10 Step Investigation: Just How Successful Is WWE In 2017?

The true scope of WWE is difficult to gauge. This article is an attempt to do that.

Jim Cornette has a salient point when he admonishes the current wrestling landscape. In some respects, it is nowhere near as popular as it used to be. In the halcyon, pre-cable TV days of the territory system, lone state territories like World Class in Texas promoted stadium shows at its peak. Mid-South frequently ran the New Orleans Superdome years before WrestleMania existed, let alone before WrestleMania XXX was held there. The highest attendance, at 23,800 in 1978, was dwarfed by Daniel Bryan's celebratory night - but WWE, the supposed international monolith, barely approaches that number the other 364 days of the year.

Revenue tells a different story; WWE may not be as popular, but it's more lucrative. 2016 was a record-breaking year for WWE; revenue drawn was a mammoth $792.2M, a not inconsiderable portion of which manifested as profit after a shaky but ultimately successful transitional period for the Network.

Revenue streams have become more diverse. International TV rights are more lucrative than ever before. WWE promotes more house shows than it ever has. WWE has saturated its audience with content, content, content - and that content drives the company's bottom line.

WWE's recent strategic approach means we'll see an increase of it, if anything - but how sustainable is it?

The cable television model, which revolutionised professional wrestling, is dying across every component of the entertainment medium.

Dwindling ratings is not a problem endemic to WWE. Viewer habits across the board have changed irreversibly with the advent of the internet and the facilitation of widespread piracy that came with it. The rise of recordable devices and streaming services has compounded the trend yet further. RAW is no longer appointment television because nothing is. That concept no longer exists. If you don't catch RAW, WWE replays the important bits via YouTube and their own website hours later; it's there, for your convenience, whenever you fancy dipping in.

The flagship, Monday Night RAW, remains one of the most popular programmes on cable television - but the downfall has accelerated at a canter even within this new paradigm. Ratings have plummeted since early 2013, during which numbers in excess of 3.0 were common. In 2016, RAW never broke 3.0 once. Numbers even fell below the dreaded 2.0 range. Once constant has remained throughout this period: the presence of a heel authority figure. Will Stephanie McMahon's hiatus reverse the trend?

Does that question - and by extension do low ratings - even matter? Television remains by far the most lucrative revenue stream WWE has. But if the spiral continues at this rate, renegotiations with the USA Network will see the power dynamic shift.

Enough for WWE to dispense with the Roman Reigns push? Time will tell.