>>18385089I appreciate your comment a lot and I just want to stress, knowing we're right here on /pw/ (huge pop) that this is legitimately high-value discourse and I'm very thankful for it.
On the whole, I agree with you but for one thing in particular, that streaming giants are the only ones bidding for content, when traditional TV still gets roughly 2/3 of ad dollars (roughly $146B in 2024). Disney/ESPN still has a huge footprint on TV, so if they can convince wrestling fans who otherwise wouldn't subscribe to cable without their wrestling show being on a channel, then it has to be done.
The biggest question continues to be, if AEW wasn't on cable, how many subscribers would providers lose (out of AEW's likely well over a million Live plus 7)? If they only lose 100k or so, because the other 900k either watch other shows or ALSO need cable to watch WWE, then likely nothing happens. If it's closer to 300-500k - and cable/satellite providers would be able to prove it by cross-referencing viewers who watch one/other/both/neither - then it could be worth it to keep AEW even as an (on paper) loss-leader. Traditional and Streaming TV these days is all about loyalty, how many loyal fans do you have, how many will travel with you, how do we keep them loyal to both you and to us.
I didn't mean to sound like I was GUARANTEEING AEW would get a better deal if WBD dumped them, I'm just saying, they're unlikely to end up on the Bass Fishing channel at 3am, doing shows out of bowling alleys. Major broadcasting companies out there would offer AEW a replacement deal and it would be for a substantial amount of money.
