>>6743487no but the right guy has to go over and there has to be believability.
you can have a bad match but if it's the right guy who goes over and there is still believability the match still succeeds and will draw.
if the wrong guy goes over and the finish is wrong in the eyes of the people then the match can be ruined even if it was "good" and can do damage to business.
there's levels to this.
>>6743515bullshit.
top drawing WWE PPV's are all headlined by memorable main event matches that did not fucking stink up the joint. the right guy usually goes over, the crowd usually gets their pop, and go home satisfied with the money they spent and would do it again.
you could argue that putting the wrong guys over consistently is what has driven away so much business.
because WWE is so formulaic most matches will be passable wrestling because they are all wrestling the same style.
you don't really have to worry about match quality driving viewers away.
storylines that are absolute dog shit? putting the wrong guy over? those decisions will drive viewers away for good.
stick to good believable contests and gimmicks that are believable. that's what wrestling has always been about.
sports entertainment only goes so far.
my nephews aren't interested in wrestling for the story alone.
they want to see athletic contests between characters they like and characters they dont.
