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.
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) The Bored are already here. Idle hands are the devil's workshop. And no... we won't kill dolphins. But koalas are fair game.
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.
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.
I don't know what is more disquieting -- the fact that the rest of the statue is missing, or that it has four toes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by The Vile1Won'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.
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.
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.
“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?)
Originally posted by dMpPlus 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.
WCW Archive WCW Magazine Archive - Ongoing WCW Magazine archive. Includes cover scans, contents, release dates and more for over 100 publications. WCW Promotional Ads Archive - Now featuring over 150 promotional ads, including everything from PPV's to the WCW Hotline. WCW VHS Archive - Currently serving mainly as an image gallery for almost all WCW VHS releases, but will eventually host full information for each release.
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.
Thread ahead: WM Mania Madness (WWE.com) Next thread: More wrestlers linked to steroids Previous thread: When We Were Marks: An Unreasonable Accomodation
Thread rated: 4.78
#
#
#
