Brand Specific PPV

[Sparkybob]

Just a thought that came up when I was re watching old Jbl stuff. The brand specific PPV started at Bad Blood 2003 and ended after NYR 2007 when the WWE started to allow both brands to compete in all PPV not just the big 4. So did you enjoy this strategy or prefer the current PPV strategy?

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

I like the current PPV model. The only real problem with it is that with two World Titles, one title will always be "lesser" than the other.

[thecrusherwi]

I never thought I'd say this, but I kind of prefer the brand specific model. It gave feuds more time to build and you didn't get as many matches. Since they went back to every one can be on every show, it seems like every single feud goes to 3 matches, and some even go to FOUR!

It also allowed the brands to be more distinct because they are so self contained with their own talent and storylines. Right now the only difference between the shows is that one is red and one is blue.

[CATCH_US IS the Conversation]

I think that they need to tweak the PPV system a bit. Brand split or no brand split, we're seeing the same people each time.

To me, the ideal thing to do is have is a stronger brand split, with dual branded PPVs, but without having to see EVERY "relevant" wrestler on each month. This would avoid shoehorning guys like Miz, Kane, Bryan, Ziggler etc. into random feuds just because "he's a top guy and he needs to be doing something". The B-PPVs should not be treated like "supercards". The Big 4 should be the only PPVs that are stacked with main event talent.

[thegame415]

I think they should have only seven PPV's, but that's a whole 'nother thread.

[froggyfrog]

current