PWInsiderXTRA - WWE News, Wrestling News, WWE

3 Areas Of Improvement For WWE

 

Being in the demographic that WWE used to target, I find myself caring less and less about the direction of the current product.  I understand that the 18-45 year old male demographic is not the target audience for WWE anymore.  They are saying they gear their product for children (yet wrestling, violence and most of the characters and

storylines are not written for children).  But I think I find myself caring less and less because the product is so off the mark.  I could go on and on about the

booking, but that is what everyone does.  Rather than take them to task for booking (again), how about the other areas of business that lack proper direction?

 

Here are 3 areas I think WWE needs to take a look at seriously that are not booking related:

 

1. Pay-Per-Views
2. Titles / Belts
3. The Brand Split

 

First, I want to talk about Pay-Per-Views.  Currently there are 13, last year there were 14.  Royal Rumble, Elimination Chamber, Wrestlemania, Extreme Rules, Over The Limit, Fatal 4-Way, Money In The Bank, Summerslam, Night Of Champions, Hell In The Cell, Survivor Series, Bragging Rights & TLC.  First of all, that is too many events featuring the same roster of stars to pay $45-55 per show.  I know I don't order them.  Why should I?  What makes them special, memorable or worth that much money 13 times a year?  If I wanted to see them all in HD, I'd pay over $750 a year (after adding taxes & fees to each one).  You can take a family of 4 to the movie theater for under $45, so why would one person want to spend that much on a show to watch at home if they didn't have someone help pay the cost?  Vince says that PPV parties are dropping buyrates, but it's half because of the increased price.  It should be $25 for SD & $30 for HD MAXIMUM.  I bet my $750+ a year that you'd see a drastic increase in PPV buys if the price was not so outlandish. 

Well, you'd see the increase if the price was dropped and there were less of them....which leads me to part two of correcting PPVs.

 

There are 13 PPVs in a calendar year, all including the same guys month in, month out.  Why do I want to pay to watch that?  Of the 14 PPVs in 2009, do you know how many did not have Cena, Orton, Edge or HHH in a World Title Match?  None.  Do you know how many of the 14 did not have Cena in a World title match?  Only 3!  That means 11 of the 14 PPVs in 2009 were headlined by John Cena in a World Title match (either as Champion or Challenger).  Orton was in 9, Edge was in 6 & HHH was in 5 of the 14 as either champion or challenger.  The same guys competing for the same titles over

and over, month after month. Cena vs Orton happened 5 PPVs in a row.  No matter the stipulations, that is not worth watching.  The business is not hot enough anymore to require 12+ PPVs per year.  I say drop it to 8 in 2011 and drop the price if you want to help your product.  I'd drop Survivor Series, Over The Limit, Fatal 4-Way, Bragging Rights & Extreme Rules.  Then, to make the product feel fresh and more realistic, I'd eliminate the need to pre-schedule the PPV events around a set time of year.  Royal Rumble would always stay in January & Wrestlemania would be at the beginning of April and Summerslam would be in August, but the rest would be just listed on the calendar as a "WWE PPV event."  That way, you're not haphazardly throwing together an Elimination Chamber match for no storyline reason when it makes more sense that year to have a TLC match in February, etc.  Also, I think Money In The Bank should be on an opposite side of the year from Royal Rumble, but that could be anywhere from June to October, it doesn't have to be the same time every year if it doesn't make storyline sense.  You can name the PPVs during the storyline buildup.  If you separate the 8 PPVs by 5-7 weeks, you can promote it well enough to create a good storyline buildup to make each PPV mean something special.  I know what might be said about wrestlers' PPV payoffs, but if no one is buying them, why not work the "supply vs demand" angle and hold less PPVs to increase revenue because the 8 will be more special than 14?!?!

 

Here's another tip:  The World & WWE titles don't have to be defended every PPV.  UFC only has their World title defended 2-3 times a year MAXIMUM and their business is through the roof.  This leads me into my 2nd area of improvement for WWE:  The Titles and belts.  Right off the top, the WWE belt is horrible.  Change it ASAP.  There is

no reason for a character like Orton or HHH to carry a "bling bling" diamond and gold belt.  It's not unique, it's awful.  On that same note, the US belt is pretty horrible too....all that paint and less metal showing makes it look cheap.  I like the new tag belts and the fact that they are the antique bronze or brass is actually cool and different....like the ECW title was when they made it stainless / silver.  I like the Intercontinental and World belts

just fine because they look classic and like something you might actually want to win.  But I don't like the idea of two world champions, never have....I understand two touring groups and house shows, etc. but you can headline a house show with a grudge match main event and still draw.  I say unify the World titles and keep the US and IC belts separate for now and build up their prestige.  Introduce a new US belt that is more gold than paint and keep the IC, Divas & Tag Belts as they are.  Since most jewelry is now moving toward a titanium/platinum/white gold look, have the new Unified WWE title be Platinum!  It could be both unique, current & classy.  This title unification argument leads me to my theory on the brand split.

 

The brand split has never really worked the way WWE anticipated.  There is no rivalry between SmackDown & RAW.  The wrestlers all come to RAW when there is a 3 hr special, etc. so why is there even still split rosters?  I know, I know....2 touring groups.  But why do the wrestlers have to tour with one particular group of wrestlers for a year

(until the draft)?  Why can't wrestlers all work for WWE and start feuds on RAW and work RAW for a few weeks/months, then when that feud dries up, they go on the SmackDown show and start something with a guy on that show?  You would never know what story was going to play out on either show so you'd have to watch both shows weekly to keep up!  RAW storylines would still happen on RAW and SmackDown stories would still happen on SmackDown, but the wrestlers would be 100% interchangeable.  If a RAW show came to your town in February, it might have a completely different storyline

with different wrestlers than when it came to a neighboring town in August and you might be more inclined to travel to see both shows that year.  The Draft show has been a joke for the last few years and some guys have flip-flopped from RAW to SmackDown every year (Edge, Big Show, Jericho, etc.).  Why not just fully integrate the two?

 

If WWE made the changes I have outlined above, the product would have to be booked better.  Less PPVs each year and a fully integrated roster with only 1 World Champion would have to breed better television.  Some wrestlers wouldn't get tv time this week but could get their program over next week on one show....then next month, they could be on the other show working with another talent to get a totally new program over.  It would give more guys a chance to shine and less redundant main events on PPV each year.  The World Championship would only be defended on PPV and wouldn't even have to be defended every PPV!  A high profile grudge match or even a US or IC title match could headline the PPV, if booked properly!

 

Thoughts?