A few weeks back came the official announcement of the long-rumored brand split between “Raw” and “Smackdown.” That announcement was paired with the news of “Smackdown” changing broadcast nights and going live. Many people — including this writer — were very excited about this development, as it had potential for WWE on a few levels. It leaves room for more talent to be featured and shine, for starters.
Earlier this week, a rumor — credited to Jerry Lawler — emerged about “Raw” and “Smackdown” each having its own monthly pay-per-views. On the surface, as a fan of WWE, more content would seemingly be a better thing. However, I foresee this being a disaster, should this rumor be true.
A few reasons why this may not work so work, if I may:
– Special Events – The word “special” is subjective, as what is “special” to one person may not be “special” to another person. In the context of WWE, a match featuring Brock Lesnar ought to be “special” because we don’t see him wrestle very often. If we are seeing this talent on weekly television, within content produced for online and social media, and also on house shows, there is less likelihood of a pay-per-view being a “special event.” Remember when there were three pay-per-views within a six-week period last year? That was undoubtedly too much “special” content without even considering NXT’s offerings or the upcoming tournament of cruiserweights.
– Baseball – Continuing with my prior points, a Major League Baseball team plays 162 regular season games each year. An incredible baseball team can still lose a lot more than 60 games. By comparison, a National Football League team plays 16 regular season games, and there have only been a handful of teams that have made it through a regular season undefeated. WWE is moving closer to the ideology of “wins and losses don’t matter” if the same talent is appearing on at least a dozen pay-per-views per year, unless there is a lot of roster expansion. A number of the pay-per-views (e.g. “Payback,” “Battleground,” “Fastlane”) are already stretching it as far as what diehard fans will tolerate. 24 pay-per-views without factoring in NXT specials? I can’t think of anything I would want to watch that much of on an annual basis.
– Gaps In Logic – If the wrestlers are split between two rosters, then I suppose it makes sense story-wise for them not to appear on the same pay-per-views. But then how do you explain everyone from the two main brands being on a “Wrestlemania” or a “Royal Rumble” card?
– Pay-Per-View Branding – The WWE has worked hard to establish “Wrestlemania” as the company’s equivalent of the NFL Superbowl. “Royal Rumble,” “Survivor Series” and “Summerslam” are considered the other three big events, leading there to be a big event every three months or so. In creating additional pay-per-views — it’s difficult to transition into calling them “special events,” yes — how can you possibly market that a newly-created one means anything? Remember “This Tuesday In Texas?” Or “December To Dismember?” Or “Insurrextion?” Or “Bad Blood?” Lots of these have come and gone.
– Viewership – Critics may constantly reference the WWE’s weekly television ratings as being on the decline. However, the weekly ratings are higher than the live viewership of most of the pay-per-views. So if there is a pay-per-view every two weeks or so, why should “special” things happen in front of a smaller viewing audience?
As this post is an editorial based on an Internet-originating rumor, it could very well be that there are no official plans for additional pay-per-views to be added into the rotation. If that were to be the case, there would still be plenty of original content from WWE, yet the likelihood of fans being left wanting more. When given the option of being left wanting more versus the option of wishing what you had seen was more concise, which one are you more likely to view favorably?
So if someone from the WWE happens to read this article, please relay to your supervisors that the WWE needs to start acting more like the NFL and less like the MLB. Few known boxers fight more than twice in a calendar year. Arguably the same can be said of top UFC talent. In turn, there is tremendous demand for that limited supply. That is not to say that wrestlers ought to only wrestle a few times each year, but it is to say that if there are two pay-per-views on the WWE Network every month — beyond all the other specials and weekly programming — I will not have the time or energy to enjoy even half of the content it is making.
Two PPVs a month could possibly work better this time with the brand split because of the WWE Network. If you’re still paying whatever ungodly amount they charge for normal Pay-Per-Views at this point, you’re a moron. Not to sound like their press agent or anything but their network service is only $9.99 a month and the Live PPVs are included… 2 a month, one for each TV show, is just another new thing to watch on their network for the low annual fee plus the access to their vault of classic wrestling from all the way back to the 70s. This plan didn’t work the last time in the early-2000s because they were asking for full price for two normal PPVs in one month when they tried to do it. That being said, it’s not a guaranteed outcome, it could just as well backfire again if detractors come out and cry “over saturation” of the product. It all depends how far they’re willing to go to reinvent Smackdown as a must-see show when it goes Live and differentiating it more from RAW in it’s presentation. Given their history of half-ass effort with things like the Light Heavyweight division and the previous brand split versus their recent trend of following through with a lot of things with some success, we can only wait and see.