Guest GameCop Posted April 30, 2003 Report Posted April 30, 2003 Can you imagine a PPV that encompasses only RAW wrestlers? Well, whether or not you can envision it is moot because WWE will have its first RAW PPV -- entitled Bad Blood -- in June. In the following month, Smackdown will have its first PPV called Vengeance. This brand exclusive b.s. is a lot gentler on my wallet because I can definitively point to the PPV's worth plunking down cash for -- Rumble, Mania, Summer Slam, Survivor Series. Can you imagine the buyrates of these brand exclusive shows? We're looking at 2001 WCW-like numbers, here. Oh, well...looks like these brand exclusive shows will mark the beginning of the end for WWE. Nobody, smark nor mark, will consider paying for a show with half the talent they're normally accustomed to seeing.
Guest bob_barron Posted April 30, 2003 Report Posted April 30, 2003 They will if they have interesting storylines that lead to matches they want to see.
Guest webmasterofwrestlegame Posted April 30, 2003 Report Posted April 30, 2003 At what price could they offer them to you with you unconditionally purchasing them each month? (Only sensible answers please!)
Guest Olympic Slam Posted April 30, 2003 Report Posted April 30, 2003 I'm actually going to into the seperate PPV plan with a positive attitude! Rogue thinking among smarks I'm afraid. An extra month of build-up and TV time could make even the lamest program seem somewhat interesting. As it is now, there's like 4 or 5 shows to build a program up until the next PPV. Also, an extra month could result in better television with bigger matches and possible blow-off matches. I will say this however.........they need a BETTER talent pool to pull this off. Two months of Albert vs. Brock hype anyone?
Guest bps "The Truth" 21 Posted April 30, 2003 Report Posted April 30, 2003 Thank God they brought in all the people that I want to pay to see wrestle like Hogan, Steiner, Goldberg and Nash!
Guest Downhome Posted April 30, 2003 Report Posted April 30, 2003 I'm looking MORE foward to the PPV's simply because it'll allow for more time to build the storylines.
Guest TheHulkster Posted April 30, 2003 Report Posted April 30, 2003 There are some positives to brand exclusive PPV's: 1) They will be forced to have to push more talent to the top or right below the top of the card 2) Prices might go down on said PPVs 3) They will be forced to utilize under-utilized talent 4) Two month build-ups to some pay per views 5) Less major matches thrown together and booked a week or two before the pay per view 6) The workers will have more time to prepare for a PPV quality match It could be for the better. You have to look on the bright side. Edit: lol i need to learn how to type faster. I look like a broken record now. Anyway, it's nice to see some support for the idea.
Guest ViciousFish Posted April 30, 2003 Report Posted April 30, 2003 Honestly, for $20 I'd buy a Smackdown PPV, and I'd pay more in a few months when Angle is back and if Benoit had a title match anyone thought he could win. Hell, I'd probably pay $35 just for a chance to see Benoit win the title. Raw though, $10-15 tops. Is it worth more to watch Jericho and Booker never move above where they are??
Guest Youth N Asia Posted April 30, 2003 Report Posted April 30, 2003 $35 is too much to pay for a wrestling show now. $30 was even stretching it till it's end. I honestly wouldn't pay over $20 for one now, and a damn good one at that/
Guest Mattdotcom Posted April 30, 2003 Report Posted April 30, 2003 Hell, if you thought Backlash was crappy, just wait for Judgement Day.
Guest cynicalprofit Posted April 30, 2003 Report Posted April 30, 2003 Raw PPV buyrate: .2 Smackdown PPV buyrate .8 Gee Vince, I wonder who the fans really want to see.
Guest Choken One Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 Hulk Hogan, Brother. Anyways...You can give HHH/Nash the Dreamer/Raven angle and the match will still be the same...
Guest Mattdotcom Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 You can give HHH/Nash the Dreamer/Raven angle and the match will still be the same... What? Nash stole Shawn from Hunter at summer camp? Hell, Flair is already quickly becoming a lacky, he might as well be DANCIN' RICKIE FLAIR~! I can see the Yuna banners already!
Guest Kahran Ramsus Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 Split PPVs will be better. Look who wasn't at Backlash (Benoit, Matt, Hurricane, Rhyno, etc) as well as Jericho & Booker in meaningless roles. With the split PPVs they have NO choice but to put these guys on. And that is why the split PPVs are a good thing. Vince won't do the right thing, but in this case he would be forced to. There simply isn't anyone else.
Guest Anglesault Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 If I paid-which I don't- $20 is absolutely acceptable for SD! and borderline acceptable for Raw.
Guest razazteca Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 If Austin, Rock, Goldberg are wrestling in Bad Blood it should sell well. Maybe with this split they could give RVD, Stevie Richards, Goldust, Tommy Dreamer some matches on the PPV instead of Heat.
Guest Anglesault Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 Maybe with this split they could give RVD, Stevie Richards, Goldust, Tommy Dreamer some matches on the PPV instead of Heat. We both know it will just give Test, Mack and Steiner matches.
Guest AndrewTS Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 Okay...assuming that they do the split PPVs and cut the cost to 20 bucks or so; remember it would be only one PPV a month (Raw, SD, Raw, SD), so do you really think they'd accept what they think would be a huge cut in revenue? It's highly possible that a lot more people would buy and they'd make more in the long run, but I think Vince is too a) greedy b) stupid to actually attempt that.
Guest ViciousFish Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 If Austin, Rock, Goldberg are wrestling in Bad Blood it should sell well. Maybe with this split they could give RVD, Stevie Richards, Goldust, Tommy Dreamer some matches on the PPV instead of Heat. Well since Austin is done wrestling I can't see him competing at Bad Blood and Rocky is off making more money for less work
Guest JDMattitudeV1 Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 I think if done correctly this may not be a complete disaster, but that would be putting far too much faith in the WWE. I think this is a very bad idea, nobody is buying PPV's at the moment and I can't see how reducing the number of stars on each card is going to increase buy-rates. Face it the entire brand extension has failed, along with everything else the WWE has done in the last 2 years.
LooseCannon25 Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 I think the split ppv's will be better because almost everybody will be able to participate. If they leave RVD off a RAW PPV then there's problems, but it gives Benoit, RVD, Lance Storm, MAtt Hardy, Kendrick matches
Guest Kahran Ramsus Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 I think if done correctly this may not be a complete disaster, but that would be putting far too much faith in the WWE. I think this is a very bad idea, nobody is buying PPV's at the moment and I can't see how reducing the number of stars on each card is going to increase buy-rates. Face it the entire brand extension has failed, along with everything else the WWE has done in the last 2 years. Fewer 'stars' would probably mean lower buyrates, but lets face it, Rock is the only one worth watching anyways and he's gone. I am sick and tired of seeing the same 'stars'. Getting Nash, Goldberg, HHH, etc on only half the shows can only improve the product. Yes, the brand extension failed, but things would be 100x worse without it. The problem is with the WWF. At least the brand extension can limit the damage that HHH & Vince do.
Guest RicFlairGlory Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 Guys, they logistically cannot change the cost for each PPV, because it would send the message to the fans, despite the fact that its true, that you'll get less on each show, at least in star power and matches. He cant send the message that getting these shows give people less bang for their buck, because they wont want to pay for less, even if they're paying less....
Guest ViciousFish Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 I think if done correctly this may not be a complete disaster, but that would be putting far too much faith in the WWE. I think this is a very bad idea, nobody is buying PPV's at the moment and I can't see how reducing the number of stars on each card is going to increase buy-rates. Face it the entire brand extension has failed, along with everything else the WWE has done in the last 2 years. Fewer 'stars' would probably mean lower buyrates, but lets face it, Rock is the only one worth watching anyways and he's gone. I am sick and tired of seeing the same 'stars'. Getting Nash, Goldberg, HHH, etc on only half the shows can only improve the product. Yes, the brand extension failed, but things would be 100x worse without it. The problem is with the WWF. At least the brand extension can limit the damage that HHH & Vince do. Instead of 40 minutes a week of HHH interviews we get 20 which is alot better, and it does allow more people to get tv time. Imagine if there was no roster split. We would see HHH/Nash/Jericho/Angle/Brock/'Taker and maybe Benoit, Rey, Hardy, Rhyno and Team Angle
Guest AndrewTS Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 Guys, they logistically cannot change the cost for each PPV, because it would send the message to the fans, despite the fact that its true, that you'll get less on each show, at least in star power and matches. He cant send the message that getting these shows give people less bang for their buck, because they wont want to pay for less, even if they're paying less.... Who the hell is going to pay 35 bucks for a single brand PPV?
Guest Slapnuts00 Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 $20 for brand PPVs $30 for mixed PPVs. As it is now I dont think Im gonna buy another WWE PPV...
Guest razazteca Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 Maybe with this split they could give RVD, Stevie Richards, Goldust, Tommy Dreamer some matches on the PPV instead of Heat. We both know it will just give Test, Mack and Steiner matches. The Mack would get the kill whitey match on Heat, Test & Steiner & Goldust & Dreamer vs Nowinski & Rico & Le French Boys and RVD & Kane can defend the tag titles vs anybody. Austin could be a guest ref in the Main Event
Guest Kahran Ramsus Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 Guys, they logistically cannot change the cost for each PPV, because it would send the message to the fans, despite the fact that its true, that you'll get less on each show, at least in star power and matches. He cant send the message that getting these shows give people less bang for their buck, because they wont want to pay for less, even if they're paying less.... Who the hell is going to pay 35 bucks for a single brand PPV? I would pay for a single-brand PPV before I pay for a split one with HHH, Nash, HBK, Big Show, Taker & Goldberg in the big matches.
Guest AndrewTS Posted May 1, 2003 Report Posted May 1, 2003 Okay, good point, because the Raw PPVs will blow workrate wise regardless of the "big stars" that aren't drawing that much anyway, but the SD PPVs are lacking in star power and two of the SD6 are still out with an injury. I figure Angle will be back in some capacity before the first SD PPV rolls around, but even then they are lacking in star power, and stupid booking will keep them from doing so. I'd still like to see HBK in a match provided there isn't a "World Title" on the line. SD would still have the Underseller on its PPVs though. Is the plan for the "big 5" PPVs to be dual-brand?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now