Money In The Bank Buyrate Discussion - KEEP IT ALL IN HERE

[Mustang Sally]

EVERYONE was buzzing about the ppv! It got tons of coverage everywhere, yet it draws a low number?

I don't know that "everyone was buzzing" about it. The Punk-Cena angle on WWE programming only reaches the people who are already into pro wrestling. Folks who don't follow it aren't going to be affected one way or the other.....and the hardcore fans who buy every PPV would be buying this one, anyway. It's hard to get the word out that something special is happening on a particular PPV.

Okay, you might ask: Why, then, does Wrestlemania get close to 1 million buys, which is so much more than the other PPVs? I'd say it's because non-wrestling fans are still buying WM even though they're not......er, wrestling fans. But they are folks who follow the crowd.....and if they think the crowd orders WM each year, they're gonna do it too. They don't follow the characters and storylines in pro wrestling; they follow other people.

Besides all that, aren't we reading that MITB was up 20,000 over last year's version? In these economic times, seeing a PPV get more buys than the previous year is a positive accomplishment.

 

[Brandon513]

Couldn't it be because there really just aren't that many wrestling fans anymore? Why did Wrestlemania draw so well? Because the fucking ROCK was there, a Hollywood Superstar. NOT a WWE Superstar. It pains me to say it but I'm honestly not surprised at this nor am surprised at raws consistently mediocre ratings. It's not Punk, Punk's incredible. But he's not going to draw viewers in just because he runs his mouth and is excellent in the ring. People who didn't give a shit about wrestling 3 months ago aren't going to be drawn in because of Punk. And people who stopped caring after the AE won't be drawn in because it's just that, they've stopped caring. It's not surprising at all. Wrestling is not what it was in the 80s or 90s anymore, and we have to accept that. We need to accept that 3.1-3.4 ratings are now the standard for Raw and that 185,000 buyrates is pretty good. I love Punk, he's my favorite current wrestler, has been since 2005, but no one outside of us (and kids) really care about wrestling anymore. Not to mention 50 goddamn dollars is pretty expensive for something I see for free every week.

My fear is WWE doesn't recognize this and that Punk will again be lost in the shuffle as a "failed experiment" because of a supposed "inability to draw." If they're smart they'll realize that what matters is the 70% of the crowd that's chanting his name, over Cena, Nash and HHH.

 

[James]

Here are some reasons why PPV buy rates are so low.

> Kids can't order PPV.
> The PPV's are too expensive.
> US has bad economy.
> No one is going to pay monthly about $50 for a PPV, that is 3 hours of entertainment for around 50 bucks.

Solution:

Make the PPV cost $5 - $10 by doing this it will significantly increase the buy rates.

What the hell? Wait am I dreaming right now? You still have to realize that many people don't have In-Demand or the Internet to order PPV's. If everyone had access to that stuff then it would be a good thing and could work. Even then that's still too much. Go back to 30 bucks.

 

[TheLambofDeth]

The one thing I never get about every low Raw ratings or less than expected PPV buyrates is everyone is blaming Punk's in ability to draw. Now even if Punk couldn't draw a dime....he was sort of having a angle with, ya know the biggest draw in the company. It's not like the entire PPV rates rest on Punk. I guess Cena is not longer a draw either then, right?

It's simple 50 or 60$ or whatever is just too much for a monthly three hours, it doesn't matter who's on the card. Not to make excuse for Punk or whatever but even if Cena was facing Jesus I don't see the buy-rates climbing because the price is to impractical. Not to mention PPV's are two decent matches with nothing else but underdeveloped filler.

 

[Pedigree1]

everyone on here covered the reasons!! Too many PPVs a year!! Way too many!! Way too freaking expensive 45-55 here where i live thats too damn much!! The US is in a horrible slide with no upside anytime soon!! Im not suprised at all by this low number at all. Plus there was some people who thought cena would retain including me!! Spread out the PPVS lower the cost of em until the us can pull out of its slide and people have jobs to cover the cost of a PPV!! Have no more than 6 PPVS a year one every other month to hype up events stars etc etc

 

[BOOKIT]

honestly the wrestling of the main event of mitb doesnt make ppv buys you cant order a match in the middle of the last match so it doesnt matter what happens if the match is good

 

[K Bro 30]

I think the fact that it was in Chicago may have played a small factor. The city was going crazy for Punk, not that it's huge, but I think it's safe to assume that around 5-10,000 people would have bought to see Punk.

Otherwise, wrestling is no longer mainstream. It's not edgy enough to appeal to that 18+ year old demographic, and, as stated, kids can't order PPV's. Top that with the price, and I'm really not shocked at all.

Punk's shoot shocked everyone who understood what he was talking about, but the only ones who did were those of us on sites like this. So it didn't draw any new fans, it just made the current fans more excited.

 

[flawd101]

the problem is only the main events have a worth while storyline. if i am going to buy a ppv it needs to be cheaper and more than one match should mean something. i went to the bar for mitb because i love mitb matches but other ppv dont have that. i enjoyed extreme rules and mitb the most but the rumble, wm, and extreme rules had some really good matches. i wish they would make the mid card matches mean something.

 

[bongorider]

Firstly, I'm surprised by how confused the IWC has become by this whole issue and really, it is not that complicated, it has just been made a lot worse by bad journalism (not the fault of Wrestlezone)

MITB drew 185,000 international and 132,000 domestic buys, which is perfectly within the normal range for a "B" PPV. People are calling it "low" because it fell slightly behind estimates and certainly didn't live up to the hype. But it was not a bad number.

For example the previous PPV, "Capitol punishment" did 83,000 domestically which was the fourth lowest in the history of the company, but 200,000 international.
The reason CP did better worldwide is because there were no buys for MITB in the UK and Ireland where it aired for free.
Over The Limit did 65,000 domestic (2nd lowest ever) and 138 000 worldwide, which is obviously terrible.

Most of this confusion over the "initial" reports of 265,000 or 300,00 is because certain other wrestling sites such as Gerweck, PWTorch, and Rajah (funny how they all reported the exact same incorrect thing isn't it?) all mis-read the charts from the WWE financial statement and lumped about 70,000 of the late WM27 buys in with the July PPV figures. As far as I know Gerwek and the Torch have retracted, not sure about the other one.

The original (and correct) buyrate of 132,000 (domestic) and 185,000 (international) was reported in the Wrestling Observer earlier in the month, we have literally known these figures for weeks. The topic of buyrates only reared it's head again on Thursday when the WWE released it's quarterly figures and someone proceeded to mis-interpret them. It just goes to show how closely the buyrate for MITB is being scrutinized when some "journalists" are trying to read graphs for the first time and botching, despite the figures being publicised in the exact same manner by the WWE for years.

For what it's worth Meltzer (of the observer) has said that the early projections for Summerslam are "not very good at all".

To be honest the year post-WM has been pretty low to average so far. It is the trend at the moment. I don't see how Punk is to blame when Cena has main evented all of the last 5 PPVs.

 

[prestonluv]

Thanks for the post bongorider.


The only reason i did not order summerslam was because outside of Punk/Cena the card was very weak.

WWE has to do a better job of building mid card fueds. If the PPV had 3 or 4 matches to look forward to than more people would buy it.

I think they dropped the ball big time on Summerslam. They should of added an extra 2 weeks and had it at the end of august.

Right now they have one good fued on Raw.....Nash/HHH/Punk


Really...what else is there to watch? I guess Cena/Del rio but thats meh.


When the WWE consistently has 3 or 4 good angles running at the same time the ratings will go up and the PPV buy rates will increase as well.

 

[bongorider]

Some more research:

Extreme Rules is also reported to have performed badly in North America, but with a strong international buyrate of 209,000, this was also free to air in UK and Ireland.

Chronologically:

Extreme Rules. 209,000 (of which 65,000 from North America)
Over the Limit. 138,000 (of which 65,000 from North America) *Free to air in UK and Ireland
Capitol Punishment. 200,000 (of which 83,000 from North America)
Money in the Bank. 185,000 (of which 132,000 from North America) *Free to air in UK and Ireland

All four were headlined by John Cena.

 

[cm ben]

Punk's shoot shocked everyone who understood what he was talking about, but the only ones who did were those of us on sites like this. So it didn't draw any new fans, it just made the current fans more excited.

I don't think that's true. Not to single you out--a lot of people have made this point so far, that this Punk storyline isn't making ripples outside of the wrestling community.

My asshole roommate, who turns his nose at the very thought of wrestling, heard about the whole storyline from some sports podcast he listens to, and it interested him enough that he started reading about it online. If you want to talk about another "jaw-dropping" moment, it's when he told me that he thought this storyline was really interesting and he wanted to know what happens. A couple of days later, he handed me a copy of the Chicago Reader, whose cover story was about Colt Cabana, and said "hey, isn't that the guy who CM Punk keeps mentioning..?"

Granted, it didn't turn him into a fan, and I have no empirical evidence that this happened to anyone else, but this storyline got (relatively) major coverage outside of wrestling websites. Maybe that doesn't result in an immediate increase in PPV buys (understandably so... again, would a new interested party be willing to pay 50 bucks for something he's merely curious in?), but it definitely means greater overall public interest in the WWE.

 

[Zeedeevel]

Well at least in nj, a lot of people that would normally order the ppv got together in one house to watch it. I have about 6 friends that all order the ppvs at their houses normally. For this one though, we had a party at one house and had about 30 people there. so instead of 6 buys from ocean county, wwe only got 1. Even if this only happened 50 times, thats 300 buys turning into 50. Granted I know that a lot of people get together for other ppvs as well, but this was a major one that you wanted to be with your friends for.

 

[DeathClutch]

I'm always shocked when people try and work out why buyrates are low.
They're a range of problems for this, firstly from the econimic climate, not everyone can afford to buy each and every PPV, secondly, wrestling isn't the cool thing to watch nowadays, and WWE have to many PPV's that aren't worth the money, MITB has been the best value for money PPV in I don't know how many years, maybe since Mania 24 as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kliq]

Personally, I could not justify paying the price for a PPV without any appeal to myself. I didn't care who won MITB for either RAW or Smackdown because I don't like any of the competitors besides Kane. I didn't care about the Diva's match. I knew Orton was going to go over Christian (just like every other mentally capable person in the world). And while I think CM Punk can be enjoyable, I am not attaching myself to his teet like he is some kind of pro wrestling savior. He is decent on the mic (although it is obvious that he pulls a lot of his stuff from outside sources; I mean did he really have to pull the 'just for men' comment on Kevin Nash after every witty 13 year old had commented on it a week prior?) and decent in the ring, but doesn't have what I would call longevity in his gimmick. The only match I wouldn't have minded watching was Henry vs. Show, but I am not going to pay $50 to watch that.

 

[Cracka Jack]

This was pretty shocking news. It really did feel like everyone was talking about it, but I guess that was just us in the wrestling world. Hell, it was probably just the IWC. Punk got a bit of mainstream media attention, but that didn't seem to last all that long. Some have brought up a few important factors that may have led to this, like price/the economy, too many PPV's, and streaming. I'll admit, I stream every PPV myself, but if the prices weren't so damn high I might actually pay to get guaranteed quality. But don't just jump to the "Punk can't draw" conclusion yet. This was the first PPV since the "shoot". It may take months, or maybe even a year or so, for him to be built up into the star he'll be.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

Here are some reasons why PPV buy rates are so low.

> Kids can't order PPV.
> The PPV's are too expensive.
> US has bad economy.
> No one is going to pay monthly about $50 for a PPV, that is 3 hours of entertainment for around 50 bucks.

Solution:

Make the PPV cost $5 - $10 by doing this it will significantly increase the buy rates.

You have record buy numbers, but because you are only looking at "buys" and not "revenue" and not "COSTS" you have just ran a PPV that probably lost money. It costs money to be on PPV you know.

The reason is because Punk's fans are net fans. Know what else net fans do? STREAM. I wish we could look at the stream/torrent numbers because I bet those were HUUUUUUGE.

The bad economy is a good one, but the fact that you are putting on a show that people may want to see doesn't stop them from streaming it. Is someone really going to go "you know, I have to budget, and I could stream, but I'm going to reward this billion dollar company by forking out some cash". Even if the PPV only cost 20 dollars (which may not be profitable to do due to the cost of airing PPV), people would still stream because free<any dollar amount.

As for your other arguments.
1. Kids can't order a PPV, they can't buy a plane ticket, they can't go to the movie theaters, they can't drive, yet Disney is enormous and there are TV channels, entire sets of TV channels, stores (toys R us), theme parks, play places (chuck E cheese), and a multitude of other massive money makers that are directed entirely at kids. So that argument is totally bogus.

2. PPVs are too expensive, however, most people who have to think about "30 or 50 dollars" will stream regardless. People who have enough money to not even think of "30 or 50" will likely buy 50 too without hesitation. You can lower the cost but when the WWE is competing with free streams/torrents, what are they going to do to beat that? Pay people to watch?

3. The economy is sort of bad. It's complicated. Different sectors are different. Most importantly, most people THINK the economy is bad (probably think it's worse than it really is). Thus, they want to spend less, which hurts the economy, which makes their assumptions self-fullfilling.

4. Again, it's not a price thing because for a large sector of their market, they're competing with free streaming, so fuck that entire market. Go after your smaller, wealthier segment and try to maximize that.

Why is anyone surprised about this? You fuckers stream the PPV and then go "well shit the buyrates are down, how did that happen?"

Beyond all that, who's to say this report is true? We've had 2 different reports that conflict with one another. I'm not jumping to any conclusions yet.

 

[bongorider]

Beyond all that, who's to say this report is true? We've had 2 different reports that conflict with one another. I'm not jumping to any conclusions yet.

The 185,000 figure is true because it is based on actual public WWE financial figures (interpreted correctly) and the sites which reported the higher number have retracted their stories. I suggest you go back and read my post, I actually spent some time researching it.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

The 185,000 figure is true because it is based on actual public WWE financial figures (interpreted correctly) and the sites which reported the higher number have retracted their stories. I suggest you go back and read my post, I actually spent some time researching it.

I did, but didn't they also say "we don't know why the WWE would have added Wrestlemania buys"?

All I'm saying is I'm going to wait until it's totally cleared up. If it is infact the number reported here, then that's the number. I still think it'd be cool to look at the number of streams/torrents.

 

[King-Aldo]

People need to stop being so tight and watching illegal crappy streams! If they wanted to see the matches so badly, they'd order it!

Websites like desirulez.net and dailymotion are pretty much killing WWE by uploading all their content onto their websites.

 

[fenfool]

Like others have said...the economy is terrible and PPV's are too expensive. They kind of shot themselves in the foot with this angle. Punk appeals to internet "smart" fans, and much of this group probably watched a free stream somewhere on the internet. After seeing the Raw ratings leading up to MITB, the buyrate didn't come as that big of a shock...a bit lower than I expected, but not a huge shock. I am curious how the DVD will sell/rent. If the ratings start to steadily increase, we'll see better PPV buyrates, hopefully the casual fan can be drawn in by Punk and the aftermath of the angle.

 

[Chadmw]

As many people have stated, the price is one reason

But I think the main reason why buyrates did not rise as much as people expected (they didn't lower either), is that as great as a storyline going in, and also the great MITB matches, that is not going to attract anything new.

Do you think the non-wrestling fan cares that some guy called CM Punk mentions Colt Cabano or Heyman etc.. really cares or even heard of it.

So while it is a great storyline for us wrestling fans, it is not going to attract any new fans.

 

[cm ben]

They kind of shot themselves in the foot with this angle. Punk appeals to internet "smart" fans, and much of this group probably watched a free stream somewhere on the internet.

Well, not really. As someone else pointed out, this is 20,000 more views than last year's MitB, and, what, 100,000 views more than Capitol Punishment? That's maybe a little disappointing considering how much buzz this angle was generating, but hardly a shot-in-the-foot level of disappointment.

I wonder how much Raw results are affected by technology now, too. A lot of people DVR, of course; I don't have cable (I try to give Comcast as little of my money as possible), so, when I watch RAW, I'll either watch it on youtube, or I'll stream live. You can say technology's hurting the WWE, but then again, I wouldn't be keeping up with it at all were it not for the internet. Maybe it's similar to downloading albums for free--hurting the big music companies via CD sales, but ultimately benefiting the artists via concert attendance. Yes? No?

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Firstly, I would point out that there is still some confusion over what the exact figure is. This is a link from the WWE website:

http://ir.corporate.wwe.com/interactive/LookAndFeel/4121687/WWE-keyperformance.pdf

Scroll over to page 5 and you will see what I mean. The graph indicates that the July PPV had close to 300k buys this year which contradicts this 185k figure. I don't think anythng more regarding this matter will be known until WWE releases their quarterly earnings in February or issues an official statement regarding this issue.

Now let us assume that for a second that the 185k figure is true. That would mean that it is still more than what Capitol Punishment or Over the Limit drew. It is still up by 20k buys if you compare it to last year's MITB and 15k up from Capitol Punishment this year. So basically Punk drew 15k more guys to the product in a matter of three weeks. I am basically discounting the week after the OTL PPV because Punk did not say a lot in the first week. He basically said that he was going to leave WWE on July 17th which may have turned his fans off rather than drawn them to the product. The real fun, and all the mainstream attention, began after his shoot, as we all know.

So he drew in 15k fans in three weeks at the rate of 5k fans a week. Does not sound too bad to me. The Rock is said to have drawn a million buys for WrestleMania. WrestleMania normally does around 900k buys every year and would have done the same this year even without The Rock's presence. Now let us say that Rock being the guy that he is got around 20k guys to buy Mania by just stating that he was going to be at Mania. He had to draw the rest in through his performances. So let us say that he drew in 80k more fans in 7 weeks. He appeared on Raw 7 weeks from Mania 27. Which means that Rock, a movie star, the second most over Attitude Era star when it was happening and probably the hottest figure of that era now due to him not appearing on WWE TV for 7 years and a guy who has been taking potshots at Cena and vice versa for about 5 years now, drew all of 12-15k fans per week. The number could probably be even lesser. In comparison CM Punk, a nobody before his famous shoot, drew fans in at an average of 5k fans per week. I fail to see how it can be said to be a bad performance. Which means that Punk may not have become a megastar overnight but that he cannot be someone who can be tossed aside as someone who cannot draw.

 

[StorylineG]

Maybe you think the WWE just doesn't put together a good product accept the Punk/Cena storyline. I mean If Im not getting entertained by the rest of the roster i just change the channel. Plus Punk set it straight with the PG stuff. People are tired of that.