Better as 2 shows or 1?

[Khalifa]

In 2002 when WWE expanded it's "1" brand into "2" making Smackdown and Raw their own shows and having superstars only wrestle on the brand they were drafted to, several things happened. Some were; making 1 world title become 2, bringing back the US titles and having 2 tag team titles and best of all giving some of the higher midcard guys a chance to show what they have got in the main event scene. I am sure everyone was very excited when the draft first happened and were excited to see what happened. But as the years grew on, the PPV's became exclusive as well and people were getting bored because the type of matches weren't exactly the best. However lately I have been thinking.

Isn't it better to have the brand become exclusive again with there own PPV's and the major 4 ( Mania, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series and Summerslam) being a PPV for all brands. For example, if you had Smackdown with it's 4 PPVs then you have time to build up people like Dolph Ziggler etc and have more time to build a feud up. This helps build the younger wrestlers while also putting more time into you feuds. The only thing that I can think of that would be bad for this to happen again would be the tag team would be split again. But that doesn't need to happen. You can keep the tag team titles unified and just let the tag teams roam around on each show.

What do you think of this. Good or bad idea?

 

[pedro316]

i liked it as 1,because it allowed wwe/f to hype rivalries on both shows which made the matches better

 

[Jeritron5000]

Not in favor of it at all. They're having a tough enough time keeping me interested in the entirety of one PPV now. When they were brand exclusive I thought it was just awful. With the talent pools so diluted, each show currently has quite a bit of dead weight to begin with. I can't imagine having a strong desire to order a PPV headlined by a Kane vs Mysterio title match.

 

[Khalifa]

Thats what I am saying. You even out the talent. Which is alot. I mean you have 5 guys on the main event level waiting to vs Sheamus. So if they all have like 2-3 month feuds then you cant devolp the younger guys because eventually there is going to be a new champion and then the other main event people have another feud to start with. Then you have Miz, so if you add him that is 6 guys waiting for the title. If you add 2 onto the Smackdown brand then you have more time to devolp younger talents and make them main event stars as well.

 

[mrbrownstone]

While that is the upside of it there is also the fact that half of the PPV will be filler, I have no desire to see Chavo vs Chis Masters or Zach Ryder vs Santino and if we went back to brand exclusive PPV's that is likely what we would get. I also cant imagine anyone would want to buy a SD exclusive PPV at the moment with the likey of Show, Kane, Rey and Swagger headlining and even if you did send say Jericho and Orton to SD and Rey and Kane to Raw there would only be a max of two main event qualoty matches per show and that wouldnt be enough to get me to buy.

 

[J.Watkins84]

Even though you make valid points for brand specific PPV. The reality is all the real talent,that is the main eventers, are on Raw and currently stuck in the Nexus bs. I say due away with brand separation all together. I mean one of the main reasons, all be it not the only one, they separated the brands was because of the whole Monopolizing the business. After buying WCW the only nationally televised professional wrestling was WWE programing. If they did not separate the brands to be independently run by GMs they could of got in to so big issues legally. If the brands were to unite we could see some new tag teams, more interesting feuds and big title bouts.

 

[drobs85]

Much better as one brand. It's not ironic that WWE is having it's worst ratings, worst matches, 1 ex: Hornswoggle vs Chavo Guerrero, its worst ppv buys in years, even in the past when WWE had a decline they always came back, but this steady decline over the last 8 years they have yet to make a consistent comeback. There ratings are still bad, ppv buys are still bad etc. When did this all start to happen, 2002. Why WWE hasn't figured that out yet is beyond me. Also why would WWE screw up something that made them so successful for over 45 years, something that gave them their highest consistent ratings, ppv buys etc. best stars to split up the company into separate brands, the facts speak for themselves, they haven't came close to what they were since.

 

[Jay85]

They would definitley have to even talent, and maybe even sign more wrestlers. If you split the tag belts up, that gives you atleast three matches because of title defenses. You would need atleast three more matches for a full card, and I don't think either show could do that. With the brands split you can get five title matches (if the US title ever becomes relevant again) and all you need is a couple more matches, which should be doable between two shows, but I remember saying "this idea won't last" when the brands split, so what do I know?

 

[PhD]

Much better as one brand. It's not ironic that WWE is having it's worst ratings, worst matches, 1 ex: Hornswoggle vs Chavo Guerrero, its worst ppv buys in years, even in the past when WWE had a decline they always came back, but this steady decline over the last 8 years they have yet to make a consistent comeback. There ratings are still bad, ppv buys are still bad etc. When did this all start to happen, 2002. Why WWE hasn't figured that out yet is beyond me. Also why would WWE screw up something that made them so successful for over 45 years, something that gave them their highest consistent ratings, ppv buys etc. best stars to split up the company into separate brands, the facts speak for themselves, they haven't came close to what they were since.

This assumes no other causality in the decline of pro wrestling's popularity. How can you talk about WWE's dropping rates of PPV buys when the UFC, using one of WWE's biggest stars, is doing bofo business on PPV?

 

[Jeritron5000]

This assumes no other causality in the decline of pro wrestling's popularity. How can you talk about WWE's dropping rates of PPV buys when the UFC, using one of WWE's biggest stars, is doing bofo business on PPV?

Eh naw I think he's right. You can't really compare the quality of a show built on characters and storylines to a sport based on legitimate competetive fighting. The situations are completely different. I don't know how we can debate that the brand split leaves us with ridiculously limited and often meaningless undercard feuds. It's even decreased the importance of the main event feuds. WWE Champion and the World Champion? Which one am I supposed to assume is better? The World is big but the WWE is a Universe...and that's bigger than a World, right? It doesn't matter anyways because they are just champions of the guys they happen to be on a show with.

 

[CH David]

It's better as both shows are on the PPV than one, minus the Big 4. Look at the time the PPVs were brand exclusive. They weren't really that good. They weren't complete shit either, but you get my point. You had a lot of things that shouldn't be on the card. Coach had been in a few matches, oh and so I don't forget this one, the Dudley Boyz were in the Main Event against the Undertaker. Let me repeat that, the fucking Dudley Boyz were in the Main Event of a PPV. That is not a quality Main Event right there unless it were TLC II happening at a different PPV 3 years down the line.

The general quality of the shows weren't that good. Right now, they are very solid shows, even if they are starting to be gimmick PPVs. It has shown that people want to see both shows, as they did much better buyrate-wise after the brand exclusive PPVs were ended.

 

[Syborgg]

I like it the way it is. I mean the brand exclusive PPVs were basically just a longer version of the weekly show. There's a reason why when they have a special 3 hour RAW that they "borrow" stars from Smackdown, because no one show has enough high-end talent to fill 3 hours. I understand what you're saying about fueds not lasting long enough though. But the solution to that is something they've done a million times, which involves "dirty finishes". Like for example when Sheamus retained the title with the "help" of Nexus. Something like that that garners more heat for the heel yet doesn't diminish the legitimacy of the babyface.

 

[Moonsault Madness]

I always liked having it as one brand. adding smackdown was cool and it gave us more exposure to feuds and to see the wreslters wrestle more often and plus it could carry over things that were happening. imagine how much more damage the Nexus could be doing if it were one brand and the were trying to take over the WWE and not just Raw? you could get more quality qrestlers on the team. Also, the mid card, on the fence guys would stay there and would have a better chance of staying power with with one brand. because when you main event Raw it's two big SUPER stars. Main eventingn SD isn't always your SUPER star calibur guys. i mean outside of Kane and Rey the nexy niggest feud they were hyping was Dolph and Kofi or you could say Show and SES. To me those should be the beginning of a show storylines and stay out of my main event area! Then when Dolph or SES or John Morrison headliner or co headline a main event then it would seem more credible cause they were put ahead of your Orton's, Cena, Sheamus, Kane, etc.

 

[EffinSaySo]

Much better as one brand. It's not ironic that WWE is having it's worst ratings, worst matches, 1 ex: Hornswoggle vs Chavo Guerrero, its worst ppv buys in years, even in the past when WWE had a decline they always came back, but this steady decline over the last 8 years they have yet to make a consistent comeback. There ratings are still bad, ppv buys are still bad etc. When did this all start to happen, 2002. Why WWE hasn't figured that out yet is beyond me. Also why would WWE screw up something that made them so successful for over 45 years, something that gave them their highest consistent ratings, ppv buys etc. best stars to split up the company into separate brands, the facts speak for themselves, they haven't came close to what they were since.

Your argument: its worst ratings, worst bad buy rates, steady decline over the last 8 years. Ratings are still bad, ppv buys are still bad, WWE screw up something that made them so successful for over 45 years, Gave them their highest consistent ratings, ppv buys.

Based on your argument, have you checked the financial performance of World Wrestling Entertainment the last four years? By your accounts, if everything is bad, financial performance would be harmed. It's like you are talking about World Championship Wrestling from their height of $50 million profits in 1997 to their death with $62 million losses in 2000 year alone.

Lowest ratings, lowest buy rates = WWE has made $30 million in profit, $245 million in revenue and those numbers are reported as of June 2010. Try again?

Ratings are still bad, buys rates too =
WWE Performance from 2006 - 2009
2006: Revenue $262 million | Profit $32 million
2007: Revenue $485 million | Profit $52 million
2008: Revenue $526 million | Profit $45 million
2009: Revenue $475 million | Profit $50 million
2010 (Jun): Revenue $245 million | Profit $30 million

drobs85, the most money World Championship Wrestling made at their height was somewhere between $200 million and $250 million (revenue). I based those numbers on the expenses being somewhere at $175 million. When their buy rates declined, ratings declined, they went from around $50 million profits in 1997 to $62 million losses in less than four years. Also take into account that WWE has dealt with wellness policy controversy, wrestlers dying, Chris Benoit incident, TNA moved to Monday Nights, then back to Thursday. That would have a negative effect on business just as bad ratings, bad buy rates.

So based on your argument, bad ratings, bad buy rates, declining ever since, 45 years, blah blah, blah, it doesn't hold any weight. It's like rambling of a blind man who arguing what he sees. They said the same thing you ramble of about World Championship Wrestling during its decline and guess what happened, it sold for $7 million to the same company that you claimed is now incompetent. Maybe it isn't the company that's declining, maybe it's you. Recommendation: reading glasses.

==

To the OP, i prefer two brands than one exclusive brand. It is able to elevate talents. Also the two brands has two different products that cater not just one segment. Raw is the entertainment brand and SmackDown leans more old school. Plus they can run house shows on either brand and generate more income. Brand exclusive PPV, i dunno if that's possible unless there is a boom in the wrestling industry. Maybe have brand exclusive PPVs for December and June. December could be SmackDown and June could be Raw.

 

[The Crock]

I like it way more as 2 brands. It gives you more to watch, more opportunities for young guys to come up and there are more championships. I liked it as one show too, but I like it much more this way. For those who argue that the PPVs aren't as good, you're wrong. They have both brands on one PPV, it is good. I think that the WWE wouldn't be as successful as they are today had they stayed as one brand, this was a huge thing for them.

 

[drobs85]

This assumes no other causality in the decline of pro wrestling's popularity. How can you talk about WWE's dropping rates of PPV buys when the UFC, using one of WWE's biggest stars, is doing bofo business on PPV?

When did Lesnar first debut in Wwe, oh wait a minute the same year i was ironically speaking of when the decline became just about permanent. 2002. Lesnar wasn't even there long enough to keep the decline consistently a float so no lesnar by himself couldn't save the dumb brand split thing which also started when he debut. And speaking of UfC if WWe doesn't revert back to what made them bofo of business as you put it UFC will put WWE out of business like WWE did WCW.

 

[drobs85]

Your argument: its worst ratings, worst bad buy rates, steady decline over the last 8 years. Ratings are still bad, ppv buys are still bad, WWE screw up something that made them so successful for over 45 years, Gave them their highest consistent ratings, ppv buys.

Based on your argument, have you checked the financial performance of World Wrestling Entertainment the last four years? By your accounts, if everything is bad, financial performance would be harmed. It's like you are talking about World Championship Wrestling from their height of $50 million profits in 1997 to their death with $62 million losses in 2000 year alone.

Lowest ratings, lowest buy rates = WWE has made $30 million in profit, $245 million in revenue and those numbers are reported as of June 2010. Try again?

Ratings are still bad, buys rates too =
WWE Performance from 2006 - 2009
2006: Revenue $262 million | Profit $32 million
2007: Revenue $485 million | Profit $52 million
2008: Revenue $526 million | Profit $45 million
2009: Revenue $475 million | Profit $50 million
2010 (Jun): Revenue $245 million | Profit $30 million

drobs85, the most money World Championship Wrestling made at their height was somewhere between $200 million and $250 million (revenue). I based those numbers on the expenses being somewhere at $175 million. When their buy rates declined, ratings declined, they went from around $50 million profits in 1997 to $62 million losses in less than four years. Also take into account that WWE has dealt with wellness policy controversy, wrestlers dying, Chris Benoit incident, TNA moved to Monday Nights, then back to Thursday. That would have a negative effect on business just as bad ratings, bad buy rates.

So based on your argument, bad ratings, bad buy rates, declining ever since, 45 years, blah blah, blah, it doesn't hold any weight. It's like rambling of a blind man who arguing what he sees. They said the same thing you ramble of about World Championship Wrestling during its decline and guess what happened, it sold for $7 million to the same company that you claimed is now incompetent. Maybe it isn't the company that's declining, maybe it's you. Recommendation: reading glasses.

==

To the OP, i prefer two brands than one exclusive brand. It is able to elevate talents. Also the two brands has two different products that cater not just one segment. Raw is the entertainment brand and SmackDown leans more old school. Plus they can run house shows on either brand and generate more income. Brand exclusive PPV, i dunno if that's possible unless there is a boom in the wrestling industry. Maybe have brand exclusive PPVs for December and June. December could be SmackDown and June could be Raw.

I guess you work for WWE. By the way the revenue for 2010 is 106.8 million, not the 245 million you said. That's less than half of what you said. Pull up accurate revenue and profit reports from 1952 until 2002. Then maybe u'll see that what i said "does hold water". Thanks, Also low ratings doesn't always mean anything when it comes to money.

 

[EffinSaySo]

I guess you work for WWE. By the way the revenue for 2010 is 106.8 million, not the 245 million you said. That's less than half of what you said. Pull up accurate revenue and profit reports from 1952 until 2002. Then maybe u'll see that what i said "does hold water". Thanks, Also low ratings doesn't always mean anything when it comes to money.

Correction: Follow link http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WWE. That's one source. The one i used is the folllowing: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/WWE/financials

In response to drob85:

The following are quarterlies. Jan - Mar is Quarter One. Apr - Jun is Quarter Two.
March 31 ending (1st Qtr): Revenue $138 million | Profit $24 million
June 31 ending (2nd Qtr): Revenue $107 million | Profit $6 million

Those numbers indicate revenue and profit for each individual quarter. Now get a calculator. Plug the two revenues together and then plug the two profits. Plug stands for plus. Before you thinking ahead of course, please note that the numbers are rounded into millions since thousands are chump change.

First, you say it isn't $245 million. But math ($138 + $107 = $245) says otherwise.

Second, you say it isn't accurate. WWE is a public company and files 10-Q to the SEC. Those numbers are from the SEC. And since WWE is a public company, it releases financial information that show the performance of a company.

Finally, you mentioned in your argument that

bad ratings, bad buy rates, and (drob85 quote) "When did this all start to happen, 2002. Why WWE hasn't figured that out yet is beyond me."

WWE best business period came from the year 2008. $50 million profit, $500+ million in revenue. After six years, the WWE hasn't figured it out. What?

Pull up accurate revenue and profit reports from 1952 until 2002. Then maybe u'll see that what i said "does hold water".

And your argument holds water? If that was the case, then that's equivalent to fraudulent. Your argument is intended to deceive based on your notion that your opinion outweighs simple facts. E.g. You said in the post above me:

I guess you work for WWE. By the way the revenue for 2010 is 106.8 million, not the 245 million you said.

From that statement alone, you are trying to curve a simple fact tailored to your opinion that the sky (WWE) is falling. When you curve one simple fact alone, erroneously, you have a increase probability / tendencies to mislead, misinform, etc.. I suggest using tangible proof rather than mis-guided, blinded point of view in your argument(s). Otherwise, your arguments are soo easy that a caveman can do it...drop the caveman act bro.

When did Lesnar first debut in Wwe, oh wait a minute the same year i was ironically speaking of when the decline became just about permanent. 2002. Lesnar wasn't even there long enough to keep the decline consistently a float so no lesnar by himself couldn't save the dumb brand split thing which also started when he debut. And speaking of UfC if WWe doesn't revert back to what made them bofo of business as you put it UFC will put WWE out of business like WWE did WCW.

Decline became just about permanent? What?

 

[drobs85]

Correction: Follow link http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=WWE. That's one source. The one i used is the folllowing: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/WWE/financials

In response to drob85:

The following are quarterlies. Jan - Mar is Quarter One. Apr - Jun is Quarter Two.
March 31 ending (1st Qtr): Revenue $138 million | Profit $24 million
June 31 ending (2nd Qtr): Revenue $107 million | Profit $6 million

Those numbers indicate revenue and profit for each individual quarter. Now get a calculator. Plug the two revenues together and then plug the two profits. Plug stands for plus. Before you thinking ahead of course, please note that the numbers are rounded into millions since thousands are chump change.

First, you say it isn't $245 million. But math ($138 + $107 = $245) says otherwise.

Second, you say it isn't accurate. WWE is a public company and files 10-Q to the SEC. Those numbers are from the SEC. And since WWE is a public company, it releases financial information that show the performance of a company.

Finally, you mentioned in your argument that
WWE best business period came from the year 2008. $50 million profit, $500+ million in revenue. After six years, the WWE hasn't figured it out. What?



And your argument holds water? If that was the case, then that's equivalent to fraudulent. Your argument is intended to deceive based on your notion that your opinion outweighs simple facts. E.g. You said in the post above me:
From that statement alone, you are trying to curve a simple fact tailored to your opinion that the sky (WWE) is falling. When you curve one simple fact alone, erroneously, you have a increase probability / tendencies to mislead, misinform, etc.. I suggest using tangible proof rather than mis-guided, blinded point of view in your argument(s). Otherwise, your arguments are soo easy that a caveman can do it...drop the caveman act bro.



It's Aug, so September would make the third quarter? I also guess according to you that I made the 2010 $106.8 million dollar mark myself huh? Fact of the matter is when you can at least pull all the reports from the last 25 years then maybe then just maybe you can prove that wwe is doing better NOW than they have been doing!

 

[Rckstrtmmy]

I would go the opposite direction and make the 2 shows 1 again. Now I know this isn't going to happen any time soon but hear me out. If the brands were combined and all the titles were unified we would see so many more combinations of matches than we do now. I'm sick of seeing the same 4-5 people on each show get the title shots. Having one title and 10 contenders for said title also makes the title and the title holder that much more credible. And if there were two shows to build story archs and whatnot the champs can actually DEFEND the titles without having to wait until PPVs. When's the last time one of the heavyweight belts changed hands on Raw or Smackdown? Whens the last time the one of the world titles were even defended on Raw or Smackdown? I'm just saying the champs (Sheamus, Miz, Kane, Ziggler) would look better if there was even more time to showcase them. And when they win over people you know won't beat them it still helps to cement their status as champions. They need to do something to switch things up a bit. The draft doesn't do enough to keep things fresh in my opinion.

 

[drobs85]

I would go the opposite direction and make the 2 shows 1 again. Now I know this isn't going to happen any time soon but hear me out. If the brands were combined and all the titles were unified we would see so many more combinations of matches than we do now. I'm sick of seeing the same 4-5 people on each show get the title shots. Having one title and 10 contenders for said title also makes the title and the title holder that much more credible. And if there were two shows to build story archs and whatnot the champs can actually DEFEND the titles without having to wait until PPVs. When's the last time one of the heavyweight belts changed hands on Raw or Smackdown? Whens the last time the one of the world titles were even defended on Raw or Smackdown? I'm just saying the champs (Sheamus, Miz, Kane, Ziggler) would look better if there was even more time to showcase them. And when they win over people you know won't beat them it still helps to cement their status as champions. They need to do something to switch things up a bit. The draft doesn't do enough to keep things fresh in my opinion.

I hear you, the first 50 years as one show was when it was the best, the numbers, ratings prove it. Also like you said, you had many contenders for all the titles, every title had at least 15 contenders,. Now what it's 3-4 for a title, just crazy. The fueds were endless, always new material because there were so many options. But whatever "floats there boat"

 

[patriotjay]

Having Raw and Smackdown exclusive ppvs has its positives and negatives.The positives are now WWE can actually take time to build up rivalrys to a ppv level instead of throwing crap together 2 weeks before a 45 dollar ppv.The negative is the lack of star power,watching a Raw ppv no Taker,no CM Punk,etc,and watching a Smackdown ppv no Oron,Cena,Miz,Nexus I can go on for awhile.I just think they need to cut it down to like 8 ppvs a year with the current Raw and Smakdown format.I would rather pay 60 bucks a ppv for a solid ppv then 45 for the crap they've been throwing together as of late.But sticking with the thread Id say keep things the way they are.

 

[DropkickRob]

I prefer having one one show to watch a week (RAW in my case), as I simply don't have the time to spend 4hrs/week watching WWE, so the current setup works fine for me from a TV point-of-view. However...

... when I order PPV's, I find it much harder to get into the Smackdown-based matches, becuase I haven't been following their build-up. Granted, I can enjoy the matches for what they are if they're good matches, but my interest is still blunted by not knowing the backstory, and I'm certainly not gonna buy PPV's for matches I've no prior knowledge about.

Case in point - SummerSlam 2010 - 3 RAW-brand matches - 2 if you exclude the Divas title match. If you're a RAW-exclusive viewer, it's hard to justify paying top dollar for a PPV with only 2½ matches on the card that are relevant to watch you've watched on TV. It's all about value for money at the end of the day.

One possible solution to this to me is to reduce the number of PPVs (maybe to 8 or 9 as previously suggested), allowing 6 weeks for build-up, and increase the number of matches on the remaining PPVs. Personally, I'd also scrap the February PPV to restore a clean Royal Rumble-Wrestlemania link, and to give extra build-up time for the premier PPV.

Alternatively, have more cross-brand interaction on TV to increase the interest of me, the viewer, in the other brand's events!