WM 21 Buyrate

[what 0]

I'd say the drawing power of WM XXI probably went like this:

 

Austin on Piper's Pit

Batista v Triple H

The Wrestlemania name

Kurt Angle v Shawn Michaels

John Cena v Bradshaw

Switch Batista/HHH and Piper's Pit and I agree.

[UseTheSledgehammerUh 0]

I wouldn't say that Taker "could lose for the first time EVER" at WM 21.

 

At WM 9, Taker could've reasonably lost to the recently debuted monster in Giant Gonzales. Sure, Gonzales couldn't wrestle, but the feud wasn't going to end there.

 

At WM 12, if you weren't on the 'net, I think some people thought Diesel could've put Taker down, en route to a title shot against Shawn (which happened anyway).

 

At WM 14, I believe some people thought Taker was going down to Kane.

 

At WM 17, a lot of people thought Taker was falling to Triple H, and were shocked by Taker kicking out of the sledgehammer/powerbomb spot.

 

The rest I agree with. I personally thought Orton had a 0% chance of winning.

[Guest Tjhe CyNick]

I dont think anyone can say one match outdrew the others.

 

Cena-JBL, Batista-HHH, Piper-Austin and HBK-Angle all recieved the same amount hype, so those 8 guys deserve equal credit for the show.

 

If I were to lay a guess, I would say HHH-Batista was the biggest draw, but I cant say that for certain.

 

Going in, I was most looking forward to Angle-HBK based on the build.

 

As was mentioned, as usual the HHH PPVs get all the help (ie Hogan) while SD's shows get, well they get nothing. Must be a coincidence.

[Guest QUP2CME]

I think tghis years WM drew so well cauz it appealled to all types of fans whether they were smarks, marks or whatever.

 

Batista and Cena were built up pretty well against their brands established champs in HHH and JBL.

 

Angle V HBK, Eddy V Rey and The Ladder match appealed to the smarks whereas the Main events appealed more for the marks.

 

Angle V HBK and Orton V Taker were also the first face off between both so that's always a bonus.

 

Also had Hogan and Austin their, arguably the 2 biggest stars in the promotion's history.

[cabbageboy 0]

I dunno, I can't see anyone much buying WM just so they can see Austin fuck off in Piper's Pit. Not like he actually wrestled or did something constructive. And Hogan wasn't technically hyped as being on the PPV beforehand, but I'd say people had a notion he'd be there.

 

Truthfully I think people just buy WM because it's WM.

[iggymcfly 0]

Yeah, people who watch the show at the bar might have been looking forward to seeing Austin, but I guarantee that hardly anyone actually plunked down $50 for that reason.

 

I'd say the drawing power of the card probably went something like this:

 

Wrestlemania name- As evidenced by WM XIX and WM XX, just about any card will draw huge buys as long as it's Mania.

 

Batista/HHH- The match that most people paid to see. For all the talk about Cena, I've heard a lot more hype about Batista from people who aren't all that into wrestling.

 

JBL/Cena- Well supposedly Cena has a lot of fans, so maybe they wanted to see him win. I'm sure that at least a few people out of the sea of 12 yr. olds got their parents to pay for the show.

 

Angle/HBK- Smarks do probably buy PPVs more than the marks, so I'm sure this was a drawing point as well.

 

Orton/Taker- This was another match that a lot of people wanted to see, and I'm sure that a lot of people who ordered the show mainly for other matches wouldn't have ordered it if this wasn't there as well. If I didn't know that Orton was injured, I would have thought he was going over Taker for sure.

 

Piper's Pit- I can kind of see this as an auxilliary draw, but I really don't think it was very crucial to the success of the PPV.

[CBright7831 0]

do you really think lots of people will order backlash to see old fake hip hogan?

Yes.

[Taker666 0]

wow!, I'am glad Mania got such a huge buyrate sence I was there live, It was truely an overall great show that deserved all the success it got. congrats to the WWE on this one.

[Guest Ransome]

I'd chalk this one up to the quality of past Wrestlemanias conditioning fans to believe that ordering WM is a must, rather than the buildup of WM 21. Wrestlemania's buyrate would dwarf every other buyrate of the year even if the main event had the world title defended in a tap dancing exhibition.

 

This begs the question, is it worth all the buildup to Wrestlemania (since it will have a giant buyrate anyway) at the expense of every other pay per view of the year being so far behind in terms of buildup and buyrates? Should they soften the buildup to WM and try and build Survivor Series and SummerSlam as comparable pay-per-views?

[genius33 0]

in a word, no.

 

also, if quality of past wrestlemanias was the reason for the buyrate increase, why were there 200,000 more buys for this one over the big WM anniversary show last year??? the answer: buildup. they built this show up better than any show i can think off of the top of my head, great job WWE.

 

you know what the scariest part is, though? all the WM buildup was orchestrated primarily by steph/HHH because of vince's injury.

[Guest krazykat72]

I'm not surprised Batista & Cena are draws, but I am surprised that it was this high when last year had the return of the Undertaker and the Brock/Goldberg matches. Maybe people didn't order it until the last minute and by that point they knew about Brock & Goldberg leaving, or maybe putting Shawn the Buyrate-Killer in the main event feud was a worst idea than we thought. Either that or Cena really is the next megastar and the buyrates were inflated as a result of him getting his first major title shot as a face. If that is the case, JBL certainly deserves a lot of credit as well for being the best heel champion in years.

yep...given that Mania XX was the third highest PPV *ever* and that the 2 dual brand PPVs he headlined were the two biggest last year.....

 

 

-Paul Jacobi-

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

I'm not surprised Batista & Cena are draws, but I am surprised that it was this high when last year had the return of the Undertaker and the Brock/Goldberg matches.  Maybe people didn't order it until the last minute and by that point they knew about Brock & Goldberg leaving, or maybe putting Shawn the Buyrate-Killer in the main event feud was a worst idea than we thought.  Either that or Cena really is the next megastar and the buyrates were inflated as a result of him getting his first major title shot as a face.  If that is the case, JBL certainly deserves a lot of credit as well for being the best heel champion in years.

yep...given that Mania XX was the third highest PPV *ever* and that the 2 dual brand PPVs he headlined were the two biggest last year.....

WM generally gets a big buy rate anyway, and dual brand PPV's are typically more special as well. The WM XX main event on a single brand PPV, only one month later, saw a buy rate that was a third of that of WM XX. Shawn isn't a negative draw by any means, but he isn't a huge draw either, and to try and use PPV's that typically get big numbers anyway isn't the best way to try and illustrate his drawing power.

[Promoter 0]

Guys, I do remember saying that Mania could surprise and this is one instance. As for weakening WM to help out the other ppv shows I completely disagree. You don't water down the Super Bowl for monday night football. You don't water down the World Series for a Sunday night ball game. Once they start taking the event for granted the good loyalty built up for the event will tarnish the event.

 

The wwe for once have struck while the iron is hot with Cena and Batista imo. Many people were saying it was too soon for both men, but I always believed that in 1995 they screwed up Shawn Michaels heat as the top superstar by not having him as champion. By the time they put the title on Shawn Michaels in 1996 a lot of his heat was gone due to failing when the fanbase wanted him to be the top guy. The guy was getting face pops to win the title as a heel at Mania 11. A decade later and the wwe learned its lesson. The build with HBK/Angle was well done and was old school. The same with UT/Orton. It was about who wins and loses instead of crap like they did with WM 18. I think the added stuff with the HOF and Pipe's Pit helped push it up a bit. Last year did not have this element.

[Downhome 0]

do you really think lots of people will order backlash to see old fake hip hogan?

You can't be serious. Hulk Hogan will ALWAYS be a draw. Maybe not long term (then again, no one in wrestling is a long term draw at this point), but for the shows where he "returns"? Of course people will pay to see that.

 

Over that last few times Hogan has return, I know people who haven't watched wrestling since the early 90's who ordered the PPVs he was wrestling on, just because he was going to be wrestling just "one more time".

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Hogan's match at Backlash will draw a number, but it won't be as big as it could have been, because his return to PPV was already given away with no real push to it.

[Guest krazykat72]

Hogan's match at Backlash will draw a number, but it won't be as big as it could have been, because his return to PPV was already given away with no real push to it.

You may want to credit Meltzer when you're almost quoting him verbatim.

That line is almost directly out of this week's Observer.

 

 

 

-Paul Jacobi-

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Hogan's match at Backlash will draw a number, but it won't be as big as it could have been, because his return to PPV was already given away with no real push to it.

You may want to credit Meltzer when you're almost quoting him verbatim.

That line is almost directly out of this week's Observer.

 

I haven't even read this week's Observer.

 

It is possible for more than one person to come the same conclusion when thinking logically.

[brighty 0]

is that figure a worldwide buyrate?

 

cos the UK had to pay for WM this year for the first time, and WWE were aiming for at least 100,000 buys from the UK alone, which would explain partly why it drew such a big number.

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

I think people, myself included, are overestimating the importance of the WrestleMania name. Two years ago WM was considered a huge disapointment by management.

[iggymcfly 0]

Yeah, and despite Mania doing a "terrible, disappointing, number" that year, it was still was the second most bought PPV that year behind the Rumble. In fact, no PPV other than WM has surpassed the WM XIX buyrate since.

 

The point is that while there will be fluctuations within the buyrate based on how good the card is, the WM name will be a drawing point, first and foremost, and will guarantee a great buyrate in relation to the other PPVs.

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

Yeah, and despite Mania doing a "terrible, disappointing, number" that year, it was still was the second most bought PPV that year behind the Rumble. In fact, no PPV other than WM has surpassed the WM XIX buyrate since.

 

The point is that while there will be fluctuations within the buyrate based on how good the card is, the WM name will be a drawing point, first and foremost, and will guarantee a great buyrate in relation to the other PPVs.

Well OF COURSE IT WAS. It's the Number One every year, but that doesn't change the fact that it went from 575,000 two years ago to 900K or over a million this year. The Mania name didn't get any more special.

[Black Lushus 0]

well, it was a pretty decent Wrestlemania after all...or am I just trying to justify paying 50 bucks for it?

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

It was a Wrestlemania with a strong first half, but the second half was pretty weak. I wouldn't call it worth $50.

[MillenniumMan831 0]

It was $50?

[iggymcfly 0]

No, but when the average buyrate is something like 300,000 to 350,000 buys and a weak card with no main event gets 575,000, that shows that the Wrestlemania name's good for about 250,000 buys on its own.

 

At that rate, even if you figure that Batista was good for an extra 200,000 buys, Cena's first title win got 125,000 buys, and the incredibly strong undercard got 100,000 buys, the WM name is still the primary drawing point at WM 21.

[iggymcfly 0]

Oh, that's right. I didn't even mention the extra price. Try charging $50 for Great American Bash or something, and see how many buys you get. That would never fly for any PPV except WM.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

It was a Wrestlemania with a strong first half, but the second half was pretty weak. I wouldn't call it worth $50.

I wouldn't call most wrestling cards worth $50. I doubt X-7 would hold up very well with a $50 pricetag either.

[Guest Hass of Pain]

This is one of those anomolies that just shouldn't have happened and it goes to show that no matter how smart the internet, the newsletters or WWE themselves think that they are, you just can't always preidct public reaction. WWE was way hotter in 2001, the promo spots and advertising for the show were far stronger, and the card looked way better on paper to the casual fan with things like TLC and McMahon vs. McMahon, and it had a huge event feel with Wrestlemania's return to a huge stadium.

 

This year, most of the internet was saying that the buzz for Wrestlemania was much smaller than it has been in the past, buyrates are down across the board, scalpers were selling seats to the event way below value because nobody wanted them, and coverage of Wrestlemania in LA was said to be pretty dismal.

 

And then the event goes and pulls what should be one million buys by the time all is said and done. It makes no sense whatsoever. This is the first Wrestlemania that has been available for purchase in England, and that would help a little, but still this is pretty much insane.

[Promoter 0]

Well, the Mania name obviously has something to do with it as well. However, I think last year's finish probably gave fans confidence in a happy ending this year. WM 16 ended with a heel. WM 17 had Austin turning heel. WM 18 had Triple H in a flat title win although Hogan/Rock was the draw. WM 19 had Brock winning in an anti-climatic match. XX at least had all the top babyfaces going over in their matches. This year it happened again. Fans are probably trusting Mania for the happy ending again.

[Guest krazykat72]

Yeah, and despite Mania doing a "terrible, disappointing, number" that year, it was still was the second most bought PPV that year behind the Rumble. In fact, no PPV other than WM has surpassed the WM XIX buyrate since.

 

The point is that while there will be fluctuations within the buyrate based on how good the card is, the WM name will be a drawing point, first and foremost, and will guarantee a great buyrate in relation to the other PPVs.

It was the biggest show that year.

Meltzer corrected his original number the next week in the Observer to show that the '03 show did something like 475k or 485 k, which made it the #2 event of that year to mania's 560k and that the '04 one did 585k to Mania's 885k.