WWE to have 2 Brand specific PPVs a month?!?

[TheMainEvent]

During an interview this weekend jerry Lawler mentioned that following the Brand Split that WWE will have a PPV/Network Special for both Smackdown and Raw each month and the two shows would share the "Big 4 - Summerslam, Survivor Series, Royal Rumble, and Wrestlemania"

Now this seems like complete overkill and not needed. With the brand split they can still have a single PPV event each month that is shared between the brands. Currently the rosters (even with NXT callups) arent strong enough to have their own glorified Raw or Smackdown episode events. I honestly can't see this working well.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[HBKperfect23]

This is what made the brand extension unwatchable for me. Too much. It was an over kill. This is the main reason I'm against the brand extension (this and two world titles).

Since the brand extension is happening, I'd like to see the two brands meet up for the Royal rumble, have inter-promotional matches at Wrestlemania, Summerslam, and Sruvivor Series with a RAW vs SD! Traditional match. Outside of these four ppvs, I'd like to see each brand get four other ppvs totalling 8 ppvs per brand including ppvs featuring both brands.

Some pay per views seem meaningless to begin with. I always felt the July ppv seemed forced. The October ppv seems unnecessary. Two post mania ppvs seem like a bit much as well.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Well, truth be told, if Raw and SmackDown are going to be two completely separate brands, apart from the original Big Four shows, then each brand will probably need its own ppv when you look at what we THINK we know so far. There's going to be entirely separate storylines involving wrestlers designated exclusively to each brand, so sharing every ppv event would mean that each brand would get, on average, maybe 3 to 4 matches each per show. If Raw and SmackDown only focused on a small handful of stuff each week that wound up on the ppv, then having two different ones probably would be overkill but then there wouldn't be much of a need for the brand split in the first place since the entire WWE roster would probably only need to be about 20 to 25 strong.

Another thing to consider is that we still don't definitively know whether or not each brand will get its own set of titles. Sure, we've all heard contrasting rumors over the past few weeks, of course, but we don't know what's what. If each brand is getting its own set of championships, then there's most definitely a need for each brand to have its own separate ppv.

 

[Azane]

I'm completely fine with it as long as the WWE Network is a thing, when it was 60$ a pop for multiple PPvs, it was ridiculous.

Keep the Big 4 Cross brand, let all the minors be back and forth between the brands so they get 2 ppv cycles to work in stories and actually develop something.

 

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Really? Really? This company screws everything up. This is going to get old very quickly, and ratings will plummet.

This is just overkill. That's what - 20 PPVs per year? That's not including Network specials. That's just too much.

 

[shafe_41]

As a business decision, it's smart. If the brands will truly be separate, they would need their own special events/PPVs. If they don't have their own events, what would be the point of having undercards? They wouldn't be featured on these events at all. So it really helps on getting those talents noticed and those talents getting chances. Different talents, different stories, different creative teams, etc... will warrant needing their own events. It adds more value to the Network. I'd gladly watch more than one PPV per month with my subscription. It also lets WWE have another PPV gate per month with higher ticket prices and draw a few more bigger gates per year. It's smart on their end.

My only question is MitB as a PPV. What brand would that be exclusive to? Or do you rename the PPV and stagger the MitB matches maybe six months apart to sort of rotate the briefcases? Or do you trash the event as a PPV all together and have two MitB matches at Mania? I would have a hard time believe they would trash the PPV all together seeing as it's actually more entertaining the last five years than any Survivor Series in recent memory.

I won't mind it. Gives me something to do on a Sunday night.

 

[Aquaman6686]

WWE absolutely NEEDS to have brand-exclusive Pay-Per-View events. With the WWE Network, even having two a month isn't a big deal, since they're included for free. The only PPVs that should be interpromotional are WrestleMania, SummerSlam, Royal Rumble, Survivor Series, and Night of Champions. Making the "regular" PPVs featuring both rosters again is what killed the Brand Extension the first time. This needs to be a hard split, not a soft one.

 

[SoulTrain4]

Its done to get them ticket revenues and keep up the network subscriptions. Very good business move. Complainers will watch anyway and those who don't they still won't care.

The PPVs are a draw for the network, the main draw so it makes sense to have more of them.

Now what would be overkill is two world champions. I do NOT want that. Let the world champion travel.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I'm fine with having brand exclusive PPV's again, that isn't the problem. Having two events per month is. That's overkill. There's 12 months in the year. The simple solution would be to have one PPV event per month where the 6 biggest ones are dual-branded. Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Money In The Bank, Summerslam, Night of Champions, and Survivor Series. Then have 3 Smackdown exclusive shows and 3 Raw exclusive shows. Two shows in one month, whether brand exclusive or not, is just too much. I'll give it a try if that is the route they do take, however it doesn't seem like that great of an idea.

 

[faltemer]

My only question is MitB as a PPV. What brand would that be exclusive to? Or do you rename the PPV and stagger the MitB matches maybe six months apart to sort of rotate the briefcases? Or do you trash the event as a PPV all together and have two MitB matches at Mania?

They could always make MITB and maybe 1 more PPV cross brand as well. My hope though is they have one MITB match at mania each year. 4 Raw 4 Smackdown. The winner outside of drafts and rumble is the only person who can choose to swap shows at any time. Adds a bit of extra interest to the briefcase and makes it more complex who they are cashing in on.

As for the orginal question I dont think they should do 8 months of 2 PPVs (With the big four not having any others directly around them). Im not opposed to having more then 12 total PPVs, but 20 would be too much. I would space it out so there is the big 4 then either: A, 12 single promotion events or B, 4 more cross promo events and 8 single promo events. I prefer B as there are things like MITB, extreme rules, elimination chamber, and one more that should be cross promotion.

 

[L@RISANO]

As a business decision, it's smart. If the brands will truly be separate, they would need their own special events/PPVs. If they don't have their own events, what would be the point of having undercards? They wouldn't be featured on these events at all. So it really helps on getting those talents noticed and those talents getting chances. Different talents, different stories, different creative teams, etc... will warrant needing their own events. It adds more value to the Network. I'd gladly watch more than one PPV per month with my subscription. It also lets WWE have another PPV gate per month with higher ticket prices and draw a few more bigger gates per year. It's smart on their end.

My only question is MitB as a PPV. What brand would that be exclusive to? Or do you rename the PPV and stagger the MitB matches maybe six months apart to sort of rotate the briefcases? Or do you trash the event as a PPV all together and have two MitB matches at Mania? I would have a hard time believe they would trash the PPV all together seeing as it's actually more entertaining the last five years than any Survivor Series in recent memory.

I won't mind it. Gives me something to do on a Sunday night.

I'd think that MitB would be a dual-brand PPV with One Briefcase holder, rather than having two different briefcases, as that would create intrigue with both Brand Champions having to look over their shoulder for the guy with the briefcase.


I know ppl want One world title, etc... but I think if the brands are truly going to be stand-alone types, then there is a need for 2 World Champions. Hopefully WWE with the move to LIVE SmackDown will actually try to make both brands 'equal' and genuinely try to create some sort of in-house competitions between the respective brands.

 

[HBK-aholic]

So, WWE want us to have a 4 hour PPV on a Sunday, a 3+ hour Raw on a Monday, and THEN a 2+ hour Smackdown on Tuesday, every other week? Your product can be the most amazing thing in the world, most people do not want that much live WWE in 3 days. Ignoring the fact most of us have already complained that WWE already doesn't have enough good writing to give us an acceptable set of shows without adding an extra 3/4 hours a month.

Separate PPVs is fine, but keep the current schedule, alternating months around the Big 4.

 

[Messiah]

This must be a joke.. Nobody is going to watch 2 PPV's every month.. WWE has already overexposed the product, this will make it almost unwatchable.

 

[A11oftheLights]

I'm fine with having brand exclusive PPV's again, that isn't the problem. Having two events per month is. That's overkill. There's 12 months in the year. The simple solution would be to have one PPV event per month where the 6 biggest ones are dual-branded. Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Money In The Bank, Summerslam, Night of Champions, and Survivor Series. Then have 3 Smackdown exclusive shows and 3 Raw exclusive shows. Two shows in one month, whether brand exclusive or not, is just too much. I'll give it a try if that is the route they do take, however it doesn't seem like that great of an idea.

This. The only reason that makes this decision seem wise is that they are trying to maximise ticket revenue (and maybe interest in each weekly episode, because people may be more likely to skip if its 8 weeks to a PPV). It could also be able to try and capitalise on the interest on what happens immediately following the split. Wouldnt be suprised if they tone it back next year, although they could end the brand split pretty quickly.

Side note: Do contracts still have ppv bonuses in them now that the network is a thing? Cant imagine reducing the number of chances of a PPV bonus would make the locker room pleased

 

[lil steroid meat]

I'm fine with having brand exclusive PPV's again, that isn't the problem. Having two events per month is. That's overkill. There's 12 months in the year. The simple solution would be to have one PPV event per month where the 6 biggest ones are dual-branded. Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Money In The Bank, Summerslam, Night of Champions, and Survivor Series. Then have 3 Smackdown exclusive shows and 3 Raw exclusive shows. Two shows in one month, whether brand exclusive or not, is just too much. I'll give it a try if that is the route they do take, however it doesn't seem like that great of an idea.

Yeah I like the idea of turning the Big 4 into the Big 6.

Royal Rumble
Wrestlemania
Money In The Bank
SummerSlam
Night of Champions
Survivor Series

And then just having Smackdown and RAW alternate in those in-between months.

 

[@smarkmouth]

What interview is the OP referring to? I'd like to know. I think it's also worth noting that Jerry Lawler hasn't been reported as part of the inside track for awhile. Seems like he works exclusively as commentator and clocks out. If this interview was part of a WWE media junket, then this might hold water. But if it was an off the cuff remark at a ComicCon panel then let's think twice.

I'm okay with twin monthly specials, because as is, I don't watch as much WWE lately. The Network has become their bottom line, and I doubt anybody is pulling their subscription because of too much original content. Whether you watch half or all PPV's each month, Vince still gets your 9.99.

Frankly, more original wrestling content should be a wrestling fans ideal version of the Network. I think many of the critical opinions in this thread feel obliged to keep up to date, which can indeed build frustration.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I think people are overacting a little. If the shows are truly self contained and booked well, the depth of the roster can support this.


Its also frankly the only option if you want to position SD as truly equal or near equal to RAW. If you do joint PPV, only one belt can be the main event.

 

[Vanilla Midget]

Are we really complaining about more wrestling? I would get it if we were still in the era of $60 or more per pop ppv, but we're talking about more content with the $9.99 were already spending monthly (or streaming for free anyway).

Of course the fear that these shows will run thin. They ran two events this year between the Rumble and Mania. Fastlane was predictable and bad, Roadblock on the other hand was exciting and mattered. They can slap these shows together or put some effort in to make them unique.

Whatever happens, I'm not going to complain about getting more wrestling, nor am I going to pretend that I have any business knowledge whatsoever to actually properly asses the gravity of this move.

I suppose the interesting thing here is that they may have confirmed two world titles. I really don't know how it'll work with only one women's and one tag title as well. I still had kind of hoped they would elevate the Interconitnental title to being an alternative to the WWE title. Is the big gold belt coming back, or will a new title be activated? What would it be called?

I don't think Jerry attends the kind of meetings where these things are decided. Maybe he actually knows something, maybe it's something he pulled out of his ass. Either way, more wrestling isn't bad, just so long as it's quality.

 

[GameOver]

Provided you get unlimited downloads on your internet, which alot of places do not. (Sure it's not everyone else's fault that Australia government/ISP's is behind the times when it comes to internet)

They did the brand specific PPV's before and it sucked, mostly cause of the cost at the time and Smackdown PPV was just RAW's PPV with different talent, 1 PPV a month plus the other 3 shows every week is more then adequate.

 

[MyndZero]

Having separate PPVs for each brand is a good thing, but they really need to alternate them. Raw one month, Smackdown the next, so each brand has a PPV every two months.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

This isn't WWF vs. WCW, it's WWE competing with itself. If you think there's going to be much difference in how each brand is booked you're mistaken, and I don't know what planet you're on if you think this is a good idea. They couldn't fill a single brand PPV properly ten years ago when there were several big stars who weren't the victim of 50/50 booking. Now they have two.

 

[Spencesc11]

PPV's should stay the same. You have 4 feature matches from each brand on the PPV's. This would eliminate a PPV that was half watered down low card matches. The big issue is making sure you have the shows talent pool broken down correctly. I would keep the Raw roster heavy with Reigns, Cena, Rollins, and Styles. I would move Ambrose to Smackdown and make him the initial champion. He is way over and could lead the brand nicely. Also make sure to put solid heels on Smackdown like Kevin Owens, Rusev, and Del Rio.

 

[mlp420]

This is an excellent move for a variety of reasons. Number one, the WWE isn't in the PPV business that much anymore, they're in the subscription business. And in the subscription business, the more content the better.

If the brand split is enforced like the first one was, you won't have the watered down issue because it'll be like two different companies anyway. I think the brand split is DOA unless the do this honestly because people were conditioned to Smackdown stuff being secondary towards the end. SD needs a stand alone champ and stand alone PPVs to re establish it.

 

[Deoxyribonucleic A.C.I.D.]

It seems to me like the WWE is going away from the PPV format. What they need right now is selling the WWE Network. Having one network special for SD and one for RAW every month isn't bad. It's not like they are going to ask for 30$ for every special. These specials will be included in the 9,99$ price.

That way they can build up the stories on TV and give us the end result in those specials. It's not that bad and it can work if executed properly.

I wouldn't be surprised if WWE were to cancel their PPVs completely and just keep Wrestlemania, Summerslam, Surivor Series, Royal Rumble, MITB and Night Of Champions. Every other PPV really serves no purpose with the creation of the WWE Network. So it's smart for them to focus more on the "WWE Network Specials".

 

[noTORRIEus]

Just my $0.02 here...

If they are going to have two PPV's or "Special Events" then they should just bring back WCW. Call Raw, WWE Monday Night Raw and Smackdown, WCW Tuesday Smackdown. This way, having 2 world titles would make sense and you may also get the nostalgia fans back who are curious to see what WCW is doing.