|
Post by FailedGimmick on Jul 27, 2011 15:51:53 GMT -5
Did fake Clinton take up a large chunk of a PPV?
|
|
Steveweiser
Dalek
Mickie Mickie You're So Fine... Hey Mickie!
THE GRAPS
Posts: 50,249
|
Post by Steveweiser on Jul 27, 2011 15:52:36 GMT -5
Just to clarify, Meltzer reports it did 83k domestic, fourth all time worst.
|
|
|
Post by derrtaysouth95 on Jul 27, 2011 15:53:22 GMT -5
That's good for WWE that their buyrates was up.
There is a lot more they could be doing with their ppvs.
|
|
|
Post by Bishblast on Jul 27, 2011 15:54:14 GMT -5
Did fake Clinton take up a large chunk of a PPV? I'm not sure, but his appearances I can remember were just beyond terrible. Couple in Pettingil, and ... ugh.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Jul 27, 2011 16:07:13 GMT -5
From Meltzer
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Jul 27, 2011 21:09:20 GMT -5
What is everyone's problem with properly spelling "Kane." The guy has been using the name for 14 years. Geeeesh!
|
|
Phil Parent
El Dandy
Your Favourite Teacher
Posts: 8,508
|
Post by Phil Parent on Jul 27, 2011 23:12:12 GMT -5
The longer Fake Clinton appearence was the one on PPV where he had IRS and Ted DiBiase in his presidential box.
AND, fake Clinton actually was a convincing lookalike and soundalike.
Fake Obama, not quite so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2011 23:20:06 GMT -5
I figured it'd do decently, but damn was that show bad.
Edit: And now I see the actual number later in the thread. About what the show deserved. Though given the build was alright, it makes me wonder if Money in the Bank will do as well as everyone's expecting - don't forget it underperformed last year.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Jul 28, 2011 3:03:32 GMT -5
I don't get why sheets like the Observer have now started to list the US buys seperately. They never used to, they'd just include them all in together.
If your domestic buys are a problem, you want to increase them but also the onus is on you to increase your overseas buys.
Looks like they have. But I guess that's not as interesting a story as "4th lowest US buys!".
I can certainly think of a few films where all the focus was on the US gross and they were labelled bombs, despite doing much larger business internationally and turning a healthy profit. It's kinda elitist in a way, as if only the US tallies count.
|
|
|
Post by avenger on Jul 28, 2011 3:28:26 GMT -5
I don't get why sheets like the Observer have now started to list the US buys seperately. They never used to, they'd just include them all in together. The Observer always has, when it can - it's the sheets that take from the Observer that generally haven't. Although, it's only been in recent years that the WWE have been able to sell PPV outside the US. The UK had all the PPV events available on a sports subscription channel until 2004 (I think apart from that spell when a handful were on free to air delay). And even now some PPV events are still shown on a sports subscription channel, rather than PPV, which will fluctuate the buyrates. I figured it'd do decently, but damn was that show bad. Edit: And now I see the actual number later in the thread. About what the show deserved. Though given the build was alright, it makes me wonder if Money in the Bank will do as well as everyone's expecting - don't forget it underperformed last year. MITB was on a sports subscription channel in the UK (I believe it was last year too), rather than on PPV, so the overseas will be significantly lower - after all, the UK is likely to be the third biggest PPV market after the US and Canada.
|
|
|
Post by Free Hat on Jul 28, 2011 3:33:31 GMT -5
What is everyone's problem with properly spelling "Kane." The guy has been using the name for 14 years. Geeeesh! I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but that's actually referring to UFC Heavyweight Champion Cain Velasquez.
|
|
|
Post by lewis1711 on Jul 28, 2011 3:33:52 GMT -5
I don't get why sheets like the Observer have now started to list the US buys seperately. They never used to, they'd just include them all in together. If your domestic buys are a problem, you want to increase them but also the onus is on you to increase your overseas buys. Looks like they have. But I guess that's not as interesting a story as "4th lowest US buys!". I can certainly think of a few films where all the focus was on the US gross and they were labelled bombs, despite doing much larger business internationally and turning a healthy profit. It's kinda elitist in a way, as if only the US tallies count. Yeah at the end of the day a buy is a buy - maybe us non-US buys don't count cause we're terrorists?
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Jul 28, 2011 4:21:35 GMT -5
The Observer always has, when it can - it's the sheets that take from the Observer that generally haven't. Although, it's only been in recent years that the WWE have been able to sell PPV outside the US. The UK had all the PPV events available on a sports subscription channel until 2004 (I think apart from that spell when a handful were on free to air delay). And even now some PPV events are still shown on a sports subscription channel, rather than PPV, which will fluctuate the buyrates. That's interesting. Cheers! Though, I still hold that buys are buys. If Summerslam does 600k and 590k of them are from...I dunno, Australia, if I'm the WWE I'm simply pleased with 600k. You'd still want to look to get those US buys way up, sure, but still - 600k. Probably start making the wrestlers wear corked hats and carry a didgeridoo to the ring as well, if they got 590k buys in Australia...
|
|
Madagascar Fred
El Dandy
TAFKA roidzilla and SUFFERIN' SUCCOTASH SON!
Posts: 8,784
|
Post by Madagascar Fred on Jul 28, 2011 6:08:05 GMT -5
point is, international buyers don't spend as much money as Americans
in Germany, the PPV cost 15€ (approx. 20 US-$)
so WWE gets more money if more Americans buy the PPV (hence the Capitol Punishment PPV theme!?)
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jul 28, 2011 8:34:09 GMT -5
I don't get why sheets like the Observer have now started to list the US buys seperately. They never used to, they'd just include them all in together. If your domestic buys are a problem, you want to increase them but also the onus is on you to increase your overseas buys. Looks like they have. But I guess that's not as interesting a story as "4th lowest US buys!". I can certainly think of a few films where all the focus was on the US gross and they were labelled bombs, despite doing much larger business internationally and turning a healthy profit. It's kinda elitist in a way, as if only the US tallies count. Yeah at the end of the day a buy is a buy - maybe us non-US buys don't count cause we're terrorists? It'd actually be because you pay a shitton less than the US so WWE makes far less off of non-US buys. Basically it takes 3 or 4 non-US buys to equal one US buy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2011 8:36:31 GMT -5
point is, international buyers don't spend as much money as Americans in Germany, the PPV cost 15€ (approx. 20 US-$) so WWE gets more money if more Americans buy the PPV (hence the Capitol Punishment PPV theme!?) THIS. Also, a majority of the WWE's live events and TV tapings happen in the US. If the buyrates in America are rising, it can indicate that more people want to watch your shows which leads to more tickets being sold, more merchandise being bought at those shows etc etc.
|
|