TUP Wrestling Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Wrestling > General World Wrestling Entertainment
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Every Pay Per View Dual Branded
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Every Pay Per View Dual Branded

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
admin View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Open To Bribes For Favours

Joined: 01/October/2003
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 46153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote admin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Every Pay Per View Dual Branded
    Posted: 13/February/2018 at 13:19
Quote The Wrestle Votes Twitter account, which has broken WWE reports in the past, noted on the social media platform that starting with the Backlash PPV on May 6th, all PPV events going forward will be dual branded.

This means that there will be no more Raw or Smackdown exclusive shows. The account mentioned that a source told them that repetitive matchups to fill the card along with so-so ticket sales lead to the decision.

It should be noted that the weekly TV shows will not be affected. As of this writing, this news should be considered a rumor.

Starting with the Backlash PPV May 6th, all PPVs going forward will be dual branded. No more RAW or Smackdown exclusive shows. Source states repetitive matchups to fill the card along with so-so ticket sales lead to the decision.

The weekly TV shows will not be effected.

— WrestleVotes (@WrestleVotes) February 13, 2018

 
Terrible idea if it turns out to be true. It will make matches more repeatable, take away brand rivalry and lead to less stars being made.
 
Buyrates aren't important anymore, so they don't need to worry about it.
 
So many guys have got airtime and been built up through it, who if it wasn't for brand exclusive PPVs wouldn't have got as much airtime.
Back to Top
Kondor View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
Ticket Wars Founder

Joined: 02/June/2010
Location: Right here
Status: Offline
Points: 6554
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Kondor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13/February/2018 at 13:24
Originally posted by admin admin wrote:

Quote As of this writing, this news should be considered a rumor.

Irrelevant news even if it is true as the "brand split" never existed anyway. 
 

Back to Top
Rico Len View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 23/October/2012
Location: Yosemite Lakes
Status: Offline
Points: 10361
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rico Len Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13/February/2018 at 17:31
They should just get rid of the brand extension anyways. But I suppose that will lead people back into accepting that Smackdown is the B-show once again rather than pretending for arguments sake alone that it is better.

WWE needs to find a better way of promoting 2 shows as equals.
Back to Top
Fletch View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
TUP Hall Of Fame 2009

Joined: 06/January/2006
Location: Portsmouth UK
Status: Offline
Points: 16601
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fletch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13/February/2018 at 18:06
The problem with the brand extension is it becomes stale and repetitive far too quickly. With each brand only having access to half the roster it’s a matter of time before they are recycling the same matches over and over and fresh feuds and storylines become hard to find.

I think the only way to keep things interesting would be to have a roster shake up at least every six months, but that would kind of defeat the object of having a brand extension.

I can see the advantages to split brands, more tv time for the top guys and more exposure for the talent lower down the card, two sets of World titles effectively creating two sets of headliners at all times. The other thing is it allows for brand vs brand rivalry on one off occasions which produced the excellent Survivor Series last year.

But as discussed people will always see Smackdown as the B show anyway so you’re only really considered a true headliner if you’re main eventing on Raw.

Having dual branded PPV events every month seems like step one of ending the extension. Ending it would freshen things up and would help the women’s and tag divisions which suffer from a lack of depth on each brand, the only real talent to lose out from ending the extension would be the top guys vying for those coveted main event spots.

Wouldn’t it be possible to have just one roster exclusive to Raw and Smackdown but just rotate the talent? I mean like in NXT with a one hour show each week they can’t feature every talent every single week. Do we need to see Roman Reigns on every episode of Raw and Smackdown? For example if the current top feuds were say Reigns vs The Miz and Seth Rollins vs Bray Wyatt you simply let Reigns and Miz have the spotlight on Raw one week and then Rollins/Wyatt on Smackdown and vice versa. This would ease the strain on the talent as well allowing them to work lighter schedules perhaps.

Edited by Fletch - 13/February/2018 at 18:09
Back to Top
Rico Len View Drop Down
PB Members
PB Members
Avatar

Joined: 23/October/2012
Location: Yosemite Lakes
Status: Offline
Points: 10361
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rico Len Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13/February/2018 at 18:19
My original thought regarding the brand extension would be that they would give people shorter segments to fit more people in, so that way everyone had a chance to do something, but they're still leaving out the 'low card' players and most of the women every week while keeping promos at an exhausting 20 minutes to open the show and 10 minute segments throughout. Yet if they were to cut down to 10 minutes to open the show and 5 minutes on the mic throughout more people would have a chance, and the segments would be more precise and to the point without having to be so long, drawn out, watered down, and boring.

On Raw you could fit half again as many promos as we currently see, and one extra full-length match as well, while on Smackdown you could have twice as many promos & backstage segments with just as many matches.

That's good for everyone, the fans, the wrestlers up and down the card, and good for the USA networks ratings because people won't turn away when promos get boring. Yet what we see in practice is that not much has really changed along those lines. 


Edited by Rico Len - 13/February/2018 at 18:20
Back to Top
Fletch View Drop Down
Hall of Famer
Hall of Famer
Avatar
TUP Hall Of Fame 2009

Joined: 06/January/2006
Location: Portsmouth UK
Status: Offline
Points: 16601
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fletch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13/February/2018 at 19:36
Originally posted by Rico Len Rico Len wrote:

My original thought regarding the brand extension would be that they would give people shorter segments to fit more people in, so that way everyone had a chance to do something, but they're still leaving out the 'low card' players and most of the women every week while keeping promos at an exhausting 20 minutes to open the show and 10 minute segments throughout. Yet if they were to cut down to 10 minutes to open the show and 5 minutes on the mic throughout more people would have a chance, and the segments would be more precise and to the point without having to be so long, drawn out, watered down, and boring.

On Raw you could fit half again as many promos as we currently see, and one extra full-length match as well, while on Smackdown you could have twice as many promos & backstage segments with just as many matches.

That's good for everyone, the fans, the wrestlers up and down the card, and good for the USA networks ratings because people won't turn away when promos get boring. Yet what we see in practice is that not much has really changed along those lines. 

Thats true and again it helps with the predictability and repetiveness created by the brand extension, we know each week Smackdown is going to open with a lengthy Daniel Bryan and Shane McMahon segment just like on Raw we know Stephanie and Kurt are going to do a 20 minute segment featuring a few of the top talents. If we must suffer these segments at least with a combined roster they should be much shorter. I can also live with less of the throwaway tag matches we see to build PPV matches, you the likes of Owens and Zayn vs Nakamura and Orton, the talent always hold back in these matches as they're designed as a glimpse of what you will get on PPV, its never anything memorable and the babyfaces nearly always get the predictable win.
Back to Top
admin View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar
Open To Bribes For Favours

Joined: 01/October/2003
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 46153
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote admin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13/February/2018 at 22:16
Quote Speaking on the latest Wrestling Observer Radio, Dave Meltzer indicated one of the reasons that WWE is likely scrapping the single branded PPVs is because attendance hasn't been great, especially for the Smackdown PPVs. Another reason is that because of the alternating schedule, there sometimes was a long period of time before a PPV for a given brand which was slowing down the booking tremendously - sometimes for multiple months.
-- The downside for the wrestlers is that it will be tough to fit in all the wrestlers onto each PPV, which also raises the question or the risk that the company will run each PPV for four hours just to get everyone on the show.

Plenty of jobs would be lost, as talent would have even less reason to be kept on.

Four hours for every show would be too much and make the big 4 feel less special.

What's so bad about long periods between events? Slow booking shouldn't be seen as such a negative. Not everything has to be rushed.
Back to Top
Tom Colohue View Drop Down
Heat/Velocity
Heat/Velocity


Joined: 24/November/2017
Location: Blackpool, Eng
Status: Offline
Points: 334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tom Colohue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13/February/2018 at 23:40
Last I heard they were reducing the overall PPV schedule to combat those issues. Honestly I think people are getting overexcited by the fact that Money In The Bank has gone dual brand and are just assuming that everything afterwards will be. 

Could be wrong of course. Last I heard from my line was reduced schedule is expected to fix all problems highlighted.
Tom Colohue - Wrestling Journalist (PWTorch)
Follow me @Colohue
Back to Top
L-shizzel View Drop Down
Unprettier God
Unprettier God
Avatar

Joined: 19/May/2009
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 3631
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote L-shizzel Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14/February/2018 at 06:21
From what I heard they were increasing the amount of dual pp from 4 to 6
Back to Top
Tom Colohue View Drop Down
Heat/Velocity
Heat/Velocity


Joined: 24/November/2017
Location: Blackpool, Eng
Status: Offline
Points: 334
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tom Colohue Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14/February/2018 at 17:28
Dual brand is actually going from 5 to 6. Backlash was always going to be dual brand. The PPV after mania last year was dual brand too so that they can carry on storylines from mania despite the superstar shakeup. 

The only new dual brand PPV will be Money In The Bank, which potentially could have 4 ladder matches on the card. I'm hoping they just do 3 competitors from each brand, or go 3/2 for red/blue.
Tom Colohue - Wrestling Journalist (PWTorch)
Follow me @Colohue
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.01
Copyright ©2001-2014 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.