Whilst only a guess, I would think that most types of promotional stratagem have been used in the entertainment industry. All manner of reverse psychology and media manipulation has been permeated to convince an audience that a particular artist is a talented but aloof bohemian whose life is dedicated to the pursuit of art and not obsessed with getting their grubby hands on as much cash as possible. However, there is one marketing ploy that springs to mind that I haven’t seen applied to mainstream entertainment before. Hypothetically, a band is failing to achieve critical or popular acclaim for its music and their cd sales have slumped. One solution might be to release an intentionally bad album, which would be soundly slaughtered by the music press, and the sense of communal glee that would be felt by people who hated it should ensure that the band’s name is mentioned frequently, albeit in a negative way. The tricky part is to then write a really good album which, despite the stigma associated with the band, should at least benefit from positive vibes by reviewers who can see past expectation and judge work on its merits. I can think of several actors (John Travolta, Anthony Hopkins, Sean Connery) who have made successful comebacks in the movie business after long periods in the creative wilderness but any suggestion that their respective “Zardoz” eras were long-term strategies intended to incept a resurgence is probably taking the idea to an unrealistic extreme. The one place where giving an audience what they really don’t want just to create anticipation for the moment when the ill is cured is pro-wrestling. And you’d think by now that most wrestling fans would see through such an obvious tactic.
When Mick Foley became ‘commissioner’ of the WWF back in 2000 he stated that one of the reasons why he was trying to screw HHH out of the WWF title was because he didn’t want to listen to another “long-ah, boring-ah HHH promo-ah”. Not exactly biting satirical comedy but it demonstrated that the people writing Foley’s words for him understood that fans were tired of Hunter’s self-absorbed, repetitive tirades. Actually, that last bit isn’t true. And it’s not true because all it really proves is that the writers had learned a valuable lesson from Stone Cold Steve Austin’s character some four years earlier. The problem with Stone Cold as a heel was that he was exciting, interesting and controversial and fans will always gravitate towards that which has the greatest potential to entertain. A theory confirmed in late 2001 when the Stone Cold gimmick was altered again, this time to highlight his insecurities and lack of ruthlessness during the Invasion angle, which returned him to the heel ranks with predictable ease. As a viewer, it is as likely that the writers are pandering as much to your genuine likes and dislikes as they are to your propensity to cheer for the faces and boo the heels and it is that ability to induce boredom or annoyance in the audience that determines how over a heel becomes. And that’s why week after week Hunter would stand in the ring and deliver the same speech about him being “The Game” and how he was “That damn good”, safe in the knowledge that the apathy with which it was being received would transfer into frenzy should someone appear on the scene who looked likely to shut his mouth and take the title from him. Basic, but effective. Even Stephanie McMahon utilised these ideas to her advantage. I was amused by the sheer manic derision promoted by Internet fans at her expense, usually relating to her poorly managed hair (including the infamous ‘disco-frizzy perm’), her garish ill-fitting clothes and her screeching voice. And almost all of it suggesting that, rather than a component of a carefully crafted gimmick, it was merely the product of an unsophisticated sense of style. A hypothesis that persisted even after she had been recast as the general manager of Smackdown complete with flowing shiny locks, a line in tailored business suits and a velvet tone of voice ideally suited for narration or sex talk (maybe that last one is more a personal preference?).
One of my favourites when it comes to playing on real emotions to advance a storyline is the use of shock and revulsion. Although it is disappointing that (rather than still being the byword for unpalatable viewing she once was) Katie Vick has become a type of fond nostalgia thesedays, I am rarely let down by the surety with which audiences fall into the snare of outrage. Anyone vaguely connected with wrestling commentary will remember the emails that came flooding in regarding Randy Orton’s comments about Eddie Guerrero being “in hell” on Smackdown during 2006. You can decide for yourselves the rights and wrongs of including such a comment in an ‘entertainment’ show but, considering that most of the messages contained the desire to see Rey ‘kick Orton’s ass’ in revenge, it does suggest that the idea worked. Though it does appear that the trend is beginning to subside. I can only imagine the pre-emptive sniggering Vince McMahon was unable to control when he dreamt up the HBK/God/McMahonism idea last year and his unshakeable confidence that religious groups would start a campaign to protest his shows and picket the media. Such a shame that they decided to ignore the immature twat and instead concentrate on poisoning the minds of young America with their creationist ‘science’. More than anything else that best demonstrates how superficial most public outcries are. Any amount of disgust can be tolerated, or at least recovered from, as long as the storyline in question leads to a match that people actually want to see. As good an indication as to why so much latitude was given by fans to the soap opera antics of Rey Mysterio and Eddie Guerrero during the Dominick/custody feud of summer 2005. And conversely why so little was given to the Boss Man v Big Show father/cancer storyline in 1999, which to this day is still the only WWE storyline I avoided using the on/off button on my tv. Not because I was losing a family member to cancer at the time (which I was) and not because I found the subject matter unacceptable but simply because the bait would ultimately only payoff with a PPV match involving the Big Boss Man and that just wasn't good enough for me at that time.
The issue is more prevalent today in relation to personalities and gimmicks. Two wrestlers for you to ponder briefly ... Miz and Nathan Jones. Admittedly, anyone not watching WWE prior to 2004 will draw a blank on Jones but I needed to come up with a useless substitute for Heidenreich otherwise it seems as if I’m just picking on the guy. Miz is a talented wrestler but on screen he acts like an annoying moron and fans will react accordingly and hate him for it. Nathan Jones was one of the most imposing and visually monstrous performers ever seen and crowds were fascinated by him. Unfortunately he had the same aptitude and co-ordination as a lump of wet shit and he quit from the roster before Vince had a chance to fire him for it. It is one of the peculiarities of wrestling that fans are willing to give up on someone because the character they portray grates on their nerves yet they continue their support for someone who fires their aesthetic juices but can’t perform the required function to an equal standard. Ask yourself this question ... who’s the better wrestler, Kane or Daivari? Your answer isn’t important but it does say a lot about how much you believe the WWE promotional machinery. Go back in time several months (not literally or I’ll have to write this again) to October 2006 and the PPV debut of MVP at No Mercy. I didn’t order the show so I sat back and marvelled at the chagrin that was meted out at MVP’s opponent for the night, Marty Garner. It’s difficult for me to say how I would have reacted if I’d paid good money to see the show but from the comfort of my computer chair it was easy to see why it had been done and how it would play out over the subsequent months ahead. There is however one instance that I’m reluctant to aver so I’ll just throw it out there and see how it plays. Remember the Trump/Rosie match from Raw about a month ago now? Of course you do, only counselling and a strong electrical current can erase that memory from the brains of WWE fans. At the time it was seen as McMahon’s least finest hour, a complete misjudgement of what his audience were willing to sit through and final proof that Vince had lost the Midas touch. But then, if the segment had come off as entertaining then how would that thrust Vince into the heel position? In the storyline sense, it had to be bad else the normally protective WWE crowd would turn on the cocky outsider with bad hair and a lack of respect towards women (hang on, that applies to both of them) when Trump questioned its value. Even so, if it failed they could always drop a ton of money from the rafters and that should bring them round to the desired way of thinking. Mind you, it doesn’t say a lot about some WWE fans if they turn on the product and chant “TNA” instead just because they’re unwilling to invest in the process or too dumb to recognise when it’s happening.
In the end you can boil this concept down to a question of belief. Whether you view him as a genius or the devil (or somewhere in-between) Vince McMahon is the man who has earned the most money from professional wrestling in the history of the sport and that would seem to prove that he understands what works and what doesn’t. The last thing I would want to be is the guy that tries to convince anyone that he only makes mistakes intentionally (mainly because I don’t believe that to be the case) but if you find yourself reacting to a WWE idea with the words “I don’t understand how Vince thought that would work” then it is at least worth making sure that your instinctive disquiet is as insurrective as it appears and not simply the reactionary response they were hoping for from you. If anyone realises how to do that, could they let me know ... I can’t decide if I need to bother sending Mae Young’s baby/hand a birthday card every February.
Lee
Copyright © 2005; TheWrestlingVoice.com & Douglas Nunnally.
All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer & Privacy Statement
| What Did You Think About WWE Backlash 2008? |
|
|