The Return of Brand Exclusive PPV's?

[Tha Wolfpac]

Hey Yo!
Now a lot of people complain these days about how loads of talent in the WWE do nothing on Television and are not involved in storylines and sometimes just disappear off of Tv sometimes and then eventually get future endeavoured.
There is also another problem the titles are losing prestige a little and there is hardly or ever midcard feuds that involve up and comers etc.

Now my solution to this is making Pay-Per-Views brand exclusive again. Like back in the days when bad blood was for Raw and Great American Bash was for Smackdown. Now people will argue the WWE is getting way more money like these blah blah but they are also making a lot of stale programming at times due to the fact of seeing the same old people in the same matches most of the time.

Making PPv's brand exclusive again could raise the prestige of the multi branded PPV's as well like Survivor Series and things like that. This could also make a lot more interesting matches and just something fresh.

So guys what do you think would you or would you not like to see the return of brand exclusive PPv's? Give reasons on why or why not? please
Thanks,
.Tha Wolfpac.

 

[peep4life]

i always loved the brand exclusive PPV's mainly because you had more feuds going on, titles [in my opion] were more prestigeous, the multi-branded PPV's were special because main fueds were almost always ended there, and there was always a war between RAW and SMACKDOWN! and i for one loved the RAW and SD! fueds. do i see WWE doing it again maybe but not in the near future because it seems like there making more money and VINNIE MAC always says ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY

 

[Newman]

I agree that storylines would have more build and the titles will have more prestige. Instead of having Cena v Orton 4 PPVs in a row or Cena v Batista 3 in a row, the fans will eagerly anticipate the clash of both wrestlers who are involved in the fued with 2 months to build to the storyline. But now that Smackdown are really weak in top names, i do not wish to see the likes of Jack Swagger and The Big Show main eventing a PPV.

 

[SuperSteve16]

I am split in the middle of the idea to bring back brand exclusive PPV's. On one side, you have more exciting fueds that are actually built up on Raw or Smackdown, More Title Prestige and Underused talent (such as Evan Bourne, MVP and Kane) being used. On the other hand, the old brand exclusive PPV's had way too much filler and the non brand exclusive PPV's make you feel like its worth your money with most of the major championships on the line. If I had to choice, I would keep the non branded PPV's while having old ppv's ( such as King Of The Ring, Cyber Sunday and Unforgiven) as special episodes of Raw and Smackdown.

 

[Judah's Lion]

this could really work wonders. as stated earlier, instead of building up a feud for one month, each brand would have two months to build their respective main events, and that makes the match much more anticipated. plus, the titles that are never defended on ppv could be defended and mid-carders could get more tv and ppv time than they are.

and then that builds to the times that Raw and Smackdown are on the same ppv and fighting for supremacy. like when Batista fought Umaga at Mania, or the Bragging Rights tag team match, or Team Raw vs. Team Smackdown at Survivor Series, the Royal Rumble match itself, etc.

my thought is keep a few of the big ppv's mixed with Raw and Smackdown: Mania, Summer Slam, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble and bring back King of the Ring and make that both brands. maybe have one more ppv that's mixed to make it an even six ppv's that are mixed (maybe like Extreme Rules?), and then the other six months of the year split the shows and make them brand exclusive. that means three apiece for Raw and Smackdown. you can even still have the gimmick ppv concept if you were to split them up, like Hell in a Cell for Raw, TLC for Smackdown, etc.

 

[Bobby B]

I'm really against the idea of brand exclusive PPV's. For these reasons:

- Generally, the cards are much weaker. You end up with matches thrown on the card because they simply need to fill the time. I'm sure IIRC, that there was one Smackdown PPV where the Smackdown two nights before, Matt Hardy was being interviewed, RVD appeared from no-where - smacked him over the head with a chair for no reason, then they had a match at the PPV two days later.
- 8 weeks is a long time to develop a feud without resolution - the Big Show vs Swagger build up on Smackdown was incredibly dull and one sided - having to develop it for 8 weeks would be hell.
- We're paying the same amount for a PPV - and getting a thinner card.

 

[The Aussie Invasion]

It just wouldn't work, like JPK said, matches just get thrown in for no apparent reason and you pay the same amount for a card with only 1 or 2 matches with proper built-up storylines, probably 3 matches at the max.

I've got alot of WWE PPV DVD's from 2003-2007, and since about late 2005, early 2006 until No Way Out in 2007, the Brand Exclusive PPV's were just awful, there was only 2 at maximum matches that had storylines in most of the DVD's.

JPK said it aswell, imagine having to build Swagger and Big Show on SmackDown! for 8 weeks!, it would be hell!, But on RAW, I wouldn't mind seeing John Cena vs Randy Orton, or Randy Orton vs Sheamus being built up for 8 weeks, Hell I wouldn't mind seeing John Cena vs Edge being built up for 8 weeks again!

But the bottom line is Brand Exclusive PPV's just wouldn't work in this day and age of the WWE

 

[Rammsteinerteen]

I must agree with The Aussie Invasion and JPK, bringing back normal exclusive PPV sounds good. But in the end, your just going to get random feuds. I know what your thinking, at least there adding them, but I find the storyline to be boring with no emotions at all. Nowadays, the WWE midcarders may lack the feuds, but honestly, I rather see real feuds in PPVs.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

I wouldn't like that, in that case you would have feuds that last a month each with absolute no story behind it...plus the creative writers have to make the main event feuds the bestb they can be now days...to be honest, i think TNA is more crowded than WWE...in that way i mean wwe don't just show a guy 1 week and then throw him away the next...now wwe try to focus on feuds involving titles...and some feuds without titles, but with big names...

 

[hhhfactor]

It really wouldn't work with Smackdown getting screwed over with draft pick. There are not enough big enough stars on the brand worthy enough of showcasing a Smackdown only pay per view. If it is idea of something to do in the future, then the WWE needs to make sure that brands are more evenly matched allowing for some high quality pay per view matchups.

 

[TwistofRKO]

There is hardly enough talent to pull off good PPVs now. You'd have to re-distribute the top-tier talent back to Smackdown, weaken RAW past its 3.2 ratings, when Smackdown's ratings are really never going to change. That then leads us to whether or not people are going to want to pay $44.95 for a 3 hour RAW, or worse yet, a 3 hour Smackdown, and right now there isn't enough out there to believe anybody would.

As it stands NOW, Smackdown's main even feud would be Swagger vs Big Show, which was nothing more than a mid-card match when it was Cena vs Big Show. Who will fill the rest of the card?

No, no, no.

 

[DL23]

Obviously the brand split WASN'T working for Vinnie Mac wouldn't have ended it 3 years ago.

The Brand split PPV's as a whole were pretty bad, the only good thing to come out of it was feuds didn't seem as rushed as they are nowadays. Take the first two Brand split PPV's Badd Blood 2003 and Vengeance 2003 had a few big matches with a lot of time given before the PPV to build the storyline up (more so the latter) but the rest of PPV's were pretty pathetic, most of the matches from Unforgiven 2003 were actually meant to happen at SummerSlam (HBK/Orton & Goldberg/HHH but HHH injury ended up putting together the Elimination Chamber).

I ask anyone on here to name one match on the Brand split PPV's that WASN'T a Title match that stands out, apart from Orton/HBK & HBK/Flair from 2003 not one stands out, because most of the matches were put together the day of show.

WWE is better off sticking to the current format at least your getting more for your money.

 

[vampirek]

It'll just repeat what happened in the first place. A one brand PPV draws less sales, so the WWE decides to put some wrestlers from the other brand in the next PPV to try and boost sales. To the put its pretty much pointless having them separate and then just merge the two brands again.

Why would they separate the PPV's when they can even separate the shows. I mean you keep seeing the likes of Lay-Cool, Vickie and when needed The Undertaker on Raw. Plus there have been countless other examples of this since the split (Ric Flair, HHH, Jericho) and the biggest on of the lot Batista (believe it or not was mainly an official part of the Smackdown roster!)

 

[brighamosity]

While I do agree that they should keep the ppv's merged like they are now, I felt the same way about the brand extension when it first started. When they first split the brands, I was thinking, "Why would I pay that much to only see half of my favorite wrestlers?" And honestly, I haven't paid to see wrestling ever since. Granted, they're still making more money I'd expect, because now they can run twice as many house shows, and Smackdown is much more relevant than it was before the brand extension. (For the most part, it was just a B-show, similar to what ECW was right before they ended it.) Splitting the pay-per-views would just mean lower buyrates. On the other hand, if they ran two pay-per-views a month, one per each brand (which I think would be a HORRIBLE idea, for the record), even if both pay-per-views had low buyrates, I bet they would make more than a combined pay-per-view a month.

Either way though, I have never paid for a pay-per-view in my life and likely never will. Fifty dollars is a waste of money to me. If I want to see a ppv, I will go to a bar or restaurant and pay their cover-charge.

 

[pistol]

wwe needs to distinguish the differents between raw and smackdown. they gotta game called svr but never they use the storyline. have smackdown invade raw, carry that out, split the tag titles up, get sting, have him fight undertaker at wrestlemania, lose and retire

 

[pistol]

its a rebuilding year people. this past wrestlemania was all new jacks and they pulled it off. bret got his glory. look at tna. besides when you were little, how much do you respect hogan now. ric flair does it because he can. out of all these years ric flair won between him and hogan. wwe always focused on new talent. thats why they are number one n ow

 

[pistol]

i hear you but its rebuilding time. wwe did the same thing back in 99 and ended up crushing wcw. see any similarities