Should the WWE use their approach TV/PPV approach during the Attuitude Era?

[shooter_mcgavin]

Hello folks ...

This argument I is something I have pondered about for quite some time.

Back in the Attitude Era TV Ratings were through the roof and PPV's got better buy rates and attendance.

Of course people will say its because the Attitude Era had Austin, Shock TV, and such.

I think one people forget is that the Attitude Era really distinguished the purpose of a PPV and the purpose of a TV Program like RAW.

In the Attitude Era RAW had an average of 28 mins dedicated to matches, most of the show was dedicated to promos, backstage segments, skits and so forth.

So what did this mean? For fans to see the top draws like Austin, Undertaker, The Rock in actual meaningful wrestling matches, they had to order a PPV just to see them in 15 to 30 min bouts.

Now this kind of makes sense for many reasons:

In TV shows like RAW or Smackdown!, viewers tend to have a short attention span since there are literally hundreds of channels (in North America anyways) to choose from. Wrestling Matches, while entertaining, requires a sense of dedication from the viewer in a medium where there's lots of distractions. In PPV's we pay $40 to $60 to watch PPV's so its easier for viewers to pay attention to a 20 mins wrestling match since there's no way they would be channel flipping for something they paid so much for.

Another reason is more of an booking one. If promos are made to build up a rivalry, it's the matches that are the climax or the start of a new chapter in the feud. So free TV is basically a tease but payed PPV is where people watch the payoff of the feud.

So what does this have to do with before or today?

Simple in those days to watch your favorite superstar like Austin in a match you had to pay to see him wrestle. There's no other option.

Notice in his build up to his match with Shawn Michaels at WM14 or his hyped match with Undertaker at Summer Slam on that same year. Austin was barley involved in matches on free TV. In fact I can probably could a total of 1 or 2 matches in free TV on those 2 month spans. Since it was a rarity to see Austin in a match on free TV even Tag Team Main Event Matches involving Austin can sell a minor PPV (see No Way Out and Fully Loaded in 1998).

These PPV's sold well in contrast to today when even a tag team match involving The Rock and Cena in one of the big four PPV's results at a low buyrate. So why do today's PPV do relatively poorly? Just look at the matches they throw at free TV over the last year ... CM Punk vs. Cena after their hot Summer Slam Match, Randy Orton vs. Christian right after Extreme Rules, Orton vs. Rhodes before their PPV Match, Punk vs. Bryan. And a few years back we got Triple H vs. Undertaker in 2008 on Friday Night Smackdown! ... at a time when that match could have sold a WM alone. They are also featuing Ladder Matches, Steel Cage Matches, and such on free TV more so than before.

Long story short today you are putting big stars in big matches on free TV. If this is the case there is less of an incentive to order of PPV knowing guys like Punk, Cena, or Orton will be performing on a regular basis on RAW or Smackdown? As opposed to before just to see Austin beat the cr@p out of people we had to pay.

So my question is does it make more sense to follow the Attitude Era model where the top stars limit their inring involvement on TV and focus on Promos. And leave the actual wrestling on PPV In hopes to increase TV ratings due to more time on promos and also PPV buy rates?

My answer is already obvious from what I pointed above. But what about you guys

[shooter_mcgavin]

Oops title makes no sense ... hi mods please change thread title to Should the WWE use the approach in handling/booking TV/PPVs during the Attuitude Era?

[TWJC: The Beginning]

No. The Attitude Era lost a lot of traditional fans because they didn't have wrestling. They gained a ton of fairweather fans (the same people who watch trendy shows now like Jersey shore, teen mom, whatever).

In the tude era, it was easier to keep their attention because you had cheap pops.

Also, I would like to see proof that this is how the tude era worked. I remember a ton of times HBK was on the show. A ton of times Rock wrestled. I'm guessing Austin didn't wrestle as much because of his neck. So you're hypothesis might not even be based on something factual, but more your perception of the era.

[Rainbow Yaz]

I posted this earlier in a thread about Paul Heyman coming back to WWE to bring back the Attitude Era

It worries me a little that the Attitude Era ended over ten years ago and fans still think it will make a come back. It isn't like the business is on its last leg, its still doing fairly well. Wrestling has gone in cycles. It had a boom in the late 80s, it dipped in the mid 90s, then the late 90s and early 00s were high, its in a lower point now. Just give it time. The end of the Attitude Era didn't cause as many people to leave as everyone says

As far as the actual wrestling its still like that today. Typically if you want to see a good 20ish minute match that tells a story you need to order the PPV.

[rokuma]

My problem with the current era is that we see the same matches...week...after week...after week. How many times did Daniel Bryan wrestle Show/Henry? Or Orton/Barrett? Or Punk/Ziggler? And then each of them had PPV matches?! Why do I want to buy a PPV to see these matches when I just saw them on free TV for the last month and a half? To see them "get revenge?" Please. Most older wrestling fans don't want to see the other guy "get revenge," but to see quality wrestling matches.

Back in the early 90s and the Attitude Era, all the big matches were saved for PPVs. Rarely on free TV did you see a match involving two main eventers. Hogan didn't face Savage on free TV, HBK never faced his top contenders, as someone mentioned above, Austin hardly wrestled leading up to his big matches. Now, it's nothing to see Cena wrestle The Miz (when he was a main eventer), Ziggler and Punk, Orton wrestle every week, and so on. There's no importance to the matches. I remember in early 1996 on Raw (before HBK was champ) one of the biggest matches they had was Bret Hart and the Undertaker for the WWF Title. It was BIG because it was unprecedented and Vince McMahon kept calling it a "rare opportunity." That's a good way to make matches feel important. Have the main eventers wrestle midcarders on free TV...save the better matchups for PPVs. It's that simple.

[HBsam31]

Originally Posted by rokuma

My problem with the current era is that we see the same matches...week...after week...after week. How many times did Daniel Bryan wrestle Show/Henry? Or Orton/Barrett? Or Punk/Ziggler? And then each of them had PPV matches?! Why do I want to buy a PPV to see these matches when I just saw them on free TV for the last month and a half? To see them "get revenge?" Please. Most older wrestling fans don't want to see the other guy "get revenge," but to see quality wrestling matches.

Back in the early 90s and the Attitude Era, all the big matches were saved for PPVs. Rarely on free TV did you see a match involving two main eventers. Hogan didn't face Savage on free TV, HBK never faced his top contenders, as someone mentioned above, Austin hardly wrestled leading up to his big matches. Now, it's nothing to see Cena wrestle The Miz (when he was a main eventer), Ziggler and Punk, Orton wrestle every week, and so on. There's no importance to the matches. I remember in early 1996 on Raw (before HBK was champ) one of the biggest matches they had was Bret Hart and the Undertaker for the WWF Title. It was BIG because it was unprecedented and Vince McMahon kept calling it a "rare opportunity." That's a good way to make matches feel important. Have the main eventers wrestle midcarders on free TV...save the better matchups for PPVs. It's that simple.

This is exactly where I wanted to go with this. When Hogan was on top you rarely even saw him on tv period save for an interview here and there, and when you did see him it was to build for a PPV match. Add to the fact they only had four maybe 5 ppvs a year. I would be curious to see PPV buys from when Hogan was on top compared to the attitude era. The poster that said the Attitude era brought in a lot of fair weather fans is correct also as I saw it first hand with my friends. I am a lifelong fan compared to them who watched from the end of 98 to 2000 only. As far as today goes we are seeing no consistency. Do we really need to see the miz lose clean 4 or 5 weeks in a row, and on the sixth week we as fans are expected to believe he could win the world title. I know I am exaggerating a bit, but it is sometimes hard to distinguish who they want on top. When Punk was feuding with Ziggler we saw Ziggler pin Punk 3 times before their title match, I know they weren't clean wins, but were wins no the less. It didn't make me more interested in the PPV match, actually it made me say who cares by the time the real match came around. So my answer to the question is the upper echelon stars need to be a little more limited in their involvement so when the PPv does come around we are more interested in what they do then as opposed to seeing them wrestle and even lose week in and week out.

[BarryHorowitzfanclub]

Back then, I remember a LOT of tag team matches with the people to be involved in singles matches at the PPV (and also vice versa for the tag teams; remember tag teams? I miss tag teams...I digress.)

But yes, there should be a difference in the style/quality of matches. It was cool that every so often when Raw would have a "real" match for a belt or a gimmick match. But it didn't happen all the time; maybe 4 times a year.

Most of the Raw matches were either hodgepodge of singles (like the IC champ and WWe champ teams against their foes), tag teams vying for a shot at the belts, and individual squash matches that sometimes were a decent 5 minutes. Most of the show was talking, which sometimes sucked, but often helped develop a story.

WWE doesn't slow-play anymore, so all of that is out the window. "Grudge" matches and feuds last a frickin month now, and not a whole season or year. That part i miss. I don't miss the heavy windedness.

[xavyer]

I agree with a lot of you, back in the attitude era it was more special because main event guys fought midcarders, and their rivals used to cost them the match, and the promos were much better back then, and when the heel used to interfere in the face's match, people couldn't wait untill the PPV to see the outcome of the match or the face get back at the heel now that he got him in the ring, and also back then it was unpredictible what was going to happen, and someone said that they didn't just throw main eventers to face eachother on free tv, if that was to happen, they save them for at least the main event of the show, and now every week they put CM punk to face Dolph Ziggler at the middle of the show, and Cena vs The Miz after that, back in the attitude era they used to save their main event guys for special ocations, now they use them all the time, and when the big ppv comes, the matches don't feel that special, like i said, they are very predictible, sometimes i feel that the WWE lost the element of surprise.........

[logan_punisher]

now everyone can i ask this? wwe is all about RATINGS!!! not the quality of the matches. there failing those ratings giving us same matches... i didnt mind seeing kane vs. r-truth on monday. i liked the tag team match also. that was a better wwe raw in a while just in my opinion.

[Charlesworth]

Gooooood thread bruzz..

It needs to be split maybe 60/40. 60 for promos, backstage segments, skits and 40 to actual GOOD wrestling. No squash matches or any of thit shit. I think before a PPV, two wrestlers need to have atleast one physical interaction, makes the pre match video package better. As for random tag teams like last week on Raw having Punk/Sheamus v Bryan/Jericho is stupid. It makes no sense. I agree 100 percent with the OP about saving most of the actual wrestling to PPVs, that does make sense.