Mayhem
Scrapple Level: 121
Posts: 2835/3693 EXP: 19608073 For next: 448681
Since: 25.4.03 From: Nashville, TN
Since last post: 2429 days Last activity: 242 days
| #1 Posted on 14.3.07 1659.48 Reposted on: 14.3.14 1700.00 | In a press release (corporate.wwe.com) via their corporate site, WWE has made the decision that beginning with Backlash, all future PPVs will contain stars from RAW, Smackdown & ECW.
I, for one, love this idea because it has the potential to give us some fresh feuds & interactions. Promote this thread! | | ges7184
Lap cheong Level: 83
Posts: 1334/1498 EXP: 5220151 For next: 212093
Since: 7.1.02 From: Birmingham, AL
Since last post: 2169 days Last activity: 2157 days
| #2 Posted on 14.3.07 1721.08 Reposted on: 14.3.14 1722.01 | I believe if you are going to that, you may as well just kill the brand split altogether. I really don't see much point in keeping the brands split up. There are already so many crossovers that the brand concept is becoming pretty meaningless anyway.
(edited by ges7184 on 14.3.07 1722) | Alex
Lap cheong Level: 82
Posts: 608/1494 EXP: 5184004 For next: 25245
Since: 24.2.02
Since last post: 317 days Last activity: 25 days
| #3 Posted on 14.3.07 1908.52 Reposted on: 14.3.14 1910.51 | Huh, so we're back to where we were when the brand split first started in 2002?
also I suppose we're back to everything being exactly the same as it already was because they did crossovers all the time anyway. | Tenken347
Knackwurst Level: 114
Posts: 1199/3258 EXP: 16308241 For next: 1376
Since: 27.2.03 From: Parts Unknown
Since last post: 32 days Last activity: 20 hours
| #4 Posted on 14.3.07 2026.15 Reposted on: 14.3.14 2029.01 | Well, you don't necessarily have to kill the brand split on tv just because you're killing it for PPV. Like WrestleMania, each brand becomes responsible for about half the show (and just like their television product, ECW contributes nothing). Of course, it is a slippery slope, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the brand split totally die out within the next couple years. Which I think is a shame, because I've always been a big proponant of the brand split because it really does give the midcarders a lot more time to shine. If there's one possible silver lining I see coming out of this, it's that maybe they could combine the tag-team rosters and actually wind up with a viable tag-team division across the two brands. | Big Bad
Scrapple Level: 161
Posts: 4298/7062 EXP: 53444839 For next: 668394
Since: 4.1.02 From: Dorchester, Ontario
Since last post: 1918 days Last activity: 1487 days
| #5 Posted on 14.3.07 2051.31 Reposted on: 14.3.14 2052.35 | One of the things I've liked about the build to Wrestlemania this year (especially with the MITB match) is how they're putting over the importance of getting a spot on the WM card and what a major deal it is for the wrestlers. They could continue this theme for future PPVs. Say, Backlash is a 'Raw presents' event that is largely Raw wrestlers, but with 2-3 slots left open for Smackdown and ECW wrestlers. Angles on those shows could then be held between guys competing for a PPV slot. Tenken's idea to have a single tag champion that defends on all three brands is a good one as well. They could do the same with the women's and cruiserweight titles. | Mr. Boffo
Scrapple Level: 124
Posts: 1912/3844 EXP: 21357105 For next: 479557
Since: 24.3.02 From: Oshkosh, WI
Since last post: 3886 days Last activity: 3847 days
| #6 Posted on 14.3.07 2141.22 Reposted on: 14.3.14 2141.29 | Does this mean cutting back on PPVs? It seems like a bad idea to have 15 PPVs a year without splitting them up. | Kane Is Ugly
Kishke Level: 47
Posts: 367/422 EXP: 753417 For next: 12792
Since: 14.7.03 From: Uglyville
Since last post: 5859 days Last activity: 5845 days
| #7 Posted on 14.3.07 2202.31 Reposted on: 14.3.14 2203.39 | I think the idea is to boost buyrates by adding a select few stars from other brands to make the non major PPV's seem important. So, I guess each PPV is still brand specific in a way, its just not 100% focused on the one brand.
So, ONS 2007 is still an ECW PPV, its just not 100% ECW. The idea is a good one, but it means more cross promotion on each show. So, you'll see SD wrestlers on RAW more and vice versa. What it does is weaken the brands more by spreading them out to the other shows. If you're gonna have RAW guys on SD each week, whats the point to even have the different brands? It also takes away spots from guys who can't get matches on multi-brand PPVs. Its hard enough for a guy like Helms to get on a Smackdown PPV, and now he has to comete with ECW and RAW guys taking his spots as well.
It might boost buyrates, but it hurts the little guys and just muddles the brands too much IMO. | BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple Level: 147
Posts: 2094/5690 EXP: 38656072 For next: 782123
Since: 2.1.02
Since last post: 318 days Last activity: 318 days
| #8 Posted on 14.3.07 2216.19 Reposted on: 14.3.14 2219.58 | If they do this they are going to have to go back and combine all the titles again. What's really the point of having two tag titles and IC/US/ECW title and two major world titles.
It will be interesting if they can still land the same buys with all the extra PPVs left to fill with really only one divided roster. | The Vile1
Lap cheong Level: 87
Posts: 1604/1694 EXP: 6183801 For next: 208998
Since: 4.9.02 From: California
Since last post: 5447 days Last activity: 5179 days
| #9 Posted on 14.3.07 2226.14 Reposted on: 14.3.14 2229.01 | Instead they will still be running 16 PPV's this year just like last year and the problems won't really be fixed.
And in 2002 during the brand split they weren't having all the interbrand matches there are now. The brand split is virtually meaningless at this point.
Booking better matches on PPV would be a start. | Quezzy
Scrapple Level: 119
Posts: 2351/3517 EXP: 18780136 For next: 149210
Since: 6.1.02 From: Pittsburgh, PA
Since last post: 1899 days Last activity: 1898 days
| #10 Posted on 14.3.07 2247.15 Reposted on: 14.3.14 2251.34 | I'd love to see one of those secondary titles turned into an inter-brand title. Every ppv whoever holds it has to defend it against somebody on another brand and which ever brand has the wrestler with the title will have bragging rights. | Hokienautic
Lap cheong Level: 84
Posts: 231/1545 EXP: 5469406 For next: 192570
Since: 2.1.02 From: Blacksburg VA
Since last post: 1458 days Last activity: 1443 days
| #11 Posted on 14.3.07 2250.31 Reposted on: 14.3.14 2251.59 | Well, don't eulogize the brand split yet. Just because they're sharing PPVs, that doesn't mean they'll have Raw v Smackdown matches. It could very well be half Raw matches and half Smackdown matches with an ECW match thrown in as well. There won't necessarily be inter-brand matches.
What this'll do, though, is cut out the money going to the undercard for PPV appearances, as the midcard/lower Smackdown and Raw wrestlers won't get on as many PPVs now. I wonder if this change could conceivably effect contracts as many wrestlers likely signed contracts with the expectation that their PPV income would be higher than it now will be. | HMD
Andouille Level: 96
Posts: 1568/2131 EXP: 8773630 For next: 215189
Since: 8.6.02 From: Canada
Since last post: 2532 days Last activity: 2532 days
| #12 Posted on 15.3.07 0005.01 Reposted on: 15.3.14 0006.05 | I can count on one hand the number of brand-specific PPVs I've ever actually bought. Probably less since Eddie died. In 2006 I'm pretty sure I only got NYR, the Rumble, 'Mania, ONS, and Summerslam. So far in '07, just the Rumble. This is the kind of move that may win me back.
Also, it will have a cosmetic sort of effect, I think. If your PPV roster is Shawn/Edge/Cena/HHH/Jeff Hardy/Orton from RAW, Punk/Lashley from ECW and Booker/Mysterio/Kennedy/Batista/Undertaker from SD, your pay-per-views just will just seem like a bigger deal. As much as I like some undercard guys, your David Thorns, Hardcore Hollys, Bogeymen, MVPs, and Masterpieces ain't exactly contributing a lot to the stature of your pay shows. Especially for what they're charging for this shit these days. | The Vile1
Lap cheong Level: 87
Posts: 1606/1694 EXP: 6183801 For next: 208998
Since: 4.9.02 From: California
Since last post: 5447 days Last activity: 5179 days
| #13 Posted on 15.3.07 2307.15 Reposted on: 15.3.14 2307.21 | Won't this run the risk of burning a lot of your workers out? If they are now just not working RAW and Smackdown, but now 16 PPV's a year as well (I believe they are running 16 this year like last year as well). I think it's dangerous not just for the workers, but it will over-expose them and burn them out with the viewers as well.
This will be a short-term fix at best. | dMp
Knackwurst Level: 111
Posts: 1759/3003 EXP: 14819582 For next: 48824
Since: 4.1.02 From: The Hague, Netherlands (Europe)
Since last post: 256 days Last activity: 3 days
| #14 Posted on 16.3.07 0253.11 Reposted on: 16.3.14 0255.53 | I think people are reading too much into this. They never said guys from SD would appear on Raw or on ECW and vica versa.
They just build towards the same ppv with their angles. Not unlike for the big 4. They have had joined PPVs without crossover matches.
Plus it can actually make for better stories, as now they won't have to go "I challenge you for the title..in two months!"
| DJ FrostyFreeze
Scrapple Level: 119
Posts: 2427/3467 EXP: 18386012 For next: 543334
Since: 2.1.02 From: Hawthorne, CA
Since last post: 128 days Last activity: 128 days
| #15 Posted on 16.3.07 1232.16 Reposted on: 16.3.14 1237.57 | Originally posted by The Vile1 Won't this run the risk of burning a lot of your workers out? If they are now just not working RAW and Smackdown, but now 16 PPV's a year as well (I believe they are running 16 this year like last year as well). I think it's dangerous not just for the workers, but it will over-expose them and burn them out with the viewers as well.
This doesnt really change either roster's schedule at all, except for ECW because I dont remember if they work weekends & house shows or not.
But SD works Sat, Sun, Mon, Tue, and RAW works Fri, Sat, Sun, Mon. Regardless of which PPV's you or your brand are appearing on, everyone still works on Sundays. I dont think this has any effect on anyone's schedules at all. | Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni Level: 73
Posts: 216/1117 EXP: 3325718 For next: 160167
Since: 27.6.02
Since last post: 3506 days Last activity: 728 days
| #16 Posted on 16.3.07 1513.23 Reposted on: 16.3.14 1515.59 | Speaking of house shows, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be inter-brand affairs as well? I know the last few times WWE has come through town the Raw house shows have far outdrawn the Smackdown/ECW combo shows. | OMEGA
Lap cheong Level: 88
Posts: 1707/1747 EXP: 6508381 For next: 142309
Since: 18.6.02 From: North Cacalacky
Since last post: 5376 days Last activity: 2981 days
| #17 Posted on 16.3.07 2307.31 Reposted on: 16.3.14 2307.50 | Well, I certainly feel bad for the lower-card guys. Sure, this is great for the upper-card guys, who are now getting more PPV payoffs. But this could take a nice chunk out of the wallets of guys like Gregory Helms and Paul London and Kenny Dykstra, who'll probably end up not getting too many PPV slots. Which is the main-reason I support keeping the brand-extension around. Killing it would mean that a LOT of guys lose their jobs. | TheOldMan
Landjager Level: 67
Posts: 74/937 EXP: 2517569 For next: 75317
Since: 13.2.03 From: Chicago
Since last post: 3276 days Last activity: 1488 days
| #18 Posted on 19.3.07 1701.38 Reposted on: 19.3.14 1703.17 | [quoted from the press release]
“We have seen over the past two years that WWE pay-per-views have significantly better buy rates when more than one WWE brand is involved,” said Kurt Schneider, Executive Vice President, Marketing. “WrestleMania, with an average of one million buys per event over the past three years, is the perfect example. This new direction will give our fans more of what they want in every one of our pay-per-views.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sounds like typical corporate spin to convince financial analysts that earnings growth will continue. But isn't it fairly obvious that PPV buys are bigger for WM, SS, and RR because that's where the big builds lead to, the big money matches are featured, and historically they are known by the audience as the big ones? You can say that you may get some extra buys if you can put a Benoit/Finlay match on in place of say, Sandman/Striker - but does anyone on this board think that the E is going to build more feuds for the existing PPV spots?
They can continue to add a PPV per year to massage gross revenues, but I just can't envision the storytelling improving to a point where this will make a meaningful difference in the long run. At least for the existing PPV-buyers, it should result in better matches, better value - but all this means is that they have more choices to book those last-minute added matches/gimmick matches to try and swing the occasional buyers to spend their $40.
That, or top-level feuds may be extended, or burned-out more quickly. The big three will remain the big three, and the other 12 or 13 shows will always rise or fall on the main event programs. In a perverse way, one show that could be more enticing under this plan is One Night Stand 2007, if held in the Hammerstein with say... Lashley/Snitsky, Punk/Burke and special added feature HHH/Orton headlining.
(It's not like you're going to increase church attendance in August by putting up the manger set, right?) | CTX
Chourico Level: 39
Posts: 122/264 EXP: 383241 For next: 21534
Since: 11.5.02
Since last post: 2647 days Last activity: 1589 days
| #19 Posted on 19.3.07 1711.28 Reposted on: 19.3.14 1711.28 | Originally posted by dMp Plus it can actually make for better stories, as now they won't have to go "I challenge you for the title..in two months!"
Yeah, those two-month long build-ups are a bitch...
The idea of them having all three shows building towards 16 PPV's a year makes me happy I gave up watching last year. | HMD
Andouille Level: 96
Posts: 1570/2131 EXP: 8773630 For next: 215189
Since: 8.6.02 From: Canada
Since last post: 2532 days Last activity: 2532 days
| #20 Posted on 19.3.07 1908.29 Reposted on: 19.3.14 1908.43 | Y'know, it'd be real interesting to figure out the lowest acceptable number of buys they need to do in order to be profitable. With the prices at an all-time high in addition to having more shows than necessary, it seems there's bound to be a terminal velocity point for this business model. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |