The Hollywood Reporter: How has your business changed since the first WrestleMania?

Vince McMahon: WrestleMania is not just national but international. We have grown into stadiums. It's built into the lexicon now not just of Americana but almost every place. So the business has changed, but it has always been our Super Bowl, Emmys, Oscars, World Series.

D Ray Morton: If by stadiums, you mean the Allstate Arena in Chicago 3 years ago, then yes, you're about right. I'm not splitting hairs or anything, but WWE goes through phases where they do stadium shows and then they don't and then they do and then they don't. Look at WM 6, 7, 8, which were stadiums (WM 7 was to emanate from LA Memorial Colisseum) then they went back to arenas until WM 17, 18 & 19, which were in stadiums and then went back to arenas and the last 3 years were in stadiums. So, don't insinuate that you've been doing stadiums for the last 10 years, because you haven't, VKM. Doing that would be reprehensible.

THR: WWE has been a pioneer in migrating content across multiple platforms. How diversified are you now?

McMahon: There is no entertainment company in the world that is in every media form the way we are. We distribute our own music, and musical acts that associate with us are extraordinary, from AC/DC to an act we're breaking. We're also in the film business -- not just with feature-length releases but also DVD. We have 21 hours of TV in the U.S. alone every week when you add in Spanish-language and reruns, plus we are on-demand. Our shows, of course, also put us in the live-event business. We have our merchandising and licensing, from toys, video games, apparel, books -- you name it. And we publish magazines in English, Spanish, German, French. We are also online with our Web site and e-commerce, and we are on digital mobile services. Whether it's Disney or anyone else, no one does it like we do.

DRM: Actually, AOL-Warner does it better than you. They do all that AND own their own satellite. Actually, I probably shouldn't have said that because I can picture Vinnie Mac wanting to put a WWE Satelite in space for no reason but to show Martians how us 70 year old humans can give birth to hands. That'll scare them away off from attacking earth.

THR: Some have said your TV ratings were a bit weaker than hoped for in the past few weeks. Is that a cause for concern?

McMahon: Quite frankly our TV ratings have been very good. We averaged over a 4, I think, three weeks ago. Last week and the week before it was a bit less so because of a number of factors: how many people watched TV and one-off events. What you have to look at is our overall reach in the course of a week. On TV, we reach over 15 million people each and every week, 52 weeks a year.

DRM: Here is one of the answers that really made me want to write this column. Smoke'em if you got'em cuz its gonna be a lonnnnngggggggg reply.

Yes, Vince is right, that it is over a 52 week period that you should look at ratings. Multi-national Companies do NOT compare revenues for previous quarters. They judge them by year. How can you compare September's sales to December, when one is Christmas and always have more people spending. That said, Vince is about to enter a world of sh*t by saying this, BECAUSE... I have ratings. As always, I do my f*cking homework, where another writer wouldn't bother to do anything and simply ask what YOU think. So, kids, lets look at, not only, ratings, but PPV BUYS! Or lack thereof.

First, WWE's product has ALWAYS (ratings from 1995-present) dropped from April until July and then slowly climbed up in August to a (near average peak) in at WrestleMania time. Always, always, always. There are some exceptions (Rock's This is Your Life Sept 1999 and meteoric rise of Austin Mania 98-Mania 99).
The last couple of years, Vince has NOT seen his ratings improve over a 52 week span.
WWE managed a 3.9 rating the week before WM24. Last week they got a 3.5, not exactly going up, is it? While you may think that I'm a little too harsh on the 0.6 difference, lets take a look back at how the 52 weeks unfolded. Ratings plummeted to 2.9 on a non-holiday RAW in July 2008, which was nearly a 40% drop in audience.
In 2007, RAW's rating was ALSO a 3.9, compared to the 3.9 for the same week in 2008.
in 2006, RAW's rating was 4.2, the week before Mania, compared with the 3.9 in 2007.
in 2005, RAW's rating was 4.0, the week before Mania.
In 2004, RAW's rating was 3.8, the week before Mania.
In 2003, RAW's rating was 3.8, the week before Mania.
In 2002, RAW's rating was 4.3, the week before Mania.

Vince, I've gone back 7 YEARS, as an example and I can't pound it in your thick skull, that you're ratings are NOT improving. And don't make me embarass you further, by pulling out the ratings for 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998. The last time you had a lower rating at WrestleMania time was in 1997, WHEN YOU WERE AT THE TAIL END OF YOUR PG-KIDS ERA. You still had Fake Razor and Fake Diesel on TV.

The WWE's ratings have absolutely tanked because of The McMahons. Shane, Stephanie, Linda and Vince have all caused the downfall, when they thought they were improving the product. There's an excellent thesis on WCW's downfall in Eric Bischoff's book and in Flair's book. I'm going to paraphrase "WCW's demise was because their brand was extremely weakened by a sub-par product, because of WCW's notorious stigma of screwjob endings, which happened every week. Fans would tune in for a quick pop, but ultimately left even more dissatisfied than before they tuned in". Kind of like that David Arquette situation, they popped the ratings for a week by having a celebrity win the belt, but meanwhile, pissed off their entire core audience. I take this theory and apply it to The McMahons. Try to follow me:

In 1997, Vince created his heel persona of evil Owner. It worked brilliantly, because it was "never done before", even though Bischoff was doing it on WCW, he was never the Owner. It worked because Vince was the owner of the company. He created a rebel to fight for the people (Austin) and had an extremely successful, creative year. However, once Austin was hurt and threatened to affect revenues, Vince simply (and semi-creatively) put Foley and/or The Rock in Austin's position and made Stephanie in charge (McMahon-Helmsley era). So, the same formula that worked for Austin, was being recycled, but with a hint of new creativity. While Rocky was away, Jericho suddenly found himself at the hands of the tyranical Corporation, which include Shane and Stephanie played the roles of evil Owner. Then Vince returned as evil owner against The Rock. Then, Vince wanted to kill his own company as evil Owner and went against Flair. Then Evil Owner Vince went against Hogan, which we're 3 years into the same storyline, and people started to tune out. Then Evil Bischoff substituted for Evil Vince, then Evil Regal, then back to Evil Steph then back to CHRIST I'M GOING INSANE. Do you see my point? The storyline has been done to death. This is why you're audience has tuned out en masse!! Every week, the show centers on a McMahon, not allowing talent to win out. Sure, Jeff Hardy will win a Champtionship, but his title doesn't mean anything, and the focus goes back to McMahon (Jeff was Champ in january, but by February, the top storyline was about The McMahons). Its always about the stupid McMahons. Since 1 gimmick worked, we are bound to an eternity of McMahons on WWE Tv, thinking that they are somehow responsible for drawing an audience, when, they are actually popping the rating for a week and then they piss off their core fanbase with a stupid antic (limo explosion, set destruction, etc).

THR: How has the success of UFC and other mixed martial arts programming impacted you?

McMahon: Most people thought at one point that we would be competitors. But it turns out they are not competition to us at all, or hardly at all. They are sport, we are entertainment; it's a huge difference. The revenue they have cut into is that of boxing.

DRM: There is no proof to this claim. Vince is being a carpenter of ideas and I submit facts which prove otherwise:

I chose Survivor Series to prove a point:

Here are the buyrates for SS:
2000 400,000
2001 452,000
2002 344,000
2003 292,000
2004 324,000
2005 383,000
2006 341,000
2007 319,000

I chose 2000 as a starting point, because that was the time when UFC was in total chaos and Dana White had just purchased it.

UFC 28 (Nov 2000) UFC 28 was the sixth straight UFC event to never see home video or DVD release, as their parent company SEG was nearing bankruptcy and almost died.
UFC 33 (Nov 2001) - PPV buys: 75,000
UFC 40 (Nov 2002) - PPV buys: UFC 40 - 150,000 buys
UFC 45 (Nov 2003) - PPV buys: 40,000
UFC 50 (Oct 2004) - PPV buys: (N/A)
UFC 56 (Nov 2005) - PPV buys: (N/A) est 200,000 buys
UFC 65 (Nov 2006) - PPV buys: 500,000
UFC 78 (Nov 2007) - PPV buys: 400,000
UFC 91 (Nov 2008) - PPV Buys: 920,000

Here's the real kicker:

Top 10 North American PPV buy rates, 2008
1. Boxing: Oscar De La Hoya vs. Manny Pacquiao, 1,250,000
2. UFC: Brock Lesnar vs. Randy Couture, 1,010,000
3. Wrestling: WrestleMania 24, 670,000
4. UFC: Georges St. Pierre vs. Jon Fitch 625,000
5. UFC: Lesnar vs. Frank Mir 600,000
6. UFC: Quinton Jackson vs. Forrest Griffin 540,000
7. UFC: St. Pierre vs. Matt Serra 530,000
8. Boxing: Felix Trinidad vs. Roy Jones Jr. 500,000
9. UFC: Chuck Liddell vs. Rashad Evans 480,000
10. UFC: Penn vs. Sherk/Ortiz vs. Machida 475,000

I love it. Boxing is still doing well, UFC is doing phenominal and WWE is doing awful! :)
Here's another chart I found, showing that this wasn't just a 1 year blip. Here's the chart for 2006.

Most PPV buys, JAN-OCT 2006
1. BOX Oscar DeLa Hoya vs. Ricardo Mayorga 925,000
2. UFC Tito Ortiz vs. Ken Shamrock 775,000
3. UFC Matt Hughes vs. B.J. Penn 700,000
4. WWE Wrestlemania 22 636,000
5. UFC Matt Hughes vs. Royce Gracie 600,000
6. UFC Chuck Liddell vs. Renato Sobral 500,000
7. UFC Tito Ortiz vs. Forrest Griffin 425,000
8. BOX Shane Mosely vs. Fernando Vargas 420,000
9. UFC Chuck Liddell vs. Randy Couture 400,000
10.BOX Floyd Mayweather vs. Zab Judah 375,000

Yeah, Boxing is suffering badly (thick sarcasm), Vince. this is not your lucky day, because I found some news that blows my mind.
In 2004, WWE made $95 million dollars from 12 PPVs. It COST them $36 million to put those PPVs to air. That means a profit of $59 million.
In 2006, WWE made $94 million from 16 PPVs but cost them $42 million.
They made less and it cost more.

Is this proof enough that Vince blatantly lies?

THR: Any concern about TNA Wrestling, which has had lower ratings on Spike but is another organization that competes for your audience?

McMahon: My concern with TNA is not in terms of competition. My concern with TNA is that they are TV-14, and we are PG. They have to change with the times. I think some of the things they do on television are reprehensible, but it is a TV-14 rating. That's the only bone I have to pick with them. Their TV ratings are a fraction of ours.

DRM: Dixie, is this a party of one or can any one join? I have a few things to add.

Ahem.

Hi kids! Do you like violence? Wanna see me stick Nine Inch Nails through each one of my eye lids?

The truely reprehensible thing is that WWE IS MARKETING VIOLENCE TO KIDS. Additionally, the show BLOOD at 9pm, prime, child-viewing time. Not 10pm, not 10:30, not 9:45. The very first segment, blood pour all over the mat and the the camera and the wrestler. Is this really how you expect me to raise a kid? By allowing him to watch your product? Not to mention that 11 months ago, hell, 6 months before you became kid friendly, you prostituted your women to post naked? Do you really expect me to believe your change in attitude? How about the fact that WHILE you were quoted as PG, you posted "naked pictures" of your General Manager on YOUR WEBSITE, able to be accessed by any child at any time of the day. That is completely and utterly reprehensible about the WWE, its misleading image and condescending attitude towards its fan base. This is a company so desperate for publicity, that it will say and do anything, shamelessly, for attention.

THR: But you recently had an episode of "Raw" where one of your champions, HHH, went to his WrestleMania opponent Randy Orton's house with a sledgehammer. That is OK to show?

McMahon: Right. What we try to do in situations like that is use things that you can't find around the house. You will never see us use a baseball bat. You don't find folding metal chairs around the house. We are very selective. You can go up to the line. It's storytelling; that's how our business thrives. If you have well-defined characters and put them in the right story line against other characters, people care about their welfare.

DRM: Of course, you would NEVER find a baseball bat at home. Unless you play... baseball. And a folding chair?? MY DESK CHAIR IS A FOLDING CHAIR! JGSFBHSBNM. This is ridiculous. I can't take Vince! He's driving me nuts! HHH BROUGHT THE SLEDGEHAMMER TO THE HOUSE. AND THEY MEAN, IS IT OKAY TO SHOW THAT TO A KID. THATS THE POINT THEY ARE MAKING. Thats like saying, "oh, you would never find a Katana around the house, and then proceed to chop someone's penis off it" (Val Venis choppy-choppy ur pee-pee), OR "Oh you would never find a gun in someone's house" and then use it to shoot at an intruder (1996 Pillman). So kids, while don't think you have any of these easily obtainable weapons at home, we're going to show you what destruction you can do, with them. By the way, a sledgehammer can be bought at WalMart and a Katana at Green Earth chain stores. All without ID. You're ruining our kids minds by being overly violent. Its one thing to do a f*cking airplane spin and put the guy down and watch him wobble around groggy, its another thing to smash the sh*t out of his house, nearly crush his skull and get arrested for attempted murder. I wish to hell you would admit your show is TV-14, because this bullsh*t act of being family friendly, when you aren't is the bane of my existence.

THR: How many features and direct-to-DVD releases should we expect each year under WWE Films" new deal with Fox?

McMahon: We would do two to three theatricals a year. That way you can really key on your projects. And we would maybe do six to seven direct-to-DVD titles as a max. It's a natural extension to what we do. We have already developed characters for our audience. John Cena's film "12 Rounds" comes out Friday. He has been built as a character in WWE; he is part of our intellectual property. Here we have a built-in advantage. Nobody else in Hollywood has that. When he goes on "The Tonight Show," he can talk about WWE and "12 Rounds." And we can turn our global promotional machine on to promote the film across our various platforms.

DRM: Vince sounds so smug in this interview, that its kind of turned into "X-Pac heat". I read what he says and its just like I want to punch myself in the face like Ed Norton in Fight Club. I don't have any glass tables or shelves in my apartment though. Maybe if I went to a CZW show and threw myself on their glass coffin, I'd be complete. Then Mickie Knuckles can bash me with light tubes and scream at me to sell. SELL. SELLLLL.

THR: Have you made profits in film?

McMahon: Yes, we are profitable. We had one film that was not profitable at all: Stone Cold Steve Austin's "The Condemned." There are a lot of reasons for it, none of them relating to Steve. Notwithstanding that setback, we have made money off "The Marine" (with Cena) and "See No Evil" (with WWE superstar Kane).

DRM: Condemned translation: WWE screwed up and thought Austin was a bigger star, so they pumped a sh*tload of money into marketing and when no one actually gave a crap, they were in the red. Steve's a star, but not THAT BIG of a star. And they made money on The Marine & See no Evil, because they have 1 big name attached to them and are genre films, which sell amazingly well with foreign distributors. Take it from a guy who works in film production, I know how territories sell and these are the stereotypical characteristics of genre marketing.

THR: What is the biggest non-U.S. market for you, and where do you see the biggest growth opportunity?

McMahon: Outside the U.S., the U.K. is the largest market. Europe, including U.K., probably accounts for about 70% of our international business. We are also in Australia and Japan. Our biggest potential growth market is China; we are in three or four provinces there. We are growing our base that way -- brick by brick, just like we built the United States back in the syndication day.

DRM: Bring back Insurrextion! International PPVs always make for great news, as talent always ends up beating the sh*t out of each other during the tour. Or, in Goldust's case, he calls his ex-wife a cheating whore on the plane ride over. And Ric Flair does meatspins with his p*nis and insinuates a possible Dutch Rudder.

THR: There has been talk that Mickey Rourke will be in Houston for WrestleMania 25. How key are such celebrity tie-ins to broadening your audience?

McMahon: We will have Kid Rock doing a medley of his tunes at WrestleMania. The lead singer of the Pussycat Dolls will sing "America the Beautiful." Mickey Rourke is going to be, in all likelihood, in attendance. And if you have heard what (WWE superstar) Chris Jericho has said, he is likely to slap Mickey right in the face. That could be interesting television. Sometimes such stuff does broaden our audience in terms of people talking about the event. But some of our highest (PPV) buys have been with our talent as the only celebrities. You have to keep things organic in deciding when to do this. You can't just reach out and use an outside celebrity. That can feel artificial.

DRM: Your whole sport is artificial, you twit. You have people pretending to hate each other and act like they are beating the crap out of each other. And as far as Chris Jericho slapping Mickey Rourke, I assure you, that is won't be interesting television. I guaran-damn-tee you, that it will be the farthest thing from interesting.

THR: You have an Indian superstar, the Great Khali. A lot of entertainment companies are trying to develop regional content and use regional stars. How key is that for WWE?

McMahon: It's not necessarily important. The reason is that I like to say we are America's greatest export. The WWE just smacks of fun; it smacks of freedom of expression. It's like the old Wild West days. It's outrageous but within good taste. When we go to another country, they don't want to see their own stuff. Often there is local stuff. But they want to see, in essence, Hollywood. They want to see the real deal. So it doesn't really matter whether or not you have a Chinese star or Korean star; they want to see WWE stars. Now, if you do have a WWE star who is indigenous like Khali in India, all the better. But they would judge Khali based on any other top guy.

DRM: The WWE has such good taste that it televises a man simulating a decapitation by terrorists, the day of deadly bombings across the UK. Great taste, buddy. And if Khali isn't important, I beg of you, please fire him!

Wait? Whats going on? No more questions? This sucks. Normally you try to end strong. So, here it goes.

F*ck you, Vince. F*ck you, to all hell.