What's with the PPV rematches on raw?

[rockyrocky11]

Am I the only one that gets annoyed seeing ppv rematches on raw. We've had punk vs bryan, and the tag championship within weeks of the ppv. This has been happening the last few ppvs and I think it is devaluing the ppvs. Could you imagine if Rock Cena fought the night after mania. It's just stupid in my opinion.

So question, do you feel it's good or bad to have ppv rematches on raw?

 

[Canadian_SXE]

But technically every single match could feasibly be a ppv match. Everyone has wrestled everyone, so it's safe to say that a ppv match was probably also happened on free tv. For instance, Punk and Bryan wrestled twice on tv prior to their match at OTL, while Bryan was the World Heavyweight champion. Kofi and Truth lost a non title match to Ziggler and Swagger on Raw which gave them their title match at the ppv. So I don't see the problem in seeing these matches. How do you expect feuds to continue if the matches only happen on ppv. That is a whole month of them just talking which is useless and not entertaining IMO.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Yeah PPV rematches have been happening a lot nowadays. Kane/Orton, Punk/Bryan etc.

It makes matches repetitive and the fued boring. Its better if rematches only happened at PPVs. PPV Rematches on RAW and Smackdown devalue the PPVs importance.

 

[Maikeru_1979]

maybe this is the reason for the PPV matching happening on raw & smackdown

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/255445-wwe-changing-focus-to-tv-ratings-over-ppv-buys


so i am sure this is why the matches have been happening. get over it. PPV is all but dead because of online streaming

 

[Gman35]

If you look at it this way, Punk vs. Bryan took place on RAW first, then they had a rematch on PPV. To me, it doesn't bother me at all to do this. Sometimes, they need to have that to get a somewhat crappy RAW/Smackdown to look good.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Doesn't bother me at all. Why should it? I mean, don't you want to see good wrestling matches on television? If it's a rematch of a match that took place at a ppv, then so what if the match features wrestlers that are worth watching.

At the end of the day, people want to see good wrestling matches whether it be on television or ppvs. For me, if I see good wrestling action on television, then it makes me want to see it on ppv because the ppv matches are usually better. Punk vs. Bryan this past Monday, for instance, wasn't as good as their ppv match was, it was still a damn good match however, and left me wanting to see more.

This just sounds like a pretty meaningless complaint thread to me.

 

[Iversen]

It's impossible to avoid to be fair. Unless you want constant squash matches you need to have the big guys fight each other on RAW every now and then. There are moments when it shouldn't happen obviously. An obvious one being on the build up to Wrestlemania where the competitors should have physical contact as little as possible. In fact I'd say the same for all the big 4. For the second string PPVs though you're going to have to let them fight on TV or people just won't care. They very rarely give away clean wins on TV anyway.

 

[Defekt]

Typically rematches on RAW are used to end a feud or take it in a new direction.

I don't see why you mind getting to see a good match for free, and titles rarely change hands during the free rematch anyway.

 

[DJImpact1]

I don't see why you mind getting to see a good match for free, and titles rarely change hands during the free rematch anyway.

I think the answers are right there in your statements.

1) It's contradictive of WWE to spend 3 - 4 weeks, trying to convince you to throw $40+ on a 3-hour PPV show (while uber-hyping certain matches), only to put those uber-hyped matches on a 3-hour RAW the next night/next week following the PPV. It kind of leaves one with a "bad taste" knowing you just spent over $40 to watch certain matches, which you later realize are being given to you at the cost of your regular cable bill.

2) Agreed that titles rarely change hands during non-PPV rematches, which is good & bad in the same breath. It's good in that it helps a champion look deserving of being such & helps maintain value to a championship. It's bad because the majority of viewers know the non-PPV championship rematch will, 90 - 95% of the time not result in a title change, so where's the incentive of keeping me tuned in? (and last I knew, we are all witness to the problem of "Creative" not being very....creative).

 

[dr.greenthumb]

It could be possible that WWE doesn't want to alienate viewers that, for whatever reason, didn't see the PPV.

IMO, the roster seems too small, it's always the same people fighting. Nothing really new and it seems to me that titles mean very little.

Being the champion doesn't really mean your the best, if everyone else in the locker room has also been the champ.

 

[zeox70]

I agree with dr.greenthumb - it's probably just to show the people who didn't buy the PPVs. I don't stream, but I don't buy them either, so though I'm aware of the PPV, matches, and the results if I decide to read them - it's still nice to see the PPV broken down a bit into RAW and SD!
Besides, who is truly complaining about Punk vs. DBD?

 

[akathelaw]

I fail to understand how PPV's help the business in 2012. Sure, they're a good stream of revenue but the focus on "saving everything for PPV" is REALLY detrimental to the product. If a young person decides to flip on some wrestling to see if it's something they'd like to watch, it's going to take a few matches for them to decide if they like it or not. Considering WWE spends so much time on the other aspects of the show and matches only last a few minutes if they're lucky, what fan in their right mind is going to buy a PPV of that?

PPV rematches give you a sample of the PPV event. Hmm, that Punk vs. Bryan match was pretty good, I'd like to see more. Oh, there's a PPV with those two next month? count me in!

 

[HBsam31]

I don't mind seeing the big time matches that we see on Raw or Smackdown. Especially if it is a PPV rematch. PPV's are expensive, and anytime I can see great wrestling for free I won't complain about it. This had been going on for a long time anyway. During the attitude era every Raw was almost like a PPV. As a fan i am not going to moan when they give me something good for free.

 

[Workrate]

I fail to understand how PPV's help the business in 2012. Sure, they're a good stream of revenue but the focus on "saving everything for PPV" is REALLY detrimental to the product. If a young person decides to flip on some wrestling to see if it's something they'd like to watch, it's going to take a few matches for them to decide if they like it or not. Considering WWE spends so much time on the other aspects of the show and matches only last a few minutes if they're lucky, what fan in their right mind is going to buy a PPV of that?

PPV rematches give you a sample of the PPV event. Hmm, that Punk vs. Bryan match was pretty good, I'd like to see more. Oh, there's a PPV with those two next month? count me in!

I agree with this, except I think you mean to say you "fail to understand how PPVs help the product." They help the business, obviously, by generating revenue. I get where you're going: a bad product will cause the audience to erode over time and, in turn, hurt the business. But I don't think it's that linear.

Anyway, I do think holding back and saving for PPVs is a hindrance to the weekly product. I would never, ever, ever buy a pay-per-view under any circumstances. Given the current model, why would I?