"Yes, Mr. Nelson, that *was* very thought-provoking analysis. Oh, oh, this football over here? Oh, umm, pay no attention to, uhhh..." *elbows it off the table*

My dad and I love each other, and he means me no ill feelings when he says this, but I think his favorite joke is, “What’s the difference between a journalism degree and a large pizza? A large pizza can feed a family of four!” That being said, here’s my analysis of WWE’s fourth-quarter figures, as posted on Prowrestling.net. If you want a business perspective on these numbers, that’s what James Caldwell at the Torch is for. I’m a journalist, this is all knee-jerk scoopy and liquor-fueled.

From Vince McMahon:

For the quarter and the full year, our businesses exhibited three major areas of strength: increased value from our television content, significant growth from our new toy licensing partnership with Mattel, and continued financial discipline. These strengths served to mitigate the impact of a weak economy, changes in our talent base, and unfavorable industry trends in home video.

Anaysis: He didn’t define “value” from their TV content here, so it’s hard to say if he meant monetarily as in more advertising dollars coming in thanks to a more family-friendly PG rating, or if he was just speaking all ethereal, like, “Our TV content is way more valuable now that people don’t swear and bleed on purpose.” However, the PG rating does dovetail nicely with the toy licensing deal, as kid-friendly content can translate much more smoothly into the likelihood of a toymaker picking up the phone and saying, “Can we scan the heads of your wrestlers? We think kids will eat that shit up!” The financial discipline thing is nice to hear, too, but it really only amounts to running fewer Smackdown house shows (and saving money on building rental and local advertising) and not renting buildings for shit like WWF New York. If financial discipline has been a problem of yours in the past, maybe stop trying to start up garbage like the XFL or the World Bodybuilding Federation. (Or WWE Films.)

The economy is still weak, but I’m ready for the day when that’s no longer an excuse for WWE or for anyone. The “changes in our talent base” line is completely legitimate, with mega-stars Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Triple H and Batista out for most of the year or gone entirely. With the excellent WWE youth movement right now, this should be less of an issue in 2011 and possibly a non-issue in 2012. But when they lose John Cena, holy shit, things are gonna get bad. And the “trends in home video” thing to me means they either need to drop the prices of their DVD releases by $5 (I refuse to buy the Bobby Heenan DVD at its asking price, and I’m the biggest Brain fan I know), or make a sweet deal with Netflix and Redbox for rental and streaming. If you’re being passed over by the trend, maybe you need to get with the times.

WWE live events decreased by 9 percent for the fourth quarter of 2010 compared to the same quarter in 2009. The live events earned $26.6 million during the fourth quarter of 2010 compared to $29.2 million in the same quarter the previous year.

The WWE financial report states that the average attendance of live events in North America decreased 15 percent to approximately 5,600 fans. The average ticket price was up nearly $4 per ticket ($39.31 during the fourth quarter of 2010 compared to $35.48 during the fourth quarter of 2009).

Analysis: WWE is running a Smackdown house show in Cedar Rapids, Iowa – maybe an hour and 10 minutes from where I live – on Saturday, March 12, and I’m probably not going to go because ticket prices are so high (rounded up, they’re at the $60, $50, $40 and $30 levels). That’s my choice, and I’m not saying it’s reflective of the overall live entertainment atmosphere, but I would totally get a ringside seat for $50 all in (that means taxes and Ticketmaster fees included). For two people to spend upwards of $150, all inclusive, for ringside seats to see Chris Masters take on Tyler Reks is like asking Jeremy to stop making fun of my small TV. And maybe this goes back to the TV content argument, too: I might pay market value for a Raw house show, because I’d probably see the Miz, CM Punk and John Cena. You can’t squeeze me for full price to see Kofi Kingston, and there’s something about the likes of Big Show and Rey Mysterio that seems too re-hashy to pay for. Intrigue me on television, and I might pay to see a house show.

"Stoopid jerk, keep makin' fun-a mee on dee audios, mon."

WWE pay-per-view events were down 23 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010 compared to the same quarter in 2009, according to the financial report released on Thursday. WWE made $13.8 million in the 2010 fourth quarter, down from the $16.3 million they earned for the prior year quarter.

Analysis: Pay-per-view is still a cash cow, even at $13.8 million per quarter. Those shows cost more to produce and distribute in some ways, but in other ways, it’s found money, a televised show they would have produced otherwise is being purchased by a couple hundred thousand more people from the comfort of their living room, and WWE just needs to split that in half with the cable companies. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: Should they cut the number of PPVs back down to the Big Four? No, not if they want to leave about $40 million on the table. That’s just stupid.

The PPV problem is fundamental from not necessarily from an exposure standpoint (UFC airs monthly PPVs and Scrooge McDucks in the money) or a production standpoint (no live television event is better produced than WWE, in my humble opinion). The PPV problem is fundamental from a short-term, quick-fix, “give it all away on TV for ratings and then pray to God and cross our fingers people will pay to see the sixth John Morrison vs. Sheamus match” way. You want to lower your operational costs, work around the talent base issue and regenerate funds through PPV? Fly in a few less wrestlers for every TV taping, bring in some jobbers and have squashes on TV like you used to when business was molten hot in the 1980s, and set the expectations for the audience that “you’re only going to see John Morrison vs. Sheamus, a match of incredible magnitude, this Sunday on pay-per-view!” It doesn’t help that these gimmick-based PPVs aren’t born monthly from organic feuds — John Cena has to fight Randy Orton in a Hell in a Cell match not because Orton runs scared from Cena every week or enlists the help of Legacy, it’s because that’s the name of the PPV, silly! — and thus we really have no emotional attachment to them. Bragging Rights? Between Raw and Smackdown? Who cares?! TLC? Ooh, will I get to see a T, an L, a C, *and* a TLC? Push that button and lock me in!

Business isn’t bad right now, but Q4 2010 is down from Q4 2009. I have a strange feeling, with WWE’d PG rating, the recent viral CZW video and the Green Bay Packers parading around with title belts that wrestling is about to boom again soon.