Friday Night Delight #1: It’s Time to Change the Pay-Per-View Approach

[Stinger]

With Strong Competition, It’s Time to Change the Pay-Per-View Approach
Five simple ways for WWE to be competitive in the PPV market
By: Gary Smith – October 2, 2009

Vince McMahon has always prided himself on being a pioneer of the pay-per-view industry, and for a long time it was a strong part of WWE’s business. That is no longer the case, as WWE’s pay-per-view buyrates to continue to slip.

Of course there are a number of factors for the decrease in buyrates, including the recession coupled with the high price of WWE events and the frequency of them. But perhaps the biggest reason is the rise of mixed martial arts in the United States, specifically UFC… and even boxing to a lesser degree (Mayweather vs. Marquez reportedly garnered over a million buys according to HBO).

It appears WWE is fully aware of the competitiveness in the market now, and they have altered their gameplan in attempt to create more interest in their pay-per-view events. The only problem with this is, what they’re doing isn’t helping and is instead only watering down special matches.

Themed pay-per-views are all the rage in WWE these days; No Way Out (Elimination Chamber), Extreme Rules (Various gimmick/hardcore matches), Night of Champions (championship matches only), Breaking Point (submission matches), Hell In A Cell (Hell in a Cell), Bragging Rights (the revamped Cyber Sunday featuring inter-brand matches), and TLC (Tables, Ladders, and Chairs).

That’s laziness. To make matters worse, WWE wants to run all these gimmick matches, such as three Hell in a Cell matches, in one night… with no blood. It’s a PG world now, wrestlers can’t bleed. While blood should never be overused, it can definitely add to the story and feel of a match, and especially make certain matches seem more special and more dangerous.

Watering down match types that have previously been billed as special and/or dangerous is not going to improve buyrates for WWE, or any other wrestling promotion.

UFC holds an event every month, sometimes two, some much better than others. There’s boxing events, other MMA events, other sporting events, and there’s other wrestling events… WWE is competing in a very crowded market on a monthly basis. Their biggest competition is not TNA Wrestling (which does horrible buyrates), but rather UFC. WWE needs to address this in a serious manner to remain competitive, instead of shrugging their shoulders and counting on DVD sales. Watering down match types and repeating the same matches isn’t helping the company in any way.

What WWE needs to do is completely alter their business model when it comes to pay-per-views. So here’s my five steps WWE can utilize to boost their pay-per-view business.

NOTE: These steps are meant to be a guide per se, but rather five key changes that could be implemented individually (i.e. step two and step three specifically could replace the other one).

Step 1: Pay-Per-View Elimination

This is actually something WWE has done this year, cut back on the number of PPV events. That’s always going to be a smart decision, and there definitely remains room for improvement here.

When 2009 ends, WWE will have had 14 pay-per-view events. If WWE fans were to order every single event, they would spend $569.86 in one year. That’s insane. So the first thing we do is get rid of some more pay-per-view events. Fourteen is way too many, 12 should be the absolute maximum, and even then I’d argue that is a tad too many.

First off, we eliminate Extreme Rules. You don’t need two PPV’s in the month of June, so goodbye Extreme Rules. Likewise, you don’t need two PPV’s in the month of October, so goodbye Bragging Rights/Cyber Sunday or whatever you plan on calling it next year. Axe ‘em both and we’re down to 12… that’s one a month. That’s still too many, so there’s one more we need to axe.

WrestleMania is WWE’s biggest event, it’s the most special event of the year and as such, it carries the highest price and runs an additional hour. The Royal Rumble is another signature event that begins the “Road to WrestleMania”, it sets WrestleMania into motion. Within two weeks of Royal Rumble’s conclusion, every match needs to be finalized for WrestleMania, giving WWE many weeks to properly build each match. You don’t need No Way Out getting in the way. WrestleMania should always be the last week of March, there should be no event in February.

That’s seven/eight weeks of solid build with a finalized card receiving proper build, and more than enough time for wrestling fans to know exactly what they’re going to get while affording them more than enough time to make a decision to order the event/earn the money for the event. Just get rid of it, run 11 events a year and spend the entire months of February and March building to the biggest event of the year.

Step 2: Brand Only, Not Themed, Events

WWE’s recent approach has been to go in the direction of themed pay-per-views, with the main events being some sort of gimmick match (such as this Sunday’s Hell In A Cell event). A better solution would be a return to a previous approach, brand only PPV’s.

I know someone is thinking that would be a stupid thing to do, because it didn’t deliver great buyrates the last time they tried it. Well, this step really works best when coupled with step four, which you’ll read about in a bit.

I love Friday Night Smackdown; it’s the best wrestling on TV today. The brand features great direction, great wrestling and a great entertainment. I would be more likely to order a Smackdown only PPV, than I would a co-branded event like Hell In A Cell. RAW on the other hand isn’t my cup of tea anymore, the show just isn’t clicking anymore and I’ve been finding myself tuning out more and more. I simply don’t care for the RAW brand matches so much these days. As such, I wouldn’t order a RAW only PPV, so long as the brand stays in its current slump.

But there’s the beauty of it. RAW has its fans, and they would order the events (especially when coupled with step four). I and others would order the Smackdown events. ECW doesn’t warrant having its own event, but they could be given one match on each brand only event, which is pretty much what they get anyway.

With brand only events, each brand would have more time to develop their feuds and matches for the next event they’ll be featured on. Everything is better when it isn’t rushed and is instead given time to build. This in turn creates more interest, which theoretically should lead to more buys. Besides, with co-branded events, there are far too many title matches, which leads us to step three.

Step 3: The Mixed Martial Arts Approach

This step is my preference above any other; although it should be used in conjunction with steps one, four and five (it isn’t really compatible with step two so much).

I know UFC is a different beast compared to the world wrestling, but WWE could learn a thing or two from them. You don’t see the same guys fighting on each MMA card, and for good reason. You don’t see Brock Lesnar defending his UFC Heavyweight Championship every month, so it’s important when he does defend it. Wrestling could borrow from this.

It would be stupid to suggest that the WWE Championship be defended once every three or four months, or the WWE Champion to even wrestle on a PPV once every three or four months. But there is most definitely room for the MMA approach to be implemented in such a manner as to increase buyrates. One of the major problems WWE has right now with their PPV’s is that they are so close together and usually feature the same matches (with difference stipulations) for at least three months. It’s stale, no surprise that buyrates fall because of it.

Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, Night of Champions and Summer Slam are the only four events that should see both the WWE and World Championship defended. Any other time one of these titles is defended on PPV, the other one should not be. You can run PPV’s with neither title on the line and with neither champion wrestling. There’s no reason in the world that John Morrison and Dolph Ziggler for example can’t headline a PPV in an Intercontinental Championship match. The main event doesn’t even need to feature a title on the line; it can be as simple as a number one contender’s match whose title match won’t take place the next month, but rather the month after.

With this style, you’re building multiple pay-per-views at the same time and the fans are getting something different instead of rehashes of what they just saw three weeks ago. Some of the bigger wrestling names might not like the concept, it would be cutting into their PPV bonuses after all, but so what? Make the matches on pay-per-view mean something, and spread the wrestlers out so they aren’t wrestling on every event. Build PPV matches for two or three events at time, this way everything is getting proper time to develop and each match is treated as being a big deal.

It works for UFC, whose popularity is growing by leaps and bounds and whose buyrates are growing alongside it and it would easily work for WWE if done even half-way correctly.

Step 4: In Your House, Cheap Lesser Events

Back in early 1995, WWE began running a PPV every month because that’s what WCW was starting to do. In May ’95, WWE debuted a new series of pay-per-views called “In Your House”. They had Royal Rumble in January, WrestleMania in March or April, King of the Ring in June, Summer Slam in August and Survivor Series in November. These were seen as the “big” or “important” pay-per-views; they ran for three hours and carried a price tag of $29.95. In Your House ran during the other months, and were two hour events with a cheap $19.95 price.

In Your House was lesser PPV’s, an hour shorter and cheaper than the important ones. This concept should definitely be brought back. This step would actually work perfectly in conjunction with either step two or step three. You give the fans a two hour event and you run it for $19.95, although WWE would probably opt for $29.95 which is really too much. WWE could release the event on DVD with three or four bonus matches and sell it for $19.95 as well. This would immediately be well received by the fans, who instead of being given the choice of four or five different PPV events a month with a $40 price tag (or more), they’ll have an affordable choice. They may not be getting John Cena or DX every time, but they’re getting something different and they’re getting it for much cheaper than the “big” events and other competition within the market (outside of Dragon Gate, which I don’t consider them to be competing with WWE for buyrates).

Going with step one, WWE is running 11 events a year, with five of those being “big” events and one being “mega big”. The price of those five put together comes to $209.75 if you order all of them. There’s still six events left. If you order the five big ones, plus each of the “lesser” events at $19.95 each, your total spent on WWE pay-per-views for one year would be $329.45. That’s still a lot of money, but it’s a lot more attractive to consumers than the $569.86 mentioned in step one (how much you would be paying currently.

Ideally, I’d lower the price of the four big ones down to $29.95, but that’s probably asking too much of WWE. As is though, that would be a savings of $240.41 if you bought every event in the year. A savings of that much is very attractive in a competitive market, especially if you’re giving the fans quality shows and enticing them to order. It’s just good business, especially at a time when people are already hard press to justify spending the money each month on overpriced events.

Step 5: Special Matches, Triple Threats, Etc.

Special matches, or gimmick matches, should be used sparingly on pay-per-views. The main goal should be to make these matches stand out and mean something, to the point where they come off as a rare and special thing when they do happen. This provides incentive for the viewer to order the event featuring one of these matches, as they know that is a big deal. You should never run multiple gimmick matches, especially of the same kind, on the same PPV, as it only waters down the concept and makes it mean less.

Hell In A Cell should happen once a year and it should be made to be a huge deal when it does happen, and thus should receive months worth of build and tons of hype. Screw PG, such a match should also feature blood to further cement it as something out of the norm, special and much more dangerous.

The same goes for Tables, Ladders and Chairs matches, Steel Cage matches, Elimination Chambers, I Quit, Last Man Standing and any other gimmick/stipulation match you can name. They should be rare matches that absolutely mean something when they do happen, and they should always be the focus of the event they happen at it. You don’t want to run gimmick matches on the same event, or even on the event afterwards, space these matches out and create proper build for them. These types of matches should end feuds, not progress them to next gimmick match.

By the same token, Triple Threat Matches absolutely need to cease being normal occurrences, especially on pay-per-views. Events today feature way too many multi-man matches. Unless it’s a tag team match, keep it one on one, and save these three-ways, four-ways or six pack challenges for “big deals” and not an easy way to cram more people on the show.

Keep it simple, and make all these match types mean something and come off as being a big deal. Don’t just say “we need to get this guy on the card, let’s put him in this match with and make it a three way” or “we can add to this match by making it a Last Man Standing match”. That’s the easy way out, and its lazy booking/planning and does nothing to entice viewers to shell out their money to order the events.


If WWE were to utilize one or more of these steps, they would more than likely see an uptick in their buyrates, although a lot would have to do with the quality of the writing and booking. Bottom line though is that the pay-per-view market is extremely crowded and competitive right now, and WWE should be looking at ways to change their approach to the game and find ways to beat their competition. Otherwise, they’re going to continue to see a decline in their buyrates.

====== Friday Night Delight ======
October 2, 2009
1-1

[Super Chrisss]

Hey man,

I've seen you in the forums before, so it was a nice change of pace to see you posting a column. I also expected something solid for your "debut" (if I can call it that) but this was amazing.

The content was great; you took an "old" topic and made it new, with different views and scenarios. Not easily done.

The headings were nice, and everything flowed, from start to finish.

So a very nice read overall and thank YOU for posting this. Props bro!

EDIT: No wonder you seemed familiar! Welcome back, Stinger!

[Lazyking]

With super C here the good thing about your debut here was it flowed nicely and I was never bored. good job.

[Roger Murtaugh]

It's hardly his debut, been here for quite some time now under various names.

We seem to have very similar thoughts on this issue, so you won't get any complaints from me. Nice to see you trying something different, but you should at least don the makeup one last time.



----------------
Now playing: Stone Temple Pilots - Dead And Bloated
via FoxyTunes

[Box Car Rocco]

Welcome to the CF man. This was pretty darn good for a debut; it flowed good and I didn't notice many grammar errors. The topic you brought up was good, but I disagree strongly with your points. With the way that the fans were brought up in The Monday Night Wars, they kind of have come to expect that they are getting PPV's frequently and it would be hard to change that. You did however get your points across well so that was good.

Read you next Friday.

Edit: oh shit, it's Stinger. Disregard the welcome and the debut bit. Good to have you back.

[MissouriDragon]

Cracks me up that people don't realize who this is.

I agree with lowering the number of PPVs, but I wouldn't cut the price of them, certainly not the big ones. You tabulated the savings to the consumer, multiply that by about a 150,000 buyrate average, multiply that by 11 and you've got the lost revenue to the company.

Well written as always sir, and it would probably get you at least a 90% in a corporate financial planning class, provided you attached the necessary calculations of course.

[Stinger]

Super Chrisss - Thank you kindly.

Lazyking - Not a debut, but thanks anyway. Glad that it never bored you.

Monkster -That's a possibility, for sure. I meant to give that column series/gimmick up after #100, but didn't quite make it there. I'll probably do it one more time though.

Box Car Rocco - Thanks, good to be back. They may be use to having them so frequently, but WWE used to be use to people buying them as well, nowadays fewer and fewer people do. I think one a month would be plenty for most fans, afterall the MNW era did only feature 12 (as opposed to 16 or 14).

MissouriDragon - I chuckle at it too, it's not like I had my previous columns/post deleted and name changed to Ghost or anything. Good points, but I'd argue they're losing revenue from PPV's anyway, simply because fewer people are buying them (not that they're given a reason too, but that's another column). Appreciate the read and the feedback, as always.

[LimeFlavored]

I enjoyed it, something I've been talking about as well. You got way more into the topic than I did, though.

Good job!

[Benjamin Button]

As far as I know I've never read any of your columns. I don't recognize your style. So what did I think of this?

I loved the general idea— make everything count! You gave solid ways to do that. WWE did “brand only" ppv's towards the beginning of the split, but they couldn't figure out a good way to occupy the RAW and Smackdown! time between the ppv's. I think the answer is simple, meaningful feuds and title matches. This column gave several examples of ways to do that.

Overall, very interesting! Nice to meet you, Mr. GLS! I ,too, mark out for step 3.

[The Maz]

Lads, lock up your CotM votes for October, we have a bona fide contender back in the fold. Ghost La Stinger I presume? Welcome back, it is great to see you after you disappeared back to the rafters whilst you were on such a hot streak.

I enjoyed this column and there were definitely some very interesting ideas. I think you maybe glossed over something when looking at buyrates. More and more people get really strong connections has to be playing a part in this. I am sure more and more people are going for streams and downloads instead. I actually think a combination of 2, 3 and to a certain extent 5 would be best. I was never a fan of the single brands last time around but I feel the rosters are a lot more stacked now. I would maybe give ECW 2 matches per card or even lump them together with Smackdown.

Anyway, good job and welcome back. Hope these will be coming every Friday as it could make for a great compliment to my Saturday morning cup of tea and cigarette.

[Vikodin]

Nice work Ghos - Sting - whatever your calling yourself this time... nice work.

I would have loved to have seen some discussion of the merits of a package deal. With magazine subscriptions, particularly here in the merry old land of Oz without the wizards magazine subscriptions normally work out to be 20%cheaper than buying all the magazines or 30% or something like that, and I'd love to see the WWE implement something like this. Have them offer all the PPV's in one package deal for say 20% cheaper at the start of the year.

[FutureDonkey]

"RAW on the other hand isn’t my cup of tea anymore, the show just isn’t clicking anymore and I’ve been finding myself tuning out more and more."

^Word, dude, word...even though that sentence was horribly constructed and exceptionally redundant.


Seriously though, dude, this was fucking sweet, man; you took a seemingly simple and boring topic and you made it real, fun, and, most importantly, logical.

I would absolutely love to see four of these steps utilized to a certain extent; Step 4 wasn't something I was really impressed with, as it is really the black sheep of your steps and, I think, would water down the meaningfulness of a PPV. You're dead on when it comes to gimmicks being used too frequently--one of the reasons I have no desire to order HiaC--but PPV's being used too frequently, especially when there are lower quality fueds, is just inneffective and lazy, just like overuse of gimmicks. I get what you were saying about the cost, and while the lower price is much more interesting, you have to look at the quality of the card to get me to by shit, and, if we've learned anything from monthly PPV's, it's that the WWE either doesn't give a shit about building properly in a short amount of time, or they're just incompetent.


Nevertheless, Stinger this was great column and you better stick around.

[FreekyDeeky]

This was a very well thought out column and you did a very good and refreshing job on a recurring topic around here. I've been on board with step two for a long time now but I loved the idea of three as it would stop the titles getting hot-shotted around like they are now.

Looking forward to the next one

[XanMan]

Nice ideas here, Stinger. I agree with almost all of them; the only thing I don't agree with is I think 11 is still too many.