Why WWE Are Losing Money On House Shows

WWE use two primary assets to sell live event tickets: stars, and a strong TV product.

The overall TV product hasn't been anything close to "strong" for years.

SmackDown is consistently decent-to-good, and never a net negative, but WWE's rigid formulae prevent it from being better. Raw, meanwhile, is a bloated, jumbled mess of stunning highs and brutal lows one week, and a listless three-hour slog the next. Even NXT, long considered the standard-bearer, has fallen to the awfulness of the Johnny Gargano/Aleister Black whodunnit and Nikki Cross' unwatchable zany character.

A buzzing TV product usually equals a buzzing house show scene, though wholesale changes aren't likely before Triple H inherits the throne. Vince has been producing television like this for decades. Though his blueprint underwhelms creatively, it has just scored the biggest rights deal in the company's history, which will only reinforce his methods.

As far as "stars" go, WWE regularly send the message that conventional draws are out. Now, the brand is the draw, not the wrestlers, and while this does protect them in the event of a major injury or another form of departure, it has created a situation where 90% of the performers operate on the same bland level.

Only a handful of wrestlers are over. Those that are don't get pops like the old days, and no matter how many often WWE repeat the idea that "World Wrestling Entertainment is the draw," it's a major problem.

Seeing big, larger-than-life stars in the flesh used to be a considerable part of the house show appeal. That's no longer the case. Now, you're spending money to watch 20-30 dorks mingle with the handful of wrestlers the promotion actually present as worth caring about.

CONT'd...