Originally posted by ZeruelThat was just a reverse merger. SBC was a baby bell that broke off of AT&T because of the anti-trust lawsuit. They eventually bought out their former parent company and then took their name.
But prior to buying AT&T, Southwestern Bell Corporation rebranded as SBC. And AT&T no longer stands for American Telephone & Telegraph, either. So the example stands.
Originally posted by ZeruelThat was just a reverse merger. SBC was a baby bell that broke off of AT&T because of the anti-trust lawsuit. They eventually bought out their former parent company and then took their name.
But prior to buying AT&T, Southwestern Bell Corporation rebranded as SBC. And AT&T no longer stands for American Telephone & Telegraph, either. So the example stands.
Oh, I gotcha now. I thought you were going in a totally different direction with that example.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanAlternatively, maybe it's no coincidence WCW hasn't existed for a decade now.
Of course if they'd kept with the wrestling instead of running the Radicals out of the company and crowning David Arquette world champ (and all the other crap the company sank into in late 99/all of 2000) they'd have stayed in better shape.
Originally posted by TheBucsFanThat reminds me, the 10-year anniversary of the final Nitro was just a couple of weeks ago. March 26.
Originally posted by PaulKTFFor all its faults, at least WCW embraced that they were first and foremost a wrestling company.
Alternatively, maybe it's no coincidence WCW hasn't existed for a decade now.
How do you come to the conclusion that that has anything to do with WCW's demise?
(edited by PaulKTF on 10.4.11 1108)
Well, I think citing anything about WCW's business views is immediately suspect because the company ultimately failed totally. If what WCW produced from 1999 to 2001 was, in your view, the product of a company that held true to some ideal of what wrestling is, then I think it's safe to say WWE's business model has proven to be a bit more reliable.
This move doesn't all of a sudden change a single thing about WWE's products, in any genre. It's only a few meaningless words.
You can make an argument that when WCW started to work celebrities for big events that Vince used to make the WWE, it started to turn downwards. WCW failed for a number of reasons, wrestling is probably one one of the lesser ones. Losing the Radicals was a bad move, but it wasn't the death nail. Benoit was not as over as people thought, Eddie was a drunk, Malenko had the personality of water and Perry was just a big guy. WWE just used their appearance as a big time move then used a little bit better then WCW did. WCW also had the least loyal fans of any wrestling organization during the 90s.
WCW was dead by pissing off the fans with finger poke of doom endings as well as focusing more on mainstream acceptance and pushing old people instead of making new stars. You know the two out of three things WWE did at Mania.
Originally posted by lotjx WCW also had the least loyal fans of any wrestling organization during the 90s.
Scott Hall's survey should have been an indication of this. When you are having people boo your company name and cheer the NWO name, it is good short term for that particular angle. But, it was a dangerous precedent that demonstrated that there was no brand loyalty.
Originally posted by lotjxLosing the Radicals was a bad move, but it wasn't the death nail. Benoit was not as over as people thought, Eddie was a drunk
Hey! Eddie was a pillhead and a junkie.
The big thing about the Radicals jump was that WCW's strength became WWF's and WWF's weakness became WCW's. WWF now had the roster to put on great wrestling shows top to bottom, while WCW was basically down to just Booker T and Kidman (Mysterio had blown out his knee). The gap was insurmountable.
Benoit also helped Rock and Angle rapidly advance as workers. They would've both gotten there anyway because they were so talented, but he really expedited it. Heard the guy's dead now, not sure what happened to him.
Originally posted by PaulKTFFor all its faults, at least WCW embraced that they were first and foremost a wrestling company.
Alternatively, maybe it's no coincidence WCW hasn't existed for a decade now.
How do you come to the conclusion that that has anything to do with WCW's demise?
(edited by PaulKTF on 10.4.11 1108)
Well to be fair the reason the Bischoff buyout fell through was because Jamie Kellner didn't want to be associated with wrestling anymore so the argument isn't completely without merit. Not that the result would have been any different if World Championship Wrestling had been rebranded "WCW" of course. It was still wrestling and always would have been.
WCW Archive WCW Magazine Archive - Ongoing WCW Magazine archive. Includes cover scans, contents, release dates and more for over 100 publications. WCW Promotional Ads Archive - Now featuring over 150 promotional ads, including everything from PPV's to the WCW Hotline. WCW VHS Archive - Currently serving mainly as an image gallery for almost all WCW VHS releases, but will eventually host full information for each release.
I dunno about WCW being a wrestling company. They had dancers and a DJ and an annual wrestling show in a pool. They seemed to be a party show or a spectacle that including wrestling. Like I wouldn't call Cirque de Soleil a circus but they have clowns and acrobats.
Not that the WWF didn't have gimmicks. They gave away at least one house.
I don't blame WCW for throwing all the pasta at the wall. But eventually they lost the proper focus. They weren't about wrestling. They were about swerves and playground gimmicks (Gen. Rection, the SHIT belt, etc.) They wanted to be frat-boy TV, even I believe sending Mene Gene to Nitro parties at campuses.
"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
Originally posted by PaulKTFFor all its faults, at least WCW embraced that they were first and foremost a wrestling company.
Alternatively, maybe it's no coincidence WCW hasn't existed for a decade now.
How do you come to the conclusion that that has anything to do with WCW's demise?
(edited by PaulKTF on 10.4.11 1108)
Well to be fair the reason the Bischoff buyout fell through was because Jamie Kellner didn't want to be associated with wrestling anymore so the argument isn't completely without merit. Not that the result would have been any different if World Championship Wrestling had been rebranded "WCW" of course. It was still wrestling and always would have been.
It also didn't help they lost $86 million dollars that same year. If they were turning a profit even a small one, they would have found a way to keep them on TV. Its not like TNT original programming was going anywhere in 2001 or until the mid or late 2000s. The AOL/Warner was a coup against Turner and it succeed only to have most of the guys in charge of it fall on their swords a few years later.
If you read the stories about the Babylon 5: Crusade behind the scene books via Cafe Press that are coming out, you will realize even before the AOL deal, Turner was a weird company. You had Turner offices out in California pushing shows like B5 and other original programming while the Turner offices in Atlanta hating everything that wasn't the Braves or CNN or one of their creations. The company was ripe for a take over and a complete clusterfuck of a company. Being a wrestling company may have had to do with being canned, but I think a lot of it had to do with a company in turmoil and a show losing millions of dollars after a merger.
Originally posted by CTX Well to be fair the reason the Bischoff buyout fell through was because Jamie Kellner didn't want to be associated with wrestling anymore so the argument isn't completely without merit. Not that the result would have been any different if World Championship Wrestling had been rebranded "WCW" of course. It was still wrestling and always would have been.
It also didn't help they lost $86 million dollars that same year. If they were turning a profit even a small one, they would have found a way to keep them on TV. Its not like TNT original programming was going anywhere in 2001 or until the mid or late 2000s. The AOL/Warner was a coup against Turner and it succeed only to have most of the guys in charge of it fall on their swords a few years later.
If you read the stories about the Babylon 5: Crusade behind the scene books via Cafe Press that are coming out, you will realize even before the AOL deal, Turner was a weird company. You had Turner offices out in California pushing shows like B5 and other original programming while the Turner offices in Atlanta hating everything that wasn't the Braves or CNN or one of their creations. The company was ripe for a take over and a complete clusterfuck of a company. Being a wrestling company may have had to do with being canned, but I think a lot of it had to do with a company in turmoil and a show losing millions of dollars after a merger.
Don't disagree with any of that. If WCW had been making the kind of profit and drawing the kind of ratings it was in 1998 things might have been different, but at the end of the day they cost themselves millions and millions of dollars by scuppering the Bischoff deal just so they could be rid of wrestling. It's things like that which make Vince's obsession with not being known as "wrestling" ever so slightly easier to understand.
(edited by CRZ on 11.4.11 1313) WCW Archive WCW Magazine Archive - Ongoing WCW Magazine archive. Includes cover scans, contents, release dates and more for over 100 publications. WCW Promotional Ads Archive - Now featuring over 150 promotional ads, including everything from PPV's to the WCW Hotline. WCW VHS Archive - Currently serving mainly as an image gallery for almost all WCW VHS releases, but will eventually host full information for each release.
Thread ahead: Larry Sweeney Dead at 29 Next thread: Release Speculation Previous thread: your SATURDAY and SUNDAY WWC SUPER ESTRELLAS DE LUCHA LIBRE for 4/9/2011-4/10/2011!!!