The W
Views: 101555617
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.12.14 1728
The W - Pro Wrestling - WWE Network = No More PPVs.
This thread has 18 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.88
Pages: 1
(777 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (17 total)
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.12
http://rajah.com/node/32797

I did try to find the article on 4-traders, but I got the stock price which is $8.67 and down .17%. The big news is that for WWE to break even, they need a million subscribers. Once they reach that number, it sounds like PPVS will be gone. Which sorta makes sense. They won't have to deal with the PPV middle man just the cable and satellite middle men. The question is then, will they run big events once a month or will it just be the big 4 if you had the subscription, you sorta break even on that depending on if you do HD or not. So, any thoughts?



The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
Promote this thread!
Tribal Prophet
Andouille








Since: 9.1.02
From: Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.80
No more PPVs with the network???

Thank God the network will never work!
thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.30
The "over time" is the key part. The network would have to reach a critical mass of subscribes in both the US and the rest of the world, for the PPV method to be unnecessary. Anyone who subscribes to the channel will get the non-major shows for free (they've already gone on the record saying WM will NOT be on the channel), but they're not going to take away the ability to buy PPVs for people who don't have the ability to buy the network.

Even then, having a major card every 4 weeks is the draw for the network - if they don't have that, it's a lot of stuff not worth paying $12 for on their own. It may not be billed as a PPV, but the content has to be above and beyond what you already get on free TV. There's still going to "PPVs", they just may call them something else if this succeeds.



thecubsfan.com - luchablog
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.45
I would happily pay $12.99 to $14.99 a month for a WWE Network RIGHT NOW, assuming it's in HD. We pay more than that for frickin' The Movie Channel and I'm certain that merely on "PPVs" alone, I'd watch WWEN more than I watch TMC.

Before you say that WWE is missing out on a monthly $49.95 or $54.95 or whatever it is by cannibalizing their PPV business this way, you must know that currently, WWE is getting $0.00 a month for me, so I'm sure they'd much rather get the WWEN subscription as soon as they can.



Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 132 days
Last activity: 91 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.73
Yeah, WWE 24/7 (Classics On Demand?) is $8/month in my market and they've barely any content the last time I looked (I have a tivo, thus no on-demand content)

I think they were aiming for $13/month, which, if it includes the current on-demand stuff would be quite the value.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark


"Don't stop after beating the swords into ploughshares, don't stop! Go on beating and make musical instruments out of them. Whoever wants to make war again will have to turn them into ploughshares first" - Yehuda Amichai
Matt Tracker
Scrapple








Since: 8.5.03
From: North Carolina

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.80
A network would allow for greater coverage before and after the PPVs too. It could be a whole evening of live material, if they wanted. An in-studio crew for the pregame and postgame analysis. Longer interviews. Better use of previous matches to sell the story of the PPV bouts. If they want to be truly "sports entertainment," they gotta compete with the true sport-TV packaging.

Also, they could counter-program TNA PPVs as they like.



"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
Alex
Bratwurst








Since: 24.2.02

Since last post: 25 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.31
It's too bad that I don't have cable, I would readily pay $15 a month for something I could stream through my laptop or PS3.
CHAPLOW
Morcilla








Since: 14.5.04
From: right behind you

Since last post: 188 days
Last activity: 188 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.64
I'd say this network has a bigger chance of succeeding if they throw in WWE movies and plenty of other wrestling beside WWE. Like maybe they can televise promotions that wouldnt get TV time otherwise from not just the U.S. but even Japan and elsewhere. Throw in episodes of Nitro and AWA etc weekly, and really have a lot of content on the network that's not just CM Punk. Cena, Orton and friends because the amount of hours we see them weekly is already a bit much in my opinion.

It seems reasonable this is the route they would go with the sheer amount of content they have in stock, but WWE is good at misusing all of the time they have on RAW so I can't really say this network will be built to succeed.
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.12
I still believe their best bet is to take Smackdown off Syfy and put it on the network. I wouldn't move Raw since its still one of the highest rated shows and probably makes some good money all the while being on cable to advertise the new network. If it were me, I would set up the line like this.

Mondy-Raw pre and post shows maybe even Raw simulcasting.

Tuesday-Smackdown.

Wednesday-Old School Raw.

Thursday-WCW Night.

Friday-ECW Night.

Saturday-Spotlight a wrestler or a DVD that got released last month.

Sunday-PPV or a repeat of the last PPV or PPV names coming that month.

(edited by lotjx on 24.3.13 0638)


The Wee Baby Sheamus.Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 10 hours
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.48
    Originally posted by lotjx
    I wouldn't move Raw since its still one of the highest rated shows and probably makes some good money all the while being on cable to advertise the new network.


That is an interesting situation to be in. Would it be worth it to have higher ratings, but sharing the ad revenue with USA, or to have smaller ratings but keep all of the ad revenue?

I think moving RAW to their network would help the subscriber numbers, esp if they up the quality before the move. Make it must see again, like during the Monday Night Wars.



-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --
FuellyFuelly

-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend --
Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 132 days
Last activity: 91 days
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.73
Until the most recent move back, there was no profit sharing from commercials, Vince kept it all *AND* the channel paid for the WWE programming.

Vince would be silly to move Raw from USA to WWN, as they're actually promoting the show outside the Raw time period now, and if they pulled Raw/Smackdown from the Universal channels the company would be dead within a year.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark


"Don't stop after beating the swords into ploughshares, don't stop! Go on beating and make musical instruments out of them. Whoever wants to make war again will have to turn them into ploughshares first" - Yehuda Amichai
Matt Tracker
Scrapple








Since: 8.5.03
From: North Carolina

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.80
I would pay just for a static RAW camera shot for the whole show. No announcers. No commercial breaks. Have your regular RAW broadcast on USA and a simultaneous "virtual box seat" for the WWE Network.



"To be the man, you gotta beat demands." -- The Lovely Mrs. Tracker
Tribal Prophet
Andouille








Since: 9.1.02
From: Winnipeg, MB, Canada

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 2 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.80
    Originally posted by Mike Zeidler

    Vince would be silly to move Raw from USA to WWN, as they're actually promoting the show outside the Raw time period now, and if they pulled Raw/Smackdown from the Universal channels the company would be dead within a year.


That's the biggest problem with moving RAW and/or Smackdown to the network. The company would then become an island onto itself, unable to properly promote itself to the general audience.

It sounds great to say they could move RAW to the network and make some more money off extra subscriptions, but they'd lose any way they have of bringing in new fans, and eventually would die as a company.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 14 hours
Last activity: 1 hour
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.45
Rights fees are very lucrative for WWE at the moment. It would be incredibly foolish to move Smackdown OR RAW while NBC Universal is paying so handsomely to air it. Even Main Event is bringing in a good chunk from ION.



edoug
Summer sausage








Since: 13.2.04
From: Maine

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#15 Posted on
    Originally posted by CRZ
    Rights fees are very lucrative for WWE at the moment. It would be incredibly foolish to move Smackdown OR RAW while NBC Universal is paying so handsomely to air it. Even Main Event is bringing in a good chunk from ION.


USA and WWE have been great partners but how much does Comcast now owning NBC/Universal affect things?

(edited by edoug on 26.3.13 0232)


Mike Zeidler
Pepperoni








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 132 days
Last activity: 91 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.73
Not much, Bonnie Hammer (who's been Vince's pal for decades) has actually been put in charge of more networks under Comcast's reign, and of course, Raw's been expanded to three hours post-Comcast buyout.

Unless Vince does something terribly stupid, I doubt Raw will ever leave USA again.



"Tattoos are the mullets of the aughts." - Mike Naimark


"Don't stop after beating the swords into ploughshares, don't stop! Go on beating and make musical instruments out of them. Whoever wants to make war again will have to turn them into ploughshares first" - Yehuda Amichai
edoug
Summer sausage








Since: 13.2.04
From: Maine

Since last post: 7 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#17 Posted on
    Originally posted by Mike Zeidler
    Not much, Bonnie Hammer (who's been Vince's pal for decades) has actually been put in charge of more networks under Comcast's reign, and of course, Raw's been expanded to three hours post-Comcast buyout.

    Unless Vince does something terribly stupid, I doubt Raw will ever leave USA again.


Thanks, I'm not watching as much as I used to but it's nice it'll be sticking around.



Thread rated: 5.88
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Inducting Bruno into the WWE Hall Of Fame...
Next thread: On This (Yester)Day: WCW Prime - March 25, 1996
Previous thread: On This (Yester)Day: WCW Nitro - March 25, 1996
(777 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
For me personally I still like From the Vault better, I'm a huge HBK mark. I beleive the quality of the matches are better on the HBK DVD and that the blurring on the DVDs takes up about 40% of the Foley DVD and is almost non-existant on the HBK DVD.
- hhhgamewmx7, Mick Foley: A Life in Wrestling (2004)
Related threads: NY POST: WWE "cable network can't get off the mat" - The correlation of returning Superstars & WWE Network - The WWE Network is Coming (Eventually)! - More...
The W - Pro Wrestling - WWE Network = No More PPVs.Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.454 seconds.