel Bryan A Weaker Live Event Draw Than John Cena?	…. 4059 views
4/16/2014:	WWE Reports 400,000 Domestic Buys For WrestleMania 30	…. 679 views
4/15/2014:	WWE Network: Does Another Free Trial Week Suggest Desperation?	…. 5451 views
4/14/2014:	The Ultimate Warrior: 4 Incredible Secrets & Facts About His Career	…. 62811 views
4/8/2014:	Reaction To WWE Network Subscriber Number Misses Real Story	…. 5547 views
4/7/2014:	What Does 667,287 Subscribers Mean For WWE Network?	…. 7780 views
4/2/2014:	WWE Network And TV Rights: The Waiting Game	…. 2318 views
3/27/2014:	WWE: Fact Checking Forbes’ Article On Vince McMahon	…. 2196 views
3/26/2014:	6 Jobs That WWE Must Create	…. 10067 views
3/25/2014:	WWE WrestleMania 30: Why Dish Network Relented And Will Now Carry It	…. 7124 views
3/21/2014:	WWE Royal Rumble & Elimination Chamber 2014 Buy Estimates	…. 3471 views
3/19/2014:	WWE: John Cena Has Not Had 3,500 Matches	…. 3561 views
3/18/2014:	WWE: Analysing The 5 Networks WWE Is Negotiating TV Rights With	…. 9440 views
3/15/2014:	5 Companies That Would Want To Buy WWE	…. 32066 views
3/13/2014:	AMC Want To Buy WWE? – Merger Rumours Drive Stock Spike	…. 4830 views
3/10/2014:	10 Ways WWE Can Maintain Their Current Business Success	…. 10566 views
3/5/2014:	14 WWE Network Risks That WWE Worries About	…. 20168 views
3/5/2014:	WWE’s Current 15 Year Stock High Is Tied To Their Domestic TV Future	…. 3748 views
2/28/2014:	WWE: 20 Most Prolific PPV Wrestlers Of All Time	…. 30133 views
2/27/2014:	WWE Network Launch: All The Key Questions Answered	…. 27342 views
2/25/2014:	WWE: 8 Modern PPVs That Performed Miserably	…. 62176 views
2/20/2014:	10 Controversies Of The WWE Network	…. 664931 views
2/18/2014:	WWE RAW: 16 Biggest Ratings Movers (2011-2013)	…. 22110 views

What’s going on today with $WWE’s stock price?

In two weeks the WWE will be revealing their 2^nd Quarter results. Eager analysts (such as myself) are most interested in the updated number for WWE Network subscriptions. (The recent “no credit-card required, free trial!” and hard-selling on Raw suggest that the WWE Network is still ailing – I suggested some medicine here.)

A dramatic stock run-up began back in October and WWE stock hit an all-time high at over $31/share in March 2014. Then it plummeted back to earth (down to $11/share) in mid-May following less-than-stellar results of their domestic TV rights negotiations with NBCU. Expectations had soared (the "live sports = live entertainment = lots of tv money!" argument).  A lot of speculative money had poured in. And then rushed out overnight.  The stock had since settled into a groove of trading in a narrow band between $11 and $12 for these Summer months.

With an expensive WWE Network (which is expected to announce lackluster post-Wrestlemania growth) it was quite a surprise when the stock price began climbing.  It zoomed past the artificial $12 ceiling. Wrestling pundits looked around for answers. Everyone wondered: What’s fueling this latest speculation?!

Perhaps WWE leaked the updated subscriber count to Wall Street?  Maybe investors were responding to news of the free trial for international users?  Some fans joked that the combination of Sting in a 2k commercial and WWE signing KENTA was already revolutionizing the business. Sadly, it doesn't look to be nearly that interesting.

Financial websites such as TheStreet and SeekingAlpha along with the Wrestling Observer all pointed to the same reason: “buyout speculation”.  Allegedly, the news of 21^st Century Fox (Murdoch) bid for Time Warner (they were rebuffed) has investors in a frenzy. So, they pulled the old “content-rich WWE deserves a take-over” card out of the deck.

People with astute memories might recall back in March when there was a wild rumor that AMC wanted to buy WWE.  What happened then?  The stock shot up from $29 to above $31 and immediately went back down.  Apparently that was an example of a “short squeeze” (stock price jump triggers a rush of buying from short sellers in order to cover their positions).  But that rumor (guess we'll never see CM Punk on "Talking Raw"), like this one, never went anywhere.

And why should it?  As I wrote about in my “let’s play the fun thought experiment” piece on the 5 Companies that Would want to buy the WWE: there cannot be a hostile takeover of the WWE.

Background On WWE Share Structure

As a publicly traded company WWE has two classes of Stock: Class A and Class B. When John Q. Public decides to buy $WWE Stock, they’re buying Class A shares. The Class B shares are controlled by the McMahon family – either directly or in trusts set up on their behalf. As of February 2014, there were a grand total of SIX holders for all Class B shares.

There are about 75 million total shares of $WWE split between 31.3 million Class A shares and 43.8 million Class B shares. While only controlling slightly more than half of the total shares, Vince McMahon retains control of the WWE because his shares have more voting power. As explained in the Annual Report:

We have Class A common stock and Class B common stock. The holders of Class A common stock generally have rights identical to holders of Class B common stock, except that holders of Class A common stock are entitled to one vote per share, and holders of Class B common stock are entitled to ten votes per share…. In addition, the voting power of Mr. McMahon through his ownership of our Class B common stock could discourage others from initiating potential mergers, takeovers or other change of control transactions.

To be Class B shareholders you must be in the McMahon family.

If, at any time, any shares of Class B common stock are beneficially owned by any person other than Vincent McMahon, Linda McMahon, any descendant of either of them, any entity which is wholly owned and is controlled by any combination of such persons or any trust, all the beneficiaries of which are any combination of such persons, each of those shares will automatically convert into shares of Class A common stock.

There Cannot Be A Hostile Takeover

In other words, while WWE is a “public company”, more than 90% all of the voting rights are controlled by the Class B shares which rest solely with Vince McMahon and his family. There cannot be a “hostile takeover”. The only way that another company could purchase the WWE would be if the McMahon’s voluntarily were to relinquish power to an outside entity. As a proud, stubborn and headstrong man, it seems quite unlikely we’d see Vincent Kennedy McMahon give up the keys to the World Wrestling Entertainment Castle under any circumstances outside dire financial trauma.

So, while investors may be salivating at the notion of buying a controlling stake of the WWE, it’s highly unlikely anyone (ever!) will be be able to convince the McMahons to do anything they don’t want to do. Now, I do believe WWE may be open to divesting a troubled division (WWE Studios/WWE Films comes to mind) or even taking on a partner for the Network, but ultimately I don’t see the WWE allowing itself to be gobbled up by any media conglomerate or private equity firm. This should stay true at least while Vince McMahon is still standing on God’s green Earth.

On July 31, the company will report the number of active WWE Network subscribers as of June 30, 2014.  This number will be filed in the SEC 10-Q filing (it should be online within a day or two) and also should be included in the quarterly Trending Schedule filing.  The WWE Network subscription number as of 3/31/14 was 495,000 and post-Wrestlemania (4/7/14) it was 667,287. My guess for 6/30/14 is 747,000. While that would be more than a 50% quarterly increase, it's only a 16% post-WM increase.

Also, I believe that should WWE announce any number of Q2 subscriptions which is lower than 815,000 investors will start selling and the stock price will drop (possibly even below $11/share). And no, I don’t expect them to start bragging about July’s network numbers of free+paid users.  Until they have new leadership hired and completely focused on running the WWE Network, I believe that they’re just going to keep the narrative all about "keeping costs down".  Secretly, they'll just be praying that they can keep subscriber retention above 85% during the all-important August/September 6-month autorenew cliff.

-Chris Harrington (chris.harrington@gmail.com)
@mookieghana

Comparing WWE Results from different data sources

If you've ever poked around my stats website (indeedwrestling.com), you may have noticed there is vast inconsistency on how I post aggregation of results. When I started, I used TheHistoryofWWE.com as a source (all the way back to when it was an Angelfire page), but recently I've switched to using Cagematch.net. I'm continuing to work on my book, and recently update the webpage with some reformatted Cagematch data. To compare and contrast how the counts may vary, I present these links:

• 1993 Cagematch VS. 1993 History of WWE
• 1994 Cagematch VS. 1994 History of WWE
• 1995 Cagematch VS. 1995 History of WWE 
• 1996 Cagematch VS. 1996 History of WWE
• 1997 Cagematch VS. 1997 History of WWE
• 1998 Cagematch VS. 1998 History of WWE
• 1999 Cagematch VS. 1999 History of WWE
• 2000 Cagematch VS. 2000 History of WWE
• 2001 Cagematch VS. 2001 History of WWE
• 2002 Cagematch VS. 2002 History of WWE
• 2003 Cagematch VS. 2003 History of WWE
• 2004 Cagematch VS. 2004 History of WWE
• 2005 Cagematch VS. 2005 History of WWE
• 2006 Cagematch VS. 2006 History of WWE
• 2007 Cagematch VS. 2007 History of WWE
• 2008 Cagematch VS. 2008 History of WWE
• 2009 Cagematch VS. 2009 History of WWE
• 2010 Cagematch VS. 2010 History of WWE
• 2011 Cagematch VS. 2011 History of WWE
• 2012 Cagematch  
• 2013 Cagematch 

Does the Home Run Derby affect the RAW rating?

Someone asked me whether there was any relationship between the annual Monday Night Home Run Derby and Monday Night Raw's rating. It's an interesting question so I did some digging.

While I don't have viewership numbers going back to 1996, I do have Monday Night Raw Ratings (courtesy of Gerweck.net). I pulled the Home Run Derby dates from Baseball-Reference.

I looked at Raw Ratings from November 1995 to July 7 2014 and ran a regression which included five variables:

• Was it the day immediately after a PPV?
• Was it a 3-hour RAW?
• What was the trailing 4-week average Raw Rating?
• What was the trailing 8-week average Raw Rating?
• Was it the night of the Home Run Derby?

Obviously, there's a host of other variables that I could have included. (Was it a holiday like Memorial Day or Christmas? Was the Raw taped? Was there other significant television competition such as a major sporting event or other huge network TV show? And so forth.)

(Graph has a projected Rating for the July 14, 2014 Raw Rating.)

As you can see, visually it's unclear whether the HR Derby does or does not affect the Raw rating.

date	rating	Day after PPV?	HR Derby?	3 hours?	4-week trailing	8-week trailing
7/8/1996	2.50	No	Yes	No	2.58	2.59
7/7/1997	2.50	Yes, IYH:  Canadian Stampede	Yes	No	2.38	2.63
7/6/1998	4.00	No	Yes	No	4.58	4.56
7/12/1999	5.97	No	Yes	No	6.43	6.76
7/10/2000	6.00	No	Yes	No	6.08	6.23
7/9/2001	4.70	No	Yes	No	4.40	4.35
7/8/2002	3.70	No	Yes	No	3.85	3.85
7/14/2003	3.80	No	Yes	No	3.95	3.81
7/12/2004	3.70	Yes,Vengeance	Yes	No	3.78	3.65
7/11/2005	3.60	No	Yes	No	3.73	3.79
7/10/2006	3.90	No	Yes	No	4.05	3.96
7/9/2007	3.37	No	Yes	No	3.88	3.73
7/14/2008	3.20	No	Yes	No	3.50	3.30
7/13/2009	3.50	No	Yes	No	3.85	3.65
7/12/2010	3.33	No	Yes	No	3.39	3.28
7/11/2011	2.90	No	Yes	No	3.13	3.18
7/9/2012	3.17	No	Yes	No	3.29	3.13
7/15/2013	3.05	Yes, MITB 2013	Yes	Yes	3.01	2.93
7/14/2014	???	No	Yes	Yes	2.90	2.88

The average rating from 1996 to 2013 was 3.72.  That is <0.16> below the 4-week trailing average and <0.14> below the 8-week trailing average.

Out of the 18 years I looked at, 12 times (67%) the rating trailed both the 4-week and 8-week averages. 4 times (22%), the rating trailed at least one of the two averages.  Only twice was the rating above the 4-week and 8-week trailing averages: 2013 (when it came one day after a PPV) and 2001 which was a monumental episode of Raw from Atlanta where ECW allied with WCW in the main event in a swerve!

When we look at the Ratings of for the Home Run Derby, we see that the years where the HR Derby rating was 5.0 or higher (1998, 1999, 2002, 2008, 2009), WWE's Raw Rating was anywhere from -0.15 (2002) to -0.62 (1999) below their trending average.  There's a significantly lower impact when the HR Derby rating is lower than 4.5 (average of only 0.08 off the normal trending average).  

Returning to my regression...

The equation suggestions:

RAW Rating = 0.10 intercept + 36% x (8-week trailing average) + 60% x (4-week trailing average) + 0.14 (bump for being day after PPV?) -0.03 (if it's a 3-hour RAW) -0.15 (if it's against the Homerun Derby).

If we drop the 3-hours? variable and replace the HR_DERBY binary (1=yes, 0=no) with the actual rating for the event, the new equation has a slightly lower p-value for HR_derby (0.076 versus 0.104 originally) and the equation adjusts to 0.084+0.153xPPV+60.4%x4-week+36.5%x8-week-0.361xHR_DERBY_RATING.  In this example a 5.0 rating would knock about 0.18 off the expected Raw Rating and 3.5 rating would knock about 0.13 off the expected Raw Rating.

In conclusion, it does certainly appear that the Raw Rating during the week of the Home Run Derby is being affected by the popularity of the baseball contest. It's probably only going to knock about 5% off the rating, but it's certainly not insignificant.

-Chris Harrington

@mookieghana

Ryan Carse's Dissertation: "Is Professional Wrestling Coverage a Form of Journalism?"

While I've been producing Wrestlenomics Radio episodes, one thing I've consistently sought out is people who've written academic research and detailed pieces about professional wrestling. This has included John Lister on ECW and British Wrestling, Bryan Alvarez on the Death of WCW, Paul Fontaine on calculating MMA Draws, Matthew Timmons on Kayfabemetrics, David Bixenspan on the myriad of Ultimate Warrior Lawsuits, Matt Farmer on Biggest Draws in History and History of Portland Wrestling and Brandon Quinn on his UFC Buys Thesis (among many others).

After my most recent show (with the excellent Dylan Hales), a listener from Dublin tweeted me a link to an interesting piece by Ryan Carse. It was Carse's Journalism dissertation at the University of Chester on the topic, "IS PROFESSIONAL WRESTLING COVERAGE A FORM OF JOURNALISM?" which was completed in April 2014. I was intrigued.

Today I finally had a chance to sit down and read the whole piece. I think it raises some interesting questions and presents some fascinating findings.  Here's a quote from his abstract:

The result of the study established that whilst professional wrestling coverage may not be as extensively covered within the mainstream media, the basic rules of good reporting must still apply and therefore can be deemed a form of journalism.

Carse's research quotes from many professional wrestling writers (David Shoemaker, Dave Meltzer, Findlay Martin, Phil Mushnick, John Pollock, Aubrey Sitterson, Bill Apter, Sam Gascoyne and so froth). As with any high-minded piece on the topic professional wrestling, it includes the obligatory (translated from the French) snippets from Roland Barthes' 1957 essay, "The World of Wrestling".  However, for me, the most interesting section was the results of a 1,500+ respondents survey answered by Reddit's /r/SquaredCircle readers.

Ryan's dissertation set out to research (and answer) two central questions:

1: Does the mainstream media have a negative connotation of professional wrestling?

2: Should professional wrestling journalism be treated any differently to other sports journalism?

Here were his hypothesis going into the study:

H1: Wrestling fans and journalists will believe that the mainstream media have a negative connotation of professional wrestling.

H2: Wrestling fans will believe that professional wrestling shouldn't be treated any differently to other sports journalism.

It's an interesting pair theses.

(I aim to talk to Ryan about it more on an upcoming episode of Wrestlenomics radio, but at first blush, I was not sold on the second point- that professional wrestling should be part of sports journalism. I was a reassured when found that both Sitterson and Gascoyne, neither whom I was not familiar with before reading this piece, agreed with me on this. As a non-sports fan, I can't speak in depth about how sports are covered by others, but my bias is towards researching and understanding the entertainment and business aspects of professional wrestling. I feel what I'm doing isn't really sports journalism. But this topic of wrestling journalism/sports journalism split the interviewees, with Pollock/Apter on the other side of the coin. It also split the survey respondents, as you will see.)

The reddit survey results were captivating. Having occasionally posted on there, it's clear that it's an active place that appeared to holds some pretty preconceived notions about "wrestling newz". I wouldn't consider this project to have been a statistically random sampling by any means, but it's an intriguing glimpse into the subforum's population.

WWE's Corporate webpage notes their viewership is "36% female, 25% under the age of 18". The reddit survey was "96% male with 89% 18-34 years old". By contrast, I often refer people to the 2013 Scarbourgh research which found that WWE's audience of adults was "63% male, 37% female" with only slightly over a third of the WWE fans having "any college education" and half "earning less than $50,000 annually" (with a third "earning less than $30,000 annually"). I believe that while the reddit sample is likely skewed, it's doesn't meant that it's irrelevant. If anything, it gives you great insight into who is frequenting and reading the SquaredCircle forum.

Carse's Findings included:

• Only 40% of participants saying they do not buy or read any newspapers on a regular basis (I thought this would be much higher)
• At least one participant's consistent of "the entire movie script for the film 'Bee Movie'"
• 97% of the survey respondents said they "read news on professional wrestling" but yet only 4% said "they currently have a paid subscription to a premium news outlet" such as the Wrestling Observer.
• 51% indicated their primary source for "news on professional wrestling" was through Wrestling forums with "Copy & Paste sites" representing 22%. Paid subscription to WON represented less than 2%.
• Less than 5% of respondents thought the Wrestling Observer was "not very reputable". In fact, over 70% of participants viewed the news from the Wrestling Observer as "very reputable" (near the top or at the top in a five point scale). Conversely, only a third (33%) of respondents considered news from the top news source, wrestling forums, to be "very reputable". 
• 92% did believe that mainstream media has a negative connotation of professional wrestling. (H1)
• 50% ("dead even split") thought that wrestling journalism should be treated differently to other sports journalism. (H2)
• Key words for responses to why so many believed that the mainstream media had a negative connotation of professional wrestling included "Benoit" (8%), "Steroids" (8%) and "Fake" (35%).

Carse prints several responses to the open-answer questions he included in his survey. However, there was one response which contained a passage which I categorically disagree with:

"It is scripted and therefore can not be covered in the same way. When one looks at sports journalism, you want to see statistics to gain an insight into what may unfold. Looking at statistics in wrestling to gain a clearer picture of what is happening is entirely pointless. It needs to be covered in the same way the rest of show business is." (Male, 25-34 years old, United States, Diehard wrestling fan.)

Harumph!

As the standard bearer of #wrestlenomics, I must carry forth the notion that statistics in wrestling are not pointless. There's a lot we can learn. Statistics reveal how people's subjective ratings systems are influenced by match length, location and context. Statistics reveal which wrestlers have worked the hardest, the longest, and the most. Statistics reveal which wrestlers are (and are not) meaningful to making promoters money. Statistics reveal which wrestlers have the most potential and least opportunity. Statistics reveal which business measures are improving and collapsing and what talent programs are affecting that. We can learn a lot about the inner-working of professional wrestling through the lens of statistics. The temerity of that respondent! Simply put, as Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Statistics teach us much about the history of professional wrestling and what worked and what did not. Moving on.

I do recommend people take the time to read Ryan's dissertation. He's also begun a beautiful online magazine "The Tag Rope" which I highly recommend people check out. I look forward to him going me on a future podcast.

On the pernicious topic of International WWE Network Growth

It's natural to be a skeptic.

When you're evaluating a business, it's important to collect enough evidence that you can explore several possible explanations. Still, you've also got to be willing to wade through the murk and look for Occam's Razor.

Covering the launch and growth of the WWE Network has been an exciting and interesting journey.  From the start, it was clear that the venture was going to be expensive proposition. There was a lot of risk involved because WWE was cannibalizing a profitable stream of revenue for a very uncertain future.

What do we know?

We know that when the service launched, several hundred thousand people signed up, at least to try a free week. We know that the on 3/31/14, there was about 495,000 WWE Network subscribers and a week later it had grown by nearly 35%. For Wrestlemania,  WWE announced 667,287 WWE Network subscribers. We know that the service is not technically available in Canada or Internationally, but we've heard many anecdotal reports that hardcore fans are still able to access the WWE Network. We know that since the WWE Network has launched, we've seen the non-US portion of PPV buys (which was worth more than $16M last year), significantly drop since the WWE Network launched.

We could be seeing a drop in WWE popularity (after all, Rock wasn't wrestling on this Wrestlemania and Brock didn't compete on this year's Extreme Rules) and WWE attendance numbers continue to stagnant and fall. We could be seeing a rise in WWE PPV piracy. Or we could just be seeing people naturally migrating to a cheaper technological solution.

It seems surprising that both the survey done by the Wrestling Observer website and the informal survey that we did on launch day revealed between 15%-20% of the WWE Network users indicating they lived outside of the US. It seems surprising that both the estimate I calculated and the estimate that Dave Meltzer calculated looking at the drop in non-US Wrestlemania buys suggested that between 15%-20% of WWE Network subscribers were from outside of the US. When I see the same information coming up again and again from different analysts, I start to believe there's something there.

Still, I encourage everyone to go back and re-read what WWE expected to happen with their Network.  In particular you'll notice that Phase I international countries were only ever estimated at a quarter of the size of the US market. Even in their wildest predictions, WWE never believed that International Growth was going to be a financial panacea for the WWE Network. It was, at best, a pleasant companion to what was supposed to be a strong domestic foundation.

Related Reading:

• D. Meltzer: WON Network Numbers (6/30/2014) 
• D. Meltzer: WON Trying to Figure out the WWE Network Worldwide (6/9/2014)
• C. Harrington: WhatCulture WM30 Buys has shocking Implications for WWE Network (6/3/2014)
• C. Harrington: WhatCulture Calculating Global Demand for the WWE Network (5/24/2014)

Another lousy Forbes article on WWE

Yesterday I had a conversation yesterday on twitter about the latest Forbes article on WWE. Basically, someone tried to correlate who was WWE Champion with WWE Financials.

 Rich of Voices of Wrestling (@voiceswrestling), Aaron Taube of Business Insider (@aptaube) and I (@mookieghana) discussed about how disappointed we were with this sort of piece. Personally, it bugs me that Forbes lets half-baked stuff like this run on their website. Maybe I'm just annoyed because Forbes talked up Laura Martin's insane projections for WWE without recognizing how little she seemed to understand of how the network even functioned (hence the need to title my response, "Needham's WWE Analysis Is Grossly Overestimating Future Revenue").

.@mookieghana have you had a chance to read this: http://t.co/66QTcZhhdN? What do you think?
— Voices of Wrestling (@voiceswrestling) July 2, 2014

If you want to look at specific indicators - House Show Attendance, Raw Quarter-hour Ratings, PPV Buys - and correlate them to who was in major title pictures during that time, I think it makes a lot of sense - at least that you can investigate and it may be meaningful.

If you want to look at general WWE financials (here's my quick breakdown here), it really doesn't make any sense to focus so myopically. And that's not hard to understand why - WWE receives escalating TV rights payments regardless of who is the champ in accordance with their contracts. WWE gets Videogame Royalties at a certain time of the year (and this year's drop had a lot to do with the new publisher more than even declining sales). Wrestlemania is usually in Q2 (and there's lots of corresponding noise with that). They're going to sell a bunch more stuff for WWEShopZone during the last quarter of the year (aka Christmas). They have a very erratic schedule for receiving revenue from WWE Studios. Hell, they made more money last quarter in Home Entertainment (up $3.5M Year-over-year) than Live Events (up $0.9M Year-over-year) because jargon like "recognition of minimum guarantees” and “higher current sell-through rates than expected”. That sort of variation shows how "who was champ in Q1?" had next-to-nothing to do that quarter's financial results.

Chris Smith's Forbes article strikes me as woefully insufficient for a serious financial website/magazine.

This isn't the first (nor will it be the last time) that Forbes is going to seriously disappoint me when it comes to covering the business of WWE.  Remember the nonsensical "article" about how launching the WWE Network was going to force NBCU to give them more money? I ranted about that piece back in January.

The writer could have chosen to break out specific segments of WWE revenue. The data is all there.
The whole idea of what is "best for business" for the WWE is really tricky. For instance, as pessimistic as I can come across about the WWE Network, I still think the premise is a good idea for WWE. They're a pro-wrestling company with a limited base of regular full-price PPV purchasers, who completely own their own IP and have a virtual monopoly in their industry. I believe that in several years, they'll be thrilled they got into space. However, right now they sacrificed a large and profitable revenue stream (PPV) for so service that is not close to breaking even. That's a bold choice, to say the least.

If you listen to host of the Bernstein Future of Media Summit interviewing WWE CFO George Barrios, a lot of companies want to do something like an OTT network, but the challenges have overwhelmed/scared others away.

Did they WWE launch it at the right time? Debatable, especially since it clearly impacted their NBCU negotiations (something Vince McMahon himself admitted). On the flipside, it only made sense to launch with a strong hook and Wrestlemania only comes but once a year.

What about the market expectations they've circulated? Telling people that 60M US households have an "affinity" for WWE content and that 14M watch weekly (when you count every replay and include anyone who watches 6 minutes of programming) is misleading at the very least.

The stock shot up. The stock shot down. Were there speculators manipulating the stock price?

Do these things have to do with whether or Cena should be champ? I think it's a peripheral conversation, but certainly not a true driver.

Was spending (and eventually losing) millions with WWE Films/WWE Studios "best for business"? Not really, but perhaps the new model will pan out.

If we want to have the "should Cena be the champ?" conversation, I think we have to specify what elements of WWE's business plan we want to look at when we say "best for business". Are we including.... Live attendance? PPV buys (not really so much a thing)? WWE Network subscriptions? WWE TV Rights Deals? Licensing deals? Merchandise sales? Ability to get crossover attention and publicity? Ability to market stars to sponsors? Cena as the face of the WWE certainly plays a role in all of these. But his presence as champion isn't the sole, monolithic driver.
Honestly, I saw the piece on Tuesday night and shook my head. I hoped that no one was going to notice it and for a few days, no one did. I didn't want to be mad hatter who was shouting in the comments section about how ludicrous (and inadequate) the piece was. But now, that's who I've become.

LINK: "Is Making John Cena WWE Champion What's Really Best For Business?" by Chris Smith

Stagnation in the WWE

This month, over at Whatculture, I tackled the topic of STAGNATION in three separate pieces looking at WWE:

• 6/03/14 What's behind stagnant Live Event trends?
• 6/14/14 Is WWE TV becoming Stagnant?
• 6/17/14 Has WWE Killed their PPV Business?

Last two weeks of Wrestlenomics Radio have been fun.

This week I talked about the recent Talent Cuts with Rob McCarron of ShakeThemRopes.com and then interviewed Mark Coale about Midsouth Wrestling, Comics and his Russian Flag Burial Edition of the Odessa Steps Magazine.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/indeedwrestling/2014/06/14/wrestlenomics-radio--black-Thursday

Last week I spoke with Brendan Quinn about his UFC/WWE Buys Thesis and discussed how the WWE Network could improve revenues.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/indeedwrestling/2014/06/07/wrestlenomics-radio--researching-follies

If you're interested in more detail about "Black Thursday" future endeavors, I heartily recommend Joe Lanza's piece from VOW.

Lastly, I attended Monday Night Raw (6/9/14).  You can see my ringside photos here.

Indeed.
Chris Harrington
chris.harrington@gmail.com

WWE Network is more international than previously thought

With WWE's disclosure yesterday that Wrestlemania 30 had 690,000 "traditional" worldwide PPV buys, I explored the implications in a short piece published yesterday afternoon. In short, it's very reasonable to conclude that up to 20% of the WWE Network subscriber based as of WM was from non-US customers.

Also published was the first part of a series where I'm looking at the WWE business for signs of stagnation. The first installment focuses on concerning trends in attendance, particularly international attendance and the reality that unless WWE changes something, Live event revenue is likely to be flat or down in 2014.

Lastly, I had a great interview with British Wrestling Historian, Author and fan John Lister on this week's Wrestlenomics Podcast where we talk about everything from the prospects of WWE Network Global Growth to his book on the original ECW (Turning the Tables) to British Wrestling (including the infamous Big Daddy debate).

Stay strong. Follow me on twitter (@mookieghana) and read my latest at Whatculture.

Latest WWE Business Analysis & Audio

I published two pieces recently about the WWE Network:

• 5/24/14 Calculating Global Demand of the WWE Network
• 5/28/14 WWE's Network Dilemma

Basically, the first piece outlined my economic argument that Global Demand for the WWE Network (at best) just puts them in the break-even territory and they should focus on growing profitability. The second piece looks at the three options that WWE has: grow demand, raise price or cut costs.

I also published a WhatCulture piece about the Pro-wrestlers who appeared in the most Video Games which was a follow-up to a 80+ game survey I did in conjunction with Joe Gagne's Funtime Arcade but I screwed up the roster for WWE 2K14 so now I'm being raked over the coals in the comment section. That's to be expected, but whenever someone calls me "the Nate Silver of pro-wrestling" I might point them to this example.

Recently on Wrestlenomics Radio I've covered several subjects including:

• History of WWF Programming & WWF Financials 1983-2013
• What we learned (and didn't learn) in the WWE Q1 Financials 
• The Fallout from WWE's new TV Deal
• Vince's attitude as a CEO, the Best Wrestler Cameos on TV and talking MMA Draws with the guy who runs MMADraws.com

This weekend's show will hopefully be John Lister & I talking about the Wrestlenomics of ECW!