Forbes had an report recently about the WWE and the idea of "what's best for business" when it comes to championship reigns the past several years.
The most interesting thing was Cena's reigns almost always cost the WWE money in the end while surprisingly Orton should be the actual reliable fallback option and "what's best for business." Punk's reign was way all over the place for them to make an actual claim about him.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Forbes
There are two main, and very inter-related, reasons that it shouldn’t be very surprising that Cena won. First, in the ring Cena often plays the character of Guy Who Can’t Lose At Wrestling, which made him the odds-on favorite going into Sunday night. And secondly, he is a veritable goldmine for WWE, thanks to being the company’s biggest star among young fans, who in turn comprise a massive portion of WWE’s fan base. That latter reason would seem to explain why WWE slapped the championship on Cena just one month removed from a massive drop in share price, which cost head honcho Vince McMahon $750 million.
Cena is obviously important for WWE’s popularity and subsequent income, but I thought it would be fun to see just what sort of impact his having a title belt might actually have on the company’s bottom line. My look back on past trends is far from conclusive evidence, but it suggests that maybe Cena isn’t what’s best for WWE’s business.
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmi...-for-business/