|
Post by memphis25 on Feb 3, 2013 1:31:36 GMT -5
The buyrates don't go down when Cena isn't around. At least based on the few times he's actually been injured or off the card. In fact, Hell in a Cell did much better than any Non-attraction Cena match this year, despite his absence. That PPV drew well thanks to WWE booking themselves into a corner and peaking fans interest how they would get around having an undefeated Ryback face a champ who as already programed with Rock at Rumble in a cage match that's gimmick is keeping interference out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 1:34:29 GMT -5
The buyrates don't go down when Cena isn't around. At least based on the few times he's actually been injured or off the card. In fact, Hell in a Cell did much better than any Non-attraction Cena match this year, despite his absence. That PPV drew well thanks to WWE booking themselves into a corner and peaking fans interest how they would get around having an undefeated Ryback face a champ who as already programed with Rock at Rumble in a cage match that's gimmick is keeping interference out. Precisely, that's Sean's point. Writing well with other stars will draw as well as well as Cena's stale character, maybe even better than that if they maintained it for long enough.
|
|
nate5054
Hank Scorpio
Lucky to be alive in the Chris Jericho Era
Posts: 7,016
|
Post by nate5054 on Feb 3, 2013 1:42:33 GMT -5
He'd put on a pouty face to end the show, the next night come out joking and smiling like always, then beat Austin at Extreme Rules to make up the difference. Something like this. His character will never evolve as long as shirts are selling.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Feb 3, 2013 2:02:25 GMT -5
Precisely, that's Sean's point. Writing well with other stars will draw as well as well as Cena's stale character, maybe even better than that if they maintained it for long enough. If that match was Cena in there with Ryback with all the other factors the same the show would have likely done better. Reality is WWE lucked into a good buyrate for that show but killed off PPV the rest of the year leading into the Rumble and damaged Ryback in the process.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Feb 3, 2013 2:10:02 GMT -5
Precisely, that's Sean's point. Writing well with other stars will draw as well as well as Cena's stale character, maybe even better than that if they maintained it for long enough. If that match was Cena in there with Ryback with all the other factors the same the show would have likely done better. Reality is WWE lucked into a good buyrate for that show but killed off PPV the rest of the year leading into the Rumble and damaged Ryback in the process. If it had been Cena vs. Ryback then they would have likely ended up turning Ryback heel. Which would have lessened the intrigue of the match, as many people would expect Cena to win over a heel Ryback, regardless of him being undefeated at the time.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Feb 3, 2013 2:11:05 GMT -5
Precisely, that's Sean's point. Writing well with other stars will draw as well as well as Cena's stale character, maybe even better than that if they maintained it for long enough. If that match was Cena in there with Ryback with all the other factors the same the show would have likely done better. There's no way you can prove that. Fact is, for whatever reason, Punk vs Ryback drew well, and the next month, when Cena was added, buys went down. Arguments can be made as to why, but numbers are the only barometer we have, and they say that things didn't go to s*** without Cena, and they actually got worse with him added to the mix. My pet theory is that Cena is not a great babyface PPV draw. But an incredible heel PPV draw. Every monster number he's ever done has been in matches people have paid to see him lose in. Numbers seem to back this up.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Feb 3, 2013 2:30:35 GMT -5
There's no way you can prove that. Fact is, for whatever reason, Punk vs Ryback drew well, and the next month, when Cena was added, buys went down. Arguments can be made as to why, but numbers are the only barometer we have, and they say that things didn't go to s*** without Cena, and they actually got worse with him added to the mix. My pet theory is that Cena is not a great babyface PPV draw. But an incredible heel PPV draw. Every monster number he's ever done has been in matches people have paid to see him lose in. Numbers seem to back this up. Cena has been in the main event of 3 highest selling WrestleMania's off all time heading for #4 so to act like he doesn't draw money is comical. And yes if you take Cena as a long term champ and put him in the cell with a undefeated guy when everyone knows you have a bigger match booked a couple months down the road its going to draw bigger than 200,000 buys. For the record the buys actually went up 12K the next month with Cena added to the match even after they made it clear as day Punk was keeping the title to RR by the HIAC finish. The simple face everyone ignores is If Cena didn't make WWE tons and tons of money as is they would have turned him heel long ago.
|
|
|
Post by memphis25 on Feb 3, 2013 2:39:31 GMT -5
If it had been Cena vs. Ryback then they would have likely ended up turning Ryback heel. Which would have lessened the intrigue of the match, as many people would expect Cena to win over a heel Ryback, regardless of him being undefeated at the time. They would keep it face vs face if they had to do that as an one off match, Cena would end up pinning him but after Ryback killed most of the match. They would make sure Cena sold the beat down heading into the next PPV making the returning heel seem more of a threat to beat Cena and put over have much damage Ryback did only to come up short on some rookie mistake.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Feb 3, 2013 8:25:50 GMT -5
There's no way you can prove that. Fact is, for whatever reason, Punk vs Ryback drew well, and the next month, when Cena was added, buys went down. Arguments can be made as to why, but numbers are the only barometer we have, and they say that things didn't go to s*** without Cena, and they actually got worse with him added to the mix. My pet theory is that Cena is not a great babyface PPV draw. But an incredible heel PPV draw. Every monster number he's ever done has been in matches people have paid to see him lose in. Numbers seem to back this up. Cena has been in the main event of 3 highest selling WrestleMania's off all time heading for #4 so to act like he doesn't draw money is comical. And yes if you take Cena as a long term champ and put him in the cell with a undefeated guy when everyone knows you have a bigger match booked a couple months down the road its going to draw bigger than 200,000 buys. For the record the buys actually went up 12K the next month with Cena added to the match even after they made it clear as day Punk was keeping the title to RR by the HIAC finish. The simple face everyone ignores is If Cena didn't make WWE tons and tons of money as is they would have turned him heel long ago. On your first point, defer to my own on Cena, as booked as a heel. In those matches, people paid to see Cena lose. (whether he did or not). I never denied he made money. I only suggested that he draws BETTER (and it's true) when in the role of protagonist against someone the audience wants to see win more. 2nd: I know what you're saying. But you have to deal in what we did have to work with. Retconning Cena with Punk's reign, is obviously impossible. So we only have Cena vs. Punk, the original plan, to work with. And their Night of Champions buyrate was not spectacular. Where as interest in Ryback vs Punk gave them a boost, and made it the 2nd most successful b-level show since Extreme Rules. 3rd: Directly comparing numbers between a b-level show vs the Survivor Series is apples and oranges, unfortunately. They're never and have never been comparable, outside of attraction shows. You have to look at the gains vs. the losses respectively and comparatively in this case. And for the record, I'm not saying that adding Cena necessarily made people NOT buy. I'm just saying, in this case, the addition of Cena didn't raise the number from last year, or even the year before. That all said: my main point was not bemoaning Cena as a draw. It was just putting him into proper perspective. He draws better as an antagonist. The numbers back it up. His month to month babyface vs. heel stuff does mediocre to poorly. But when he's cast as the opposite, people seem to come out in larger numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Snaptastic on Feb 3, 2013 11:00:17 GMT -5
Cena has been in the main event of 3 highest selling WrestleMania's off all time heading for #4 so to act like he doesn't draw money is comical. And yes if you take Cena as a long term champ and put him in the cell with a undefeated guy when everyone knows you have a bigger match booked a couple months down the road its going to draw bigger than 200,000 buys. For the record the buys actually went up 12K the next month with Cena added to the match even after they made it clear as day Punk was keeping the title to RR by the HIAC finish. The simple face everyone ignores is If Cena didn't make WWE tons and tons of money as is they would have turned him heel long ago. On your first point, defer to my own on Cena, as booked as a heel. In those matches, people paid to see Cena lose. (whether he did or not). I never denied he made money. I only suggested that he draws BETTER (and it's true) when in the role of protagonist against someone the audience wants to see win more. 2nd: I know what you're saying. But you have to deal in what we did have to work with. Retconning Cena with Punk's reign, is obviously impossible. So we only have Cena vs. Punk, the original plan, to work with. And their Night of Champions buyrate was not spectacular. Where as interest in Ryback vs Punk gave them a boost, and made it the 2nd most successful b-level show since Extreme Rules. 3rd: Directly comparing numbers between a b-level show vs the Survivor Series is apples and oranges, unfortunately. They're never and have never been comparable, outside of attraction shows. You have to look at the gains vs. the losses respectively and comparatively in this case. And for the record, I'm not saying that adding Cena necessarily made people NOT buy. I'm just saying, in this case, the addition of Cena didn't raise the number from last year, or even the year before. That all said: my main point was not bemoaning Cena as a draw. It was just putting him into proper perspective. He draws better as an antagonist. The numbers back it up. His month to month babyface vs. heel stuff does mediocre to poorly. But when he's cast as the opposite, people seem to come out in larger numbers. Which makes me wonder about the SS2011 buyrate which was quite frankly poor. The main event for that one was Rock/Cena vs Miz/Truth. Sure Miz & Truth aren't main event draws, but it's been proven Cena can be and Rock always is. I wonder if the idea of Cena being on the winning team turned people off. It's a longshot, and the most obvious answer is the apparent lack of advertisement. Outside of WWE programming and the IWC you wouldn't have known that match was taking place (hence past-Rock fans didn't tune in). Cena can and does draw, so I perhaps worded my statement incorrectly before. But he's not the mega draw people seem to think he is. WWE wouldn't collapse overnight if he left, believe it or not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 11:54:31 GMT -5
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Feb 3, 2013 12:14:42 GMT -5
On your first point, defer to my own on Cena, as booked as a heel. In those matches, people paid to see Cena lose. (whether he did or not). I never denied he made money. I only suggested that he draws BETTER (and it's true) when in the role of protagonist against someone the audience wants to see win more. 2nd: I know what you're saying. But you have to deal in what we did have to work with. Retconning Cena with Punk's reign, is obviously impossible. So we only have Cena vs. Punk, the original plan, to work with. And their Night of Champions buyrate was not spectacular. Where as interest in Ryback vs Punk gave them a boost, and made it the 2nd most successful b-level show since Extreme Rules. 3rd: Directly comparing numbers between a b-level show vs the Survivor Series is apples and oranges, unfortunately. They're never and have never been comparable, outside of attraction shows. You have to look at the gains vs. the losses respectively and comparatively in this case. And for the record, I'm not saying that adding Cena necessarily made people NOT buy. I'm just saying, in this case, the addition of Cena didn't raise the number from last year, or even the year before. That all said: my main point was not bemoaning Cena as a draw. It was just putting him into proper perspective. He draws better as an antagonist. The numbers back it up. His month to month babyface vs. heel stuff does mediocre to poorly. But when he's cast as the opposite, people seem to come out in larger numbers. Which makes me wonder about the SS2011 buyrate which was quite frankly poor. The main event for that one was Rock/Cena vs Miz/Truth. Sure Miz & Truth aren't main event draws, but it's been proven Cena can be and Rock always is. I wonder if the idea of Cena being on the winning team turned people off. It's a longshot, and the most obvious answer is the apparent lack of advertisement. Outside of WWE programming and the IWC you wouldn't have known that match was taking place (hence past-Rock fans didn't tune in). Cena can and does draw, so I perhaps worded my statement incorrectly before. But he's not the mega draw people seem to think he is. WWE wouldn't collapse overnight if he left, believe it or not. I think it was a combination of A) Miz & Truth not being bought as credible opponents, due to the booking of Cena pretty much beating them single-handedly in the weeks leading up to the PPV. And B) No one wanted to see Rock team with Cena. The fact that their actual one on one match did so well kind of cemented it. People wanted conflict, not a team. (even though they ended up with both).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 12:34:55 GMT -5
That Survivor Series provided one of the main examples why Cena will probably never be turned heel.
It was possibly the most hostile crowd response he has received in the past few years alongside MITB '11 yet on the Rock/Cena DVD in the backstage parts they cut to him the night after at Raw and a stage hand shows him a piece of paper with the merch results from the night before. It shows like 50% of all sales were for Cena, 15% were Rock (his first match back in 8 years), 10% were Punk and 25% was the rest of the roster combined. He's like they HATED me last night and treated Rock/Punk like God's - so why the HELL were they spending so much money on me!
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Feb 3, 2013 14:49:02 GMT -5
That Survivor Series provided one of the main examples why Cena will probably never be turned heel. It was possibly the most hostile crowd response he has received in the past few years alongside MITB '11 yet on the Rock/Cena DVD in the backstage parts they cut to him the night after at Raw and a stage hand shows him a piece of paper with the merch results from the night before. It shows like 50% of all sales were for Cena, 15% were Rock (his first match back in 8 years), 10% were Punk and 25% was the rest of the roster combined. He's like they HATED me last night and treated Rock/Punk like God's - so why the HELL were they spending so much money on me! So, you're saying that people that HATED him spent most of their money buying his merch anyway? So why can't he be turned heel again (for creative sake) if it makes no difference to his actual merch bottom line? If anything, if this is true, it cements that it wouldn't change much. He'd still be super over. But at least there'd be some character development and natural progression.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2013 15:54:46 GMT -5
That Survivor Series provided one of the main examples why Cena will probably never be turned heel. It was possibly the most hostile crowd response he has received in the past few years alongside MITB '11 yet on the Rock/Cena DVD in the backstage parts they cut to him the night after at Raw and a stage hand shows him a piece of paper with the merch results from the night before. It shows like 50% of all sales were for Cena, 15% were Rock (his first match back in 8 years), 10% were Punk and 25% was the rest of the roster combined. He's like they HATED me last night and treated Rock/Punk like God's - so why the HELL were they spending so much money on me! So, you're saying that people that HATED him spent most of their money buying his merch anyway? So why can't he be turned heel again (for creative sake) if it makes no difference to his actual merch bottom line? If anything, if this is true, it cements that it wouldn't change much. He'd still be super over. But at least there'd be some character development and natural progression. Huh? Anyone who hates him and still buys his merch (unless they're complete idiots) are buying it for their kids/nephews/little brothers who are Cena fans. If Cena turned heel kids wouldn't be asking for his merch or asking to go to shows specifically to see him or requesting him as their make-a-wish. At least not in the droves they do now. And any older/new fans Cena would gain from a heel turn would be negated by the much larger group of people who love him now who would turn their back on him. Punk is very popular with heel loving fans and he doesn't sell like Cena does. On the babyface side Randy Orton and to a lesser degree Sheamus are tremendously over with live crowds but that doesn't translate to any real money making. WWE needs Cena as the face of the company when Rock/Brock/Undertaker are gone. He's the only person who can consistently draw crowds, ratings and sell merchandise on a notable level. If he turned heel ratings and PPV buys probably wouldn't change much at all other than a slight increase in the immediate aftermath due to the shock factor before they went back to normal but merchandise and more importantly live attendance (how many house show tickets are sold just on the strength that Cena's going to be headlining? He couldn't have that kind of impact as a heel) would tumble. So of the four key areas to WWE two would remain the same and two would get worse. How would that make business sense overall? All of Cena's big matches over the next year or two will sell just as well whether he turns or not anyway/ They don't have to sacrifice his drawing power in other areas. Cena/Rock will do great again. Cena/Ryback with the right build at say Summerslam will do big business babyface vs. babyface. Cena/Undertaker next year will be huge and Cena will be booed without having to turn him heel. Although if there ever is a time when they'll turn him (I don't think they will), it'll be the closing moments of Wrestlemania 30 and it'll feature him either ending the streak or losing to Undertaker then snapping and destroying him afterwards. If you didn't care about business and were just talking creative like you said, I'm sure a lot of people would enjoy a heel Cena. I loved Austin's brief heel run in 2001 and thought it was more entertaining than anything else he ever did and a I know a lot of other people enjoyed it too. But he and Vince both admit they did a lot of damage to his drawing power and they both wish they never went through with it. If Cena turned heel I'm certain that 6-12 months later when they see the financial figures for the year and the dwindling average house show attendance and merchandise sales they'll realize they made the exact same mistake they made with Austin 12 years ago.
|
|