Will Cable and Satellite Drop WWE Pay Per Views?

WWE cut its pay-per-view partners out of the loop when the company launched its streaming network, a move that might come back to haunt the company.

Apr 27, 2014 at 6:29AM

World Wrestling Entertainment (NYSE:WWE) smashed a chair over the collective heads of its cable and satellite pay-per-view partners -- instead of crumpling to the ground, the aggrieved companies might fight back with a rake to the eyes and a low blow. 

In moving from a pay-per-view model where the company holds monthly special events that fans can purchase for a fee through cable and satellite companies to a digital streaming network that cuts those partners out of the loop, WWE may have misjudged the marketplace. While early results for the network were decent -- over 650,000 subscriptions sold in the first 42 days the WWE Network was offered -- that number falls short of the million or so required for the service to break even.

That shortfall was offset when traditional PPV sales for Wrestlemania XXX -- the biggest show of the year -- came in around 400,000 in North America, well ahead of the 295,000 buys the company had budgeted, according to The Wrestling Observer, the leading insider newsletter covering the pro wrestling industry. That's a short-term positive for the company -- the price of a single PPV is roughly equal to the $60 cost of a six-month subscription to the network (though the WWE only gets around a 50% share of PPV sales). But it also shows that customers might not migrate to the network as quickly as the company hoped. 

Customer reluctance to make the switch was not a problem for Wrestlemania because of the strong traditional PPV sales, but it could be a major issue going forward as all three major PPV providers mull dropping WWE's events.

A slow transformation

In launching its digital streaming network WWE, essentially told its three major PPV partners -- in Demand (which delivers PPV content to the major cable companies), DirecTV (NASDAQ:DTV), and Dish Network (NASDAQ:DISH) -- thank you and goodbye. In theory the network makes it so WWE no longer needs to share revenue with the PPV providers. Under the old model WWE produced and bore all the expense for its PPV shows while its carrier partners took a 50% or so cut for delivering it to their customers who ordered.

That was a pretty sweet deal for the middleman, which carried none of the risk but claimed half of the proceeds. The WWE Network ends that practice and puts more of the money in WWE's hands. As you might imagine, that angered the cable companies who face the immediate loss of some PPV revenue and the eventual loss of all of it. Faced with that, all three companies have made noise about dropping WWE's future PPVs in retaliation.

This would not have been a major issue if the network revenue was making up for the PPV loss, but it's not. If the PPV companies follow through on the threat, it's potentially a major revenue hit to WWE.

Dish did not carry Elimination Chamber, the PPV that aired before Wrestlemania XXX, but relented and carried the big show along with the other two carriers. That makes sense because Wrestlemania is so much larger than the average WWE PPV that grabbing the money from the big show then dropping the rest of them is a logical strategy for the jilted carriers.

A look at the numbers

WWE knew there would be some customers either unwilling, unable, or reluctant to subscribe to a digital streaming network who would continue to order shows on traditional PPV. The number of customers who ordered Wrestlemania the old-fashioned way shows that total is higher than the company expected. On the network WWE takes in as much as 100% of the $9.99 a month subscriber fee (when customers signup directly) to as little as 70% (when a service like Roku acts as a middleman).

If you assume an average of 85% of the revenue going to WWE, then each monthly subscriber brings in roughly $8.50 but is locked in for a six-month minimum subscription. Since regular PPVs don't draw anywhere near the number of sales as Wrestlemania let's assume that if carriers dropped WWE's PPVs it would cost the company an average of 75,000 buys at $59.99 a month of which the company receives half the revenue or around $2,249,625 a month.

To make that revenue up in network subscribers on a monthly basis the company would need to add 264,661 new network subscribers -- not an unattainable number but one that needs to come on top of the growth WWE built into its revenue projections for the network since the total loss of PPV revenues was not factored into the company's year one planning.

Losing PPV could be a positive

Buying a PPV the old-fashioned way instead of subscribing to the network makes no sense for even casual WWE fans. One PPV costs roughly $60 -- the same price as six months of the network, which gives you access to six PPVs, around 1,300 hours of archived WWE content, and tons of exclusive programming.

Still with 400,000 or so North American homes ordering Wrestlemania -- down from the 650,000 who bought it last year pre-network -- that's 67% of the total audience sticking with the old, familiar format. Of course some of those people likely also subscribed to the network but lacked the technology to port the network to a TV. But most of those 400,000 are either likely network subscribers or lost revenue should the PPV carriers drop WWE.

The loss of traditional PPV may serve as a catalyst that forces reluctant customers into subscribing, but it could also cause them to decide WWE is not worth their time. Clearly WWE's customers are more resistant to change than the company expected.

When/if the PPV carriers pull the plug it will be a defining moment for WWE. Casual fans who watch a PPV or two a year will either become a locked-in revenue stream by subscribing to the network or go away forever if they decide it's not worth it. 

Are you ready to profit from this $14.4 trillion revolution?
Let's face it, every investor wants to get in on revolutionary ideas before they hit it big. Like buying PC-maker Dell in the late 1980s, before the consumer computing boom. Or purchasing stock in e-commerce pioneer Amazon.com in the late 1990s, when it was nothing more than an upstart online bookstore. The problem is, most investors don't understand the key to investing in hyper-growth markets. The real trick is to find a small-cap "pure-play" and then watch as it grows in EXPLOSIVE lockstep with its industry. Our expert team of equity analysts has identified one stock that's poised to produce rocket-ship returns with the next $14.4 TRILLION industry. Click here to get the full story in this eye-opening report.

Daniel Kline has no position in any stocks mentioned. He watched Wrestlemania on the WWE Network. The Motley Fool recommends DirecTV. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

4 in 5 Americans Are Ignoring Buffett's Warning

Don't be one of them.

Jun 12, 2015 at 5:01PM

Admitting fear is difficult.

So you can imagine how shocked I was to find out Warren Buffett recently told a select number of investors about the cutting-edge technology that's keeping him awake at night.

This past May, The Motley Fool sent 8 of its best stock analysts to Omaha, Nebraska to attend the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholder meeting. CEO Warren Buffett and Vice Chairman Charlie Munger fielded questions for nearly 6 hours.
The catch was: Attendees weren't allowed to record any of it. No audio. No video. 

Our team of analysts wrote down every single word Buffett and Munger uttered. Over 16,000 words. But only two words stood out to me as I read the detailed transcript of the event: "Real threat."

That's how Buffett responded when asked about this emerging market that is already expected to be worth more than $2 trillion in the U.S. alone. Google has already put some of its best engineers behind the technology powering this trend. 

The amazing thing is, while Buffett may be nervous, the rest of us can invest in this new industry BEFORE the old money realizes what hit them.

KPMG advises we're "on the cusp of revolutionary change" coming much "sooner than you think."

Even one legendary MIT professor had to recant his position that the technology was "beyond the capability of computer science." (He recently confessed to The Wall Street Journal that he's now a believer and amazed "how quickly this technology caught on.")

Yet according to one J.D. Power and Associates survey, only 1 in 5 Americans are even interested in this technology, much less ready to invest in it. Needless to say, you haven't missed your window of opportunity. 

Think about how many amazing technologies you've watched soar to new heights while you kick yourself thinking, "I knew about that technology before everyone was talking about it, but I just sat on my hands." 

Don't let that happen again. This time, it should be your family telling you, "I can't believe you knew about and invested in that technology so early on."

That's why I hope you take just a few minutes to access the exclusive research our team of analysts has put together on this industry and the one stock positioned to capitalize on this major shift.

Click here to learn about this incredible technology before Buffett stops being scared and starts buying!

David Hanson owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway and American Express. The Motley Fool recommends and owns shares of Berkshire Hathaway, Google, and Coca-Cola.We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

©1995-2014 The Motley Fool. All rights reserved. | Privacy/Legal Information