WWE PPV Buyrates Take a Hit

[Matt Dunn]

10-12 PPVs a year should suffice.

[Banecat]

I can see why, the WWE product is absolutely terrible the past year. They've become patronizing to even tweens. I blame it on Rey Mysterio.

[waluigi]

Let's look at the real issue. WWE tried to sell a show where the main concept was four wrestlers fighting at once.

Raise your hand if you thought that would be a good idea.

[Can you afford to pay me, Gah]

Aug 5, 2010 10:45:04 GMT -5 Shaq-Fu said:

I honestly think that wrestling in general is just inexorably moving away from the PPV market. Greater costs, defanged gimmicks and flawed builds are all contributing factors, but even without these PPVs (except for special one-off ones, like WM) are part of a dying system.

Heck, with TNA I'd be surprised if they're still running monthly PPVs in three years time, given how badly they've been struggling.

Because there over priced. 45 bucks is way to much. Remember when WM cost that and everything else was like 30 bucks? Yeah that was during the biggest run for wrestling since the 80s during the late 90's.

The reason why both TNA and WWE are lossing viewers is not because just UFC. It's because the WWE is giving us this crappy water down product and charging more for that crappy product. They suffer because they are not giving the fans Must see TV.

TNA the same thing. Nothing they do is being built up as must see TV. There PPV suffer is because they don't have a clue how to promote it and make the PPV mean something. When there sitting there giving the dream matches away on Impact. Why buy the PPV. Hell there next PPV built is a perfect example why TNA is getting low rates. They anounced one match for it. And instead of builting the event. They instead make anouncements for the big PPV matches (Eric Bischoff himself said it) for the next Impact which is after there PPV. But yet nothing about the PPV.

So you came blame UFC or whatever. It there products and what they charge is why there low.

\

[AriadosMan]

By the end of this decade, the 12 PPV system will be history.
Although the recession has gone a long way to help kill it.
The 45 dollar PPV could be justified if there were only 6 a year at that price. 12 is far too much.

[rnrk supports BLM]

Didn't Breaking Point tank last year as well, whereas some of the other rebranded PPVs showed modest gains?

What that should've made obvious is that adding gimmicks to the PPVs is only going to help buyrates when its gimmicks people want to pay money to watch. A Fatal Fourway match is not inherently exciting enough to sell a PPV on.

We've already got "only" 13 WWE PPVs this year, which is the fewest in a while. Looks like they could stand to lose a few more, and soon.

[AriadosMan]

Aug 5, 2010 22:15:58 GMT -5 rnrk supports BLM said:

Didn't Breaking Point tank last year as well, whereas some of the other rebranded PPVs showed modest gains?

What that should've made obvious is that adding gimmicks to the PPVs is only going to help buyrates when its gimmicks people want to pay money to watch. A Fatal Fourway match is not inherently exciting enough to sell a PPV on.

We've already got "only" 13 WWE PPVs this year, which is the fewest in a while. Looks like they could stand to lose a few more, and soon.

They can either decrease PPV cost and increase the number or increase the cost and decrease the number. 13 is more than UFC does. Keeping it static at 13 and continuing to increase cost is a stupid idea.

[Nikki Heyman]

I think it was brought up previously, but if you're a regular viewer of the televised product you can skip the PPV completely, get all the results on the following week's show, and THEN decide if you want to see it. From there, you can spend a couple of bucks on a rental or $15-$25 on a DVD as a keeper. That's worth waiting a couple of months, as a friend of mine (who used to order PPVs religiously) has resigned himself to doing.

If the PPV price dropped back down to $30 for all the non Big Four PPVs, maybe put Rumble, Summerslam and Survivor Series at $40 and Mania at $50 there wouldn't be so much hesitation. Fans might invest in the live show if the difference is $5 and a few weeks.

Of course, a lot of PPVs also suffer bleed-offs from sites that show the PPV for free - if you can get there without hudreds of popups, malware and viruses.

[butmom]

How are little 10 year old boys going to order PPVs? Their parents either don't like wrestling at all or they don't like the current product.

[AriadosMan]

Aug 6, 2010 1:04:07 GMT -5 @butmom said:

How are little 10 year old boys going to order PPVs? Their parents either don't like wrestling at all or they don't like the current product.

There's another problem. In an age when alot of people won't even buy DVDs and just use Netflix, the concept of a casual buy of a PPV for $45 seems really daunting. You can get people to pool their money for Wrestlemania, but things like Fatal Four Way and Over the Limit don't have that prestige.

[Gerard Gerard]

On another note, these figures aren't gonna lead to any radical change. I mean, you could lop off another 5 million from that and the WWE'd still pursue the same paths. In WWE land, logic dictates that tough times aren't incentive to mix-it-up but merely more reason to cling on to the same formula as it's too risky to jeopardize present income for future, speculative potential.

[AriadosMan]

I wonder if they'll rebrand the PPVs again?

[wcw]

WWE should just go to a 6 PPV a year model charge 50 bucks each and just build each one like its worth a damm. Having 13 or more PPV's a year is just overkill and your consumers are telling you that with their wallets.

January Royal Rumble
March Wrestle Mania
May King of the Ring
July Summer Slam
September Clash of the Champions
November Survivor Series

50 bucks each (Except for Wrestle Mania) and bam you have a nice effective PPV model that actually helps creative because now they don't have to rush builds for matches.

[thegame415]

Prices are too much...and the product isn't as hot. If it were 2000, sure, people would pay that much for a PPV. Not now, with WWE not very hot.

[Ryushinku]

Can anyone else say if my sums are right?

No argument the buys are well down, but only losing about $26,000 compared to losing $1.2million as suggested on the front page would be quite a difference.

[Branimal]

Aug 6, 2010 1:51:55 GMT -5 @wcw said:

WWE should just go to a 6 PPV a year model charge 50 bucks each and just build each one like its worth a damm. Having 13 or more PPV's a year is just overkill and your consumers are telling you that with their wallets.

January Royal Rumble
March Wrestle Mania
May King of the Ring
July Summer Slam
September Clash of the Champions
November Survivor Series

50 bucks each (Except for Wrestle Mania) and bam you have a nice effective PPV model that actually helps creative because now they don't have to rush builds for matches.

Replace Clash with "Fall Brawl" and add the War Games and you've sold me. OR leave it as is and add the War Games to Survivor Series.

I really, really want War Games.

[cobrafan]

Not surprising.

With the economy still in the crapper...most working families are struggling to stay afloat. Wrestling is the least thing on their minds these days.

Maybe if they didn't charge $40+ bucks per month to watch their programs they would have more buyers. In these times they should be scaling back and reducing their shows instead of going full speed ahead and second guessing themselves as to why they're not doing so hot.

[bob]

that is what happens when you charge an arm and a leg for PPVs

EDIT

epsecially with the economy in shambles

[phenomphan]

2 things: Too expensive and product is just not interesting.
I remember back in the mid/late 90's, during the peaks of the Attitude Era that PPV's were $29.95. Not only that but the product was actually worth buying. The storylines were truly like a soap opera week in and week out with captivating twists and turns leading up to the big PPV. Nowadays you can miss weeks of programming and still know what's going on. As mentioned before it's way too predictable and watered down these days, not to mention catered to the kids. WWE can spin this any way they like, but numbers don't lie.

[BarrelO]

I don't know how much of the blame you can put on the product. Wrestlemania was built up really well and looked great on paper, but it also did a disappointing buyrate.

My favorite part of this news was Vince's attempt to spin it. He placed part of the blame on the absence of guys like HBK, Batista, HHH, and Undertaker (all of whom were present for the aforementioned Wrestlemania). He also blamed the volcano. Seriously.