PizzaTheHutt wrote:>
> That's an announcement that could have easily been done on Twitter though, same like
> the Draft announcement. Dynamite obviously isn't airing live in UK, which the announcement
> was a bigger deal for that market than over here.
AEW airs live when it airs live, so they're going to make an announcement of that stature at their earliest live convenience. A tweet just wouldn't make as big a splash as a segment on a live episode of TV would. Either way, it's a huge announcement for the company itself whether the US fans directly benefit from it or not. It was a perfectly fine announcement to make in a 2 minute backstage promo on TV, especially with Wembley being the stadium in question. Far more warranted than Triple H getting a 5 minute entrance and then another 10 minutes to pat himself on the back, all to announce something that fans already knew happened annually.
>
> Also, AEW is only more popular in that it gets a lot of viewers for being on free
> TV. That's the key. As Meltzer put it, WWE is still more "popular" in every other
> metric over there, such as they get 6 times more Google searches over there than
> AEW does. Not to take anything away from AEW, but it's far from a situation where
> they reign supreme over there.
>
I'm aware of all that, I guess when I said "popular" I should have said "gets more eyes weekly" than WWE, which will most likely lead to AEW selling the amount of tickets they want to sell in a new live market - which was really my primary point. I wasn't trying to suggest they "reign supreme" or anything like that. Of course WWE will generally have a higher popularity ANYwhere in the world in 2023 due to being a conglomerate that has existed for 70+ years as opposed to AEW that has only been around for 4. That's longevity for ya.
That said, there's a valid reason Sky wasn't willing to outbid BT Sports when the time came to renew their relationship with WWE: the ratings while on free TV at the time of their contract ending didn't warrant the asking price. There were rating declines leading up to the change while still on Sky (which can also be attributed to other shows in other countries, not just WWE). Either way though, the ratings for WWE on BT Sports can't be what either side of that deal were hoping for considering they're not only viewed less than AEW, they're legitimately dwarfed by the number of folks watching AEW weekly. Any way you shake a stick at it, WWE can't be making the money in BT Sports subscriptions that they likely would've been making if there wasn't a legitimate alternative like AEW. So to your point, yeah, the free TV aspect is obviously a reason why so many more people watch AEW weekly, but that just goes to prove that a large number of folks in the UK are perfectly content watching AEW over WWE when push comes to shove. Which is good for AEW, and again, helps justify a two minute announcement for that audience considering so many folks watch it.