Why not give away Wrestlemania for free instead of Fastlane?

[bmfjules]

I know I will get called a moron for this, but here's my train of thought (if for no other reason than to give you extra ammo to mock me with)

They are only charging ten bucks to begin with regardless of what show they give away. Obviously the big draw that made the last free month before this a big hit was Survivor Series, one of the WWE's big four PPVs.

There is literally no bigger draw the Network has than Wrestlemania. So IF you are going to do a free month (which if the Network had been structured and run correctly from the get go there would never have been a need to do in the first place IMO...) I say make it the month that Mania airs and then you will have a definitive answer to just how many people there are who would sign up for this service under optimum conditions, since if you can't give away Mania to someone, there's really not much more you could entice them with short of mail order BJs.

All those people sign up, forget to cancel, and boom, MAYBE they finally hit 2 million subs in a long shot best case scenario.

[Chip Chipperson]

It's their biggest show of the year. That's why.

[Push R Truth]

Mar 2, 2015 14:43:51 GMT -5 bmfjules said:

you could entice them with short of mail order BJs.

Where do I sign up?

[repomark]

I see where you are coming from but giving away the biggest show they have for free would be extremely bad for business. You need to leave people a reason to subscribe thereafter when you give them a free month, as those who wanted to sign up just for the historic content will have already done so or will just check in and out whenever there is a free month.

Wrestlemania remains their biggest draw and will never be free for that reason. The mistake WWE are making is not which month they give away free, but the fact they are allowing subscribers with no six month commitment.

[xCompackx]

Mar 3, 2015 20:20:59 GMT -5 devondragon said:

I try to balance out my needs/wants as a customer with my desire to see the Network succeed for many years to come.

If I was WWE, I'd do a tiered pricing system. $24.99 for one months ($29.99 if it's Wrestlemania month). $19.99 a month with a three-month commitment. $14.99 for six months and $9.99 a month for a year. And stick to it. (if the card is canceled, no accessing the network at that account if frozen, regardless of payment. When my card got declined when I forgot to update after the card's expiration date, I was able to re-up with no problem).

The problem with changing the pricing system is that WWE is basically forced to offer WWE Network for so little because of how aggressive they have to be in marketing it. It's not like a Netflix or Hulu where there's a diverse selection of content; WWE Network is really just one thing with tiny bits of other genres sprinkled in. The fact that they've removed the commitment shows that even they know it's a heavily niche service that charging a lot of money for just won't work for.

[Johnny Flamingo]

Main reason is that there are people who don't watch wrestling regularly but will watch Wrestlemania. There is a bar/diner I used to go to that NEVER showed wrestling but always orders Wrestlemania. Simply too much money to lose.

I do like tiered pricing though.

Maybe 9.99/month or 9.99/month with 1 month free (or reduced) with a 6 month subscription, 25$ WWEshop gift card after every 12 months of continuous subscription.

[Vice honcho room temperature]

Mar 13, 2015 3:05:26 GMT -5 Johnny Flamingo said:

Main reason is that there are people who don't watch wrestling regularly but will watch Wrestlemania. There is a bar/diner I used to go to that NEVER showed wrestling but always orders Wrestlemania. Simply too much money to lose.

I do like tiered pricing though.

Maybe 9.99/month or 9.99/month with 1 month free (or reduced) with a 6 month subscription, 25$ WWEshop gift card after every 12 months of continuous subscription.

I was surprised when they dropped the 6 month commitment because they had the monthy price at like 12.99 or what ever it was. Paid a little more to not have to be tied down for 6 months. I guess they figured it was just easier to continue advertising 9.99

[Juice]

Mar 2, 2015 14:43:51 GMT -5 bmfjules said:

They are only charging ten bucks to begin with regardless of what show they give away.

They only made 10 dollars per ppv before the network. They had to give up most of the percentages to the PPV providers.

This "It's only 10 dollars" stuff is so inaccurate. There's a reason they only charge 10 a month, because that's all they needed to justify dropping the ppv providers.

[Deleted]

Mar 2, 2015 14:43:51 GMT -5 bmfjules said:

There is literally no bigger draw the Network has than Wrestlemania.

[BigBadZ]

Not Wrestlemania but maybe Royal Rumble. They gave it away because Raw was cancelled this year so they might could give it a try next year.

[Marty McFry]

They should never have included RR, WM or SS as Network PPVs IMO.

[Sam Punk]

Mar 18, 2015 15:53:29 GMT -5 Marty McFry said:

They should never have included RR, WM or SS as Network PPVs IMO.

Would anyone buy the network without those events included?

[Captain & Diet]

Mar 18, 2015 23:49:19 GMT -5 Sam Punk said:

Mar 18, 2015 15:53:29 GMT -5 Marty McFry said:

They should never have included RR, WM or SS as Network PPVs IMO.

Would anyone buy the network without those events included?

I would but I find it to be a tremendous value without the PPVs

[percymania]

Why not pay me to watch Wrestlemenia? Hey it never hurts to ask...

[Crappler El 0 M]

The February PPV is the month before Mania. Get them in the door in February and there will be an incentive to renew in March for WrestleMania. Also, there is more likely to be customers wanting to buy the Network specifically for Mania. This is much less true for the February PPV.

[Jonathan Michaels]

Because the stockholders would riot.