Lance Storm on PPV Issues

klunderbunker

Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Very interesting read and something that I agree with:

Storylines: The Death of PPV

October 5, 2010

It is no secret that pro-wrestling PPV buy rates are falling at an alarming rate. TNA’s buy rates on PPV are almost none existent and WWE’s, while doing considerably better than TNA’s, are nothing to brag about and are dropping also. Last I heard, bad TNA PPV’s were getting as low as 8000 buys and WWE buys have dipped as low as the 100,000 range domestically in recent months. There is a lot of discussion among industry insiders and analysts as to what is causing this drop and while everyone wants to point at, over exposure of the product, the economy, the same guys on top, inability to elevate new stars, along with a whole host of other reason I think the single biggest cause of the PPV decline is Storylines.

I’m not talking about bad Storylines or ineffective Storylines, I’m talking about the fact that this business no longer books Angles in order to sell matches on PPV, they write Storylines and then have matches on PPVs that are designed to further said Storyline. Now I realize that many people just view Storylines and Angles as different words describing the same thing but I think each term puts the creator in a different mind set and thus result in a different product. Let’s look at each case individually and you can tell me which should be more effective.

The way wrestling used to be promoted, Angles were booked on TV to create interest in a match that fans would then pay to see on PPV. The booker decided that (just as an example) Ricky Steamboat and Randy Savage for the IC Title will be a match at WrestleMania III. They then had to book an Angle that would put these two people on a path that would intersect at WrestleMania. This is key; an Angle is what’s created when two lines intersect, and that intersection point is the single most important point of the Angle. That point is a wrestling match and what you sell on PPV. They had Savage injure Steamboat and dominate the IC Title picture in Steamboats absence. Then Steamboat came back and vowed to not only win the title but get revenge for the beating he took at the hands of Savage months earlier. The WWF was not selling a Storyline here, they were selling a match, and the Angle was the means by which to make fans care about that match. The week before WrestleMania no one was thinking, “Where does the Savage - Steamboat Storyline go from here?” Everyone was thinking how great it’s going to be to finally see Ricky Steamboat kick Randy Savage’s ass. They were selling the match not the Storyline; it was the conflict that would be settled that night that was the be all and end all of this Angle. Fans needed to see WrestleMania III in order to see the Savage - Steamboat Angle come to a head. Fans needed to feel that this match was the conclusion of the Angle in order to make them willing to pay for it.

Fast forward now to Hell in a Cell this past Sunday, because it was the promotion of this show on The Score here in Canada that drove this point home for me. John Cena and Nexus are currently in a Storyline. They aren’t on a collision course; they have been in each other’s business for months in a weekly episodic Storyline. We are all but told each week to tune in and see how this Story unfolds. When I watched SmackDown this Friday there was a bit during the commercial break where they plugged RAW, by all but saying, “John Cena faces Wade Barrett Sunday at Hell in a Cell, tune in to RAW on Monday and see how this Story unfolds, will John Cena join Nexus or will Nexus disband.” This is where it all became crystal clear to me. They are no longer selling the matches, they are selling the Storylines, and even if they write great Storylines and I get into them, I don’t have to actually see the matches to keep up with the Storylines.

I wanted to know if John Cena would have to join Nexus, but I didn’t have to purchase the PPV to find that out, because the ongoing Storyline is continued on TV on Monday for free. The match they are trying to get me to pay for is not the focal point of all of this; it is just where the direction of the ongoing Storyline is determined. They are selling us on Storylines yet trying to get us to purchase matches.

Matches have become the tools used to get over and continue Storylines; they are the little pieces to the bigger ongoing Storylines. Why would we pay for the small pieces of the bigger picture we get on TV for Free? With Angles, the Match or pending conflict, the thing we are expected to pay for, is the big picture and the Angle, what we get on TV for Free, is the tool used to hype the match we are expected to buy on PPV.

I haven’t heard the Hell in a Cell buy rate yet, but the Monday night RAW rating just came in and it pulled a 3.3, which is way up from last week’s 2.7. That tells me that people were very into the Cena – Nexus Storyline, because people tuned in to find out where the Storyline would go next. If the buy rate for the PPV is not way up as well, that tells me that fans despite being into the Storyline did not care that much about the match itself.

If you want to draw money on PPV you need to book some Angles and sell fans on the Matches being important, not charge them for matches that simply help continue the Storylines.
 
Makes a lot of sense. This may sound like a stupid question, but what is more important; tv ratings or ppv buys? At $44.99 I would think ppv buys are more important but I don't know enough about the business side of things to know for sure. Would Vince rather sell 350,000 ppvs and have raw bring in 3.0 ratings or sell 250,000 ppvs and have raw bring in 4.0 ratings? Logically and ideally high ratings and high ppv buys go together, but I wonder what the answer to my question is.
 
Knowing VERY little I would think PPV but with higher ratings come higher advertising charges. If you have the #1 show on TV then you can hand pick your advertisers and the bigger the company odds are the more money they can spend. I honestly don't know but would guess PPV.
 
I wanted to know if John Cena would have to join Nexus, but I didn’t have to purchase the PPV to find that out, because the ongoing Storyline is continued on TV on Monday for free.

This part spoke out to me most. As a kid, I always felt I didn't need to watch most PPV's because we'd just get the results the next night (I didn't have the internet as a kid, so I didn't even see spoilers). There just doesn't seem to be any urgency in most of the modern PPVs.
 
What Jose said plus it seems like the biggest things happen on the biggest PPVs. It's been a bit more random this year though. I mean the Hell in a Cell PPV did have some big moments attched to it, but like Storm said, you see it the next night on Raw.
 
Not only do you find out the results and see the ongoing storyline the next night on raw, but so many times someone invokes a rematch clause the very next night so you get to see the $45 main event for free the next night.
 
That's true, but it's still kind of a slap in the face to the guys who just bought the ppv 24 hours before.
 
Of course. Also a problem with them is, when you buy a 2nd tier PPV and it absolutely sucks, you don't want to buy another one. It's happened to me. I've only gotten SummerSlam since Money in the Bank. I bought that one and one before it that I didn't like at all and haven't bought a 2nd tier PPV since.
 
Storm has a great mind for this sort of thing. I'd love to see him book a big company.

I do think WWE's attitude may not change until the PG era ends and that might be 2015 at the earliest as that is when their current deal with Mattel expires.

TNA have no excuses. Impact seems to be a bigger deal to them, yet they would benefit from cutting their PPV's. Then again their entire booking attitude is inconsistent also.
 
I used to order every ppv until the end of 2006. Then came December to Dismember. I really didn't want to pay for that but kind of wanted to see it anyway. I found a bar near my home that got the ppv every month and watched it there for free. Since then I've only ordered the big four and have gone back to that bar for the rest.
 
Makes a lot of sense. This may sound like a stupid question, but what is more important; tv ratings or ppv buys? At $44.99 I would think ppv buys are more important but I don't know enough about the business side of things to know for sure. Would Vince rather sell 350,000 ppvs and have raw bring in 3.0 ratings or sell 250,000 ppvs and have raw bring in 4.0 ratings? Logically and ideally high ratings and high ppv buys go together, but I wonder what the answer to my question is.
PPV is far more important financially, but at the same time, they have to keep high ratings to have a weekly Raw to air in order to plug their PPV.

Financially, PPVs are far more lucrative, but Raw is what gets people to buy the PPVs. In all honesty, your question is almost a "chicken or the egg" question.

Knowing VERY little I would think PPV but with higher ratings come higher advertising charges. If you have the #1 show on TV then you can hand pick your advertisers and the bigger the company odds are the more money they can spend. I honestly don't know but would guess PPV.
The WWE doesn't make money from advertising, at least not from Raw (and since they moved Smackdown to ECW, I would think the deal would be the same). The WWE gets paid a set amount of money from the USA Network, and then USA keeps all advertising money.
 
I do the same sometimes. Thing is, going to the bar my girlfriend and I will still spend around $40 so it's not as big of a help lol

It helps a lot that I don't drink alcohol. I usually order a burger and a coke so it's no big deal. I have to eat anyway so may as well eat there and watch some free wrestling.
 
My biggest problem with buying a WWE PPV would have to be the lack of gripping, personal storylines. Today, every feud seems to follow formula:

1. Guy #1 attacks Guy #2 "to make a statement."
2. Guy #2, the next week, grabs a mic, and calls out Guy #1, and one of them usually brags about how many times he has beaten the other, etc. A bried brawl ensues, and one man is left lying.
3. Same thing happens the next week, and the week after, leading to a PPV.

It just lacks creativity. Storylines used to be much more personal, making each match-up that much more intriguing. Now-a-days, you only have feuds because, A. Someone wants a belt, or B. Someone's "making a statement." I think storylines were far more entertaining when each feud was much more personal.
 
Something else I've long since thought that goes along with that is there are so few personal feuds anymore. For instance, Orton vs. Sheamus. They're not fighting because they hate one another. They're fighting because one of them won a qualifying match. Think back to Savage vs. Flair. That was personal and you wanted to see Savage BEAT Flair. The title was a secondary factor. It's ok to have the title be second once in awhile.
 
But to go on the situation about the title, think back to Rock vs. Austin at X-Seven. In the end, it was about one guy who won the shot, the other who had the title. Yes it got heavily teased before it was made official, but on top of that, you had what, 4-5 weeks of solid building. It was about the title primarily but these two made the issue personal, you wanted to see these two face off and you wanted to see one of these two walk out with the title. Problem with Orton/Sheamus is that they didn't inject any emotion into the feud, it was simply how many times Orton could RKO Sheamus before he retained the belt.

But then we are expecting a lot out of the WWE, look at Triple H/Orton at Mania, you wanted to see an asskicking but we got abomination, think the only thing that was closer to wanting to see a match over the story was Jericho/Michaels in 08, or actually, HBK/Taker at both Manias.
 
I agree with Storm's statement. Another thing that I hate about PPV's these days are that you pay 50 bucks and then the main event ends with a heel getting DQed. That's what pisses me off more than anything.
 
But to go on the situation about the title, think back to Rock vs. Austin at X-Seven. In the end, it was about one guy who won the shot, the other who had the title. Yes it got heavily teased before it was made official, but on top of that, you had what, 4-5 weeks of solid building. It was about the title primarily but these two made the issue personal, you wanted to see these two face off and you wanted to see one of these two walk out with the title. Problem with Orton/Sheamus is that they didn't inject any emotion into the feud, it was simply how many times Orton could RKO Sheamus before he retained the belt.

But then we are expecting a lot out of the WWE, look at Triple H/Orton at Mania, you wanted to see an asskicking but we got abomination, think the only thing that was closer to wanting to see a match over the story was Jericho/Michaels in 08, or actually, HBK/Taker at both Manias.
That's why I included the clause of sometimes. Some matches you do need to just let them have it out like Austin/Rock where the Debra thing was just stupid and thankfully it didn't come into play at Mania. As for HHH/Orton, I think part of it is that feud just would not die. They have a trilogy of last man standing matches. That sums things up as far as it won't die.

As for the Sheamus/Orton thing, that's exactly my point: there is no reason to want to see them fight. Even an injury angle would work. The characters have such little depth to them that there's no reason to care anymore.
 
The WWE doesn't make money from advertising, at least not from Raw (and since they moved Smackdown to ECW, I would think the deal would be the same). The WWE gets paid a set amount of money from the USA Network, and then USA keeps all advertising money.

But, if WWE had higher ratings when it came to renegotiate their agreement WWE could extort more money out of USA (who'd be willing to pay more because of the higher ad. revenue).
 
As for the Sheamus/Orton thing, that's exactly my point: there is no reason to want to see them fight. Even an injury angle would work. The characters have such little depth to them that there's no reason to care anymore.

That's really what the whole problem is.I couldn't care less about alot of the main event feuds. Don't even get me started on the rest of the card. I only order Wrestlemania now and maybe Summerslam.And even then its Summerslam and Wrestlemania I'm ordering. Not Cena/Batista for the world title or Team WWE vs Nexus, but the pay-per-view itself.

Storylines shoudn't be countinued for the sake of it. It should start with the match and than if the feud is hot should progress from there.But that's all part of the "too many pay-per-views" problem, so its most likely not going to get better in the foreseeable future.
 
But the lack of emotion, is that the fault of the writers or the talent? I mean, compare Sheamus and Orton to Rock and Austin all you like the neither man is on their level.

I'm not convinced Sheamus and Orton could get anyone emotionally invested in anything. Of course, desire to be the best, the champ, is important but its not enough. Sheamus isn't coming across as dominant enough and Orton is showing no vulnerability. He is simply showing that he is better than Sheamus and as such, I can't believe or invest any belief that Sheamus is a threat to Orton.

Rock and Austin never had that problem.

I'm not convinced Sheamus should be in the main event. But that's a personal belief.
 
But, if WWE had higher ratings when it came to renegotiate their agreement WWE could extort more money out of USA (who'd be willing to pay more because of the higher ad. revenue).

There are MANY things that go into negotiations such as those. Ratings are part of it, but only a part. PPV has always been where wrestling companies make the big money.
 
But the lack of emotion, is that the fault of the writers or the talent? I mean, compare Sheamus and Orton to Rock and Austin all you like the neither man is on their level.

I'm not convinced Sheamus and Orton could get anyone emotionally invested in anything. Of course, desire to be the best, the champ, is important but its not enough. Sheamus isn't coming across as dominant enough and Orton is showing no vulnerability. He is simply showing that he is better than Sheamus and as such, I can't believe or invest any belief that Sheamus is a threat to Orton.

Rock and Austin never had that problem.

I'm not convinced Sheamus should be in the main event. But that's a personal belief.
Comparing people to Rock and Austin needs to stop. They were once in a generation performers. There's a reason we constantly hear about Hogan or Rock or Austin: they were special. It wasn't the business that made them hot back then. They made the business hot. They had a natural charisma that very few have ever had and it's not something that can be taught. These comparisons and saying things like "Rock and Austin did this" or "Rock and Austin never did this" need to end. They're not coming back and those levels of talent aren't coming once every few years.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,840
Messages
3,300,777
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top