|
/wrestling /guests /Robar |
|
|
/wrestling /guests /Robar |
| Guest Columns | Jason Robar |
MainBLAH |
ROBAR'S RAMBLINGS So Dave Meltzer has finally joined in on the bonanza that is the Internet. I say bully for him. One look at www.wrestlingobserver.com though, shows something very interesting. The site is very much a pay-for-content site, something that hasn't been seen since 1wrestling.com decided to go the pay-for-content route. (Of course, this is excluding all of the babes of wrestling porn sites out there.) Will this work? History tells us no. 1wrestling.com eventually had to open itself up to everybody, and nobody else has tried it since. But I think this will be a different situation. First, you are starting off with the pre-eminient name in wrestling reporting, Bill Apter not withstanding. By just including the Meltzer and Wrestling Observer name, www.wrestlingobserver.com gains instant credibility and recognizability. While people might not be willing to pay for Dave Scherer's opinion and information, they will pay for Meltzer's. Second, Meltzer seems to be taking a different approach to his site, especially when compared to 1wrestling.com's experience. Meltzer is using the web as an extension of his newsletter, as opposed to a seperate entity. He will have all of the major stories that is covered in the newsletter, as well as some exclusive features (like interviews with wrestling personalities). It's the right approach to be taking, as there is no pressure for the web site to make a profit, allowing for more freedom to be taken with the web site. Instead, wrestlingobserver.com serves as a lead network for the newsletter, getting new subscribers, and making more money that way. But there are risks. There are going to be sites that just take Meltzer's information and post it on their site. Determining who is supplying the information will be a long and tedious task, and is something that might not be worth the effort and the possible hit in public perception. Also, without some sort of sample of what to expect in the members-only area, it will be hard to draw in those who are on the fence, trying to determine if it is worth subscribing to. There is a section on wrestlingobserver.com which is called "Sample", so it looks like there will be an opportunity to see what to expect before subscribing. And not offering any content to those who do not wish to subscribe at this point, especially in the infancy of the web site, could be the kiss of death. You won't get repeat hits, and a potential customer will be lost. What's my guess? Wrestlingobserver.com will survive, and eventually it will thrive. And then we'll get Wrestlingtorch.com, which will also survive, and copycat sites, that will not. But pay-for-content won't become the new rage of wrestling sites. And now, it's time to jump on the bandwagon. Everybody and their mother have been cutting up the Big Show/Bossman angle (which is hopefully dead now). They've been saying that it's stupid, and just insulting since the the Big Show's father has been dead for 2 years. Until this past week, I would have disagreed. To call it stupid isn't fair at all. It's a basic story after all: Good Guy has a tragedy in his life, bad guy mocks good guy, good guy beats bad guy in the name of the tragedy to get revenge. It hasn't exactly been executed in the best of ways, but the premise isn't stupid. I think that the critics are confusing terms. Stupid implies a lack of thought for the angle. Uninteresting is the word that I think they should have been using. As for the insulting criticism, it is valid in one part, which I will get to below. But to call it insulting because the Big Show's father was already dead? Especially when you consider some of the other angles that the Big Show has been involved in? It's wrestling. It's storylines. Nobody complained when Ryan Shamrock was introduced as Ken Shamrock's sister. Nobody complained with Arn Anderson being an Anderson. Both were stretching the truth just a bit, to say the least. But now? Now we have a problem with an angle because it begins with a false premise? All that being said, I was insulted by the angle after last week's Raw. You know, the one where the Bossman decided to interrupt the moment of silence dedicated to the Big Show's father? I had problems with this on many different levels. First, should the WWF have to hold another moment of silence, what value does it have? It's been used as a part of an angle, so the fans are going to expect there to be an angle. And that's not right, fair or just. Second, what exactly did the Big Show's father do to deserve a moment of silence? Brian Pillman got a ten bell salute, Owen Hart got a moment of silence (plus a really badly produced show dedicated to him). Both were performers for the WWF. I have never seen Paul Wight Sr. on WWF television. I don't believe he was ever mentioned before the angle began. So why the hell did he deserve a moment of silence? And the final level that I had a problem with it was the obvious comparisons to the way that Owen Hart's death was treated. I know that it has been 6 months, but Owen's death is still with a lot of fans. And now the way that Owen's death was treated is cheapened even more when compared to the treatment that Paul Wight Sr.'s "death" got. Other than the Raw right after Owen's death, the treatment was the same. It was a weak move by Vince McMahon to act in this way, and is only another example of Vince's mishandling of this whole sorrid affair. With any luck, this angle will go the way of this column and just end. Jason Robar freelance Mail the Author |
BLAH |
Main |
||