"You want Less WWE PPV's, You got it ... Oh, but you're going to have to pay for it!"

[Profit]

How angry are WWE PPV customers going to be at this latest turn of events? Big deal, or no Big Deal?

Oh, i'm quite concerned and very upset at this decision. I mean seriously, a whole 5 dollars more?! You have to be kidding me, this is a huge deal...

Yeah, i'm sorry but the whole 5 dollar raise thing is such a non-issue that i'm surprised it is even being discussed. I mean, they are getting rid of a PPV which costs 40 dollars to purchase, you figure the smart business move IS to raise the cost of the other PPV's in order to make up for that lost revenue. We are only talking about 5 measly dollars here, I can't even get a decent meal at a fast food restaurant for that amount of money, I seriously doubt any fan of WWE who orders these PPV's will be effected at all by this decision.

And I couldn't agree more with you. If people get angry over it, they HAVE GOT TO STOP PAYING. It's that simple. But people still do pay, even when they aren't that impressed with the product as a whole. I see the complaints on here, and yet people still talk about ordering the show. It's absolutely mind-boggling.

That is why I seriously question whether people order simply out of habit as opposed to out of desire. It's much like a "zombie-like" mentality, if you really think about it.

Is the product not as good as it once was? Yes. I won't argue at all with that assessment of the WWE right now, but really all I see from you are posts trashing the WWE and in-part the fans by saying we are all mindless Vince McMahon worshipers who don't understand "good tv" or "good wrestling".

My opinion is of that the WWE as a whole is far more enjoyable to watch then TNA, and what other wrestling shows are there for me to watch? So I stick with WWE as it has its moments of enjoyment and excitement, and I rather enjoy some of the matches, no matter how repetetive they may be. You can't expect a product to sustain greatness forever, there will be periodic turns during times when it suffers or isn't up to par, as you see with series of television shows. Sometimes a season sucks, and then the show lifts itself up the next season and impresses once again, I think this is a very fair comparison to the wrestling business right now.. in particular the WWE.

You may see a lot of complaints, but I also see a lot of people sharing there happiness with how the product seems to improve. It won't ever be what it once was, the attitude-era is over and done with, accept that and live with it. Just because some people find the WWE product enjoyable most nights, doesn't make us mindless worshipers of utter-crap. To generalize like that, well, it's just foolish.

But one thing I have still not heard from people in this thread who still purchase the shows, and plan on still doing so even with the price hike ... is a question I asked earlier.

"What exactly is your threshold or do you have one, for how much you are willing to spend on the monthly PPV's, before enough is enough? What is the Magic Number?"

Well the magic number for me would be anything exceeding 60 dollars for a PPV, to me that would be far too much to pay for anything, no matter how enjoyable or entertaining the product was. But, thats not the case. It only raised by 5 dollars, and 50 bucks seems like a fair price to me.

Maybe i'm in the minority, but I enjoy the PPV's I see, my friends and I watch them and are entertained and enthralled with most of the action that we witness. Sure there are nights when the PPV as a whole seems lackluster, and maybe I had wished I would have passed on that specific show, but all-in-all I find that it's still the best product out there.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

Oh, i'm quite concerned and very upset at this decision. I mean seriously, a whole 5 dollars more?! You have to be kidding me, this is a huge deal...

Yeah, i'm sorry but the whole 5 dollar raise thing is such a non-issue that i'm surprised it is even being discussed. I mean, they are getting rid of a PPV which costs 40 dollars to purchase, you figure the smart business move IS to raise the cost of the other PPV's in order to make up for that lost revenue. We are only talking about 5 measly dollars here, I can't even get a decent meal at a fast food restaurant for that amount of money, I seriously doubt any fan of WWE who orders these PPV's will be effected at all by this decision.



Is the product not as good as it once was? Yes. I won't argue at all with that assessment of the WWE right now, but really all I see from you are posts trashing the WWE and in-part the fans by saying we are all mindless Vince McMahon worshipers who don't understand "good tv" or "good wrestling".

My opinion is of that the WWE as a whole is far more enjoyable to watch then TNA, and what other wrestling shows are there for me to watch? So I stick with WWE as it has its moments of enjoyment and excitement, and I rather enjoy some of the matches, no matter how repetitive they may be. You can't expect a product to sustain greatness forever, there will be periodic turns during times when it suffers or isn't up to par, as you see with series of television shows. Sometimes a season sucks, and then the show lifts itself up the next season and impresses once again, I think this is a very fair comparison to the wrestling business right now.. in particular the WWE.

You may see a lot of complaints, but I also see a lot of people sharing there happiness with how the product seems to improve. It won't ever be what it once was, the attitude-era is over and done with, accept that and live with it. Just because some people find the WWE product enjoyable most nights, doesn't make us mindless worshipers of utter-crap. To generalize like that, well, it's just foolish.



Well the magic number for me would be anything exceeding 60 dollars for a PPV, to me that would be far too much to pay for anything, no matter how enjoyable or entertaining the product was. But, thats not the case. It only raised by 5 dollars, and 50 bucks seems like a fair price to me.

Maybe i'm in the minority, but I enjoy the PPV's I see, my friends and I watch them and are entertained and enthralled with most of the action that we witness. Sure there are nights when the PPV as a whole seems lackluster, and maybe I had wished I would have passed on that specific show, but all-in-all I find that it's still the best product out there.

Profit, if you personally enjoy the PPV's, then that is absolutely fine.

But as far as you getting upset at me knocking some of WWE's decisions ... this is Wrestlezone, and in many ways with this Forum-- "This is where the Big Boys play." This isn't "All children play nice in the sandbox" forums like you see elsewhere on the Internet in which all members drink the corporate Kool Aid. We are going to take tough viewpoints and present challenging discussions that isn't always going to be friendly towards the organization you may be a fan of. If you don't like it, then you have every right and are encouraged to push back and tell me and others WHY we are wrong.

Now, essentially what I got out of your post is that you are willing to pay $60 a month, even if the product isn't great, and you aren't entertained by it .... by providing justification that "everyone has off-seasons".

While that may be true, most of those Off-Seasons don't require people to pay $60 a month for television, and rather, people can watch for free.

Now, I made a challenge with that challenge being that a lot of WWE fans I feel simply order the PPV's out of habit, as opposed to necessarily ordering them out of interest. And I feel that is entirely true for a good portion of the audience. I have a difficult time believing that people enjoy seeing:

Triple H vs Randy Orton
John Cena vs Randy Orton
John Cena vs Triple H
John Cena vs Edge

.... done several times a year, every single year. Call me crazy, but I just have a difficult time believing it. I see people complain about it, but they order it anyway. Like I said, it's a matter of simple habit.

Hey, as far as I'm concerned, if Vince wants to charge $50, $60, $70, or so forth and his fans are willing to pay no matter what the price, then more power to him. The "Shareholder" in me would have to say "go for it". The fan in me simply scratches my head, especially charging that type of money for the product he has been putting out these past couple years. But if Vince has his fans conditioned to pay whatever price he wants them to pay, and they go along subserviently, then more power to the man.

 

[Profit]

Profit, if you personally enjoy the PPV's, then that is absolutely fine.

Thanks, I needed that reassurance that it was okay.

But as far as you getting upset at me knocking some of WWE's decisions ... this is Wrestlezone, and in many ways with this Forum-- "This is where the Big Boys play." This isn't "All children play nice in the sandbox" forums like you see elsewhere on the Internet in which all members drink the corporate Kool Aid. We are going to take tough viewpoints and present challenging discussions that isn't always going to be friendly towards the organization you may be a fan of. If you don't like it, then you have every right and are encouraged to push back and tell me and others WHY we are wrong.

Did I ever say you couldn't have differing view points, and also come hard with your opinions? No, all I was saying was don't generalize anyone who enjoys the WWE into Vince's little lap-dogs that just watch and purchase the product because we are brain washed and don't know what good tv is.

Now, essentially what I got out of your post is that you are willing to pay $60 a month, even if the product isn't great, and you aren't entertained by it .... by providing justification that "everyone has off-seasons".

I said that 60 dollars + would be my limit, including 60 dollars. So, essentially, you got the wrong idea out of my post. And yes I did say the product isn't always great, but not always great doesn't mean over half the time or more, it has it's upsides and downsides just like everything else.

While that may be true, most of those Off-Seasons don't require people to pay $60 a month for television, and rather, people can watch for free.

This, however, is a good point. I will give you this one.

Now, I made a challenge with that challenge being that a lot of WWE fans I feel simply order the PPV's out of habit, as opposed to necessarily ordering them out of interest. And I feel that is entirely true for a good portion of the audience. I have a difficult time believing that people enjoy seeing:

Triple H vs Randy Orton
John Cena vs Randy Orton
John Cena vs Triple H
John Cena vs Edge

.... done several times a year, every single year. Call me crazy, but I just have a difficult time believing it. I see people complain about it, but they order it anyway. Like I said, it's a matter of simple habit.

I admit that the repetivitity of the matches gets annoying at times, but I still do enjoy the match quality and the feuds that these superstars have. Maybe i'm the one thats crazy for that, who knows. Cena, not really a fan of him. But the rest on that list, huge fans of all of 'em, and see'ing them headline events isn't a problem for me as I find them to be the best in the business and you always want your top guys performing at the height of your PPV's.

Hey, as far as I'm concerned, if Vince wants to charge $50, $60, $70, or so forth and his fans are willing to pay no matter what the price, then more power to him. The "Shareholder" in me would have to say "go for it". The fan in me simply scratches my head, especially charging that type of money for the product he has been putting out these past couple years. But if Vince has his fans conditioned to pay whatever price he wants them to pay, and they go along subserviently, then more power to the man.

Again, we are not conditioned to order these PPV's or be loyal to the company and watch each and every show. Not all of us anyway, and i'd guess it's a small percentage that actually do this sort of thing. I don't salivate when I hear a bell, and I sure as hell don't pull 50 dollars out of my wallet just because it's a Sunday night and i'm conditioned to do so.

My point, again, is your generalization of us fans is a bit of a stretch and is quite foolish as well.

 

[The Gribbler]

They will get away with it no doubt, it is a small percent of the overall purchase price and kids really know how to complain.

If the kid wants it, then nine times out of ten the kid will get it since parents these days can't string the letters "N" and "O" together.

The WWE wins.

13 PPV instead of 14 is a good step, can only hope that it actually improves the quality of the shows.

Just My Opinion

 

[The Instant Classic91]

First post in a while, but this is an issue that has really caught my eye.

As a person who lives in the UK the whole $5 increase is not realistically a concern, and as a person who doesnt buy PPV's full stop the potential increase is no concern.

The last PPV I bought was the Royal Rumble 2005, or should I say the last my parents bought, I believe somebody in this thread has already made this point, while previous to this time many WWE PPV's were on Sky Sports anyway, a fair few (I.E. the big 4) were Pay Per View, but these shows were bought simply to "shut the kids up" our folks didnt give a rats arse about wrestling, but we kids loved it, so the shows were bought 100% of the time, (which is a whole other issue about the PG rating but I digress)

My point is as a child, and by association my parents were, to borrow a somewhat misreperensatative phrase, "WWE Shareholders" the PPVs were bought regardless, after all my parents didnt even watch them 90% of the time.

So to tie up this pathetic rambling excuse of a post I doubt the $5 increase will make a dam bit of difference, people will always pay McMahon.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Smart move by WWE in a fiscal sense. The company has one less mega-show to produce per year, once less set to construct, one less arena to book....yet the company is probably going to make MORE money with the extra PPV revenue that will be coming its way.

And if you think about it...it's only roughly $20 more per year for the fan that buys every PPV. So, I don't see it as being such a big deal.

TEH BASHHHH!!!! will likely get the boot.

 

[jazzua]

Profit, if you personally enjoy the PPV's, then that is absolutely fine.

But as far as you getting upset at me knocking some of WWE's decisions ... this is Wrestlezone, and in many ways with this Forum-- "This is where the Big Boys play." This isn't "All children play nice in the sandbox" forums like you see elsewhere on the Internet in which all members drink the corporate Kool Aid. We are going to take tough viewpoints and present challenging discussions that isn't always going to be friendly towards the organization you may be a fan of. If you don't like it, then you have every right and are encouraged to push back and tell me and others WHY we are wrong.

Now, essentially what I got out of your post is that you are willing to pay $60 a month, even if the product isn't great, and you aren't entertained by it .... by providing justification that "everyone has off-seasons".

While that may be true, most of those Off-Seasons don't require people to pay $60 a month for television, and rather, people can watch for free.

Now, I made a challenge with that challenge being that a lot of WWE fans I feel simply order the PPV's out of habit, as opposed to necessarily ordering them out of interest. And I feel that is entirely true for a good portion of the audience. I have a difficult time believing that people enjoy seeing:

Triple H vs Randy Orton
John Cena vs Randy Orton
John Cena vs Triple H
John Cena vs Edge

.... done several times a year, every single year. Call me crazy, but I just have a difficult time believing it. I see people complain about it, but they order it anyway. Like I said, it's a matter of simple habit.

Hey, as far as I'm concerned, if Vince wants to charge $50, $60, $70, or so forth and his fans are willing to pay no matter what the price, then more power to him. The "Shareholder" in me would have to say "go for it". The fan in me simply scratches my head, especially charging that type of money for the product he has been putting out these past couple years. But if Vince has his fans conditioned to pay whatever price he wants them to pay, and they go along subserviently, then more power to the man.

To be oh so very honest, your posts are WAY more redundant than the Raw main event scene. Seriously, it seems as though you rarely post on WWE without talking the "WWE Shareholder" crap. By your standards, it appears as though Vince is without a doubt the worlds most renowned psychologist. He's apparently in the wrong field. Your "shareholder" gimmick thingy really seems like you are calling a couple million of people around the world ignorant, which in turn, makes you sound ignorant. Your attitude makes you one of the people that I would love to see given the chance to run the WWE for a month. See how that works out.

What this is is business. That's all it is. Taking away a ppv and hiking the prices of the others is by no means illogical. Personally, I buy ppv's when I am enticed to. It may only be one match that I want to see, but I'm fine with that. It doesn't mean that the rest of the ppv won't leave me happy.

I really think that most wrestling fans that post in forums feel that Vince owes them something. He doesn't. You can argue all you want that without fans he wouldn't be in business, and your correct. That doesn't mean that his job is to please each individual fan all of the time. His job is to make sure his company makes money. Thats the way he knows if his product is reaching the fans the way he hopes. If his company makes money it is only safe to assume that people are interested. It's been said a million times before, if his product doesn't interest you it's as simple as moving on to something else.

On the amount of ppvs subject, I have always felt that even 1 per month is too many. I'll blame Bischoff for that. I would prefer the WWE to go back to doing maybe 6-8 a year. This could allow them to keep the big four special. They could turn around and run a clash of the champions type show on the months they don't run a ppv. I think this would allow more time to build there fueds as well as not make the main event scene so constant. I don't mind the move to 45, but Lord is right that there is a limit to what I/anyone would probably pay for a ppv. I'm not entirely sure what that limit is though for me. It would depend on how good the card looked, as well as who is on the card.

As for TNA...I don't see how this helps that at all. Their ppv business is dismal, depressing, and completely laughable. Before entertaining the thought that they can capitalize on this, they need to figure out how to hold at least a 2.o rating. You can't get ppv buys if no one is watching your television show.

 

[Remy LaCroix]

Wouldn't reducing pay-per-views to about 11-12 a year and cheapening them to around $35 help increase sales if none of the current stories/feuds/bouts were stale as well? I'd think that by lowering the price you'll make more sales (supply and demand, really); would this work?

 

[Lancer]

Thank God. Even though I never order any PPVs (WWE or TNA) I have become disillusioned with following the two's PPV schedules...it seems like WWE has a fucking PPV every three weeks. TNA is at least smarter, and keeps its offerings pretty much the same each year.

WWE constantly is changing the names and stips of its PPVs, making it harder to remember which is which ('Is it Taboo Tuesday? Or Cyber Sunday? Or Bragging Rights? Or Hell-Slam-ageddon?') And with the introduction of all these stupid gimmick PPVs, the oversaturation of the product is just ridiculous. I remember when 8 PPVs a year was too many.

We can all thank the Monday Night Wars for providing us with way too damn many PPVs. Ever since WWE became the "only" game in town, they have gone overboard with providing their fans with PPV choices. Enough is enough already. They should cut it back to one a month, although with the large prices they charge, they will never see the difference anyway.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

To be oh so very honest, your posts are WAY more redundant than the Raw main event scene. Seriously, it seems as though you rarely post on WWE without talking the "WWE Shareholder" crap. By your standards, it appears as though Vince is without a doubt the worlds most renowned psychologist. He's apparently in the wrong field. Your "shareholder" gimmick thingy really seems like you are calling a couple million of people around the world ignorant, which in turn, makes you sound ignorant. Your attitude makes you one of the people that I would love to see given the chance to run the WWE for a month. See how that works out.

Run the entire WWE for a month? No, I definitely wouldn't be able to. Could I run Creative for a month? Without a doubt. Of course, the only problem would be that I really wouldn't be running Creative, and that Vince McMahon would be running Creative ... so for all intents and purposes, I really wouldn't be.

But as far as PPV's and raising prices, which is the topic of discussion here .... WWE's profits are actually quite well at the moment. You think getting rid of a single PPV without punishing the rest of the customers by raising their prices by $5 a month would seriously jeopardize the company?

It's a risky strategy. And that is what business is about ... taking risks and simply making decisions. Doing this move, he is risking pissing people off, as they get closer to their threshold. Let's say a good portion of these people decide not to order a couple PPV's because of the price increase? Well, then it would be all for not.

I think eliminating the one PPV, which they did, was a great move. It would have allowed them to accomplish their Creative goals that they were looking for by allowing more time for feuds to develop, instead of rushing them for the PPV's, which are too damn close together anyway.

As far as the increase in price, I really think they could have reduced expenses to make up for any lost profit (which they are planning on doing, as well), as opposed to punishing his customers by raising revenue instead.

What this is is business. That's all it is. Taking away a ppv and hiking the prices of the others is by no means illogical. Personally, I buy ppv's when I am enticed to. It may only be one match that I want to see, but I'm fine with that. It doesn't mean that the rest of the ppv won't leave me happy.\


I really think that most wrestling fans that post in forums feel that Vince owes them something. He doesn't. You can argue all you want that without fans he wouldn't be in business, and your correct. That doesn't mean that his job is to please each individual fan all of the time. His job is to make sure his company makes money. Thats the way he knows if his product is reaching the fans the way he hopes. If his company makes money it is only safe to assume that people are interested. It's been said a million times before, if his product doesn't interest you it's as simple as moving on to something else.

Well, I'd like to first start out by saying that I'm sure Vince would give his 100% approval for thinking like a "WWE Shareholder" before thinking like a fan.

However, I am also happy to hear that like a "WWE Shareholder", you are extremely pleased about this increase in price and will gladly pay if not for any other reason, other than you know it makes Vince McMahon happy and wealthier.

But, as you said, If people aren't happy, they can move on to something else. Of course, you and I know how addicted people can be to wrestling, that they'll pay any price for no other reason than Vince tells them to. So with your philosophy, sure they should be taken advantage of.

Even as you also said, despite this increase in money, Vince doesn't owe them anything. So if they pay the increase, expecting more effort into the show, apparently in your eyes "that's wrong to assume". Because Vince does not owe these fans quality shows for $50, right? Let him put whatever he wants on the air, and if the fans who already pay $50 are left flat, then too bad.

It's great that there are so many "Shareholders" out there who are looking out for Vince's wallet. The next step will be taken when Mr. McMahon conducts an upcoming meeting with his "Shareholders" at Titan Towers. While there, they will all formally join the Mr. McMahon Kiss My Ass Club. He figures, "Hey, they kiss my ass on the Internet 24/7, so they all mine as well actually do the real thing, bend over, and pucker up for real."

On the amount of ppvs subject, I have always felt that even 1 per month is too many. I'll blame Bischoff for that. I would prefer the WWE to go back to doing maybe 6-8 a year. This could allow them to keep the big four special. They could turn around and run a clash of the champions type show on the months they don't run a ppv. I think this would allow more time to build there feuds as well as not make the main event scene so constant. I don't mind the move to 45, but Lord is right that there is a limit to what I/anyone would probably pay for a ppv. I'm not entirely sure what that limit is though for me. It would depend on how good the card looked, as well as who is on the card.

I'd just like to hear you put an actual pricetag on where you draw the line.

As far as "who's on the card", it's the same people who's on the card every other month. Nothing changes, which is my criticism.

As for TNA...I don't see how this helps that at all. Their ppv business is dismal, depressing, and completely laughable. Before entertaining the thought that they can capitalize on this, they need to figure out how to hold at least a 2.o rating. You can't get ppv buys if no one is watching your television show.

Well, TNA has momentum. They have Hogan. All it takes is some comments, maybe even from Hogan himself, subtly attacking Vince for being "greedy, motivated by money, and enjoying taking advantage of his fans by charging outrageous prices to his shows" (yeah, Hogan would be one to talk, but all is fair in love and wrestling) ... and essentially run a negative campaign against WWE in that department, to get fans riled up. If that campaign would be executed properly and drilled into the minds of wrestling fans that "WWE = Exorbitant Prices and More of The Same every single month" ... while TNA= Guaranteed Value, Fan-Friendly, New, Fresh Matches every month" .... then it has the potential to make an "Impact".

But they have real opportunity here, and I'm probably going to email them and suggest something along these lines.

 

[jazzua]

First off, I believe you confused me with someone else. I at no point mentioned anything about $60 dollars being my limit. Also, I don't really understand why anyone who doesn't see your side of things is considered some sort of tainted, brain-washed, corporate follower? I think like a fan everytime I turn on wrestling. Everytime I laugh at the silly re-written history WWE puts out about another fed and know that I saved money by not purchasing it. When I am sitting at home watching Raw and Jillian comes out, I turn the channel. It took the WWE 15 years before they saw any direct profit from me. As far as who's won out in our relationship it is me by a mile. I enjoy wrestling. AS A FAN i don't worry so much about what Vince is putting out. It's my job to watch. If he doesn't do his job, I won't do mine. I don't always have to agree with their decisions. Again, his job is to please the general audience. Which you supported that he is by addressing WWE's current profitability.

As far as me kissing Vinces ass on the internet 24/7? Where the hell do you get this stuff. I would have said the same thing about any business there is. Any businessman who made that decision I would have backed in the same manner. You are losing a 40 dollar ppv and adding 5 dollars to the current. The difference if I were to order every ppv of the year is 20-25 Dollars for the whole year. It's good business.

I feel that somewhere along the line you are the one who has forgotten how to be a fan. You hold some grudge toward a man you've never met b/c you seem to think that he owes you something. As I said above, his job is not to please you personally. It is to please his general audience. And sure, most of the people here aren't happy. But sadly, we don't make up the majority of his audience. Sad but true. I'm not always happy with the way House turns out. I don't call up Fox and freak out. It's their job to keep me watching, not the other way around.

A fan who doesn't feel that their 50 dollars was well spent can always not order any more. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand. Another example, The movie "The Lost Boys" sucks, but Warner Brothers isn't going to give me a refund because of it. But you know what I did, I didn't watch "The lost Boys 2", I'm sure I taught them a lesson there. Please.....

As far as my limit. I truly don't know. It could be 50, could be 70. It depends. I'll tell you this, I'd pay a substantial amount for WM. I could easily see myself shelling 100-125 for that ppv. And the card does matter. Sure, it may be Orton/Cena 105, but the undercard may be something I'm willing to pay for. Couldn't imagine myself really paying over 50-60 for a regular ppv but again I just really couldn't tell you. I don't buy every one so I would be a little more willing to purchase them from time to time if I was interested in the line up.

I personally don't think TNA has any momentum. They dropped back to a 1.1 this past week. No Hogan I know, However, Hogan is only a short term draw. He may not even draw much at all. You hit on it yourself, but alot of the general public has a different view point of Hogan than they used to. Seeing him run off at the mouth about Vince may just make people remember that little tape Hogan was on, then maybe they turn the channel? I love how you want TNA to brainwash fans as well. It would make them so different for the E, which they aren't. Face it, they aren't that much different. When you watch a whole night of high spots they become irrelevant. TNA has an incredible roster, that all do the same moves. I can only watch so many moonsaults, and 5 man combo moves before I yearn for something with at least a little substance. And while that isn't always the case in every WWE match, it's only the case for Angle in TNA.

 

[HBK-aholic]

What's $5 when you're already paying 40? I'm not sure how this will affect the UK pricing, but if you're willing to pay that much for a PPV the odds are a small increase won't bother you too much. The die-hard fans specifically would probably buy the show no matter what, I class myself as one of them. Although to be fair we get some free now so it's different to America. Hopefully McMahon won't lose out on this, I think he's just trying to cut his losses of losing a PPV by increasng the cost of the others. Not exactly fair, but as I said, who cares that much?

 

[wolvdog316]

This is getting fucking overdone. You bitch Sidious about WWE being fucking repetitive yet you do the same shit. It's always WWE is crap, WWE shareholders blah blah blah.

Look, if you have enough to spare 40 bucks, 5 dollars isn't going to matter. You know, unlike TNA your flagship wonderful company, WWE actually makes a GOOD profit. You can talk to your blue in the face, but Vince makes MILLIONS while you make what, 50 grand if your lucky?

I'll say it again. WWE is boring to me, I don't order their PPVs. But in the attitude era I would have easily paid the extra 5 bucks. BUT, Vince is still pulling in good ratings, he has a gotten a lot of publicity with the guest hosts.

It's really hard to tell a man who makes MILLIONS every year "Hey, your not doing this right, let me show ya what to do".

What you SHOULD do is not be so obsessed with WWE, and worry about TNA. TNA is the program with the shit ratings, HORRIBLE house shows and PPVs draws, and half their stars are angry about something. Worry about them, TNA needs you. WWE doesn't.

 

[NSL]

What I'd like to know is this. Is purchasing PPV's simply a learned (and expected) habit out of WWE? In other words, is purchasing WWE PPV's simply a behavior done out of habit by WWE fans:

"Well, it's PPV time, and I always get the WWE PPV's. So I have to order it. Now where is that $50?"

I know people like this, and there has to be more. I've said for a while that people refuse to watch TNA because it's not a McMahon run product, and have heard people say "But I only watch WWE stuff" when I ask them to watch Impact. A majority of them aren't even happy with the product, they're just waiting for it to get better. A lot of them actively hate it.

A few people may question they're cable companies about the extra money, but when they're told it was the WWE, not them, they'll just shrug it off, and everything will remain status quo.

 

[wolvdog316]

I'm sorry but that's bullshit night. Fans will flock to the better wrestling product, the one they can relate too the most. How did WCW succeed? They stole A LOT of WWE fans. How did ECW succeed. They were pretty much doing what TNA is doing right now, without ANY big past stars. How did they do?

It's because, and I loved ECW to death, but it's because the avg wrestling fan doesn't want to watch spot fest after spot fest. 90% of fans aren't like us. They can't watch an hour long match with AJ Styles and Daniels. They can't watch a Shawn Michaels vs Benjamin wrestling match for half an hour. They like to see Orton vs Cena with all the buildup, the big spots mixed in, and the climax.

A great wrestling match IMO brings the fan UP then down, then UP then down. The rollercoaster affect. TNA seems to take ECW's approach and just keep going up and up and up and by the time the finish is there, it's lackluster because you need to be brought down before the big finish. Unless you got two guys who are incredible and can provide a match that just goes up and up ala Rock and Austin at WM7

Hogan had the rollercoaster effect and we know what he did. Sting had it, even Angle had it, or still has it rather.

Shawn and Taker from this year is an excellent point. Up, then down, UP, then down, then UP UP WHAM. They let you catch your breath and then boom they hit you. TNA really doesn't have that.

TNA just needs that HUGE star. WWE had it in Hogan, then Bret and Shawn, then Austin and Rock. WCW had it in Hogan, then Sting, then Goldberg. TNA needs that one in a million star that makes you, even for one second, suspend belief and become emerged in their product. AJ and Samoa sadly is not it. As much as I love AJ, he can't be it. People doesn't care about him.

 

[gd]

I don't think this is a huge deal. It's obviously a smart business decision by the WWE that'll increase their revenue and give us one less PPV when we already have too many. They may lose a few PPV buyers, but the extra 5 bucks will be more than enough to make up for it.

Personally, I don't buy PPVs, so this doesn't really affect me, aside from the fact that there is one less PPV a year, which is actually something that I like. I'm sure a lot of people aren't too thrilled with this, but if this is what makes you go crazy and refuse to continue watching the WWE, than you have a problem.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I'm sorry but that's bullshit night. Fans will flock to the better wrestling product, the one they can relate too the most. How did WCW succeed? They stole A LOT of WWE fans. How did ECW succeed. They were pretty much doing what TNA is doing right now, without ANY big past stars. How did they do?

I love how you call NSL's post "bullshit" when he flat-out told you that he KNOWS people who do that.

Why is it so surprising that people order by name recognition? I could do a survey of WWE fans, and I guarantee you that a rather large percentage of them still to this day have absolutely no idea that TNA even exists. So no, fans don't necessarily flock to the better wrestling product at all.

It is very much a combination of Brand Recognition, which every wrestling fan knows of WWE's existence ...

in addition to Brand Imaging. "Bigger is Better". And WWE has the "Wal-Mart" image of simply being the biggest group out there. And they are.

It's because, and I loved ECW to death, but it's because the avg wrestling fan doesn't want to watch spot fest after spot fest. 90% of fans aren't like us. They can't watch an hour long match with AJ Styles and Daniels. They can't watch a Shawn Michaels vs Benjamin wrestling match for half an hour. They like to see Orton vs Cena with all the buildup, the big spots mixed in, and the climax.

A great wrestling match IMO brings the fan UP then down, then UP then down. The rollercoaster affect. TNA seems to take ECW's approach and just keep going up and up and up and by the time the finish is there, it's lackluster because you need to be brought down before the big finish. Unless you got two guys who are incredible and can provide a match that just goes up and up ala Rock and Austin at WM7

Hogan had the rollercoaster effect and we know what he did. Sting had it, even Angle had it, or still has it rather.

Shawn and Taker from this year is an excellent point. Up, then down, UP, then down, then UP UP WHAM. They let you catch your breath and then boom they hit you. TNA really doesn't have that.

TNA just needs that HUGE star. WWE had it in Hogan, then Bret and Shawn, then Austin and Rock. WCW had it in Hogan, then Sting, then Goldberg. TNA needs that one in a million star that makes you, even for one second, suspend belief and become emerged in their product. AJ and Samoa sadly is not it. As much as I love AJ, he can't be it. People doesn't care about him.

LOL. The casual wrestling fan, I can guarantee you, doesn't even think that in-depth about what they want out of their matches. You are unbelievable ignorant to the concepts of Advertising, Marketing, and Brand Imaging and its role in the marketplace. I'd advise taking a few college courses in them to get a better understanding of their effects and the subliminal roles they play in day-to-day life.

 

[psykohurricane]

You got to take into account that TNA is also raising the price of their PPV's so for die-hard wrestling fans that use to buy most PPV from both company, that will be a lot of money to spend on wrestling.

The price hike as nothing to do with WWE cutting a PPV or anything else that Vince will tell you. The real reason for the Price hike is that Vince wants to kill TNA and have Bragging rights over Hulk Hogan. Hogan and Vince hated each other right now and this would be the ultimate revenge for Vince if he could beat Hogan and say that Hogan isn't a draw anymore. That's why the PPV price were hike up.

Has far as i'm concern, it doesn't bother me that much since i could always see them at the cineplex theatre for 15$ so if there one PPV that i want to see i just go there and save a lot of money.

 

[robbo316]

$5 doesn't sound like a lot. It's going to be $60 more a year, for whomever purchases all the rest of the monthly PPV's though ... which will likely make up for a good portion of that lost revenue."

It's actually $65, for 13 PPVs, which is really a spend of $25 more over the course of a year than it has been in the past, it's $1.92 a month which isn't very much, when you break it down.

And, yes, I used to be a salesman!!

 

[hatehabsforever]

Doesn't this whole argument fall squarely into the realm of the irrelevant?

Here's how I see it. Assume you are an avid WWE fan and rent all PPV's in any given year. The number of PPV's in 2010 will be 13, at an increase of $5 per event, totalling an extra $65 per year. But there's one fewer PPV than last year, which would have cost you another $45 by the above assumption. So you will actually only be paying $20 more over the entire year to see the entire PPV schedule if you so choose. Hardly much of a financial burden and if $20 over the whole year is problematic for you, chances are you're not renting a lot of PPV's in the first place, so you'd be unaffected anyway.

As I see it, people are confusing the issues. People throughout this thread have been complaining about a number of things which are irrelevant to the question at hand. If you are unhappy with the WWE product (storylines, superstars, divas, or whatever your beef is), that's one thing. Maybe you prefer TNA or MMA. Maybe you already feel that $40 is too high. Maybe you watch things online, or wait to rent videos at your local video stores, or wait and purchase them at WalMart later for less money. All plausible arguments if you feel these ways, but irrelevant to the topic at hand. Because if any of these are your opinions, which of course everyone is entitled to, you probably weren't buying PPV's at $40 a pop no more than you'd be willing to pay $45. It's not like you were content to purchase PPV's at $40 per show, but now that they're $45, you're all of a sudden going to stream them online; chances are you were doing it anyway.

Would I have a threshold price which I would draw the line at? Probably not, depending on how suddenly the price shot up. If all of a sudden the PPV's were, for example, $60, I would likely have to consider whether or not I want to pay that much. But let's face it, prices will continue to increase, and in 3-4 years time, they likely will cost $60, and most likely I will pay it.

If you enjoy the WWE (which I still do despite multiple issues we all have with it) you will likely continue to do what you have always done, and a small price hike will not play any role whatsoever in your purchasing tendencies. If you are disillusioned with it as many are, you're not going to buy it anyway. It's foolsh to think that the WWE will cut back the numbers of PPV's but not offset this loss with a modest price increase. Some people seem to think that Vince and the WWE owe us fans something, but they don't. They'll put the product out there and let the general public decide for themselves what they want to do.

If anything were to concern me more so than the numbers of PPV or their slight price hike, it would be the trend toward these theme oriented PPV's. Offering such PPV's as HIAC, where there are multiple matches of the same theme is problematic for me. The $5 difference is not an issue, but what is an issue is watching 2 or 3 HIAC matches in the one event. It cheapens the product and takes away the novelty of such matches which should only happen at most oncde per year, rather than three times in one night. And the tendency has been and will continue apparently to be toward these themed PPV's.

 

[Coco]

What the heck? I opened this thread expecting serious progress. You know, six shows a year maybe. That could have cut down on the feeling that 99% of what they're selling is watered-down gruel that has very little care put into it and give them a chance to build things up properly and get people to really emotionally invest in the few pay-per-views that are left. Really, what would be better: six shows that people care about and want to buy, or thirteen shows with about two or three shows tops that people really give a shit about?

Thirteen shows isn't progress at all. This isn't really going to do any favors in terms of getting more people to buy or care about the shows, and the $5 price hike almost makes me think they realize this. The same few people will buy all the monthly shows and that extra $5 per household will make up the difference for not selling that fourteenth meaningless pay-per-view every year. In fact, they cut out the expense of producing those extra three hours of original, live teleivion every year. So really, this may help the bottom line a little bit without making any extra fans buy shows and without putting any more effort into the product.

Typical Vince McMahon.

What's $5 when you're already paying 40?

Gotta love the "How much worse can it get?" effect.

This is how cults get people to give up all of their possessions over time.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

It's actually $65, for 13 PPVs, which is really a spend of $25 more over the course of a year than it has been in the past, it's $1.92 a month which isn't very much, when you break it down.

And, yes, I used to be a salesman!!

Well, the Wrestlemania price isn't being hiked, which was why I stated that it would be an additional $60 for the year, not $65. 12 PPV's multiplied by $5. WWE made clear that the Wrestlemania price was not going to increase.

Now, I am not sure how you are deriving "$25" over the course of a year. It's not an additional $25 if you purchase the remaining 12 PPV's. It's $60 more, which was why the figure was brought up to begin with. How you are deriving that it will be an additional $1.92 a month when it is clearly going to cost an additional $60 for the year (again, assuming all 12 PPV's are purchased) is beyond me.

So essentially, these fans will be paying for well over the price of another PPV that they aren't even going to see. It's a ripoff.

And as stated, if TNA is smart, they will absolutely nail WWE on this and play it up for all that it's worth.

 

[hatehabsforever]

LORDSIDIOUS, I think the $20 or $25 figures were derived from the assumption that someone purchases the entire slate of PPV's for the entire year, at least that was the assumption I made in my earlier post. In other words, if I purchased all 14 of the events from last year, I would likely do so again this year, and as such would pay the additional $45 to do so. So by paying $5 extra for the 13 events this year, an extra $65, but by saving $45 by not buying the PPV which has been eliminated but which I would have bought if it still existed, I will spend $20 extra all year.

2009: 14 events X $40 = $560.00

2010: 13 events x $45 = $585.00

So in 2010, I will only spend 585-560=$25 more.

Granted that's for 1 less PPV, but I thought we were pretty much all in agreement that the number of PPV's should go down. I would like to see another 1 or 2 be cut as well, which again would likely jack the price up even higher, but it would be a nominal difference for a better product.

With regards to TNA taking advantage of the situation, I highly doubt it. It is going to take a lot more than a nominal price hike to make TNA competitive with the WWE on a numbers perspective, with or without Hogan, Bischoff, and possibly Flair. I'm not going to debate WWE vs TNA in terms of superiority as this is an endless debate on this site. But from a numbers standpoint alone, TNA isn't a blip on the radar of WWE. Look at attendance figures, PPV sales, TV ratings, etc., and it's not remotely close. Even for those of you who prefer TNA over WWE, you cannot really argue this fact. I highly doubt a $25 price hike extrapolated out over the year is going to entice anyone to choose TNA over WWE. Some people will make this choice simply because they prefer TNA over WWE (not me), but the financial side of it will make no difference whatsoever. Not to mention the fact that I wouldn't be surprised to see TNA increase prices too as I doubt obtaining Hogan came cheap and someone will have to pay for it.

 

[OIL]

Well, I'm not sure if the UK prices are going to increase, but it's not exactly clever increasing the prices. I'm sure the WWE are playing off the fact that a lot of young kids will beg their parents to buy the PPV, and the parents almost always give in.

It's good that they're reducing the number of PPV's though. There are way to many, and it should be one a month or less so they can properly build up the fueds.

 

[MrCharisma]

I usually order the Rumble and Wrestlemania each year and the rest I just catch an online stream. But now that I hear this I will not be ordering any more wwe programming but instead just watch the streams or live play by play. The way wrestling is going I think the price going up in a slap in my face. Look at all those ppv's with kane vs khali, people were paying for those and now those same people have to pay more? lol wwe is crying out for money I guess. As much as I don't like tna I think I'll start watching their shows. As for ordering anything these days, just not worth it.