WWE Buyrates: The Discussion

[sek69]

Another PPV buyrate report came out from WWE, showing a continuing downward trend. It's pretty much at the point now where only the Big 4 shows get any kind of significant buyrate, and that's more for the name than anything else. I think WWE is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs with scheduling too many PPVs in a year period. There was that stretch where there were like 3 PPVs in a month's period leading up to December to Dismember which would pretty much guarantee a shitty buyrate even if it wasn't the worst show of the year just due to the audience being totally burned out and/or not being able to afford 3 PPVs in a row.

 

I've always believed the monthy PPV system does more harm than good, especially in the post Monday Night Wars era. There's no chance of any serious long term booking because you always have a show to shill within 30 days (or less). Adding a third brand with its own PPVs (or matches on other brands' PPVs) are only making matters worse.

 

UFC is only making the problem more apparent. Given the choice, a lot of bars and restaurants are showing UFC PPVs and only showing the main WWE PPVs if that. WWE really needs to move to a schedule where they go to maybe 6 shows a year to allow for an actual build.

[Loss]

I'm sure at least some people in WWE realize they have too many pay-per-views, but once a promotion has gone in that direction, it's basically impossible to go backwards. Those other 8 or more PPVs throughout the year aren't doing mind-blowing numbers, but if you add all the numbers they do together annually, expecting WWE to sacrifice that many PPV buys isn't realistic, especially when they're a publicly traded company and have to constantly find ways to fenagle numbers to show growth versus the previous year. The best thing WWE could do is come up with more gimmick/concept pay-per-views like the Royal Rumble and Survivor Series so there are more novelty shows that people feel like are special and that they have to see.

[kjh]

Loss is right, the maths doesn't add up. If they reduced the number of PPVs from 16 to 6, they couldn't hope to recover all the lost revenue through increased buys from the remaining 6 PPVs. In 2006 WWE sold roughly 5,744,000 PPVs according to their corporate website or an average of 359,000 PPVs per event. With only 6 events, they would need to sell 957,333 PPVs per event, which is WrestleMania level numbers.

 

I can see the argument to reduce the number of PPVs back down to 12 and getting rid of brand only PPVs, but cutting back any more that that is not economically feasible.

[sek69]

There's argument that by cutting back on the PPVs (and looking back, 6 is too low a number) they might end up getting more buys just from being able to build stronger shows and having an audience that isn't quite so burnt out.

 

Also, if they're going to keep 16 PPVs a year, they really need to lower the price on the lesser shows. expecting people to fork over $40 a month and $50 for Wrestlemania is just insane when the only show that's guaranteed to be a justifiable purchase is WM.

[Loss]

I definitely agree that there will come a time when they will have to scale back on PPVs, but that won't happen until they dip below 100,000 buys per show on a regular basis, and they're a long, long way from that ever happening. I'm sure they'd be doing handstands if they could get 5.7 million buys out of 12 pay-per-views, but that's pretty unlikely. Even in 1999-2000, they probably could not have done that.

[smkelly]

The saying "the more the merrier" is not the way to go in wrestling. The fan base gets burnt out on the product they are presenting. All of us combined, with our well known creative genious couldn't even drag out a 12 month PPV schedule with great buyrates and upward profits. It's impossible.

 

Puroresu in the 1990's was an ideal system of "big shows".

 

This was 1999's schedule:

 

New Year Giant Series 1/2 - 1/22

Excite Series 2/20 - 3/6

Champion Carnival 3/26 - 4/16

Super Power Series 5/22 - 6/11

Summer Action Series 7/4 - 7/23

Summer Action Series II 8/21 - 9/4

Real World Tag League 11/13 - 12/3

 

That would be a fairly decent schedule, better for the fan base, less over-exposure for their product, and easier for the performers.

[kjh]

Sek, I really don't think price is a problem. They recently increased the price of PPVs by $5 in America and any drop in business (which was probably due to weaker line ups compared with last year) was more than offset by the increased price tag. Their core audience is willing to pay that price, so the problem is getting the people who rarely buy PPVs nowadays to buy more.

 

Loss, I'd argue that in 1999 and 2000 they would have easily topped 5.7 million buys if they were able to sell PPVs all over the world like they do now in those years. Almost 40% of those 5.7 million buys came from outside North America.

 

I can't see the argument that 12 PPVs are too many. Doing monthly PPVs has been highly profitable for WWE ever since September 1997 when they extended their In Your House PPVs to 3 hours and upped their price tags. And that was at a time when their B shows weren't drawing well and WCW was also producing 12 PPVs shows a year, not to mention ECW doing quarterly PPVs as well.

[sek69]

The more PPVs there are, regardless of how much money is made, dilutes the product. I don't think anyone can argue that. The shorter amout of time there are between shows, the less build you can do for each one, until they all seem like episodes of RAW or SmackDown that you have to pay $40 to see. It's pretty much an accounting trick, keep raising the price of the shows while the amount of buys drop so it appears as if the level stayed the same. It's becoming like the TV ratings where only the hardcores are left. WWE has gone from the undisputed #1 of PPV to a distant third. MMA is just smoking them silly to the point where you can barely find any bar or restuarant showing WWE PPV anymore. I thought it was a mistake when they raised the price of the lesser shows to be the same price as the Big 4 (well, WM has always been more), they probably lost a lot of people who were on the fence with that. Especially when you consider 3/4ths of WWE PPVs are not worth the price charged. Sure the hardcores are always going to buy, but you can't run forever on just the core audience.

 

In fact, HBO is doing with boxing PPVs what I suggested WWE should do. They're going to focus on fewer fights so they can be properly promoted and theoretically draw more buys. Time will tell if it pays off for them, but at the very least the people buying boxing PPVs are going to be seeing well promoted fights that will be worth the money paid for them.

 

What's going to be annoying is that WM is probably going to generate a ridiculous number due to the Trump stuff being covered by the media, which will just send the message to WWE that the way they do PPV business is just fine.

[Guest TheShawshankRudotion]

Using the UFC as an example of less PPV's is a bit silly considering they are on the monthly model, as well as increasing shows at a large rate.

 

Where the UFC should be used is as an example of diversifying and expanding star power. The UFC has been using (what I will call) "A-Level" or "A-List" fighters and fights to promote their shows. Tito Ortiz vs. Chuck Liddell is an A+ fight. All the UFC needs is one A+ level fight to draw. After that, they need two A level fights to draw. And example of that would be Griffin/Bonnar II and Liddell/Babalu II.

 

Right now, the UFC is building FOUR shows. The Uprising show next week (March), The Shootout in early April, the UK show in late April, as well as an Ultimate Fight Night in April as well.

 

The Uprising has Randy Couture, Matt Hughes, Rich Franklin on the card. These guys are A-list stars who are each capable of drawing nearly 400,000+ buys. To a lesser extent, there is Tim Sylvia. There are no A+ level fights, but Randy vs. Tim is an A level fight, and Hughes and Franklins fights combine for the A level. And Two A level fights is enough to do it, so they don't need to give any more.

 

The Shootout has Georges St Pierre as the A-level star. Diego Sanchez is nearing A-level status, but hasn't been put in a position to draw on PPV nor has been given a career defining win like GSP had over Hughes. Koscheck and Serra are low B-level stars, both having a fair amount of tv time put on them during their TUF time. However, the Sanchez/Koscheck bout becomes a near A-level fight due to the nature of the bout and those involved, and Serra/GSP is a near A-level fight, so there you have two A-levelish fights. They may need something more for this show, which they have in an awesome undercard.

 

The UK show has Arlovski, Cro Cop, Griffin, and Bisping as its stars. These are are B+ level fighters, with Cro Cop and Bisping on the verge of A list. Griffin is an A list, but is coming off a loss. In the end, these four guys should be enough.

 

All in all, you have 11 guys being used, some in combination with each other, to draw 3 PPV events. All of whom are at, or border, A level status.

 

Where the WWE falters is not investing-or having enough confidence-in their wrestlers to create this many stars, and to draw shows on the strength on just one or two matches. They go on a PPV by PPV basis, even as they have 2 separate shows to work from. The only time that they have any kind of foresight is from Jan-to-March which is because of WM, and even then they don't come close to the development of shows and stars as the UFC does.

 

The WWE is using (what I will call) a "Hulk Hogan Model". Where they have a strong champ and continue to feed him opponents and draw as a result. The UFC, on other hand, has 5 Hulk Hogans, even if they are not at Hogan levels of popularity, and base everything around them. These are, of course, their champions. If the WWE were run like the UFC, you would have the Tag Champs headline one PPV, the IC champ headline another, the World champ headline one, the US champ headline another, etc. And, also, these WWE shows would also have contenders fighting each other as a marquee match. To a former WWE fan, this sounds ridiculous and nothing but a pipe dream, but the UFC is doing it, which is probably why I'm a former WWE fan at the moment.

 

If the UFC were run like the WWE, they'd be having GSP vs. Serra, Diego vs. Kos, Cro Cop vs. Gonzaga, Werdum vs. Arlovski, Bisping vs. Sinosic, Forrest vs. LYOTO, Hughes vs. Lytle, Franklin vs. MacDonald, all on one card, with Couture vs. Sylvia on top. The WWE feels confined by the monthly PPV model, when all they have to do is think outside it to be free of it. Guys don't have to have a match with each other at the end of the month, but with the way the WWE is structured, that's how it goes. The WWE could get away with big monthly PPVs if they just changed the way they went about selling and building them, and that goes back to what they need to do with their television..

[sek69]

There's also the fact that due to the nature of UFC it's not going to be the same guys every month on PPV the way WWE tends to be sometime. You're only going to see the top UFC guys a couple times a year so that alone is going to make any PPV they are on a special event. WWE doesn't have the time to build A level stars (unless they fall into a hot angle/gimmick) due to having a show to shill every month with the same guys on top. That's what burns people out since you tend to not care when you've seen the same match 3 PPVs in a row.

[Guest TheShawshankRudotion]

The WWE doesn't have time? Of course they have time. There's no reason why they can't run concurrent big-time angles that transcend monthly PPVs.

[sek69]

The WWE doesn't have time? Of course they have time. There's no reason why they can't run concurrent big-time angles that transcend monthly PPVs.

 

 

It's really difficult to have an effective build for a PPV with 7 or so matches every 30 days. I mean, it's theoretically possible, but WWE has a mindset where the creative staff only focuses on the main eventers which creates a recurring loop where no new stars get created.

[Loss]

If you look at PPV build prior to the MNW era, they usually shot one big angle in the weeks or months preceding the show and then just did promos to hype the match after that. I think WWE is hurt by the mindset that they have to advance every feud on every show through some type of confrontation, physical or non-physical.

[Guest TheShawshankRudotion]

Yeah, I agree with that. It's rare that they (or TNA, for that matter) ever let anything "sit" for a while. Like one partner turns on another, next week that other partner is getting revenge and they then focus on "two former partners who hate each other" and keep pushing away from the impetus rather than focusing on the betrayal itself and giving that weight. So what you get is a company full of feuds that are basically the same - two guys that don't like each other - and there is little differentiation in the motivation... they don't like each other because they have to not like each other.

[Guest KingPK]

I can't see the argument that 12 PPVs are too many. Doing monthly PPVs has been highly profitable for WWE ever since September 1997 when they extended their In Your House PPVs to 3 hours and upped their price tags. And that was at a time when their B shows weren't drawing well and WCW was also producing 12 PPVs shows a year, not to mention ECW doing quarterly PPVs as well.

 

I would still cut it down by one or two shows a year. No Way Out is a useless show as WWE could just have a two-hour SNME and hype the hell out of WrestleMania and probably get a better return.

[Loss]

Let's say, just as a hypothetical, that No Way Out does 250,000 buys. Will eliminating it generate at least 250,000 extra buys for WM? If not, it's a hard sell.

[sek69]

Let's say, just as a hypothetical, that No Way Out does 250,000 buys. Will eliminating it generate at least 250,000 extra buys for WM? If not, it's a hard sell.

 

 

Having more time to build a show gives them the chance to make each show better. How many people out there are on the fence or would buy PPVs if they weren't running the same matches every month? Like the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.

[kjh]

How many people out there are on the fence or would buy PPVs if they weren't running the same matches every month?

This is a big red herring, as during the last boom period they were just as bad, if not worse, at running the same match on PPV and TV for months on end, but PPV business was still great. Just look at the amount of times they did Austin vs Undertaker and Rock vs Triple H on PPV and TV during that period, for example.

[Loss]

I think the key difference there was that they were good at making every match feel different. Rock/Mankind headlined four consecutive pay-per-views, but didn't really run out of steam because each match had different things at stake and different booking.