The no-mans land of the Network....

[Mighty NorCal]

Tonight(Battlegorund) was furthermore proof of what I have been saying lately.

This buisness model is poor, and these "B" ppvs are really and truly turning into glorified episodes of RAW. EVerything on this show was something from a RAW episode. I would have been fucking HEATED had I paid 55$ for that piss poor show.

A countout finish for their most built up match, a non-match that had lots of brawling and basktage segments, a wildly predicatable main event, that had nothing in it that we havent seen a thousand times before....the fucking set wasnt even different.

Its high time the WWE goes down to 6 - 8 big shows (would-be PPV) to save money on production costs, AND make them almost entirely network exclusive. You have to give people more bang for their buck, and shit like this isn't doing it....Unfortunately, its kind of a necessary evil with so many PPVs to put on.

But since you have already slashed your PPV revenue possibilities in half (I would be shocked if this show did more than 100K buys. Only people who love WWE enough to have the network want to watch this) but you are still footing the production costs, and, as it appears, bleeding money significantly. its time to look at a fresh model.


Cut down the shows to make them more must-see, but at the same time, save yourself some money, ALSO at the same time giving people more incentive to subscribe to the network. Obviously you still offer these 6-8 on PPV internationally, but also avoid the free network broadcasting of them with companies like Sky and the like.

 

[bk555]

I completely agree that the WWE Network will end up ruining Pay-Per-View shows apart from Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Summerslam and Survivor Series for the most part and if these PPVs- sorry "special events" are devalued by the network, just imagine what that will mean for Raw and Smackdown, such an effect has already been seen by the lackluster product.

Unfortunately, the solution presented of 6-8 Solidified and properly built up PPV events, while an excellent long term solution to WWE's impending problems, will never be taken into account by Vince and co.

We've learned anything recently over the last few years specifically it's that Vince McMahon and the current WWE Brass are fickle, impatient and unwilling to build for the long haul. If given an option of the cheap, temporary immediate solution or the long-term stability option, they will take the former every time.

They are impatient with their talent and that's why they are desperately turning to John Cena once again, since they have a lack of main event talent, and instead of cutting back for the long-term, they won't be able to part with the idea of having so many PPV events even though this Network could very well be something that WWE will be feeling the detrimental effects of for years to come.

 

[laodaron]

Vince McMahon probably has one of the best long term visions in modern business. He made moves in the 80s that he knew would pay out in the 2000s or later.

In addition, the WWE has done its best job yet of releasing poor talent that was getting chances for no reason and finally looking toward young talent. They gave Daniel Bryan the chance, and he wasn't honest, and he didn't really care about being the champ, which is why he would schedule a wedding for the week after Wrestlemania and then lie about his neck and arm injuries to get his push.

The WWE has to be careful to not bring in too many indyfed talents. They are generally rick takers beyond a healthy level.

Now, on to the Network...which is probably the greatest television delivery innovation in the last decade since Netflix. Full ownership over your IP, subscription based model, and discounted live television. If people can't see that, it isn't Vince's fault, its the fucking morons that don't want to pay $60 for 6 PPVs, but instead want to bitch online about paying $60 for 6 months of live PPVs, nearly unlimited historic PPVs, the Monday Night Wars coming this fall, etc.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Hard to say for certain but it makes sense. I guess it is possible for WWE "PPV" events to bring in a strong enough gate and merchandise sales to the point of keeping them but without the extra PPV buys I can't seem to think it is financially viable for WWE to continue with so many events.

My expectation is a slow burn. I think they went from 13 to 12 this year and I can see them dropping one or two a year until they get down to eight. Six doesn't feel like enough, WWE wants to keep eyes on their Network more often then once every two months.

I don't know, so much depends on whether or not the network holds it's own come six month renewal and overseas rollout time.

 

[Straightfromthehart]

Vince McMahon probably has one of the best long term visions in modern business. He made moves in the 80s that he knew would pay out in the 2000s or later.

In addition, the WWE has done its best job yet of releasing poor talent that was getting chances for no reason and finally looking toward young talent. They gave Daniel Bryan the chance, and he wasn't honest, and he didn't really care about being the champ, which is why he would schedule a wedding for the week after Wrestlemania and then lie about his neck and arm injuries to get his push.

The WWE has to be careful to not bring in too many indyfed talents. They are generally rick takers beyond a healthy level.

Now, on to the Network...which is probably the greatest television delivery innovation in the last decade since Netflix. Full ownership over your IP, subscription based model, and discounted live television. If people can't see that, it isn't Vince's fault, its the fucking morons that don't want to pay $60 for 6 PPVs, but instead want to bitch online about paying $60 for 6 months of live PPVs, nearly unlimited historic PPVs, the Monday Night Wars coming this fall, etc.

It really doesn't matter how much you pay when the product is poor. And I agree with op that last night was not worthy of ppv. Even, for $10. Now state what you like about the innovation of the network, but the vast vast majority of the networks selling point is the ppv library. Almost all of this stuff is readily available to download for free, and for you to own. The ease of watching ppv's on free streams too means the product really does need to be top draw to justify money being spent, and rite now it's not worth the charge. I disagree that there is a long term strategy when it comes to the tv product and this is the major issue at the moment.

 

[mr_dna]

I have to agree with laodaron to a point ...

you are seeing the WWE Network as a platform to see PPVs which to a point it is .. But your also paying for all previous PPVs from WWE,WCW,ECW... Paying to watch NXT,Main event and shed loads more of historic wrestling content and other wrestling related content

For a example i just had a look and got that Wrestlemania 30 PPV order cost is $55 – $70... 6 Month WWE Network $60 rounded up . So 6 months of WWE Network costs the same as Wrestlemania .

I think most fans buy 1 or 2 PPVs in a year maybe more the big 4 WM,SS,RR,SS thats over $200 yet you can see them all plus everything else for under $120 a year

In my opinion you got to have a screw lose not to sub if you even consider buying 1 PPV.

To add from a UK Respective i will sub straight away as to watch any kind of WWE here you need sky and for PPV sky sports and sky sports ins like £30 a month and i dont give a shit about any other sport so it will be a bargain for me and many other WWE only fans

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Vince McMahon probably has one of the best long term visions in modern business. He made moves in the 80s that he knew would pay out in the 2000s or later.

In addition, the WWE has done its best job yet of releasing poor talent that was getting chances for no reason and finally looking toward young talent. They gave Daniel Bryan the chance, and he wasn't honest, and he didn't really care about being the champ, which is why he would schedule a wedding for the week after Wrestlemania and then lie about his neck and arm injuries to get his push.

The WWE has to be careful to not bring in too many indyfed talents. They are generally rick takers beyond a healthy level.

Now, on to the Network...which is probably the greatest television delivery innovation in the last decade since Netflix. Full ownership over your IP, subscription based model, and discounted live television. If people can't see that, it isn't Vince's fault, its the fucking morons that don't want to pay $60 for 6 PPVs, but instead want to bitch online about paying $60 for 6 months of live PPVs, nearly unlimited historic PPVs, the Monday Night Wars coming this fall, etc.

Generally speaking, this is pretty much how I see it. When the idea of a WWE Network was first talked about several years back, even as a layman, I knew that there was little to no way it'd work as a traditional TV network because there's just not a huge enough market to entice people to watch an entire network devoted to professional wrestling. Even if it's not wrestling matches or shows per say, the shows are still centered around or are about pro wrestling in general. Even if cable, satellite companies and major carriers did go along with the idea and began airing the network, there'd be complaints from a lot of customers who didn't want it and had no interest in it, yet they're getting it anyway, which means that sky high cable and satellite bills that they're already paying will wind up just a little bit higher.

Going the rout of Netflix is an innovative idea and, frankly, I think it's a great deal. For year after year, I've read complaints on the boards from people wishing that WWE would cut down on the number of ppvs or to reduce the price. The WWE Network is able to deliver that for only $10 a month rather than paying $45 to $50 bucks a month for a single ppv. As I alluded to earlier, cable and satellite bills are already through the roof and ppvs just add that much more onto it. On top of that, there's access to every ppv that WWE, WCW and ECW produced as well as access to various other content ranging from episodes of television shows from WWE, Mid-Atlantic, WCW, ECW, WCCW including matches, promo segments, documentary like shows such as Beyond the Ring, etc. More content will be added on top of that as time goes by if it really, really takes off. I have a feeling that the WWE Network is something that is expected to pay off in a big way over time. Like Vince or hate him, he's usually somebody looks at things in the long run.

WWE isn't going to cut back on the number of ppvs, in my opinion, because, otherwise, there's not a whole helluva lot of reason to have the network in the first place. Being able to watch every WWE ppv for only $10 a month is the bread and butter of the WWE Network. Even if they were to cut down to 4 or 6 shows, they MIGHT very well have to resort to a substantial increase in subscription prices in order to offset the difference which would only resort in more complaints and criticisms.

As far as the various B ppvs, if you're not into 'em, then you're just not into 'em. Personally, I've enjoyed every one of the ppvs I've seen this year and, a lot of the time, I think some fans have pretty unrealistic expectations in which every match on every show is supposed to be some sort of fucking epic happening that rocks the wrestling world to its foundation. Last night's show wasn't great, a little too predictable overall and it felt like it was basically a holding show to SummerSlam. But, I thought it was a solid show all in all with good wrestling matches. I didn't like some of the outcomes but, then again, I don't expect them to cater to my every desire. All in all, I thought the pluses outweighed the negatives and I was entertained by most of the matches which, at the end of the day, is what I'm hoping for the most when I watch a show.

 

[justinsayne]

Personally I would like to see them cut down the number on PPV's to about 8 quality shows a year, then in place of those 4 PPVs they've gotten rid of, replace them with 4 3 hr. NXT specials. Arrival & Takeover where great shows, but they were only about 2 hrs. long if I remember right, if NXT could get a 3 hr. block of time to showcase more of their talent, & have it on Sunday night, I can't see how it could do anything but benefit all involved.

As for the network, I think a lot of people need to remember that their are still a lot of wrestling fans out there that have no interest in watch 20 yr. old PPVs & shows. The Network needs to come up with more fun & original programming to draw in the more casual fan.

 

[Torgo]

I agree with what NorCal said 100%. Battleground seems doomed to go the routes of Capital Punishment. That was merely Sunday Night Raw, with an uberpredictable main event, a lackluster divas title match, an anticipated match that didn't even start, and a piss poor crowd. Maffew will have plenty of material for botchamania after this one. The only saving grace the thing had was the tag team title match. That was phenomenal, but not worth paying 50 bucks for or even 10, really.

I think the WWE has itself a good thing with the network, but I wonder if it will take off. I don't know how many casual fans can be enticed. I mean, if you are jsut a guy who watches Raw and the occasional PPV, do you really need every PPV in history? Do you really need documentaries? I bought the network because I love wrestling, but would your average Joe buy it?

I like the idea of fewer PPVs a year, that way each feels special. I mean, I didn't even realize Battleground was near until last week on RAW! If things remain the same, however, will the average fan be enticed to buy the network after seeing shows like Battleground?

 

[resignedknight]

If you go into every "special event" expecting it to be Wrestlemania, you're going to be disappointed. The best angles always have a slower burn, and that means some indecisive finishes and filler matches--it's just the nature of the business, always has been, and always will be.

But I disagree with the idea of limiting the number of PPVs. Last year, I'll admit I was disappointed with Battleground for many of the same reasons people have discussed about this year's edition. However, I wasn't as directly invested this year because of the Network, and I actually really enjoyed the way this show built toward Summerslam, and I felt more able to enjoy the moments. This is why the Network is a much better model than the old PPV system. I want big stories that take time to unfold, and the Network should allow them more leeway in not rushing the payoff to every feud.

Ambrose and Rollins is the perfect example. If they had actually had a match with a conclusive finish, it would have been a waste of the potential this feud has. Under the old system, if I had bought Battleground, I would have wanted to see it anyway to feel like I got my money's worth. But since I only paid ten bucks for it, I was able to enjoy the actually pretty old-school backstage buildup, and I'm looking forward to something properly built up and potentially pretty epic at SS. I think this has the potential to be the kind of mid card feud that raises both guys to main event level in a way we haven't seen since at least the incredible mid card of the early Ruthless Aggression era, but not if they rush it.

Finally, you're crazy if you think that was just a Sunday Night Raw. We had a title match, which never happens on Raw anymore, and while the finish was predictable, the drama was in seeing a new main eventer and how he would hold up in that spot (and he did great I thought). We also had a show-stealing, long, and competitive tag title match, a solid match between one of the hottest new stars and one of the best ever, and the beginnings of several really solid mid card feuds between Sheamus, Ziggler, Miz, and, eventually, BNB. I'm sorry, but that would be one hell of a Raw, much better than anything we've seen recently. Again, it wasn't Wrestlemania, but it was a legitimate "special event" that I found largely pretty entertaining. For ten bucks, it was well worth it, and now we get a properly built up Summerslam with some great stories (also for 10 bucks!). I really don't see anything in the world to complain about here.

 

[PeterSellersSTL]

I'm happy with the network, sell the content and the network will sell itself. As for the number of PPV's I absolutely agree 8 PPVs with 6 weeks in between with 8 week builds for Mania and Summer Slam is the way to go. NXT picking up 4 2-hour specials is the right balance IMO.

What the network needs is a live weekly show, Main Event sorta/kinda fills that void but not all the way. And Tuesday is the wrong day for it. I actually wouldn't mind Sunday Night Heat coming back and serving as a kick-off show for PPVs. In fact I think I'd take a 1 hour live Sunday Night Heat in place of a canceled Smackdown.

8 PPVs. 4 NXT Specials. 1 Hour Sunday Night Heat Network Exclusive. 2 Hour Raw. 1 Hour weekly NXT. You can tape MainEvent at Sunday Night Heat and SuperStars at RAW.

That would be ideal for me.

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The problem with the network model is simple... they need MORE content rather than less, but the business issues mean it's got to be cheap content... as the current shows generate revenue, then they're unlikely to be cut...even if they "cost" in the end as P&L is one thing, once revenue drops boom they're in more trouble than Lana at the moment.

The problem with more content is that they then aren't paying the quality talent enough to market it, their deals expire and they walk thus...less stars doing more work...

There is no quick fix... but incentivising based on Network success seems a no brainer. Tell a Kofi Kingston that he will get a shot, but his wage will be linked to the number of subscribers he "adds" or "saves"... not saying he phones people like retentions but for example, his spots last night may have just swayed a maybe on retaining the network... they might have hated a lot of the show but thought Kofi's escape spots were great and they don't want to miss those... so when they do retain they mention those on the forms or surveys and he gets the assist.

Of course it's not gonna be simple, but if you're gonna have 6 "big PPV's a year" MITB and Night Of Champions included, and the others are going to be "glorified RAW" anyway, then use the talent who want a chance to head them up... if the numbers tank then it's a good indicator the guy can't "carry" the ball yet... but ask people why... rather than assuming "it's them". If BNB returns and headlines the December PPV against say Reigns... and it's a bad number, then it's not because either is failing it's cos it's a new dynamic... Remember those early Bret PPV's didn't do great either...

 

[HBK_EDGE]

The casual fan isn't going to buy the network for less PPV's and more NXT specials. Sure your die hard fans and hardcore wrestling fans who post on an internet message board would love it. But those fans who would love it have already bought the network. Hypothetically, lets say they are at 500,000 buys you aren't going to sell the 200,000 buys you need by appealing to the hardcore fans you have to do something to appeal to the casual fan and make them want to buy the network.

I've always said it if you told fans 5 or 10 years ago about the idea of the WWE network they would have loved it and went crazy for the idea. But our culture as fans now is to find something wrong with everything and always want something to bitch about. Fans choose to ignore the fact that the WWE needs to have mass appeal and want the WWE Network and every match to appeal to what they want. I'd love to see every WCW Nitro in order on the network along with Saturday Night and Worldwide but I realize they aren't exactly worried about appealing to my every need.

Take Battleground for example, Wyatt gets buried because he lost and it was the wrong move because it hurts Bray, but it wasn't predictable. However, when they go the predictable rout in the main event that is a problem too because it is just way too predictable. Who the hell did you want to win Kane? That is unpredictable for sure. I bet we would line up for Kane vs Lesnar at Summerslam now wouldn't we?

My point is no matter what they do some of you are going to find something wrong with it

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I liked the show even if Rollins/Ambrose was a non match.

It was about what I expected. I don't regret paying $10 for the network. Jesus Christ I spend more than that per week on 5 Hour Energy and this was a hell of a lot more value.

Vince is smart. Cable TV won't exist in 20 years. The millenials only have it at something like a 60% rate. The Network is hedging against that. Young people watch shows on the computer now. There will be some kinks to the format of the PPVs to work out but I'm not as doom and gloom as others.

Ambrose/Rollins wasn't an actual match, but you still got a fight. It furthered the feud. You would have hated the attitude era. They did that sort of thing all the time.

The tag match was very good, as were the quality of the matches in general.

Pro wrestling doesn't have beginnings and ends. Everything furthered a story or gave a character motivation. That's what it's supposed to do. No, it wasn't the best show ever, but go back (on WWE Network) and watch old middle PPVs. They have NEVER been consistently good.



^^^^WTF Wyatt wasn't buried. Is that a joke? He lost to one of the all time greats. The loss gives Wyatt's character motivation to get nastier and doesn't hurt him.

 

[FlairFan2003]

Most 20 and 30 somethings watch TV on their TVs - they may have computer access but they use the TV for most viewing....sitting in your living room with surround sound isn't going to go away. In fact, of the 20 somethings I know that don't have cable, they don't have computers either - they cant afford it, and if they did they'd get cable so they can watch in big sound the big picture in their comfortable living room. Anyone who thinks that is going away in 20 years is insane unless disposable income drops so much in this country people cant afford either!!!

The network is a huge over reach. Most wrestling fans are kids and they don't have money....their parents aren't all going to buy them the network when they can already watch RAW & Smackdown on TV. The appeal of the Network is in the older programming, unfortunately todays 12 year old fans have at best a passing knowledge of 70s & 80s wrestling, and aren't looking forward to sitting in front of a computer screen to watch it. Older fans don't watch as much (and have been watching much less with the retirements of so many stars of the past) but they are the ones who would get the most benefit from the network with all the old rebroadcast programming. Of course, they are also the ones that buy all the "Best Of..." DVD collections of various superstars, match types, and PPV events that have made a mint for WWE over the past 12 years. In short, those fans got most of what they wanted on DVD anyway and don't see the value in subscribing to The Network to see an occasional match they would have liked to see on a DVD but couldn't find.

With ratings at their lowest point that I can remember (roughly what they were in the early days, Pre NWO of the Monday Night Wars but that is just WWE only, their was an equal or greater amount of fans watching Nitro back then that are gone) it's hard to see where the Network is going to hit the million subscriber mark and start making money. Just like with the XFL, Vince over reached. He should have gotten his channel on the regular cable package and tried to improve ratings with original content (maybe air house shows or Main Event on there)....That was his best chance to make money.

 

[laodaron]

Almost EVERY 20 and 30 something has a media delivery device that is not cable or satellite service. Whether that's an Xbox, a PS3/4, a Roku, Apple TV, a Smart TV, or something in addition to the cable. Not that they don't have cable, but they have additions to their cable. Who doesn't own a computer in 2014, and who thinks that the only way to watch internet TV is on a computer? I have watched every PPV on my 60 inch in my main living room on my Roku 3. Cable companies are losing customers in record numbers to online internet television.

Also, ratings can't count anymore because of the internet. The same amount of people are watching, but they are using Hulu+ or just watching for free on Youtube.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Its high time the WWE goes down to 6 - 8 big shows (would-be PPV) to save money on production costs, AND make them almost entirely network exclusive. You have to give people more bang for their buck, and shit like this isn't doing it....Unfortunately, its kind of a necessary evil with so many PPVs to put on.

Going to 6-8 PPVs would have the dual effect of allowing storylines to get a proper build-up instead of forcing conflicts on us that instantly become blood feuds, leaving us to wonder how in hell it happened so quickly......and handling it this way might allow the company to not give us the same match-ups three PPVs in a row, such as the anticlimactic Cena-Bray trifecta, in which it didn't really matter who won the first two contests since the rubber match was the one that was gonna settle it all.

I like one & done feuds.....winner takes all. The current manner of handling plotlines pretty much eliminates that in major match-ups.

 

[laodaron]

Just a few years ago, there were feuds and stories that lasted months and months, even years. Its only in the recent years where stories have become so short.

 

[CavScout04]

I think that in the long run the Network will be a money maker. We need to remember that the Network isn't even available in Europe yet, when it is that will be a few hundred thousand new viewers. I can honestly say that i got a few buddies to sign up that wouldn't have if i didn't insist on it. They all love it. I will always be a subscriber to the Network, no questions asked.