Do You Miss It? Branded PPVs.

[My Couch Pulls Out But I Don't]

This is my third edition of "Do You Miss It". If you have missed the other two, I decided to start a series of threads that bring up something from the past and ask you one simple question, Do You Miss It?

The topic for this edition? Branded PPVs.

When the WWE split between brands, we were given branded PPVs. Every other month, they would rotate between RAW and SmackDown. The big 5 PPVs, would still feature both brands.

Many people consider the branded PPVs to be a good idea because it gave us longer storylines and the opportunity to see one particular brand at a time.

Now I ask you, Do you miss branded PPVs? What do you miss, what did you like, would you want it back?

Previous Editions:
European Championship
Results: Yes - 55.56% No - 44.44%

Hardcore 24/7
Results: Yes - 71.88% No - 28.13

 

[Mr_billy]

I voted yes, I think the whole company PPVs are occurring too often, and this does not let stories develop. I remember story lines sometimes would take weeks, even months to develop, giving every match meaning. the only problem is there might not be enough star power on both shows, but forcing to put more stars in stories would build more stars people care about, so it would help with the youth movement.

 

[mrpops]

Yes because we got better stories that had more time to develope.

No because although we had better stories we only had like one match worth watching on it. Sharing the ppvs gives us more matches worth watching.

Im torn how i feel about it overall.

 

[vampirek]

No, much like the brands themselves branded PPVs are not strong enough and rely on other brands talent in order to sell the thing. There simply isn't enough good talent to do this, yes it would have worked perfectly going back to 2002 when the roster was huge due to the takeovers but now the roster is weak and the separating brands and PPVs simply does not work.

Look at Smackdown, like what options they have when you consider Undertaker is out, Kane needs rest bites, Big Show is well just slow and Rey is still working injured. At least by having Raw and Smackdown together, the likes of these don't have to work for that PPV and can be rested whilst the PPV can remain strong using Raw's big talent.

Towards the end of the branded PPV it ended up that they weren't branded at all considering the need to use the other brand wrestlers just to fill the card. One of the key reasons it went....alongside bad sales so no to the question.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

I voted for no, because after the brand split there was a severe lack of talent depth on both shows, leading to mid-card talent appearing on PPV's that they had no place being a part of.

Today, with even less main event calibre talent due to the retirement of HBK, Batista leaving, the long term absence of HHH, and the constant injury problems of Edge, Undertaker, Mysterio etc, and the fact that WWE are currently attempting to build the new generation of main eventers (Miz, Barrett etc). So, for this reason I do not think the roster of the WWE is strong enough to hold independent brand PPV's.

The upside of holding a brand-specific PPV, is that each show has twice the amount of time to develop storylines, giving more time to make the viewer emotionally involved in the rivalry, which is another thing lacking today.

In conclusion, if the rosters are strong enough, then brand-specific PPV's could work. However, when WWE used them they didnt have the strength in depth, leading to guys like Finlay appearing in main events, and Kenzo Suzuki actually wrestling on PPV (WTF?!), and even now I do not think the roster could sustain a brand-only PPV. The feuds would become repetative and stale

 

[Adiaphora]

I voted No because of the lack of depth on the rosters. I would get annoyed at some of the lower card feuds making it to PPV. I think the eliminate helps to stimulate more interaction between the brands.

 

[Fuel The Fire]

I'm going to say no because I only watch raw and when it come for a 2 month period for a ppv i started to get board with all this fluff they where doing until they really started to do story lines for a ppv. I'm glad that they combined theme and it keeps me interested in smackdown when i see theme on the ppv's and makes me want to tune in to smackdown once in a wile as well. But mainly i watch raw. So if they had separate ppvs I would not be watching smackdown at all and have no idea what is going on.

 

[JohnOldSnake4]

YES! Very much so. I miss brand-exclusive PPVs for the reason stated a couple of times already here: stories got longer to develop. It seems these days that PPVs are no more special than weekly TVs at times as we're seeing the same cards on PPVs as we are seeing on RAW or SmackDown!, plus Pay Per Views are far too many and happen way too frequently for rivalries from both brands to sustain themselves and keep fresh for any longer than a couple of months. I think if we still had brand-exclusives a rivalry such as Nexus-Cena would have paid off way better. Too many PPVs clumped together meant that each subsequent layer of the feud was getting rushed and peeled off way too soon, as the program needed to build towards the next PPV that was coming, whereas if it were only a Pay Per View every couple of months except the big ones, the two parties would have had longer to interact and build up more heat for EACH Pay Per View encounter. I'm reminded of Triple H vs Batista from 2005, and this I think is a great example of what was good about the brand-exclusive Pay Per Views. After Batista had beaten Triple H for a second straight month on Pay Per View, The Game threw a hissy fit after being denied a third shot at the gold. Triple H stormed off RAW for several weeks in May/early June and this had an amazing effect I felt when he returned to beat Batista down, setting up their Hell in a Cell match (a classic, in my book). This wouldn't work now as there'd probably be no time to build towards the next Pay Per View after the return. This, and I feel that the cross-brands take away from things like the Royal Rumble and Money in the Bank where we get to see RAW and SmackDown! superstars in the same ring. Now most PPVs we don't actually see RAW vs SmackDown! matches, but I think that over-exposure of the "other" show, whichever that may be ensues when you're seeing, in my case Smackdown! superstars on every Pay Per View. To explain, bragging Rights for instance is supposedly a RAW vs SmackDown! themed Pay Per View. Now I would say I'm a RAW fan more than SmackDown!, in fact it's only been the past couple of weeks I've watched SmackDown! since CM Punk was on it and I feel like when Bragging Rights comes around it doesn't quite have the right effect as I see these SmackDown! guys on every Pay Per View anyway, so it's nothing special.

 

[The Suplexer Perfecter]

What? I remember people HATING those branded PPVs and wanted them to be put together! You had matches like Hardcore Holly vs some new person or just them post unworthy PPV match ups.

 

[KitInaka]

I voted yes but there are pros and cons to each side.

The Pros:

1) Storylines have a bit longer to build - It's no secret that when you have 2 months to develop a story it's gonna have a better impact then a 1 month rushed storyline.

2) Non-PPV PPV's - Because of the branded PPV's every other month we we're treated to at least one Non-PPV World Championship match on TV (30 Day defense rule surprisingly still is active.) This gave WWE tons of exposure to their main eventers and then they would still have the Mid Card title and usually the tag titlesof the show defended at the same time. It ws nice to see a huge Main Event card produced for TV even if it was only once a month.

The Cons:

1) Questionable Talent - You have to worry about the Roster on each side. On Raw, even the US Champion seems to be buried around two storylines. (Three, if you still count the General Manager.) The WWE would have to work hard to get the necessary talent up to the main event level but there is simply not enough superstars ready for that kind of work.

2) PPV Buys would go down before they went up - Simple fact, everyone is really gonna evaluate the PPV before they buy it. This is gonna lead to less buys in the beginning. However, once things get going, the PPV buys might just go back up.

 

[DeathClutch]

No.

WWE should go the MMA route with PPV names, apart from the big four.
Example Miz vs Orton III, Cena VS Punk and thrown in the occasional Backlash, No Mercy type of name. Make the undercards feel special.

WWE needs to go this route rather then branding PPV's show the fans what they're buying and why they should be x ppv.

 

[Jeritron5000]

Oh lord no. Those were some dark days, for me at least. With the lack of depth in the both rosters seemingly even thinner today, I'm frustrated by the idea that the brands are still split. The old branded PPV's were tough to justify watching all the way through. I don't need a masterlock challenge segment to fill time because there's nothing better to do.

Many mentioned having longer time to build feuds as a pro of the branded PPVs. I feel that there are several ways in which feuds can be built where they don't have to culminate after 4 weeks. Morrison and Sheamus is a good example.

For me, having the best talent to make up the best show is much more satisfying than splitting up a gigantic roster and having it be mediocre.

 

[drobs85]

No, much like the brands themselves branded PPVs are not strong enough and rely on other brands talent in order to sell the thing. There simply isn't enough good talent to do this, yes it would have worked perfectly going back to 2002 when the roster was huge due to the takeovers but now the roster is weak and the separating brands and PPVs simply does not work.

Look at Smackdown, like what options they have when you consider Undertaker is out, Kane needs rest bites, Big Show is well just slow and Rey is still working injured. At least by having Raw and Smackdown together, the likes of these don't have to work for that PPV and can be rested whilst the PPV can remain strong using Raw's big talent.

Towards the end of the branded PPV it ended up that they weren't branded at all considering the need to use the other brand wrestlers just to fill the card. One of the key reasons it went....alongside bad sales so no to the question.

Way agreed. The ppv's are not strong enough on talent or star power to carry the event without help. It was a dumb concept from the beginning as well as the brand split altogether. Go back to how it was. So enough said.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I don't miss them because a the Smackdown and ECW PPVs were always booked less important than the Raw PPVs. It's much better in my view to have all the Raw and Smackdown superstars on one PPV. Would anyone here seriously buy a PPV with only Raw stars or Smackdown stars? I guess WWE could get away with it years ago when they had tons of talent like Guerrero, Benoit, Jericho, Triple H, HBK, Angle, Lesnar, etc.
I just don't think Raw or Smackdown has as many big name stars to justify a brand split PPV anymore.

 

[ECW Sandman]

No I do not miss branded PPV'S because for one I'd rather pay for one PPV with both brands and then have to pay more money for one RAW PPV and one Smack Down I thought that was a very bad move on WWE's part after they bought WCW and ECW, I think WWE thought this was going to work but I honestly think it hurt them in the long run.

 

[DeathClutch]

The brand split's first branded PPV (Badd Blood 2003 and Vengeance 2003) were actually good PPV's and Vengeance was billed as the best PPV of 2003 by most who watched it from a wrestling stand point, problem was RAW kept steam with Unforgiven and Smackdown wasted an Iron Man match on TV that could of served better for the No mercy 2003 show, apart from Big Show/Eddie the rest of the card was forgetable I cant even recall the main event.

Nowadays PPV is ready for a change, in the early 90s we had 5 major PPV's, mid 90s we have 5 major plus 7 IYH shows, 1999 we had yearly traditional PPV's used and 2003 we started the brand split until April 2007 when it ceased and we're at that point now where WWE needs to revamp the PPV's look, the gimmick PPV's was a nice touch for some of them and as a one time only occasion.

Personally I'd rather see WWE take the MMA/UFC approach to PPV's and rarely use PPV names like Over the Limit etc, and use the Main Event match as the PPV name (as I stated above) and have the undercard showcase the next generation rather then the older guys and keep guys like HHH & Undertaker for the big shows and the odd lower PPV and keep gimmick matches for the blow off matches, Brand PPVs is a no no the brand split should be ceased.

 

[Souls On Fire]

I had to think about this first and after arguing with myself i decided YES. The current problem posed however is that as usual Smackdown is still lacking in enough big names to carry its own ppv. The Undertaker, Christian are out currently. Edge is in a feud with Dolph Ziggler and Mysterio in a program with Rhodes and The Big Show with Nexus. Great for the up and comers being involved with established names but you would need big name feuds to carry a ppv.
On Raw you have Cena, Orton, Punk, Sheamus, Miz, Morrison all in storylines revolving around each other. While not great for the mid carders with the exception of the Nexus members which ppv would sell more.....

Raw brand example ppv
Cena vs Punk(big name feud)
Orton vs. Miz(wwe title feud)
Sheamus vs. Morrison(top contender feud)
Daniel Bryan vs. any midcarder Dibiase/R-truth/Kidd/Otunga and so on(U.S. title scene)
Santino/Kozlov vs. The Uso's vs Nexus - Mcguilicutty/Harris( tag division)
Natalya vs. Melina ( diva's title)

Good feuds all around there and i believe would work well as a random ppv....not to mention that Triple H is still listed as a Raw superstar so throw him in that mix and you have the names to sell the card.

Smackdown example ppv
Edge vs Dolph Ziggler ( heavyweight title feud)
Big Show vs. Wade Barrett(main storyline feud)
Alberto Del Rio vs ?????( Top Contenders feud)
Rey Mysterio vs Cody Rhodes(mid-card feud)
Lay-cool vs Beth Phoenix(Diva's attraction)
Kofi Kingston vs the midcard(Intercontinental title feuds)

On paper which looks better? Smackdown does have the Undertaker and Christian currently out with injury but would it make the card an equal to the Raw branded card?

Here's my theory in why i say yes regardless and this is most likely the only way it would work.........Cena needs to go to Smackdown!!!!! With the young heels on Smackdown in the likes of Ziggler/Del Rio/ Swagger all of who could work a great program with him as well as your well established names who can play face or heel on any given moment like Edge/Big Show/Christian it gives endless possibilities to more calibur feuds on Smackdown.

As much as i can't stand Cena he is the face of the WWE and with him i believe they could make brand only ppv better. will this happen? Probably not likely. Sending the head guy to the "B" show is crazy to VKM's ears but it could possibly bring Smackdown up to Raw's equal. Why not send The Undertaker to Raw and change the 2 main fixtures on each show its about the only option left.

I would leave the big shows as cross branded ppv's though. Royal Rumble/Elimination Chamber/Wrestlemania as well as Summerslam/Survivor Series/Night of Champions.

This gives the road to Wrestlemania to be cross branded which it is every year anyways as well as 3 other select times of the year to showcase the company as a whole. also as stated by many it gives the chance for storylines to be played out over a longer period. as it is now you seem the same matches sometimes 3 or 4 ppv's in a row and this is definately something that should end.

well just my thoughts feel free to rip me apart now

 

[Dave]

Nope, not even in the slightest.

The problem with the branded PPV's was that I was very interested in how one brand would pan out and hated waiting for the other one to have it's turn. The problem that was evident back in those days, is still evident now. Let's face it, Raw has a more stacked roster than Smackdown does and it has the better angles occurring too. Raw is still known as the flagship show of the WWE and as long as that is happening, then we are going to be subjected to a PPV that does not touch the other every second month.

Would I wait two months to see Randy Orton vs John Cena? Absolutely! Would I wait two months to see Dolph Ziggler vs Edge? Probably not! The problem is that is when the WWE themselves are of the mentality that Smackdown is to have less talent than Raw, then why would they try to sell us a PPV that they know is going to be less appealing. It is fundamentally wrong fro them to do that. Whether the show would be worth watching is up for debate but I would only be spending my money on what Raw gives me these days.

That being said, if the WWE were to level out the playing field and add some parity to the shows, then I might come around to this way of thinking. Right now though, Smackdown is the show that comes behind Raw and that is what the PPV's will reflect. Why not just give us the best of both worlds without having to subject us to filler matches from the bottom of the respective cards? I just think that it makes sense to try and sell cards and shows with the best matches from both shows than to try and fill them with matches that no one cares about, whether that takes two months or not.