Does WWE Make Money From Angry Fans?
“WWE is doing just fine with Roman Reigns on top” is a fallacy, even if Reigns is now out-selling John Cena at the merchandise table.
Now that Brock Lesnar is on hiatus, and Cena is a part-time act, there is no performer in WWE that drives any other traditional drawing metric, with the possible exception of Ronda Rousey, whose quarter hours on RAW, per the Wrestling Observer, perform well. Lesnar drew sizeable quarter hour ratings, and WWE for years reimbursed fans, were Cena to miss a live event - an apologetic gesture for which Roman’s absence is automatically forgiven. On the whole, their absence or reduced schedules have not drastically altered the financial complexion of the company. The rejection of Roman Reigns doesn’t matter any more than our support of a new, more popular top babyface would. Vince knows this, and this is why he persists.
We, the hardcore fans who make up the online conversation, dislike Roman Reigns—that seems definitive at this juncture—but, with the Network offering some subjective form of excellence (archived pay-per-views, NXT TakeOver specials) to all wrestling fans, we don’t need a talisman any more than Vince McMahon does.
Our anger does not matter. The “any reaction is a good reaction” line-toeing isn’t mere pretext to justify the continued main event push of Roman Reigns.
To borrow an old phrase associated with the British scene, fans just go to see “the wrestling” in 2018. WWE is the brand, the draw, the lucrative property international TV stations flock to. The old talismans—Bret Hart, Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin—all used to come back. That was Vince McMahon’s greatest trick, once upon a time. And now, he doesn’t even need them to.
CONT'D...(4 of 5)