The only person who benefits from a monopoly is the guy who owns the monopoly. Fans sure don’t.
It’s almost like WWE had editorial control over Kennedy’s article: Witness Daniel Bryan described as a “B-plus” player anointed by the company via the fans, because the company had the wisdom to listen to the fans.
What an absolute crock. When it came to Bryan, the fans had to drag the company kicking and screaming to Bryan’s moment of glory, and when it came to pass, it was so delayed and diluted that it didn’t work like it should have beyond that fleeting moment. No mention of Bryan’s likely career-ending concussion problems, either. Just the underdog comes good, and YES! YES! YES!
Stephanie McMahon in SI: “We have a focus group every night, in arenas and on social media. They tell us what they want.” That’s right. Then WWE gives those fans what WWE wants. Hence the undeniably declining numbers.
Kennedy’s article made WWE seem noble. There is nothing noble about it. Even WWE’s charity is tainted by its main purpose, which is branding. Just ask Steph, who had the brass to tweet: “Philanthropy is the future of marketing. It’s the way brands are going to win.”
God bless those who benefit from WWE’s largesse. But the primary purpose of those good deeds is to further WWE.
I wish that more of you reading this understood it. But you’re like the mainstream media when it comes to WWE: You gobble up what you’re given.
But I know better. Unlike Kostya Kennedy. Stick to baseball, buddy.
Follow Mark on Twitter: @MarkMaddenX
