--Wrestlemania was a huge success on PPV this year with 940,000 buys estimated at this point, so it's just below all-time record levels.
So the question is WHAT exactly sold people on the show this year? A specific match, the marketing/advertising strategy, or the name of Wrestlemania alone?
There are so many factors to consider, but using WWE logic the people who should, and hopefully will, get the credit are Cena and Batista. This show was built on their title challenges. The buyrate should be seen as a reflection of that.
1. Money in the Bank Match...6 top guys, ladder match
2. Kurt Angle v. Shawn Michaels...This match singlehandedly led to me ordering Mania, the above match only made it much more while.
3. Austin/Hogan/Piper appearances...no wrestling, but big names for the casual fans.
4. The Batista momentum...did anyone honestly think HHH was gonna keep the belt??
XX was a better show IMO, but HBK/Angle was just awesome to watch, and the money in the bank match was great too...the undercard being better than the upper card, go figure.
I really don't think it was the special appearances by Austin and Piper so much that it was a very well built up, excellently marketed show. The build-up IMHO to the main event was certainly more interesting and well done than last year. Although the main event wasn't very good . They were able to spend a lot more money on the marketing to the event this year since it was a smaller venue, and it showed.
But still you had Michaels/Angle which was a long awaited dream match, a 6 man ladder match, and HHH/Batista, which before Mania was built up very well but after that match its lost steam and seriously overstayed its welcome.
Overall, I'd still say XX was a better more satisfying show.
Buyrates for the last few Manias (From Wrestling Info. Archive):
2000 2.35 2001 2.18 2002 1.60 2003 1.40 2004 1.63
(edited by The Vile1 on 25.4.05 1650)
"Don't compare my arm...to your cheap arm!" -Edward Elric
The main factors I think sold the show was the WrestleMania name and the overall card. Because i think the card did look better then last year. You had extremely popular challengers vs. extremely hated champions, very intruging matches like HBK/Angle, Money in the Bank, Rey/Eddie and Taker/Orton. Also the nostalgia of Austin/Piper/Hogan and the hall of fame.
As regards buy rates the No.1 WrestleMania is WrestleMania X-Seven in 2001 with 950,000. WrestleMania X8 in 2002 did 850,000 and WrestleMaia XX in 2004 did 825,000. So this Mania may very well be No. 1 but it is No. 2 as it stands now.
I'll doublecheck, and I'm not smart enough to distinguish between just counting U.S. buys vs. counting worldwide buys, but off the top of my head it had heretofore gone
and then some order of SummerSlam 98 and 99, Rumble 99 and 02, Starrcade 97, and Backlash 00.
This year's show was on PPV in the UK for the first time or some such, which increases the potential # of buyers, but to what extent exactly I haven't seen.
Well, this show appealed to all people. Technical marks had Michaels v. Angle and the ladder match. Casual fans had Hogan, Piper, Austin.
But the main reason this show did well was that simply Batista and Cena are new faces in their basically their first main event slots as top tier guys going after long running heel champions. Also, people more or less knew that the heel champs were gonna lose.
I think it was such a smartly built up PPV. Something for everyone. And let's face it, Cena and Batista are drawing really, really well. If this keeps up, and they give the rub to some of the newer challengers (Edge and Christian perhaps) this could be the beginning of a great period for the E.
Originally posted by rvjgdThere have been Wrestlemanias on PPV before in the UK.
No, there haven't. It was shown for free on Sky Sports in previous years.
It's all wrestling. You don't understand it, you don't like it. Why should you? Wrestling is for everybody, you included, but not exclusively. It may not be your wrestling but it's wrestling to somebody somewhere.
There seems to be confusion over the Sky deal and i can confirm what Weevil says, this was the first time EVER that UK viewers paid to see a WrestleMania.
Originally posted by rvjgdWhen Sky Box Office first launched, that year's Wrestlemania was PPV, but since then they have been part of Sky Sports subscription until this year.
Which one was that? You may be right because I was too young to remember.
Originally posted by rvjgdWhen Sky Box Office first launched, that year's Wrestlemania was PPV, but since then they have been part of Sky Sports subscription until this year.
No it wasn't.
Wrestlemania has never been PPV in the UK before. In fact up until 2003 the only shows to be on Box Office were the old UK-only PPV's.
Oh man, I can't beleive I forgot about this one. Not only was the whole thing loads of fun, but this is a match that should be required viewing for aspiring wrestlers because of Jerry Lawler giving a PhD-level course in heel psychology.
Thread rated: 3.38
#
#
#
. They were able to spend a lot more money on the marketing to the event this year since it was a smaller venue, and it showed.
#
