Round 2: Gelgarin -versus- IrishCanadian25

[Mr. TM]

Should WWE Pay Per Views be Brand Exclusive? (Raw Pay Per Views, Smackdown! Pay Per Views, ECW Pay Per Views)

IrishCanadian25 is the home debater, he gets to choose which side of the debate he is on first, but he has 24 hours.

Remember to read the rules. This thread is only for the debaters.

This round ends Friday 9:00 pm Pacific​

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I will be debating that WWE Pay-Per-Views should NOT be brand exclusive. I will open the debate.

There is no question whatsoever that the WWE must maintain its tri-branded PPV's and not return to the brand-specific PPV's that dilluted the PPV Cards of the mid-00's and dropped PPV Buy-rates to previously unseen lows. Here, I have outlined my first 3 major points backing this position, as well as some numbers that I think also tell the tale quite well.

1. The WWE is not deep enough to manage brand-exclusive PPV's.​

When the WWE originally tried the brand split in 2002, they were fresh off the acquisition of WCW and ECW, as well as the creation of several new talents. There was depth in the roster, and it made sense to split the brands in an attempt to reduce travel and give non-main event talents more exposure. The brand split itself - assigning individual talents to different shows - has worked out fairly well. The brand-specific Pay-per-views, however, were an abysmal failure when first attempted (started with Badd Blood 2003), and would fare even worse the second time around.

If you look at the level of talent the WWE had in 2002, you could see it being possible to pull off the PPV idea for a short time. The Rock, The Undertaker, Kurt Angle, The nWo (Nash, Hall, X-Pac), Chris Benoit, Kane, Hulk Hogan, Rob van Dam, Booker T, Edge, The Big Show, Rikishi, The Dudleyz, and Brock Lesnar were all in the top 16 draft picks. Chris Jericho, Matt and Jeff Hardy, and Christian were all selected after. Guys like Triple H and Scott Steiner returned and were signed as "free agents" to a brand. The specific PPV's were in full swing, and Raw was light years ahead of Smackdown as far as interest in the PPV's went.

By 2006, WWE realized that there wasn't nearly enough depth to make a brand-specific PPV worth $40 per month, and inter-brand matches started occuring. By 2007, the idea was abandonned completely.

If you look at some of the matches on the brand-specific PPV's, you'll see the lack of depth. The PPV's worked for a short time when there was a balance of main eventers and upper-echelon mid-carders (Rock, Angle, Taker, Lesnar, HHH, Michaels, Flair, Hogan, Goldberg, Nash, Austin, Jericho, Orton, RVD, Kane, Benoit, Guerrero, Mysterio). Now, however, the main event is limited to Cena, Orton, HHH, Michaels, Taker, Batista, Jericho, Big Show, and sometimes CM Punk. When Edge gets back theres one more. That's 9 names - so 5 for one show and 4 for another to make 8 compelling brand-specific PPV's a year?

2. A brand-exclusive PPV would be like paying $30-$40 for an episode of Monday Night Raw or Smackdown.​

As I mentioned above, depth is a MAJOR issue here. If Raw were to have a brand-specific PPV, let's look at what the card might look like.

WWE Championship - John Cena vs Randy Orton
Triple H vs Ted DiBiase
Shawn Michaels vs Cody Rhodes
The Miz vs Kofi Kingston
Melina vs Jillian Hall
Big Show vs Jack Swagger
MVP & Mark Henry vs Sheamus and Chris Masters
Evan Bourne vs Santino Marella or Carlito

That's 8 matches right there, and you know what? Most of them you could see on an episode of Monday Night Raw. In fact, most of them you HAVE seen on an episode of Monday Night Raw. Now let me ask you - would you pay $30-$40 for a card like this?

Furthermore, if the PPV's were brand split again and a PPV card looked like this, what WOULD you do on Raw to keep fans tuned in and keep the execs at the USA network happy? PPV Buyrates would tank because fans would know they could see the same matches on free TV every Monday and Friday night, unless WWE saved buyrates by dropping the quality of their TV product, which would of course cause ratings to bomb and some very powerful people at USA and My9 to become VERY upset.

3. Brand-specific PPV's would devalue ECW even further.​

ECW is already considered Minor-league, and the ECW "World" Championship is considered nothing but a glorified mid-card title. Set aside the fact that RAW and Smackdown lack the depth needed to put on their own PPV's - where would ECW factor in here? They sure as hell don't have enough talent to expect even $20 and a Sunday Night from fans to put on a PPV. Even when the ECW originals were still around, just to pull off ONE ECW specific PPV the WWE had to get several of the other ECW "alumni" signed to one-day contracts.

As an aside, the ECW December to Dismember PPV in 2006 was purchased by approximately 88,000 people. One Night Stand 2007 did 188,000, and it wasn't even ECW-specific.

4. Specific numbers to back up my assertions.​

Let's have a look at the PPV numbers when the brand-split occured and brand-specific PPV's began, shall we?

2003
Badd Blood (RAW) - 300,000 buys
Vengeance (SD) - 196,000 buys
SummerSlam (Co) - 384,000 buys
Unforgiven (RAW) - 2003 and 2004 rates unavailable
No Mercy (SD) - 200,000 buys
Survivor Series (Co) - 292,000 buys
Armageddon (RAW) - 160,000 buys

2004
Royal Rumble (Co) - 380,000 buys
No Way Out (SD) - 200,000 buys (featured Eddie Guerrero's win vs Lesnar)
Wrestlemania 20 (Co) - 560,000 buys
Backlash (Raw) - 216,000 buys (unbranded 2003 did 440,000)*
Judgement Day (SD) - 152,000 buys
Bad Blood (Raw) - 188,000 buys ('97's In Your House version did 240k)
Great American Bash (SD) - 228,000 buys
Vengeance (Raw) - 220,000 buys
SummerSlam (Co) - 384,000 buys
Unforgiven (Raw) - 2003 and 2004 rates unavailable
No Mercy (SD) - 190,000 buys
Taboo Tuesday (Raw) - 176,000 buys (Tuesday night PPV)*
Survivor Series (Co) - 324,000 buys
Armageddon (SD) - 236,000 buys

2005
New Year's Revolution (Raw) - 272,000 buys
Royal Rumble (Co) - 332,000 buys
No Way Out (SD) - 236,000 buys
Wrestlemania 21 (Co) - 984,000 buys (highest since 1991)*
Backlash (Raw) - 324,000 buys
Judgement Day (SD) - 264,000 buys
ECW One Night Stand (Co) - 324,000 buys (pre- ECW Brand)
Vengeance (Raw) - 368,000 buys
Great American Bash (SD) - 232,000 buys
SummerSlam (Co) - 536,000 buys
Unforgiven (Raw) - 224,000 buys
No Mercy (SD) - 220,000 buys
Taboo Tuesday (Raw) - 220,000 buys (Tuesday Night PPV)*
Survivor Series (Co) - 376,000 buys
Armageddon (SD) - 292,000 buys

I can post 2006 and 2007 at a later time if you like, but this should just about do it. I understand that buyrates will always be a little bit better for "The Big 4," but think about these two major facts:

1. The drop off from the co-branded PPV's to the brand-specific PPV's.
2. The drop off from the RAW PPV's to the SD PPV's.

I have a few other points to make backing my position, but I will await the first post of my opponent and continue following that.

 

[Gelgarin]

“All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.”​

So it seems that the inevitable has come to pass and that I must once again debate Irish in what would have been the final in a romantically orientated world. I think we’ve come to a point where factors such as our mutual respect or Irish’s crushing racism towards Italians no longer needs to be brought forward, so if you don’t mind I’ll just get straight to business with the first of what will likely be many posts.

Should WWE Pay Per Views be Brand Exclusive?​

I’m fast accepting that I’m going to have some variant of carpel tunnel syndrome by the end of this thing, so you know what?

Yes.

Yes; outside of the big four WWE PPV’s should absolutely be brand exclusive. Such a change would help the WWE add legitimacy to both the big four shows and to the brand split. It would assist the WWE to create and maintain the stars of the future. It will help them improve the product and conquer the market. All in all, that’s a pretty positive list. But hold on to your ballots for now people, because it gets better. Let’s take a look at each claim in detail shall we?

Brand Exclusive PPV’s will help: Add legitimacy to the brand split.​

I’ve got a nice little stream of consciousness theme going with today’s arguments, so I hope you don’t mind if I start small, and then build to a crushing crescendo.

Right now the brand split is a complete joke. It would be nice if this wasn’t the case, or at lease if this didn’t matter, but unfortunately it is, and it does. Bragging Rights showed us that the WWE is still trying to market the brand split concept, and you can’t make money off of an idea that nobody takes seriously.

Having the talent from each show remain segregated and only interact with each other during the top four shows of the year will not only bring back the brand split’s credibility, but it will also reinvigorate the WWE’s biggest shows of the year.

And on the topic of reinvigorating the top shows…

Brand Exclusive PPV’s will help: Reinvigorate the big four.​

Obviously I’m not really talking about Wrestlemania which could be booked as a three hour Kid Rock concert and would still sell, but in the present climate the others shows, most notably Survivor Series, are rapidly loosing that about them which made them special.

Survivor Series still does better numbers than your average show, if only because a portion of wrestling fans still remember its former glory; but do you honestly think that a fan being brought up in today’s climate is going to view SS or Summerslam as being any different from TLC or Elimination Chamber? Those “big shows” no longer have anything special about them, and when you take away what makes a show special you take away that show’s status as a guaranteed draw. Look at Survivor Series over the past two years, compared to during brand specific PPV’s.

In both 2003 and 2004, Survivor Series drew considerably more than the average for a WWE show. In 2008 it actually drew less. Now a lot of this is due to the WWE becoming dependent on Mania to bolster its numbers, but that only serves to bolster my argument, that shows that used to be considered special have no become run of the mill.

Realistically speaking, Summerslam and Survivor Series have absolutely nothing unique about them. They feature exactly the same talent as is on every other show, and unless something happened they will soon fall to the level of Bad Blood and Armageddon.
Enforcing the brand split could be just the shot in the arm that these shows need. Turning them into a rare opportunity to see “all” the top stars in one place would help keep the shows, and the performers who headlined them, relevant in the eyes of the public.

And on the topic of keeping performers relevant…

Brand Exclusive PPV’s will help: Keep talent relevant.​

At the present time the WWE employs almost seventy active wrestlers on the roster. Of those seventy, take a guess at how many appear on a typical PPV.
Well, unless the show is packed to the brim with multi man matches (a-la Survivor Series) then a good estimate would be around twenty. That’s well over two thirds of the roster serving no practical purpose other than to provide padding for the six hours of weekly TV the WWE is trying to provide. Since the WWE pays approximately $250,000 a year for a typical mid-carder, there is a clear incentive to have them serve as more than $10,000,000 worth of packing peanuts.

If the PPV’s were once again made brand exclusive then logic dictates that twice as many workers would be able to perform on them. Guys like Carlito, Yang, Knox and the like could reclaim their positions of relevance within the company and start serving a practical purpose, instead of their current roll of randomly showing up, then getting brushed aside again because there is rarely space on the PPV card for them, in the process losing any momentum, credibility and popularity they had managed to accumulate during their previous run.

Exacting the brand split on PPV’s would help keep workers relevant, both in the eyes of the company, and in the eyes of the fans. It will help the WWE keep talent over, and will help in the creation of new stars.

And on the subject of new stars…

Brand Exclusive PPV’s will help: Help create new stars.​

We’ve all heard it. Vince McMahon is pissed because the WWE cannot create new stars. Every serious attempt to push new talent seems to go the same way, with the recipient being given as opportunity to work with the main eventers, before inevitably being shunted back down into the mid-card because there quite simply isn’t room at the top.

Let’s take a swift gander at the top guys in the WWE right now.

• Big Show
• John Cena
• HBK
• HHH
• Batista
• Randy Orton
• Jericho
• Edge
• Rey Mysterio
• Undertaker

That’s ten names that (outside of injuries) the fans are going to expect to be booked onto every single PPV under the current regime, with the six bold names being expected to either be in the main event, or to be embroiled in a high profile feud with other high level talent.
I tallied up every single PPV since the cessation of brand exclusive PPV’s and over the course of those two and a half years, the bold names failed to appear in the main event on a grand total of two occasions, both of which featured Jeff Hardy, the only main event star the WWE has successfully created during this period.

Requiring these same top guys to dominate the upper card for ‘every’ ‘single’ show has not only lead to some phenomenally stale booking (need I remind you exactly how many time we’ve seen some permutation of Cena, HHH and Orton at the top of the card) but it has also produced an extremely thick glass ceiling that new talent cannot break through. Even guys like CM Punk who the WWE legitimately throw their weight behind find that, as soon as their push ends, they are swiftly sunk back into the depths of the mid-card because there simply isn’t space on the card to keep them in a prominent position.

Compare this to the time when PPV’s were branded, and we saw guys like Gurerro, Benoit, Edge, Orton, Batista and John Cena were able to climb through the ranks and take their place in the main event. You’ll recognise a lot of those names, because quite a few of them are carrying the company as we speak.

The WWE has always operated best when there were limitations on talent. Be it from the Monday Night Wars the brand split or Jim Crockett poaching guys in 1960, the WWE has thrived in an environment or competition. Now, with the extremely minor exception of TNA, the WWE has a 100% monopoly on all the talent it wants, and the result is that the top of the card is log-jammed with names that don’t appear to be going anywhere fast. Splitting the PPV’s so that each name only has to appear on two in every three shows will give the E the space to grow new superstars and bring some much needed fresh air to the main event scene.

And on the subject of competition…

Brand Exclusive PPV’s will help: Encourage competition and create quality.​

I’m a realistic man. I recognise that, when the brand split was last attempted it wasn’t perfect, and one of the reasons for that was because the two shows were never truly allowed to compete with one another. It was always made very clear that RAW was the ‘A’ show, and as such Smackdown! PPV’s often felt somewhat limp by comparison.

What people overlook however is that it doesn’t have to work this way. Two separate shows running separate PPV’s gives the WWE the opportunity to truly reawaken the competitive spirit that has made wrestling great so many times in the past. Whether it was the rise of Jim Crockett in on the east coast leading to the meteoric rise of Bruno Sammartino, or the Monday Night Wars bringing about the rise of such all time legends as Stone Cold and The Rock, competition has always brought the best out of wrestling.

Unfortunately for wrestling as a whole, TNA is not up to the challenge, and Vince McMahon doesn’t have Bill Gates’s massive balls to remedy the situation. Therefore, if the WWE want competition, and the increased excitement, attention and quality that come with it, they have to create it themselves.

Right now Smackdown and RAW are offering noticeably different products, with the former offering a more traditional wrestling product, whilst the latter focuses on… some kind of celebrity based crash TV with extra Hornswoggle(sp?). If the two shows are going to take such different paths, it only makes sense to have them promote different pay of shows.

This will provide the WWE with one thing that it has been without for the past few years, and that is a barometer for success. The wrestling industry, and indeed the TV industry as a whole, constantly fluctuated, and the WWE has no point of reference to see whether it’s approach is working or not. With two shows selling separate PPV’s, the WWE would finally have a point of comparison from which to judge what the fans do, and do not enjoy.
The knowledge from such an experiment would, in the long term, make the product better for the majority of fans, and help the WWE get a better handle on the market.

And on the topic of cornering the market…

Brand Exclusive PPV’s will help: Divide and conquer the market.​

One problem that I personally have always found with the WWE is the insistence that you watch between four and five hours of wrestling a week to be able to get the most out of the big shows. RAW and Smackdown! are on different networks, pulling different numbers with different products… it seems reasonable to assume that they are drawing a noticeably different audience.
From this it naturally follows that there is a significant core of fans out there who watch either one show or the other, but not both. When you are only receiving the backstory for one half of the PPV, it becomes a considerably less appealing way to spend $50 (after all, you can still get a hooker for that can’t you?) and people well feel less compelled to buy the shows.

In the dynamic was changed so that each show was promoting its own PPV then the people who watch both shows could continue to quite happily buy the monthly PPV, and those who only tune in to one show a week could purchase the relevant show without remorse.

Two smaller markets of more consistent demographics are decidedly easier to handle that one massive homogenization of viewer dynamics, and will give the WWE a better opportunity to specifically tailor its shows to the relevant audience.

And on the topic of this post having gone on a long time and needing a conclusion...

Conclusion​

I’ve already crossed the line (TNA! TNA! TNA!) of 2,000 words, and we havn’t even got on to Irish’s creative use of figures or assertions that the presence of X-Pac in an indication of a deep talent pool, but I think those issues are best left until we have properly drawn up a set of battle lines. For now, I leave you with a claim I made some fifteen hundred words ago.
Brand exclusive PPV’s will help the WWE add legitimacy to both the big four shows and to the brand split itself. It would assist the WWE to create and maintain the stars of the future. It will help them improve the product and conquer the market.

I said before that it was a pretty impressive list, and I stand by it word for word.

Your move old man.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Here I was, hoping to get out of the office 30 minutes early. I sign on one last time to see what's happening, and lo and behold, Gelgarin is in the building. And he has posted. Not just that, but he's put some damn fine effort into it too. Futile, but DAMN fine effort.

Let the rebuttal period commence.

Use of brand-specific PPV's to reinvigorate the brand split

Having the talent from each show remain segregated and only interact with each other during the top four shows of the year will not only bring back the brand split’s credibility, but it will also reinvigorate the WWE’s biggest shows of the year.

The major hole with this - fans are already complaining that things are getting stale with the same talents always interacting each month and not much new going on. And your solution to this is to segregate it further?

It's a generally accepted fact (though I will try to find the numbers) that the two generally highest rated Monday Night Raw shows of the year are the Raw immediately following Wrestlemania and the Draft. People crave change and want to see new wrestlers interact. If both the weekly TV shows AND the PPV's only involve talent from less than half the roster, that issue will only get worse. To keep things from getting stale, the draft would have to be done 2 or 3 times per year, and then the draft would get stale. Mixing things up at PPV's the way the WWE does now gives people something to look forward to.

Use of brand-specific PPV's to reinvigorate the "big four"

Those “big shows” no longer have anything special about them, and when you take away what makes a show special you take away that show’s status as a guaranteed draw.

Survivor Series was never "special" because the entire roster was on it. It was special because it was a Thanksgiving tradition and because it featured the 4-on-4 and 5-on-5 elimination style matches. Royal Rumble is special because of the Rumble match itself. Wrestlemania is special for obvious reasons which do not require repeating. The only one of the "big four" that really has no specialty is SummerSlam, which is only special because it has history and creative generally works harder to build matches for it.

8 brand-specific PPV's each year won't make people value the big 4 any more. It will simply widen the gap in buyrates by DE-VALUING the brand specific PPV's. You're going to drop the success of 8 shows just to increase the success of 4 of them? Look at the buy rate numbers I posted (you called it "creative use of figures, though it was merely posting facts from a public company), and you see the drop off from the big shows to the brand-specific ones. The "big 4" didn't get a shot in the arm because they featured all of the roster. The "other 8" got killed because they featured less than 50% of the roster.

Use of the brand-specific PPV's to keep talent relevant

If the PPV’s were once again made brand exclusive then logic dictates that twice as many workers would be able to perform on them. Guys like Carlito, Yang, Knox and the like could reclaim their positions of relevance within the company and start serving a practical purpose, instead of their current roll of randomly showing up, then getting brushed aside again because there is rarely space on the PPV card for them, in the process losing any momentum, credibility and popularity they had managed to accumulate during their previous run.

Carlito, Yang, and Knox don't even make weekly TV anymore, what makes you think that splitting the PPV's will magically make them worthy of a push? If those 3 men were getting loads of airtime and winning matches on Raw and Smackdown, then maybe there'd be cause to want them on PPV. But they don't. So there isn't. Why? They aren't relevant performers. They are just not that good.

You want to see brand-specific PPV's so marginal talents can make a "big show" 4 times each year (since each brand would, in theory, only get 4 specific PPV's instead of each brand being a part of 8) when they cannot even make a 2-hour weekly TV program? That's not keeping talent relevant, it's diluting the PPV card and insulting fans who pay $40 per month for these PPV's.

As far as your point about loss of momentum, do you know what causes a loss of momentum? When a feud was on a brand specific PPV one month, and then had to wait until the next brand-specific or co-branded PPV to get going again. It relegated big blow off matches to TV and stalled feuds left and right.

Let me also make this point. There are people who cannot watch ALL 3 shows in a given week. I only catch Smackdown about once a month. The 12 co-branded PPV's keep me in touch with the major talent on SD when my schedule precludes me from television. If I see those talents only at co-branded PPV's (because I wouldn't shell out $40 to see a PPV of guys I don't tune in to free TV to watch every week, and thus don't know the history of the feuds), I am likely going to lose tough with that part of the roster. Thankfully, the monthly co-branded PPV's keep them in my mind.

Use of the brand-specific PPV's to "create new stars"

But with brand-specific PPV's, these so-called "new stars" will actually be eligible for 4 fewer PPV's each year. And if they're really in line to be "stars," why wouldn't they be able to earn a spot on a co-branded PPV?

Furthermore, and I know I keep going back to this, but fans watch free TV to see these new stars "created." They shell out $40 for a PPV to see big moments and feuds come to a head. If TV cannot help create new stars, then the TV shows are being used wrong.

As far as your examples of the stars who were created during the brand-specific PPV's, let's dive into that further. Take Chris Benoit, for example. Benoit won the Royal Rumble - a co-branded PPV - before winning the WWF title at Wrestlemania - a co-branded PPV. The brand-specific PPV he entered as the champion for Raw? He faced Kane in the Main Event. It was a match that didn't exactly have heat.

I will respond to the other points in time, but for now, it's time to leave the office and head home. I have dinner to cook.

 

[Gelgarin]

Well Irish seems pretty determined to go after the punctuality points this time around, and to that end has submitted what looks very much like half a response. Hopefully this isn’t going to turn into an attempt to sweep those arguments he didn’t have time to respond to under the carpet.
We shall see I guess.

I’m going to try and steer this away from quoting massive chunks of text. I’m not convinced that it makes things easier to follow, and anyone who’s got this far into the debate has presumably already read all of the above posts, so I’m just going to highlight the key points and be done with it.

The WWE is not deep enough to manage brand-exclusive PPV's?​

Irish puts it to you that, when the brand extension was in place, WWE had superior depth to its roster. He then goes on to demonstrate this depth by providing a list that included Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, X-Pac, The Dudley Boys, Kane, Rikishi and Scott Steiner. Personally I think that does a fairly good job of invalidating his own argument, but since I probably have to do that myself to get any points, let’s roll.

Counterpoint 1: WWE today has a far deeper and stronger roster than when the brand split was in place.

Let’s stop, zoom out, and take a look at the RAW and Smackdown! title matches for the 2008 year, and then compare them to the mains events under the brand extension. Theoretically the brand extension WWE should have the advantage, as each show has only two thirds the number of main events to provide. You will swiftly notice that this is not the case.

2008

Royal Rumble
Orton/Hardy
Edge/Mysterio
The Rumble itself.

No Way Out
HHH/HBK/JBL/Umaga/Y2J/Jeff Hardy (Elimination Chamber)
Undertaker/Batista/Khali/Finley/MVP/Vicera (Elimination Chamber)
Cena/Orton
Edge/Mysterio

Wrestlemania 24
Undertaker/Edge
Orton/HHH/John Cena

Backlash
HHH/Orton/Cena/JBL
Undertaker/Edge

Judgement Day
HHH/Orton (Cage Match)
Undertaker/Edge

One Night Stand
HHH/Orton (Last Man Standing)
Undertaker/Edge (TLC)

Night of Champions
Edge/Batista
HHH/Cena

Great American Bash
Punk/Batista
HHH/Edge

Summerslam
Batista/Cena
Undertaker/Edge (Hell in a Cell)

Unforgiven
Championship Scramble #1
Championship Scramble #2
HBK/Jericho

No Mercy
HHH/Hardy
HBK/Jerichho (Ladder Match)

Cyber Sunday
HHH/Hardy
Batista/Jericho (Stone Cole and referee)

Survivor Series
Edge/HHH/Kozlof
Cena/Jericho

Armageddon
Cena/Jericho
Hardy/Edge/HHH

Now call me mister crazy if you like, but I think that, taken in isolation, at least two thirds of the matches presented there are strong enough to headline a PPV. Especially in comparison to matches such as Triple H against Kevin Nash (twice!), or Undertaker against The Dudley Body. Hell, they had to resort to giving Hardcore Holly a title match.

The roster now is both deeper, and stronger, than it was during most of the brand split; mostly because of the main event stars that the brand extension forced the company to create. Which brings me nicely on to;

Counterpoint 2: If you build it, they will come.

Even if Irish is correct (he isn’t, but let’s humour him), and for some reason (plane crash) the WWE finds itself without sufficient depth to the roster; the unmistakable precedent is for them to simply create new stars.

When there is space at the top, there is space to push people. As I said before, the brand extension saw the pushing of such stars as Gurerro, Benoit, Edge, Orton, Batista and Cena. More importantly, after their initial push, the WWE was able to keep all of them over, in comparison to post brand-extension where guys like CM Punk, Rey Mysterio and Chris Benoit were relegated to the position of midcarders on a regular basis.

Not having a deep enough roster (which the WWE do) is not a long term threat.

Having a repetitive and stale roster that cannot elevate fresh talent is.

A brand-exclusive PPV would be like paying $30-$40 for an episode of Monday Night Raw or Smackdown.​

Irish claims that people wouldn’t want to buy brand exclusive PPVs, because it would be like paying to watch RAW or Smackdown. He claims that brand exclusive PPVs would cause buy-rates to “tank”, and bring the WWE trouble with its networks.

Counterpoint 1: Pretty recent history that everybody should know.

An interesting piece of trivia for you Irish: I know that history isn’t your strong suit, but I don’t think the revelation that the WWE sold PPVs prior to 1999 should come as any great surprise.

The WWE were selling PPV’s quite happily before Smackdown! Went on the air, and such figures as we have available to us suggest that the top shows were pulling very similar numbers based on much less TV. Over a decade ago Wrestlemania (based off only one TV show) was able to attract 75% of the buys that it gets now, based off of a considerably lower number of potential consumers.

Of course, this is all rendered totally irrelevant when my next counterpoint is considered, but it’s nice to be thorough.

Counterpoint 2: Irish is talking crap.

The assertion that people won’t buy brand exclusive PPVs made me laugh a little, especially when it was made by the same man who recently posted buy rates which clearly show that PPVs under the brand extension drew just as well and PPV without it.

Let’s take a look at the average buy rates for each year shall we?

2003 ~ 375,000
2004 ~ 325,000
2005 ~ 375,000
2006 ~ 330,000
2007 ~ 330,000
2008 ~ 330,000

Now… explain to me how that doesn’t prove that PPVs under a brand extension draw just as well as those without it.
Brand exclusive PPVs make it easier for the WWE to build and maintain stars and to improve the product, whilst providing no fiscal detriment (in fact, since talent are only working two in every three shows, it probably saves them money).

Brand-specific PPV's would devalue ECW even further.​

Irish apparently cares about ECW looking legitimate. He doesn’t… but then I made an argument about the brand split looking credible, so I guess I shouldn’t judge him too harshly. I’ll pay this point the lip service it deserves.

Counterpoint 1: Devaluing ECW is not possible.

The ECW championship hasn’t been defended on PPV for the past three shows. For close to 100 days, the best that brand has been able to produce is dark match involving Paul Burchill. It is quite simply not possible to remove the credibility of that championship by not putting it on PPV.

That being said, re-branding the PPV’s could actually help ECW. Space will be created on the cards for both brands, and if necessary a part of that space could be given to the floating ECW championship. I don’t think that this needs to happen; I think the ECW championship is fine as an undercard TV title, but if you’re worried about brand exclusive PPVs herting the belts prestige then you’re concerning yourself unduly.

Specific numbers to back up Irish’s assertions.​

Irish posted a long list of numbers. During the impending exchange I hope that I can find out why.

Counterpoint 1: These numbers don’t mean anything.

I don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish with these figures other than make it look like you’ve researched something. Since they’re the same Slyfox collected numbers that I’ve quoted three or four times already in this competition, I’m not exactly feeling bowled over.

Your numbers show what exactly? That the big four PPVs draw higher numbers than the regular shows? When has that not been the case?
I have already presented relevant numbers to show that, during the brand extension, the average buy rate for shows was roughly the same as it has been without it. What are you trying to prove here?

_____________________________________​

Now, Irish got some way through countering my last post, but because he's evidently focused upon the scoring system over the debate as a whole, he elected not to finish. My inclination would be to sit back and let him complete the counterargument at his own pace. However, it seems I have another hour before my lecture is due to begin, so I may as well deal with what he's done so far.

Use of brand-specific PPV's to reinvigorate the brand split ​

The major hole with this - fans are already complaining that things are getting stale with the same talents always interacting each month and not much new going on. And your solution to this is to segregate it further?

It's a generally accepted fact (though I will try to find the numbers) that the two generally highest rated Monday Night Raw shows of the year are the Raw immediately following Wrestlemania and the Draft. People crave change and want to see new wrestlers interact. If both the weekly TV shows AND the PPV's only involve talent from less than half the roster, that issue will only get worse. To keep things from getting stale, the draft would have to be done 2 or 3 times per year, and then the draft would get stale. Mixing things up at PPV's the way the WWE does now gives people something to look forward to.

Flaws in this from multiple directions. For a start, the fans are not complaining about seeing the same guys interact month after month; they’re clamouring about seeing the same guys “on the top” month after month.
Splitting the PPVs creates room at the top new talent to develop, and in doing so freshens up the product as a whole.

Secondly, under the current system, the upper card of each brand hardly interact with one another as it is. The only difference is that, since aforementioned upper card takes up twice as much space on every PPV, there is no longer any room to grow new talent. That is why the product becomes stale, and splitting the shows will only serve as a positive influence on the situation.

Use of brand-specific PPV's to reinvigorate the "big four"​

8 brand-specific PPV's each year won't make people value the big 4 any more. It will simply widen the gap in buyrates by DE-VALUING the brand specific PPV's. You're going to drop the success of 8 shows just to increase the success of 4 of them? Look at the buy rate numbers I posted (you called it "creative use of figures, though it was merely posting facts from a public company), and you see the drop off from the big shows to the brand-specific ones. The "big 4" didn't get a shot in the arm because they featured all of the roster. The "other 8" got killed because they featured less than 50% of the roster.

Except this obviously isn't true. If what your fumbled use of mathematics was trying to prove was correct then the average yearly buy-rates for PPVs would gone down; and would not have remained constant during, and after, the brand extension.
Splitting the PPVs had approximately no effect on the numbers drawn, but did allow the WWE elevate more talent, and keep the cards far more fluid than is the case under the present day.

Use of the brand-specific PPV's to keep talent relevant​

Carlito, Yang, and Knox don't even make weekly TV anymore, what makes you think that splitting the PPV's will magically make them worthy of a push? If those 3 men were getting loads of airtime and winning matches on Raw and Smackdown, then maybe there'd be cause to want them on PPV. But they don't. So there isn't. Why? They aren't relevant performers. They are just not that good.

You see, now you're falling into the typical IWC folly of assuming that anyone not at the top of the card lacks the potential to get over.
For your benefit then, I'll present two different examples that you will find harder to brush off. Benoit and Punk.

Under the brand extension Chris Benoit was able to get over enough to actually win the world title and Wrestlemania. He remained at the top of the card throughout the entire time. Once the exclusive PPVs drew to a close, there was no longer room to keep him over, so he was relegated to mid-card fueds over the US title, before finally being drafted to ECW.

Under the current system, CM Punk has twice been pushed to world championship gold. During both of his title reigns he has managed to get over with the crowd, and as soon as both of his title reigns have come to a close he has found himself shunted back into meaningless mid-card programs. These include being a part of a meritless tag team with Kofi Kingston, and feuding with stars such as R-Truth and a god-damn referee.

Right now the WWE's bulbous mass of stale main eventers means that they simply do not have space to maintain much of their roster.

Use of the brand-specific PPV's to "create new stars"​

But with brand-specific PPV's, these so-called "new stars" will actually be eligible for 4 fewer PPV's each year. And if they're really in line to be "stars," why wouldn't they be able to earn a spot on a co-branded PPV?

Furthermore, and I know I keep going back to this, but fans watch free TV to see these new stars "created." They shell out $40 for a PPV to see big moments and feuds come to a head. If TV cannot help create new stars, then the TV shows are being used wrong.

The WWE has been trying to create stars on TV for a couple of years now. Hasn't worked. The only thing close to success they've achieved was with Jeff Hardy, and he didn't start getting taken seriously until they started letting him main event PPVs.

Furthermore, TV shows can't create stars when they have to sell a PPV every 3-4 weeks. Spacing the brand specific shows out will provide more time for the WWE to build feuds for both the upper and mid card, and ultimatly get their talent over. It will give the WWE the opportunity to reinvigorate the Intercontinental and US championships to the point where they can actually elevate people, rather then their current status as a stepping stone to nowhere.

PPV is the big leagues. Creating stars on a TV show dedicated to selling the PPV (and the starts featured thereon) is not going to work.

_____________________________________​

Right... I think we're just about done here. I'd like to remind Irish that he still has some of my arguments from the previous post to deal with, and I'd rather he not simply ignore them.

Good luck.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Hopefully this isn’t going to turn into an attempt to sweep those arguments he didn’t have time to respond to under the carpet.

Oh man, PLEASE don't flatter yourself. I don't sweep any arguments, and if you're actually calling them arguments then it's a stretch.

I’m going to try and steer this away from quoting massive chunks of text. I’m not convinced that it makes things easier to follow, and anyone who’s got this far into the debate has presumably already read all of the above posts, so I’m just going to highlight the key points and be done with it.

Well, Gelgarin seems pretty determined to go after the clarity points, tuh-huh.

He then goes on to demonstrate this depth by providing a list that included Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, X-Pac, The Dudley Boys, Kane, Rikishi and Scott Steiner.

Hall, Nash, and X-Pac were the nWo in WWE, which at the time was a big deal. I don't expect you to understand that, since you yourself admitted to not having watched wrestling during the brand split. If you were to look at these names in terms of TODAY, sure, it wouldn't be much, but the nWo was still a big deal in wrestling, even in 2002-2003, especially with Hogan's face turn following Wrestlemania X8.

The Dudley Boyz were one MAJOR part of the three headed monster of terrific tag team wrestling that was the early '00's, and save for a brief split during which D-Von was asked to mentor Dave Batista, they are the only team that truly stayed in tact, whereas the Hardys and Edge & Christian were split up. Having the top tag team on your show was a HUGE deal during the brand split.

Scott Steiner had just recently been WCW World Champion on a few occassions and one of their top heels. He would come over to WWE, tip the brand split scales in Eric Bischoff's favor until Brock Lesnar signed exclusively with Smackdown, and feuded with Triple H for the World Heavyweight Title.

It's an amazing hypocrisy that you accuse ME of invalidating my argument after stating that you never even watched the original brand split years and clearly displaying zero research or knowledge on the topic. It's ok if you don't know, just don't throw punches and then expect not to be called on it.

2008

Gelgarin posted the main events of the PPV's in 2008 in an attempt to prove that the roster is actually somehow DEEPER than it was during the brand split era PPV's. I appreciate Gelgarin doing my leg work for me.

# of times HHH/Orton, HHH/Cena, or Orton/Cena appears in some form = 6

This is the type of thing that has wrestling fans complaining about PPV main events getting stale and repetitive, and yet here you are, wanting to further segregate the two rosters without the possibility of inter-brand PPV matches outside of "The Big 4."

Now call me mister crazy if you like, but I think that, taken in isolation, at least two thirds of the matches presented there are strong enough to headline a PPV. Especially in comparison to matches such as Triple H against Kevin Nash (twice!), or Undertaker against The Dudley Body. Hell, they had to resort to giving Hardcore Holly a title match.

1. HHH vs Nash was a big deal at the time, because it was a match pitting two former "kliq" members against each other, and the champions of two different eras against each other. Again, you weren't watching when it originally happened, but it was a big deal because it hadn't happened yet. Just like HHH / Steiner and HHH / Goldberg.

2. Undertaker vs The Dudleyz is the single match that actually does the MOST damage to YOUR argument, so I'm shocked you'd bring it up. That abortion of a main event at the Great American Bash was the direct result of the brand-split PPV's not working because it exposed the sickening lack of depth a singe-branded PPV card had.

Not having a deep enough roster (which the WWE do) is not a long term threat.

Having a repetitive and stale roster that cannot elevate fresh talent is.

I get accused of using the term "smoke and mirrors" a lot, so I'll avoid it. What I will call this, however, is you blatantly arguing the entirely wrong debate. We're not talking about ending the brand-split itself. You're supposed to be arguing brand-specific PPV's. CM Punk, John Morrison, The Miz, Kofi Kingston, Sheamus, Drew McIntyre, MVP, Legacy, Dolph Ziggler, Jack Swagger, Eric Escobar, Evan Bourne. That's a list of quasi main event and mid-card "stars" that have been created as of late. ALL of them were created AFTER the WWE abandonned the brand-specific PPV's because there is enough time on TV to do it. WWE can elevate fresh talent on television and these guys have the chance to EARN their way onto the tri-branded PPV's.

Another point I'd like to make is that brand specific PPV's make it easier for lower level talent to make it onto the PPV, thus tarnishing the accomplishment. When 8-9 matches have to be split between 3 brands, a spot on the PPV is more coveted. It's a damn fine accomplishment. A brand-specific PPV is nothing more than a glorified 3-hour version of a TV show.

Irish claims that people wouldn’t want to buy brand exclusive PPVs, because it would be like paying to watch RAW or Smackdown. He claims that brand exclusive PPVs would cause buy-rates to “tank”, and bring the WWE trouble with its networks.

Not quite.

Yes, I feel that the brand-specific PPV's are so dilluted and so similar to weekly TV shows that charging $30-$40 for each one, each month, is an insult to fans and a poor business decision. I feel that further dilluting the cards for 8 of the 12 PPV's would lower buy rates as the numbers I provided proved. The difference certainly existed.

My assertion of the drop in TV ratings was a response to the idea that the WWE could improve buyrates by lowering the quality of the RAW and Smackdown programs to make the brand-specific PPV's look better by comparison.

Since you had some trouble with it, I'll simplify it here:

IF WWE returns to brand-specific PPV's, they will be asking fans to pay $40 for a 3-hour version of the weekly TV show.

IF WWE wants to make the PPV's seem worth the additional $40, they would have to lower the quality of the weekly TV show, which would put off the executives at UPN and USA, which in turn would anger stockholders.

I know that history isn’t your strong suit, but I don’t think the revelation that the WWE sold PPVs prior to 1999 should come as any great surprise.

Nice little dig there.

Just because I haven't read every book that's come out on Lou Thesz doesn't make history a weak point for me. The stark raving hypocricy that you continue to perpetuate, however, is that fact that you attack me for a lack of historical knowledge, once again, not even a day after stating quite clearly that you weren't even watching wrestling during this era. So not only was your dig petty and desperate, it was a hypocritical load of mastadon dung.

Let’s take a look at the average buy rates for each year shall we?

2003 ~ 375,000
2004 ~ 325,000
2005 ~ 375,000
2006 ~ 330,000
2007 ~ 330,000
2008 ~ 330,000

Yes, lets.

I did some math as well. Let's remove Wrestlemania from each year:

2003 - Average without Wrestlemania = 358,181
2004 = 295,272
2005 = 319,636
2006 = 275,272
2007 = 316,363
2008 = 321,818

You said yourself, Wrestlemania is a draw no matter what.

We'll take 2005 as an example:


New Year's Revolution (Raw) - 272,000 buys
Royal Rumble (Co) - 332,000 buys
No Way Out (SD) - 236,000 buys
Wrestlemania 21 (Co) - 984,000 buys (highest since 1991)*
Backlash (Raw) - 324,000 buys
Judgement Day (SD) - 264,000 buys
ECW One Night Stand (Co) - 324,000 buys (pre- ECW Brand)
Vengeance (Raw) - 368,000 buys
Great American Bash (SD) - 232,000 buys
SummerSlam (Co) - 536,000 buys
Unforgiven (Raw) - 224,000 buys
No Mercy (SD) - 220,000 buys
Taboo Tuesday (Raw) - 220,000 buys (Tuesday Night PPV)*
Survivor Series (Co) - 376,000 buys
Armageddon (SD) - 292,000 buys


Average buy rate for the non-Wrestlemania co-branded shows (4) = 392,000
Average buy rate for the brand-specific shows (10) = 265,200

126,800 FEWER people purchased the brand-specific shows, on average.

And that's not being "creative" with numbers. That's just me stating what the numbers are. There are obviously other factors, but you cannot deny the fact that the brand-specific shows lagged behind the co-branded shows SIGNIFICANTLY. People can't be expected to shell out $40 to watch something they can catch on a weeknight for free.

Irish apparently cares about ECW looking legitimate.

No, I do not. But I understand business, and the fact is that WWE has a contract with the SciFi channel to run ECW, and if the show doesn't have at least a minor degree of relevance, that contract will not be renwed, business will suffer, and the stock will drop. I understand business, Gelgarin.

Irish posted a long list of numbers. During the impending exchange I hope that I can find out why.

Funny, everyone else I've spoken to who's read my post has a terrific grasp on what those numbers mean.

Now, Irish got some way through countering my last post, but because he's evidently focused upon the scoring system over the debate as a whole, he elected not to finish.

Again, don't flatter yourself. I am in my office every day from 8:00 am - 6:00 pm, and I didn't feel the final half of your "argument" was worth being in the office until 7:00 pm. I'd rather give it the time I am able to give it now.

Splitting the PPVs had approximately no effect on the numbers drawn, but did allow the WWE elevate more talent, and keep the cards far more fluid than is the case under the present day.

Except that...

CM Punk, John Morrison, The Miz, Kofi Kingston, Sheamus, Drew McIntyre, MVP, Legacy, Dolph Ziggler, Jack Swagger, Eric Escobar, Evan Bourne. That's a list of quasi main event and mid-card "stars" that have been created as of late. ALL of them were created AFTER the WWE abandonned the brand-specific PPV's because there is enough time on TV to do it.

On we go...

You see, now you're falling into the typical IWC folly of assuming that anyone not at the top of the card lacks the potential to get over.
For your benefit then, I'll present two different examples that you will find harder to brush off. Benoit and Punk.

You're comparing Mike Knox, Jimmy Wang Yang, and Carlito to Chris Benoit and CM Punk? I hope you're kidding.

Under the brand extension Chris Benoit was able to get over enough to actually win the world title and Wrestlemania. He remained at the top of the card throughout the entire time. Once the exclusive PPVs drew to a close, there was no longer room to keep him over, so he was relegated to mid-card fueds over the US title, before finally being drafted to ECW.

It's statements like these that still have me wondering exactly how you'd feel qualified to question MY grasp on history.

The brand-exclusive PPV's had NOTHING to do with Benoit's success. He was already a major player, had already won a World Title, and had already had several top notch feuds with Chris Jericho and others. He won the Royal Rumble - a co branded event - to earn a title shot at Wrestlemania - a co branded event.

As a result of the brand-specific PPV's, Benoit only had ONE successful PPV title defense - Bad Blood 2004 against Kane - in a night where, because of dilluted talent pools, he had to wrestle TWICE. He and Edge faced La Resistance for the Tag Titles in the opener, and then he beat Kane. Incidentally, that PPV also featured an 8-minute confrontation between Eugene and Jonathan Coachman.

Benoit dropped the title at SummerSlam 2004. The brand-specific PPV's didn't end until 2007 - more than 2 years after Benoit dropped the World Title. So you're assertion that the lack of room for Benoit at the top was a result of the end of the brand-specific PPV's is so far off base it's hard to believe someone with your reputation would have ever posted it.

Under the current system, CM Punk has twice been pushed to world championship gold. During both of his title reigns he has managed to get over with the crowd, and as soon as both of his title reigns have come to a close he has found himself shunted back into meaningless mid-card programs. These include being a part of a meritless tag team with Kofi Kingston, and feuding with stars such as R-Truth and a god-damn referee.

Punk never worked a brand-exclusive PPV. He made his PPV debut at December to Dismember 2006, which featured all three brands. He was at Survivor Series as part of team DX, the Rumble, and then the Money in the Bank match at Wrestlemania. He was on ECW until well after the brand-specific PPV's ended.

Point - The Brand split itself helped to elevate Punk, but he didn't become a star until WELL after the brand-specific PPV's ended. We're not debating the merits of the brand split itself, just the brand-specific PPV's, which Punk had no involvement in. Please try to stay on topic!

Right now the WWE's bulbous mass of stale main eventers means that they simply do not have space to maintain much of their roster.

Tell that to Kofi Kingston, who defeated CM Punk AND Randy Orton at the tri-branded Survivor Series, AND to WWE Title #1 Contender Seamus, who earned a shot at John Cena last night on Raw. There's two elevations to Main Event status that didn't require brand-specific PPV's!

The WWE has been trying to create stars on TV for a couple of years now. Hasn't worked. The only thing close to success they've achieved was with Jeff Hardy, and he didn't start getting taken seriously until they started letting him main event PPVs.

But, but, you just claimed that Punk was a created star, too. Now you're crossing messages. See:

Under the current system, CM Punk has twice been pushed to world championship gold. During both of his title reigns he has managed to get over with the crowd...

Strange.

Now, before I place a dagger in your side with this debate, let me hit the points I didn't have time to respond to last night.

I’m a realistic man. I recognise that, when the brand split was last attempted it wasn’t perfect, and one of the reasons for that was because the two shows were never truly allowed to compete with one another. It was always made very clear that RAW was the ‘A’ show, and as such Smackdown! PPV’s often felt somewhat limp by comparison.

So you realize that, because Raw is live AND on a Monday Night AND on cable, it's going to be a higher quality product than Smackdown, which is taped and aired on a Friday Night on Network TV. The TV contract with USA is worth so much money to the WWE right now, Raw is going to continue to be the "A" show.

Right now Smackdown and RAW are offering noticeably different products, with the former offering a more traditional wrestling product, whilst the latter focuses on… some kind of celebrity based crash TV with extra Hornswoggle(sp?). If the two shows are going to take such different paths, it only makes sense to have them promote different pay of shows.

Now this is actually an interesting point on your part. But here's the thing - the PPV's are about blowing off feuds and occassionally a major event to build up towards future shows. And yes, the products are different with Raw using more storyline-based TV and Smackdown using more wrestling. You've described their TV differences perfectly.

But having co-branded and tri-branded PPV's forces the brands to save their major storylines for the PPV's and not waste time on the PPV's with the stuff they do on free TV. This speaks to my point that a Raw- or Smackdown-specific PPV would feel just like the TV show. A Raw PPV would feature the same types of skits and vignettes as the Monday Night show does. Hornswoggle and all, God help us.

There is a certain level of prestige to making an appearance on a major, co-branded or tri-branded PPV, because the way things are now, it's harder to do. Take away that exclusivity? Take away the acheivement.

Or, rather than having half the fans watch half the PPV's, and the other half watch the other half of the PPV's, and some fans just outright refuse to spend the $40 for a show they can see for free during the week, the WWE chose to once again run ALL PPV's with ALL talent to attract ALL fans to the PPV. A HUGE reason I like to watch WWE PPV's now is because it keeps me in touch with the Smackdown talents I don't get to see each week because I am out Friday Nights.

And this leads me to my final, massive research point:

March 14, 2007 STAMFORD, Conn., March 14, 2007 - In the spirit that has made WrestleMania the premier brand in the pay-per-view industry, every future World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-views will feature talent and storylines from all three WWE programs: -- “Monday Night RAW®,” “Friday Night SmackDown®,” and “ECW®: Extreme Championship Wrestling™.”

Starting with Backlash® on April 29, WWE fans will see all their favorite Superstars on every pay-per-view. This is a change from 2005 and 2006, when only four of WWE’s 16 pay-per-views featured talent from more than one WWE brand.

“We have seen over the past two years that WWE pay-per-views have significantly better buy rates when more than one WWE brand is involved,” said Kurt Schneider, Executive Vice President, Marketing. “WrestleMania, with an average of one million buys per event over the past three years, is the perfect example. This new direction will give our fans more of what they want in every one of our pay-per-views.”

The floor is yours. I hope you come with more substance and fewer childish digs.

 

[Gelgarin]

Personal MacGuffins​

To tell the truth, almost nothing here has anything to do with the point in hand; but portions of the general public appear to have a taste for our utterly manufactured banter, so I figured I’d cordon it off. Irish probably will respond to this section because it’s where his most recognisable talents lie.

Oh man, PLEASE don't flatter yourself. I don't sweep any arguments, and if you're actually calling them arguments then it's a stretch.

You see, this would be quite a nice cry of indignation were it not for the fact that, in the preceding post you are once again going to completely fail to address arguments I made in my first post of this debate. I went to the trouble of giving the issue of healthy competition its own boldface heading, yet you have now managed to overlook it on two separate occasions.

Well, Gelgarin seems pretty determined to go after the clarity points, tuh-huh.

Fortunately for me, clarity does not come at the expense of comprehensive argument.

I get accused of using the term "smoke and mirrors" a lot, so I'll avoid it.

That is because Irish, until I started to make a habit of calling you out on it, you used to use that phrase as a default response to any argument you couldn't refute.
I applaud the fact that I have played some part in you improving yourself as a human being.

Just because I haven't read every book that's come out on Lou Thesz doesn't make history a weak point for me. The stark raving hypocricy that you continue to perpetuate, however, is that fact that you attack me for a lack of historical knowledge, once again, not even a day after stating quite clearly that you weren't even watching wrestling during this era. So not only was your dig petty and desperate, it was a hypocritical load of mastadon dung.

Might I just comment that the phenomenal levels pettiness and desperation required to construct a post around a private comment I made outside of the debate makes me legitimately disappointed in you. And that’s real legitimate disappointment, not the fake ‘I want emotion points’ kind.

Poor form.

The floor is yours. I hope you come with more substance and fewer childish digs.

You are a colossal hypocrite and when it come to it, not a very subtle one at that. Also, you are no longer invited to my birthday party.

Right; that that we’ve got that out of the way, let’s get down to the actual topic at hand.

Comparable strengths of the two rosters.​

You know what, we can go back and forth for an age about the varius talent strengths, and I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere. Therefore, I’m going to conclude my argument on this point right now, but simply posting the ten most relevant stars at the time the brand split was initiated, and at the present day. The judges can make up their own mind who’d claim of roster strength is better verified.

HHH
Michaels
Undertaker
Big Show
Kane
Nash
Scott Steiner
Goldberg
Kurt Angle
Brock Lesnar

HHH
Michaels
Undertaker
Chris Jericho
John Cena
Randy Orton
Batista
Rey Mysterio
Edge
CM Punk

I know which one I’d chose to build a promotion around.

WWE’s ability to create stars.​

CM Punk, John Morrison, The Miz, Kofi Kingston, Sheamus, Drew McIntyre, MVP, Legacy, Dolph Ziggler, Jack Swagger, Eric Escobar, Evan Bourne. That's a list of quasi main event and mid-card "stars" that have been created as of late. ALL of them were created AFTER the WWE abandonned the brand-specific PPV's because there is enough time on TV to do it.

Except, with the exception of Punk (who is currently having matches with such ‘superstars’ as R-Truth and a referee) none of them could be in any way referred to a “quasi-main eventers”. What they are is midcard talent, a number of which the WWE has tried and failed to elevate because of the lack of space on the card.

CM Punk is the “only” performer on your list that the WWE has managed to elevate into the main event, and on both occasions that this has been attempted he has found himself back in meaningless mid-card programs within a few months. There is no room at the top, and that is why the WWE cannot create new stars.

Another point I'd like to make is that brand specific PPV's make it easier for lower level talent to make it onto the PPV, thus tarnishing the accomplishment.

The prestige that comes from having a legitimate PPV program infinitely outweighs the prestige of getting a meaningless undercard match. Being on PPV is better than not being on PPV… it’s really quite simple.

Tell that to Kofi Kingston, who defeated CM Punk AND Randy Orton at the tri-branded Survivor Series, AND to WWE Title #1 Contender Seamus, who earned a shot at John Cena last night on Raw. There's two elevations to Main Event status that didn't require brand-specific PPV's!

Year… tell you what. Instead of looking at a pair on unfinished programs that have been running for between four weeks and thirty-six hours, let’s take a look at the years of failed attempts to elevate talent under the current system.

The best place to start is probably The Miz. He was given a major program with John Cena to help elevate him up the card. People were raving about it at the time, much like there are with Kofi Kingston right now. Unfortunately, when the time came for the big PPV pay-off match, the WWE found that there didn’t have enough time on the card to elevate Miz, and he lost his match in a fine minute squash match.
Result: Push failed.

Finding a comparison for Seamus is even easier. Fresh face in the company, fed jobbers and the pushed into a title match. Sounds eerily similar to Khali, Kozloff and Umaga, three giys the WWE tried to push into the main event who utterly failed to get over, and were back where they started very quickly. The reason, there isn’t space at the top.
Result: Push failed

I think I’m on something of a role here, so let’s do MVP as well. Off the back of a year as the dominant mid-carder on TV they started positioning him for a feud with Orton. Never happened, and he was absorbed back into the undercard.
Result: Push failed.

Those are all the attempts at talent elevation I can conjure up off of the top of my head, so let’s leave it at that and start to compare it to the talent elevated during the brand extension PPVs. I already posted a list of names, but since you elected to haggle over one name and sweep the rest under the run (irony), I shall post it again.

Eddie Gurerro, Chris Benoit, Edge, Randy Orton, Dave Batista and John Cena.

Considerably better pickings than what the company has managed since the brand exclusive PPVs came to an end. I wonder if there could be a connection…

Irish’s new, even more creative use of figures.​

Average buy rate for the non-Wrestlemania co-branded shows (4) = 392,000 Average buy rate for the brand-specific shows (10) = 265,200

*Gasp* so what you’ve been trying to show me all this time is that, under the brad exclusive PPV’s, the biggest shows of the year drew more than the smaller ones. Amazing. Can I play too? I’ll do 2007 and 2008.

Average buy rate for the non-Wrestlemania big four shows = ~450,000
Average buy rate for the rest of the PPVs = ~220,000

Average buy rate for the non-Wrestlemania big four shows = ~440,000
Average buy rate for the rest of the PPVs = ~220,000

Is it just me, or has the gap actually gotten bigger since the brand exclusive PPVs came to an end?
Care to invent a new use for your statistics. I’ll suggest one to be helpful. How about using them to prove that brand exclusive PPVs drew just as well and tri-branded ones over a twelve month basis. I know I’ve already done it, but there’s always merit to be found in following another person’s example. You could be like the Jay Lethal of this debate.

Capacity of brand exclusive PPVs to draw buys
​

People can't be expected to shell out $40 to watch something they can catch on a weeknight for free.

Except quite evidently they can. I've already posted one set of figures confirming this which you tactfully elected to sweep under the run, so I shall now post some new ones.

Remove the big four shows of the year, then average up what PPV's drew each respective year. The results are as follows.

2003 ~ 310,000 buys per show/$10,000,000
2004 ~ 235,000 buys per show/$8,000,000
2005 ~ 280,000 buys per show/$10,000,000
2006 ~ 240,000 buys per show/$9,000,000
2007 ~ 220,000 buys per show/$9,000,000
2008 ~ 220,000 buys per show/$9,000,000

People are perfectly happy to pay money for a brand exclusive PPV. You might now be, but I don't think you constitute a significant source of WWE revenue.

Irish also claims that: in order to market brand specific PPVs the WWE would have to lower the quality of its TV program. Let's check the ratings history for evidence of that shall we?

Average RAW Ratings:

2003 ~ 3.8
2004 ~ 3.7
2005 ~ 3.8
2006 ~ 3.9
2007 ~ 3.6
2008 ~ 3.3

Wow. Would you look at that. The viewing public actually preferred the quality of the TV show during the brand extension. Guess that rather sinks that part of your argument.

Or, rather than having half the fans watch half the PPV's, and the other half watch the other half of the PPV's, and some fans just outright refuse to spend the $40 for a show they can see for free during the week, the WWE chose to once again run ALL PPV's with ALL talent to attract ALL fans to the PPV. A HUGE reason I like to watch WWE PPV's now is because it keeps me in touch with the Smackdown talents I don't get to see each week because I am out Friday Nights.

Which is lovely, and I'm happy for you. Unfortunately the numerical evidence simply does not hold true for that being the case across the board. Since the brand extension PPVs came to a close there has been an decrease in the TV audience, and PPV numbers have stayed the same.

There is no drawing advantage to tri-branded shows, and anyone predicting otherwise was sadly mistaken.

Conclusion (again)​

So... once again we're back here, both slightly richer as human beings than we were before. We have learned that brand exclusive PPVs make it easier to elevate and maintain talent, which providing no downside to the company.

That sounds like all I need personally.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I have to admit, I almost wish I was a part of the other debate, because it seems as thoigh D-Man and Phoenix are capable of having a civil, respectful argument about a controversial topic. In this conference final, however, it seems that my opponent is unable to avoid personal attacks in lieu of concrete evidence. But that's okay, we shall persevere.

Rather than continue the back and forth banter, I am going to recap the major arguments and facts that prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the WWE should avoid returning to brand-specific Pay-Per-Views.

1. A lack of depth

My opponent and I have found a disagreement regarding which era the WWE roster saw less depth - 2003 or now. The fact is, it's irrelevant. In 2003, there was clearly more main-event tested talent with the Invasion angle over and former WCW Champions with name recognition such as Goldberg, Scott Steiner, Kevin Nash, and some guy named Hogan. Currently, there's more young talent in the mid-card teasing main event pushes. But to be honest, there hasn't been enough depth in either era to justify Pay-Per-Views specific to just one brand. If you look at some of the matches during the brand-specific PPV's, many of them were time fillers and feuds nobody cared for. Yesterday I mentioned Jonathan Coachman vs Eugene. My opponent brought up the Great American Bash main event featuring The Undertaker vs The Dudleyz in a handicap match. I also discussed the fact that, for the only brand-specific PPV during which Chris Benoit was champion - he had to wreste two separate title matches in one PPV.

2. The cost of a glorified Sunday Night TV Show

I have argued that a brand-specific PPV will be akin to asking fans to pay $40 for a 3-hour version of what they could see on Monday or Friday night. In fact, if you look at all of the most recent 3-hour special editions of Raw, they've all been tri-branded shows, whether you look at this past Monday's post Survivor Series Raw, every draft, etc. The fact is simply that it's too difficult to put on a compelling enough pay-per-view using less than half of the roster that differentiates itself enough from the weekly TV program to make the demand worthy of a $40 price tag.

3. Devaluing ECW

My opponent is content to allow ECW to rot, but WWE doesn't see that as feasible due to the amount of money they have tied up in branding as well as the revenue generated from having an additional hour on Sci Fi. One thing I didn't mention is the fact that the SciFi channel is part of the USA Network, so the existance of that program on that channel is important to the contract that also involves Raw. Back to my original point, since Raw and Smackdown are not deep enough to have brand-specific PPV's, ECW certainly couldn't pull it off, which would relegate ECW to once again riding the coat tails of one of the "big two." It's not too far a cry from now, but it would devalue the ECW brand even further, and from a strictly business perspective, that isn't smart.

4. The numbers game

I posted PPV buy rates which state pretty clearly that the brand specific PPV's showed a very significant drop off from the co-branded PPV's. I even took out Wrestlemania, due to the fact that the year's major event would skew the numbers in favor of the co-branded events even further. I totally understand that "the big four" will always outdraw most of the other events, but the gap was, in most cases, so wide it was embarassing.

In 2006, No Mercy was a brand-specific PPV for the Smackdown brand. It did 197,000 buys. In 2007, now a co-branded PPV, the same show did 271,000 buys. The Smackdown brand was being buried in the brand-specific PPV's, and one of the best things to ever happen to that brand was the decision to bring PPV's together for all brands once again.

Despite the disparity in the buys for each brand's separate PPV's, my opponent still contended that returning to brand specific PPV's would promote equality.

5. Testaments from the WWE itself

I also posted a direct quote from WWE's corporate website, and even cited the site itself for those wishing to check my research. In 2007, when WWE made the call to end the brand-specific PPV's, then director of Marketing Kurt Schneider stated very clearly that the move was being made because the tri-branded shows outpaced the brand-specific shows. My opponent either feels that he knows more than a man with more than a decade of experience in the field, or he just did not feel the urge to respond to that research point. Either way - WWE pulled the plug on the brand-specific PPV's in 2007 for a reason, and the idea that they are in a position NOW, just 2 years later, to make them into a success is severely flawed.

6. Making a tri-branded PPV is a special accomplishment

According to Wikipedia, there are currently 18 active male and 9 active female wrestlers on the Raw Roster, for a total of 27 competitors. Carlito and Festus are listed as members of the roster, but inactive, due to 30+ days without competing. Big Show is considered a tri-branded star. There are 21 activle male and 5 active female wrestlers on the Smackdown roster, for a total of 26 competitors. Several are hurt. Chris Jericho is considered a tri-branded star. ECW currently has 12 active male wrestlers.

What do these numbers mean? If a PPV has room for an average of 7 matches involving an average of 18 competitors (taking into account the possibility of tag team and triple threat matches), the percent chance of being involved in a tri-branded PPV vs a brand-specific PPV is drastically different.

On a brand-specific PPV,66% of the Raw roster and 69% of the Smackdown roster would be feaured on the PPV. Slightly less for whichever brand had to carry ECW, but still more than half the talents would be on the PPV.

On a tri-branded PPV, there are 18 slots for 65 competitors, meaning only 27% of the WWE roster is on the PPV. Just a hair more than the top quarter of the talent is able to make it onto a show that costs $40.

Clearly, tri-branded PPV's are generally reserved just for top talent and top storylines, and it's much more of an accomplishment to make it onto a tri-branded PPV than a brand-specific PPV. If I am shelling out $40, I want to know I am getting the cream of the crop.

Here are six very clear arguments why WWE needs to steer clear of brand-specific PPV's. I am fairly confident that these arguments will, in the end, win out over insults and digs, but my opponent appears to be having fun with that, so who am I to interfere? I'll just stick with lucid fact, professional testimonials, business accumen, and clear logic.

 

[Gelgarin]

Oh man, PLEASE don't flatter yourself. I don't sweep any arguments, and if you're actually calling them arguments then it's a stretch.

I thought that it would be apt to begin with a quotation from a little while ago, for simply irony value. Not irony in the fact that the man investing so much time in feigning indignation hasn’t maintained a particularly friendly tone himself; but the grin inducing irony that is Irish ‘once again’ trying to avoid arguments he doesn’t like… in this case by attempting to take the debate back to stage one.

Tempting as it is to make a fresh opening post (I could inject some “secret reserve arguments” like title prestige or opportunities for time off), I think the more productive exercise would be to point out exactly how many of the “concrete arguments” my opponent has submitted have already been refuted. Refutations I might add that Irish hasn’t dealt with; most likely because of the proximity of his head to large quantities of sand.

A lack of depth & The cost of a glorified Sunday Night TV Show​

there hasn't been enough depth in either era to justify Pay-Per-Views specific to just one brand

the fact is simply that it's too difficult to put on a compelling enough pay-per-view using less than half of the roster that differentiates itself enough from the weekly TV program to make the demand worthy of a $40 price tag

I’m putting these two points together, because I think I’ve finally put my finger on where your train of thought process keeps going wrong. You think that your opinion matters.
Believe me when I say that it really, really, doesn’t. In fairness, my opinion doesn’t matter either. The WWE doesn’t exist to please us, it exists as a business. I’d have thought proximity to Slyfox would have made this common understanding by now, but hay; I’ll roll with it.

What you or I think about product quality is irrelevant. I think that more time to develop feuds, a more fluent main event scene and more developing talent would improve the product; you think that it’s important that John Cena, HHH, Randy Orton and all the other top names are on every card… but the only way that any one of us could ever be said to be correct is by analysing the factor that does matter, which is drawing figures.

You claim that it “too difficult to put on a compelling enough pay-per-view using less than half of the roster that differentiates itself enough from the weekly TV program to make the demand worthy of a $40 price tag”, but the simple truth is that this is not the case.
PPVs during 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 all averaged more or as many buys as during 2008. I provided the figures last post, but you skipped over them.

2003 ~ 310,000 buys per show/$10,000,000
2004 ~ 235,000 buys per show/$8,000,000
2005 ~ 280,000 buys per show/$10,000,000
2006 ~ 240,000 buys per show/$9,000,000
2007 ~ 220,000 buys per show/$9,000,000
2008 ~ 220,000 buys per show/$9,000,000

That right there is what matters. Buy rates per show have technically gone down since the brand exclusive PPVs came to an end; as has the annual PPV revenue.

Total PPV revenue for 2005 ~ $211,723,200.00
Total PPV revenue for 2006 ~ $213,155,750.00
Total PPV revenue for 2007 ~ $211,669,950.00
Total PPV revenue for 2008 ~ $201,597,550.00

What’s more; you claim that brand exclusive shows would hurt the quality of the TV product. Another claim that you have strategically backed away from in leu of legitimate evidence.

Average RAW Ratings:

2003 ~ 3.8
2004 ~ 3.7
2005 ~ 3.8
2006 ~ 3.9
2007 ~ 3.6
2008 ~ 3.3

So as you can see, the television product drew a considerably higher rating when partnered with brand exclusive PPVs. I’d imagine that the TV networks were quite happy about that.

You can sit there and say that brand exclusive PPVs wouldn’t be worth buying, but around two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand people voted against you with their wallets each and every month. You can say that it would hurt the company, but the revenue figures prove you wrong. You can make the judgement that the WWE would have to make the TV shows were worse, but you must accept that you’re in the minority, and that ratings have declined since the brand exclusive shows ended.

Having your own opinion on things is fine… no problems there. But trying to pass that opinion off as fact in the face of contradictory, statistical evidence is pure naivety.

Devaluing ECW​

My opponent is content to allow ECW to rot, but WWE doesn't see that as feasible due to the amount of money they have tied up in branding as well as the revenue generated from having an additional hour on Sci Fi.

I guess I ought to start by pointing out that ECW drew a better TV rating every year under the brand extension than it has since they ended it. Clearly the viewing audience didn’t feel that the show was being devalued then.
Secondly, if the WWE were really worried about ECW’s situation then they would invest some serious talent in it. Instead they continue to use it simply as a talent farm, withdrawing any talent who show signs of getting over, which leads me to the conclusion that they’re not too worried.

The numbers game​

And what a fun game it is. I always liked knots when I was a scout*, and unravelling your blatant manipulation of figures feels rather similar. I imagine that you’re going to throw a pretend sulk about that comment, so I’ll justify it now.

You tried to pass off the following statistics from 2005 to enhance your argument;

Average buy rate for the non-Wrestlemania co-branded shows (4) = 392,000
Average buy rate for the brand-specific shows (10) = 265,200

What you didn’t mention is that the statistics from 2007 and 2008 showed a far more extreme trend in the same direction.

Average buy rate for the non-Wrestlemania big four shows = ~450,000
Average buy rate for the rest of the PPVs = ~220,000

Average buy rate for the non-Wrestlemania big four shows = ~440,000
Average buy rate for the rest of the PPVs = ~220,000

I call that fiddling your figures personally.

That being said, the WWE couldn’t care less how the buy rates tally for the assorted shows. What they care about is how much money they make, and I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve shown you that brand exclusive shows drew just as well as tri-branded ones.

In 2006, No Mercy was a brand-specific PPV for the Smackdown brand. It did 197,000 buys. In 2007, now a co-branded PPV, the same show did 271,000 buys.

And here we go again. A single statistic presented in isolation… let me just show how preposterously easy that is to do.

In 2006, Vengence was a brand-specific PPV for the RAW brand. It did 339,000 buys. In 2007, now a co-branded PPV, the same show did 243,000 buys.

Golly! That was much easier than actually analysing the numbers. Both statistics are utterly ridiculous, but I just thought I’d display that my side of the argument can be just as easily backed up by the misrepresentation of information as yours.

*Disclaimer: Gelgarin did not actually enjoy knots, and was never in the boy scouts.

Testaments from the WWE itself​

“We have seen over the past two years that WWE pay-per-views have significantly better buy rates when more than one WWE brand is involved,” said Kurt Schneider, Executive Vice President, Marketing. “WrestleMania, with an average of one million buys per event over the past three years, is the perfect example. This new direction will give our fans more of what they want in every one of our pay-per-views.”

Tell me; do you think it’s possible for a person in authority to be wrong? Kurt Schneider made the perfectly reasonable assumption that, because the tri branded PPVs drew better, the WWE could make more money if all PPVs were tri branded. Actually, we don’t know what he thought. He was employed in to flipping marketing department; of course he was going to promote the WWE’s decision. But we’ll replace him with whoever it was who thought that ending the brand split was a good idea.

Whoever made the assumption was wrong, and the reason I know this is because the PPV numbers haven’t improved, the TV ratings have gone down, the gulf between big and small shows has gotten wider to the point where the WWE is forced to spam formerly prestigious gimmick matches to keep people watching, the annual revenue hasn’t improved and the talent pool has utterly dried up.

When considering the evidence, I don’t think it’s a tremendous feat of arrogance to conclude that ending the brand specific PPVs was a bad idea.

Making a tri-branded PPV is a special accomplishment​

On a brand-specific PPV,66% of the Raw roster and 69% of the Smackdown roster would be feaured on the PPV. Slightly less for whichever brand had to carry ECW, but still more than half the talents would be on the PPV.

On a tri-branded PPV, there are 18 slots for 65 competitors, meaning only 27% of the WWE roster is on the PPV. Just a hair more than the top quarter of the talent is able to make it onto a show that costs $40.

Which goes a long way towards proving my point of why the WWE can’t develop talent any more.
If 70% of talent can’t get on the show, then 70% of the talent has no shot of getting over as a legitimate competitor. If only 30% of workers get onto the card, and all the main eventers are featured on every show, then you get tremendously stale booking, which we are witnessing right now.

But hay; don’t take my word for it. Look at the comparisons of TV ratings and talent development that you have ignores several times now. It’s all there.

Conclusion​

Now I think we’re done. I’m beginning to notice a pattern emerging of Irish posting arguments, me countering them and posting some of my own and Irish then ignoring half of what I’ve written and posting his arguments again.

Hopefully he can spare us all the fake drama this time round and focus on the relevant points of contention.

Fingers crossed eh.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I've dealt with the so-called "refutations" that my opponent claims I've avoided, or at least the ones I felt were worth my time. I am certainly not going to sit here and dissect every single line of my opponents "work," especially when half of said sentences are worthless, cheap, immature digs and insults. There's a reason I have a reputation contrary to one as a condecending, insulting cheap shot artist, and that is because I have enough confidence in my research and my answers to not need to stoop to such a level. Not everyone has that skill. Such is life.

The WWE doesn’t exist to please us, it exists as a business.

Odd that my opponent would make this point, considering the lack of business accumen he showed in his complete disregard for the value of ECW in the WWE / USA contract agreement and the ad revenue generated by presenting one of the Sci Fi channels' highest rated shows. Since my opponent continues to have trouble with factual research, I thought it might be fun to go and find some more. Let me further back up my point that a devaluation of ECW is bad for business, despite the fact that my opponent has actually tried to lecture ME on business practices while simultaneously stating that nobody should care if the ECW brand loses value even further.

Here is the initial press release regarding ECW on Sci Fi:

WWE® BRINGS ECW® TO SCI FI CHANNEL

New York, N.Y., May 25, 2006 - SCI FI Channel announced that World Wrestling Entertainment®, the producer of the No. 1 weekly basic cable TV series, “Monday Night RAW “on USA Network, will debut a summer series on Tuesday, June 13, at 10 p.m. ET/PT. ECW (Extreme Championship Wrestling®) will be an alternative brand of wrestling suited to fit the SCI FI Channel’s commitment to fuel the imagination.

"Research tells us that there's a healthy appetite for wrestling among SCI FI viewers," said Bonnie Hammer, President, USA and SCI FI Channel. "With ECW, we're able to deliver to those fans unique action with a twist that's perfect for SCI FI."

“ECW on SCI FI will push the boundaries of sports entertainment in new and unexpected ways,” said Vince McMahon, Chairman of World Wrestling Entertainment.

SCI FI Channel is a television network where "what if" is what's on. SCI FI fuels the imagination of viewers with original series and events, blockbuster movies and classic science fiction and fantasy programming, as well as a dynamic Web site (www.scifi.com) and magazine. Launched in 1992, and currently in 85 million homes, SCI FI Channel is a network of NBC Universal, one of the world's leading media and entertainment companies.

The ECW brand serves to further solidify the relationship between the WWE and USA. You may have read the name Bonnie Hammer before - she's kind of a big deal.

But, as we'll see later, my opponent will likely "refute" this point with more stunning "maybe the expert is wrong" accumen.

What you or I think about product quality is irrelevant

This is a capitalist society. I have money, thus I have a vote. That's how capitalism works. Business 101, first day.

That right there is what matters. Buy rates per show have technically gone down since the brand exclusive PPVs came to an end; as has the annual PPV revenue.

There has been one spot my opponent and I have agreed on - the WWE reached a point where creating new stars was a challenge. The difference between my opponent and I is that I understand that the drop in ratings as of late is the function of a loss of major stars: Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero to death, Brock Lesnar to MMA, Dwayne Johnson to the movies, Kurt Angle to TNA, Steve Austin to injury, Ric Flair to the AARP, Hulk Hogan to his own ego, etc.

I didn't respond to my opponents numbers because they are ridiculous and prove nothing other that the fact that pro wrestling as a whole has taken a step back in recent years. We knew that - not news. So my opponent somehow correlates the drop in overall numbers to the end of brand specific PPV's?

Here's the simple fact that will refute my opponents silly attempts at numerical persuasion. Let's look at Wrestlemania, the event my opponent himself has stated "would draw even if it were a three-hour Kid Rock Concert" and "is where the WWE tries to make up most of it's PPV numbers."

2005 - Wrestlemania did 984,000 buys
2006 - Wrestlemania did 932,000 buys
2007 - Wrestlemania did 480,000 buys
2008 - Wrestlemania did 420,000 buys

Wrestlemania has long been the barometer of overall wrestling success. So there are two fact everyone should take from this debate:

1. Wrestlemania numbers show that wrestling as a whole declined the 2nd half of this decade, and

2. When the brand-specific PPV's were in effect, the co-branded PPV's significantly outpaced the brand-specific ones, especially Smackdown.

You can sit there and say that brand exclusive PPVs wouldn’t be worth buying, but around two-hundred-and-fifty-thousand people voted against you with their wallets each and every month. You can say that it would hurt the company, but the revenue figures prove you wrong.

250,000 people? In 2006, you're almost spot on. But compare that 250,000 people to what the tri-branded PPV's pulled in:

Royal Rumble 2006 = 524,000 buys
Wrestlemania 2006 = 932,000 buys
SummerSlam 2006 = 540,000 buys
Survivor Series 2006 = 384,000 buys

avg buys of 2006 tri-branded PPV's = 595,000

No Way Out 2006 = 224000 buys
Backlash 2006 = 220000 buys
Judgement Day 2006 = 252000
No Mercy 2006 = 196000
Armageddon = 336000
Vengeance = 336000
Great American = 232000
New Year's Rev = 340000
Taboo Tues = 228000
ECW December = 88000

avg buys of 2006 brand-specific PPV's = 245,200

Yes, wrestling declined as a whole beginning in 2007. But the fact that an average of nearly 350,000 fewer people watched the brand-specific PPV's than the co-branded PPV's in the year 2006 proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the reason for wrestling's decline wasn't my opponents concept that they missed the brand-specific PPV's!

Having your own opinion on things is fine… no problems there. But trying to pass that opinion off as fact in the face of contradictory, statistical evidence is pure naivety.

My opponent is right here. Luckilly, I never tried to pass off my opinions as facts. I used the numbers for that, and the numbers support the facts that wrestling as a whole declined starting in 2007 and that more than half the fans on average skipped the brand-specific PPV's while choosing to watch the brand-specific PPV's.

That being said, the WWE couldn’t care less how the buy rates tally for the assorted shows. What they care about is how much money they make, and I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve shown you that brand exclusive shows drew just as well as tri-branded ones.

Actually, I just showed that my opponent is dead wrong here. I refer once again to the 68.79% drop in PPV buy rates from the co-branded to the brand specific shows that I've illustrated above. My opponent had only managed to prove the well known fact that wrestling popularity began to decline overall starting in 2007.

Tell me; do you think it’s possible for a person in authority to be wrong?

Sure, and I also believe that a wrestling fan posting on a website CLEARLY knows more about business and marketing than the Vice President of Marketing of one of the largest sports entertainment company's in history. Just as I believe that the WWE was very successful with brand-specific PPV's, and that they pulled the plug on it because business ceased to be challenging and they wanted to "have some fun with people."

This argument from my opponent is beyond ridiculous. He's ceased simply debating me, and is now questioning a successful, multi-billion dollar industry and a man with over a decade of experience. Amazingly, my opponent states that WWE's ending of the brand-specific PPV's was "a tremendous feat of arrogance." The real tremendous feat of arrogance is the idea that the executives of the WWE know more than my opponent does.

Refutations I might add that Irish hasn’t dealt with; most likely because of the proximity of his head to large quantities of sand.

I conclude with this non-sensical dig, and a sad attempt at yet another personal attack. My opponent seems to be stating that my head is near large quantities of sand. Last time my head was near large quantities of sand was on my honeymoon in Aruba. But I don't see what my head being near sand would have to do with anything.

If my opponent was trying to suggest that my head is similar to large quantities of sand, perhaps it would have been best not to use the word "proximity." Then again, my opponent did spell his own name wrong in his last post when quoting, of all people, himself. So I'm not sure what we can expect anymore. One thing you can expect? No childish insults, digs, or name calling. Just debating the facts, all of which can be found in any one of my posts.

 

[Gelgarin]

IC25's debating strategy. ​

I've dealt with the so-called "refutations" that my opponent claims I've avoided, or at least the ones I felt were worth my time.

Ahh; well there is the problem. Clearly you view a great many of the arguments I have made as being utterly beneath you; higher life form that you are.
Issues like healthy competition, TV ratings and how much money the WWE makes are clearly things that you do not consider to be on the same plane of existence to you. Even arguments that you brought into the debate have ceased to be worthy of your time once they stopped going you way. I see that you're now backing away from your point on the quality of the TV product for example.

Later on you're going to accuse me of arrogance, and I'm going to respond with "lol".

My opponent seems to be stating that my head is near large quantities of sand. Last time my head was near large quantities of sand was on my honeymoon in Aruba. But I don't see what my head being near sand would have to do with anything.

If my opponent was trying to suggest that my head is similar to large quantities of sand, perhaps it would have been best not to use the word "proximity." Then again, my opponent did spell his own name wrong in his last post when quoting, of all people, himself. So I'm not sure what we can expect anymore. One thing you can expect? No childish insults, digs, or name calling.

Oh. Dear.

I literally cannot believe that you're making me explain this comment. When I say that your head in is proximity to a large quantity of sand, I refer to your habit of burying your head in it to avoid dealing with points that you don't like. I really didn't think you'd struggle this much with it.

Incidentally, the juxtaposition of attacking my spelling, and complaining that the nasty man is calling you names is a really touching performance. You totally come out looking like the bigger man after that.

A lack of depth & The cost of a glorified Sunday Night TV Show​

Untrue to form here, Irish appears to have actually recognised some of the statistics I have posted and conceded that there was a major drop in the wrestling audience at the start of 2007. The start of 2007 coincidentally being exactly when the brand split came to a close.

I didn't respond to my opponents numbers because they are ridiculous and prove nothing other that the fact that pro wrestling as a whole has taken a step back in recent years. We knew that - not news. So my opponent somehow correlates the drop in overall numbers to the end of brand specific PPV's?

Then... in a truly bizarre twist, Irish posts some utterly false, and frankly ridiculous numbers in order to verify his case. And I'm not talking about spinning numbers or presenting them in a suspicious way... his numbers are flat out wrong.

Here's the simple fact that will refute my opponents silly attempts at numerical persuasion. Let's look at Wrestlemania, the event my opponent himself has stated "would draw even if it were a three-hour Kid Rock Concert" and "is where the WWE tries to make up most of it's PPV numbers."

2005 - Wrestlemania did 984,000 buys
2006 - Wrestlemania did 932,000 buys
2007 - Wrestlemania did 480,000 buys
2008 - Wrestlemania did 420,000 buys

Wrestlemania has long been the barometer of overall wrestling success. So there are two fact everyone should take from this debate:

1. Wrestlemania numbers show that wrestling as a whole declined the 2nd half of this decade, and

2. When the brand-specific PPV's were in effect, the co-branded PPV's significantly outpaced the brand-specific ones, especially Smackdown.

Irish: your numbers have been a little off earlier in this debate (some of the averages you calculated were certainly a bit on the whiffy side) so I'm going to assume that you're quoting inaccurate information instead of trying to deliberately mislead.

Let's look at the real numbers for Wrestlemania shall we?

2005 ~ 980,000 buys.
2006 ~ 960,000 buys.
2007 ~ 1,190,000 buys.
2008 ~ 1,060,000 buys.

These numbers can be verified by each PPVs Wikipedia article. By the WWE's cooperate website, and by the figures posted on this very website by your associate Slyfox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WrestleMania_2007

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WrestleMania_XXIV

Slyfox's numbers.

Seriously, clearly an honest mistake (nobody would ever attempt such a bizarre deception), but did you not think that claiming Mania dropped to a low number not seen since 1987 looked a bit wrong?

As for your actual point; wrestling as a whole did not drop in the second half of this decade. It dropped in 2007, right when the brand split ended.
You call coincidence; I call correlation.

The gap between big shows and small shows.​

It seems we're here again. Good thing I have all the numbers permanently open on my desktop by now.

Royal Rumble 2006 = 524,000 buys
Wrestlemania 2006 = 932,000 buys
SummerSlam 2006 = 540,000 buys
Survivor Series 2006 = 384,000 buys

avg buys of 2006 tri-branded PPV's = 595,000

No Way Out 2006 = 224000 buys
Backlash 2006 = 220000 buys
Judgement Day 2006 = 252000
No Mercy 2006 = 196000
Armageddon = 336000
Vengeance = 336000
Great American = 232000
New Year's Rev = 340000
Taboo Tues = 228000
ECW December = 88000

avg buys of 2006 brand-specific PPV's = 245,200

So, Irish has proved (once again) that more people watch the big shows than the small ones.

Lets take the figures that matter and compare them to 2007 (again)

2006 - Big shows - 595,000 buys
2006 - Small shows - 245,000 buys

2007 - Big shows - 639,000 buys
2007 - Small shows - 222,000 buys

As you can see, the gap got bigger. When you make all of the PPVs the same then it takes away the incentive for people to buy the smaller ones. Since the WWE become more dependent on the big shows to draw numbers once the brand split ended, it seems plainly apparent that people preferred the smaller shows to be brand exclusive. And voted with their money.

This is a capitalist society. I have money, thus I have a vote. That's how capitalism works. Business 101, first day.

I'l admit, I haven't read business 101... but is it possibly that there's a footnote that you skipped over that explains how 250,000 votes are worth more than 1?

ECW​

Irish, having decided that most of the other points of contention are not worth his time, has elected to make the prestige of ECW the centrepiece of this post.

I'm still not sure how brand exclusive PPV's make ECW look more like a minor league show that it does already given that;

a) The brand split never stopped ECW talent staring on the other two shows if they were needed.

b) The ECW title has been given a grand total of ten minutes PPV time since Summerslam.

Irish has already made clear that he doesn't think that the judgement of the WWE should always supersede our own, so surely he must accept that the WWE are perfectly OK having ECW serve as a more marketable HEAT/Velocity.

Given that ECW drew better when PPVs were brand exclusive I'm not sure from what Irish is drawing this assertion anyway. Possible his own opinion.

Gelgarin's arrogance​

This argument from my opponent is beyond ridiculous. He's ceased simply debating me, and is now questioning a successful, multi-billion dollar industry and a man with over a decade of experience. Amazingly, my opponent states that WWE's ending of the brand-specific PPV's was "a tremendous feat of arrogance." The real tremendous feat of arrogance is the idea that the executives of the WWE know more than my opponent does.

Actually, if you'll take the time to read my post you'll see that I never said that.
What I said was that if the WWE do something, and it makes PPV buys and ratings go down, then it is not a "tremendous feat of arrogance" to suggest that it might have been to wrong this to do.

Sort of like the whole business with Eric Bischoff announcing Foley's title win.
Are you going to protest that it was the right decision to make, because Eric Bischoff clearly knows much more about wrestling than you do.

Oh, and "lol" by the way.

Conclusion​

I'm going to lift a page from my opponent's book and suggest that much of this debate is no longer worth my time.
Irish is determined not to respond to any argument he doesn't have an answer for; and when he manages to get his figures correct his misrepresents them to the point of laughability.

We've had to go round and round in circles over the issues such as comparative buy rates because Irish is too busy complaining about me being mean to him to actually recognise the contrary figures I keep posting to his points.

My next post will be my final conclusion.

Irish: you went first, so if you want to sum things up in your next post... or you can just do a regular one if you're particularly desperate for the last word, I don't mind.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

My buyrate numbers came from here:

http://www.pwrestlingnews.com/wwe/ppv-buyrate/

Pro Wrestling news is a fair source from where I sit. That's where I am getting my "made up" numbers.

I see that you're now backing away from your point on the quality of the TV product for example.

Nope. I feel good enough that I drove that point home. If you don't, not my problem. Everyone I've spoken to about my point on this has understood it.

I literally cannot believe that you're making me explain this comment. When I say that your head in is proximity to a large quantity of sand, I refer to your habit of burying your head in it to avoid dealing with points that you don't like. I really didn't think you'd struggle this much with it.

Incidentally, the juxtaposition of attacking my spelling, and complaining that the nasty man is calling you names is a really touching performance. You totally come out looking like the bigger man after that.

It made no sense. None at all. "Your head has a close proximity to large quantities of sand" didn't make an ounce of sense. It was vague and just plain not funny.

The start of 2007 coincidentally being exactly when the brand split came to a close.

You must have a concussion. Once again, the brand split hasn't ended. WHat the hell is with you wanting to debate a totally different topic???

The brand specific PPV's have ended, and you're probably right. In 2007, fans realized that PPV's were now going to have higher quality matches from top level performers, and they were so distraught to be losing out on Jonathan Coachman vs Eugene and The Undertaker vs The Dudleyz that they simply gave up on wrestling as a whole.

It wasn't John Cena headlining numerous PPV's against the likes of Umaga and Khali.

It wasn't Vince McMahon as ECW Champion.

It wasn't Intercontinental Champion Santino Marella.

It wasn't Cruiserweight Champion Hornswoggle.

It wasn't World Heavyweight Champion The Great Khali.

It wasn't the death of Chris Benoit.

It wasn't the steroid scandal, the wellness policy, or the suspensions.

It wasn't the fact that Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold, The Rock, and Brock Lesnar were all gone.

It just HAD to be the result of the end of sub-par brand-specific PPV's.

I don't mind stepping away from the debate, because quite frankly, I've grown tired of banter with someone who's debate style amounts to condescending digs and attacks every other paragraph. At the same time, if you post something I feel the need to respond to, I will. Otherwise, my arguments are what they are, and I believe that the evidence of the abysmal failure of the brand-specific PPV's, as well as the climate for a return being totally inhospitable and conteractive to any success, will prove incontrovertible to the judges, as well as the readers.

 

[Gelgarin]

Well, more or less everything that can be said has been said already; so all that is left is for me to post my closing statements.

Actually, before I start;

http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2008/2008_05_08.jsp

There is a page from the WWE corporate website where the company itself confirms that your numbers are wrong.
I'm actually pretty shocked that you attempted to defend those figures in the first place, given how radically off kilter they were.

STAMFORD, Conn., May 8, 2008 – WrestleMania XXIV generated approximately 1.1 million pay-per-view buys, amounting to $23.8 million in pay-per-view revenue in the first quarter of 2008.

With that out of the way, we move on to my final thoughts.

Conclusion​

And what a murky road we have walked this week. We've flitted in and our of a veritable smorgasbord of issues, of varying degrees of relevancy. And the end of the day however, two salient pieces of information managed to transcend the debate and draw us towards our conclusion.

1) Brand Exclusive PPVs historically drew more than tri-branded ones​

This cannot be disputed. I've lost count of how many times I've pushed the numbers in people's faces; but I figure ones more to give you all something to remember me by.

2003 ~ 310,000 buys per show
2004 ~ 235,000 buys per show
2005 ~ 280,000 buys per show
2006 ~ 240,000 buys per show
2007 ~ 220,000 buys per show
2008 ~ 220,000 buys per show

What's more, shows in 2009 such as The Great American Bash and Backlash (which drew 178,000 and 182,000 respectively) strongly suggest that that this downward trend looks set to continue. In fact; with the exception of Extreme Rules/ONS, every PPV for which the numbers are available has drawn less than it did last year.

Ever since the brand exclusive PPVs came to an end the WWE has trended consistently downwards. Not just in PPV buy rates, but also in TV ratings.

2003 ~ 3.8
2004 ~ 3.7
2005 ~ 3.8
2006 ~ 3.9
2007 ~ 3.6
2008 ~ 3.3

Numbers do not lie... unless they are about Wrestlemania and come from an unreliable source.
Right now the WWE's audience it bleeding, and history shows us that the list of advantages that come with brand exclusive PPVs can mend the wound.

And speaking for that...

2) Brand Exclusive PPVs make the product better.​

Brand exclusive PPVs mean that feuds, both in the upper and the midcard are given longer to develop and get over. Under the current system both shows are frequently trying to build programs in the space of three weeks, and it isn't working.

Brand exclusive PPVs mean that the money shows can be better tailored to a specific audience, with Smackdown's PPVs appealing to people who like Smackdown, and RAW's PPVs appealing to douchb... people who like RAW.

Brand exclusive PPVs mean that talent can be more easily elevated. The WWE's recent attempts at pushing people have been miserable failures because the top of the card is too congested. Under the brand exclusive PPVs the wider spread card allowed them to push such mainstays and Cena, Batista, Guerrero, Benoit, Edge and Orton. Creating stars for the future is one of the most important parts of wrestling, and the brand extension lent its self perfectly to that.

Brand exclusive PPVs encourage competition between the brands, which ultimately improves the quality of the television product. Huge numbers of fans abandoned wrestling after the Monday Night Wars ended, and competitive brands can help bring some of that fire back.

To summarise the above...​

Brand exclusive PPVs are good for business.
Brand exclusive PPVs are good for quality.
Brand exclusive PPVs are good. Period.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I figure I'll also do the same here before we lay this to rest. To be honest, I'm thrilled that the Wrestlemania numbers weren't accurate, because that just means there was an even bigger drop off from the main show to the others. And it doesn't make a big difference, because the numbers I used early on didn't include Wrestlemania. It was more or less a sidebar.

Anyway:

In 2006 alone, the drop off in buy rates from brand-specific PPV's to co-branded PPV's was 68.79%.

WWE has already trashed the brand-specific PPV idea, and the mere fact that they haven't moved to bring them back should suggest that it a poor business idea.

The brand-specific PPV's would destroy whatever credibility the ECW brand has now, which would be a detriment to the deal between WWE and USA, the company that airs Raw and owns Sci Fi.

The brand-specific PPV's water down the PPV cards and still have the audacity to charge $40 for a show only one hour longer than he weekly free shows on TV.

The lack of overall roster depth would force brand-specific PPV's to either be VERY repetitive or VERY low quality.

Judges, it's all in your hands now.

 

[CH David]

Another classic debate from IC and Gelgarin (tin? ) I thank you both for not making it a cut and paste match like it was last time, but this I think was of higher quality. This should be a candidate for feud of the year, just from the greatness of the two or three debates. Great job to both of you.

Clarity: Both were amazingly clean and clear, especially considering the content. Gelgarin had a few spelling errors, but I can't in good conscience do that when you look at the whole debate.

Point: Split

Punctuality: Neither were late.

Point: Split

Informative: Someone is getting this point. Both brought a lot of information. IC had a good idea when it came to taking out Wrestlemania as it would skew numbers a little bit. Gelgarin had the better numbers when it came to Mania. Both brought great numbers and info, but IC bringing those quotes sealed this point from me.

Point: IC25

Emotionality: These are some great debates and banter between you two. The names alone drew a bunch of people to come over here and look at it. You both didn't disappoint again. IC didn't fight back as much, but Gelgarin pushing him made him dig deeper and harder than he already was in this debate.

Point: Gelgarin

Persuasion: This is just like the other debate. Another very difficult decision to make. I went in thinking, well, the brand split was some entertaining stuff for me, why not try it. So initially before even reading this, I figured whoever took the "Brand Split PPV Yay" side, would take this. IC had the tougher job of getting me on his side. I don't know how, but somehow he was able to persuade me. He did a hell of a job, and I think the main point he made was that most of the stars from the original Brand Split were gone, and now those PPVs most likely wouldn't be as effective.

Point: IC25

I feel I should say this. Gelgarin did not lose this. This was just one of those instances (like last time) where the other just barely beat them.

CH David scores this IC25 3, Gelgarin 2.

 

[Mr. TM]

Listen to this while you read the judging card.

As my fellow judge CH David said, this has been an epic battle, and both of you have honoured the forum, the debater league, and the judges with this debate. As you could have saw, the two debates in the Conference Finals mirrored each other, both question the WWE's Pay Per Views.

Clarity of Debate: I think there are 12 posts in this thread that are a part of the debate itself, but even as I read carefully, it only took me 25 minutes to read it. That is because of how clear it is. You both are excellent writers. I am a fair man, unless you are The D-Man, because I am going to fuck him over in a second here. Being an English minor, I do have to read a lot of excellent works, everytime I edit my papers, but this almost mars my own effort. Well at least half of you live up to my standards. And that is Gelgarin. His structure of his ideas were perfect for any reader. IC sucked. Just Kidding, he was alright. Well he was good. If I ramble on, I'll have to find a new song to listen to.

Punctuality: CH David says you were both on time, so that is good enough for me.

Information: Gelgarin did what I wanted to with his debate. He brough up the wider view of the WWE. And IC was called out for using incorrect numbers. But there is a clear difference in the debates. Gelgarin was too subjective in his debates. IC stuck to facts. And I hate that in discussion, but as for the purpose of the debate, IC wins, and it is probably why Gelgarin was clearer.

Emotion: Gelgarin put forth a great argument and kept his cool while being his sly and cocky self. I could really tell (not counting IC's upsetness outside of the thread) that IC was getting rocked by Gelgarin. Gelgarin never took it too far, so I have to give him it here.

Persuasion: For the points I listed above, (oh fuck, its going to be a tie) yada yada yada, wait no! IC did not win clearly! Did Gelgarin win? No! What is going on here!? I will tell you what.

IC won this debate, if it was half the debate it actually was. Gelgarin pounded his idea through, but it hardly surfaced. If you follow me at all, you are on drugs. IC won his debate, but he did not stop Gelgarin's. Gelgarin didn't get his off the ground enough to have won this debate. So I am forced to split this point here. IC failed to beat Gelgarin on Gelgarins point, and Gelgarin failed to beat IC on his point. Since I am not giving 2/3rd points, I round it to 50-50.

 

[Blade]

Ouch. I read this all in 15 minutes. A brain shouldn't take in that much information in 15 minutes. Hence the ouch. But it was a great effort by both guys. Stuffed with all kinds of interesting crap. On to the scores....

Clarity: Well you guys both knew that this point was up for grabs, so both of you made very few mistakes in your posts. But in terms of using your posts to get your message across in the right way.... I miiiight have to go with Gelgarin. Despite his posts being slightly word fort-ey at times. Point goes tol Gelgar.

Information: Both guys brought a fair amount of relevant information to the table. So good job by both of you. But with that being said, IC25 used the information in a much better way in relation to his arguments. Point goes to IC25.

Punctuality: No lateness here, apparently.

Emotion: This goes to IC25 in my eyes. Gelgarin was too business-like, even when the debate was at its most heated. IC25 always puts some passion behind it and it really showed here. Point goes to IC25

Persuasion: Yeah. Hmm, about that. Very tough choice. I mean, both of you made great arguments for your chosen sides. But... in debates, you're supposed to prove each other wrong while making your own arguments. And both of you made very half assed attempts at that, if I'm being honest. But IC25 gets the point here, he definitely steered the debate in a way that helped him get his argument across.


Gelgarin 1 IC25 3

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Point split for punctuality. Gelgarin gets the emotionality point for not letting IrishCanadian25 live down an incorrect buyrate. IrishCanadian25 gets points for clarity, informativeness, and persuasion.

tdigle's Score

IrishCanadian25 - 3.5
Gelgarin - 1.5

 

[BooCocky]

Yeah no one receives the point for punctuality seeing as how both were on time. Like Tdigle said Gelgarin gets the emotionality for the buyrate...IC gets the point for clarity because I was reading it easier..Informative he also gets the point...and persuasion. He convinced me... Gelgarin did a good job throughout this debate and he shouldn't be disappointed. Kudos to all...

Becker's score.

IC25- 3.5
Gelgarin- 1.5