High Road/Low Road 04.27.07: Tri-Branded PPVs
Posted by Sat & Chad Nevett on 04.27.2007
This Sunday, Backlash will be a tri-branded pay per view. Is this a good idea by the WWE or a bad idea? You decide in this week's High Road/Low Road!
Welcome back to the High Road/Low Road! A brief explanation of the column: Uncle Trunx takes the Low Road (negative view) on angles, gimmicks, and other wrestling related "stuff" while Sat takes the High Road (positive view).
The Results for Lockdown As A Six Sides of Steel Pay Per View:
High Road: 41%
Low Road: 47%
Both Roads: 12%
E-Mails:
These are all of the e-mails that we received this week. We do not respond to the actual e-mail, but the reply to your e-mail will be below.
Reichou Shinsake Writes:
I don't think that you can have too many cage matches. Does a card with all cage matches devalue the mystique of the cage? Well, Ultimate Fighting holds every fight inside a cage - does that matter? Like in UFC, the cage itself doesn't HAVE to be utilized in each match. How many 5-star matches have you seen that wouldn't have been altered one bit if a cage surrounded the ring (or perhaps a Hell-In-The-Cell type structure that gave more room around the apron)? The only thing that gets limited is the run-in, which has probably been overused in the last decade, anyway.
I think more matches should take place in a cage. It sends off that creepy jailhouse/caged animal vibe, looks reminiscent of Ultimate Fighting, and it also keeps the occasional crazy ass fan from running into the ring (like when my drunk cousin tried to punch Ric Flair about 25 years ago in North Carolina).
Sat: Damn, that would have made a great high road. I don't watch UFC, so I didn't know that all of their matches were in a cage. The cage usually gives a great vibe, but not the cage that TNA used at LockDown. That was a weak looking cage. I think that TNA made a mistake in going with the newer cage. The old one looked great.
Uncle Trunx: With UFC, the cage is their ring, and has been from the start. Their business is very different from Pro Wrestling, and the cage is not the focus of the match; with wrestling, a cage is used to add intensity to the fight, to make it seem like a big deal. Promoting more wrestling inside a cage would normalize it and devalue it. Do you even notice the UFC cage these days? I don't.
Jeremy Sexton Writes:
Well, it beats a PPV comprised of Elevation X matches. Wait a minute... don't let Russo see this email!
Sat: I'll do you one better and suggest a PPV comprised of an Electrified Cage Match
Uncle Trunx: I'll see both of those and raise you an exploding ring, no rope, barbed wire, C4 explosive, bed of nails event, with the ring suspended above a shark tank and where the loser of each match has their testicles cut off. And yes, if you see enough stuff like that, it will become meaningless too!
This week's High Road/Low Road featuring...
Tri-Branded Pay Per Views
High Road:
The great thing about the tri-branded pay per views is that we the fans are going to be getting more bang for our buck. Backlash is going to feature three top level main events. This gives the fan more reasons to be a particular pay per view.
Low Road:
It will also feature fewer Raw wrestlers as a result. One of the aims of the brand split was to get more exposure for wrestlers from each brand: by making every PPV event into a tri brand event, we'll see fewer wrestlers making it to the big shows. This will harm the development of newer stars, long term. A decision needs to be made, I feel. Either end the brand split or keep each brand distinct, with its own roster and its own style. What we have now is a horrible mess, with neither decision being made and thus we end up with confusing crossovers for no apparent reason. Are the Hardys on Raw or SmackDown, for example? There are advantages to either decision; with one brand, there are fewer titles and thus they seem more special, the best wrestlers get more exposure and the pretence of internal competition can be dropped. On the other hand, promoting 3 distinct brands can cater to 3 slightly different types of fan and can get more exposure for the wrestlers. I feel that making crossover events special, making it a big deal if a Raw wrestler appears on ECW or SmackDown keeps a hint of mystery alive and allows for shocks, if used occasionally. Right now, I'm having trouble keeping track of which main eventers are tied to which show.
High Road:
The old format of single branded pay per views was not working. The last few pay per views have proven this point. New Year's Revolution had one match that was decent (Umaga/Cena) and the rest was forgettable. Armageddon would have an awful pay per view had it not been for the impromptu ladder match. December to Dismember had the Extreme Elimination Chamber and nothing else. It was important for the WWE to make a change to their pay per views because the old format was failing miserably.
Low Road:
They aren't failing because of the brand split; they're failing because there are just so many PPV events now. WWE runs about 16 per year; add in TNA and UFC and nobody with a normal level of income can see it all so they'll pick and choose. The inevitable result is that some events will suffer and it just happens that those events are the less established single brand events. Would you be more likely to pay to watch Wrestlemania or Judgement day, or even December to Dismember? I bet the answer has less to do with how many brands appear on the show and more to do with the show itself; the crossover shows are the "old" events, the newer events with less name value have been the single brand events. In simple terms, the market is over saturated and making each event multi branded won't solve that problem.
High Road:
The addition of another brand caused the pay per views to be out of sync. ECW only had two pay per views, while RAW and SmackDown each had the same amount of the pay per views. This was not going to work in the long term. So, the WWE had two options. The first option was to divide the pay per views between the three brands. This would have caused major gaps between a brand's pay per view. That's why the tri-branded pay per view idea works because it allows for every brand to be on every pay per view.
Low Road:
Or they could reduce the number of events so each brand had, say, one PPV of its own and promote the remainder more heavily, making them seem more special. Perhaps doing so, or ending the brand split completely and having one roster of WWE wrestlers would work. I can't see this mess of uncertainty working. For the reasons I've mentioned.
High Road:
The great thing about having tri-branded pay per views is that it allows for the main events to be extended. For example, SmackDown would have had a two month wait for their next pay per view. That means they would have had to figure out a way to drag out the feud. This has been SmackDown's biggest problem. With the tri-branded pay per views, this problem is no more.
Low Road:
It never used to be a problem to make a feud last more than a month. Some of the greatest feuds in history have been contested over months and even years. I don't consider a feud which lasts months to be "dragged out"; quite the opposite. Booking the feuds that way made them seem more epic, more special, as did waiting longer for the payoff. With the main event stars being on every PPV, there will have to be even faster feuds; far from being "dragged out", the risk is that they will seem fleeting and worthless, or that people will refuse to pay to watch the same matches they've seen at all the other events in the recent past.
High Road:
The WWE puts together sixteen PPVs a year. Four of these were already tri-branded, so that leaves twelve potential single branded PPVs. That comes to about three pay per views per brand. With this information, I think it would be great if each of the top level midcarders were able to get on five PPVs a year. And that is easily doable. Each of the top level midcarders can easily be included in the Royal Rumble and the Survivor Series. It is also possible for these midcarders to make either WrestleMania or SummerSlam. That gives the midcarders three PPVs already without me counting the other twelve PPVs. So, it is very possible to get these midcarders five pay per views a year. The lower level midcarders probably got two to three pay per views a year under the old system. That means that they need to appear in one pay per view out of every five. That is also possible by doing a tag team battle royal or a cruiserweight open. It is possible to get every wrestler their rightful share for PPV revenue.
Low Road:
With the main eventers being on every show, we will have 3 world titles to accommodate. That's 3 major belts per show, possibly, or at least 3 world title holders. This will serve to devalue the secondary belts to the point of worthlessness, and will do the same to the tag team belts. Who will care about the Intercontinental championship if there are two or even three world title matches on a show? The midcarders will probably get some exposure, but their exposure will be seen to be worth a lot less, as illustrated by the value of the Secondary titles.
High Road:
One of the things that I keep hearing is that the tri-branded pay per views is the end of the brand extension. I have to disagree with this completely. For example, let's take a look at last week's TV program. On RAW, Lashley and Matt Hardy made an appearance. Lashley had to be there for his feud with the McMahons and Umaga. Once the feud is over, it is safe to say that he will no longer be on RAW. I think the reason for the Hardys winning the title was a convenient way to have the Hardys on both program. I don't have a problem with this because the Hardys aren't main eventers. Jeff Hardy appeared on SmackDown, but again that is a minor quibble because he isn't a main event. I have no problems with these guys (Lashley and the Hardys) being on different shows because everybody wanted the Hardys to get together and Lashley/Umaga has already happened, so you might as well get all the mileage out of that feud.
Low Road:
As I say, it's a mess. It's neither one thing or another. The brand identity is now useless, the whole concept of the brand extension is wrecked. Either end it or fix it, but continuing to blur the lines is doing nobody any favours.
High Road:
The brand extension was designed to create new main eventers and make fresh matchups between the main eventers. At No Way Out, the WWE made the mistake of offering matchups between the stars from all the brands. At No Way Out, we saw Lashley face Mr. Kennedy and Batista/Undertaker versus John Cena/Shawn Michaels. This was a bad idea because these were the top guys from each brand were feuding against each other. If the main eventers from the different brands are kept apart, then there are no problems with pay per views being tri branded. Backlash is keeping the main eventers from each brand away from each other, so that is a good sign that the WWE will keep the brand extension alive.
Low Road:
I don't think we can draw that conclusion from one PPV main event. I'd suggest instead that we look at the recent TV and PPV events for the bigger picture: we have the Hardies hopping brands at random, we have Umaga and Lashley fighting across the brands with the added confusion of McMahon's involvement, we have PPV main events featuring wrestlers from across the brands; as I wrote above, they need to make a decision. Either end the brand split or make it work. This mix between the two renders the brand split worthless and confusing. It won't fix the decline in PPV buy rates; that's down to an over saturated market. Tri brand PPV events have been popular in the past because they have been the established and well known events, like Wrestlemania, SummerSlam and the Royal Rumble. I don't think making every event into a mixed brand event will cure the buyrates; it simply renders the brand split confusing and meaningless.
Are you taking the High Road or the Low Road?
High Road/Low Road Plugs
We are taking the high road on these articles so you should read them...
There are other articles that we didn't list, so check them out as well.
E-mail us your reasons for taking the High Road or the Low Road and suggestions for future High Road/Low Road at satuncletrunx@gmail.com. Your reply will be included in next week's column.
