You've written many times about the WWE taking the position that no one is bigger than the brand anymore, which I sort understand in the abstract, considering as a company grows, it becomes more risk averse. As a result, booking reflects company policy and most of the roster ends up treading water and trading wins with each other in feuds that meander without a clear arc. This has been covered ad finitum on the BOD.
Has the irony of this policy ever been discussed? While it seems the WWE is bound and determined not to allow anyone to breakthrough and become a crossover star in the mold of Austin, Rock, Hogan or Cena ever again, does it seem odd that it's these same crossover stars of yesterday that largely sell WrestleMania every year?
Is the WWE hamstringing itself long term by not creating acts they can call back for novelty appearances that draw casual fans in the future? Or does the product cycle sufficiently that in 10-15 years, a top of the card guy and multiple time world champion like say an Alberto Del Rio or a Sheamus draw lapsed fans who might have enjoyed their work when their fandom was stronger?
The massive stars of yesterday can't work forever. So, is the brand enough? Because it seems while the WWE asserts that, they lean on their greatest past successes way more than real belief in that philosophy would indicate.
Jon of All Trades Podcast