The end of "brand specific" PPV's

[erik316wttn]

From The Wrestling Observer...

Due to some disappointing buyrates, and in particular the comparisons with UFC, Vince McMahon has decided to change the approach the company has for its pay-per-view shows.

The "B" shows, wile they will be listed as brand-specific shows, will start featuring talent from all three brands. Stephanie McMahon sent out a memo stating that Vince wants more of an emphasis on interbrand matches on PPV shows, thus opening up more potential matches.

Starting with Backlash, the show is scheduled to feature talent from all three brands. Batista, Bobby Lashley, RVD and Undertaker are scheduled to appear on the show. Also, the poster for the 7/22 Great American Bash PPV features John Cena, as well as Batista and King Booker.

[Chainsaw]

And thus it begins...

["Hollywood" Cactus Matt]

That's a stupid idea if they want to keep the brand split going. But whatever, it's not like my opinion matters to Vince. I don't buy the PPV's anyway.

[Deleted]

After WrestleMania 24, I seriously think the brand split will end.

[erik316wttn]

I am a bit confused.

Vince says he wants to establish 3 seperate brands, however there's been more mixing of talent the last four months or so than there's ever been.

[krazysane]

i dont even notice brands anymore.

[EvilMasterBetty, Esq.]

::Cue people bitching about Brand Split and how it should end although there is no reason for it to and it makes more sense to keep the two brands::

[Shake A Leg]

Good. I kinda hated brand only PPVs.

[amsiraK]

am90 said:

After WrestleMania 24, I seriously think the brand split will end.

You may be right on that one.

[BD Punk AKA SUSPENDED!]

Bad move. They can do two things to improve the "brand specific" PPV's:

#1. Have less of them. There are too many PPV's right now, the fact is even if the normal WWE fan wanted to buy every PPV each year it is almost financially impossible. Right now there are 16 PPV's a year. If you were to buy all of them you would be spending about $650. I don't know about you, but I don't have that much cash to spend on WWE PPV's. The fact is, all of these PPV's still turn a profit for Vince so that will never happen.

#2. Build up matches better. If you create anticipation for more than the main event of a PPV, the buyrates will go up. If lazy creative would stop throwing matches on PPV's for no reason with no build up maybe the buyrates will go up.

However, Vince likes to go with the quick easy fix by adding more "main event" guys. That will work in the short-term, but then that will get old too. The WWE will end up blowing their load on interbrand matches on regular PPV's that could be used for Summerslam, Wrestlemania etc........

But that's just my .02 cents

[willywonka666]

Well, how can they build up storylines for ppv matches, if they don't end the brand split completely, so that everyone can compete on different shows?

[tartsonawire]

I'm not sure what to make of this. On one hand, if they're gonna insist on 13 or 14 PPV's per year, I think this is the way to go. On the other hand, this could steal some thunder from PPV's the big ones that always involve all the brands, Like SummerSlam and Mania.

[EvilMasterBetty, Esq.]

demolition said:

Bad move. They can do two things to improve the "brand specific" PPV's:

#1. Have less of them. There are too many PPV's right now, the fact is even if the normal WWE fan wanted to buy every PPV each year it is almost financially impossible. Right now there are 16 PPV's a year. If you were to buy all of them you would be spending about $650. I don't know about you, but I don't have that much cash to spend on WWE PPV's. The fact is, all of these PPV's still turn a profit for Vince so that will never happen.

#2. Build up matches better. If you create anticipation for more than the main event of a PPV, the buyrates will go up. If lazy creative would stop throwing matches on PPV's for no reason with no build up maybe the buyrates will go up.

However, Vince likes to go with the quick easy fix by adding more "main event" guys. That will work in the short-term, but then that will get old too. The WWE will end up blowing their load on interbrand matches on regular PPV's that could be used for Summerslam, Wrestlemania etc........

But that's just my .02 cents

Yes, sadly those solutions are logical and would help fix WWE in the long run, which is why Vince will not use them.

[mysterydriver]

Oh no. How dare they try and make more money by putting all of their stars on PPVs. Darn you Vince and you're horrible disgrace of a brand split. I mean, why have a brand split if all you are going to do is try and make money in the long run.

...

Please. There is nothing wrong with this. If anything, this means more developed feuds as the shows build from PPV to PPV only allowing the ones "near the boiling point" on the show.

[Brain Of F'n J]

Yeah, because the solution to low buyrates is that RVD, Undertaker and Cena aren't on the same PPV. Ri-iiiiiiiiiiiight.

Jed Shaffer
~That kind of logic would mean someone who likes Dwayne Wade, LeBron, Kobe and Chauncey Billups won't watch a basketball game unless it's the All-Star Game, because said fan needs to see ALL of them.

[mysterydriver]

brainofj said:

Yeah, because the solution to low buyrates is that RVD, Undertaker and Cena aren't on the same PPV. Ri-iiiiiiiiiiiight.

Jed Shaffer
~That kind of logic would mean someone who likes Dwayne Wade, LeBron, Kobe and Chauncey Billups won't watch a basketball game unless it's the All-Star Game, because said fan needs to see ALL of them.

The All-Star game is the only one that I watch.

Then again, I'm not the biggest fan of basketball.

...

Also, I normally just watch the last few minutes.

[Brain Of F'n J]

You do recognize that your counter-point kinda fell apart the more you typed, right?

I'm not even debating the brand split and its merits/problems. My issue is only the logic behind this mixing on PPVs. People will not buy a PPV simply because there's mixed-brand matches and a combination of stars. If I like Undertaker, Kane, Cena, HBK, RVD and Punk (for instance), any of them is enough for me. It won't take a blend to convince me to buy. It's just ridiculous logic. Rather then recognize the bad writing, poor build-up, a lack of compelling stars or fresh matches, they blame the MIXTURE of stars. I will be hard money buyrates won't be effected by this.

Jed Shaffer
~If the WWE were a hospital, they'd treat your broken arm with chemotherapy.

[Hiroshi Hase]

I guess this means Cena/Lashley vs. New Breed faction at December 2 Dismember.

["Hollywood" Cactus Matt]

yjc1019 said:

I guess this means Cena/Lashley vs. New Breed faction at December 2 Dismember.

HOW WILL THEY EVER OVERCOME THE ODDS??!

[Andrew is Good]

Wait, hold on. Why not just make the angles more important on the separate brands, and make all the wrestlers important, instead of throwing together matches of guys that are barely on the main show to begin with.

I mean, Smackdown's ratings are huge (especially for it's timeslot), make better angles with the guys on the show. Instead of having Ashley all over the show, push London and Kendrick harder with more tag teams. People will watch. Instead of having Joey Mecury and Matt Hardy have matches where Hardy beats him everytime, have a good feud with them, and go into lots of details about their legit past (make it similar to the Hardy/Helms angle where Hardy thinks he's a bigger star then everyone else and doesn't remember his past).

Why not make people want to buy the shows because they want to see guys on those specific brands have matches, instead of having all the top guys on all the pay per views. That will get really old overtime. I like the brand specific pay per views, because there's actually time to build up angles to the pay per view. Now, they have John Cena in an angle on a pay per view, and 2 weeks later, he's in another one, on another brand's pay per view. What the f***?

There's 3 letters that can be used to describe this. ISS. IT'S SIMPLE STUPID! Just put more of an emphasis on the guys on your brand.