A lot of people have been criticizing the WWE product as of late, and although it isn't unwarranted given the lackluster quality of TV we have seen, I've always been interested by the subjectivity of a certain term that keeps getting thrown into the mix when discussing how to improve the product and that is "Must-See Television."
Now obviously, this can mean a different thing to any separate viewer of WWE but what it can essentially be defined as is content/matches/superstars that you attach yourself to and get actively excited for. We don't see a whole lot of that anymore and people that's the problem. So the question is:
What exactly is "Must-See TV" for wrestling and what examples of it are there in the current product today?
also
What examples of "Must-See TV" could WWE add in the future in order to invoke more interest in their shows and events?
Just my two cents here but I think that anything Brock Lesnar does is obviously a spectacle. I hear his music and I am invested into whatever is on my TV screen until the time he leaves. I feel a similar quality brewing in the young Dean Ambrose as well. He just has a certain charisma I guess.
Now obviously, this can mean a different thing to any separate viewer of WWE but what it can essentially be defined as is content/matches/superstars that you attach yourself to and get actively excited for. We don't see a whole lot of that anymore and people that's the problem. So the question is:
What exactly is "Must-See TV" for wrestling and what examples of it are there in the current product today?
also
What examples of "Must-See TV" could WWE add in the future in order to invoke more interest in their shows and events?
Just my two cents here but I think that anything Brock Lesnar does is obviously a spectacle. I hear his music and I am invested into whatever is on my TV screen until the time he leaves. I feel a similar quality brewing in the young Dean Ambrose as well. He just has a certain charisma I guess.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire