The Online Onslaught Forums


By contributing to Online Onslaught, you'll help make sure we're around for years to come. Toss us as little as a few bucks, or as much as your generosity allows. Thanks!

Last active: Never Not logged in [Login ]

Printable Version |
Subscribe | Add to Favorites
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Poll
Author: Subject: Even MORE PPV shows?
promoter2003
The Rowdy One






Posts 2215
Registered 1-24-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

posted on 2-21-2004 at 06:32 PM Edit Post
Even MORE PPV shows?

This is copied from another website.
---------------------------------------------
"1Wrestling.com has just learned that the JUDGMENT DAY PPV should be on May 16th at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, CA.

The BAD BLOOD PPV on June 13th should be taking place in Louisville, KY. It also appears that on June 27th the WWE will be having a second PPV, making it the first month they will be running two PPV's, within two weeks apart. That one right now is planned for Norfolk, VA. at the Scope Coliseum. Seeing how these dates are so far in advance, all dates are tentative and subject to change. "

16 PPV shows next year as well. More power to them if they can do it, but I think it's highly unlikely with the current numbers coming in with the December ppv and October ppv. The two brands don't have the depth. One net writer says they should just get rid of the house show circuit if this is the future because it would make people more willing to spend twice a month instead of three times a month with the house show.

[Edited on 2-21-2004 by promoter2003]

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
FusionFistCutter
The Great One






Posts 3411
Registered 4-10-2003
Location Columbus, Ohio
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 2-21-2004 at 06:39 PM Edit Post
Uggh. PPVs are going to turn into less of an "event" and more of a "chore".

I was pissed about the short duration between the Rumble and No Way Out, my fucking liver can't take it.





!

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   FusionFistCutter 's Aim
AnglesGoldMedals
Showstopper






Posts 686
Registered 2-13-2003
Location From wherever he damn well pleases (Newcastle, UK)
Member Is Offline

Mood: "Break it!

posted on 2-21-2004 at 07:11 PM Edit Post
I agree... you can have too much of a good thing.

As it is 12 PPV's a year sometimes don't give enough time to build up storylines, so how will 16 each year work out?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating going back to 4 PPV's each year (it used to annoy the hell out of me the big wait between WrestleMania and SummerSlam!), but at least there was enough time allocated to the buildup so that when the matchups happened, it actually meant something. Even if it did mean that some feud's weren't blow off on PPV (Warrior/Taker, Martel/Santana)

By going to 16 PPV's each year the only way for WWE to try and keep buyrates up (other than tinkering with the price elasticity of the event) is to increase the level of name talent. But the WWE already has anybody who is anybody under contract, so I have to think it will mean even more events for the big names to tussle with each other - reinforcing the glass ceiling for the midcard - and also to the determent of the "special attraction" which a PPV should have.

Ultimately, each PPV will only be there to shill the next one, and the hated no- finish will become much more commonplace...





Now with 20% less Kellett...

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   AnglesGoldMedals 's Yahoo
Endo
Fella






Posts 454
Registered 4-30-2002
Location Virginia Beach
Member Is Offline

Mood: hypoxic

posted on 2-21-2004 at 07:15 PM Edit Post
Barring a massive price drop, I don't see how this will be supported. Splitting the brands and having the "Big Four" is (IMHO) a nice way of doing things. Gives everyone time to develop good feuds and also lets them throw in a "free per view" every now and then, too, just to keep people watching the show. I don't see them killing the house show circuit, though. Too much PR type stuff going on with that particular branch to kill it off.





"Why do you watch that? It's fake! IT'S FAKE!!" - My mother
"I know." - Me

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member   Endo 's Aim
folby
The Great One






Posts 3399
Registered 9-11-2003
Location schmocation
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 2-21-2004 at 08:54 PM Edit Post
I call bullshit. I don't think McMahon is stupid enough to think he can support 16 PPVs. I mean, when buyrates are down, you don't add more. It just doesn't make sense.

Hell, if you're gonna do 16 PPVs, why not have a wrestling show on 5 nights a week?





Things I have written recently
3/24: On Sandwiches: The Beef on Weck
3/16: The Rage Against The Machine School of Continuing Education
3/15: On Sandwiches Presents: The Best Possible Sandwich Chain

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   folby 's Aim
MrJustinB
Man of a Thousand Holds






Posts 1636
Registered 1-18-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: Blue and Orange

posted on 2-21-2004 at 09:13 PM Edit Post
quote:
Originally posted by folby
I call bullshit. I don't think McMahon is stupid enough to think he can support 16 PPVs. I mean, when buyrates are down, you don't add more. It just doesn't make sense.

Hell, if you're gonna do 16 PPVs, why not have a wrestling show on 5 nights a week?


Sorry if I'm mistaken, but didn't vince start doing IYH PPVs during a downturn in business? It was during Nash's first run, when he was feuding with Sid, no?





"I want to make this shit cool again." - CM Punk

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
folby
The Great One






Posts 3399
Registered 9-11-2003
Location schmocation
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 2-21-2004 at 09:17 PM Edit Post
quote:
Sorry if I'm mistaken, but didn't vince start doing IYH PPVs during a downturn in business? It was during Nash's first run, when he was feuding with Sid, no?
To tell you the truth, I don't know. If I'm off here, someone set me straight. It just seemed to me that it didn't make sense from a business standpoint.





Things I have written recently
3/24: On Sandwiches: The Beef on Weck
3/16: The Rage Against The Machine School of Continuing Education
3/15: On Sandwiches Presents: The Best Possible Sandwich Chain

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   folby 's Aim
doublee
The Immortal One






Posts 4014
Registered 2-9-2003
Location Raleigh, NC
Member Is Offline

Mood: Mr. Jiggy-Fly

posted on 2-21-2004 at 09:23 PM Edit Post
Actually if the numbers that Rick reported in his column are correct this move makes sense to me. If you go and read Rick's column it says that during a conference call this week the WWE stated that only 30% of its viewership base watches both shows on a regular basis meaning that 70% only watch one of the shows religiously.

If these numbers are correct then logic would dictate that those not watching RAW are not buying the RAW only PPVs. I am sure the thinking is that those not watching RAW PPVs would be willing to plunk down money to watch a SD! PPV in the same month.

The main concern I would have with this idea is that they are bound to run into instances where there is only a two or three week turn around between a brand specific PPV and a Split PPV. They have some problems now just getting things in place with a four to five week turn around I question whether they could do it effectively and efficiently with shorter breaks between PPV shows. Really I think this idea could only work if both brands had two shows that people actuall watched and were utilized to promote matches and storylines.

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member This User Has MSN Messenger   doublee 's Yahoo
MrJustinB
Man of a Thousand Holds






Posts 1636
Registered 1-18-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: Blue and Orange

posted on 2-21-2004 at 09:34 PM Edit Post
A real quick google search shows that the original IYH did a .8 (5/14/95) buyrate, and that's the heighest buyrate and IYH would get until Austin/Dude Love at Unforgiven 98, which did a 1.0. During that downturn, btw, IYH dropped as far as .35 for Bret/Sid amongst others.

In case people are wondering, in 1995 Summerslam did a .95, KOTR did a .65, and SurSer did a .55. In contrast (and to show the downturn more accurately) in 1994 Summerslam did a 1.3, KOTR did a .85, SurSer did a .9.

So, yes, Vince has, added PPVs in the past during a downturn.

Here's where I got the info, if anyone's interested. http://www.twnpnews.com/information/wwfiyh.shtml


Edited cause I like to typo.

[Edited on 2-21-2004 by MrJustinB]

[Edited on 2-21-2004 by MrJustinB]





"I want to make this shit cool again." - CM Punk

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
batsnumbereleven
And I am AWESOME






Posts 139
Registered 1-11-2003
Location nr Worcester, England
Member Is Offline

Mood: Auburn

posted on 2-21-2004 at 11:24 PM Edit Post
It's always been WWE's intention to expand the number of PPV's through the Brand split, although I believe that they had originally intended to move at a quicker pace.

One of the conference calls that WWE had about their financials last year mentioned that (though I think they said 2005 rather than 2004) they would be expanding to 16 PPVs/year.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
microplay_24
The Great One






Posts 3193
Registered 1-10-2004
Location Toronto, Ontario
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 2-21-2004 at 11:42 PM Edit Post
I’m assuming 16 payperviews means two extra events for each brand…holy shit….when in the hell is there going to be time to build up feuds logically instead of throwing them on upcoming payperviews??....This might likely happen…

I think there are enough payperviews during the year (12 - one for each month), so I wouldn’t want any more.

Maybe the fed can knock off a brand-specific payperview or two, in order to give time for storylines to unfold properly every week, resulting in (probably) better shows instead of rushed storylines for the sake of throwing matches onto the next payperview that comes up, and maybe, viewership may increase…

Then again, I’m not one that knows much about this stuff, so it’s strictly an opinion.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
folby
The Great One






Posts 3399
Registered 9-11-2003
Location schmocation
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 2-22-2004 at 12:17 AM Edit Post
quote:
Maybe the fed can knock off a brand-specific payperview or two, in order to give time for storylines to unfold properly every week, resulting in (probably) better shows instead of rushed storylines for the sake of throwing matches onto the next payperview that comes up, and maybe, viewership may increase…
On the other hand, more PPVs would allow them to use PPVs as non-blow-off matches more often, and IMO, more effectivly. They could build a I cannot spell 'feud' over several PPVs, etc. It might be nice.

I guess it could go either way.





Things I have written recently
3/24: On Sandwiches: The Beef on Weck
3/16: The Rage Against The Machine School of Continuing Education
3/15: On Sandwiches Presents: The Best Possible Sandwich Chain

View User's Profile Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   folby 's Aim
batsnumbereleven
And I am AWESOME






Posts 139
Registered 1-11-2003
Location nr Worcester, England
Member Is Offline

Mood: Auburn

posted on 2-22-2004 at 10:17 AM Edit Post
Actually, until they get up to 20 PPV's per year, they actually have longer between shows (for each brand) to build up storylines and feuds than they did before the start of the "brand-specific" PPV's.

At the moment each Brand only has 8 PPVs per year - 4 "joint" ones and 4 "Brand specific" ones.

If they are serious about maintaining the brand extension, it's only logical that they would eventually build back up to having a PPV every month for each brand.

I'm sure the wrestlers would be happy with that since, at the moment, I'm not sure that they are getting bonuses from PPV events that are held for the other brand, only for their own. Having an extra 4 events per year will help them, if nothing else (assuming the WWE can continue to get reasonable numbers for the Brand-specific PPVs - at the moment that's kinda touch and go).






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
fsolomon75
American Dream






Posts 8481
Registered 1-25-2002
Location SoCal
Member Is Offline

Mood: WILLIE~!

posted on 2-22-2004 at 05:35 PM Edit Post
2 PPVs every month? So the Fed wants us to pony up $60 a month? That's ballsy with the product they have out there now, Eddie's title win notwithstanding.
View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
promoter2003
The Rowdy One






Posts 2215
Registered 1-24-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

posted on 2-22-2004 at 07:12 PM Edit Post
Speaking of Eddie's title win, the ppv came off the air a whole 45 minutes before the allotted time slot. On our schedule it said the show would be from 8:00pm to 11:15pm. I know it's not really guaranteed, but it was only a half hour longer than a regular smackdown show(regardless of no commercials).
View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
madiq
Crusader for Pure Truth






Posts 2131
Registered 7-5-2002
Location Brooklyn, New York, the capital of the Universe
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 2-22-2004 at 07:45 PM Edit Post
Well, for all you guys who said three years ago that WWE wasn't a monopoly...witness their monopolist-like behavior....
View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member   madiq 's Aim
fsolomon75
American Dream






Posts 8481
Registered 1-25-2002
Location SoCal
Member Is Offline

Mood: WILLIE~!

posted on 2-22-2004 at 07:48 PM Edit Post
Exactly - if they want us to spend money on the product, make it special - not just a bunch of Redneck Triathalons every month.
View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
doublee
The Immortal One






Posts 4014
Registered 2-9-2003
Location Raleigh, NC
Member Is Offline

Mood: Mr. Jiggy-Fly

posted on 2-22-2004 at 09:04 PM Edit Post
I guess I am not sure how adding more PPV shows is necessarily an example of monopolistic behavior. If they were truly acting in a monopolistic way they would not be granting releases to workers like Kanyon, Spanky, D-Lo, and Raven over the past couple of years when they asked for them. They would have refused and made them work out their contracts. Or, they would have granted them under the condition they not work in the US for whatever the length of their contracts were. If they were truly acting like a monopoly they would buying up PPV time opposite of TNA to try and put them out of business.

The only true monopolistic move they have made in the past few years was buying out WCW. All other promotions have failed due to lack of TV exposure and/or sufficient funding not because WWE used its status as the premiere promotion in the business to squash them.

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member This User Has MSN Messenger   doublee 's Yahoo
StratDweller
Banned






Posts 71
Registered 2-2-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 2-22-2004 at 10:06 PM Edit Post
Why does Vince think anyone will pay to see two PPV's a month?

Answer: Because we did.

When WCW was around, there were two full price PPV's a month and we bought them (or we didn't, but we didn't bitch about it).

I think this indicates the brand extention will become deeper in the coming months. It seems only Heyman is really trying to create competition between the brans with his promos.

If Linda was speaking the truth and the fans really are that loyal to one program, then it would make sense to play upon that loyalty and create competition. One side has to bash the other. You have to have one brand 'steal' talent from the other and it has to play out like it did back when WCW and WWE were really at war.

The problem I see is, even casual marks are sort of smart now. WWE RAW and WWE Smackdown might be two different brans, but they are still WWE and THAT is the biggest mistake Vince made.

He should have kept WCW going when he had the chance, because even while owned by the same person (Vince), people would have bought into it being a different brand.

I still say they should create backstage competitiveness. Two creative teams that compete for ratings and buyrates. Every month, the winning side gets a bonus (same with the boys). That's what Heyman suggested and he was bang on.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
madiq
Crusader for Pure Truth






Posts 2131
Registered 7-5-2002
Location Brooklyn, New York, the capital of the Universe
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 2-22-2004 at 10:48 PM Edit Post
quote:
Originally posted by doublee
I guess I am not sure how adding more PPV shows is necessarily an example of monopolistic behavior. If they were truly acting in a monopolistic way they would not be granting releases to workers like Kanyon, Spanky, D-Lo, and Raven over the past couple of years when they asked for them. They would have refused and made them work out their contracts. Or, they would have granted them under the condition they not work in the US for whatever the length of their contracts were. If they were truly acting like a monopoly they would buying up PPV time opposite of TNA to try and put them out of business.

The only true monopolistic move they have made in the past few years was buying out WCW. All other promotions have failed due to lack of TV exposure and/or sufficient funding not because WWE used its status as the premiere promotion in the business to squash them.


Okay, elementary economics time. A true monopolist need not use its status to crush competition. Crushing competition falls under the category of "attempting to monopolize" (section II under the Sherman Act). No, the proper behavior of a monopolist, one that so controls the market so as to skew the pricing for the product, is to raise prices and diminish output. So, one might say that increasing the number of Pay-Per-Views is an example of INCREASING output, but taking a more nuanced approach, the "product" is the wrestling. Everything else can be acquired by wrestling fans from other sources. By rationing out the amount of wrestling provided on Free TV, focusing instead on promoting the "Paid Wrestling Content," WWE is diminishing the amount of wrestling the fanbase can see for the current price. By running a PPV every two weeks instead of every month, WWE is giving us an alternative, albeit a higher priced one, to diminished wrestling content. And therefore the fan has to choose between a lower-volume wrestling supply or a higher-volume wrestling supply, with the price increasing for both.

And oh yeah, nowadays, WWE wrestlers have 30- to 90-day no-compete clauses in their contracts. Look to these to be expanded, as released wrestlers will have to have their employment opportunities curtailed, or pay a fee for the right to be truly free.

And why by TV time opposite TNA? Running a PPV show twice a month means that they are doubling the amount of competition that TNA experiences for PPV buys. Given that they have six hours a week to promote a wrestling event, while TNA has only 1, I'd say that they are doing well in the "put TNA under the gun" department.

Listen, WWE (formerly WWF) is the dominant brand name in wrestling. Period. Maybe WCW was second, and ECW third, or maybe NWA was somewhere in there. But the fact is, They are giving us what THEY want, not what WE want. That is what monopolists do.

****

In a related point, I think that the claims of "brand loyalty" are a bit dubious. SMACKDOWN, by virtue of being on free TV, can garner an audience that can watch the show religiously without being burdened by attempting to find Spike TV on their dial. I'm sure there are a few fans who tire of seeing HHH, and are "boycotting" RAW, but most wrestling fans *I* know, are just that. They may prefer one brand to another, but they try to catch both. They don't specifically choose not to support one brand, it just sort of works out that way. However, increasing the amount of money that dual-brand allegiance will cost may just accelerate the process of splintering the audience, which *can't* be good.

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member   madiq 's Aim
doublee
The Immortal One






Posts 4014
Registered 2-9-2003
Location Raleigh, NC
Member Is Offline

Mood: Mr. Jiggy-Fly

posted on 2-22-2004 at 10:57 PM Edit Post
Well, who is to say that by offering more PPVs they are not giving the fans what they want. I am sure that WWE probably did their homework on this before randomly deciding to offer more shows. I am sure they did some market research to see if they indeed offer another show that there would be some interest in buying it. Are any of us privy to the marketing research that WWE partakes in? Just because you or I may not be interested in buying two PPVs a month does not mean there is not a sizable market out there that will.
View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member This User Has MSN Messenger   doublee 's Yahoo
StratDweller
Banned






Posts 71
Registered 2-2-2004
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 2-22-2004 at 11:52 PM Edit Post
For whatever reason, I have always watched RAW much more religiously then SD. Not sure why, but I just always looked so forward to Monday Night, rather then Thursday.

I will say, I have been enjoyign SD much more since Eddie Guerrero (who I will once again remind everyone came to work for me in his LAST North American Indy appearance before re-signing with the fed in 2002), got his push.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Gobshite
The Great One






Posts 3501
Registered 1-30-2004
Location Right here, in Birmingham, England!!
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 2-24-2004 at 02:24 PM Edit Post
This could be a good thing - If Vince was willing to play with the structure -
Working it out, I see the best way as:

January: Royal Rumble (JOINT)
February: No PPV's at all, build up for WrestleMania (End of Jan to Mid-March)
March: Wrestlemania (JOINT)
April: Backlash (Raw), PPV NAME HERE (Smackdown)
May: Judgement Day (RAW) Fully Loaded (Smackdown)
June: Bad Blood (RAW) Ground Zero (Smackdown)
July: Armageddon (RAW) Vengeance (Smackdown) - Both with KOTR Tourneys
August: SummerSlam (Joint) with each king getting a world title shot.
September: Unforgiven (RAW) No Way Out (Smackdown)
October: PPV NAME HERE (RAW), No Mercy (Smackdown)
November: Survivor Series (JOINT) featuring two raw/smackdown elimination matches, with the raw winners facing the smackdown winners in the main event.
December: No PPV's allowing build up to the Rumble

You could even have the kings face each other at Summerslam - it could give the champ something else to do (or HHH something else to win, and someone else to beat). The point being that the big four are special, as they have some inter promotion matches. And the brand specific PPV's are the only place you see title matches.






View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
promoter2003
The Rowdy One






Posts 2215
Registered 1-24-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood.

posted on 2-24-2004 at 03:40 PM Edit Post
I see it as raw and smackdown are basically wcw and wwf. It's based off nitro vs. raw, but using the wwe name recognition to not create the hierarchy of wwe being above wcw. I suppose Vince saw no value in wcw's name. If you even pay attention to the structure of raw you see it is patterned after wcw with the established stars, while smackdown has more of the young and up and coming stars. What I fear is smackdown being the farm system for raw because how Benoit was groomed for the championship on smackdown. Now it's rumoured Edge will be jumping. There is also a rumour of Brock/Trips.

It's not only Heyman pushing the competition thing as Triple H has been claiming superiority over smackdown's champ recently. The thing is that people know it's one company. They could take the approach of old school major league baseball with having just two leagues and then a play-off season(Rumble to Mania). I think they could differentiate the head of the two groups if they somehow make it seem like Shane overtakes one brand and Stephanie overtakes the other.

I'm not saying for them to be all over the tv as general managers, but as the owners of raw and smackdown instead of Vince showing up on both as chairman(although at the moment I can't see how phasing him out would work). Then it can help make it seem like there is possible competition behind the scenes amongst the children of Mcmahon to top each other.

Gobshite, some fans were thinking that the two ppv shows in June would mean none in July to help strengthen the tv build for SummerSlam, but I doubt they would miss a month. I see the sense in eliminating the December and February ppv shows though. Those two months seem more like an inconvenience than anything. December the build is not good because of the holiday breaks(historically it does bad numbers) and February ppv shows have problems not being predictable or useless because of WM the following month. I ask would this make the house show circuit even weaker? It just makes the live shows even more pointless than they already are.

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by promoter2003]

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by promoter2003]

[Edited on 2-24-2004 by promoter2003]

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
shashwat mishra
Showstopper






Posts 855
Registered 9-27-2002
Location Bhubaneswar, India
Member Is Offline

Mood: Saving Money

posted on 2-24-2004 at 04:58 PM Edit Post
Hate to dig up a old dead horse.

But the split will not last.

There is not enough time on the shows to showcase the entire RAW or SMACKDOWN talent and at the same time not keep repeating the same matches over and over again.

Again because of the split, the undercard seems weak at the Brand Specific PPVs.

The idea behind the split was to give wrestlers more airtime. This is not necessarily happening except in the the case of Eddie Guerrero. Some good people are still on Heat/Velocity, shows which nobody care about.

The worst thing is you just donot get enough different rivalries without getting people to jump rosters. Again, this can never really be even a pseudo WCW versus WWE thing because whenever convenient, a RAW wrestler will show up at smackdown or vice versa.

The damn thing should end. All the management needs is selfcontrol and a little discipline on how much airtime they want to give to Bischoff, HHH, Vince, Orton, Henry etc. There can be lots of new rivalries.

And 8 PPVs are ideal. Keep the audience waiting for the favourite PPV. That makes these events special.





Stuck in the 1980s.

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Poll


go to top


Powered by XMB 1.8 Partagium Final SP1
Developed By Aventure Media & The XMB Group
Processed in 0.1094189 seconds, 22 queries