This is a graph that shows the number of subscribers to the WWE Network from 2014 to 2016 (by quarters). The article that this graph is part of is a summary of WWE’s business, as well as it’s main sources of revenues over the past several years. The graph combines a bar chart with a line graph to show the number of subscribers at the end of each quarter, the average number of paid subscribers, and number of people who use the Network’s free trial period at the end of each quarter. The graph also shows when WrestleMania (the WWE’s most marketed and mainstream event) has occurred during the time period. From the graph, we can see several trends. First, it seems clear that WrestleMania is one of the main reasons why more people subscribe to the Network. In addition, we can see that the retention rate of the Network is fairly strong, the number of subscribers didn’t drop too much between WrestleManias. In addition, we can see that in a few years, WWE has increased it’s subscription base by around one million people. However, we can also see that the Network has struggled to grow between Wrestlemania events, and over the past few quarters. In addition, we can see that more people are using the free trial periods as opposed to paying, which doesn’t guarantee that they will stay subscribers. As such, the article argues that over two years, one can neither say that the WWE Network has been a success or a failure.
The graph seems to by trying to hit a broad audience. It could be aimed at wrestling fans trying to get a better understanding of WWE, or at business people trying to get a better understanding of WWE’s financials over the past several years. The makers of the graph don’t seem to expect the audience to be big wrestling fans, but do seem to expect at least a little understanding of what WWE is and does.
The good:
To start with, I like that the graph starts the y-axis at 0, which keeps the information more accurate. In addition, I do like that the graph tries to convey many points of related information in a single graph. Instead of just showing subscription numbers, the people who made the graph took into consideration that WWE offers free trials, which changes how the total subscription numbers look like. In addition, by using both bars and a line, the audience gets both the trend , and the total quarterly numbers. If the graph didn’t have the line, the reader might assume that the number of subscribers didn’t change at all from Q1 2012 to Q4 2012. The graph also lends itself to forecasting (it seems clear that the subscription numbers could be flat for the next several quarters), and easily allows readers to draw conclusions (WrestleMania alone may no longer be an effective way to drastically increase the number of subscriptions). Another the graph does well is that it allows readers to come up with causality. By mentioning which quarters WrestleMania have taken place in, the graph explains why WWE has seen sudden spikes in the past. The graph also shows that the free trial periods have less of an effect as time goes on. Because the graph offers causality, the audience is allowed to come up with different arguments, such as that the WWE need to ramp up marketing, promote new wrestlers, or seek new markets.
The bad:
One of the biggest problems of the graph is that it doesn’t make it clear whether or not the number of subscribers and quarterly trends are actually that good. The reasons for this is that the graph doesn’t compare the network subscription numbers to any other value, such as revenue, cost of running the network, or profit. Another reason for the lack of clarity is that the graph doesn’t establish what the KPI for subscriptions actually is (for the record, it’s initial goal was to hit 1 million subscribers by the end of 2014). By adding a horizontal line at the one million mark, the reader could have had a better understanding of how successful WWE has been with the network. In addition, the graph appears to lack proper documentation and doesn’t use multiple sources.
From an aesthetic point of view, the graph might have an information overload problem, and might be too busy for some readers. Part of the reason for this is how cramped and close together a lot of the visual focuses are. I probably would have made the WrestleMania logos smaller, and aligned them all at the top of the graph. Alternatively, I might scrap the logos and instead change the color of the bar with WrestleMania, and added a new label in the legend. This way, the same info could be conveyed with less visual clutter. Additionally, it is not initially clear if the dark blue number boxes (which possibly should be a different color from the boxes) are referring to the top of the bar, or the points on the line. The 2015 Q2 bar is particularly confusing, since the point is at the top of the free trial bar. So, it is not clear if the 71,000 is referring to the number of people using the free trial, or the number of average subscribers in the period. One possible way to make this more clear would be to have the free trial bar be inside the total subscriber bar, instead of on top of the bar. This way, you could better see the number of total subscribers in a period, and the proportion of total subscribers to free subscribers, without having to have extra number boxes.
———————————————————————————————————–
http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2016/05/19/a-beginners-guide-to-wwe-business/
http://fansided.com/2014/04/07/wwe-network-one-million-subscribers/amp/