Casuals vs Lifers in the FOX era
By Scott Keith on 5 October 2019
Hey Scott and Doomers. It's Andy PG stepping into the mailbag to get this off my chest.
On the surface, if you want to attract new fans, getting UFC people in to see a Cain/Brock match could work. But what I don't understand is why wrestling — Vince is hardly the only offender here — doesn't try to use the "casual magnet" stars in a way that guarantees the rest of the roster will have an attraction when they're gone. Look back at WrestleMania XIV; Mike Tyson drew in newcomer fans, but at the end he helped Austin become champion and endorsed him. Which brings me to tonight.
I'm under no illusion that Kofi was going to retain in any way. However, Brock Lesnar is 40+ and, according to ESPN, Cain Velasquez isn't even signed yet. When the UFC guys are gone, what incentive is there to watch the people who are left? If the person positioned as "the best wrestler outside of Brock" is dismissed like Glass Joe, what does that say about him and, by extension, the rest of them?
Lifers are going to be infuriated that the people they've been asked to buy into are treated like luncheon meat for those who are new to the story, and casuals aren't going to want to stick around to watch outside of the cameos. How does this strategy help the company long-term?
It 100% does not. Especially since Cain v. Brock is being put on for the benefit of the mighty Saudi Arabian princes lining Vince's pockets, not anyone actually paying to view the product. It's an insane business model.