Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 1:36:55 GMT -5
Some more Night of Champions did 92,000 domestic buys, lowest in NOC history. Not terribly surprising. By all appearances they weren't going to actually be following the show's usual gimmick, after Punk / Lesnar (and just the fact that in general there's a lot of evidence that Punk doesn't sell PPVs) a demotion to him facing Heyman and Axel wasn't going to appeal to much of anyone, the main event looked like it'd be basically an overbooked mess that resolved nothing, the tag title match was uncertain, and I don't even remember the rest of the card. It was just a weak, overpriced card for what wound up being indeed a pretty weak show. |
|
Chip
Hank Scorpio
Slam Jam Death.
Posts: 5,185
|
Post by Chip on Nov 1, 2013 1:43:09 GMT -5
People are just slowly learning that WWE PPVs aren't worth buying. There's nothing special on those PPV's that you can't get at another time or at another place. It's why gimmick matches became PPVs rather then just staying as match types. Anything that happens on a PPV is recapped on RAW the next f***ing day. Any spectacular match is miss-able when there's spectacular matches every week on RAW, every week on Smackdown, every week on NXT, every week on Main Event. Most PPVs just feel like additional episodes of RAW now, it doesn't help that RAW is 3 hours long too, I get burnt out on WWE just after RAW let alone every other show they air as well as PPVs. The only reason to really watch a PPV is to see match results live which aren't worth the asking price. It's not that any one single performer is not a draw, it's that nobody is a draw big enough to boost PPV buys.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrtuesday on Nov 1, 2013 2:02:36 GMT -5
People are just slowly learning that WWE PPVs aren't worth buying. There's nothing special on those PPV's that you can't get at another time or at another place. It's why gimmick matches became PPVs rather then just staying as match types. Anything that happens on a PPV is recapped on RAW the next f***ing day. Don't forget that about half the PPV gets a rematch the next night as well, thus making the PPV pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Nov 1, 2013 3:12:54 GMT -5
Some more Night of Champions did 92,000 domestic buys, lowest in NOC history. Wow, Cena and Lesnar are such terrible draws that they even drag down PPVs they aren't on. |
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Nov 1, 2013 3:27:38 GMT -5
Some more Night of Champions did 92,000 domestic buys, lowest in NOC history. Wow, Cena and Lesnar are such terrible draws that they even drag down PPVs they aren't on. I can agree that lack of Cena is going to drag down the buyrates, but let's not act like Lesnar since coming back has made an impact on things. I'm sure he might have a fanbase, but hasn't been a major factor in garnering interest. The fact of the matter is that without Cena, WWE is going to take a hit. I don't necessarily think he's the reason people are watching, but I won't doubt his significant fanbase built over the last 9 years, as well as poor show structure over the last few months. That means, replace Bryan with anyone else on the roster and you have the same problem. Blaming anyone for "not being a draw" is a poor excuse when it's WWE's own doing for being narrow minded in their dependence on one person as well as some of the most phoned-in storylines in quite some time. |
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 1, 2013 4:39:56 GMT -5
Wow, Cena and Lesnar are such terrible draws that they even drag down PPVs they aren't on. I can agree that lack of Cena is going to drag down the buyrates, but let's not act like Lesnar since coming back has made an impact on things. I'm sure he might have a fanbase, but hasn't been a major factor in garnering interest. The fact of the matter is that without Cena, WWE is going to take a hit. I don't necessarily think he's the reason people are watching, but I won't doubt his significant fanbase built over the last 9 years, as well as poor show structure over the last few months. That means, replace Bryan with anyone else on the roster and you have the same problem. Blaming anyone for "not being a draw" is a poor excuse when it's WWE's own doing for being narrow minded in their dependence on one person as well as some of the most phoned-in storylines in quite some time. The way I see it is WWE have conditioned their audience to believe that nothing of importance will happen when Cena isn't around. Whenever Cena's not around for a while things go into a holding pattern. |
|
|
|
Post by DoubleDare on Nov 1, 2013 6:00:46 GMT -5
Barrios is a complete moron, or wwe is if they really believe this, if anything 3 hour raws are even more prone to geting DVR'd, now I work til 8 so I have to dvr it every week, but I dont know if I would be watching all 3 hours live every week anyways.
I dont know the last time a raw felt like "i HAVE to watch this LIVE!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 8:34:18 GMT -5
Wow, Cena and Lesnar are such terrible draws that they even drag down PPVs they aren't on. The fact of the matter is that without Cena, WWE is going to take a hit. I don't necessarily think he's the reason people are watching, but I won't doubt his significant fanbase built over the last 9 years, as well as poor show structure over the last few months. That means, replace Bryan with anyone else on the roster and you have the same problem. Blaming anyone for "not being a draw" is a poor excuse when it's WWE's own doing for being narrow minded in their dependence on one person as well as some of the most phoned-in storylines in quite some time. What? That's the opposite. Cena not being there barely affects anything except for live event attendance. Look at Hell in a Cell last year when Cena wasn't wrestling and it was main evented by "not a draw" CM Punk. 200,000 buys for a B-PPV these days is very good. The year before that, main evented by Cena, had a lower buyrate. And this year, if HIAC doesn't draw that well, are people going to say "Well, I guess people didn't care that much about Cena's return" like they did with Punk's return at Payback? Probably not. As for Brock, I don't think anyone can deny he at least made a short term impact. Extreme Rules 2012 and SummerSlam 2012 drew well because of Brock Lesnar. That's almost fact. For a buyrate to suddenly shoot up that much implies it was something major, and the only major difference between those PPVs and the year before was Brock Lesnar being back. |
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Nov 1, 2013 9:36:53 GMT -5
im to blame for Dbry losing his push. I don't buy ppvs anymore, hell I don't even stream them. I just don't care to waste my time. Thus people I would pay money to see are 60 bucks in the negative.
|
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Nov 1, 2013 9:44:01 GMT -5
I think it might be due to the fact that everyone saw the Triple H heel turn and the cash-in coming a mile away and didn't want to see it. The cash in I'll give you but I didn't see a single person predicting Triple H turning heel. |
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Nov 1, 2013 9:48:36 GMT -5
In this day and age, people don't draw. Angles draw. The InVasion had all of WWF's usual biggest names plus a bunch of WCW scrubs and a couple of its stars, and did a monstrous buyrate even by that era's standards because the story mattered. The thing is that a storyline going off the rails won't show until the buyrate after dropping, by which point it's already too late.
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Nov 1, 2013 9:50:08 GMT -5
MMA's two recent PPVs had LHW Champ Jon Jones and HW Champ Cain Velasquez main eventing. Both only did 325k, which by UFC standards, is really, really bad. It's not just a WWE problem.
Other than high-profile boxing fights featuring Mayweather, people just aren't gonna buy extravagant prices for PPVs when they can go to a Buffalo Wild Wings, a bar or stream it illegally.
I find the cost for PPVs themselves to be nothing short of price gouging. Especially in the WWE where almost all of the PPV matches are done again the following night. PPVs these days have no finality to feuds it seems anymore, which I believe is bad for the PPV product on top of the expensiveness.
|
|
Sparkybob
King Koopa
I have a status?
Posts: 11,003 
|
Post by Sparkybob on Nov 1, 2013 9:55:31 GMT -5
MMA's two recent PPVs had LHW Champ Jon Jones and HW Champ Cain Velasquez main eventing. Both only did 325k, which by UFC standards, is really, really bad. It's not just a WWE problem. Other than high-profile boxing fights featuring Mayweather, people just aren't gonna buy extravagant prices for PPVs when they can go to a Buffalo Wild Wings, a bar or stream it illegally. I find the cost for PPVs themselves to be nothing short of price gouging. Especially in the WWE where almost all of the PPV matches are done again the following night. PPVs these days have no finality to feuds it seems anymore, which I believe is bad for the PPV product on top of the expensiveness. Even though we mock the execution, the WWE network having every PPV but Mania will probably be better for fans. If it was like 11 bucks a month I think a lot of people will jump on that. I think the WWE can make up the profit of those high costing PPV's with a new batch of fans paying 11 bucks a month. |
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Nov 1, 2013 10:21:29 GMT -5
Even though we mock the execution, the WWE network having every PPV but Mania will probably be better for fans. If it was like 11 bucks a month I think a lot of people will jump on that. I think the WWE can make up the profit of those high costing PPV's with a new batch of fans paying 11 bucks a month. Assuming the WWE Network ever gets off the ground, the only incentive would be putting PPVs on this channel because as of now, it's still gonna be a paid subscription network. I can't imagine they're gonna get a couple of million subscribers to a network they charge $15/month for that has absolutely no compelling content other than stuff anyone can find on Youtube or Dailymotion or their own programming (like reality shows or their films). |
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Nov 1, 2013 11:06:56 GMT -5
What? That's the opposite. Cena not being there barely affects anything except for live event attendance. Look at Hell in a Cell last year when Cena wasn't wrestling and it was main evented by "not a draw" CM Punk. 200,000 buys for a B-PPV these days is very good. The year before that, main evented by Cena, had a lower buyrate. And this year, if HIAC doesn't draw that well, are people going to say "Well, I guess people didn't care that much about Cena's return" like they did with Punk's return at Payback? Probably not. As for Brock, I don't think anyone can deny he at least made a short term impact. Extreme Rules 2012 and SummerSlam 2012 drew well because of Brock Lesnar. That's almost fact. For a buyrate to suddenly shoot up that much implies it was something major, and the only major difference between those PPVs and the year before was Brock Lesnar being back. Yes, Brock initially did, but look at how they booked him. Nobody needs to give a shit because he isn't some unstoppable MMA beast like they built upon during his return. Then WWE does what WWE does best by f***ing up. Again, I said only part of the interest lies on Cena. I'm not saying that everyone pays to see him, but combine that with the shit storyline and look at the results. The reason why last year worked was that they didn't halfass Ryback/Punk. People had a reason to care. These last few months? Why should I care about continuing to buy PPVs when the norm as of recently has been to have a screwy finish to every main event? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 11:22:12 GMT -5
What? That's the opposite. Cena not being there barely affects anything except for live event attendance. Look at Hell in a Cell last year when Cena wasn't wrestling and it was main evented by "not a draw" CM Punk. 200,000 buys for a B-PPV these days is very good. The year before that, main evented by Cena, had a lower buyrate. And this year, if HIAC doesn't draw that well, are people going to say "Well, I guess people didn't care that much about Cena's return" like they did with Punk's return at Payback? Probably not. As for Brock, I don't think anyone can deny he at least made a short term impact. Extreme Rules 2012 and SummerSlam 2012 drew well because of Brock Lesnar. That's almost fact. For a buyrate to suddenly shoot up that much implies it was something major, and the only major difference between those PPVs and the year before was Brock Lesnar being back. Yes, Brock initially did, but look at how they booked him. Nobody needs to give a shit because he isn't some unstoppable MMA beast like they built upon during his return. Then WWE does what WWE does best by f***ing up. Again, I said only part of the interest lies on Cena. I'm not saying that everyone pays to see him, but combine that with the shit storyline and look at the results. The reason why last year worked was that they didn't halfass Ryback/Punk. People had a reason to care. These last few months? Why should I care about continuing to buy PPVs when the norm as of recently has been to have a screwy finish to every main event? Fair enough. I just don't want people to try and put blame all on one person when the likelihood is there is multiple reasons. People were lambasting CM Punk, saying he wasn't a draw, people didn't care about his return (including Dave Meltzer) because the Payback buyrate was mediocre but I guarantee if the HIAC buyrate this year comes back mediocre no one will blame John Cena. All the blame will probably go on Punk and Bryan again, because everyone seems to want to think like WWE does, because it's "cool" to understand the business and who draws. Not only that but like I said, only Brock and Rock have really shown themselves as individual draws in the last couple years. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2013 11:27:50 GMT -5
I think it might be due to the fact that everyone saw the Triple H heel turn and the cash-in coming a mile away and didn't want to see it. The cash in I'll give you but I didn't see a single person predicting Triple H turning heel. Actually, news had been saying it was planned for him to turn at SummerSlam for a couple of months at that point and a lot of people expected it. |
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Nov 1, 2013 11:35:34 GMT -5
The logic of "this kind of person doesn't draw" I think is too short-sighted. Kevin Nash didn't draw, Bret and Shawn didn't draw, hell nothing from Hogan leaving in 1992 and the Monday Night Wars drew. So by that logic, big guys who are slow and plodding, little guys who are "workratez" and guys who can both talk and work well are not draws.
I have evidence to back that, I have 4 years of three "legends" tanking business far worse than Punk or Bryan has, but it doesn't mean that "guys like that" won't draw.
What it means is, the market is down for wrestling right now, no one is going to draw like during the Attitude Era because the fanbase just isn't there. However, if you take a bunch of guys and show them, for a period of years, to be second tier performers, no matter who they are, they will lose steam and not draw.
It's not just Bryan and Punk, toss Ryback who was green but hot as hell and they did nothing with it. Throw in pretty much anyone who wasn't "established" in or by 2005 and what's the presentation. "Oh, they're great but they're no John Cena or Triple H".
Thus, the going to the well, the bringing back stars to "pop a rating" instead of, you know, saying "hey, these guys are just as good as the people you know, you should like them too".
Business was in the toilet, but what if in 1995 we had Bret and Shawn on the rise but the announcers kept saying "they're great performers, but they're sure no Hulk Hogan or Ultimate Warrior, now THOSE were some stars there".
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Nov 1, 2013 16:07:44 GMT -5
The next PPV buyrate is the tell-tale sign. It'll be built around Cena, and Big Show/Orton/HHH. If that tanks, it just proves WWE is the problem.
That said, I love how there's always some cherry-picking weirdos who like to see certain new acts fail, just because. It takes time, and the right angles to build superstars. Cena wasn't a draw right away. He played the entire 2005 year as second banana to Batista, not closing one show that calendar year. Steve Austin holds the record to this day for lowest quarter hour in RAW main event history in 2006. Everyone has to start somewhere. And eventually, the marketability catches up to the reactions.
It's funny though how in Hollywood, when things bomb, the big movie stars get blamed for it, not the co-star. When Battlefield Earth bombed so spectacularly, the studio realized it was a combination of a shit story, hammy acting of Travolta (its star) and the general lack of appeal that made it so. I doubt anyone cried out "Ugh! If only we hadn't put Barry Pepper in there! We'd have made millions!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Nov 1, 2013 16:20:16 GMT -5
I expect Battleground to bomb dramatically after the Night of Champions deal, and even Hell in a Cell. In regards to Bryan and Punk drawing poorly, at least in Daniel Bryan's defence, Rome wasn't built in a day. You have to consistently establish someone as a top guy and slowly build them up. I didn't expect the buy rates to go through the roof yet. Hell, back when Triple H first won the World Title, he was getting a bit of flack for not being that good of a Champion. But you worked at the guy, and he ended up being a major draw into 2000. It's weird. The only guy they didn't really pull the plug on when it came to issues with drawing and popularity was John Cena. Looking back, it may've been the right decision, because they firmly established him as the top guy in the company and were able to become more successful by getting behind someone.
t was like when listening to the Art of Wrestling where Colt Cabana and Michael Elgin were talking about how agents will find the smallest things to criticize. I'd have Bryan, at least in a main event position for at least a good year before you would start to see him actually drawing. From television ratings, there seems to be some interest in him, but it has to be built up. So, maybe there's a chance WWE still has some belief in him, but they want to have more programs with him to build up over time. But then again, if he's not perceived in that main event spot, it just might end up being worse and worse overtime.
|
|
