Major news has come out of Stamford, as WWE CEO Linda McMahon has resigned that position and no longer works for that company. Her husband, Vince McMahon, will take over her duties. The business ramifications of this are at this time uncertain (read: there are none), but her reason for leaving is interesting. Seems she's making a run at the US Senate.
Mrs. McMahon cites her brief tenure as a member of the Connecticut Board of Education as a selling point about her values and priorities for the state. She also emphasizes her financial policies and history, as well some of her campaign finance reforms. But see for yourself.
Now, if we can be serious for a minute (Lance Storm impression!), we need to emphasize again that we are not advocating nor condemning Mrs. McMahon's candidacy. But we do have a few questions that we think any concerned citizen would be curious about.
For instance, what is this successful business that you grew in Connecticut? Surely being the former CEO of a publicly traded company that has created jobs, but we'd like more information. Is it perhaps the wrestling (BAD WORD!) business? The same business that gave us this:
Or what about this moment straight out of the archives of NOW?
The man squealing along on commentary is running for Mayor of Memphis, by the way.
Of course, WWE's presentation of women's issues are not totally bad. They did hire Vickie Guerrero, an overweight housewife who ended up becoming one of the top characters on a network television program. And she got her position just like anyone else would get a job.
Oh wait, no she didn't. She was hired because her husband (whose previous drug addictions they exploited via books, DVD's, and storylines) died (which they also exploited) on their watch. And he was also best friends with the guy whose career in wrestling caused enough brain damage that he murdered his wife and child, and then killed himself. The same guy WWE then ran a tribute show for. And let's not forget the most recent example of a top star who "has never been to rehab" and could "heal himself" and then got busted with enough painkillers and steroids to possibly net himself some prison time. The same man who conveniently happened to leave the company a week before his arrest. So yes, we can sort of understand why Mrs. McMahon would fail to mention her company.
Except that you have to.
Any muckraker worth his salt is going to dig up this dirt. Still, there is an argument to be made that Mrs. McMahon had little to do with this. She was not involved with creative decisions, they could argue. Well the one thing they can mention is the status of her business. Yea, that stock that steadily declines.
Granted, the stock has gone up since the beginning of the Raw guest host program, but it is still down from about two years ago this time. And it's not just the stock, but PPV buys are in steady decline, as are merchandise sales. So sure, Shaq may pop the rating (money which WWE does not see), but they aren't selling their product effectively.
Does this qualify her to be Senator? We can't say and neither of us live in Connecticut, so it's relatively moot anyways. And to be fair, her policy on campaign finance is intriguing. We also don't feel that being part of the wrestling business is anything to be ashamed of. She also has the benefit of not having any skeletons in the closet (as they are out in the open), so she could very well surprise us and run a successful campaign. She could almost be the billionaire who's a common woman and being victimized by the media. It could work.
Just don't color us shocked when people don't take her seriously while they crap on wrestling some more.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I do not see relevance in Linda McMahon's run for Senate and her CEO position in WWE. Just because she did not run creative does not make her a bad financial decision maker. While there are still a LOT of unanswered questions, I think no matter who runs against Senator Dodd stands a good chance at winning.
@ Gary:
We disagree that she does not have a say in creative. She may not have been in writers' meetings or laying out shows, but to presuppose that the CEO does not have a say in the final product is preposterous. So the examples of misogyny and employment of people with questionable histories is relevant to the discussion.
Now it's true, Mrs. McMahon did not mention "family values" anywhere in her campaign ad. And it's not also fair to insinuate that she was right there with Benoit/Guerrero/Hardy. But these are things (mainstream news stories) that happened under her watch as "CEO of a publicly traded company." That's what stuck out to us. How she almost seemed to be ashamed of her career.
Which brings to your point of her capabilities in financial decisions. True, WWE is in no danger of going out of business anytime soon. And although Raw does not make advertising dollars, it does have a very lucrative contract with USA, which is part of the NBC/Universal umbrella. She should be lauded for getting that deal in place. And although distorted and masturbatory, those graphics on all the shows are technically true and she should put that feather in her cap as well. But we go back to her (or what we perceive to be her) embarrassment of the industry. Looking at recent history, the XFL failed. WWF New York failed. The film division loses money. Everything they do that's not wrestling is pretty much dead in the water. And look at the stock because of it. Even before the crash from a year ago the stock was low. That there is some evidence against her.
So why be ashamed of wrestling? Why not accept it for the completely valid form of entertainment it is and accentuate the positives. Such as...
Tribute for the Troops.
Tribute for the Troops alone shows off enough good will for wrestling to off set a lot of the bad. Mention how your "publicly traded company" hasn't forgotten what being an American is.
Now as for her shot at winning the thing? Neither of us live in CT and we are both unfamiliar with Chris Dodd, so we can't say either way. What we do know is that neither of us really have much confidence in someone who won't stand up for her family's livelihood.
Post a Comment