Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2014 3:19:36 GMT -5
The $20 deal is a better way to combat fraud than any sort of anti fraud measure they could ever take, particularly since there's some things that are completely legal that people can do to get out of the commitment that WWE cannot do a single thing about.
For those looking to pay to watch a one shot PPV, I'm sure the vast majority would rather just pay the extra $10 to watch a Summerslam or royal Rumble or Wrestlemania, than they would goofing around with credit card chargebacks/account cancellations etc. Not everyone, but a lot of them.
Instead you can skip the whole thing, have 3 friends over and everyone throws down a whole $5 to watch a PPV.
|
|
|
Post by thelonewolf527 on Aug 1, 2014 4:26:15 GMT -5
The $20 deal is a better way to combat fraud than any sort of anti fraud measure they could ever take, particularly since there's some things that are completely legal that people can do to get out of the commitment that WWE cannot do a single thing about. For those looking to pay to watch a one shot PPV, I'm sure the vast majority would rather just pay the extra $10 to watch a Summerslam or royal Rumble or Wrestlemania, than they would goofing around with credit card chargebacks/account cancellations etc. Not everyone, but a lot of them. Instead you can skip the whole thing, have 3 friends over and everyone throws down a whole $5 to watch a PPV. Which is also more akin to reality than Dana White's claim that you should get a few friends so everyone only pays $3 for a pay-per-view, aka having 19 friends over
|
|
|
Post by doinkmark on Aug 1, 2014 8:03:59 GMT -5
$20 is fair for a one-time, one month payment considering how much you currently get with the Network. Hell some PPV's alone DID used to be $20, and that only got you one night of wrestling! But it looks really bad when side by side with $10 a month for 6 months and no other options. Not forcing potential customers into a 6 month commitment is a good idea, but what a set of grapefruits Vince has on him to make double the price for one month the only alternative.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Aug 1, 2014 8:36:39 GMT -5
The PPV archive is an overstated selling point. This is 2014, anyone who wants to watch Summerslam 97 isn't going to curse their luck if they don't have $9.99 or gas in their car to drive to the video store - let's be realistic here. Catch-up style removal of these videos from various sites and file-sharing torrent sites is a losing battle. One goes another three pop up. No, the archive PPV material is a bonus. It's the extra crackers with your Chinese meal or the mint on your hotel pillow but it cannot be driving force behind many of those who sign up.
What drives the network is content and there really isn't much of that. Main Event which is a show that is so unimportant if you've never heard of it the most you've missed is a recap of Raw, and there's a PPV once a month that 4/5ths doesn't matter. If they're serious about driving up numbers they need more original, storyline relevant and enhancing exclusive Network material. Not "Top 10 times a baddie has got booed" or "Old guys nobody under 25 has heard of do stuff"
I think their biggest mistake was thinking the PPV archive is as big an appeal as they seem to think. As I said, if you really want to watch an old PPV and you think subscribing to the WWE network is the most cost effective way of doing it, you've been living under a rock and p.s Michael Jackson died.
|
|
|
Post by audiencewatching on Aug 1, 2014 9:25:03 GMT -5
700'000 * $9.99 = $7 million a month * 12 = $84million a year
Say they maintained 700k a month for 3 years, would it be less than or more than their earnings with the old PPV model?
|
|
|
Post by Surfer Sandman on Aug 1, 2014 9:30:34 GMT -5
WrestleMania XXX drew 690,000 buys, down from 1,039,000 last year Ah, shit. Now they're gonna blame Bryan for this. Doubtful. Bryan vs HHH and Bryan vs Batista vs Orton were decent matches. They got me to buy the goddamn subscription in the first place. Everything after? Meh. How far is Payback from December to Dismember?
|
|
|
Post by doinkmark on Aug 1, 2014 9:31:15 GMT -5
I think it's also worth noting that a lot of people, myself included, didn't or couldn't access the Network right away. As a result, not all original 6 month commitments have run out. I don't know how or even if that might effect WWE's numbers by year's end, but I think it's an important consideration to make. My subscription runs out in November.
|
|
|
Post by Giul T. on Aug 1, 2014 9:31:37 GMT -5
This is 2014, anyone who wants to watch Summerslam 97 isn't going to curse their luck if they don't have $9.99 or gas in their car to drive to the video store - let's be realistic here. You still have video stores in 2014? All the places around here closed months/years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Surfer Sandman on Aug 1, 2014 9:34:25 GMT -5
The PPV archive is an overstated selling point. This is 2014, anyone who wants to watch Summerslam 97 isn't going to curse their luck if they don't have $9.99 or gas in their car to drive to the video store - let's be realistic here. Catch-up style removal of these videos from various sites and file-sharing torrent sites is a losing battle. One goes another three pop up. No, the archive PPV material is a bonus. It's the extra crackers with your Chinese meal or the mint on your hotel pillow but it cannot be driving force behind many of those who sign up. What drives the network is content and there really isn't much of that. Main Event which is a show that is so unimportant if you've never heard of it the most you've missed is a recap of Raw, and there's a PPV once a month that 4/5ths doesn't matter. If they're serious about driving up numbers they need more original, storyline relevant and enhancing exclusive Network material. Not "Top 10 times a baddie has got booed" or "Old guys nobody under 25 has heard of do stuff" I think their biggest mistake was thinking the PPV archive is as big an appeal as they seem to think. As I said, if you really want to watch an old PPV and you think subscribing to the WWE network is the most cost effective way of doing it, you've been living under a rock and p.s Michael Jackson died. I have ZERO interest in watching old PPVs, especially stuff from the Attitude Era (ECW excluded). What I do want to see is more WCCW, WCW (especially Saturday Night), AWA and whatever else they own for video libraries on the site. If they can for once put everything in chronological order, I will certainly kill an entire night just watching episode after episode. The best part for me is the inclusion of subtitles on almost every program. That's a GREAT start. The crappy streaming quality and lack of variety are what killed it for me. It doesn't mean that I won't give the network a second look down the road.
|
|
|
Post by RowdyRobbyPiper on Aug 1, 2014 9:55:05 GMT -5
As for Canada. As more comes out, I hope that Rogers doesn't attempt to separate the actual PPVs from the "Network" service, and charge a separate fee for them. That will be horrible for Canadians. And disastrous for Rogers. But WWE likely got their money in a lump sum offer, so they're sitting pretty no matter what. From their point of view, it's brilliant business. It' Rogers, they'll find a way to do exactly that. Though f*** WWE, because there isn't even Rogers cable TV coverage in this province. The major providers are Bell, Shaw, and Telus. So I was willing to plunk down money for the Network to watch old episodes of Raw and Nitro, now I can't even do that. Looks like it's Youtube and Dailymotion videos for me! Good luck with that. WWE has extra vigilant since the network launched.
|
|
|
Post by modestgenius on Aug 1, 2014 10:06:53 GMT -5
It's like Netflix...but with an unfair pricing model
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Aug 1, 2014 11:33:37 GMT -5
I haven't read the thread yet, but I'd like to point out a couple of things with the network numbers. Back around WrestleMania, the number was 667,000. However, Dave Meltzer pointed out how this probably still included some international people getting away with this, as well as people who gamed the system to get their accounts cancelled after 1 month so they got WrestleMania for 10 bucks. With this in mind, one should assume that the Network numbers this time around DO NOT include those people, while the previous report did. Therefore being at 700,000 is actually a decent increase that will look bad because of what the last number was reported. Edit: 128,000 cancelled?! See, people are f***ing assholes if THIS high of a percentage are cheating the system to get the Network monthly without the comittment. If I was WWE, I'd probably sue some of these people since this is worse than streaming, this is legitimate fraud I mean how many of them had a free pass and then canceled?
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on Aug 2, 2014 15:49:55 GMT -5
I guess it could be worse. The WWE Network will move forward. I think there are many out there who will take up the new price plan. It's a way to get Wrestlemania (or whatever live PPV of your choosing) for $20 and I'm sure some people will bite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2014 15:56:02 GMT -5
I can see the UK getting this Canada thing where the Network is linked to Sky boxes and is not the internet base. Which will suck because a lot of people have Freeview and Virgin Media. It's like only Sky people being able to get PPV's in High Definition because Sky won't sell Box Office to other providers in HD.
I hate Sky. I really wish BT Sport had bid for WWE when the rights were up for renewal.
|
|
Jiren
Patti Mayonnaise
Hearts Bayformers
Posts: 35,163
|
Post by Jiren on Aug 2, 2014 15:58:58 GMT -5
I went for the 9.99 a month.
I broke the seal with wrestle war 91, I'm going through WCW ppvs
|
|
|
Post by Magic knows Black Lives Matter on Aug 2, 2014 16:03:07 GMT -5
That WWE Network Struggle.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Aug 2, 2014 16:14:11 GMT -5
I can see the UK getting this Canada thing where the Network is linked to Sky boxes and is not the internet base. Which will suck because a lot of people have Freeview and Virgin Media. It's like only Sky people being able to get PPV's in High Definition because Sky won't sell Box Office to other providers in HD. I hate Sky. I really wish BT Sport had bid for WWE when the rights were up for renewal. Sky are terrible for PPV coverage. All of them now are on Box Office. They'd be better off putting them on the normal sports channels, thus giving people more incentive to subscribe to them. At the moment, you have to pay to view Sky Sports channels, plus an extra monthly fee to watch a PPV, and no one but the most insane hardcore WWE obsessives will be paying for PPV's, which are mostly glorified episodes of RAW
|
|
|
Post by xCompackx on Aug 2, 2014 16:15:51 GMT -5
I don't see the $19.99 plan taking off at all right now. There's just not enough content there to justify spending $20 a month purely on wrestling and the "6 month commitment" thing isn't being enforced to where it matters anyway. Besides, if you're going to have a plan that expensive, you kinda lose out on the Netflix comparison because the pricing isn't even comparable anymore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2014 16:16:53 GMT -5
I can see the UK getting this Canada thing where the Network is linked to Sky boxes and is not the internet base. Which will suck because a lot of people have Freeview and Virgin Media. It's like only Sky people being able to get PPV's in High Definition because Sky won't sell Box Office to other providers in HD. I hate Sky. I really wish BT Sport had bid for WWE when the rights were up for renewal. Sky are terrible for PPV coverage. All of them now are on Box Office. They'd be better off putting them on the normal sports channels, thus giving people more incentive to subscribe to them. At the moment, you have to pay to view Sky Sports channels, plus an extra monthly fee to watch a PPV, and no one but the most insane hardcore WWE obsessives will be paying for PPV's, which are mostly glorified episodes of RAW I buy them all but I literally have no other hobbies except video games so it's not a big deal for me but it pisses me off I pay the same as Sky customers but I am blocked from getting the HD version. I just fear if it's a Sky exclusive thing, I won't be able to get it as I have Virgin Media.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Aug 2, 2014 16:21:10 GMT -5
Dont know guys, for me those ppv numbers are very good considering that the shows are avaliable on the network I agree. At first glance, these numbers look really good to me. I didn't expect there to be 700,000 subscribers. Someone smarter than me should do the math and figure out how much money that is when you consider the 6 month commitment.
|
|