>>18375441It's because of each Mania somehow selling higher gates and whatever each year. That's literally it. And then they figured "Well why don't we just do it for one of our flag ppvs, that way we can make MORE money!" when really all it is, is a tactic to inflate numbers and make it look like WWE is "always profiting/increasing numbers". Maybe it's just me, but WWE -now- is becoming a company that's seen as "bad" in capitalism: prioritizing numbers and "growth" over everything else.
Did we grow this week? No? We're doing bad.
Did we grow this month? No? We're doing bad.
Did we grow this year? No? We made the exact same amount or just under? We're doing bad.
And if you think not, then look at their schedules. House shows are almost NON EXISTENT. Anything not part of a "Supershow" or Saturday Night Main Event does not exist anymore. They're trying to cut costs at every single turn and just care about clicks and tickets.
And I mean, let's look at it realistically. I don't think hosting arenas for their shows is as big of a cost as people think it is. Advertisers and whatever, it pays for itself. What do they have to pay for? The electric bill, a small day rent? So why NOT do it twice and just easily make over twice the money? It makes sense, logically. But that kind of cheap thinking, even if it makes sense, just makes you want to be paranoid and "maximize" profits.
I'm still unsure of how much tickets really impact sales, because merchandise is king in any entertainment medium, but you never really hear WWE talk about merch. It's always "gates" and "attendance". Hell, far as I've seen, the ONLY time discussion about merch comes up is when a wrestler gains popularity and people use it as a point to lord over others' head like "LOOK HOW POPULAR HE IS, HE DESERVES A PUSH!" and literally nothing else. So there's a lot of lack of transparency by WWE on what actually makes them money. I get the feeling they wouldn't want to be honest about it.
