End the Tri-Branded Pay Per Views!

[J Fine]

At least with the tri branded ppv's I would actually consider purchasing them. When it was a Raw or Smackdown ppv I didn't give a fuck I mean why would you pay money to see an extended episode of something you see for free? Tri branded is definitely a plus you really do get the bang for your buck.

Here's the real problem. There are way too many of these ppv's. There's what like 13 every year? That's insane. I think they should cut a few out and maybe shorten it to 7 or 8. One in particular includes No Way Out (love the elimination chamber but seriously jamon naw) just because I think feuds should build up solely on TV stemming from the royal rumble so that there can be ridiculous buildup for wresltemania without creating unnecessary feuds for a ppv in between. WWE wouldn't lose that much money because the ppv's would become more important as there is a bigger buildup. And besides, how much money do you really think they make from ppv buyrates that aren't wrestlemania? Eliminate a few ppv's and the others become more important...therefore more people buy them. Keep WM, rumble, survivor series, summerslam, backlash, great american bash (in respect towards its tenure), and either unforgiven or no Mercy. Space them apart nicely, and you got your cash money right there.

 

[ad21k]

I felt like I needed to make this thread. In 2007 I believe, the WWE made the decision to end single branded pay per views and turn them all into tri-branded, in hope to gain better ratings and pay per view buys. This means that on every pay per view, superstars from Raw, ECW and Smackdown appear on the show. Whereas before this, Raw had a pay per view every two months, as did Smackdown. This allowed more time for storyline building and most importantly, a spot on the card for the mid-carders and the rookies.

The quality of PPV's has improved dramatically since they went to tri-branded PPV's. And while some smarks may want to see matches involving wrestlers lower down the card, I don't think I do. Be fore it was tri-branded I used to switch off even when the intercontential title was been defended, because the feuds weren't didn't hype the match up enough, and the matches in turn were medicore at best.

Since 2007, on every pay per view at least one of these names has appeared on the show: John Cena, Edge, Randy Orton, Triple H, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels and Batista. While the tag team division barely gets a match on a PPV anymore. This in my opinion, lead to the end of the Cruiserweight Title and division as there was no room on the card for the little guys. Hell, the United States and Intercontinental Titles are rarely defended on pay per view nowadays, unlike before 2007.

I ask this: Has the ratings increased since 2007? Has pay per view buys increased since 2007? To my knowledge, the answer to both of these questions are a definitive "no". Guys like Ted DiBiase, Cody Rhodes, MVP, Kofi Kingston, Shelton Benjamin, William Regal and many, many other mid-carders and tag teams are left off the card because the 3 World Title matches, along with a few grudge matches involving main event superstars usually fill the entire card. Not to mention it no longer makes pay per views such as SummerSlam and Survivor Series seem special as they were seen as two of the big four pay per views due to talent from all brands appearing on 4 shows a year (SummerSlam, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series and Wrestlemania). This is no longer the case.

The buyrates have improved slightly for the B PPV's but I think one of the problems WWE was having was it is difficult the make a champion seem creditable if he is only defending his title on PPV once every 2 months- Sure it allowed time fore fueds to develop but unless creative had great plans the feuds were relatively unexciting. The big PPV's are still superior or 'special' because the feuds are built up more before the event. In the case of the Royal Rumble the event sells itself almost regardless of the undercard. Wrestlemania gets a huge build up for feuds to develop and more time so it's always going to stand out from the other PPV's. Summerslam is also consistantly better than the other cards on the PPV,and generally makes little difference if there was a tri-branded PPV the month before, because people will still order Summerslam because its going to have a stronger card.

So I ask this, do you think the WWE should go back to having single branded pay per views. By this I mean, Raw has one pay per view every two months, and Smackdown along with talent from ECW has a pay per view every two months in which Raw doesn't have one? Or do you think things should stay the way they are, in hope of better pay per view buys and ratings increase?

It should stay how it is now, single branded PPV's were terrible, look at No way out 04, 05, and 06. Do you seriously want to back to those days? The undercards were terrible. I i think buyrates ould decrease if you went back to the old single branded PPV's.

 

[CDR]

I am completly against the tri-branded pay-per-views. I think they should stop this dumbness and leave every pay-per-view brand exclusive, excluding SummerSlam, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, and Night of Champions. However, if they choose to keep these pay-per-views tri-branded, there are ways to make this work and not totally suck.

The first solution to this messy problem is to get rid of some pay-per-views. There are way too much. Sometimes, they only have three weeks to build up to a pay-per-view. How can that possibly make the PPV good? I would get rid of Night of Champions, first of all. This ppv is dumb. All the titles should be defended at WrestleMania, not this rinky-dink show. If you take out PPV's, the number of weeks toward build up will be expanded, leading to better feuds at PPV's.

The second solution would be to not keep the superstars brand exclusive. If you only have three shows to build up for PPV's, the PPV is going to suck. However, if you have three weeks and six or seven shows to build up, it wouldn't suck as much. Sure things would be too fast-paced, but oh well. Let the superstars work on Raw, SmackDown, and only occasionally, ECW. This will let the writers be able to write good shows and PPV's not feel too rushed.

If the WWE won't quit tri-branded pay-per-views, the only ways to fix it are to get rid of pay-per-views, or to not keep superstars brand exclusive. If they don't do one of these two options, pay-per-views will continue to feel more rushed.

 

[GameOver]

get rid of the brands and recognize one heavy champ, us/ic champ, tag champs / for TV one live show (RAW) and all the rest is taped anyway and can be shown whenever / since all the ecomonic issues - this can be viewed as a consolidation, corporate strategy to streamline operations, etc / they are getting rid of talent anyway

I agree in part. Get rid of the brand extension between smackdown and RAW.
ECW can stay as it has little impact on the other 2 and could be utilised like Heat was, giving non top show talent a chance to get ring time against pro's

1xWorld Champ, 1xIC Champ, 1xTag Champs 1xWomens Champ, this is WWF/E after all not WCWWE we don't need the US championship it's the same friggin title as the IC title

Get rid of i hate to say it "The king and Tazz" neither of em are that good at commentry without there former counterparts

JR and Cole can commentate everything. OMG did i say Michael Cole was actually a good commentator. Please shot me now

i understand the reason for the brand split was so WCW watchers would stick around and still have there respective titles represented. But if they still watch for WCW like behaviour they should go watch TNA thats WCW V-II

Anyway there's no need anymore to have 2 seperate brands, guys are still getting limited air time and there's more ads now than ever and more non-wrestling related content and less production/out of ring staff

 

[GameOver]

as for tri-branded PPV's i certainly would not want to go back to having to pay for 2 PPV's a month that was insanely expensive specially when most of the matches suck

The first solution to this messy problem is to get rid of some pay-per-views. There are way too much. Sometimes, they only have three weeks to build up to a pay-per-view. How can that possibly make the PPV good? I would get rid of Night of Champions, first of all. This ppv is dumb. All the titles should be defended at WrestleMania, not this rinky-dink show. If you take out PPV's, the number of weeks toward build up will be expanded, leading to better feuds at PPV's.
.

Every title should be defended at every PPV period. thats what PPV's are for.

 

[The Rob]

Between Bad Blood 2003 and No Way Out 2007, where Raw and Smackdown had a PPV to their own every two months, the majority of the PPV's (with the exception of Unforgiven 2006) have been highly, highly forgettable. Whilst its a good thing to see mid-card talent getting PPV courage, surely you don't want to pay good money to watch two people you rarely see on TV wrestle for the hell of it just to fill a time slot between one half interesting match and the next. PPV's are ment to feel special, a proper occassion. You want to build the feuds up to the point where you are willing to pay alot of money for every PPV to see them scrap. Now you are able to see Championship feuds intensifie as they still get good coverage on TV and they would be constantly wrestling on PPV for the championship. The singular brand PPV's were basically an extended episode of that show (whether that be Raw or Smackdown) with a nicer stage, a goofy name and it left you with less money in your walet. If the only match you really wanted to see sucked, you would feel ripped off and let down as a fan and a viewer.