This debate has raged on for quite some time now. Since the post-attitude era, PPV numbers have often been criticized. Looking back, they've often fluctuated up and down, and often you have to get analytical despite the fact the numbers aren't huge. "We're they better than last months PPV?", "We're they better than last year's edition of that PPV", often times that has been the case, but often times it has not either. Now they just seem to have reached a level of complacency in how low they're drawing.
But the weird thing is, despite the actualy buys, drawing some record lows they're still making decent money. Let's keep in mind when the WWF's "In Your House" PPV's were drawing under 200 000 buys from the '95-'97 era, when all you had to do is pull out a $20 to get the show.
That being said however, I do truly believe that the WWE increased prices because of this situation. But yet it's almost like a Catch-22. While the recession has been declared "over" in certain aspects (I live in Canada, so I don't feel like most of you do in the U.S, so I'm merely guessing here from what I've read, so don't hold it against me), wether it's over or not, obviously people are still reeling.
Now this is just an opinion...but let's just say for arguements sake, that the recession IS over, and a great deal of people, have enough disposable income to enjoy a WWE PPV monthly. I would say at BEST, they could only do 200 000 buys a show. I'm aware some of them draw that number, but I'm more or less talking about the shows that have drawn in the 100 000's. I say this because of the other problems WWE PPV's have....
Myth: Same people same feuds. Fact: From 1998-2003, one or more of the same four wrestlers would be in the PPV main event, and 1998-2001 was a hot period for PPV's. But here were the big differences:
---Back in the '98-'01 the WWE's creative department, had a way of keeping the feuds spiced up, giving a slight makeover or adding an element too it. For example, while Rock/HHH was starting to run its course, Kurt Angle was thrown in the mix, making for an interesting storyline.
---Too much on free TV. Granted the WWE did the same think with Rock/HHH as they fought a great deal for free back and forth, but that's one of the few times they got away with it. Often getting a match, or many variations of the match on free TV kind of defeats the purpose of the special feel of PPV. Austin & The Rock fought each other on free TV twice. The first time was in November '98, but it was smartly done. The match was "good", and not quite epic in a PPV sense (like a lot of PPV main events felt at the time), and they basically gave the fans a "free sample" to get them ready for the main course....Wrestlemania XV. This day and age, we get the main course for free, so why would we pay for it shortly after?
This problem is minor, but still one that isn't helping. WAY WAY WAY too much emphasis on people who could never sell a ticket (no I'm not talking about Primo or McIntyre), I'm talking about Michael Cole...and Vickie Guerrero. Look...Vickie is a GREAT heel persona, she's about as good as you can get...most wrestlers only DREAM of having her kind of heat, not since Vince in the late 90's, have I seen the crowd despise someone so much. But....she doesen't put asses in the seats. I do believe however that she COULD, if they'd built up a PPV where she would finally get her come uppance (which STILL hasn't happened after well over 3 years, and speaking on behalf of other wrestling fans I know personally, we're sick of waiting), could be a success.
Michael Cole IMO is just downright annoying! See there are major differences between him and other heel announcers in the past. For example, Jesse Ventura, The Brain, and Lawler (earlier in his run), we're all witty, clever, emphasized there points wether it be in funny or serious fashion. Cole does NONE of those things. And Heenan was at least a charachter up until 1991, who was pushed heavily in storylines, and would often recieve come uppance from his words, and same with Lawler even at times. But it just seems the ENTIRE shows these days are Cole marking out for HIMSELF, and really taking a lot of way. It's like he HAS to say something heelish EVERYTIME, take a break man! Sometimes I think he even BURIES talent at times. Even the three I named cooled it down a bit sometimes. I understand Cole is probably just doing as he's told, but still....the RAW GM thing at least IMO is drawing the WRONG kind of heat...but..if it leads to Lawler pulverizing Cole at 'Mania....at least they did something, but there's just WAY too much emphasis on him.
It's weird how a couple years ago, Vince McMahon apparently made the rediculous commenet about how PPV "wasn't a growth industry", while UFC was growing and growing non stop. But now I read his concern, and it's right, because things aren't looking any better. At least I can see the WWE attempting to fine certain ways to make there PPV shows interesting. But it's going to be a long road back.
